Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Usfs
907 F.3d 1105 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A site-specific project undertaken by the U.S. Forest Service must be consistent with the governing forest plan's mandatory standards, guidelines, and desired conditions. A project that deviates from these components without a proper plan amendment or a documented, rational explanation for the deviation violates the National Forest Management Act (NFMA).
Facts:
- The Payette National Forest is governed by the 2003 Payette National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan ('Payette Forest Plan').
- The Plan designates land into Management Prescription Categories (MPCs), including MPC 5.1 for landscape restoration and MPC 5.2 for commodity production (timber), each with unique standards, guidelines, and desired conditions for things like tree size and fire management.
- In 2011, the Forest Service proposed, but never formally adopted, amendments to the Plan called the Wildlife Conservation Strategy (WCS), which would have eliminated MPC 5.2 and created a new definition for 'Old Forest Habitat'.
- In 2014, the Forest Service approved the Lost Creek-Boulder Creek Landscape Restoration Project ('Lost Creek Project').
- The Project, for the land it covered, eliminated the MPC 5.2 designation and reclassified all such land as MPC 5.1, thereby changing the governing management rules.
- The Project also adopted and applied the new definition of 'old forest habitat' from the unadopted WCS amendments, rather than the definition in the official 2003 Plan.
Procedural Posture:
- Alliance for the Wild Rockies, along with other environmental groups, filed a lawsuit against the United States Forest Service in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho.
- The plaintiffs alleged violations of the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
- Adams County and the Payette Forest Coalition joined the lawsuit as Intervenor-Defendants, siding with the Forest Service.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Forest Service and the intervenors on all claims.
- The district court denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment and entered a final judgment.
- The Alliance for the Wild Rockies, as appellant, appealed the district court's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the U.S. Forest Service violate the National Forest Management Act when it approves a site-specific project that deviates from the governing forest plan's mandatory standards, guidelines, and desired conditions without amending the plan or providing a rational explanation for the deviation?
Opinions:
Majority - Murguia, Circuit Judge
Yes. The Forest Service's approval of the Lost Creek Project violates the National Forest Management Act because the project is inconsistent with the binding 2003 Payette Forest Plan. The project's elimination of Management Prescription Category (MPC) 5.2 and its adoption of a new definition for 'old forest habitat' constitute impermissible deviations from the Plan's standards, guidelines, and desired conditions. The switch from MPC 5.2 to 5.1 eliminated a binding fire standard, which is a per se violation of the NFMA's consistency requirement. The project also eliminated a fire guideline without providing the contractually required 'rational for deviation.' Furthermore, the project replaced the long-term 'desired conditions' for vegetation in MPC 5.2 areas with different conditions from MPC 5.1, rather than explaining how the changes would help achieve the original long-term goals as the Plan requires. Similarly, by adopting a new definition for 'old forest habitat' from an unadopted set of amendments, the Forest Service created a project that was facially inconsistent with the Plan's existing standards for maintaining large trees. Because the agency failed to comply with the plan or rationally explain its deviations, its approval of the project was arbitrary and capricious.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle that a forest plan is a binding legal document, not merely a set of aspirational goals. It prevents the Forest Service from using site-specific projects as a 'backdoor' to implement significant policy changes that would otherwise require a formal plan amendment, which entails a more rigorous public review process. The ruling clarifies that any deviation from a plan's standards is a direct violation, and deviations from guidelines or desired conditions require a clear, documented, and rational explanation rooted in achieving the plan's original objectives. This strengthens the ability of citizen groups to hold the agency accountable for adhering to its own long-term management commitments.
