## Facts

- The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) manages the Little Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge in northeastern Washington.
- For decades, FWS authorized cattle grazing on the refuge through annually renewed permits used by local ranchers as part of their grazing rotations.
- After planning and environmental review, FWS decided in 2000 to phase out routine annual grazing over five years and to allow grazing only when used as a habitat-management tool tied to wildlife objectives.
- FWS concluded that production-oriented grazing generally conflicted with refuge purposes and the National Wildlife Refuge System’s conservation mission, though limited targeted grazing could be appropriate for habitat management.
- Stevens County, local agricultural organizations, and individual ranchers sued, asserting violations of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
- The parties proceeded on cross-motions for summary judgment based on the administrative record.

## Issues

1. Whether FWS’s compatibility determination and decision to phase out routine annual grazing violated the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997.
2. Whether FWS’s decisionmaking was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise contrary to law under the APA.
3. Whether plaintiffs had a legally protected property interest or entitlement to continued grazing under annually renewed refuge permits.

## Decision

- The court granted summary judgment to the federal defendants and denied plaintiffs’ motion.
- The court upheld FWS’s decision to phase out routine annual grazing and to limit future grazing to habitat-management purposes.
- The court held that FWS acted within its statutory authority and reasonably applied the Improvement Act’s compatibility requirement.
- The court held that the challenged actions were supported by the administrative record and were not arbitrary or capricious under the APA.
- The court concluded that annual grazing permits did not give plaintiffs a protected property interest in continued or renewed grazing on the refuge.

## Legal Principles

- Under the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act, wildlife conservation is the primary mission; other uses are allowed only if determined compatible with refuge purposes and the System mission.
- A use is incompatible if it would materially interfere with or detract from refuge purposes or the System mission; compatibility determinations are committed to FWS’s discretion informed by scientific and management judgments.
- Under APA review, courts defer to agency expertise when the agency considered relevant factors, examined the record, and articulated a rational connection between the evidence and its decision.
- Disagreement from affected local interests does not establish arbitrary-and-capricious action when the agency’s decision is reasoned and consistent with statutory priorities.
- Revocable, annually renewed federal grazing permits generally do not create a constitutionally protected property interest in continuation or renewal.

## Conclusion

The court upheld FWS’s plan to end routine annual grazing on the refuge and to restrict future grazing to habitat-management needs, finding the agency’s compatibility determination lawful under the Improvement Act and the decisionmaking reasonable under the APA, with no protected entitlement to continued grazing.


Stevens County v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 507 F. Supp. 2d 1127 (E.D. Wash. 2007)