`
`
`
`
`
`Paul Kampmeier, WSBA #31560
`KAMPMEIER & KNUTSEN PLLC
`811 First Avenue, Suite 468
`Seattle, Washington 98104
`Telephone: (206) 858-6983
`Email: paul@kampmeierknutsen.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`Marla S. Fox, WSBA #45611
`WILDEARTH GUARDIANS
`P.O. Box 13086
`Portland, Oregon 97213
`Telephone: (651) 434-7737
`Email: mfox@wildearthguardians.org
`
`Attorney for Plaintiff WildEarth Guardians
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
`
`v.
`
`
`)
`CONSERVATION NORTHWEST and
`
`)
`WILDEARTH GUARDIANS,
`
`)
`
`Case Number:
`)
` Plaintiffs,
`
`)
`
`
`)
`
`
`)
`
`COMPLAINT FOR
`)
`U.S. FOREST SERVICE and RODNEY
`DECLARATORY
`)
`SMOLDON, Forest Supervisor, Colville
`AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`)
`National Forest,
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants. )
`__________________________________
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT – 1
`
`
`Kampmeier & Knutsen PLLC
`811 First Avenue, Suite 468
`Seattle, Washington 98104
`(206) 858-6983
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`29
`30
`
`31
`
`32
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00450-RMP ECF No. 1 filed 12/07/20 PageID.2 Page 2 of 85
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION.
`
`1.
`
`This case challenges the decision of the U.S. Forest Service (the
`
`“Forest Service”) to open one-hundred and seventeen miles of roads in the Colville
`
`National Forest (the “Colville”) to all vehicle uses, including wheeled all-terrain
`
`vehicles (“WATVs”). WATVs are recreational vehicles that can be driven on or
`
`off roads and that are often driven through public forests like the Colville. In
`
`general, forest roads in the Colville are closed to vehicle use unless the Forest
`
`Service opens them to vehicle use through formal agency action. In 2019, the
`
`Colville changed the designations for twenty-six road segments from one that only
`
`allowed use by highway-legal vehicles to one that allows use by all kinds of
`
`vehicles, including WATVs. Although the Forest Service recognized these changes
`
`would increase access to and use of forest roads on the Colville—although it
`
`recognized “there is much local interest from individual users, motorized user
`
`groups, and state and local government” to create loop rides “that connect areas of
`
`interest like overlooks, recreational locations, towns and other locations”—the
`
`Forest Service failed to provide formal notice and a formal opportunity to
`
`comment on the proposed changes, and failed to consider the environmental
`
`impacts of increased WATV use in the Colville, before opening the roads.
`
`2.
`
`This case challenges the Forest Service’s decision and the new motor
`
`vehicle use maps the Forest Service published in 2020 to reflect the new vehicle
`
`COMPLAINT – 2
`
`
`Kampmeier & Knutsen PLLC
`811 First Avenue, Suite 468
`Seattle, Washington 98104
`(206) 858-6983
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`29
`30
`
`31
`
`32
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00450-RMP ECF No. 1 filed 12/07/20 PageID.3 Page 3 of 85
`
`
`
`class designations. Plaintiffs allege Defendants violated Section 7 of the
`
`Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1536, by failing to consider whether the new
`
`designations may affect imperiled wildlife, including Canada lynx, bull trout,
`
`grizzly bears, woodland caribou, and Western yellow-billed cuckoo. Plaintiffs
`
`allege Defendants violated the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. §§
`
`4321 et seq. (“NEPA”), by failing to provide sufficient public notice and an
`
`opportunity to comment on the proposed action before adoption, and by failing to
`
`meaningfully consider the environmental impacts of the new road designations.
`
`And Plaintiffs allege Defendants violated the Forest Service’s Travel Management
`
`Rule, 36 C.F.R. Part 212 (“TMR”), by failing to conduct a NEPA process and
`
`consider relevant criteria before revising the road designations.
`
`3.
