866 F. Supp. 2d 1209
D. Idaho2012Background
- Canada lynx listed as threatened; LAUs govern habitat restrictions on Forest Service lands in CTNF.
- 2005 LAU map revised Island Park/ Centennial Mountain areas, removing about 390,900 acres from LAU protection.
- Split Creek Precommercial Thinning Project approved Dec 2007, relying on the 2005 map; later withdrawn in 2008 for public comment.
- Final adoption of the 2005 map approved in 2009; no NEPA analysis of the 2005 map itself prior to use in project approval.
- NEPA EA (Dec 2009) concluded may affect, but not likely to adversely affect lynx or habitat; relied heavily on the 2005 map and LAU non-inclusion.
- Plaintiffs filed suit challenging NEPA, ESA, and NFMA violations; court grants partial summary judgment, enjoins Split Creek Project, remands for further NEPA/ESA analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the adoption of the 2005 LAU map require NEPA review? | Kern requires NEPA before using non-reviewed map for project. | Map adoption may be administrative; EA referenced map adequately. | Yes; 2005 map required NEPA analysis before project reliance. |
| Was the EA’s reliance on the 2005 map a proper tiering under NEPA? | Tiering to unvetted map violates NEPA per Kern. | EA incorporated map discussion; map review might suffice. | No; improper tiering, invalid under Kern. |
| Did the failure to analyze the 2005 map under NEPA render the ESA review flawed? | ESA jeopardy/best science analyses hinge on proper NEPA vetting of the map. | ESA review separate from NEPA, relies on map-based conclusions. | Yes; ESA analysis undermined by NEPA defects. |
| Should the project have been enjoined pending proper NEPA/ESA proceedings? | Remand and injunction necessary to prevent ongoing habitat disruption. | Pending project activities may continue; no irreparable harm shown. | Enjoin Split Creek Project; remand to agencies for further NEPA/ESA proceedings. |
| Was there a proper jeopardy determination for the 2005 map under the ESA? | No jeopardy determination addressing removal of LAUs and habitat. | Existing opinions on Lynx Management Direction suffice. | No; failure to assess jeopardy for the 2005 map violates ESA. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kern v. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 284 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2002) (tiering NEPA requirement; cannot rely on non-reviewed broad policy)
- Northcoast Environmental Center v. Glickman, 136 F.3d 660 (9th Cir. 1998) (guidelines not subject to NEPA unless incorporated into action)
- Defenders of Wildlife v. Babbitt, 958 F. Supp. 670 (D.D.C. 1997) (agency must articulate rational basis; NEPA analysis essential)
- Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 462 U.S. 87 (1983) (NEPA twin aims; hard look and public disclosure)
- Amoco Prod. Co. v. Village of Gambell, 480 U.S. 531 (1987) (injunctive remand as appropriate remedy for NEPA/ESA violations)
- Save the Yaak Committee v. Block, 840 F.2d 714 (9th Cir. 1988) (NEPA context; significance of environmental consequences)