Earth Island Institute v. Ruthenbeck
| Decision Date | 10 August 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 05-17078.,No. 05-16975.,05-16975.,05-17078. |
| Parties | EARTH ISLAND INSTITUTE; Sequoia Forestkeeper, a California non-profit corporation; Heartwood, an Indiana non-profit corporation; Center for Biological Diversity, a New Mexico non-profit corporation; Sierra Club, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Nancy RUTHENBECK;<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL> United States Forest Service; Ann M. Veneman; Dale Bosworth, Defendants-Appellants. Earth Island Institute; Sequoia Forestkeeper, a California non-profit corporation; Heartwood, an Indiana nonprofit corporation; Center for Biological Diversity, a New Mexico non-profit corporation; Sierra Club, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Nancy Ruthenbeck; United States Forest Service; Ann M. Veneman; Dale Bosworth, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Katherine W. Hazard and Jennifer L. Scheller, U.S. Department of Justice Environment & Natural Resources Division, Washington, D.C., for the defendants-appellants.
Matt Kenna, Western Environmental Law Center, Durango, CO, for the plaintiffs-appellees.
Thomas R. Lundquist, Crowell & Moring, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California; James K. Singleton, Chief Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-03-06386-JKS.
Before MARY M. SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, SUSAN P. GRABER, Circuit Judge, and KEVIN THOMAS DUFFY,** Senior Judge.
This is a government appeal from a district court judgment enjoining Forest Service regulations that govern review of decisions implementing forest plans, on the ground that the regulations were manifestly contrary to the governing statute. The Forest Service promulgated the challenged regulations pursuant to the Forest Service Decisionmaking and Appeals Reform Act ("ARA"), Pub.L. 102-381, tit. 111, § 322, 106 Stat. 1419 (1992) (codified at 16 U.S.C. § 1612 note). In a cross-appeal, the environmentalist plaintiffs Earth Island Institute et al. challenge the four regulations the district court held were valid. The statute pertains to procedures relating to public comment and administrative appeal of proposed forest management actions. The government raises standing and ripeness issues. We agree with the district court that plaintiffs have established standing. But because only one of the regulations, 36 C.F.R. § 215.12(f), has actually been applied to a proposed project, we hold that only that regulation is ripe for review. We affirm the district court's judgment that 36 C.F.R. § 215.12(f) conflicts with the Appeals Reform Act and affirm the nationwide injunction barring its application. We remand the judgment and injunction with respect to the remaining regulations to the district court with instructions to vacate for lack of a controversy ripe for review.
Plaintiffs, Earth Island Institute, Sequoia Forestkeeper, Heartwood, Inc., Center for Biological Diversity, and the Sierra Club (collectively "Earth Island") are non-profit environmental organizations. To establish their standing, plaintiffs rely on the declaration of Jim Bensman, an employee and member of Heartwood. According to his affidavit, Bensman has been using the National Forests for over 25 years, and has visited National Forests in California, including Klamath, Shasta, Six Rivers and Trinity. Bensman declared that he planned to return to California in August 2004 and Oregon in October 2004. He asserted that his interest in the biological health of the forest, as well as his recreational interest, is harmed when development occurs in violation of law or policy. Bensman specifically stated that if an appeal option were available to him on projects that are categorically excluded from appeal, he would exercise that right of appeal. He also alleged personal and procedural injuries under each challenged regulation.
The defendant, the United States Forest Service, prior to 1992, provided a post-decision administrative appeals process, 36 C.F.R. pt. 217, for agency decisions documented in a "decision memo," "decision notice," or "record of decision." See 54 Fed.Reg. 3342 (Jan. 23, 1989); Heartwood, Inc. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 316 F.3d 694, 696 (7th Cir.2003). In March 1992, the Forest Service proposed a new regulation that would have eliminated post-decision administrative appeals for all decisions except those approving forest plans or amendments or revisions to forest plans. See 57 Fed.Reg. 10,444 (Mar. 26, 1992). The 1992 proposal would have replaced post-decision administrative appeals with pre-decision notice and comment procedures for proposed projects on which the Forest Service had completed an Environmental Assessment ("EA") and a finding of no significant impact ("FONSI"), in accordance with applicable provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 ("NEPA"). Essentially, the proposal provided a categorical exclusion from notice, comment and appeal for projects the Forest Service deemed environmentally insignificant.
The 1992 proposal was greeted with considerable protest, and environmental groups decried the loss of administrative review. Congress, in response, enacted the ARA. Pub.L. No. 102-381, Title III § 322, codified at 16 U.S.C. § 1612 note. Among other things, the ARA required the Forest Service to establish an administrative appeals process with opportunity for notice and comment. The ARA provides in material part:
(a) IN GENERAL. — In accordance with this section, the Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the Chief of the Forest Service, shall establish a notice and comment process for proposed actions of the Forest Service concerning projects and activities implementing land and resource management plans developed under the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) and shall modify the procedure for appeals of decisions concerning such projects.
After a series of challenges to regulations promulgated pursuant to the ARA, see Heartwood, Inc., 316 F.3d 694, the Forest Service reinstated the pre-1992 notice, comment and administrative appeal procedure as an interim measure until the Forest Service issued a final regulation implementing the ARA. See 68 Fed.Reg. 33,582, 33,586. On June 4, 2003, the Forest Service published a final rule revising the notice, comment, and appeal procedures for "projects and activities implementing land and resource management plans on National Forest System lands." 68 Fed.Reg. at 33,582 (June 4, 2003) ("2003 Rule").
