Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Environmental Law

Agency Decisions Vacated for Lack of a Rational Basis

Walt McCarter
National AgLaw Center Research Associate

Summary of Decision

In National Wildlife Federation v. Harvey, 574 F. Supp. 2d 934, 2008 WL 3365017 (E.D. Ark. 2008), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, held that the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Corps of Engineers had not provided a rational basis for certain findings made in connection with a conservation project's effect on a nearby endangered species, and therefore remanded the case to the agencies for correction of the deficiencies in their administrative determinations.

Background

The National Wildlife Federation brought an action against the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the United States Corps of Engineers for violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), stemming from the Grand Prairie Project in the White River basin of Arkansas and its potential effects on the ivory-billed woodpecker (an endangered species). Id. at *1-3. The court granted the Federation a preliminary injunction as to the ESA claim, but found that the agencies had complied with NEPA. Id. After completing new studies and a biological assessment, the agencies agreed that the Project was not likely to adversely affect the ivory-billed woodpecker, and the National Wildlife Federation challenged that determination and sought permanent injunctive relief. Id. at *4.

Arguments

The National Wildlife Federation argued that the FWS and Corps of Engineers violated the ESA and the APA when they arbitrarily concluded that the Grand Prairie Project would not adversely affect the ivory-billed woodpecker population, and refused to engage in formal ESA consultation. Id. at *8. The Federation claimed that the agencies' findings lacked a rational connection to the record and were contrary to the best available science. Id.

The defendants argued that their determination was not arbitrary or capricious because their surveys complied with criteria based on the best available science, they reasonably incorporated data from other sources, and the impacts to the ivory-billed woodpecker in the action area were properly evaluated. Id.

Analysis and Holdings

The court explained that under the APA, an agency administrative decision may be set aside only if it is "arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law." Id. at *5. Thus, the court stated that "unless the Corps and the FWS blocked out informed opinion and overextended their reach, their judgment should be accepted." Id. In other words, "if an agency's decision is supported by any rational basis, it must be upheld." Id. After examining the evidence, the court found that the agencies did not provide a reasoned, rational basis for some of their determinations, and therefore vacated their finding that the Grand Prairie Project would not adversely affect the ivory-billed woodpecker. Id. at *10-16. The court refused to grant permanent injunctive relief, however, because the proper course of action where "the record before the agency does not support the relevant agency action is to remand to the agency for investigation and explanation." Id. at *16. The court therefore remanded the action to the agencies for correction of the deficiencies in their determination. Id.

The case was decided on August 8, 2008.