Facts

In September 2001, the United States Forest Service published a notice of intent to revise certain Land Management Plans for Angeles National Forest, Cleveland National Forest, Los Padres National Forest, and San Bernardino National Forests, the four national forests in northern California, and prepare an accompanying Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). In response, various environmental groups developed a "Conservation Alternative" for evaluation in the forest plans EIS. Subsequently, in May 2004, the Forest Service requested public comment on the draft forest plans and EIS. After the public comment period ended, California's Secretary for Resources, Mike Chrisman, wrote a letter to the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, setting out policy reasons for his recommendation that the designated roadless areas of the forests remain roadless. Chrisman also wrote a letter to the forest supervisors requesting participation in any decision that might result in construction of new roads. Upon learning that the Forest Service was planning to implement projects requiring road building, Chrisman stated these projects should have been presented to the public. The State of California and various environmental organizations filed suit, challenging the support of the plans.

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS:
The State contended that the Forest Service violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) when adopting the revised forest plans without adequate environmental review. Specifically, it argued, the Forest Service did not include adequate analysis of the decisions pertaining to roadless areas and wilderness design in the EIS. Plaintiffs also alleged that the Forest Service failed to include a reasonable range of alternatives in the EIS. The State also alleged the Forest Service did not coordinate with state land and resource management process, as required by the National Forest Management Act (NFMA). The State alleged that the Forest Service ignored the State's policy on roadless areas.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The Forest Service contended that the EIS's analysis was sufficient to meet NEPA requirements. The Forest Service challenged the State's standing to bring the NFMA claim, and also argued that it sufficiently coordinated with state policy.

Result

The court issues summary judgment in part for both plaintiffs and the Forest Service, finding the EIS was issued in violation of the NFMA and NEPA.

Other Information

FILING DATE: Sept. 29, 2009.