1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

FRIENDS OF THE FLORIDA TRAIL, INC., 

a Florida Not-for-Profit Corporation, 

 Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO.: 4:20cv______ - ____/____ 

SHAWN THOMAS, in his official capacity 

as the Florida National Scenic Trail Administrator; 

KEN ARNEY, in his official capacity as Regional 

Forester, for the U. S. Forest Service, Southern Region; 

VICKI CHRISTIANSEN, in her official 

capacity as Chief of the U.S. Forest Service;

THE UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, 

a federal agency; and THE UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, a federal

department, 

 

Defendants.

__________________________________________________/

 

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiff, the Friends of the Florida Trail, Inc. (the “Friends”), bring this civil action for 

declaratory and injunctive relief against defendants (collectively, “the U.S. Forest Service” or “the 

Service”) pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701, et seq., for 

violations of the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321, et seq. and the 

National Trails Systems Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1246(b).

2. The Florida National Scenic Trail (“FNST” or “the Trail”) is a 1,400-mile foot trail that 

leads from Florida’s Panhandle in the extreme northwest of the state to the Big Cypress National 

Preserve in the extreme south. Designated by Congress in 1983 as the eighth national scenic trail 

Case 4:20-cv-00481-MW-MAF Document 1 Filed 10/05/20 Page 1 of 12
2

in the United States, the Trail is currently one of only 11 national scenic trails, and is the only such 

trail that traverses tropical and temperate ecosystems. The Trail is also Florida’s official state trail, 

and Florida has designated it the State’s “Millenium Legacy Trail.” The Friends’ President, James 

Kern, first envisioned the Trail in the 1960’s. He founded the Florida Trail Association, and he has 

been instrumental in building, maintaining, and championing the Trail for over 50 years. 

3. Until July 2015, when it was closed to hikers after 32 years of use, the original segment 

of the Trail in Florida’s Big Bend area that naturally connected the Suwanee River, at the Twin 

Rivers State Forest, with the Aucilla River, at the Aucilla National Wildlife Refuge, was known 

as the Foley or Foley/Wachovia Section, and traversed lands owned by commercial paper 

companies. Still, these lands were, according to the Florida Trail Manual, “very isolated, [and] 

actually great areas to see wildlife [along] sand roads.” In December 2015, the majority of this 

land, comprising more than half of Taylor County, were sold. Foley Land and Timber was replaced 

as owner by Four Rivers Land and Timber. As a result of the Trail closure through the former

Foley property, a new 50-mile reroute was quickly fashioned, and is the segment currently used 

by hikers. This initial reroute is now identified by the Forest Service as “Alternative A.” In the 

major federal action being challenged, however, the Forest Service has arbitrarily and capriciously 

rejected “Alternative A,” instead adopting a major relocation for this second reroute, which the 

Forest Service describes as “Alternative C.” “Alternative C” is the major federal action the Friends 

now challenge. In addition to arbitrarily and capriciously rejecting “Alternative A,” the Forest 

Service so rejected the original route of this segment, which was used by the public from 1983-

2015. The Forest Service summarily rejected this original route as “not a viable option,” offering 

no justification or analysis supporting this conclusory finding.

4. On July 24, 2020, the United States Forest Service performed a major federal action 

under NEPA by deciding to replace the approximately 50-mile segment of the Trail identified as 

“Alternative A” - that connected the Suwanee River, at the Twin Rivers State Forest, with the 

Aucilla River, at the Aucilla National Wildlife Refuge - with a 90-mile segment that lies outside 

the approved and natural Trail corridor. The Forest Service deems this major federal action the 

Case 4:20-cv-00481-MW-MAF Document 1 Filed 10/05/20 Page 2 of 12
3

“Big Bend Reroute of the Florida National Scenic Trail” (hereinafter, the “Big Bend Reroute”).

The “Big Bend Reroute” is a substantial relocation of the Trail, as defined by the National Trails 

Systems Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1246(b).

5. The Friends challenge the Service’s: (a) decision to reroute the Florida National Scenic 

Trail by virtue of the federal action known as the “Big Bend Reroute”; (b) decision to forgo both 

an Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) and Environmental Assessment (“EA”), and instead

proceed with a Categorical Exclusion (“CE”) to NEPA; and (c) decision to apply a CE that is 

patently inapplicable to a greater than 90-mile reroute of the Trail. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

6. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 5 U.S.C. § 704.

7. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) & (e), as well as Local 

Rule 3.1(A)(3).

8. The Friends have exhausted all available administrative remedies. Plaintiff has Article 

II standing to pursue this civil action.

9. There is a present and actual case and controversy between the parties.

10. This matter is ripe for judicial review. 

11. Final agency action subject to judicial review exists pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §§ 702, 704, 

and 706.

12. This Court has authority to issue the declaratory and injunctive relief requested by the 

Friends under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 & 2202, and 5 U.S.C. §§ 702 & 706.

PARTIES

13. Plaintiff Friends of the Florida Trail, Inc., is an organization dedicated to protecting 

and improving the Florida National Scenic Trail, and is dedicated to ensuring that the Florida 

National Scenic Trail, as developed, protected, and improved, complies with all objectives of the 

Case 4:20-cv-00481-MW-MAF Document 1 Filed 10/05/20 Page 3 of 12
4

enabling legislation and continues to be a treasured resource for all its users. 

14. Plaintiff Friends of the Florida Trail, Inc., through its members, use the Florida 

National Scenic Trail for recreational purposes. The Friends use the Trail ranging from day hikes 

to 1,400 mile through-hikes along the entire length of the Trail. The Friends routinely use and visit 

the Trail and have specific plans to return to the Trail to hike, enjoy nature, and otherwise take 

advantage of all the Trail’s multiple and varied benefits as a natural resource. The Friends use 

the Trail in accordance with the U.S. Forest Services’ maps and Trail blazes. The Friends routinely 

contact Service personnel about using the Trail. The Friends, through its members, also volunteer 

their time and energy, assist in trail maintenance efforts, and work with the Forest Service to 

improve public access to the public Trail, and intend to continue this work in the near and distant 

future. 

15. The Friends are committed to ensuring the Forest Service complies with its own 

directives and policies and properly manages, maintain, and protects the Trail and public use of it, 

whether for daily use or for use as extended through-hikes. The Friends are committed to ensuring 

the Forest Service complies with all requirements of NEPA and other federal statutes. The Friends 

are committed to ensuring the Forest Service takes a hard look at the environmental consequences 

of its decisions and explores a reasonable range of alternatives, as required by NEPA. 

16. The Friends’ interests in using and accessing the Trail will be adversely affected by the 

Service’s actions and planned future actions as described in this complaint. 

17. The Friends have, among other interests, aesthetic, recreational, and personal interests 

in the use of the Trail as it is currently aligned, and in ensuring public access to the Trail as it is 

currently aligned. The Friends have an interest in ensuring that federal agencies and their public 

employees comply with their own directives, policies, and plans, and take a “hard look” under 

NEPA at all impacts and alternatives to major federal actions before making important and 

significant decisions that affect public resources.

18. The Friends are adversely affected by the Forest Service’s actions and planned actions, 

especially in the absence of full NEPA compliance. The Friends have also suffered procedural 

Case 4:20-cv-00481-MW-MAF Document 1 Filed 10/05/20 Page 4 of 12
5

injury by the Forest Service’s failure to comply with NEPA.

19. If this Court issues the relief requested, the harms to the Friends’ interests will be 

alleviated and/or lessened. Thus, the Friends’ injuries are legally redressible by judicial 

intervention.

20. Defendant Shawn Thomas is sued in his official capacity as the Florida National Scenic 

Trail Administrator for the Forest Service. Mr. Thomas is the agency official responsible for the 

actions and proposed actions challenged in this complaint. 

21. Defendant Ken Arney is sued in his official capacity as the Regional Forester for the 

U.S. Forest Service, Southern Region. As Regional Forester, Mr. Arney is the agency official 

responsible for the actions and planned actions challenged in this complaint, and Mr. Arney is the 

agency official who authored the NEPA Decision Memo concluding that the federal action 

involved in the Big Bend Reroute of the Florida National Scenic Trail was entitled to a categorical 

exclusion (CE), and neither an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or Environmental 

Assessment (EA) under NEPA.

22. Defendant Vicki Christiansen is sued in her official capacity as Chief of the Forest 

Service. As Chief, Ms. Christiansen is the agency official responsible for the actions and planned 

actions challenged in this complaint.

