Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-95-01223/USCOURTS-ca10-95-01223-0/pdf.json

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

---

\ 

PUBLISH 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

LODGETOWERCONDOMTIITUM 

ASSOCIATION, TOWN OF VAIL, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

FILED 

lluited Stata Court ol Appeals Tnth Circuit 

JUN .. 3 1996 

PATRICK FISHER 

Oerk 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 95-1223 

LODGE PROPERTIES, INC., WESTERN ) 

LANDEXCHANGECON.WANY, ) 

CLAYTON YEUTTER, Secreta.ty, U.S. ) 

Department of Agriculture; F. DALE ) 

ROBERTSON, Chief, U.S. Forest Service; ) 

GARY CARGILL, Regional Forester; NEIL F. ) 

MORCK, State Director, Bureau of Land ) 

Management; DELOS CY JAMISON, Director ) 

of Bureau of Land Management; MANUAL ) 

LUJAN, Secreta.ty, U.S. Department of the ) 

Interior, ) 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO 

(D.C. No. 89-N-1098) 

Charles B. White, (Christopher J. Melcher, Brownstein, Hyatt, Farber & Strickland, 

Denver, Colorado, with him on the brief), Petros & White, Denver, Colorado, for 

Plaintiffs-Appellants. 

James S. Bailey, Jr., (Randall M. Livingston with him on the brief), Bailey, Harring & 

Peterson, Denver, Colorado, for private Defendant-Appellees. 

Jacques B. Gelin, (Lois J. Schiffer, Assistant Attorney General, Albert M. Ferlo, Jr., 

Appellate Case: 95-1223 Document: 01019276449 Date Filed: 06/03/1996 Page: 1 
Attorney, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., Henry J. Solano, United States 

Attorney, William R Lucero, Assistant United States Attorney, Denver, Colorado, with 

him on the brief), Attorney, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for federal 

Defendants-Appellees. 

Before BALDOCK, LOGAN, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges. 

BALDOCK, Circuit Judge. 

Plaintiffs Lodge Tower Condominium Association and the Town of Vail, 

Colorado appeal a district court order rejecting their administrative challenges to a 

decision by the United States Forest Service to exchange federal land located in Vail for 

private land located in a wilderness area. We exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S. C. 

§ 1291 and affirm. 

Section 1716 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act ("FLPMA") 

authorizes the Department of Interior and the Forest Service to exchange public lands for 

private lands if "the public interest will be well served by making that exchange." 43 

U.S. C. § 1716(a). Pursuant to this statute, the Forest Service agreed to exchange a 

two-acre parcel of federal land--administered by the Forest Service but located within the 

boundaries of the Town of Vail--for a 385-acre parcel of privately-owned land located 

within the Eagles Nest Wilderness Area The exchange proponent--Lodge Properties, 

Inc. --proposed building an hotel expansion on the two-acre parcel. Western Land 

Exchange Company assisted Lodge Properties, Inc. in the administrative proceedings 

prior to the exchange. 

2 

Appellate Case: 95-1223 Document: 01019276449 Date Filed: 06/03/1996 Page: 2 
Lodge Tower Condominium Association, an unincorporated association of owners 

of condominiums constructed on land adjacent to the two-acre parcel, and the Town of 

Vail opposed the exchange at the administrative level. After the Forest Service rejected 

Plaintiffs' objections and approved the exchange, the Bureau of Land Management issued 

a patent to the two-acre parcel to Lodge Properties, Inc. 

Plaintiffs filed a complaint in the district court seeking judicial review under § 706 

of the Administrative Procedure Act ("AP A"), of the agency proceedings which 

culminated in the land exchange. & 5 U.S. C. § 706. Plaintiffs named as defendants 

federal officials who made the administrative decisions which led to the issuance of the 

patent to the two-acre parcel. Plaintiffs also named the private exchange proponents as 

defendants. Plaintiffs contended that the district court should set aside the exchange 

because it violated FLPMA and the National Environmental Policy Act (''NEPA"). The 

district court reviewed Plaintiffs' contentions under the standards governing judicial 

review of agency action set forth in § 706 of the AP A and concluded that there was "no 

basis for setting aside any agency action in this case." Lodie Tower Condominium Ass'n 

v. Lodge Properties, Inc., 880 F. Supp. 1370, 1387 (D. Colo. 1995). Consequently, the 

district court dismissed Plaintiffs' case. 

On appeal, Plaintiffs contend the district court erred in dismissing their complaint 

because the exchange was arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law. Specifically, 

Plaintiffs argue: (1) the exchange was not in the public interest as required under 

FLPMA, 43 U.S. C. § 1716(a); (2) the exchange violated NEPA because it was premised 

3 

Appellate Case: 95-1223 Document: 01019276449 Date Filed: 06/03/1996 Page: 3 
on an inadequate environmental assessment; and (3) the Forest Service and the Bureau of 

Land Management violated regulations governing administrative stays and issued the 

patent to the two-acre parcel in violation of an administrative stay. Plaintiffs request this 

court to reverse the district court, rescind the patent to the property, order the Forest 

Service to quitclaim the wilderness property back to the private owner, and remand the 

case to the agency for further proceedings under FLPMA and NEP A. 

We review Plaintiffs' challenges to the land exchange under the deferential 

standard set forth in the AP A: "The reviewing court shall ... hold unlawful and set aside 

agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be ... arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of 

discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law." 5 U.S. C. § 706(2)(A). "Review 

under§ 706(2)(A) is narrow, and the agency need only demonstrate that it considered 

relevant factors and alternatives after a full ventilation of issues and that the choice it 

made was reasonable based on that consideration." Mount Evans Co. v. Madigan, 14 

F.3d 1444, 1453 (lOth Cir. 1994). 

We have considered the district court's order, the briefs of the parties, the parties' 

oral arguments, and reviewed the entire record on appeal. After examining the applicable 

law and applying the deferential standards governing judicial review of agency action set 

forth in § 706(2)(A) of the AP A, we find no reversible error and affirm. 

AFFIRMED. 

4 

Appellate Case: 95-1223 Document: 01019276449 Date Filed: 06/03/1996 Page: 4