Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-08-05131/USCOURTS-caDC-08-05131-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued January 23, 2009 Decided June 5, 2009 

No. 08-5131 

MONTANANS FOR MULTIPLE USE, A NOT-FOR-PROFIT 

ORGANIZATION, ET AL., 

APPELLANTS

v. 

CATHY BARBOULETOS, FLATHEAD NATIONAL FOREST 

SUPERVISOR, ET AL., 

APPELLEES

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the District of Columbia 

(No. 1:03-cv-01244-TFH) 

Mark L. Pollot argued the cause and filed the brief for 

appellant. Robin W. Grover entered an appearance. 

Michael T. Gray, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, 

argued the cause for federal appellee. Mary G. Sprague, 

Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, and R. Craig Lawrence, 

Assistant U.S. Attorney, entered appearances. 

Timothy M. Bechtold was on the brief for intervenorsappellees. Erin D. Lieberman entered an appearance. 

USCA Case #08-5131 Document #1184004 Filed: 06/05/2009 Page 1 of 8
2 

Before: GINSBURG and KAVANAUGH, Circuit Judges, and 

WILLIAMS, Senior Circuit Judge. 

 Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge

KAVANAUGH. 

KAVANAUGH, Circuit Judge: Several Montana 

organizations and citizens are concerned about the U.S. Forest 

Service’s management of the federally owned Flathead 

National Forest in northwest Montana. They want more of 

the forest to be made available for timbering and recreational 

activities. They filed a lawsuit against the Forest Service. A 

variety of environmental groups intervened against plaintiffs 

on the side of the Forest Service. Agreeing with the Forest 

Service and the environmental groups, the District Court 

dismissed plaintiffs’ complaint. We affirm because plaintiffs 

cannot establish that the Forest Service has violated any 

federal law or otherwise taken action that is arbitrary and 

capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act. On the 

contrary, it is clear that plaintiffs’ grievance lies with legally 

permissible policy decisions made by Congress and the Forest 

Service. Plaintiffs’ plea for a new approach to management 

of the Flathead Forest is therefore best directed to the 

Legislative and Executive Branches. 

I 

The Flathead National Forest occupies 2.3 million acres 

of land in northwest Montana. The United States Forest 

Service, an agency of the Department of Agriculture, 

manages Flathead. 

Two venerable statutes set forth the Forest Service’s 

management goals: the Organic Administration Act of 1897, 

16 U.S.C. § 475, and the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 

1960, 16 U.S.C. §§ 528 et seq. The Organic Administration 

USCA Case #08-5131 Document #1184004 Filed: 06/05/2009 Page 2 of 8
3 

Act instructs the Forest Service to administer national forests 

so as to secure favorable conditions of water flows and to 

furnish the country with a continuous supply of timber. 16 

U.S.C. § 475. The Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act adds 

“outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife 

and fish purposes” to the list of management objectives. Id. § 

528. In addition, that Act requires the Forest Service to 

develop and administer the national forests’ renewable 

surface resources “for multiple use and sustained yield of the 

several products and services obtained therefrom.” Id. § 529. 

The National Forest Management Act of 1976, 16 U.S.C. 

§§ 1600 et seq., establishes a two-stage process by which the 

U.S. Forest Service must pursue those statutory goals. At the 

initial stage, the Forest Service develops a Land and Resource 

Management Plan, also called a forest plan. Id. § 1604(a). 

The Forest Service may amend those plans “in any manner 

whatsoever after final adoption,” provided that changes 

deemed “significant” meet certain substantive and procedural 

requirements. Id. § 1604(f)(4). The Forest Service must 

formally revise the plans at least once every 15 years – 

although since 2001, Congress has repeatedly extended the 

15-year deadlines. Id. § 1604(f)(5); e.g., Pub. L. No. 111-8, § 

410, 123 Stat. 524 (2009). At the second stage, the Forest 

Service analyzes and authorizes site-specific projects 

consistent with the governing plan. Id. § 1604(i); see also 

Ohio Forestry Ass’n, Inc. v. Sierra Club, 523 U.S. 726, 729 

(1998). 

The Forest Service issued a forest plan for Flathead in 

1986. For the past several years, the Service has been in the 

process of revising the Plan. 

As relevant here, plaintiffs raised four claims in the 

District Court related to the Forest Service’s management of 

USCA Case #08-5131 Document #1184004 Filed: 06/05/2009 Page 3 of 8
4 

Flathead. First, plaintiffs complained that the Forest Service 

generally managed the Forest in violation of the National 

Forest Management Act and the 1986 Flathead Plan. Second, 

plaintiffs alleged that the Forest Service has delayed too long 

in issuing a revised forest plan. Third, plaintiffs accused the 

Forest Service of improperly closing various roads and trails 

in the forest. Fourth, plaintiffs contended that the Forest 

Service has repeatedly amended the 1986 Plan without 

complying with certain congressional reporting duties 

imposed by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 801 et seq. 

 In a thorough opinion, the District Court dismissed 

plaintiffs’ complaint. Our review is de novo. 

II 

In this Court, plaintiffs again advance four arguments. 

First, plaintiffs allege that the Secretary failed to carry 

out management activities in accordance with the National 

Forest Management Act and the 1986 Forest Plan. In their 

submission to this Court, plaintiffs characterize this as a 

failure-to-act cause of action under the Administrative 

Procedure Act. 5 U.S.C. § 706(1). But plaintiffs’ complaint 

does not identify a legally required, discrete act that the 

Forest Service has failed to perform – a threshold requirement 

for a § 706 failure-to-act claim. See Norton v. S. Utah 

Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55, 64 (2004). Plaintiffs 

contend only that the Forest Service neglected its general 

statutory and regulatory obligations to manage the forest so as 

to provide for multiple uses and a sustained yield of 

resources. See 16 U.S.C. §§ 1604(e)(1), 1606 note. Such 

conclusory statements amount to nothing more than 

allegations of general “deficiencies in compliance” that “lack 

the specificity requisite for agency action.” S. Utah 

USCA Case #08-5131 Document #1184004 Filed: 06/05/2009 Page 4 of 8
5 

Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. at 66. Plaintiffs’ allegations 

therefore do not support judicial action under § 706(1). 

Second, plaintiffs contend that the Forest Service violated 

the National Forest Management Act by failing to timely 

revise the 1986 Flathead Forest Plan. As plaintiffs correctly 

point out, the Act requires that the Forest Service revise forest 

plans “at least every fifteen years,” which here would mean 

by 2001. 16 U.S.C. § 1604(f)(5)(A). The problem for 

plaintiffs is that Congress has repeatedly extended that 

deadline. The latest extension – passed by Congress and 

signed into law by President Obama on March 11, 2009 – 

provides that “[p]rior to October 1, 2009, the Secretary of 

Agriculture shall not be considered to be in violation of . . . 16 

U.S.C. 1604(f)(5)(A) . . . solely because more than 15 years 

have passed without revision of the plan for a unit of the 

National Forest System.” Pub. L. No. 111-8, § 410, 123 Stat. 

524, 746 (2009). 

To be sure, that latest statutory extension – like the six 

previous ones Congress enacted starting in 2001 – also states 

that “if the Secretary is not acting expeditiously and in good 

faith, within the funding available, to revise a plan for a unit 

of the National Forest System,” the extension “shall be void 

with respect to such plan and a court of proper jurisdiction 

may order completion of the plan on an accelerated basis.” 