`
`The Forest Service adopted the new motor vehicle use designations
`
`without grappling with the consequences of the changes through a public,
`
`environmental review process, as governing law requires. This approach stands in
`
`stark contrast with how the Colville and other forests typically revise motorized
`
`use designations. Plaintiffs are concerned that the Defendants’ failures here may
`
`harm the Colville, and may also encourage the adoption of future revisions without
`
`the required public process and environmental review. Accordingly, Plaintiffs
`
`seek declaratory and injunctive relief to invalidate the new road use designations
`
`and use maps, as well as an award of costs and attorneys’ fees.
`
`COMPLAINT – 3
`
`
`Kampmeier & Knutsen PLLC
`811 First Avenue, Suite 468
`Seattle, Washington 98104
`(206) 858-6983
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`29
`30
`
`31
`
`32
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00450-RMP ECF No. 1 filed 12/07/20 PageID.4 Page 4 of 85
`
`
`
`II.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE.
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to the citizen suit provisions of the
`
`Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g), and the judicial review provisions
`
`of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706 (the “APA”). This Court
`
`has jurisdiction pursuant to 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal
`
`question), § 2201 (declaratory judgment), and § 2202 (further relief), § 2412 (costs
`
`and fees) and § 1346 (United States as a defendant). Defendants’ 2019 decision to
`
`change road designations in the Colville is final agency action that is subject to
`
`judicial review under the APA. The motor vehicle use maps Defendants published
`
`in 2020 and that adopt the 2019 changes are final agency actions that are subject to
`
`judicial review under the APA. An actual, justiciable controversy exists between
`
`Plaintiffs and Defendants.
`
`5.
`
`Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because all or
`
`a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims herein
`
`occurred within this judicial district, in Colville, Washington, and because
`
`Defendants’ offices are located in this district.
`
`6.
`
`The United States waived sovereign immunity in this action pursuant
`
`to 5 U.S.C. § 702.
`
`7.
`
`Plaintiffs satisfied the jurisdictional requirements for bringing their
`
`Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) claims. In accordance with 16 U.S.C. §
`
`COMPLAINT – 4
`
`
`Kampmeier & Knutsen PLLC
`811 First Avenue, Suite 468
`Seattle, Washington 98104
`(206) 858-6983
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`29
`30
`
`31
`
`32
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00450-RMP ECF No. 1 filed 12/07/20 PageID.5 Page 5 of 85
`
`
`
`1540(g)(2), by certified letter dated and postmarked September 14, 2020, Plaintiffs
`
`notified Defendants of their alleged violations of the ESA and of Plaintiffs’ intent
`
`to sue for those violations (“Notice Letter”). More than sixty days have passed
`
`since Plaintiffs mailed the Notice Letter. A copy of the Notice Letter is attached to
`
`this complaint as Exhibit 1 and is hereby incorporated by reference.
`
`III. PARTIES.
`
`8.
`
`Plaintiff CONSERVATION NORTHWEST is a regional conservation
`
`and membership organization based in Washington State with a mission to protect
`
`and connect habitat, and to restore imperiled wildlife, from the Pacific Coast to the
`
`Canadian Rockies. Conservation Northwest has over 17,000 members and
`
`supporters, many of whom visit and enjoy the Colville National Forest.
`
`Conservation Northwest maintains offices around the state of Washington,
`
`including in Deer Park and Chewelah in northeast Washington. Conservation
`
`Northwest engages in science-based advocacy, and works on the ground to engage
`
`scientists, agencies, and communities to develop and enact projects that protect
`
`wildlife habitat and restore ecological resilience in forests and watersheds.
`
`Conservation Northwest has a deep and longstanding interest in the Colville
`
`National Forest, where it has worked in collaboration with stakeholders and the
`
`Forest Service on multiple projects related to forest and aquatic restoration,
`
`motorized recreation, and wildlife research and recovery. Conservation Northwest
`
`COMPLAINT – 5
`
`
`Kampmeier & Knutsen PLLC
`811 First Avenue, Suite 468
`Seattle, Washington 98104
`(206) 858-6983
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`29
`30
`
`31
`
`32
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00450-RMP ECF No. 1 filed 12/07/20 PageID.6 Page 6 of 85
`
`
`
`is an active voice strongly advocating for Canada lynx, grizzly bear, wolf,
`
`wolverine, and woodland caribou conservation. Conservation Northwest and its
`
`members have procedural interests in ensuring that all Forest Service activities
`
`comply with all applicable federal statutes and regulations.
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiff WILDEARTH GUARDIANS (“Guardians”) is a non-profit
`
`membership organization dedicated to protecting and restoring the wildlife, wild
`
`places, wild rivers, and health of the American West. Guardians has more than
`
`188,000 members and supporters across the West, including many who reside in
`
`the state of Washington and who visit the Colville. Guardians maintains offices in
`
`several states, including in Seattle, Washington. Guardians has organizational
`
`interests in the proper and lawful management of motorized use on the Colville.
`
`Guardians has a long history of working to protect and restore native wildlife
`
`species across the West, including but not limited to Canada lynx, bull trout,
`
`grizzly bears, woodland caribou, and Western yellow-billed cuckoo. Guardians and
`
`its members have procedural interests in ensuring that all Forest Service activities
`
`comply with all applicable federal statutes and regulations.
`
`10. Plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf and on behalf of their
`
`members and supporters, some of whom live in or near areas affected by the new
`
`motorized use designations on the Colville or visit the area for hiking, camping,
`
`
`COMPLAINT – 6
`
`
`Kampmeier & Knutsen PLLC
`811 First Avenue, Suite 468
`Seattle, Washington 98104
`(206) 858-6983
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`29
`30
`
`31
`
`32
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00450-RMP ECF No. 1 filed 12/07/20 PageID.7 Page 7 of 85
`
`
`
`photography, seeking solitude in nature, observing wildlife in quiet, secure, native
`
`ecosystems, and other recreational and professional pursuits.
`
`11. Plaintiffs’ members, supporters, and staff gain aesthetic enjoyment
`
`from observing, attempting to observe, hearing, seeing evidence of, or studying
`
`Canada lynx, bull trout, grizzly bears, or Western yellow-billed cuckoo, including
`
`observing signs of these species’ presence in the Colville and surrounding areas
`
`and observing ecosystems enhanced by these animals. The opportunity to possibly
`
`view Canada lynx, bull trout, grizzly bears, woodland caribou, or Western yellow-
`
`billed cuckoo, or signs of these animals, in these areas is of significant interest and
`
`value to Plaintiffs’ members, supporters, and staff, and increases their use and
`
`enjoyment of public lands. Plaintiffs, as well as their members, supporters, and
`
`staff, are dedicated to ensuring the long-term survival and recovery of the Canada
`
`lynx, bull trout, grizzly bears, woodland caribou, and Western yellow-billed
`
`cuckoo throughout the contiguous United States, and specifically in the Pacific
`
`Northwest.
`
`12. Plaintiffs’ members, supporters, and staff have engaged in the
`
`activities described above in the past, and intend to do so again in the near future.
`
`Defendants’ decision approves new motorized use designations and activities that
`
`will significantly degrade the natural values currently enjoyed by Plaintiffs and
`
`their members, supporters, and staff. Increased motorized use will disrupt
`
`COMPLAINT – 7
`
`
`Kampmeier & Knutsen PLLC
`811 First Avenue, Suite 468
`Seattle, Washington 98104
`(206) 858-6983
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`29
`30
`
`31
`
`32
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00450-RMP ECF No. 1 filed 12/07/20 PageID.8 Page 8 of 85
`
`
`
`otherwise quiet landscapes, disturb wildlife, and degrade habitat. The legal
`
`violations alleged in this Complaint therefore cause direct injury to the aesthetic,
`
`conservation, recreational, scientific, educational, inspirational, and wildlife
`
`preservation interests of Plaintiffs and their members, supporters, and staff.
`
`13. Plaintiffs’ members, supporters, and staff have an interest in ensuring
`
`the Forest Service complies with all applicable federal statutes and regulations in
`
`making new motorized use designations on public lands. Plaintiffs and their
`
`members, supporters, and staff have an interest in ensuring the Forest Service
`
`follows legally required procedures that involve the public, and that it takes the
`
`requisite hard look at impacts from new motorized use designations to mitigate
`
`potential harms to quiet recreation, imperiled wildlife, and important wildlife
`
`habitat on the Colville. Plaintiffs’ members, supporters, and staff have an interest
`
`in ensuring that the Forest Service fulfills its obligation to manage the Colville in a
`
`manner that does not impair native wildlife that inhabit these National Forest lands.
`
`14. The interests of Plaintiffs, their members, supporters, and staff have
`
`been, are being, and, unless the relief prayed for in this Complaint is granted, will
`
`continue to be adversely and irreparably injured by Defendants’ failure to comply
`
`with federal law. These are actual, concrete injuries, traceable to Defendants’
`
`conduct, that would be redressed by the requested relief. Plaintiffs have no other
`
`adequate remedy at law.
`
`COMPLAINT – 8
`
`
`Kampmeier & Knutsen PLLC
`811 First Avenue, Suite 468
`Seattle, Washington 98104
`(206) 858-6983
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`29
`30
`
`31
`
`32
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00450-RMP ECF No. 1 filed 12/07/20 PageID.9 Page 9 of 85
`
`
`
`15. Defendant U.S. FOREST SERVICE is a federal agency of the United
`
`States within the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The Forest Service is responsible
`
`for managing National Forest lands, including the Colville, and ensuring that
`
`Forest Service activities comply with the ESA, NEPA, and the TMR. The Forest
`
`Service exercised discretion or control in making the decisions challenged herein.
`
`16. Defendant RODNEY SMOLDON is the Forest Supervisor for the
`
`Colville. Defendant Smoldon is responsible for management of the Colville and
`
`the Colville’s compliance with the ESA, NEPA, and the TMR. Defendant Smoldon
`
`exercised discretion or control in making the decisions challenged herein. Plaintiffs
`
`are suing Defendant Smoldon in his official capacity.
`
`IV. LEGAL BACKGROUND.
`
`A.
`
`The Endangered Species Act.
`
`17.
`
`“The ESA is ‘the most comprehensive legislation for the preservation
`
`of endangered species ever enacted by any nation.’ It represents a commitment ‘to
`
`halt and reverse the trend toward species extinction, whatever the cost.’” Ctr. for
`
`Biological Diversity v. Zinke, 900 F.3d 1053, 1059 (9th Cir. 2018) (quoting Tenn.
`
`Valley Auth. v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 180, 184 (1978)) (internal citation omitted).
`
`18. Congress enacted the ESA “to provide a means whereby the
`
`ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be
`
`
`COMPLAINT – 9
`
`
`Kampmeier & Knutsen PLLC
`811 First Avenue, Suite 468
`Seattle, Washington 98104
`(206) 858-6983
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`29
`30
`
`31
`
`32
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00450-RMP ECF No. 1 filed 12/07/20 PageID.10 Page 10 of 85
`
`
`
`conserved ... [and] to provide a program for the conservation of such endangered
`
`species and threatened species[.]” 16 U.S.C. § 1531(b).
`
`19. Sections 4(a) and 4(c) of the ESA, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1533(a), (c), require
`
`the federal agencies that implement the ESA to determine whether any species is
`
`“threatened” or “endangered” and, if so, to list that species as being subject to the
`
`protections of the ESA. Section 4(a)(3) of the ESA, 16 U.S.C. § 1533(a)(3), then
`
`requires the federal agencies that implement the ESA to designate “critical habitat”
`
`for species listed as threatened or endangered.
