High Sierra Hikers Ass'n v. Blackwell
| Decision Date | 25 August 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. 02-15504.,No. 02-15505.,No. 02-15574.,02-15504.,02-15505.,02-15574. |
| Citation | 390 F.3d 630 |
| Parties | HIGH SIERRA HIKERS ASSOCIATION; Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics and Wilderness Watch, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and National Forest Recreation Association, High Sierra Packers Association; Yosemite Trails Pack Station; Minarets Pack Station; D & F Pack Station; High Sierra Pack Station; Mammoth Lake Pack Outfit; McGee Creek Pack Station; Frontier Pack Trains; Reds/Agnew Meadows; Rock Creek Pack Station; Berner's Pack Outfits; Bishop Pack Outfitters; Cottonwood Pack Station; Glacier Pack Train; Rainbow Pack Outfitters, Intervenors, v. Jack A. BLACKWELL, Regional Forester, Region 5 of the U.S. Forest Service; Jeffrey Bailey, Supervisor, Inyo National Forest; James Boynton, Supervisor, Sierra National Forest; Dale A. Bosworth, Chief, U.S. Forest Service; United States Forest Service, Defendants-Appellees. High Sierra Hikers Association; Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics and Wilderness Watch, Plaintiffs-Appellees, and National Forest Recreation Association, High Sierra Packers Association; Yosemite Trails Pack Station; Minarets Pack Station; D & F Pack Station; High Sierra Pack Station; Mammoth Lake Pack Outfit; McGee Creek Pack Station; Frontier Pack Trains; Reds/Agnew Meadows; Rock Creek Pack Station; Berner's Pack Outfits; Bishop Pack Outfitters; Cottonwood Pack Station; Glacier Pack Train; Rainbow Pack Outfitters, Intervenors, v. Jack A. Blackwell, Regional Forester, Region 5 of the U.S. Forest Service; Jeffrey Bailey, Supervisor, Inyo National Forest; James Boynton, Supervisor, Sierra National Forest; Dale A. Bosworth, Chief, U.S. Forest Service; United States Forest Service, Defendants-Appellants. High Sierra Hikers Association; Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics and Wilderness Watch, Plaintiffs-Appellees, National Forest Recreation Association, High Sierra Packers Association; Yosemite Trails Pack Station; Minarets Pack Station; D & F Pack Station; High Sierra Pack Station; Mammoth Lake Pack Outfit; McGee Creek Pack Station; Frontier Pack Trains; Reds/Agnew Meadows; Rock Creek Pack Station; Berner's Pack Outfits; Bishop Pack Outfitters; Cottonwood Pack Station; Glacier Pack Train; Rainbow Pack Outfitters, Intervenors-Appellants, v. Jack A. Blackwell, Regional Forester, Region 5 of the U.S. Forest Service; Jeffrey Bailey, Supervisor, Inyo National Forest; James Boynton, Supervisor, Sierra National Forest; Dale A. Bosworth, Chief, U.S. Forest Service; United States Forest Service, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Peter M.K. Frost, Western Environmental Law Center, Eugene, OR, for the plaintiffs-appellants-cross-appellees.
David C. Shilton, Appellate Section, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for the defendants-appellees-cross-appellants.
John E. Dicks and Donald R. Dinan, Hall, Estill, Hardwick, Gable, Golden & Nelson, P.C., Washington, DC, for the intervenors-defendants-cross-appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Elizabeth D. Laporte, Magistrate Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-00-01239-EDL(EMC).
