Laserfiche WebLink
directing only that the determination should be "[b]ased on an analysis of the <br />objectives, guidelines, and other contents of the forest plan." 36 C.F.R. § <br />219.10(f). However, as a general matter we review such an agency detelinination <br />only as to whether it is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise <br />not in accordance with law. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).... Further, in this case the <br />regulation expressly commends the determination of the significance of an <br />amendment to the Forest Supervisor's judgment. 36 C.F.R. § 219.10(f). <br />Cargill, 11 F.3d at 1547. <br />Here, the Forest Service considered whether the proposed amendment would impact Forest Plan <br />objectives and management prescriptions in determining that the proposed amendment was not <br />significant. (See AR -G at 2301A.) The Forest Service reasoned that the amendment would have <br />a relatively short time frame since the entire plan was due for revision within one or two years. <br />Id. While Plaintiffs argue the amendment must be significant because of its impact on the 1.2 <br />mile segment of La Poudre Pass Creek, the Forest Service observed that the amendment would <br />impact a small area relative to the size of the overall planning area. The Forest Service also <br />found that the change brought about the amendment would not affect any Forest Plan objectives <br />or outputs nor affect management area prescriptions. Id. Moreover, the Forest Service has the <br />authority to amend a Forest Plan to allow a project to go forward. See Citizens Committee to <br />Save Our Canyons v US. Forest Service, 297 F.3d 1012 (10` Cir. 2002). Applying the proper <br />deferential standard, this Court cannot say that the Forest Service acted arbitrarily and <br />capriciously in treating the proposed forest plan amendment as a non - significant change or in <br />ultimately amending the plan to allow for implementation of Alternative B. <br />F. WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ACT <br />Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants' decision to grant the Long Draw Easement without <br />terms and conditions requiring the maintenance of minimum bypass flows to the La Poudre Pass <br />-36- <br />