Yaak Valley Forest Council v. Vilsack

YAAK VALLEY FOREST COUNCIL, Plaintiff, v. TOM VILSACK, Secretary of Agriculture; UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE; U.S. FOREST SERVICE, Northern Region; KOOTENAI NATIONAL FOREST; LEANNE MARTEN, Regional Forester, Northern Region; CHAD BENSON, Forest Supervisor, Kootenai National Forest, Defendants.

No. CV 19-143-M-DWM

United States District Court, D. Montana, Missoula Division

September 28, 2021

OPINION & ORDER

Donald W. Molloy, District Judge.

This case arises out of a dispute over the management of the Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail (“the Trail”), a long-distance hiking trail stretching from Northwestern Montana to the Pacific Ocean, and the parties are specifically concerned with the 165-mile portion of the Trail that passes through Montana's Yaak Valley. The Yaak Valley Forest Council (“Yaak Valley”) alleges that the United States Forest Service violated the National Trails System Act by failing to issue a comprehensive plan for the Trail. Both parties seek summary judgment, and the Forest Service unsuccessfully renews its challenge to Yaak Valley's standing. Because the Forest Service concedes that it has not complied with the comprehensive plan requirements of the National Trials System Act, summary judgment is granted in favor of Yaak Valley on Claims I and IV. The Forest Service is required to prepare a comprehensive plan by December 31, 2023. Yaak Valley's additional requests for injunctive relief are denied.

Background^[1]

In 1968, Congress passed the National Trails System Act “to provide for the ever-increasing outdoor recreation needs of an expanding population to promote the preservation of, public access to, travel within, and enjoyment and appreciation of the open-air, outdoor areas and historic resources of the Nation.” Pub. L. No. 90-543, § 2, 82 Stat. 919, 919 (1968) (codified at 16 U.S.C. § 1241(a)). The Act establishes a national system of recreation, scenic, and historic trails. 16 U.S.C. § 1242(a). Relevant here, “scenic trails” are “located as to provide for maximum outdoor recreation potential and for the conservation and enjoyment of the nationally significant scenic, historic, natural, or cultural qualities of the areas through which such trails may pass.” § 1242(a)(2). Only Congress can designate a national scenic trail. § 1244(a). However, once a trail is designated, the authority to administer it is generally delegated to the Secretary of Agriculture or Secretary of the Interior. See generally id.; § 1246(i).

Within two years of a trail's designation, the appropriate Secretary must submit to Congress “a comprehensive plan for the acquisition, management, development, and use of the trail.” § 1244(e). The plan must address

(1) specific objectives and practices to be observed in the management of the trail, including the identification of all significant natural, historical, and cultural resources to be preserved (along with high potential historic sites and high potential route segments in the case of national historic trails), details of anticipated cooperative agreements to be consummated with other entities, and an identified carrying capacity of the trail and a plan for its implementation;

(2) an acquisition or protection plan, by fiscal year, for all lands to be acquired by fee title or lesser interest along with detailed explanation of anticipated necessary cooperative agreements for any lands not to be acquired; and

(3) general and site-specific development plans including anticipated costs.

Id. While Congress possesses the exclusive authority to designate trails, the Secretary can establish connecting or side trails. § 1245. The Secretary can also relocate trail segments in limited instances, but substantial relocations can only be accomplished by an act of Congress. § 1246(b).

Congress designated the Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail on March 20, 2009. Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 Pub. L. No. 111-11, § 5205, 123 Stat. 991, 1158 (codified at 16 U.S.C. § 1244(a)(30)). The Trail consists of “approximately 1, 200 miles, extending from the Continental Divide in Glacier National Park, Montana, to the Pacific Ocean Coast in Olympic National Park, Washington” and is administered by the Secretary of Agriculture. Id. The Secretary of Agriculture has delegated that authority to the Forest Service. (See, e.g, Doc. 14-1.) Given that the Trail was designated March 9, 2009, a comprehensive plan should have been submitted within two fiscal years of that date. See § 1244(e). As discussed below, no comprehensive plan has been submitted to date.