23. Defendant United States Forest Service is a federal agency within the United States 

Department of Agriculture. The Service is responsible for the actions and planned actions 

challenged in this complaint. The Service has overall administrative responsibility for the Trail. 

The Service: certifies that all Trail segments meet standards in federal law and the Trail’s 

comprehensive plan; manages Trail lands; and coordinates Trail planning, development, and 

protections with private Trail partners. 

24. Defendant United States Department of Agriculture is a federal department responsible 

for agency actions and planned actions challenged in this complaint. 

 FACTS

Case 4:20-cv-00481-MW-MAF Document 1 Filed 10/05/20 Page 5 of 12
6

25. In 1968, Congress passed the National Trails System Act (NTSA). 16 U.S.C. §§ 

1241-1251.

26. As part of the National Trails System Act Amendments of 1983, the Florida National 

Scenic Trail was first designated as one of what are currently only 11 National Scenic Trails. 16 

U.S.C. §1244(13). According to the statute, in pertinent part, “The Florida National Scenic Trail, 

a route of approximately thirteen [currently fourteen] hundred miles extending through the State 

of Florida as generally depicted in ‘The Florida Trail,’ a national scenic trail study draft report 

prepared by the Department of the Interior and dated February 1980.” Id. Moreover, “No lands 

or interests therein outside the exterior boundaries of any federally administered area may be 

acquired by the Federal Government for the Florida Trail except with the consent of the owner 

thereof. The Secretary of Agriculture may designate lands outside of federally administered areas 

as segments of the trail, only upon application from the States or local governmental agencies 

involved, if such segments meet the criteria established in this chapter and are administered by 

such agencies without expense to the United States. The trail shall be administered by the 

Secretary of Agriculture.” Id.

27. In the “Florida Greenways and Trails Act,” Chapter 260 of the Florida Statutes, the 

Florida Legislature officially “recognizes the Florida National Scenic Trail as Florida’s official 

statewide nonmotorized trail from the Florida Panhandle to the Everglades and the Florida Keys, 

an approximate length of more than 1,400 miles.” § 260.012(6), Fla. Stat. Moreover, “The 

Legislature also recognizes the significant economic benefit of nature-based recreation and the 

contributions to the state’s economy that arise from the creation and completion of the trail. In 

order to further its commitments to the residents of this state and the United States Government 

to complete the establishment of the trail in a permanent location, it is further the intent of the 

Legislature to: ...(b) Officially recognize the route of the trail for establishment and acquisition 

purposes as determined by the U.S.D.A. Forest Service, assisted by the Florida Trail Association, 

in the publication entitled ‘Preferred Routing for the Florida National Scenic Trail.’” § 

260.012(6)(b), Fla. Stat.

Case 4:20-cv-00481-MW-MAF Document 1 Filed 10/05/20 Page 6 of 12
7

28. The National Trails System Act contemplates that segments of a National Scenic 

Trail may be relocated. 16 U.S.C. § 1246(b). That sub-section provides that, “After publication 

of notice of availability of appropriate maps of descriptions in the Federal Register, the Secretary 

charged with the administration of a national scenic ... trail may relocate segments of a national 

scenic... trail right-of-way, with the concurrence of the head of the Federal agency having 

jurisdiction over the lands involved, upon a determination that: (i) such a relocation is necessary 

to preserve the purposes for which the trail was established, or (ii) the relocation is necessary to 

promote a sound land management program in accordance with established multiple-use 

principles: Provided, That a substantial relocation of the rights-of-way for such trail shall be by 

Act of Congress.” Id. (emphasis added). The “Big Bend Reroute,” by creating a new 90-mile 

segment of the Trail, clearly constitutes a “substantial relocation” requiring congressional, not 

administrative, authorization.

29. The Forest Service has issued a white paper entitled the “Florida National Scenic 

Trail Optimal Location Review Process Guidelines” (hereinafter “OLR Guidelines”). The 

document outlines the format, process, and location criteria for an Optimal Location Review 

(OLR) of the Florida National Scenic Trail, a process that is “critical for ensuring that the trail is 

located in the setting that best meets the congressional intent for a National Scenic Trail.” The 

OLR Guidelines provided, further, that, “Actual relocation of the FNST will require an 

environmental analysis, and significant relocation proposals will require USFS Chief or 

Congressional approval.” (Emphasis added).

