Idaho State Snowmobile Ass'n v. U.S. Forest Serv.

• Decision Date: 10 February 2021
• Docket Number: Case No. 1:19-cv-00195-DCN
• Parties: IDAHO STATE SNOWMOBILE ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff, v. U.S. FOREST SERVICE; THE SAWTOOTH NATIONAL FOREST; JIM DEMAAGD, in his capacity as Acting Forest Supervisor for the Sawtooth National Forest; and MIKE DETTORI, in his capacity as District Ranger for the Fairfield Ranger District, Defendants, and WILDEARTH GUARDIANS and WINTER WILDLANDS ALLIANCE, Defendant-Intervenors.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Idaho

IDAHO STATE SNOWMOBILE ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff, v. U.S. FOREST SERVICE;

THE SAWTOOTH NATIONAL FOREST;

JIM DEMAAGD, in his capacity

as Acting Forest Supervisor for the Sawtooth National Forest;

and MIKE DETTORI, in his capacity

as District Ranger for the Fairfield Ranger District, Defendants,

and

WILDEARTH GUARDIANS

and WINTER WILDLANDS ALLIANCE, Defendant-Intervenors.

Case No. 1:19-cv-00195-DCN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

February 10, 2021

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Idaho State Snowmobile Association's ("ISSA") Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 23), Defendants U.S. Forest Service, Jim Demaagd, and Mike Dettori's (collectively the "Forest Service") Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 26), and Defendant-Intervenors WildEarth Guardians and Winter Wildlands Alliance's (collectively "Intervenors") Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 28).

The Court held oral argument on November 6, 2020, and took the motions under advisement. Upon review, and for the reasons outlined below, the Court finds good cause to GRANT in PART and DENY in PART the various motions.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

The United States Forest Service is an agency within the United States Department of Agriculture and is charged with administering and overseeing the United States National Forest System lands—including the lands at issue in this case: the Sawtooth National Forest and the Fairfield Ranger District (a subunit of the Sawtooth National Forest).

Since 1974, the Fairfield Ranger District, in cooperation with the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, has closed certain areas of the District to over-snow vehicle ("OSV") travel during winter months to protect wintering wildlife, primarily elk. Prior to the events at issue in this case, the closure area was a relatively narrow strip of land running east to west in roughly the middle of the Fairfield Ranger District.¹ Aside from this narrow strip of land, all the public land within the Fairfield Ranger District was open to snowmobiling (and other winter recreation) during the winter, except a small portion of the southeast corner of the District which is not pertinent to this litigation. That said, the area north of the closure was difficult to access because the closure area served as a legal barrier and the surrounding terrain imposed a significant physical barrier.

Numerous individuals own private land north of the closure area ("private landowners"). During the winter, the only practicable way of accessing most of this private land is by traveling by snowmobile through the closure area on Forest Roads 094, 227, and 012. This passageway is known as the "Couch Summit to Fleck Summit Corridor." Even though motorized travel through the Couch Summit to Fleck Summit Corridor would ordinarily be prohibited during the winter, federal law entitles the private landowners to access their property for "reasonable use." AR 432, 672.² Prior to the Decision by the Forest Service at issue in this case, the private landowners could obtain permits for themselves and their guests to use snowmobiles to access their property during the winter via the Couch Summit to Fleck Summit Corridor. As a result, the private landowners and their permitted guests had essentially unimpeded access to the public lands that lie north of the closure area.

In recent years, monitoring of elk wintering patterns revealed that elk no longer use the eastern portion of the closure area. In light of these findings, numerous individuals and groups requested that the Forest Service open the Couch Summit to Fleck Summit Corridor for public winter use. The Forest Service agreed to review the situation, noting, "the recent changes in how elk are using the area, the need to address landowner and public access issues through the closure area, and the challenges of effectively managing a permit system prompted the review of OSV travel for this area." Dkt. 1, ¶ 18; Dkt. 9, ¶ 18.

The Forest Service began planning and evaluating the acreage from the southern boundary of the closure area to the Fairfield District's northern border, i.e. the closure area and everything northward. This became known as the "Analysis Area." As part of this process, the Forest Service conducted an Environmental Assessment ("EA") and analyzed four alternative plans for accomplishing its goals.

Under Alternative 1, the then-existing closure policy would simply remain in place. AR 439.³

Under Alternative 2, the Forest Service would open the Couch Summit to Fleck Summit Corridor for public OSV use during the winter—thus easing access to an additional 138,993 acres of public land for use—and would authorize 13.1 miles of new groomed snowmobile trail on the existing Forest Service roads. AR 441-43. However, under this alternative, the Forest Service would also close 72,447 acres of public land in the northern portion of the Fairfield Ranger District to OSV use (the "New Proposed Closure" area). AR 441-43, 503.⁴ The additional closure was based on the Forest Service's concern that by opening the eastern part of the existing closure area, snowmobiles would then be able to access the upper Big Smoky drainage. Id. Worried that increased traffic in this area would adversely affect mountain goats, wolverines, and lynx that reside there, this alternative closed off the headwaters of Big Smoky Creek and the headwaters of the South Fork of the Boise River so that snowmobiles could not access this area. Finally, under Alternative 2, the permitting system for the private landowners would be eliminated as nolonger necessary to give those landowners access to their private land. AR 441-43.

Under Alternative 3, the then-existing closure area and permit system would remain in place. AR 443-46. In addition, the Forest Service would expand the closure area to include all of the public land north of the original closure area. AR 443-46. Alternative 3 would prohibit both the private landowners and the public from using OSVs on all public land north of the closure area. AR 443-46.⁵

Under Alternative 4, the Forest Service would open the Couch Summit to Fleck Summit Corridor for public OSV use during the winter and would authorize 13.1 miles of new groomed snowmobile trail on the existing Forest Service roads. AR 446-47.⁶ Under this alternative, the permit system would be eliminated, and the public would be able to access all the public land north of the existing closure area. AR 446-47. This alternative is the same as Alternative 2, except it does not close off the 72,447 acres in the northern part of the Analysis Area.

After considering comments and input from the public, the Forest Service selected Alternative 2 ("the Proposed Action"). AR 676. ISSA, WildEarth Guardians, and Winter Wildlands Alliance (i.e. the various parties in this action) objected to the proposal. Id. The Forest Service explained that it selected Alternative 2 because it strikes "a balance between providing over-snow vehicle access while offering some protection for wintering wildlife." AR 680. The Proposed Action eased access to an additional 138,993 acres to OSV recreation and provided an additional 13.1 miles of groomed trails. AR 682. However, theForest Service determined that the New Proposed Closure area (of 72,447 acres) was necessary in order to: (1) protect mountain goats by preventing disturbances that cause mountain goats to flee; (2) improve security for mapped, predicted Canada lynx habitat; and (3) reduce the potential disturbance to wolverines in their denning habitat. AR 676, 680-81.

ISSA took issue with the Forest Service's choice of Alternative 2 for multiple reasons. In its estimation, Alternative 4 (where the aforementioned trails and acreage would be opened, but nothing additional would be closed) was best supported by the evidence. ISSA raised these "evidence-based" concerns with the Forest Service during the public comment period.⁷ Each concern related to the Forest Service's conclusions about the three types of wildlife just mentioned and can be summarized as follows:

First, ISSA noted that lynx had never been documented in the Analysis Area but acknowledged that the Analysis Area does contain some habitat that may be suitable for lynx. AR 468-71. ISSA pointed out that one set of lynx tracks was observed five miles outside of the Analysis Area to the north, but that this observation occurred more than 20 years ago. AR 469. In addition, one confirmed lynx was apparently taken 104 years ago outside of the Analysis Area approximately nine miles to the southwest. AR 469. Consequently, the EA concluded that "the probability of occurrence of lynx [in the Analysis Area] is considered low based on lack of known observations." AR 469. ISSAasserts that this finding does not, therefore, support the Forest Service's ultimate conclusion that 72,447 acres needed to be closed to OSV travel (as part of Alternative 2) in order to protect lynx, and that Alternative 4 was the more logical plan in light of the evidence.

Second, while the EA concluded that wolverines are known to travel through the Fairfield Ranger District—including, but not limited to the area subject to closure under Alternative 2 (AR 477-81)—ISSA noted that multiple scientific studies have failed to locate any actual wolverine dens in the entire Fairfield Ranger District. AR 477-79. Further, ISSA argued that although the EA concluded there was a potential for two wolverine dens in the analysis area, even if the potential dens were assumed to exist, the EA admits "wolverines appear to tolerate winter recreation in their home ranges, including denning females." AR 479. As such, ISSA concludes that closure of this acreage is unnecessary to promote the Forest Service's stated goals of protecting wolverines.

Third, ISSA claims that although the EA concluded that a small population of mountain goats was known to exist in the north end of the Fairfield Ranger District (AR 459), this...