Sawtooth Mountain Ranch LLC v. United States
| Decision Date | 24 February 2022 |
| Docket Number | 1:19-cv-00118-CWD |
| Parties | SAWTOOTH MOUNTAIN RANCH LLC, LYNN ARNONE, and DAVID BOREN, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; THOMAS J. VILSACK, [1] Secretary of Agriculture; UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE; SAWTOOTH NATIONAL FOREST; JIM DEMAAGD, Forest Supervisor; SAWTOOTH NATIONAL RECREATION AREA; KIRK FLANNIGAN, Area Ranger; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Idaho |
Candy W. Dale M/cro Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge
Sawtooth Mountain Ranch, LLC, David Boren, and Lynn Arnone challenge the decisions of the United States Forest Service and the United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, to construct a non-motorized public trail connecting the town of Stanley, Idaho with the Redfish Lake entrance station. With a vista of the Sawtooth mountains, the 4.4 mile trail will traverse Plaintiffs' property along a 1.5 mile stretch within the boundaries of an easement the Government acquired on May 10, 2005, pursuant to a Conservation Easement Deed.[3] When finished, the trail will permit bicycle, horseback, and foot travel during the spring summer and fall, and snowmobile and snow grooming equipment use during the winter. Construction of the Stanley Redfish Trail[4] began in or about June of 2019 and is not yet complete. Defs.' Opening Brief at 1. (Dkt. 115.)
Plaintiffs claim construction of the Trail will result in irreparable harm to the environment and will adversely impact their ranch operations as well as their personal use and enjoyment of the property. Second Am. Comp. ¶ 112. (Dkt. 50.) Plaintiffs allege violations of the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C § 1531 et. seq. (“ESA”); the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et. seq. (“CWA”); the National Forest Management Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1600 et. seq. (“NFMA”); the Sawtooth National Recreation Area Act, 16 U.S.C. § 460aa et. seq. (“SNRA”); and the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et. seq. (“NEPA”).
Pending before the Court are Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and Defendants' Cross Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. 114, 116.)[5] Because review of agency actions is limited to the administrative record without triable facts, summary judgment may be granted to either party based on a review of the record. Having carefully reviewed the extensive administrative records lodged in this matter, and after considering the briefing and oral arguments of the parties, the Court enters the following order denying Plaintiffs' motion and granting Defendants' motion on Claims Three through Nine of the Second Amended Complaint, for the reasons discussed below.
In light of the Court's companion memorandum decision and order dismissing Claims One and Two under the Quiet Title Act as time-barred, judgment will be entered for Defendants on all claims in Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint. (Dkt. 50.)
Plaintiffs own or have ownership-related interests in real property in Custer County, Idaho, adjacent to the southern end of the town of Stanley, and westward of State Highway 75, in a contiguous parcel including all or part of Sections 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16 and 17 of T.10 N., R. 13 E., Boise Meridian (“Property”). The Property is located within the Sawtooth National Recreation Area (SNRA), and consists of approximately 1, 781.07 acres. Decl. of Boren ¶ 3. (Dkt. 11-2.)
The SNRA is located in south-central Idaho, covering more than 756, 000 acres. (AR 1127.) The SNRA is a Congressionally-designated area, created in 1972 “to assure the preservation and protection of the natural, scenic, historic, pastoral, and fish and wildlife values and to provide for the enhancement of the recreational values associated therewith ….” 16 U.S.C. § 460aa. Redfish Lake and Little Redfish Lake are located within the SNRA six miles south of the town of Stanley. (AR 1127.) The Redfish Lake Complex and tourism in the area “is most active during the two month peak summer season in July and August.” (AR 1048.) State Highway 75 connects Redfish Lake to Stanley, with high speed traffic and heavy summer traffic volumes. (AR 1128.) There currently is no alternative transportation route connecting Stanley and Redfish Lake during the summer. (AR 1128.)
In the early to mid-1990's, SNRA staff began discussing the idea of constructing a trail connecting Stanley and Redfish Lake to provide an alternate means of travel between the two areas. (AR 1126.) The Forest Service envisioned a trail that would allow non-motorized travel, and serve pedestrians, bicyclists, and equestrians during spring, summer and fall. (AR 0938.) To realize such a possibility, the Forest Service began investigating acquiring an easement for the Trail through the Property. (See, e.g., AR 0653 - 0665.)
