Pryors Coal. v. Weldon

• Decision Date: 20 July 2011
• Docket Number: No. CV–10–16–BLG–RFC.,CV–10–16–BLG–RFC.
• Citation: 803 F.Supp.2d 1184
• Parties: The PRYORS COALITION; Wildlands CPR; Eastern Wildlands Chapter of the Montana Wilderness Assoc.; Yellowstone Valley Audubon Society; The Frontier Heritage Alliance; The Beartooth Backcountry Horsemen; Richard Walton, an Individual; Susan W. Newell, an Individual; and Phil Jaquith, an individual, Jaquith, Plaintiffs, v. Leslie WELDON, in her official capacity as Regional Forester for the United States Forest; Mary Erickson, in her official capacity as Acting Forest Supervisor of the Custer National Forest; and the United States Forest Service, Defendants,andTreasure State ATV Assoc.; Montana Trail Vehicle Assoc.; Great Falls Trail Bike Riders Assoc.; Families for Outdoor Recreation; Citizens for Balanced Use; and the Blueribbon Coalition; Intervenor–Applicants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Montana

803 F.Supp.2d 1184

The PRYORS COALITION; Wildlands CPR; Eastern Wildlands Chapter of the Montana Wilderness Assoc.; Yellowstone Valley Audubon Society; The Frontier Heritage Alliance; The Beartooth Backcountry Horsemen; Richard Walton, an Individual; Susan W. Newell, an Individual; and Phil Jaquith, an individual, Jaquith, Plaintiffs,

v.Leslie WELDON, in her official capacity as Regional Forester for the United States Forest; Mary Erickson, in her official capacity as Acting Forest Supervisor of the Custer National Forest; and the United States Forest Service, Defendants,andTreasure State ATV Assoc.; Montana Trail Vehicle Assoc.; Great Falls Trail Bike Riders Assoc.; Families for Outdoor Recreation; Citizens for Balanced Use; and the Blueribbon Coalition; Intervenor–Applicants.

No. CV–10–16–BLG–RFC.

United States District Court, D. Montana,Billings Division.

July 20, 2011.

Matthew Kellogg Bishop, Helena, MT, Sarah K. McMillan, Missoula, MT, for Plaintiffs.

Mark Steger Smith, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, for Defendants.

Robert T. Bell, Reep, Bell & Laird, P.C., Missoula, MT, Paul A. Turcke, Moore Smith Buxton & Turcke, Boise, ID, for Intervenor–Applicants.

ORDER

RICHARD F. CEBULL, Chief Judge.

Currently pending before the Court are the Parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. In bringing their Complaint, Plaintiffs are alleging that Defendants' implementation of the Record of Decision that sanctioned motorized vehicle use within the Beartooth Ranger District would threaten certain aspects of the unique and fragile ecological habitats found within the District. After review and consideration of the administrative record and the parties' briefing, the Court is prepared to rule.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs are comprised of groups and individuals who use and enjoy the natural wilderness of the Pryor and Absaroka Mountain ranges. Defendants United States Forest Service and their officials represent the governmental agency that is delegated to manage the Beartooth Ranger District within which the Pryor and Absaroka Mountains range are contained. In addition, Intervenor–Applicants Great Falls Trail Bike Riders Association, et al. have also joined in Defendants' Cross–Motion for Summary Judgment.

In December 2005, per direction of Executive Orders 11644 and 11989, the Travel Management Rule (“TMR”) became effective and provided for the regulation of motor vehicles. The TMR provides a framework for Defendants to designate and map routes for public motorized use and development of a Travel Management Plan (“TMP”). Further, the TMR prohibits cross-country motorized travel outside of designated routes. Part of the reasoning for creating a motorized vehicle public use map is to enable criminal penalization for the possession and/or operation of a motor vehicle in non-designated areas. 36 C.F.R. §§ 212.51, 212.56.

On June 2, 2008, Defendant U.S. Forest Service signed the Beartooth Travel Management Record of Decision (“ROD”). The ROD was implemented on September 23, 2008. The decision designated certain existing routes in the Pryor and Beartooth Mountain ranges for public motorized use within the Beartooth Ranger District. The purpose of the decision was to protect and manage increased motorized and non-motorized recreational use within the Beartooth Ranger District from negative social and ecological impacts.¹

For purposes of discussion, the routes shall be divided into the Pryor Unit and the Beartooth Unit. The Beartooth Unit includes parts of the Absaroka–Beartooth wilderness and includes the Gallatin National Forest on the west and has some common boundary with the Shoshone National Forest in Wyoming to the south. The Pryor Unit contains the southern portion of the Pryor Mountain Range. This unit is bordered on the north by the Crow Reservation. The entire south boundary and the majority of the east and west boundaries are shared with BLM.