On June 5, 2003, the Forest Service published the final implementing procedures for National Environmental Policy Act Documentation Needed for Fire Management Activities ("Fire CE"), 68 Fed. Reg. 33,814-24 (2003) (codified at Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, ch. 30, § 31.2(10), (11)). This action created a new category of projects, fire rehabilitation activities on less than 4,200 acres, which could be excluded from EA and Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS") analysis, and exempted from notice, comment and appeal under the challenged regulations. Salvage timber sales of 250 acres or less ("Timber Sale CE") were also designated as categorical exclusions on July 29, 2003. 68 Fed.Reg. 44,598-608 (2003) (codified at Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, ch. 30, § 31.2(12), (13), (14)).
On September 8, 2003, the Forest Service issued its Burnt Ridge Project decision memo approving the timber sale and treatment of 238 acres of post-fire forest area. The Burnt Ridge Project timber sale proposal was prepared pursuant to the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Record of Decision, stemming from the 2002 McNally fire. The Burnt Ridge Project area is located on the Hot Springs Ranger District of Sequoia National Forest, approximately 8 air miles from California Hot Springs, California. In the summer of 2002, a human-caused fire known as the McNally Fire burned approximately 150,000 acres of forest and chaparral primarily within the Sequoia National Forest. Between January and March 2003, the Sequoia National Forest sent out three scoping notices pursuant to NEPA, for three separate post-fire salvage logging projects. Each of the adjacent projects was planned as a result of the McNally fire, and proposed identical or highly similar logging prescriptions. The Burnt Ridge Project, as approved by the Forest Service decision memo, would have resulted in the logging of approximately 238 acres of burned forest for sale as timber. The decision memo applied the categorical exclusion provisions of 36 C.F.R. § 215.12(f). The decision expressly states that "this project is not subject to appeal because it involves projects or activities which are categorically excluded from documentation in an environmental impact statement or environmental assessment." Eventually, after this litigation was instituted, the parties settled that challenge and the Forest Service withdrew the Burnt Ridge Project.
On December 1, 2003, Earth Island filed a complaint against the Forest Service, challenging the 2003 Rule as applied to the Burnt Ridge Project, and bringing facial challenges to nine provisions of the 2003 Rule. The Burnt Ridge Project decision memo was issued under provisions which the Forest Service claim categorically exclude the project under the challenged regulations in this case from documentation in an EA or EIS, and thereby from administrative appeal. The district court invalidated five challenged regulations and upheld four regulations, Earth Island v. Pengilly, 376 F.Supp.2d 994 (E.D.Cal. 2005), and issued a nationwide injunction against the application of the invalid regulations. This appeal and cross-appeal followed.
Earth Island argues that plaintiffs in this case had standing on the basis of the personal and procedural injuries documented in the Bensman affidavit because their aesthetic interests in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People ex rel Lockyer v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture
...forest plans that had been applied, but not the other three regulations which had not yet been applied. Earth Island Institute v. Ruthenbeck, 459 F.3d 954, 962-64 (9th Cir.2006); see also Abbott Laboratories, 387 U.S. at 151, 87 S.Ct. 1507 (holding that pre-enforcement challenge to FDA regu......
-
New Mex. Health Connections, Non-Profit Corp. v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., CIV 16-0878 JB-JHR
...enforcement of nationwide regulations even when challenged by an individual plaintiff." Response at 24 (citing Earth Island Inst. v. Ruthenbeck, 459 F.3d 954, 966 (9th Cir. 2006), rev'd on other grounds, 555 U.S. 488, 500, 129 S.Ct. 1142, 173 L.Ed.2d 1 (2009) ).5. The Reply.HHS filed a repl......
-
Wildlaw v. U.S. Forest Service
...will injure said concrete interests. The injury-in-fact element of standing is therefore established. See Earth Island Institute v. Ruthenbeck, 459 F.3d 954, 960-61 (9th Cir.2006) (concluding that environmental plaintiffs have standing for their ARA challenge); Heartwood, Inc, v. U.S. Fores......
-
Washington Toxics Coalition v. U.S. Dept. of Int.
...at 13-15. The Federal Defendants submitted for the Court's review a recently decided Ninth Circuit case, Earth Island Institute v. Ruthenbeck, 459 F.3d 954, 958, 961-63 (9th Cir.2006), pertaining to ripeness. The Earth Island Court found itself addressing the question of whether a challenge......
-
Summers v. Earth Island Institute: Overhauling the Injury-in-Fact Test for Standing to Sue
...opinion). 6. Earth Island Inst. v. Pengilly, 376 F. Supp. 2d 994, 999 (E.D. Cal. 2005), aff’d sub nom. Earth Island Inst. v. Ruthenbeck, 459 F.3d 954 (9th Cir. 1054 LOUISIANA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 71 however, declined to rule on the merits. 7 Instead, the Court held that the environmental organi......
-
The Intersection of Constitutional Law and Environmental Litigation
...(2006). 21. Brennan , 2007 WL 2408901, at *2. 22. 341 F.3d 961 (9th Cir. 2003). 23. See, e.g. , Earth Island Inst. v. Ruthenbeck, 459 F.3d 954, 961 (9th Cir. 2006) (loss of the right to an administrative appeal is sufficient procedural injury). 24. 127 S. Ct. 1438, 1454–55 (2007). 25. Clean......
-
Table of Cases
...515 (3d Cir. 2006) 451, 453 Eagle-Picher Indus., Inc. v. U.S. EPA, 759 F.2d 905 (D.C. Cir. 1985) 459 Earth Island Inst. v. Ruthenbeck, 459 F.3d 954 (9th Cir. 2006) 391 Edward Hines Lumber Co. v. Vulcan Materials Co., 685 F. Supp. 651 (N.D. Ill. 1988) 452 EEOC v. Waffle House, Inc., 534 U.S.......