My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
23G
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
DayForward
>
1-1000
>
23G
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/28/2010 1:32:36 PM
Creation date
6/28/2010 1:29:48 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
4/30/2004
Description
23G
Board Meetings - Doc Type
Executive Session
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
40
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
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 />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.