According to Defendants, all newly designated motorized use under the ROD is based on routes already existing on the ground and creates no new routes. Rather, it is nothing more than a legal designation that is intended to implement the aforementioned TMR and institute a TMP.

This new ROD is intended to map existing “system” and “non-system” routes within the Beartooth Ranger District. “System” routes are defined as roads and trails that are determined by the Forest Service as necessary for the protection, administration and utilization of the Forest Service System. 36 C.F.R. § 261.13. “Non-system” routes generally refers to temporary roads/trails or unauthorized roads/trails. 36 C.F.R. § 212.1.

Plaintiffs allege that the new TMP: makes 99% of the existing roads and trails in the Pryors available for motorized vehicle use; authorizes dispersed vehicle camping within 300 feet of either side of every motorized road and trail in the Pryor Mountains; and permanently and negatively impairs land productivity and soil quality.

Based on these allegations, Plaintiffs allege in the Complaint that Defendants have failed to comply with and consequently violate the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), the 2005 TMR, Executive Order 11644, and the National Forest Management Act (“NFMA”). All of these substantive claims fall under Plaintiffs' claims that Defendants violated the Administrative Procedures Act.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”) provides the authority for judicial review of agency decisions under NFMA and NEPA. Pit River Tribe v. U.S. Forest Serv., 469 F.3d 768, 778 (9th Cir.2006). The APA requires that a reviewing court “shall ... hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be-arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). This arbitrary and capricious standard is deferential and as such, an agency will be reversed as arbitrary and capricious “only if the agency relied on factors Congress did not intend it to consider, entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, offered an explanation that runs counter to the evidence before the agency, or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise.” Ecology Ctr. v. Castaneda, 574 F.3d 652, 656 (9th Cir.2009).

Nevertheless, the Court must review the administrative action to ensure that the agency has sufficiently “examine[d] the relevant data and articulate [d] a satisfactory explanation for its action including a ‘rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.’ ” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43, 103 S.Ct. 2856, 77 L.Ed.2d 443 (1983) (quoting Burlington Truck Lines v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168, 83 S.Ct. 239, 9 L.Ed.2d 207 (1962)). In reviewing the agency's explanation, the Court must “consider whether the decision was based on a consideration of the relevant factors and whether there has been a clear error of judgment.” Id. (quoting Bowman Transp. Inc. v. Arkansas–Best Freight System, 419 U.S. 281, 285, 95 S.Ct. 438, 42 L.Ed.2d 447 (1975)); see also Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 416, 91 S.Ct. 814, 28 L.Ed.2d 136 (1971).

DISCUSSION

I. Making Existing Roads and Trails Available for Motorized Vehicle Use.

Relying on NEPA, NFMA, and the TMR, Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants arbitrarily and capriciously converted unauthorized user-created and non-system routes into motorized vehicle use routes without first taking a hard look at the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts that its ROD would have on the Pryor Unit. In addition, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failed to take a hard look at a reasonable range of alternatives to their present ROD in order to mitigate the impacts of their final decision.

In making these allegations, Plaintiffs noted that these user-created and previously unauthorized routes were never included in Defendants' 1987 Travel Plan for the Custer National Forest area. Rather, they were illegally created by individuals driving cars, all-terrain vehicles, off-highway vehicles, and off-road motorcycles. Moreover, Plaintiffs contend that these user-created routes cause environmental damage. Specifically, Plaintiffs cite to Routes 2095A, 2096, 2814, part of 2088, and two miles of 2092.

Defendants contend that their decision to convert existing system and non-system routes to authorized system routes actually reduced the total miles for public motorized use from 287 miles to 267 miles.² Specifically in the Pryor Unit, where the crux of Plaintiffs' claims lie, Defendants contend that they reduced the miles of public motorized routes from 149 miles to 124 miles. Id. Because of these reductions in public motorized routes, Defendants contend that they have also reduced dispersed vehicle camping.

In reaching their final ROD, Defendants contend that they reasonably relied on a Final Environmental Impact Statement (“FEIS”) that considered the impact of converting non-system routes to system routes as well as alternatives.

The Court notes that before the FEIS was published, it is undisputed that Defendants held numerous open forum discussions starting in February 9, 2004 and running through November 1, 2007 to allow for public participation to raise concerns by interested parties regarding the Beartooth Ranger District Travel Management Environmental Impact Statement.³ A review of the FEIS reflects that Defendants considered five alternatives regarding the development of a travel management plan for the Beartooth Ranger District: Alternative A, Alternative B, Alternative B Modified, Alternative C and the No Action Alternative.⁴

Each Alternative reflected Defendants' consideration of the competing interests between the recreational motorized-use activists and the recreational non-motorized use activists. It is evident that although both groups have a shared enthusiasm for the outdoors, their...