WildEarth Guardians v. Montana Snowmobile Ass'n
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 10447
| 9th Cir. | 2015Background
- Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest (~3.85 million acres) revised its forest plan in 2009, designating ~2 million acres (60%) open to winter motorized use (primarily snowmobiles); a 2010 ROD implemented travel-management decisions.
- WildEarth (conservation groups) challenged the EIS/ROD under NEPA and alleged failure to apply minimization criteria in Executive Order 11644 (and implementing Travel Management Rule, TMR); intervenors included state snowmobile associations.
- Key environmental concerns: snowmobile impacts on big-game winter range (stress, flight responses, reduced habitat availability, reproductive disturbance) and conflicts with non-motorized winter recreation.
- Administrative record problems: EIS provided only percent-of-range tables, an inaccurate “wolverine habitat prediction” map (not identified as big-game winter-range baseline), and referenced polygon analysis and updated MFWP maps that were not disclosed in the EIS.
- District court: granted summary judgment in part to Forest Service (EIS adequate as to wildlife impacts given agency deference; TMR Subpart C challenge unripe) and granted in part to WildEarth (route-level Executive Order compliance inadequate). Parties appealed; Ninth Circuit reviews de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of EIS disclosure regarding big-game winter range | EIS failed to disclose location/data of winter ranges, relied on incorrect/undisclosed maps, preventing public participation and a hard look | EIS provided tables, qualitative discussion, an appendix map, and later polygon analysis; adequate for public disclosure and analysis | Reversed district court: EIS inadequate — agency failed to disclose underlying spatial data and relied on incorrect/undisclosed sources; remanded |
| Use of non-probative disturbance data (flight-response study) | Table 179 (flight responses) does not show snowmobile effects in winter across big-game species; data incomplete/unavailable | Table 179 and other illustrative data support agency analysis of disturbance effects | Court: table not probative for snowmobile-winter impacts; EIS must acknowledge unavailable/incomplete relevant data; supports reversal on NEPA disclosure grounds |
| Analysis of conflicts between snowmobile and non-motorized recreation | Forest failed to analyze impacts on quiet winter recreation sufficiently | EIS included recreation/travel management section, surveys, ROS analysis, landscape-level comparisons, monitoring and reevaluation plans | Affirmed district court: EIS adequately analyzed recreational conflicts; Forest took a hard look |
| Compliance with Executive Order 11644 / TMR minimization criteria for area designations | Forest did not apply minimization criteria on an area-by-area basis or document how each designation minimized damage/harassment/conflict | Forest points to plan-wide analysis, general standards, and statements that allocations protect key habitats | Reversed district court: Forest Service failed to apply/document TMR minimization criteria for designated areas (must show area-level application/objective of minimizing impacts); remanded |
| Challenge to Subpart C exemption (OSV exemption from Subpart B) | Subpart C is invalid because Executive Order 11644 does not distinguish OSVs from other ORVs; exemption used here | Forest did not rely on Subpart C in this case; challenge is premature | Affirmed district court: challenge unripe because Forest did not invoke Subpart C; no present concrete application to review |
Key Cases Cited
- Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332 (U.S. 1989) (NEPA’s procedural purposes: informed agency decisionmaking and public disclosure)
- Earth Island Inst. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 351 F.3d 1291 (9th Cir. 2003) (NEPA requires agencies to take a "hard look")
- Idaho Sporting Congress v. Thomas, 137 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 1998) (agencies must disclose underlying environmental data/be clear about sources)
- Native Ecosystems Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 418 F.3d 953 (9th Cir. 2005) (agencies may not rely on incorrect assumptions or data in an EIS)
- Lands Council v. Powell, 395 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 2005) (standard of review for agency action on summary judgment)
- Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project v. Blackwood, 161 F.3d 1208 (9th Cir. 1998) (importance of comprehensive up-front environmental analysis under NEPA)
- Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 378 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2004) (APA review of agency regulation implementation)