Id. But by enacting repeated extensions, Congress has 

necessarily concluded that some delays in revising forest 

plans are justified. Because Congress just enacted the latest 

extension on March 11, 2009 (in effect, pardoning delays 

before that date) plaintiffs presumably have to show that the 

Forest Service has not acted expeditiously and in good faith 

since that date – that is, during the last three months. See 

Biodiversity Assocs. v. Forest Service, 226 F. Supp. 2d 1270, 

1300 (D. Wyo. 2002). Plaintiffs offer no suggestion to that 

USCA Case #08-5131 Document #1184004 Filed: 06/05/2009 Page 5 of 8
6 

effect. And even if the period since 2001 were the relevant 

timeframe for assessing the Service’s actions, plaintiffs have 

failed to allege facts that come close to sufficiently alleging 

either bad faith or lack of expedition. (Therefore, we need 

not decide whether the statutory extension provision requires 

a showing of (i) a lack of expedition and bad faith or (ii) a 

lack of expedition or bad faith.) As the District Court 

correctly explained, the Forest Service has not ignored its 

obligation to revise the Flathead Plan. The complicated 

process to revise the Plan has been underway for several years 

as the Forest Service works to evaluate and incorporate new 

scientific, environmental, and economic information. Some 

delay has been occasioned, moreover, by other litigation over 

which the Forest Service has no control. In sum, plaintiffs’ 

allegations provide no basis for finding that the Forest Service 

has not acted expeditiously and in good faith in attempting to 

revise the Plan. 

Plaintiffs may be frustrated with the seven congressional 

extensions of the 2001 deadline for a new Flathead Forest 

Plan. But their frustration is the result of explicit action by 

multiple Congresses and two Presidents – and cannot be 

redressed by the Judiciary in this Administrative Procedure 

Act lawsuit. 

Third, plaintiffs argue that the Forest Service illegally 

closed certain roads and trails in the Flathead Forest. 

According to plaintiffs, actions by the Service are subject to 

“valid existing rights.” Federal Land Management Policy Act 

of 1976, Pub. L. No. 94-579, § 701(h), 90 Stat. 2743 (codified 

in scattered sections of 43 & 16 U.S.C.). Plaintiffs argue that 

this statutory provision prohibits the Service from closing 

roads that do not belong to the United States. As relief for 

this claim, plaintiffs want ownership of the roads and trails; 

they do not seek compensation for any alleged taking of their 

USCA Case #08-5131 Document #1184004 Filed: 06/05/2009 Page 6 of 8
7 

property. The upshot is that plaintiffs are necessarily 

challenging the United States’ title to the lands. But such a 

claim must proceed under the Quiet Title Act, 28 U.S.C. § 

2409a. The Quiet Title Act provides “the exclusive means by 

which adverse claimants [may] challenge the United States’ 

title to real property.” Block v. North Dakota, 461 U.S. 273, 

286 (1983); see also Shawnee Trail v. Dep’t of Agric., 222 

F.3d 383, 387-88 (7th Cir. 2000); Hat Ranch, Inc. v. Babbitt, 

932 F. Supp. 1, 2-3 (D.D.C. 1995), aff’d sub nom. Hat Ranch, 

Inc. v. United States, 102 F.3d 1272 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (per 

curiam) (unpublished). Because plaintiffs’ complaint does 

not assert a cause of action under the Quiet Title Act, their 

argument regarding the road and trail closures is unavailing.*

Fourth, plaintiffs ask the Court to invalidate an 

unspecified number of previous Forest Service amendments 

to the Flathead Plan because the Service allegedly failed to 

satisfy the reporting requirement contained in the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. That 

Act provides: “Before a rule can take effect, the Federal 

agency promulgating such rule shall submit,” among other 

things, a copy of the rule “to each House of the Congress and 

to the Comptroller General.” 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A). The 

Act, however, also states that “[n]o determination, finding, 

action, or omission under this chapter shall be subject to 

judicial review.” Id. § 805. That latter provision denies 

courts the power to void rules on the basis of agency 

noncompliance with the Act. The language of § 805 is 

unequivocal and precludes review of this claim – even 

 *

 To the extent plaintiffs suggested at oral argument that the 

Forest Service acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner in 

closing certain roads, plaintiffs did not develop that argument in 

their brief, and the complaint does not include such a cause of 

action. We therefore do not consider it. 

USCA Case #08-5131 Document #1184004 Filed: 06/05/2009 Page 7 of 8
8 

assuming that the plan amendments qualify as rules subject to 

the Act in the first place. 

* * * 

We affirm the judgment of the District Court dismissing 

plaintiffs’ complaint. 

So ordered. 

USCA Case #08-5131 Document #1184004 Filed: 06/05/2009 Page 8 of 8