San Juan Citizens Alliance v. Stiles
654 F.3d 1038
10th Cir.2011Background
- CBM project in the Northern San Juan Basin approved by Forest Service and BLM; project area includes 49,000 acres of San Juan Forest; plan anticipates up to 284 wells with roads and facilities over ~40 years; SJCA sues alleging NFMA inconsistencies with Forest Plan and NEPA violations in the EIS; district court side with defendants; appeal concerns ripeness and NEPA sufficiency.
- ROD approved five SUPOs and limited initial development to five wells; further APDs and site-specific analyses will occur with NEPA review; project’s consistency with Forest Plan hinges on site-specific approvals and potential impacts to old-growth ponderosa pine, wildlife habitat, and riparian areas.
- Forest Plan 5% old-growth standard and wildlife/Area 4B, 5B guidelines are used to challenge project; riparian and Area 9A standards are at issue with regard to location and mitigation; EIS discussed mitigation but SJCA argues it’s insufficient for NEPA; court remands ripe NFMA claims while affirming NEPA claims.
- EIS tiering and general mitigation discussion permissible in programmatic EIS for multi-step project; riparian mitigation details deferred to site-specific analyses; agency’s choice of Class I areas for air-quality analysis deferred to agency expert judgments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether NFMA claims are ripe for review | SJCA claims inconsistency with Forest Plan | No ripeness until site-specific approvals | NFMA claims not ripe; remanded without prejudice |
| Old-growth standard viability | Project reduces old-growth ponderosa pine below 5% | 5% standard aspirational, not binding; ripeness required | Not ripe; remanded to dismiss without prejudice |
| Wildlife habitat standards applicability | Project violates Area 4B/5B guidelines | No ripe site-specific link shown | Waived for lack of causal connection; remand without prejudice |
| Riparian standards Area 9A applicability | Bull Canyon road violates 9A; EIS misstates boundaries | Bull Canyon not in Area 9A; Chenery not violated | Claim as to area 9A remanded; Bull Canyon merits rejected on merits |
| NEPA riparian mitigation sufficiency | EIS mitigation discussion was perfunctory | Mitigation discussion reasonably complete for programmatic EIS | Affirmed NEPA claims; mitigation discussion deemed reasonably complete for tiered review |
Key Cases Cited
- Ohio Forestry Ass'n v. Sierra Club, 523 U.S. 661 (1998) (ripeness and delayed review favored where plan did not cause imminent harm)
- Wilderness Society v. Thomas, 188 F.3d 1130 (9th Cir. 1999) (site-specific claims ripe when plan affected grazing decisions)
- Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332 (1989) (NEPA mitigation discussion must be reasonably complete)
- N. Alaska Environmental Center v. Kempthorne, 457 F.3d 969 (9th Cir. 2006) (programmatic EIS mitigation discussion acceptable; tiering permitted)
- Forest Guardians v. U.S. Forest Service, 611 F.3d 692 (10th Cir. 2010) (gives framework for NEPA and agency deference to technical decisions)
- Ohio Forestry Ass'n v. Sierra Club, 523 U.S. 726 (1998) (reiterates ripeness framework and implications for site-specific review)
- Olenhouse v. Commodity Credit Corp., 42 F.3d 1560 (10th Cir. 1994) (standard of review for agency action under APA)
- Rapp v. U.S. Dep't of Treasury, 52 F.3d 1510 (10th Cir. 1995) (presumption of regularity for agency actions in APA challenges)
- New Mexico ex rel. Richardson v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 565 F.3d 683 (10th Cir. 2009) (arbitrary/capricious APA standard applied to NFMA/NEPA actions)