Wilderness Soc'y v. U.S. Forest Serv.

Decision Date21 February 2012
Docket NumberCase No. CV08–363–E–EJL.
Citation850 F.Supp.2d 1144
PartiesThe WILDERNESS SOCIETY and Prairie Falcon Audubon, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. The UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, et al., Defendants, and Magic Valley Trail Machine Association, an Idaho non-profit Corporation; Idaho Recreation Council, and Idaho unincorporated non-profit association; and BlueRibbon Coalition, Inc., an Idaho non-profit corporation, Intervenor–Applicants.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Idaho

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Erik Schlenker–Goodrich, Taos, NM, Scott W. Reed, Coeur D'Alene, ID, David A. Bahr, Bahr Law Offices, P.C., Eugene, OR, for Plaintiffs.

Beverly F. Li, Jason Alan Hill, US Department of Justice/Environment & Natural Resources Div., Washington, DC, Robert H. Foster, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Denver, CO, for Defendants.

Paul A. Turcke, Moore, Smith, Buxton & Turcke, Boise, ID, for IntervenorApplicants.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

EDWARD J. LODGE, District Judge.

Pending before the Court in the above-entitled matter are the Cross–Motions for Summary Judgment filed by the parties in this environmental case. The matters have been fully briefed and are ripe for the Court's consideration. Having fully reviewed the record, the Court finds that the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in the briefs and record. Accordingly, in the interest of avoiding further delay, and because the Court conclusively finds that the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument, the Motions shall be decided on the record before this Court without a hearing.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On August 29, 2008, Plaintiffs, The Wilderness Society and Prairie Falcon Audubon, Inc., filed the Complaint in this matter challenging the United States Forest Service's (Forest Service) actions and decisions made in relation to its February 22, 2008 Decision Notice (“DN”), Finding of No Significant Impact (“FONSI”), and Environmental Assessment (“EA”). (Dkt. 1.) 1 These actions and decisions resulted in the project action at issue here, the Sawtooth National Forest Travel Plan Route Designation Revision (“Travel Plan Revision”), which designated 1,196 miles of roads and trails for motorized recreation use on the Minidoka Ranger District of the Sawtooth National Forest in Idaho. Plaintiffs claim the Defendants' decisions and actions violate the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.;the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.; the Clean Water Act (“CWA”), 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.; National Forest Management Act (“NFMA”), 16 U.S.C. § 1600 et seq.;Executive Order 11644, as amended by Executive Order 11989; and implementing regulations of these statutes and executive orders. (Dkt. 1.) Defendants counter that their decisions and actions were in accord and fully complied with the applicable standards and requirements of these statutes. (Dkt. 10.) On March 6, 2009, both parties filed Motions for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. 25, 29.) 2

Prior to the filing of those Motions, however, on February 20, 2009, 2009 WL 453764, the Court denied a Motion to Intervene filed by Magic Valley Trail Machine Association, Idaho Recreation Council, and BlueRibbon Coalition. (Dkt. 23.) The Court also denied a later Motion for Reconsideration of that Order. (Dkt. 49.) A Notice of Appeal was filed as to the decisions regarding intervention causing a lengthy delay in ruling on the pending Motions for Summary Judgment in this case. (Dkt. 27.) That appeal was decided on January 14, 2011, 630 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir.2011). (Dkt. 66.) The Ninth Circuit Mandate issued on March 8, 2011 after which the Court considered and granted an Amended Motion to Intervene. (Dkt. 68, 74, 75.) The Court then, on June 6, 2011, granted the parties' Motion to Renew the Motions for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. 77.) Each side was allowed time to supplement their previous summary judgment briefing after which these Motions for Summary Judgment finally became ripe. (Dkt. 77, 79–87.) The Court has now reviewed all of these materials and finds as follows.

DISCUSSION
1. The Travel Plan Revision

The Sawtooth National Forest (“SNF”), within which the Minidoka Ranger District (“MRD”) is located, established its first travel plan map in 1989. The travel plan map was reprinted in 2002. (TM 1884.) The maps show visitors to the area the system of roads and trails available for their use as well as how and when they could use them. (TM 1885, 8900–01.) The purpose of the project at issue in this case, the Travel Plan Revision, is to revise the current travel plan map to restrict motor vehicle use to designated roads and trails. (TM 1882, 1885.)

The Travel Plan Revision was initiated, in part, in response to the 2005 Travel Management Rule, 36 C.F.R. §§ 212.1–261.55, which mandated certain changes to the management of motor vehicle use on National Forest System lands. (TM 1882, 1885.) Prior to the 2005 Travel Management Rule, motor vehicle use on public lands was largely unregulated resulting in uncontrolled cross-country motor vehicle use, unplanned routes, and damage to the resources. The 2005 Travel Management Rule was instituted to eliminate cross-country motor vehicle use by requiring designation of routes and areas for motor vehicle use. See36 C.F.R. §§ 212.50(b), 212.55. The designated routes are then displayed on a Motor Vehicle Use Map (“MVUM”) which is annually updated and provided to the public. Any motor vehicle use inconsistent with the MVUM is prohibited. See36 C.F.R. § 261.13.

The Travel Plan Revision was also necessitated by the Forest Plan for the Sawtooth National Forest (“SNF Forest Plan”) which directs the agency to manage motorized and non-motorized travel; meet resource objectives and access needs; mitigate road and trail damage; and minimize maintenance costs and user conflicts. (TM 1882, 1885.) Consistent with the SNF Forest Plan, in September of 2004, the Forest Service began phased site-specific travel management planning to address three purposes:

1) to reduce damage to soil, water, wildlife, vegetation, and other forest resources;

2) to reduce conflicts between different types of users; and

3) eliminate cross-country motorized use, designation of roads, trails and areas available for motorized use in all National Forest System lands.