On August 23, 2019, Yaak Valley filed this suit, alleging that the Forest Service violated the National Trails System Act by failing to prepare a comprehensive management plan for the Trail and failing to reissue the charter for the Trail's advisory council. (Doc. 1.) The Forest Service moved to dismiss, (Doc. 13), and its motion was granted in part and denied it in part, (Doc. 17). Over the Forest Service's objection, the Court determined that Yaak Valley had standing to challenge the Forest Service's inaction but concluded that Yaak Valley's advisory council challenge (Claim II) was moot. (Id. at 6-8.) Now, Yaak Valley's summary judgment motion asserts three claims: the Forest Service failed to prepare a comprehensive management plan (Claim I); the Forest Service unreasonably relied on the Kootenai National Forest Plan (“the Kootenai Plan”) (Claim IV); and the Court should enjoin the promotion of the Trail until a comprehensive plan is in place (Claim V). There is no “Claim III.” The Forest Service argues that Yaak Valley lacks standing so the Court should dismiss on jurisdictional grounds and argues in the alternative that the Court should grant summary judgment in its favor on the merits. The Court heard oral argument on September 21, 2021.

Summary Conclusion

This case distills down to a single question: what is the proper remedy for the Forest Service's failure to comply with the comprehensive plan requirements of the National Trail Systems Act? Yaak Valley overstates the potential remedies the Court may award, while the Forest Service downplays the significance of its nearly decade-long delay in issuing a comprehensive plan and rehashes unpersuasive arguments concerning standing. Under § 706(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”), the Court may order the Forest Service to complete a comprehensive plan by a date certain, and that date will be consistent with the timeline proposed by the parties at oral argument: December 31, 2023. Yaak Valley also requests, seemingly under § 706(2) of the APA, additional “novel” injunctive relief ranging from publicization of the Forest Service's mistakes to compelled consultation under the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) and the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”). But, as explained in detail below, such relief stretches beyond the scope of the injury.

Legal Standard

Because the National Trails System Act does not supply its own standard for judicial review, the APA, 5 U.S.C. §§ 706 et seq., governs its review. See San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Auth. v. Jewell, 747 F.3d 581, 601 (9th Cir. 2014). Section 706(1) of the APA “empowers a court... to compel an agency to perform a ministerial or non-discretionary act, or to take action upon a matter, without directing how it shall act.” Norton v. S. Utah Wilderness All., 542 U.S. 55, 64 (2004) (internal quotations omitted). Such a claim may proceed “where a plaintiff asserts that an agency failed to take a discrete agency action that it is required to take.” Id.

Under § 706(2) of the APA, the “reviewing court shall... hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be ... arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” The review is deferential to the agency, and a court should “not [] substitute its judgment for that of the agency.” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass 'n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983). A decision is arbitrary and capricious “if the agency relied on factors Congress did not intend it to consider, entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, or offered an explanation that runs counter to the evidence before the agency.” Id. A decision is also arbitrary and capricious if it “is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise.” Id. An agency's action is valid if the agency “considered the relevant factors and articulated a rational connection between the facts found and the choices made.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Consistent with the court's obligation not to substitute its judgment for that of the agency, an agency's action may only be upheld on “the basis articulated by the agency itself, ” and the agency must make plain its course of inquiry, analysis, and reasoning. Id. at 50.

Analysis

Despite the Forest Service's protestations to the contrary, Yaak Valley has standing. The Forest Service concedes that there has been a procedural violation, and the evidence included in the administrative record and with the briefing shows that there is a reasonable probability that the Forest Service's violation is causing injury to Yaak Valley. On the merits, the Forest Service concedes that it has failed to comply with the statutory timeline for issuing a comprehensive plan. Such a delay is unreasonable, and under § 706(1) of the APA the Court may impose a deadline for the completion of the comprehensive plan. Further, Yaak Valley seeks relief under § 706(2) of the APA insofar as it argues that the Forest Service's reliance on the Kootenai Plan is arbitrary and capricious. As Yaak Valley acknowledged at the summary judgment...