throbber
Case 2:20-cv-00450-RMP ECF No. 1 filed 12/07/20 PageID.1 Page 1 of 85
`
`
`
`
`
`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

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket