Soc'y v. U.S. Forest Serv. & Tom Tidwell
| Decision Date | 02 March 2017 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 2:16-cv-56-PMW |
| Parties | UTAH NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY & GRAND CANYON TRUST, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE & TOM TIDWELL, in his official capacity as Chief of the United States Forest Service, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Utah |
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the parties consented to have Chief United States Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner conduct all proceedings in this case, including trial, entry of final judgment, and all post-judgment proceedings.1 Defendants the United States Forest Service and Chief of the United States Forest Service Tom Tidwell (collectively, the "Forest Service" or the "agency") have motioned for the court to dismiss the above captioned case pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.2
On September 22, 2016, the court held a hearing on the motion.3 The Utah Native Plant Society and the Grand Canyon Trust (collectively, "Plaintiffs") were represented by Neil Levine and Aaron M. Paul, and the Forest Service was represented by Assistant United States Attorney Jared C. Bennett. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court took the motion under advisement. Now being fully advised, the court renders the following Memorandum Decision and Order.
In 1986, the Forest Service prepared a forest plan for the Manti-La Sal National Forest in southeastern Utah ("Forest Plan").4 The Forest Plan included a proposal to designate the Mount Peale portion of the forest as a Research Natural Area.5 In 1988, the Forest Service designated a 2,380-acre portion of the La Sal Mountain Range the Mount Peale Research Natural Area ("Mount Peale RNA").6 The Mount Peale RNA includes much of the La Sal Mountain Range's highest peaks, ridges, and high alpine tundra.7
In 2013, the State of Utah (the "State") proposed introducing wild mountain goats onto state-owned land adjacent to the Manti-La Sal National Forest.8 Prior to the State implementing its proposal, the Forest Service lodged several objections throughout the State's proposal process, asking the State to delay introducing the mountain goats until further research could be conducted.
In May 2013, the Forest Service sent a letter to the State requesting that the State: (1) develop a statewide management plan for introducing mountain goats and (2) develop specific population goals and objectives for the release location of the mountain goats.9 With the help of the Forest Service, the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources ("DWR") developed a statewide mountain-goat management plan to foster goat introduction across Utah ("Statewide Goat Management Plan").10 On June 4, 2013, the Utah Wildlife Board approved the Statewide Goat Management Plan.11 Subsequently, in August 2013, the DWR completed a La Sal UnitManagement Plan, which governed the State's plans to introduce mountain goats onto state-owned land in the La Sal Mountains.12
In a July 30, 2013 letter to the State, the Forest Supervisor for the Manti-La Sal National Forest conveyed his concerns that mountain goats "may be inconsistent with the National Forest Service policy on the Mount Peale [RNA]; and might impact three Forest Service regionally sensitive plants."13
Similarly, on August 21, 2013, the Regional Forester urged the Director of the DWR to reject the La Sal Unit Management Plan proposal.14 In a letter to the Director, the Regional Forester conveyed his concern that the mountain goats might have an adverse effect on the Mount Peale RNA.15 The letter stated: "Impacts to these habitats from introduced goats appear contrary to the establishment record for the Mount Peale RNA and inconsistent with Forest Service policy regarding management of RNAs . . . ."16 Additionally, the Regional Forester stated that the Forest Service had "serious concern[s] that the additive pressure from current drought cycles and climate change impacts occurring throughout the southwest may impact" plant species in the area.17 If the State was unwilling to delay introduction altogether, the Regional Forester asked the Director to delay his decision until the Forest Service and the State could further study the potential impacts of the goats on the Mount Peale RNA.18
In September 2013, the State disregarded the Forest Service's objections and began introducing mountain goats onto state-owned land in the La Sal Mountains.19 In a letter to theForest Service, the DWR stated that it had "already been working cooperatively with the Forest Service to identify plant monitoring sites and begin monitoring potential goat habitat on the La Sal Mountains."20 Additionally, the DWR noted that "[p]retransplant data [had] already been collected" and that the DWR was "committed to future monitoring, including the establishment of additional monitoring sites, as needed."21 The DWR further noted:
Four other Forest Service RNAs in Utah already support populations of Rocky Mountain goats. Three of those RNAs were established after goats were already present in the area, and goats were transplanted to one of the RNAs after the RNA was established. No negative impacts from goats have been documented on any of these RNAs.22
By 2014, the mountain goats had entered the Manti-La Sal National Forest and the Mount Peale RNA.23 Since the goat introductions, the Forest Service has been attempting to monitor the mountain goats to determine the goats' impact on the Mount Peale RNA and the Manti-La Sal National Forest.24
Plaintiffs are non-profit organizations dedicated to the preservation of ecosystems and landscapes across the Intermountain West.25 In the summer of 2014, Plaintiffs surveyed the Manti-La Sal National Forest and noted the "adverse impacts of the introduced mountain goats on the Mount Peale [RNA]."26 On December 24, 2014, Plaintiffs sent the Forest Service a letter documenting their findings and demanding that the Forest Service remove the goats from Manti-La Sal National Forest.27 Additionally, Plaintiffs argued that the Forest Service had neglected itsregulatory duty to require the State to obtain a special-use permit for use of the national forest.28 On January 16, 2015, after meeting with the Forest Service, Plaintiffs submitted another letter to the Forest Service reiterating their concerns and requesting that the Forest Service take action.29
On May 12, 2015, the Forest Service responded to Plaintiffs' requests.30 The Forest Service reminded Plaintiffs of the states' traditional role in managing wildlife populations.31 The Forest Service acknowledged that its regulations required users of a National Forest System to obtain authorization from the Forest Service for certain uses.32 However, the Forest Service stated that the State "did not release the mountain goats on [National Forest System] land, and therefore were not using or occupying [National Forest System] land at the time of the mountain goat release."33 The Forest Service further reviewed Plaintiffs' adverse impact findings and concluded that Plaintiffs' findings were not dispositive.34
The Forest Service ultimately concluded that more research was needed to determine the impact of mountain goats on the Manti-La Sal Mountain National Forest.35 The Forest Service stated that it had developed a "rigorous five-year monitoring plan to evaluate population trends of four rare alpine plant species, and track shifts in species composition and ground cover in the alpine zone, including the Mount Peale [RNA]."36 The Forest Service's monitoring plan includes "recording direct impacts by grazing animals and uses motion sensing camera todetermine animal species involved."37 After additional fact finding, the Forest Service stated that it would work cooperatively with the State to take the appropriate course of action, including deciding "whether or not removal or reduction in population" of the mountain goats is warranted.38
On June 13, 2015, Plaintiffs petitioned the Chief of the Forest Service to address the State's goat introductions.39 Plaintiffs' petition reiterated their prior demands, insisting that the Forest Service remove the goats, prohibit additional goat introductions, and require a special-use permit to regulate the State's use and occupancy of the Manti-La Sal National Forest.40
On August 7, 2015, the Chief of the Forest Service sent Plaintiffs a letter stating that before the agency could initiate any action, the Forest Service needed to work with the DWR "to gather and evaluate data" sufficient to demonstrate agency action was warranted.41 The Chief reminded Plaintiffs that the Forest Service had no authority to control the State's activities on state-owned lands.42 The Chief further stated that it "has not authorized, and has no plans to authorize, the release of mountain goats on [National Forest System] land in the La Sal Mountains."43
Unsatisfied with the Forest Service's response, Plaintiffs filed the above captioned lawsuit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs' complaint asserts five causes of action regarding the Forest Service's decision to allow mountain goats to be introduced onto land adjacent to the Mount Peale RNA. The Forest Service subsequently filed a motion to dismiss all five claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Under § 706(2)(A) of the Administrative Procedures Act ("APA"), a district court reviews an agency action to determine if it was "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law." 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). To challenge an agency action in federal court, a plaintiff must satisfy the constitutional standing requirements of Article III and the APA's statutory standing requirements. See State of Utah v. Babbitt, 137 F.3d 1193, 1203 (10th Cir. 1998). Under § 702 of the APA, "[a] person suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by...
To continue reading
Request your trial