(TM 2324.) Also in September of 2004, the Forest Service began the process of involving the public in developing the initial motorized route proposal.

On July 18, 2006, the proposal was provided to the public and other agencies in the form of a Scoping Document. (TM 759.) The public was allowed to comment on the Scoping Document during the scoping period of July 1, 2006 to September 30, 2006. (TM 1888.) The formal 30–day comment period was held from October 4, 2006 to November 4, 2006. (TM 1889.) A 29–Day courtesy review period was later held from November 1, 2007 to November 30, 2007. (TM 1889, 2327.) Thereafter, in February of 2008, the Forest Service issued the EA on the proposed action. (TM 1866.) On February 22, 2008, the Forest Service issued its DN/FONSI wherein it chose to implement the Proposed Action Alternative 2 as modified therein which designated 1,196 miles of motorized routes in the MRD. (TM 2324.) Plaintiffs filed an administrative appeal of the DN/FONSI which was denied on May 28, 2008. Plaintiffs then filed this action challenging the Travel Plan Revision and the Forest Service's DN/FONSI and EA.

2. NEPA Claims

Because NEPA does not contain a separate provision for judicial review, we review an agency's compliance with NEPA under the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). Ka Makani 'O Kohala Ohana Inc. v. Water Supply, 295 F.3d 955, 958 (9th Cir.2002) (citing Churchill Cnty. v. Norton, 276 F.3d 1060, 1071 (9th Cir.2001)). Judicial review of administrative agency decisions under the APA is based on the administrative record compiled by the agency—not on independent fact-finding by the district court. Camp v. Pitts, 411 U.S. 138, 142, 93 S.Ct. 1241, 36 L.Ed.2d 106 (1973). Courts may resolve APA challenges via summary judgment. See Nw. Motorcycle Ass'n v. United States Dep't Agric., 18 F.3d 1468, 1472 (9th Cir.1994). Summary judgment is appropriate where “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” SeeFed.R.Civ.P. 56(a).

Claims alleging a violation of NEPA are governed by two standards of review. See Price Rd. Neighborhood Ass'n, Inc. v. United States Dept. of Transp., 113 F.3d 1505, 1508 (9th Cir.1997) (finding that two standards govern the review of agency actions involving NEPA); Alaska Wilderness Rec. & Tour. v. Morrison, 67 F.3d 723 (9th Cir.1995). Factual or technical disputes, which implicate substantial agency expertise, are reviewed under the “arbitrary and capricious” standard. Id. (citing Marsh v. Oregon Natural Res. Council, 490 U.S. 360, 376–77, 109 S.Ct. 1851, 104 L.Ed.2d 377 (1989)). Legal disputes, however, are reviewed under the less deferential “reasonableness” standard. Id. (citing Alaska Wilderness, 67 F.3d at 727).

In general, courts must grant substantial deference to the decisions and actions of federal agency defendants in adopting and implementing the certain agency activities. Kettle Range Conservation Grp. v. United States Forest Serv., 148 F.Supp.2d 1107 (E.D.Wash.2001). NEPA “does not mandate particular results, but simply describes the necessary process” that an agency must follow in issuing an EIS. Id. (citing Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 349, 109 S.Ct. 1835, 104 L.Ed.2d 351 (1989)). Accordingly, when an agency reaches a decision based on its expert review of the facts, a reviewing court should determine only whether the decision was “arbitrary or capricious.” Id. (citing Marsh, 490 U.S. at 378, 109 S.Ct. 1851). In other words, “the reviewing court ‘must consider whether the decision was based on a consideration of the relevant factors and whether there has been a clear error in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr. v. Graham
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California
    • September 28, 2012
    ......, Environmental Protection Information Center, Wilderness Society and Klamath Forest Alliance (hereinafter ...Lands Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 88 F.3d 754, 758 (9th Cir.1996). “NEPA emphasizes the ...prohibits the Forest Service from ‘us[ing] mitigation or planned restoration as a substitute for ......
  • Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr. v. Graham, No. 2:11-cv-00439-MCE-JFM
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California
    • September 28, 2012
    ......, Environmental Protection Information Center, Wilderness Society and Klamath Forest Alliance (hereinafter ...Lands Council v. U.S. Forest Serv. , 88 F.3d 754, 758 (9th Cir.1996). "NEPA emphasizes the .... . prohibits the Forest Service from 'us[ing] mitigation or planned restoration as a substitute for ......
  • Friends of the Clearwater, Alliance for the Wild Rockies, & the Sierra Club, Non-Profit Corporations v. U.S. Forest Serv., Case No. 3:13-CV-00515-EJL
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. District of Idaho
    • March 11, 2015
    ...... be harmed if the project went forward without his having the opportunity to appeal." Wilderness Society, Inc. v. Rey , 622 F .3d 1251, 1256 (9th Cir. 2010). Further, "[w]here the recreational use ......
  • Forestkeeper v. Elliott, 1:13–cv–1721 AWI JLT.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California
    • September 25, 2014
    ...1351 (E.D.Cal.2008) (“Rey ”); NRDC v. Forest Service, 634 F.Supp.2d 1045 (E.D.Cal.2007) ; Wilderness Society v. U.S. Forest Service, 850 F.Supp.2d 1144 (D.Idaho 2012). In each of these cases, districts courts found that some level of dissemination of information and acceptance of comment sh......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT