Opinion ID: 1210694
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: JURISDICTION. Final Agency Action

Text: The Forest Service argues that we lack jurisdiction because SREP's complaint failed to challenge a final agency action and constituted an improper programmatic attack on the Forest Service's policies. The right of judicial review under the APA is limited to final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court. 5 U.S.C. § 704; see Lujan v. Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n, 497 U.S. 871, 110 S.Ct. 3177, 111 L.Ed.2d 695 (1990). A  wholesale improvement for a program cannot be sought by court decree, rather than in the offices of[the agency] or the halls of Congress, where programmatic improvements are normally made. Norton v. S. Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55, 64, 124 S.Ct. 2373, 159 L.Ed.2d 137 (2004) (citing Lujan, 497 U.S. at 891, 110 S.Ct. 3177). Rather, [u]nder the terms of the APA, respondent must direct its attack against some particular `agency action' that causes it harm. Id. SREP has expressed more than a generalized dissatisfaction with the Forest Service's decision to limit the application of MM-1, even though SREP does not challenge the promulgation of the NFP itself or the § 228.4(a) regulations. SREP's complaint refers to specific instances of suction dredge mining operations that took place without an approved plan of operations in waterways administered by the Forest Service. The complaint further alleges that Barton and Hobbs have mined their claims, and intend to do so in the future.... Those mining operations occurred without an approved plan or plans of operations, and without a reclamation plan or bond, where required. SREP's allegations challenge specific instances of the Forest Service's actions taken pursuant to its interpretation of MM-1, and therefore constitute more than a programmatic attack or a vague reference to Forest Service action or inaction. See Oregon Natural Desert Ass'n v. United States Forest Serv., 465 F.3d 977, 990 (9th Cir.2006). We therefore reject the Forest Service's arguments to the contrary, and conclude that, in light of SREP's challenges to final agency action, we have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. [8]