Russell Country Sportsmen v. United States Forest Service
668 F.3d 1037
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- 2007 Travel Management Plan for 1.1 million acres of the Lewis and Clark National Forest, including the Middle Fork Judith Wilderness Study Area (WSA).
- DEIS in 2006 considered five summer and three winter alternatives, with mileage ranges for motorized use; final plan adopted summer alternative 5 and winter alternative 2.
- Final plan reduced motorized use in the Middle Fork Judith WSA to prioritize non-motorized recreation, citing preservation of wilderness character until designation, and allowed access to private land via a single connected trail network.
- District court held NEPA violation for departing from DEIS range and for significant changes; also held Study Act prohibited enhancement of wilderness character; judgment set aside travel plan in part.
- Montana Wilderness Association intervened; Service and various plaintiff-appellees cross-appealed, and this court consolidated the appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| NEPA: whether supplemental EIS was required | Recreational groups: final decision outside DEIS range and changes require supplemental EIS. | Service: changes were within DEIS range or minor variations; no supplemental EIS needed. | No supplemental EIS required; final decision within DEIS spectrum. |
| Study Act: can the Service enhance wilderness character in a WSA | Maintain wilderness character as of 1977; enhancement violates Act. | Act permits enhancement; it is a floor, not a ceiling. | Act permits enhancement; travel plan does not violate the Study Act. |
| NEPA: whether final mileage figures fell outside DEIS range | Final miles opened for motorized use fall outside DEIS alternatives; violation. | Adjusted counting shows final mileage within DEIS range; no violation. | Final mileage within DEIS range; no NEPA violation. |
| NEPA: whether the dispersed camping rule modification required supplementation | Change to 70-foot/vehicle-length rule not discussed in DEIS; required supplement. | Change is a minor variation within DEIS spectrum; no supplement. | Modification was a minor variation qualitatively within DEIS spectrum; no supplement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Massachusetts v. Watt, 716 F.2d 946 (1st Cir. 1983) (analysis of when adjustments affect cost-benefit and require supplemental NEPA)
- Sierra Club v. Van Antwerp, 526 F.3d 1353 (11th Cir. 2008) (minimizing measures may not require supplementation; within spectrum)
- New Mexico ex rel. Richardson v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 565 F.3d 683 (10th Cir. 2009) (framework for 1502.9(c) substantial changes; CEQ guidance adopted)
- Dubois v. U.S. Dept. of Agric., 102 F.3d 1273 (1st Cir. 1996) (substantial modifications may trigger supplementation)
- Friends of the Bow v. Thompson, 124 F.3d 1210 (10th Cir. 1997) (reductions in environmental impact vs. need for supplementation)
- South Trenton Residents Against 29 v. Federal Highway Administration, 176 F.3d 658 (3d Cir. 1999) (DOT regulation not controlling; context for changes and supplementation)
- City of Sausalito v. O'Neill, 386 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 2004) (APA review and NEPA considerations in agency decisions)
- California v. Block, 690 F.2d 753 (9th Cir. 1982) (two-part framework for evaluating range of alternatives under NEPA)