916 F. Supp. 2d 1078
E.D. Cal.2013Background
- CSERC, TWS, and PEER allege NEPA, APA, TMR, and Executive Order violations in Stanislaus National Forest motorized travel decision.
- Stanislaus National Forest lies in the Sierra Nevada, with NFTS roads/trails designated for motorized and non-motorized use and numerous unauthorized routes.
- Forest Service pursued SMTMD to regulate OHV use, creating a comprehensive NFTS map, including unauthorized routes, and identifying changes to miles open/closed to motorized traffic.
- NEPA process ran from 2007 scoping through 2009 DEIS and final EIS, culminating in a November 12, 2009 ROD approving substantial SMTMD changes.
- Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment; the court addressed standing, NEPA claims (alternatives and cumulative impacts), and TMR minimization obligations, ruling in part for plaintiffs on some NEPA and all TMR issues.
- The court ordered further briefing on remedies for the TMR violation and scheduled a remedy hearing for February 2012.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to sue | Buckley, Morgan, and Sturtevant have specific Stanislaus-area interests. | Plaintiffs lacked injury-in-fact tied to SMTMD in specific areas. | Plaintiffs have standing. |
| NEPA: range of alternatives | Forest Service inadequately narrowed viable alternatives; no-action baseline improper. | Range of alternatives reasonable; plaintiffs’ proposed alternative incorporated partially. | NEPA alternatives analysis not arbitrary or capricious; actions reasonable. |
| NEPA: baseline definition | Baseline NFTS conditions misdefined, including routes not properly reviewed. | No evidence the baseline was improperly defined; agency presumption of regularity. | Baseline accepted; no NEPA flaw shown. |
| NEPA: cumulative impacts | Need fuller analysis of roadless areas and roadless-related impacts; WSR impacts omitted. | No substantial cumulative impacts; past and present road use already accounted; WSRs not exhaustively challenged. | Cumulative impacts analysis adequate for roadless areas; lacks exhaustion for WSRs, but review limited to roadless impacts. |
| Minimization under Subpart B of the TMR | Forest Service failed to actually minimize environmental impacts; ROD lacks linkage to minimization. | Agency reasonably applied minimization criteria; mitigation measures implemented. | TMR minimization requirement not satisfied; action arbitrary and capricious; summary judgment for plaintiffs on this claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lands Council v. McNair, 629 F.3d 1070 (9th Cir. 2010) (arbitrary-and-capricious standard; narrow review of agency actions)
- Westlands Water Dist. v. U.S. Dept. of Interior, 376 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2004) (range-of-alternatives and reasonableness in NEPA review)
- Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior, 623 F.3d 633 (9th Cir. 2010) (NEPA: purpose/need and range of alternatives; no coercive outcome required)
- Cal. Trout v. Schaefer, 58 F.3d 469 (9th Cir. 1995) (NEPA baseline and no-action analysis considerations)
- Native Ecosystems Council v. Dombeck, 304 F.3d 886 (9th Cir. 2002) (administrative-record examination and exhaustion considerations)
- Marsh v. Or. Natural Res. Council, 490 U.S. 360 (U.S. Supreme Court 1989) (narrow X standard for NEPA review; procedural focus)