Ark Initiative v. Thomas Tidwell
409 U.S. App. D.C. 346
| D.C. Cir. | 2014Background
- The U.S. Forest Service promulgated the 2012 Colorado Rule revising Colorado’s inventoried "roadless" areas, adding ~409,500 acres and removing ~467,400 acres (including ski-area acres) to accommodate State-specific concerns and existing ski permits.
- The Aspen Skiing Company holds a 2006 Forest Service authorization (special-use permit/master plan) allowing tree cutting and ski-run development on portions of Burnt Mountain within the Snowmass permitted ski area.
- Ark Initiative filed an "Emergency Petition" two weeks after the 2012 Rule requesting the Forest Service to (a) designate a roughly 1,000-acre Burnt Mountain parcel as roadless (arguing omission was a factual error) and (b) suspend Aspen Skiing Company’s 2006 authorization pending review. Ark argued new evidence showed the parcel met roadless criteria.
- The Forest Service denied the Emergency Petition by supervisor and chief letters, citing the recently completed 2012 Rule (which excluded ski-area lands), prior administrative appeals and litigation upholding the 2006 authorization, and site knowledge of Forest personnel.
- Ark sued in district court seeking injunctive relief; the district court granted summary judgment to the Forest Service and Aspen Skiing Company and denied reconsideration. Ark appealed. The D.C. Circuit affirmed, holding Ark had standing but that the Service’s denial was not arbitrary or capricious and did not require NEPA review or permit suspension.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing | Ark: aesthetic injury from tree-cutting; a favorable ruling (roadless designation) could restore procedural rights and lead a responsible official to restrict cutting | Service/Company: 2012 Rule's grandfathering preserves the 2006 authorization, so roadless designation would not redress Ark’s injury | Ark has standing; its interpretation of the grandfathering provision is non-frivolous and plausibly supports causation/redressability |
| Adequacy of agency explanation under APA (denial of Emergency Petition) | Ark: Service failed to "take a hard look" at new evidence and inadequately explained denying review of parcel | Service: denial rested on recent, extensive 2012 Rulemaking (over 300,000 comments) that excluded ski-area lands and prior administrative resolution; letter provided a brief, reasoned statement | Denial was neither arbitrary nor capricious; Service provided adequate, reasoned brief statement |
| Need for NEPA review | Ark: the boundary decision is a major federal action requiring parcel-specific NEPA analysis of roadless impacts | Service: decision was refusal to revisit a boundary decided in the recent rulemaking, not adoption of a categorical rule requiring new NEPA analysis | NEPA not required here because Service did not adopt a new categorical rule disqualifying ski-area parcels; it relied on the recent rulemaking and prior determinations |
| Suspension of permit under 36 C.F.R. § 251.60 | Ark: suspension necessary to preserve roadless values pending review | Service: no basis to suspend because it saw no reason to revisit prior decision and relied on the 2012 Rule; denial was self-explanatory | Denial of suspension was reasonable and self-explanatory given Service’s view that reopening was unwarranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (constitutional standing requirements)
- Dunning v. Quander, 508 F.3d 8 (de novo review of summary judgment)
- Tourus Records, Inc. v. Drug Enforcement Admin., 259 F.3d 731 (agency must give brief statement explaining denial)
- Butte County, Cal. v. Hogen, 613 F.3d 190 (agency decisions must evince reasoned decision-making)
- United Transp. Union – Ill. Legislative Bd. v. STB, 175 F.3d 163 (standing where plaintiff’s statutory/regulatory interpretation is non-frivolous)