Laserfiche WebLink
High Country Conservation Advocates v. United States Forest..., 951 F.3d 1217 (2020) <br />951 F.3d 1217 <br />United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit. <br />HIGH COUNTRY CONSERVATION <br />ADVOCATES; WildEarth Guardians; <br />Center for Biological Diversity; Sierra Club; <br />Wilderness Workshop, Plaintiffs - Appellants, <br />V. <br />UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE; United <br />States Department of Agriculture; Daniel Jir6n, in <br />his official capacity as Acting Under Secretary of <br />Agriculture for Natural Resources and Environment, <br />U.S. Department of Agriculture; Scott Armentrout, <br />in his official capacity as Supervisor of the Grand <br />Mesa Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National <br />Forests; United States Department of Interior; <br />Bureau of Land Management; Katherine MacGregor, <br />in her official capacity as Deputy Assistant <br />Secretary, Land and Minerals Management, U.S. <br />Department of Interior, Defendants - Appellees, <br />and <br />Mountain Coal Company, LLC, <br />Intervenor Defendant - Appellee. <br />No. 18-1374 <br />1 <br />FILED March 2, 2020 <br />Synopsis <br />Background: Environmental advocacy organizations <br />brought action alleging that United States Forest Service <br />and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) violated National <br />Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Administrative <br />Procedure Act (APA) when they approved mining exploration <br />activities, including road construction, in roadless areas <br />located on national forest lands and modifications to mine <br />operator's lease adding new lands for mine located on <br />national forest lands. The United States District Court for the <br />District of Colorado, Philip A. Brimmer, J., 333 F.Supp.3d <br />1107, entered judgment in defendants' favor, and plaintiffs <br />appealed. <br />Holdings: The Court of Appeals, Lucero, Circuit Judge, held <br />that: <br />[1] Forest Service acted arbitrarily and capriciously in <br />eliminating proposed alternative that would remove roadless <br />portion of project area from mining area, and <br />[2] Forest Service and BLM did not act arbitrarily and <br />capriciously in eliminating detailed study of methane flaring <br />alternative. <br />Vacated and remanded. <br />Kelly, Senior Circuit Judge, concurred in part, dissented in <br />part, and filed opinion. <br />West Headnotes (15) <br />III Administrative Law and <br />Procedure v— Review for arbitrary, <br />capricious, unreasonable, or illegal actions in <br />general <br />Agency action is arbitrary and capricious if <br />agency has relied on factors that Congress has <br />not intended it to consider, entirely failed to <br />consider important aspect of problem, offered <br />explanation for its decision that runs counter <br />to evidence before agency, or agency action <br />is so implausible that it could not be ascribed <br />to difference in view or product of agency <br />expertise. 5 U.S.C.A. § 706(2)(A). <br />121 Administrative Law and <br />Procedure *= Presumptions and Burdens on <br />Review <br />In performing arbitrary and capricious review <br />under Administrative Procedure Act (APA), <br />court must accord agency action presumption of <br />validity; burden is on petitioner to demonstrate <br />that action is arbitrary and capricious. 5 U.S.C.A. <br />§ 706(2)(A). <br />131 Administrative Law and <br />Procedure v— Theory or grounds not provided <br />or relied upon by agency <br />