Gerald Jayne v. Harris Sherman
706 F.3d 994
9th Cir.2013Background
- Idaho Roadless Rule creates five land-use themes (WLR, Primitive, SAHTS, BCR, GFRG) within Idaho IRAs; RACNAC oversaw petitions and recommended Idaho petition approval; FEIS and ROD adopted the modified Idaho Roadless Rule in 2008; FWS issued a Biological Opinion finding no jeopardy to listed species; plaintiffs allege ESA, NEPA, and Wyoming Wilderness Act violations and seek injunctions; district court granted summary judgment for defendants, and Ninth Circuit affirmed adopting district court opinion as its own.
- The Idaho Roadless Rule permits some road-building and timber activities in certain themes (notably BCR and GFRG) while preserving protections in WLR, Primitive, and SAHTS; conflicts center on potential effects to caribou and grizzly bear habitats; plaintiffs challenge the Rule’s programmatic nature rather than site-specific projects; the district court found the Rule lawful and the record supported NEPA and ESA analyses, leading to dismissal of cross-appeals as moot.
- The court also considered whether reliance on future commitments for species protection could render the analysis defective, and ultimately held that the FWS could rely on specific, meaningful assurances from forest supervisors to avoid immediate harm to listed species; the court concluded that such reliance did not render the Biological Opinion arbitrary or capricious.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing and ripeness to challenge Idaho Roadless Rule | Plaintiffs show concrete injuries to use of roadless areas | Rule is programmatic and not imminently injurious | Satisfies standing and ripeness; review proper |
| ESA compliance in Biological Opinion | FWS erred in relying on assurances to protect species | Promises were specific and binding enough to support no jeopardy | No ESA violation; reliance on commitments upheld |
| NEPA compliance in FEIS/ROD | FEIS/ROD failed to hard-look impacts, especially future road-building | Agency budget and data support reasonable projections; agency deference warranted | No NEPA violation; hard-look requirements satisfied |
| Phosphate mining provision and site-specific NEPA | Need site-specific NEPA analysis for mining areas | Irreversible commitment not shown; future analyses at proposal stage | Passes muster under NEPA; site-specific analysis to occur when proposals arise |
| Wyoming Wilderness Act/Winegar Hole analysis | Assignment to Primitive theme improper | Path reasonably discerned; not arbitrary or capricious | Not arbitrary or capricious; reasoning supported |
Key Cases Cited
- Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488 (U.S. 2009) (standing and injury-in-fact requirements; associational standing)
- Wilderness Society v. Rey, 622 F.3d 1251 (9th Cir. 2010) (geographic nexus and injury-in-fact for environmental claims)
- National Wildlife Federation v. National Marine Fisheries Service, 524 F.3d 917 (9th Cir. 2008) (reliance on agency assurances in BiOp allowed under law)
- California v. Block, 690 F.2d 753 (9th Cir. 1982) (NEPA/administrative path; consideration of agency path reasonable)
- Kraayenbrink v. Lands Council, 620 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 2010) (programmatic challenges ripe when final; not dependent on site-specific action)