Before HUG, JOHN R. GIBSON,* and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiffs, High Sierra Hikers Association, et al. (collectively "High Sierra") brought the present suit against the United States Forest Service1 ("Forest Service") seeking declaratory and injunctive relief for management practices in the John Muir and Ansel Adams Wilderness Areas. Plaintiffs are nonprofit organizations dedicated to conservation, education, and wilderness protection. Each organization has members who use the Ansel Adams and John Muir Wilderness Areas for various recreational activities. Their standing to bring this action is uncontested. Pursuant to the parties' stipulation and consent, the case was referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte. This case reaches this court on appeal and cross-appeal and poses the question of whether the Forest Service complied with the mandates of the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4370F, and the Wilderness Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1131-1136, when it issued multi-year special-use permits and granted renewals of special-use permits to commercial packstock operators in the wilderness areas. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
Encompassing over 800,000 acres, the John Muir and Ansel Adams Wilderness Areas provide some of the most beautiful and picturesque natural wonders in the world. Stretching north to Mammoth Lakes and over 100 miles south to Lone Pine, California, the John Muir Wilderness Area includes elevations ranging from 4,000 to 14,497 feet, the summit of Mt. Whitney, the highest point in the lower 48 states. Embracing unique geologic and natural areas, the Ansel Adams Wilderness Area represents one of the most beautiful alpine regions in the Sierra Nevada range. Both wilderness areas provide users recreational opportunities such as hiking, camping, fishing, and some of the finest mountain climbing in the world. Packstock, including horses and mules, have traditionally been used to access the wilderness areas.2 Commercial packstock operators provide the public with the opportunity to take guided trips into the wilderness areas, transport equipment for backcountry visitors, and enable access for people who would otherwise not be able to hike in these areas.
The John Muir and Ansel Adams Wilderness Areas are located within the Inyo and Sierra National Forests. Each National Forest contains some portion of each wilderness area. In 1979, the Forest Service adopted a management plan for both the John Muir and Ansel Adams Wilderness Areas. In 1988 and 1992, the Forest Service adopted a Land Resource Management Plan ("Management Plan") for the Inyo National Forest and Sierra National Forest, respectively, and prepared an environmental impact statement ("EIS") for each Management Plan.
The Forest Service regulates the usage of the wilderness areas by the issuance of permits. Members of the general public must obtain a "wilderness permit" for an overnight visit. The Forest Service limits the number of these wilderness permits by specific trailheads. Some trailheads have daily quotas that are determined by capacity limits for wilderness zones. Commercial outfitters and guides, including those with livestock, who operate commercial services must obtain a "special-use permit." The amount of wilderness use the commercial operators are allowed is dictated by "service day allocations." A "service day" equals "one person being assisted by an outfitter or guide and using the wilderness for one day."
In 1997, the Forest Service issued a draft EIS proposing the replacement of existing Management Plans with new management plans for the Ansel Adams and John Muir Wilderness Areas. In February 1999, the Forest Service announced that it would issue a revised draft EIS, which it did in August 2000.
On April 10, 2000, High Sierra brought suit in federal district court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the Forest Service for management practices in the John Muir and Ansel Adams Wilderness Areas. Specifically, High Sierra alleged that the Forest Service's authorization of special-use permits to commercial packstock operators violated NEPA, the Wilderness Act, the National Forest Management Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1600-1687, and the Administrative Procedures Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706.
On May 12, 2000, a group of commercial packstock operators (hereinafter "Intervenors" or "packers") who operate in the Ansel Adams and John Muir Wilderness Areas sought to intervene. The district court bifurcated the proceeding into a merits phase and remedy phase. The district court denied the motion to intervene as to the merits phase of the proceeding, allowing the packers status as amici curiae, but granted the packers full participation as to the remedy phase of the proceeding.
On December 19, 2000, the Forest Service filed a motion to dismiss or alternatively for summary judgment on the grounds that: (1) High Sierra's challenges to the Forest Service's management program for the two wilderness areas amount to an impermissible programmatic challenge barred by Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, 497 U.S. 871, 110 S.Ct. 3177, 111 L.Ed.2d 695 (1990); and (2) there was no final agency action from which High Sierra could obtain relief under the APA.
On December 20, 2000, High Sierra filed a motion for summary judgment. High Sierra sought declaratory relief that the Forest Service had: (1) violated the National Forest Management Act by failing to implement or meet Forest and Wilderness Standards; (2) violated the Wilderness Act by failing to determine that commercial services are necessary and proper, and by allowing services that degrade wilderness values; and (3) violated NEPA by failing to prepare environmental analyses before issuing special-use permits and other instruments that allow commercial services to be performed in the wilderness areas.
