Case ID: f-appx_371/html/0718-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

NATIVE ECOSYSTEMS COUNCIL, and Alliance for the Wild Rockies; Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Tom TIDWELL, Regional Forester of Region One of the United States Forest Service, and United States Forest Service, an agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture; Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 09-35544.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Feb. 2, 2010.
    Filed Feb. 19, 2010.
    Timothy M. Bechtold, Esquire, Bechtold Law Firm PLLC, Missoula, MT, Shannon McDonald, Helena, MT, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
    Mark R. Haag, Esquire, Beverly F. Li, Trial, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Mark Steger Smith, Esquire, Assistant U.S., USBI — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, Peter Whitfield, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendants-Appel-lees.
    Before: W. FLETCHER and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and MOSMAN, District Judge.
    
      
       The Honorable Michael W. Mosman, United States District Judge for the District of Oregon, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Appellants Native Ecosystems Council and Alliance for the Wild Rockies (collectively NEC) appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Appellees Tom Tidwell and the United States Forest Service (collectively Forest Service).

The Forest Service met its NEPA obligation when it determined that the challenged project fell within two of its categorical exclusions. See Bicycle Trails Council of Marin v. Babbitt, 82 F.3d 1445, 1456 n. 5 (9th Cir.1996), as amended (“An agency satisfies NEPA if it applies its categorical exclusions and determines that neither an EA nor an EIS is required[.]”).

Contrary to NEC’s assertion, general citations to General Accounting Office reports regarding the overall economic success of the Forest Service’s timber sale program do not establish a violation of the National Forest Management Act (NFMA). Because “we are not free to impose on [an] agency our own notion of which procedures are best or most likely to further some vague, undefined public good[,]” The Lands Council v. McNair, 537 F.3d 981, 993 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc) (citation, alterations and internal quotation marks omitted), we conclude that the Forest Service’s accounting methodology satisfied the requirements of the NFMA.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.