30. In 1987, the Forest Service published its Florida National Scenic Trail

Comprehensive Plan, which in part established a Trail Corridor within which the final routing of 

the trail could be planned. 

31. The OLR Guidelines provide that the relocation of a portion of a national scenic trail 

is a federal action subject to compliance with NEPA. The Optimal Location Review process, in 

turn, “functions as the analysis which establishes the purpose and need to begin a NEPA analysis 

for relocating a segment of the FNST, [but] [t]he OLR report does not substitute for NEPA 

Case 4:20-cv-00481-MW-MAF Document 1 Filed 10/05/20 Page 7 of 12
8

compliance or legal requirements for publishing major shifts in the location of the FNST in the 

Federal Register.”

32. In 2008, as amended in 2013, a rule promulgated by the Council for Environmental 

Quality established an exception to requirements of NEPA called categorical exclusions. 

According to 36 C.F.R. § 220.6(a), in pertinent part, “A proposed action may be categorically 

excluded from further analysis and documentation in an EIS or EA only if there are no 

extraordinary circumstances related to the proposed action and if: ... (2) The proposed action is 

within a category listed in § 220.6(d) and (e).” 36 C.F.R. § 220.6(a) (emphasis added). Neither 

condition is met here. The “Big Bend Reroute” does constitute an extraordinary circumstance, 

and it is not within a category listed in 36 C.F.R. § 220.6(a).

33. According to § 220.6(e), the following actions are entitled to a categorical exclusion 

and only a decision memo: “(1) Construction and reconstruction of trails. Examples include, but

are not limited to: (i) Constructing or reconstructing a trail to a scenic overlook, and (ii) 

Reconstructing an existing trail to allow use by handicapped individuals.” 36 C.F.R. § 

220.6(e)(1). 

34. In a Decision Memo dated July 14, 2020, and published July 24, 2020, the Forest 

Service, in regard to the “Big Bend Reroute of the Florida National Scenic Trail,” determined 

that its obligations under NEPA could be fully discharged in regard to a 90-mile rerouting of the 

Trail simply by declaring that this new relocation of the Trail was subject to the categorical 

exclusion of 36 C.F.R. § 220.6(e)(1).

35. In other words, the Forest Service determined that no EIS or EA was required, as a 

new 90-mile segment (greater than the distances from Tampa to Orlando, or from Key West to 

Cuba) of the Trail was analogous and equivalent to constructing a trail to a scenic overlook or 

reconstructing a trail to allow its use by disabled individuals.

36. The proposed reroute, according to the Decision Memo, would replace the current 50-

mile segment on lands between Twin Rivers State Forest and the Aucilla River Wildlife 

Management Area with a new 90-mile segment that diverts the Trail dramatically south, and then 

Case 4:20-cv-00481-MW-MAF Document 1 Filed 10/05/20 Page 8 of 12
9

north again. 

37. In addition, the proposed reroute falls far outside the generous boundaries of the 

Florida National Scenic Trail Comprehensive Plan Routing Corridor, and is thus inconsistent 

with the 1987 Forest Service Florida National Scenic Trail Comprehensive Plan.

 

 COUNT ONE

 (Violation of NEPA and the National Trails Systems Act, Actionable Pursuant to the APA)

38. The Friends incorporate all preceding paragraphs.

39. NEPA requires the Forest Service to carefully analyze and consider the 

environmental impacts of (and alternatives to) its decisions before they are made and before 

federal actions are taken. NEPA’s “purpose is not to generate paperwork – even excellent 

paperwork – but to foster excellent action.” 40 C.F.R. § 1500.1. 

40. NEPA’s scoping process assists the Forest Service in determining whether the 

proposed action either: (1) qualifies for a categorical exclusion (CE) and the issuance of a 

“decision memo” pursuant to the Service’s regulation and policy (Forest Service Handbook 

(“FSH”) 1909.15); (2) qualifies for preparation of an EA (Environmental Assessment) and the 

issuance of a “decision notice” to carefully evaluate the “significance” of the effects of the 

proposed action; or (3) qualifies for preparation of a more robust Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) and issuance of a “record of decision.”

