CO Farm Bureau Fed v. US Forest Serv., No. 99-1125

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtBefore SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, TACHA and KELLY; SEYMOUR
Citation220 F.3d 1171
Parties(10th Cir. 2000) COLORADO FARM BUREAU FEDERATION; COLORADO OUTFITTERS ASSOCIATION; COLORADO CATTLEMEN'S ASSOCIATION; COLORADO WOOL GROWERS ASSOCIATION, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE; UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE; COLORADO WILDLIFE COMMISSION; JOHN W. MUMMA, in his official capacity as Director of the Colorado Division of Wildlife, Defendants-Appellees
Docket NumberNo. 99-1125
Decision Date18 July 2000

Page 1171

220 F.3d 1171 (10th Cir. 2000)
COLORADO FARM BUREAU FEDERATION; COLORADO OUTFITTERS ASSOCIATION; COLORADO CATTLEMEN'S ASSOCIATION; COLORADO WOOL GROWERS ASSOCIATION, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE; UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE; COLORADO WILDLIFE COMMISSION; JOHN W. MUMMA, in his official capacity as Director of the Colorado Division of Wildlife, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 99-1125
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT
July 18, 2000

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of COLORADO. D.C. No. 98-D-2696

Page 1172

William Perry Pendley (Monica S. Ernst and William Davis Thode, with him on the brief), of Mountain States Legal Foundation, Denver, Colorado, appearing for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Todd S. Kim, Attorney, Department of Justice (Lois J. Schiffer, Assistant Attorney General, Albert C. Lin, Andrea L.

Page 1173

Berlowe, Evelyn S. Ying, Attorneys, Department of Justice, Kenneth Capps, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and Debra Hecox, U.S. Department of the Interior, with him on the brief), Washington, D.C., appearing for Federal Defendants-Appellees.

Timothy J. Monahan, Assistant Attorney General, Natural Resources & Environment Section (Ken Salazar, Attorney General, with him on the brief), Denver, Colorado, appearing for Colorado Wildlife Commission, Colorado Division of Wildlife, and John W. Mumma, Defendants-Appellees.

Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, TACHA and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

SEYMOUR, Chief Judge.

Plaintiffs filed this action in federal district court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the State of Colorado's "Lynx Recovery Plan" (the Plan), which proposed to introduce Canadian lynx into Colorado. The complaint alleged that the Forest Service's involvement with the Plan violated the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 706(2)(A), because the Forest Service failed to follow the environmental reporting requirements set forth in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4332. In a thorough opinion, the district court granted the government's motion to dismiss for lack of Article III standing, and alternatively because it held there was no "major Federal action" triggering the application of NEPA. Plaintiffs appeal and we affirm, albeit on different grounds.1

On appeal, the government contends that we lack jurisdiction over this matter because the complaint fails to allege any final agency action, resulting in lack of standing to pursue a claim under the APA. We review questions of standing de novo. See Utah v. Babbitt, 137 F.3d 1193, 1203 (10th Cir. 1998). When considering a motion to dismiss, we must construe the complaint in favor of the complaining party and assume the truth of all factual allegations. See id. at 1204. Because we agree...

To continue reading

Request your trial
48 practice notes
  • Utah Native Plant Soc'y v. U.S. Forest Serv., No. 17-4074
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • May 7, 2019
    ...goats in the near future—is unclear. The plaintiffs bear the burden of showing finality. Col. Farm Bur. Fed'n v. U.S. Forest Service , 220 F.3d 1171, 1173 (10th Cir. 2000) ("Plaintiffs have the burden of identifying specific federal conduct and explaining how it is ‘final agency action’ wit......
  • Cheyenne-Arapaho Gaming v. National Indian Gaming, No. 01-CV-0632-C.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. Northern District of Oklahoma
    • July 11, 2002
    ...have been determined, or from which legal consequences will flow." Colorado Farm Bureau Federation v. United States Forest Service, 220 F.3d 1171, 1173 (10th Cir. 2000) (internal quotations omitted). Thus, only if a government agency takes definitive action, after the exhaustion of administ......
  • New Mexico v. McAleenan, No. CIV 19-0534 JB\SCY
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. District of New Mexico
    • March 31, 2020
    ...calculations and reports the result to the Congress." 505 U.S. at 797, 112 S.Ct. 2767. See Colo. Farm Bureau Fed'n v. U.S. Forest Serv., 220 F.3d 1171, 1174 (10th Cir. 2000) (concluding that "non-binding assistance such as conducting and funding analyses and participating in public meetings......
  • Defenders of Wildlife v. Everson, No. 18-8061
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • December 30, 2020
    ...the APA, including, in relevant part, "final agency action" (emphasis added)); see, e.g ., Colo. Farm Bureau Fed'n v. U.S. Forest Serv ., 220 F.3d 1171, 1173 (10th Cir. 2000) (providing that plaintiffs seeking judicial review under the APA were required to "establish that defendants took ‘f......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
49 cases
  • Utah Native Plant Soc'y v. U.S. Forest Serv., No. 17-4074
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • May 7, 2019
    ...goats in the near future—is unclear. The plaintiffs bear the burden of showing finality. Col. Farm Bur. Fed'n v. U.S. Forest Service , 220 F.3d 1171, 1173 (10th Cir. 2000) ("Plaintiffs have the burden of identifying specific federal conduct and explaining how it is ‘final agency action’ wit......
  • Cheyenne-Arapaho Gaming v. National Indian Gaming, No. 01-CV-0632-C.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. Northern District of Oklahoma
    • July 11, 2002
    ...have been determined, or from which legal consequences will flow." Colorado Farm Bureau Federation v. United States Forest Service, 220 F.3d 1171, 1173 (10th Cir. 2000) (internal quotations omitted). Thus, only if a government agency takes definitive action, after the exhaustion of administ......
  • New Mexico v. McAleenan, No. CIV 19-0534 JB\SCY
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. District of New Mexico
    • March 31, 2020
    ...calculations and reports the result to the Congress." 505 U.S. at 797, 112 S.Ct. 2767. See Colo. Farm Bureau Fed'n v. U.S. Forest Serv., 220 F.3d 1171, 1174 (10th Cir. 2000) (concluding that "non-binding assistance such as conducting and funding analyses and participating in public meetings......
  • Defenders of Wildlife v. Everson, No. 18-8061
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • December 30, 2020
    ...the APA, including, in relevant part, "final agency action" (emphasis added)); see, e.g ., Colo. Farm Bureau Fed'n v. U.S. Forest Serv ., 220 F.3d 1171, 1173 (10th Cir. 2000) (providing that plaintiffs seeking judicial review under the APA were required to "establish that defendants took ‘f......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT