People ex rel Lockyer v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture
| Decision Date | 11 October 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. C05-04038 EDL.,No. C05-03508 EDL.,C05-03508 EDL.,C05-04038 EDL. |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of California ex rel. Bill LOCKYER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; Mike Johanns, Secretary of the Department of Agriculture, et al., Defendant(s). The Wilderness Society, California Wilderness Coalition, et al., Plaintiffs, v. United States Forest Service, an agency of the United States Department of Agriculture; Dale Bosworth, Chief of the United States Forest Service, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
Claudia Polsky, CA State Attorney General's Office, State of California Department of Justice, Oakland, CA, Stephen R. Farris, Attorney General of New Mexico Water, Environment & Utilities, Santa FE, NM, David E. Leith, State Attorney General's Office Trial Division, Salem, OR, Robert A. Nicholas, Wyoming Attorney General Natural Resources, Cheyenne, WY, Mary Sue Wilson, Washington State Attorney General's Office, Joan Marchioro, Ronald Leo Lavigne, Jr., Sheila Deirdre Lynch, Washington State Attorney General, Olympia, WA, for Plaintiffs.
Barclay Thomas Samford, United States Department of Justice Environment & Natural Resources Division, Denver, CO, Beverly Li, Rachel Anne Dougan, U.S. Department of Justice Environment & Natural Resources Division-NRS, Jimmy Anthony Rodriguez, United States Department of Justice Environmental & Natural Resources Division Wildlife & Marine Resources Section, Washington, DC James A. Coda, United States Attorney's Office Environmental & Natural Resources Division, John Burritt McArthur, Hosie McArthur LLP, Kenneth B. Wilson, Perkins Coie LLP, San Francisco, CA, Dennis L. Porter, Dennis Mac Wilson, Sacramento, CA, Paul Andrew Turcke, Moore Smith Buxton & Turcke, Chartered, Boise, ID, Scott W. Horngren, Haglund Kelley Horngren Jones & Wilder LLP, Portland, OR, Candace F. West, Montana Attorney General, Helena, MT, Colleen J. Moore, State of Alaska Department of Law, Anchorage, AK, Gregory C. Loarie, Earthjustice, Oakland, CA, Kristen Lee Boyles, Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund, Seattle, WA, Thomas Scott Waldo, Earthjustice, Juneau, AK, Timothy J. Preso, Earthjustice, Bozeman, MT, for Defendants.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................... 879
II. THE PARTIES ...................................................................... 879
III. BACKGROUND ....................................................................... 879
IV. STANDING ......................................................................... 883
A. Standing Based on Procedural Injury .......................................... 883
1. Procedural injury ........................................................ 884
2. Concrete interests ....................................................... 884
3. Reasonable probability ................................................... 885
4. Causation and Redressability ............................................. 887
B. State Plaintiffs' Standing Based on Substantive Injury ....................... 888
1. Injury in fact ........................................................... 889
2. Causation and redressability ............................................. 889
C. Prudential Standing Requirements ............................................. 889
V. RIPENESS ......................................................................... 890
VI. STANDARD OF REVIEW ............................................................... 892
VII. DISCUSSION ....................................................................... 893
A. National Environmental Policy Act ............................................ 893
1. The State Petitions Rule did not fit within the categorical exclusion
invoked by the Forest Service ............................................ 894
2. The FEIS for the Roadless Rule did not satisfy the need for environmental
analysis of the State Petitions Rule ..................................... 905
3. The prospect of future environmental analysis did not obviate the need
to comply with NEPA at the time the State Petitions Rule was
adopted ................................................................. 907
4. Conclusion ............................................................... 909
B. Endangered Species Act ....................................................... 909
C. Administrative Procedures Act ................................................ 912
VIII. REMEDY ........................................................................... 913
IX. CONCLUSION ....................................................................... 919
In this environmental litigation, the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment are currently before the Court. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment are granted and Defendants' cross-motion is denied. The only revision contained in this amended opinion and order is the deletion of footnote nine.
In these consolidated cases, Plaintiffs, four states and numerous environmental organizations, contend that Defendants violated the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4370d, the Endangered Species Act ("ESA"), 16 U.S.C. § 1531-1544 and the Administrative Procedures Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706, by issuing the State Petitions for Inventoried Roadless Area Management Rule ("State Petitions Rule") (70 Fed.Reg. 25,654 (May 13, 2005) ()) without complying with the procedures required by those Acts. The State Petitions Rule replaced the Roadless Area Conservation Rule ("Roadless Rule") (66 Fed.Reg. 3,244 (Jan. 12, 2001) ()). Plaintiffs seek an Order vacating and setting aside the State Petitions Rule, reinstating the Roadless Rule and enjoining Defendants from taking any action in violation of the Roadless Rule until they undertake appropriate environmental analysis.
In California, et al. v. United States Dep't of Agriculture, et al., C-05-3508 EDL, Plaintiffs are the States of California, Oregon, New Mexico and Washington. The State of Montana is amicus curiae in support of Plaintiffs. Defendants are the United States Department of Agriculture, Mike Johanns as Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture, United States Forest Service, Dale Bosworth as Chief of the United States Forest Service, and Mark Rey as Undersecretary for Natural Resources and Environment of the United States Department of Agriculture (collectively, "Defendants" or "Forest Service"). The States of Alaska and Idaho are amici curiae in support of Defendants. The State of Wyoming filed a brief in opposition to the remedy sought by Plaintiffs in both cases. American Council of Snowmobile Associations, Blue Ribbon Coalition, California Association of 4 Wheel Drive Clubs, Silver Creek Timber Company and United Four Wheel Drive Associations are amici curiae with respect to the issues going to the merits and intervenors with respect to the issue of remedy in support of Defendants in both cases. The American Forest Resource Council is amicus curiae in support of Defendants in both cases.
In Wilderness Society, et al v. United States Forest Service, et al., C-05-4038 EDL, a number of private environmental groups sue the same Defendants. Specifically, Plaintiffs are The Wilderness Society, California Wilderness Coalition, Forests Forever Foundation, Northcoast Environmental Center, Oregon Natural Resources Council Fund, Sitka Conservation Society, Siskiyou Regional Education Project, Biodiversity Conservation Alliance, Sierra Club, National Audubon Society, Greater Yellowstone Coalition, Center for Biological Diversity, Environmental Protection Information Center, Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center, Defenders of Wildlife, Pacific Rivers Council, Idaho Conservation League, Humane Society of the United States, Conservation NW and Greenpeace.
In 2001, the Forest Service enacted the Roadless Rule, which essentially prohibited road construction and reconstruction and timber harvesting, subject to certain limited exceptions, in inventoried roadless areas ("IRAs") on a uniform nationwide basis. The Roadless Rule was the culmination of a lengthy process regarding the impact of road construction and reconstruction in roadless areas starting in early 1999 with the Interim Roads Rule (64 Fed. Reg. 7,290 (Feb. 12, 1999) ()), and followed by over one year of rulemaking in response to President Clinton's order to the Forest Service "to initiate a nationwide plan to protect inventoried and uninventoried roadless areas within our treasured national forests." Kootenai Tribe v. Veneman, 313 F.3d 1094, 1105 (9th Cir.2002). In adopting the Roadless Rule, the Forest Service conducted an environmental analysis under NEPA and prepared a biological evaluation under ESA, resulting in a Final Environmental Impact Statement ("FEIS") that included letters of concurrence from the Fish & Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service that the rule would not likely adversely affect threatened or endangered species. Prior to the Roadless Rule, individual forest plans governed the use of roadless areas and permitted road construction in 34.3 million acres of the nation's 58.5 million acres of roadless areas. See Roadless Rule, 66 Fed.Reg. at 3,246. The Roadless Rule and the interim protections leading...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
California v. Bernhardt
...Transp. Bd. , 668 F.3d 1067, 1079 (9th Cir. 2011) (quotations and alterations omitted); Cal. ex rel. Lockyer v. United States Dep't of Agric. , 459 F. Supp. 2d 874, 901 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (" Lockyer I ") ("Mere uncertainty about the precise contours of the environmental impact of this major c......
-
Wyoming v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture
...that court held that the State Petitions Rule was promulgated in violation of NEPA and the ESA. California ex rel. Lockyer v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 459 F.Supp.2d 874, 919 (N.D.Cal.2006). The Northern California District Court, by way of a Magistrate Judge, surreptitiously re-instituted the ......
-
Sierra Forest Legacy v. U.S. Forest Service
...between direct and direct effects because `... such line drawing seems inherently arbitrary.'" California v. United Stated Dep't of Agric., 459 F.Supp.2d 874, 886 (N.D.Cal. 2006) (quoting Citizens I, 341 F.3d at 975). This Court therefore declines to draw a bright-line distinction between p......
-
State v. United States Dep't of Agriculture
...despite the fact that the Wyoming district court had already found that the rule violated federal law. California ex rel. Lockyer v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 459 F.Supp.2d 874 (N.D.Cal.2006).11 After the Roadless Rule was reinstated by the California district court, Wyoming brought a renewed c......
-
CHAPTER 1 THE EVOLUTION OF FEDERAL PUBLIC LAND AND RESOURCE LAW IN THE 21ST CENTURY
...U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 661 F.3d 1209 (10th Cir. 2011) (sustaining 2000 rule); People ex rel. Lockyer v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 459 F.Supp.2d 874 (N.D. Cal. 2006), aff'd, 575 F.3d 999 (9 Cir. 2009) (overturning 2005 rule). [90] 36 C.F.R. §§ 219.10 -.14 (2004). [91] 16 U.S.C. § 6501. ......
-
Case summaries.
...551-559, 701-706, 1305, 3105, 3344, 4301, 5335, 5362, 7521 (2006). (299) California ex rel. Lockyer v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 459 F. Supp. 2d 874, 919 (N.D. Cal. (300) Ripeness is a question of law reviewed de novo. Colwell v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 558 F.3d 1112, 1121 (9th Cir.......
-
Sustainable Forestry: Moving From Concept to Consistent Practice
...Area Conservation, 66 Fed. Reg. 35918 (July 16, 2004). 84. 36 C.F.R. §294.12. 85. California ex rel. Lockyer v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 459 F. Supp. 2d 874 (N.D. Cal. 2006). 86. Information on the government’s appeal available at www.ens-newswire. com/ens/apr2007/2007-04-09-09.asp#anchor1. 87......
-
CHAPTER 4 SURFACE USES RELATED TO OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT ON THE NATIONAL FORESTS
...judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, and declared the State Petitions Rule invalid. California ex rel. Lockyer v. U.S. Dep't to Agric., 459 F.Supp. 2d 874, 919 (N.D. Cal. 2006). The Court reinstated the 2001 Roadless Rule, and ordered that the USDA is enjoined from "taking any further actio......