On May 10, 2005, the United States, by and through the Secretary of Agriculture, and the Pivas, [7] Plaintiffs' predecessors in interest, executed a Conservation Easement Deed encumbering the Property. The Deed was recorded in the records of Custer County on May 20, 2005, as record number 321391. (AR 0824.) Plaintiffs acquired the Property[8]in the Fall of 2016, and were aware of the May 10, 2005 Conservation Easement Deed when they purchased the Property. Second Am. Compl. ¶ 79. (Dkt. 50; AR 0001.) This lawsuit was filed in 2019.
Per Section K(1) of the Conservation Easement Deed, the Grantors granted to the United States "the right to permit public use of.. .A strip of land to be utilized as a trail" within a designated thirty foot wide Easement cirea, as shown on Exhibit D" to the Deed.[9] (AR 0833.) The easement allowed for the following uses "on the trail: snowmobile, snow grooming equipment, bicycle, horse, and foot travel." (AR 0833.)
(Image Omitted)
View from the proposed trail along the trail easement section
(Proposed Project Briefing Paper, Matt Phillips, AR 0903.)
(Image Omitted)
(Ex. D, 2005 Conservation Easement Deed, AR 0850.)
In 2012, the Forest Service initiated internal scoping to review the environmental impacts of the potential trail connecting Stanley and Redfish Lake, and in early 2014, began external scoping to solicit feedback on the proposed project. (see, e.g., AR 1126, AR 0921.) The Forest Service published the proposed Trail Project on July 1, 2014, in the Sawtooth National Forest's Schedule of Proposed Action. (AR 2648 - 2655.)
As part of the scoping process, the Forest Service completed several evaluations of resources that could be affected by the Trail Project. On April 23, 2013, Soils Scientist Terry Hardy reviewed Sawtooth Forest Plan Standards, and concluded the Trail Project would result in “no issues” provided the trail is designed and constructed with rolling dips and drainage structures to ensure sustainability of the facility and minimize erosion of the trail head. (AR 0155.) Forester Jim Rineholt was consulted on December 6, 2013, to address concerns regarding trees that might be felled during construction. (AR 0170 - 0171.) Deb Taylor, North Zone Botanist for the Sawtooth National Forest, prepared a report dated March 10, 2014, evaluating the potential effects of the proposed Trail Project upon listed plant species, sensitive and forest watch plant species, native plant communities, and pollinators. (AR 0178 - 0235.)
On April 14, 2014, Hydrologist Mark Moulton completed an evaluation of the anticipated effects upon listed aquatic species and their habitat within the SNRA watershed. (AR 0238 - 0245.) He considered the potential effects of the Trail Project upon habitat, channel condition and dynamics, flow/hydrology, and watershed conditions. Moulton concluded the Trail Project would have “no effect” upon listed fish species or their designated critical habitat. (AR 0245.) Moulton's report, which consists of Appendix A and a Key and Checklist, is intended to supplement a larger, All Aquatics document and, when considered together, constituted a complete biological assessment of the action. (AR 0238, 2551 - 2606.) The record contains also a Wetland and Floodplain Assessment dated February 20, 2004, which preceded the Government's purchase of the 2005 Conservation Easement. (AR 0591 - 0593.)
Robin Garwood, Wildlife Biologist, completed an assessment on April 15, 2014, of the effects of the Trail Project upon terrestrial sensitive wildlife species. (AR 0246 - 0250.) She concluded the project would not pose an unacceptable risk to terrestrial sensitive wildlife species such as sage grouse and other species.
On March 1, 2017, the Forest Service completed a Forest Plan Consistency Checklist. (AR 0258 - 0272.) In this checklist, the Forest Service considered multiple Forest Plan Standards applicable to botanical resources; wildlife resources; soil, water, riparian and aquatic resources; hydrology and watershed processes; aquatic habitat; vegetation; botanical resources; facilities and roads; big game; and travel management, among other resources. And, on March 4, 2017, the Forest Service completed its evaluation pursuant to 36 C.F.R. § 212.55(b), which requires consideration of the Trail Project's effects upon forest resources, wildlife habitats, and conflicts between motor vehicle uses and recreational uses. (AR 0282 - 0287.)[10]
On June 6, 2017, SNRA Ranger Kirk Flannigan approved a Decision Memo on behalf of the Forest Service authorizing construction of the Trail without further environmental analyses pursuant to a Categorical Exclusion...
To continue reading
Request your trial