Granat v. United States Department of Agriculture
238 F. Supp. 3d 1242
E.D. Cal.2017Background
- The Forest Service implemented the 2005 Travel Management Rule requiring designation of roads/trails for motor vehicle use; Plumas NF contained ~1,107 miles of user-created (unauthorized) routes prior to the project.
- Agency closed cross-country motorized travel in 2006 while it prepared a Travel Management Plan; it used a “first cut” screening to narrow ~1,107 miles to ~361 miles considered for addition to the National Forest Transportation System (NFTS).
- The Forest Service issued a DEIS in 2008 and a FEIS in 2010, selected Alternative 5, and added 234 miles of motorized trails to existing routes in the Record of Decision.
- Plaintiffs (individuals, recreational organizations, Plumas and Butte Counties) challenged the Plan alleging NEPA, Travel Management Rule, and administrative-law defects (inadequate on‑the‑ground verification, limited alternatives, failure to coordinate with counties, insufficient analyses, inadequate response to comments, need for a supplemental EIS, and improper geographical scope of cumulative impacts).
- The district court reviewed the administrative record under the APA standard (arbitrary-and-capricious review), rejected Plaintiffs’ challenges, denied Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, and granted Defendants’ cross‑motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of “first cut” screening / on‑the‑ground verification | First cut excluded ~697 miles without sufficient site-specific field verification, violating NEPA’s rule of reason and Travel Management Rule factors | First cut was a preliminary screening (not a designation); relied on records, public input, and later fieldwork for routes under serious consideration; Travel Management factors apply at designation stage | Court: first cut reasonable; NEPA’s rule of reason satisfied and 36 C.F.R. §212.55 factors not required at screening stage |
| Range of alternatives considered | Considering only ~33% of unauthorized routes foreclosed a reasonable range of alternatives under NEPA/CEQ guidance | Range judged against project purpose and need (regulating unmanaged motor vehicle travel and limited NFTS additions); Forest Service analyzed multiple action and other alternatives and a no‑action alternative | Court: range of alternatives was adequate and fostered informed decisionmaking |
| OHV ban on Maintenance Level 3 roads | Ban lacked engineering analyses and violated agency procedures; state traffic law interpretation invalid | Agency procedures require engineering analysis when allowing mixed use, not when forbidding OHVs; agency has authority to designate vehicle classes regardless of state law | Court: prohibition reasonable and not contrary to agency procedures or unlawful |
| Coordination with counties and consideration of county roads as connectors | Agency failed to coordinate meaningfully with Butte/Plumas and to analyze connections between county roads and NF routes | Record shows multiple formal/informal meetings, correspondence, and explicit FEIS responses about using county roads as connectors; differences are substantive policy disagreements, not procedural defects | Court: coordination satisfied NEPA and Travel Management Rule requirements |
| Analysis of human/economic impacts | FEIS failed to analyze effects on access for disabled users, firewood gathering, tourism, and dispersed recreation | FEIS contains analyses of economic and recreational impacts, firewood access, and accessibility metrics under alternatives | Court: FEIS took required “hard look” at human environment impacts |
| Responses to public comments | Agency inadequately addressed significant comments (variety of motorized experiences, CORVA, county comments) | Agency responded to significant comments, addressed recreation impacts, county connector use, and law‑enforcement issues; some comments merely acknowledged as not providing new information | Court: agency responses adequate under NEPA (respond to significant comments) |
| Need for a supplemental EIS | Eight changes first appearing in FEIS were substantial and required a supplement | Most changes were minor variations within the spectrum of alternatives or clarifications responsive to comments; not significant new circumstances | Court: supplemental EIS not required |
| Scope of cumulative impacts analysis | Limiting cumulative impacts to Plumas NF ignored synergistic effects with nearby forests | Agency discretion to define geographic scope; using project boundaries is reasonable and within agency expertise | Court: geographic scope was reasonable; no arbitrary and capriciousness |
Key Cases Cited
- Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project v. Blackwood, 161 F.3d 1208 (9th Cir.) (NEPA’s informational and public‑participation purpose)
- Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332 (U.S. 1989) (NEPA ensures a process, not particular substantive results)
- Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390 (U.S. 1976) (courts defer to agency expertise on environmental scope and geographic boundaries)
- Friends of Endangered Species, Inc. v. Jantzen, 760 F.2d 976 (9th Cir.) (NEPA does not mandate specific scientific methodology or courts weighing conflicting science)
- Idaho Sporting Congress v. Thomas, 137 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir.) (agency must support staff conclusions with analysis/data and disclose credible contradictory evidence)
- Lands Council v. Powell, 395 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir.) (agency action arbitrary if it ignores important aspects or offers implausible explanations)
- Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 462 U.S. 87 (U.S. 1983) (arbitrary‑and‑capricious standard: rational connection between facts and agency choices)
- California v. Block, 690 F.2d 753 (9th Cir.) (NEPA’s rule of reason and role of alternatives in fostering informed decisionmaking)
- Headwaters, Inc. v. Bureau of Land Management, 914 F.2d 1174 (9th Cir.) (requirement that alternatives be judged against project purpose and need)
- Great Old Broads for Wilderness v. Kimbell, 709 F.3d 836 (9th Cir.) (minor variations may fall within spectrum of alternatives)
- Russell Country Sportsmen v. U.S. Forest Service, 668 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir.) (agencies may modify proposals in response to comments; some closures are minor variations)