`
`20. Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires federal agencies such as the
`
`Forest Service to ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not
`
`likely to jeopardize ESA-listed species or destroy or adversely modify critical
`
`habitat designated for such species. 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2). The term jeopardize
`
`means “to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a
`
`listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of
`
`the species.” 50 C.F.R. § 402.02.
`
`21. Before undertaking, funding, or authorizing any action that may affect
`
`ESA-listed species or their critical habitat, the Forest Service must consult with the
`
`appropriate expert fish and wildlife agency, which in the case of Canada lynx, bull
`
`trout, grizzly bears, woodland caribou, and Western yellow-billed cuckoo is the
`
`
`COMPLAINT – 10
`
`
`Kampmeier & Knutsen PLLC
`811 First Avenue, Suite 468
`Seattle, Washington 98104
`(206) 858-6983
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`29
`30
`
`31
`
`32
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00450-RMP ECF No. 1 filed 12/07/20 PageID.11 Page 11 of 85
`
`
`
`U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”). See 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2); 50 C.F.R. §
`
`402.01(b).
`
`22. The ESA’s consultation requirement applies “to all actions in which
`
`there is discretionary Federal involvement or control.” 50 C.F.R. § 402.03.
`
`23.
`
`If species listed under the ESA may be present in the area of agency
`
`action, the action agency must prepare a “Biological Assessment” or “Biological
`
`Evaluation” to determine whether a listed species may be affected by the proposed
`
`action. See 16 U.S.C. § 1536(c)(1); 50 C.F.R. § 402.12.
`
`24.
`
`If the action agency concludes in the Biological Assessment that the
`
`activity is not likely to adversely affect the listed species or adversely modify its
`
`critical habitat, and FWS concurs with that conclusion in a “Letter of
`
`Concurrence,” then the consultation is complete. 50 C.F.R. §§ 402.12; 402.14(b).
`
`If, however, the action agency or FWS determines that the activity is likely to
`
`adversely affect listed species or its critical habitat, then FWS must complete a
`
`“Biological Opinion” to determine whether the activity will jeopardize the species
`
`or result in destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. Id. § 402.14.
`
`25. During consultation, the ESA prohibits federal agencies from making
`
`any irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources with respect to the
`
`proposed agency action that would have the effect of foreclosing the formulation
`
`
`COMPLAINT – 11
`
`
`Kampmeier & Knutsen PLLC
`811 First Avenue, Suite 468
`Seattle, Washington 98104
`(206) 858-6983
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`29
`30
`
`31
`
`32
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00450-RMP ECF No. 1 filed 12/07/20 PageID.12 Page 12 of 85
`
`
`
`or implementation of any reasonable and prudent alternative measures that would
`
`not violate Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA. 16 U.S.C. §§ 1536(d).
`
`26. Once the consultation process is complete, the agencies have a duty to
`
`ensure that it remains valid. Accordingly, federal action agencies must re-initiate
`
`ESA consultation if “new information reveals effects of the action that may affect
`
`listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not previously
`
`considered,” if the action “is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an
`
`effect to the listed species or critical habitat that was not considered in the
`
`biological opinion,” or if “a new species is listed or critical habitat designated that
`
`may be affected by the identified action.” 50 C.F.R. § 402.16.
`
`B.
`
`The National Environmental Policy Act.
`
`27. NEPA “is our basic national charter for protection of the
`
`environment.” 40 C.F.R. § 1500.1(a). NEPA has two fundamental purposes: (1) to
`
`guarantee that federal agencies take a “hard look” at the consequences of their
`
`actions before the actions occur, to ensure that “the agency, in reaching its
`
`decision, will have available, and will carefully consider, detailed information
`
`concerning significant environmental impacts”; and (2) to ensure that “the relevant
`
`information will be made available to the larger audience that may also play a role
`
`in both the decisionmaking process and the implementation of that decision.”