41. On July 14, 2020, the Forest Service issued its Decision Memo, published on July 24, 

2020, determining that the replacement of a 50-mile segment of the Trail with a new 90-mile 

segment of the Trail, changing the natural and obvious direction of the Trail and locating it 

outside the approved Trail Corridor in violation of the Forest Service’s 1987 FNST 

Comprehensive Plain, was subject to a categorical exclusion under NEPA, and that no EIS or EA 

Case 4:20-cv-00481-MW-MAF Document 1 Filed 10/05/20 Page 9 of 12
10

was required. 

42. Again, the specific categorical exclusion, 36 C.F.R. § 220.6(e)(1), is limited to 

construction of trails to scenic overlooks and reconstruction of trails for access by the disabled, 

which are obviously minimal actions to which the construction of a new 90-mile Trail cannot 

reasonably be compared. 

43. In addition, although the Decision Memo referred in a single clause to the fact that the 

new Trail segment was outside the planning corridor, the Service provided no basis to defend its 

rejection of the requirement that the Trail remain inside the generous boundaries of the planned 

trail corridor.

44. In addition, the Decision Memo failed to refer in any way to the Optimal Location 

Review Process Guidelines.

45. Finally, the Forest Memo failed to comply with 16 U.S.C. § 1246(b), which, again, 

provides, “[t]hat a substantial relocation of the rights-of-way for such trail shall be by Act of 

Congress.” The replacement of the current 50-mile segment with a wholly new 90-mile segment 

of the Trail is clearly a “substantial relocation.”

46. The Forest Service’s decision to apply a manifestly inappropriate and inapplicable

CE, its failure to complete either an EIS or EA, its decision not to follow the Optimal Location 

Review Process Guidelines, and its decision to preempt Congress’s sole authority to determine 

this substantial relocation of the Florida National Scenic Trail, is “arbitrary, capricious, and [an] 

abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law” and/or constitutes “agency action 

unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed.” 5 U.S.C. §§ 706(2)(a) and 706(1).

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court:

Case 4:20-cv-00481-MW-MAF Document 1 Filed 10/05/20 Page 10 of 12
11

A. Declare the Service has violated and continues to violate the law as alleged herein; 

B. Declare the Service, unlike Congress, has no authority to reroute the Florida National 

Scenic Trail;

C. Set aside the Service’s decision to approve the Big Bend Reroute and remand this matter 

back to the Service with instructions to comply with NEPA as alleged herein; 

D. Declare that the Service’s application of the CE listed in 36 C.F.R. § 220.6(e)(1) violates 

the APA; 

E. Declare that Congress, not the Service, has the authority to implement the proposed 

relocation of the Trail pursuant to 16 U.S.C. § 1246(b), as the “Big Bend Reroute” constitutes a 

“substantial relocation”; 

F. Direct the Service to finalize all steps necessary to reestablish the previously established 

route from Twin Rivers State Forest to the Aucilla River Wildlife Management Area.

G. Retain continuing jurisdiction of this matter pending the Service’s compliance with this 

Court’s orders; 

H. Award Plaintiff its reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses of litigation pursuant to the 

Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412; 

I. Issue any other relief that Plaintiff may subsequently request; and 

J. Issue any other relief this Court deems necessary, just, or proper.

Case 4:20-cv-00481-MW-MAF Document 1 Filed 10/05/20 Page 11 of 12
12

Respectfully submitted this 5th day of October, 2020.

FARMER & FITZGERALD, P.A.

/s/ Matthew Farmer

Matthew P. Farmer, Esq.

Fla. Bar No. 0793469

400 N. Tampa St., Suite 2840

Tampa, Florida 33602

(813) 228-0095

FAX (813) 224-0269

MattFarmer1@aol.com

 &

RALF BROOKES, P.A.

/s/ Ralf Brookes

Ralf Brookes, Esq.

Fla. Bar No. 0778362

1217 Cape Coral Parkway E. #107

Cape Coral, FL 33904-9604

(239) 910-5464

ralf@ralfbrookesattorney.com

TRIAL COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF

Case 4:20-cv-00481-MW-MAF Document 1 Filed 10/05/20 Page 12 of 12