On March 13, 2001, the court held a hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment.
On April 20, 2001, the Forest Service issued a final EIS, a Record of Decision, and a 2001 Wilderness Management Plan for the two wilderness areas. In the Record of Decision, the Forest Service adopted a plan that replaced the existing wilderness plans for the Ansel Adams and the John Muir Wilderness Areas and made "non-significant amendments" to the Management Plan for the Sierra and Inyo National Forests. Subsequent to the issuance of the final EIS, the district court ordered High Sierra and the Forest Service to file supplemental briefs addressing the effect of the 2001 Wilderness...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
California v. Bernhardt
...determine whether the environmental impact of the proposed action is significant enough to warrant an EIS." High Sierra Hikers Ass'n v. Blackwell , 390 F.3d 630, 639 (9th Cir. 2004) ; see also 40 C.F.R. § 1501.4(b)–(c). "Not every project necessitates an EIS." Ocean Advocates , 402 F.3d at ......
-
Friends of Columbia River v. U.S. Forest Service
...to ensure that federal agencies take a hard look at the environmental consequences of their actions." High Sierra Hikers Ass'n. v. Blackwell, 390 F.3d 630, 639 (9th Cir.2004) (citation omitted). NEPA's disclosure goals are to ensure: (1) that the agency has carefully and fully contemplated ......
-
Hunters v. Marten, CV 19-47-M-DLC (
...to ensure that federal agencies take a hard look at the environmental consequences of their actions." High Sierra Hikers Ass'n v. Blackwell , 390 F.3d 630, 639–40 (9th Cir. 2004) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted); Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council , 490 U.S. 332, 35......
-
Multnomah Cnty., an Existing Cnty. Gov'T&a Body Politic & Corporate v. Azar
...(emphasis added). An agency's action can be upheld only on the basis of the reasoning in its decision. High Sierra Hikers Ass'n v. Blackwell , 390 F.3d 630, 638 (9th Cir. 2004). "[A] court is not to substitute its judgment for that of the agency, and should uphold a decision of less than id......
-
CHAPTER 13 THE UNCERTAIN QUESTION OF REMEDIES SHOULD A CHALLENGE PREVAIL
...(9th Cir. 2007) (allowing some oil and gas development to proceed pending completion of an EIS); High Sierra Hikers Ass'n v. Blackwell, 390 F.3d 630, 641 (9th Cir. 2004) (refusing to vacate agency decision and allowing limited access to wilderness areas pending completion of further NEPA re......
-
THE EMERGING LAW OF OUTDOOR RECREATION ON THE PUBLIC LANDS.
...1604(i) violation when Forest Service approved new welcome station and trail connections). (268) High Sierra Hikers Ass'n v. Blackwell, 390 F.3d 630, 640, 648-49 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Riverhawks v. Zepeda, 228 F. Supp. 2d 1173, 1176, 1190-91 (D. Or. 2002) (ruling that the Forest Service......
-
Case summaries.
...(2004), available at http://www.fs.fed.us/ r5/snfpa/final-seis/vol1/pdfs/snfpa-vol1.pdf. (318) See High Sierra Hikers Ass'n v. Blackwell, 390 F.3d 630, 641 (9th Cir. 2004). (quoting Natural Res. Def. Council v. Sw. Marine, Inc., 236 F.3d 985, 999 (9th Cir. 2000)) (recognizing the district c......
-
When Old Becomes New: Reconciling the Commands of the Wilderness Act and the National Historic Preservation Act
...of bighorn sheep was a historical purpose consistent with the Wilderness Act); see also High Sierra Hikers Ass'n v. Blackwell, 390 F.3d 630, 647-48 (9th Cir. 2004) ("Although we believe that Congress intended to enshrine the long-term preservation of wilderness areas as the ultimate goal of......