`
`Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 349 (1989).
`
`COMPLAINT – 12
`
`
`Kampmeier & Knutsen PLLC
`811 First Avenue, Suite 468
`Seattle, Washington 98104
`(206) 858-6983
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`29
`30
`
`31
`
`32
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00450-RMP ECF No. 1 filed 12/07/20 PageID.13 Page 13 of 85
`
`
`
`28. To that end, NEPA requires federal agencies to prepare a detailed
`
`Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) for all major federal actions that may
`
`significantly affect the quality of the human environment. 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C).
`
`29. Under the Forest Service’s NEPA regulations, a proposal is subject to
`
`NEPA when: (1) the agency has a goal and is actively preparing to make a decision
`
`on one or more alternative means to accomplish that goal and effects can be
`
`meaningfully evaluated; (2) the proposed action is subject to Forest Service control
`
`and responsibility; (3) the proposed action would cause effects on the environment;
`
`and (4) the proposed action is not statutorily exempt from the requirements of
`
`section 102(2)(C) of NEPA. 36 C.F.R. § 220.4(a).
`
`30. The Forest Service’s NEPA regulations require scoping in accordance
`
`with the requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 1501.7 for all proposed Forest Service
`
`actions, including those that may be categorically excluded from further analysis
`
`and documentation in an Environmental Assessment (“EA”) or EIS. 36 C.F.R. §
`
`220.4(e).
`
`31.
`
`If a proposed agency action is not subject to a categorical exclusion
`
`(“CE”), then the agency must prepare an EA to determine whether it needs to
`
`prepare an EIS. 40 C.F.R. §§ 1501.4(b), 1508.4, 1508.9; see also 36 C.F.R. §
`
`220.6(c). An EA is a concise public document that briefly describes the proposal,
`
`examines alternatives, considers environmental impacts, and provides a list of
`
`COMPLAINT – 13
`
`
`Kampmeier & Knutsen PLLC
`811 First Avenue, Suite 468
`Seattle, Washington 98104
`(206) 858-6983
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`29
`30
`
`31
`
`32
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00450-RMP ECF No. 1 filed 12/07/20 PageID.14 Page 14 of 85
`
`
`
`individuals and agencies consulted. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.9. If the agency concludes
`
`there is no significant impact associated with the proposed project or activity, it
`
`may issue a Finding of No Significant Impact (“FONSI”) in lieu of preparing an
`
`EIS. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.9(a)(1).
`
`32. NEPA analyses must consider a range of reasonable alternative
`
`actions and thoroughly assess direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental
`
`effects of the proposed alternative actions. 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C); 40 C.F.R. Parts
`
`1502 and 1508.
`
`C.
`
`The Travel Management Rule.
`
`33. From 1982 to 2000, off-road vehicle (“ORV”) use in the United States
`
`increased by over 109 percent, with all-terrain vehicle use growing 40 percent
`
`between 1997 and 2001. 70 Fed. Reg. 68,264, 68,285 (Nov. 9, 2005) (Travel
`
`Management Rule, codified at 36 C.F.R. pt. 212, 251, 261, and 295). As a
`
`consequence, in 2005, the Forest Service overhauled the travel planning process
`
`and finalized its “Travel Management Rule,” which is codified at 36 C.F.R. Part
`
`212. Id. at 68,264. The TMR was meant to revise outdated rules and to minimize
`
`adverse impacts from ORVs in all National Forests in light of “growing popularity
`
`and capabilities of [ORV]s . . . so that the Forest Service [could] continue to
`
`provide these opportunities while sustaining the health of [National Forest System]
`
`lands and resources.” Id. at 68,265.
