Great Old Broads for Wildernes v. Abigail Kimbell
709 F.3d 836
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- Great Old Broads challenged the Forest Service's record of decision (ROD) re restoring the South Canyon Road as part of the Jarbidge Canyon Project in the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest.
- The project timeline includes prior interventions and settlements, including Carpenter I and Carpenter II, where Great Old Broads sought intervention in settlement talks and review for NFMA, INFISH, EO 11988, and NEPA concerns.
- Infish FW-2 governs fish and wildlife habitat within Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas; INFISH road management standards were at issue because they affect bull trout habitat and RMOs.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the Forest Service on exhaustion and merits; the appeal challenged exhaustion and argued NFMA, EO 11988, and NEPA violations.
- The court held that the administrative exhaustion was satisfied and that the ROD complied with NFMA, EO 11988, and NEPA, reversing on exhaustion but affirming on the merits.
- The Selected Alternative combined elements from multiple draft EIS alternatives and included mitigation changes; Great Old Broads argued the action altered environmental impacts requiring SEIS.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Great Old Broads exhausted administrative remedies | Great Old Broads exhausted via April 13, 2005 letter and attachments. | Forest Service treated attachments insufficient; claims not exhausted under 36 C.F.R. § 215.14(b)(8). | Exhaustion satisfied; appeal considered attachments as part of the record. |
| NFMA compliance with INFISH FW-2 | ROD violated FW-2 by not protecting RMOs; road reconstruction harmed bull trout habitat. | FW-2 applies to fish and wildlife facilities, not roads; ROD complied with INFISH RMOs and allowed deference to agency expertise. | FW-2 does not apply to roads; ROD not NFMA violation. |
| EO 11988 floodplain compliance | ROD did not minimize floodplain harm and failed to relocate or adequately modify action in floodplain. | Agency reasonably minimized harm and provided notice; longstanding use of floodplain location justified. | ROD was not arbitrary or capricious under EO 11988. |
| NEPA SEIS requirement | Significant environmental changes from combining alternatives required SEIS. | Changes were within the spectrum of analyzed alternatives and mitigations were minor variations. | No SEIS required; record showed a reasoned determination. |
Key Cases Cited
- Native Ecosystems Council v. Weldon, 697 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2012) (deference to agency interpretation of own regulations; arbitrary-and-capricious review standard)
- Great Basin Mine Watch v. Hankins, 456 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 2006) (exhaustion and review of environmental claims in NEPA/administrative context)
- Russell Country Sportsmen v. U.S. Forest Serv., 668 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 2011) (NEPA SEIS analysis; framework for substantial changes vs. minor variations)
- Friends of the Clearwater v. Dombeck, 222 F.3d 552 (9th Cir. 2000) (SEIS determination and documentation adequacy; requirement to explain no SEIS)
- Carmel-by-the-Sea v. U.S. Dep’t of Transp., 123 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir. 1997) (EO 11988 procedural requirements; practicability and floodplain considerations)
- Marsh v. Oregon Natural Res. Council, 490 U.S. 360 (1989) (NEPA and the need for rigorous evaluation of environmental impacts)