Organized Village of Kake v. United States Department of Agriculture
746 F.3d 970
| 9th Cir. | 2014Background
- In 2001 the Forest Service adopted the national Roadless Area Conservation Rule, which applied to the Tongass National Forest and generally prohibited timber harvest and road construction in inventoried roadless areas.
- The Roadless Rule spawned multiple lawsuits nationally, including by the State of Alaska alleging conflicts with ANILCA and the Tongass Timber Reform Act; litigation outcomes created legal uncertainty for the agency.
- In 2003 the USDA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) temporarily exempting the Tongass from the Roadless Rule pursuant to a settlement with Alaska; the exemption had no fixed expiration and remained in effect pending further rulemaking.
- Environmental groups and Alaskan villages challenged the Tongass Exemption under the Administrative Procedure Act, and the district court held the exemption arbitrary and capricious and set it aside.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed: it found the USDA acknowledged the policy change and provided reasoned explanations based on (1) ending or reducing litigation exposure, (2) projected timber demand, and (3) socioeconomic harms to isolated Tongass communities; the case was remanded to decide whether a supplemental EIS is required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the USDA's 2003 ROD exempting the Tongass was arbitrary and capricious under the APA | The exemption contradicted the 2001 Rule and the administrative record does not support the ROD’s stated rationales | USDA acknowledged the change and provided multiple reasonable bases (litigation avoidance, timber demand projections, socioeconomic costs) | Reversed district court; ROD not arbitrary or capricious because reasons were permissible and reasoned |
| Whether the agency adequately recognized a change in policy and furnished a reasoned explanation per Fox Television | Agency failed to supply the detailed justification required when reversing a recent prior position | USDA explicitly acknowledged inconsistency with prior policy and explained its reasons; Fox does not demand perfection, only a reasoned explanation | Court held USDA satisfied the requirement to acknowledge and explain its policy change |
| Adequacy of timber‑demand justification | Plaintiffs say demand projections were speculative and contradicted short‑term market data in the record | USDA relied on long‑term historical averages and expertise to predict demand recovery | Court deferred to agency expertise and found the demand rationale not arbitrary or capricious |
| Whether further NEPA analysis (supplemental EIS) is required | District court did not resolve SEIS necessity because it invalidated the ROD; plaintiffs argued record contradictions required supplementation | Because the Ninth Circuit upheld the ROD, it remanded to the district court to decide the SEIS question in the first instance | Remanded to district court to determine whether a supplemental EIS is required |
Key Cases Cited
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (agency must examine relevant data and provide a satisfactory explanation; arbitrary and capricious standard)
- FCC v. Fox Television Stations, 556 U.S. 502 (agency changing policy must acknowledge change and supply a reasoned explanation; courts defer if agency’s path can reasonably be discerned)
- Bowman Transp., Inc. v. Arkansas‑Best Freight System, Inc., 419 U.S. 281 (court may uphold agency action if any one stated reason is lawful)
- Nat’l Cable & Telecomms. Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967 (agency interpretations may change; initial interpretations are not immutable)
- Wyoming v. United States Dep’t of Agriculture, 661 F.3d 1209 (Tenth Circuit decision referenced in discussing litigation posture and prior injunctions)