`
`COMPLAINT – 14
`
`
`Kampmeier & Knutsen PLLC
`811 First Avenue, Suite 468
`Seattle, Washington 98104
`(206) 858-6983
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`29
`30
`
`31
`
`32
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00450-RMP ECF No. 1 filed 12/07/20 PageID.15 Page 15 of 85
`
`
`
`34. The TMR requires that “[m]otor vehicle use on National Forest
`
`System roads, on National Forest System trails, and in areas on National Forest
`
`System lands shall be designated by vehicle class and, if appropriate, by time of
`
`year by the responsible official on administrative units or Ranger Districts of the
`
`National Forest System.” 36 C.F.R. § 212.51(a).
`
`35. All motorized use designations, including revisions of classes of
`
`vehicles that may use a particular road, are to be made only after completion of a
`
`public process that includes notice and comment consistent with agency
`
`procedures under NEPA. 36 C.F.R. § 212.52(a).
`
`36. Under the TMR’s “[g]eneral criteria for designation of” roads, trails,
`
`and areas, the Forest Service:
`
`. . . shall consider effects on National Forest System natural and cultural
`resources, public safety, provision of recreational opportunities, access
`needs, conflicts among uses of National Forest System lands, the need
`for maintenance and administration of roads, trails, and areas that
`would arise if the uses under consideration are designated; and the
`availability of resources for that maintenance and administration.
`
`36 C.F.R. § 212.55(a).
`
`37. The rule also includes “[s]pecific criteria for designation of roads”
`
`under which the Forest Service “shall consider: (1) Speed, volume, composition,
`
`and distribution of traffic on roads; and (2) Compatibility of vehicle class with road
`
`geometry and road surfacing.” 36 C.F.R. § 212.55(c).
`
`
`COMPLAINT – 15
`
`
`Kampmeier & Knutsen PLLC
`811 First Avenue, Suite 468
`Seattle, Washington 98104
`(206) 858-6983
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`29
`30
`
`31
`
`32
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00450-RMP ECF No. 1 filed 12/07/20 PageID.16 Page 16 of 85
`
`
`
`38. The route designation process culminates in the Forest Service’s
`
`adoption and publication of a use map “reflecting designated roads, trails, and
`
`areas” that can be used by motor vehicles in the forest. 36 C.F.R. §§ 212.1, 212.50,
`
`212.56. The use map may cover an entire forest or individual ranger district, and it
`
`depicts routes that are open to motor vehicle use. The Forest Service’s publication
`
`of a use map completes the designation process and results in the official and
`
`enforceable prohibition of motor vehicle use anywhere off of the designated
`
`system. 36 C.F.R. § 261.13.
`
`39. The Forest Service may subsequently revise the designations, but
`
`revisions “shall be made in accordance with the requirements for public
`
`involvement in [36 C.F.R.] § 212.52, the requirements for coordination with
`
`governmental entities in [36 C.F.R.] § 212.53, and the criteria in [36 C.F.R.] §
`
`212.55, and shall be reflected on a motor vehicle use map pursuant to [36 C.F.R.] §
`
`212.56.” 36 C.F.R. § 212.54.
`
`V.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND.
`
`A.
`
`The Colville National Forest.
`
`40. The Colville National Forest is located in Ferry, Stevens, Pend
`
`Oreille, and Okanogan Counties in northeast Washington. It is bordered to the
`
`north by British Columbia, Canada, to the west by the Okanogan-Wenatchee
`
`National Forest, to the east by the Idaho Panhandle National Forests, and to the
`
`COMPLAINT – 16
`
`
`Kampmeier & Knutsen PLLC
`811 First Avenue, Suite 468
`Seattle, Washington 98104
`(206) 858-6983
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`29
`30
`
`31
`
`32
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00450-RMP ECF No. 1 filed 12/07/20 PageID.17 Page 17 of 85
`
`
`
`south by a portion of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. Visitors
`
`to the Colville National Forest seek out diverse recreational opportunities,
`
`including hiking, camping, skiing, mountaineering, biking, hunting, fishing, and
`
`wildlife viewing.
