Opinion ID: 788487
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Renewal of Special-Use Permits

Text: 29 The district court found that the one-year renewals of special-use permits were impermissibly characterized by the Forest Service as categorical exclusions outside the purview of NEPA. On appeal, the Intervenors revive this argument contending that the one-year renewals of the special-use permits fit within the Forest Service's regulations as a categorical exclusion. 3 30 It is true that under Forest Service policy, the agency may categorically exclude certain actions that constitute the approval, modification, or continuation of minor short-term (one-year or less) special uses of National Forest land.... Alaska Ctr., 189 F.3d at 854 (9th Cir.1999) (citing Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, 30.3(1)(a)-(b)); see also High Sierra, 150 F.Supp.2d at 1043. However, the Forest Service's own regulations do not permit the categorical exclusion of activities in wilderness areas. Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, 30.3(1)(a)-(b). A categorical exclusion cannot be used if extraordinary circumstances exist which include congressionally designated areas, such as wilderness, wilderness study areas, or National Recreational Areas. Id. Therefore, the one-year renewals of the special-use permits were not allowable categorical exclusions and require the issuance of an EA or an EIS. 31 The agency's failure to prepare an EIS prior to the renewal of the special-use permits has violated NEPA by failing to take the requisite hard look at the environmental consequences of its proposed action. Marsh, 490 U.S. at 374, 109 S.Ct. 1851; Greenpeace Action v. Franklin, 14 F.3d 1324, 1332(9th Cir.1992). Therefore, we hold that the district court correctly found NEPA violations through both the issuance of multi-year special-use permits and renewals of special-use permits.