Sharps v. U.S. Forest Service, No. 93-2424
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | Before McMILLIAN, WOLLMAN and MAGILL; McMILLIAN |
| Citation | 28 F.3d 851 |
| Parties | Jon C. SHARPS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE; United States Department of Agriculture; Robert G. Childress, District Ranger, Fall River District of the Nebraska National Forest; Butch Ellis, Acting Forest Supervisor, Nebraska National Forest; Gary E. Cargill, Regional Forester, Rocky Mountain Region; F. Dale Robertson, Chief of the United States Forest Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Appellees. |
| Docket Number | No. 93-2424 |
| Decision Date | 05 July 1994 |
Page 851
v.
UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE; United States Department of
Agriculture; Robert G. Childress, District Ranger, Fall
River District of the Nebraska National Forest; Butch
Ellis, Acting Forest Supervisor, Nebraska National Forest;
Gary E. Cargill, Regional Forester, Rocky Mountain Region;
F. Dale Robertson, Chief of the United States Forest
Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Appellees.
Eighth Circuit.
Decided July 5, 1994.
Page 852
James Floyd Margadant, Rapid City, SD, argued, for appellant.
Robert Aaron Mandel, Rapid City, SD, argued, for appellees.
Before McMILLIAN, WOLLMAN and MAGILL, Circuit Judges.
McMILLIAN, Circuit Judge.
Jon C. Sharps appeals from a final judgment entered in the United States District Court 1 for the District of South Dakota dismissing his amended complaint which sought injunctive relief against the United States Forest Service and individual Forest Service officers (Forest Service). For reversal, Sharps argues the district court erred in dismissing his amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
I. BACKGROUND
The Nebraska National Forest, a part of the National Forest System, is located in northwest Nebraska and southwest South Dakota. The Buffalo Gap National Grasslands is a subdivision of the Nebraska National Forest located in South Dakota and managed as part of the National Forest System. 36 C.F.R. Sec. 213.1(b). The western half of the Buffalo Gap National Grasslands is administered by the Fall River Ranger District.
In August 1989 a decision notice was issued by the Forest Supervisor for the Nebraska National Forest which amended the Nebraska National Forest's Land & Resource Management Plan of 1984 (LRMP) and altered the manner in which the black-tailed prairie dogs were managed in the forest. The August 1989 decision, among other things, contemplated a consolidation of prairie dog colonies and a one-mile buffer zone between the colonies and private or Indian lands adjacent to the Nebraska National Forest. Prior to finalizing the August 1989 decision, the Forest Supervisor for the Nebraska National Forest ordered an Environmental Assessment (EA) to be prepared pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 4321 et seq., to analyze the environmental effects of the suggested changes. The EA concluded with a finding of no significant impact, thus precluding the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). 2
Also prior to finalizing the August 1989 decision, the Forest Supervisor for the Nebraska
Page 853
National Forest created a public involvement group to identify public concerns, of which Sharps, a wildlife biologist, was a member. The public involvement group developed several alternatives, and, ultimately, it unanimously recommended to the Forest Supervisor one of their alternative proposals (Alternative 7). On August 17, 1989, Alternative 7 was adopted by the Forest Supervisor as the management plan for the black-tailed prairie dog in the Nebraska National Forest. Sharps did not administratively appeal this final August 1989 decision.In October 1990 a decision memorandum was published by the District Ranger for the Fall River Ranger District which established a district plan to bring the Fall River Ranger District into compliance with the final August 1989 decision. In November 1990 Sharps administratively appealed the October 1990 decision pursuant to 36 C.F.R. Sec. 217 et seq. The Forest Supervisor upheld the October 1990 decision, and Sharps filed a second-level administrative appeal which was denied by the Regional Forester. The Chief of the Forest Service declined to exercise discretionary review of the Regional Forester's decision. See 36 C.F.R. Sec. 217.17.
In September 1991 Sharps filed a complaint in federal district court seeking to enjoin the Forest Service from enforcing the prairie dog management plan. Sharps alleged that the August 1989 decision notice, and accompanying October 1990 decision memorandum implementing the August 1989 decision, violated NEPA, the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA), Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1531 et seq., Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668 et seq., Migratory Bird Treaty, 16 U.S.C. Sec. 703 et seq., and Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 706(2) (APA). The Forest Service filed a motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment. The district court dismissed the complaint because it alleged claims based upon the August 1989 decision, and Sharps had failed to exhaust administrative remedies with respect to that decision. Because...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Murphy v. I.R.S., No. CIV.A. 03-02414(RCL).
...agencies are afforded an opportunity to address their own error without judicial intervention." Sharps v. United States Forest Service., 28 F.3d 851, 854 (8th Several specific requirements exist for a tax dispute case. First, the litigant must "pay first and litigate later." Flora v. United......
-
Kentucky Heartwood, Inc. v. Worthington, Civil Action No. 97-378.
...from contesting said sales in this Court. See Glisson v. U.S. Forest Service, 55 F.3d 1325 (7th Cir.1995); Sharps v. U.S. Forest Service, 28 F.3d 851 (8th Cir.1994). Furthermore, KFIA argues that plaintiffs are also prohibited from raising any issue in this Court which they failed to raise ......
-
Sierra Club v. Martin, No. CIV.A.1:96-CV-926TWT.
...37-8, 73 S.Ct. 67, 97 L.Ed. 54 (1952); Glisson v. U.S. Forest Service, 55 F.3d 1325, 1326 (7th Cir.1995); Sharps v. U.S. Forest Service, 28 F.3d 851, 854-55 (8th Cir.1994). Therefore, this claim will not be considered and the Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Brief [Doc. No. 84] is III.......
-
Sierra Club v. Bosworth, No. CIV. 03-3572(MJD/JSM).
...are afforded an opportunity to Page 916 address their own errors without judicial intervention." Sharps v. United States Forest Serv., 28 F.3d 851, 854 (8th Cir.1994). Objections to agency actions that a party does not raise administratively cannot properly be raised in court. Dep't of Tran......
-
Environment Now! v. Espy, No. CV-F-94-5474 OWW.
...219.27, because only challenges to regional guides or forest plans may be brought under those provisions. Sharps v. U.S. Forest Service, 28 F.3d 851 (8th Cir.1994). Sharps lends further support to the analysis in Tulare County Audubon Society, CV-90-628-OWW. Plaintiff has not shown a likeli......
-
Murphy v. I.R.S., No. CIV.A. 03-02414(RCL).
...agencies are afforded an opportunity to address their own error without judicial intervention." Sharps v. United States Forest Service., 28 F.3d 851, 854 (8th Several specific requirements exist for a tax dispute case. First, the litigant must "pay first and litigate later." Flora v. United......
-
Sierra Club v. Bosworth, No. CIV. 03-3572(MJD/JSM).
...are afforded an opportunity to Page 916 address their own errors without judicial intervention." Sharps v. United States Forest Serv., 28 F.3d 851, 854 (8th Cir.1994). Objections to agency actions that a party does not raise administratively cannot properly be raised in court. Dep't of Tran......
-
Kentucky Heartwood, Inc. v. Worthington, Civil Action No. 97-378.
...from contesting said sales in this Court. See Glisson v. U.S. Forest Service, 55 F.3d 1325 (7th Cir.1995); Sharps v. U.S. Forest Service, 28 F.3d 851 (8th Cir.1994). Furthermore, KFIA argues that plaintiffs are also prohibited from raising any issue in this Court which they failed to raise ......