`
`41. A diverse array of fish, wildlife and plants may be present on, inhabit,
`
`or utilize the Colville, including Canada lynx, bull trout, grizzly bears, and
`
`Western yellow-billed cuckoo. FWS listed Canada lynx as threatened under the
`
`ESA in 2000. 65 Fed. Reg. 16,052 (March 24, 2000). FWS listed bull trout as
`
`threatened in 1999. 64 Fed. Reg. 58,910 (Nov. 1, 1999). FWS designated bull trout
`
`critical habitat on the Colville in 2010. 75 Fed. Reg. 63,898 (Oct. 18, 2010). In
`
`1975, FWS listed grizzly bears as threatened. 40 Fed. Reg. 31,734 (July 28, 1975).
`
`FWS listed the southern Selkirk population of woodland caribou as endangered in
`
`1984. 49 Fed. Reg. 7,390 (Feb. 29, 1984). FWS designated critical habitat for
`
`woodland caribou on the Colville in 2012. 77 Fed. Reg. 71,042 (Nov. 28, 2012).
`
`FWS listed the Western yellow-billed cuckoo as threatened in 2014. 79 Fed. Reg.
`
`59,992 (Oct. 3, 2014).
`
`B. Motorized Recreational Use Impacts.
`
`42. Off-road vehicles including WATVs are designed, manufactured,
`
`marketed, and sold for off-road travel.
`
`
`COMPLAINT – 17
`
`
`Kampmeier & Knutsen PLLC
`811 First Avenue, Suite 468
`Seattle, Washington 98104
`(206) 858-6983
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`29
`30
`
`31
`
`32
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00450-RMP ECF No. 1 filed 12/07/20 PageID.18 Page 18 of 85
`
`
`
`43. Motorized recreational use, including the use of WATVs, may result
`
`in numerous adverse environmental impacts. Motorized recreational use may
`
`degrade water quality and riparian health. Motorized recreational use may degrade
`
`air quality. Motorized recreational use may damage soils and vegetation.
`
`Motorized recreational use may spread invasive weeds. Motorized recreational use
`
`may harm fish. Motorized recreational use may harm wildlife. Motorized
`
`recreational use may cause wildfires. Motorized recreational use may harm cultural
`
`resources.
`
`44. The noise of engines from motorized use may disrupt otherwise quiet
`
`forest landscapes. Recreational motorized use with high traffic volume may
`
`increase disruption of otherwise quiet forest landscapes. When travelling in groups,
`
`WATVs create even more noise and disruption. Recreational motorized use with
`
`high traffic speed may increase risks to public safety.
`
`45. Motorized recreational use in the Colville may impair non-motorized
`
`recreationists’ ability to enjoy natural sights, sounds, and smells. Adverse impacts
`
`from motorized recreational use is often disproportionately felt by non-motorized
`
`recreationists. Increased motorized recreational use in the Colville may create
`
`safety hazards for others.
`
`46. Recreational motorized use of roads may fragment wildlife habitat.
`
`Recreational motorized use of roads may displace wildlife due to noise or the
`
`COMPLAINT – 18
`
`
`Kampmeier & Knutsen PLLC
`811 First Avenue, Suite 468
`Seattle, Washington 98104
`(206) 858-6983
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`29
`30
`
`31
`
`32
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00450-RMP ECF No. 1 filed 12/07/20 PageID.19 Page 19 of 85
`
`
`
`presence of motorized engines in an otherwise quiet forest landscape. Recreational
`
`motorized use of roads may cause collisions between wildlife and vehicles.
`
`Recreational motorized use of roads may kill wildlife.
`
`47. Not all operators of off-road vehicles, including WATVs, stay on
`
`designated roads or trails.
`
`C. Motorized Use on the Colville.
`
`48.
`
`In 2008, the Forest Service amended the 1988 Colville Forest Plan, to
`
`allow motor vehicle use only on designated roads, trails, and areas, and issued a
`
`forest-wide motor vehicle us