Laserfiche WebLink
1 have found that since the ESA does not contain an express standard of review,the appropriate <br /> 2 standard of review is whether the agency's actions are arbitrary and capricious,an abuse of <br /> 3 discretion,or contrary to law. See Tribal Village of Akutan v. Hodel,869 F.2d 1185, 1193 (9th Cir. <br /> 4 1989). However,ESA citizen suits do not involve review of"final agency action"under the <br /> 5 Administrative Procedures Act("APA"). Washington Toxics Coalition v. EPA,413 F.3d 1024(9th <br /> 6 Cir.2005);Oregon Nat'l Desert Assoc.v.Kimbell,593 F. Supp.2d 1217(D.Or.2009)(ESA <br /> 7 citizen suit claims"do not challenge specific administrative decisions. Instead,they advance an <br /> 8 enforcement action and require proof of harm and causation."). Accordingly,judicial review of <br /> 9 ESA citizen-suit claims is not limited to the administrative record. See Western Watersheds Project <br /> 10 v.Kraayenbrink,632 F.3d 472(9th Cir.2011)("we may consider evidence outside the <br /> 11 administrative record for the limited purposes of reviewing Plaintiffs' ESA claim"); Oregon Nat'l <br /> 12 Desert Assoc.v.Tidwell, 716 F. Supp. 2d 982(D. Or.2010);Defenders of Wildlife v.Martin,454 <br /> 13 F. Supp.2d 1085, 1094(E.D.Wash.2006). Additionally,there is no limitation to the record when <br /> 14 considering the likelihood of irreparable harm. See,e.g.,NWF v.NMFS,422 F.at 797; Esch v. <br /> 15 Yeutter, 876 F.2d 976,991 (D.C.Cir. 1989). <br /> 16 ARGUMENT <br /> 17 L PLAINTIFF IS LIKELY TO SUCCEED ON THE MERITS OF ITS CLAIM THAT <br /> FEMA IS VIOLATING § 7 AND § 9 OF THE ESA. <br /> 18 <br /> A. The ESA Strictly Prohibits Actions That Cause Jeopardy to Listed Species or That <br /> 19 Result in Unlawful Take. <br /> 20 The U.S.Supreme Court has declared the ESA to be"the most comprehensive legislation <br /> 21 for the preservation of endangered species ever enacted by any nation." TVA v.Hill,437 U.S. at <br /> 22 174, 180("Congress intended endangered species to be afforded the highest of priorities.") "The <br /> 23 plain intent of Congress in enacting[the ESA] was to halt and reverse the trend toward species <br /> 24 extinction,whatever the cost." Id.at 184. To accomplish this purpose,the ESA includes both <br /> 25 substantive and procedural requirements that take"priority over the `primary missions' of federal <br /> 26 <br /> 27 Earthjustice <br /> PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY 705 Second Ave.,Suite 203 <br /> Seattle, WA 98104 <br /> 28 INJUNCTION(Case No. 2:11-cv-02044-RSM) -10- <br /> (206)343-7340 <br />