Wild Wilderness v. Allen, No. 14-35505 (9th Cir. 2017)
Wild Wilderness, a group representing non-motorized users, filed suit challenging the Forest Service's approval of the building of Kapka Sno-Park, alleging that the Forest Service had violated both the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The panel held that the case was neither moot nor lacking redressability; the Forest Service did not violate the NFMA because Kapka Sno-Park was not inconsistent with the Deschutes Forest Plan; and the Forest Service did not violate NEPA because the agency complied with the relevant regulations, completed an environmental assessment, and issued a finding of no significant impact. The panel rejected Wild Wilderness's remaining NEPA challenges.
Court Description: Environmental Law. The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the United States Forest Service in an action brought by Wild Wilderness, a group representing non-motorized recreationalists, challenging the Forest Service’s approval of the building of Kapka Sno-Park, a parking lot primarily designed for motorized recreationalists in the Deschutes National Forest in Oregon. The panel held that the case was not moot where Wild Wilderness’s complaint identified several remedies that remained available despite Kapka Sno-Park’s completion. The panel also held that Wild Wilderness’s claims did not lack redressability. The panel held that the Forest Service did not violate the National Forest Management Act by approving the Kapka Sno-Park. The panel held that Kapka Sno-Park was not inconsistent with the Deschutes Forest Plan.
Read the complete decision at Justia