OutdoorWire

Extreme Terrain



New on Access Central
S. 1262: Oregon Recreation Enhancement Act
by outdoorwire - 12/24/19 03:17 PM
Support OutdoorWire...
More News on the 'Wire

4x4Voice
4x4Wire
MUIRNet-News
Forum Statistics
Forums19
Topics1,699
Posts1,759
Members47
Most Online695
Dec 16th, 2019
Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 254 guests, and 0 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
WildEarth Guardians v. Provencio, No. 17-17373 (9th Cir. 2019) #1785 03/14/19 03:20 PM
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,844
O
outdoorwire Offline OP
Pooh-Bah
OP Offline
Pooh-Bah
O
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,844
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the Forest Service in an action challenging travel management plans implemented by the Forest Service to permit limited motorized big game retrieval in three Ranger Districts of the Kaibab National Forest.

The panel held that the Forest Service did not violate the plain terms of the Travel Management Rule absent authority requiring a strictly geographic interpretation of the words "limited" and "sparingly." Determining that plaintiffs had standing to bring their claims under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the panel held that the Forest Service took the requisite hard look and its determinations were neither arbitrary nor capricious. In this case, the Forest Service did not violate NEPA by declining to prepare environmental impact statements based on the plans' environmental impacts. Finally, the panel held that the Forest Service satisfied its procedural obligations under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) by conducting the required prefield work, consulting the appropriate entities, and reaching a determination consistent with the evidence before it.

Court Description: Environmental Law. The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the United States Forest Service in an action by plaintiff environmental groups challenging travel management plans implemented by the Forest Service to permit limited motorized big game retrieval in three Ranger Districts of the Kaibab National Forest. The Travel Management Rule, promulgated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture for Forest Service lands, generally prohibits off-road, motorized travel, but permits the “limited” use of motor vehicles within a specified distance of “certain” forest roads for the purposes of camping or retrieval of downed big game animals. The panel rejected plaintiffs’ contention that the Forest Service violated the Travel Management Rule by implementing plans that did not sufficiently limit motorized big game retrieval in the Ranger Districts. The panel concluded that In an action challenging travel management plans implemented by the Forest Service, the Forest Service followed the Travel Management Rule and fulfilled its procedural obligations under the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Historic Preservation Act.

Source: Lexology


John Stewart
Editor, OutdoorWire.com
Vice President, BlueRibbon Coalition
Re: WildEarth Guardians v. Provencio, No. 17-17373 (9th Cir. 2019) [Re: outdoorwire] #1811 05/08/19 05:01 PM
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,844
O
outdoorwire Offline OP
Pooh-Bah
OP Offline
Pooh-Bah
O
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,844
Update:

Justia Opinion Summary

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the Forest Service in an action brought by environmental groups challenging travel management plans permitting limited motorized big game retrieval in three Ranger Districts in the Kaibab National Forest. The panel held that the plans did not violate the Travel Management Rule where the new restrictions constitute a "limited" use of motorized vehicles; the Forest Service complied with the rule by limiting motor vehicle use to a defined set of roads in each District; and the Forest Service did not violate the plain terms of the Travel Management Rule.

Determining that plaintiffs have standing, the panel held that the Forest Service did not violate the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), because the Forest Service's determination that no environmental impact statements (EIS) were needed as to the Districts' travel management plans was reasonable. Finally, the Forest Service did not violate the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), because the Forest Service conducted the required prefield work, consulted with the appropriate entities, and reached a determination consistent with the evidence before it.


John Stewart
Editor, OutdoorWire.com
Vice President, BlueRibbon Coalition






4x4Wire Social:

| 4x4Wire on FaceBook |


OutdoorWire, 4x4Wire, JeepWire, TrailTalk, MUIRNet-News, and 4x4Voice are all trademarks and publications of OutdoorWire, Inc. and MUIRNet Consulting.
Copyright (c) 1999-2019 OutdoorWire, Inc and MUIRNet Consulting - All Rights Reserved, no part of this publication may be reproduced in any form without express written permission
You may link freely to this site, but no further use is allowed without the express written permission of the owner of this material.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.3
(Release build 20190728)
PHP: 7.2.26 Page Time: 0.025s Queries: 14 (0.006s) Memory: 2.8183 MB (Peak: 3.1532 MB) Data Comp: Off Server Time: 2020-01-18 21:00:38 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS