Wild Wilderness v. John Allen
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 17386
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Kapka Sno-Park: a 70-vehicle winter parking lot and short trail connections in Deschutes National Forest, approved by the Forest Service in 2012 after issuance of an Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). Construction completed in 2014.
- Local conflict between motorized (snowmobiling) and non-motorized (cross-country skiing) users around Dutchman Flat/Tumalo Mountain; parking shortages contributed to tensions.
- Forest Service initially scoped and drafted an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for a larger project, but later withdrew the Draft EIS and issued an EA/FONSI for a narrower project focused on providing parking access.
- Wild Wilderness challenged the decision alleging violations of the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), seeking remedies including remand for further NEPA review or closure/remedying of the built park.
- District court granted summary judgment for the Forest Service; Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness / Redressability | Kapka is built, so case is moot and relief cannot redress alleged harms | Completion does not preclude effective relief (remand, closure, or new EIS); mootness burden on defendants | Not moot; effective relief remains available and redressability exists |
| NFMA compliance | Kapka violated Deschutes Forest Plan (winter-use sequence and Recreation Opportunity Spectrum) by enabling motorized use where conflicts persisted | Forest Plan provisions are non-binding guidance; project not inconsistent with plan | No NFMA violation; plan language was aspirational and Kapka was consistent with plan |
| NEPA — withdrawing Draft EIS and issuing EA/FONSI | Forest Service needed to provide a reasoned explanation for reversing course from an anticipated EIS to an EA | No separate procedural requirement existed; draft EIS is not a final agency decision and agency explained why EIS was unnecessary | No NEPA violation; agency satisfied FONSI/EA requirements and was not required to explain why it chose the procedural path from a draft EIS |
| NEPA — adequacy of EA (significance, purpose & need, alternatives) | EA unreasonably narrow (ignoring on-snow user conflicts); significance and cumulative effects require EIS | EA adequately addressed context and intensity factors; purpose could be limited to parking, and alternatives were reasonably related | No NEPA violation; EA/FONSI adequately considered significance, cumulative effects, and a reasonable purpose & range of alternatives |
Key Cases Cited
- Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Bradford, 856 F.3d 1238 (9th Cir. 2017) (standard of review for NEPA harms and de novo review statement)
- Oregon Natural Resources Council v. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 470 F.3d 818 (9th Cir. 2006) (mootness in NEPA context; effective-relief inquiry)
- Cantrell v. City of Long Beach, 241 F.3d 674 (9th Cir. 2001) (defendants bear heavy burden to show mootness in NEPA cases)
- In re Big Thorne Project, 857 F.3d 968 (9th Cir. 2017) (Forest Plan provisions as non-binding guidance)
- Native Ecosystems Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 418 F.3d 953 (9th Cir. 2005) (NFMA consistency requirement)
- Vt. Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 435 U.S. 519 (U.S. 1978) (courts should not impose extra procedural requirements on agencies)
- Ocean Advocates v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 402 F.3d 846 (9th Cir. 2005) (analysis of NEPA intensity factors and one-factor significance)
- League of Wilderness Defenders—Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project v. U.S. Forest Service, 689 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2012) (scope of purpose & need limits the range of alternatives considered)