Where a district court reviews an administrative decision, the application of summary judgment is somewhat altered. See Friends of Endangered Species, Inc. v. Jantzen, 589 F.Supp. 113, 117-118 (N.D. Cal. 1984). The Court reviews the decision under the Administrative Procedures Act ("APA") to ensure it was not "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law."
The Federal Defendants argue the Fish timber sale will not have a significant impact on spotted owls, because the location does not support an owl population, is unsuitable to do so, and is not in an area important to owl viability. Although this case was recently filed, the Federal Defendants argue that summary judgment is appropriate because the case is limited to the administrative record, relying on Friends of Endangered Species, Inc. v. Jantzen, 589 F. Supp. 113 (N.D.Cal. 1984), aff'd, 760 F.2d 976 (9th Cir. 1985). The Friends court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's NEPA claim, finding that no genuine issue of fact existed that an EIS must be prepared:
Therefore, if at trial, the Tribes could prove that the Cooperative Agreement has resulted in BLM approval of State Board orders without meaningful independent review, then its procedures would constitute an unlawful delegation of authority. Cf. Save our Wetlands v. Sands, 711 F.2d 634, 641-43 (5th Cir. 1983) (construing the requirements imposed upon agencies under the National Environmental Policy Act to consider environmental consequences of their actions and holding that an agency does not satisfy those requirements if it "reflexively rubber-stamps" reports prepared by others); Sierra Club v. Lynn, 502 F.2d 43, 59 (5th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 994, 95 S.Ct. 2001, 44 L.Ed.2d 484 (1975) (public or private entities may participate in preparation of environmental impact reports, as long as federal agency does not abdicate responsibilities and rubberstamp their work product); Friends of Endangered Species, Inc. v. Jantzen, 589 F. Supp. 113, 118-19 (N.D.Cal. 1984), aff'd, 760 F.2d 976 (9th Cir. 1985) (federal agency's delegation of environmental research to a third party is impermissible if agency fails to adequately review the work). Specifically, the Tribes alleged in their motion and memorandum in support of a preliminary injunction that the BLM has no meaningful administrative record before it at the time it renders a decision, and that State Board orders are approved en mass, without adequate scrutiny.
Friends of Endangered Species, Inc. (Friends) appeals from a summary judgment in favor of public and private appellees. Friends had challenged a decision of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (the Service) to issue a permit that authorized the "taking" of Mission Blue butterflies from areas of the San Bruno Mountain. For the reasons stated below, we affirm the district court's order, 589 F. Supp. 113, granting summary judgment to appellees. The appellees are Robert A. Jantzen, Director, United States Fish and Wildlife Service; the County of San Mateo; Daly City; the City of Brisbane; the City of South San Francisco; Visitacion Associates; W.W. Dean and Associates, Inc.; Presley of Northern California, Inc.; and Foxhall Investment, Ltd.
The plaintiff must show the agency actually disregarded its role by failing to review adequately the study it commissioned." Friends of Endangered Species, Inc. v. Jantzen, 589 F. Supp. 113, 119 (N.D. Cal. 1984), aff'd, 760 F.2d 976 (9th Cir. 1985). The administrative record reflects that the Department reviewed the independent expert's conclusions.
I. Administrative Procedure Act On review of an administrative action, the court does not use the typical summary judgment standard of review in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Friends of Endangered Species, Inc. v. Jantzen, 589 F.Supp. 113, 118 (N.D.Cal.1984); accord Fund for Animals v. Babbitt, 903 F.Supp. 96, 105 (D.D.C.1995). The Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") provides the authority for review of agency decisions under the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") and the National Forest Management Act ("NFMA").
A motion for summary judgment is an appropriate vehicle to review an administrative action even though the Court does not use the standard of review in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Friends of Endangered Species, Inc. v. Jantzen, 589 F. Supp. 113, 118 (N.D. Cal. 1984); accord Fund for Animals v. Babbitt, 903 F. Supp. 96, 105 (D.D.C. 1995).
Since judicial review under the APA is generally limited to the administrative record, summary judgment is an appropriate procedure. See, e.g., Friends of Endangered Species v. Jantzen, 589 F.Supp. 113, 118 (N.D.Cal. 1984), aff'd, 760 F.2d 976 (9th Cir. 1985). This is a challenge to the lawfulness of a biological opinion brought under the ESA and the APA. Agency decisions made under the ESA are governed by the APA, which requires that the agency action be upheld unless it is found to be "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law," or "without observance of procedure required by law."
"Because ESA contains no internal standard of review, section 706 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. ยง 706, governs review of the Secretary's actions." Village of False Pass v. Clark, 733 F.2d 605, 609 (9th Cir. 1984); Friends of Endangered Species v. Jantzen, 589 F. Supp. 113, 118 (N.D. Cal. 1984) (summary judgment is appropriate vehicle to review administrative action), aff'd, 760 F.2d 976 (9th Cir. 1985). Agency decisions cannot be inconsistent with the governing statute.
Thus, when causes of action arise from a complete administrative record, summary judgment is appropriate. See, e.g., National Audubon Soc. v. Butler, 160 F. Supp. 2d 1180, 1188 (W.D. Wash. 2001); Friends of Endangered Species v. Jantzen, 589 F. Supp. 113, 118 (N.D. Cal. 1984). This necessitates that the Court examine whether defendants' failure to prepare an EIS for the Mad River Trail Project and related actions violates NEPA as a matter of law.