Opinion ID: 178946
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Enforceability of Tree Marking Guidelines

Text: Earth Island contends that the Forest Service did not follow its allegedly enforceable tree marking guidelines. In arguing that the guidelines were binding, Earth Island cites to language from the Record of Decision and the RFEIS stating that the Forest Service shall [u]se the best available information for identifying dead and dying trees, that [h]azard trees proposed for felling have been identified using the PNF Roadside/Facility Hazard Tree Guidelines, and that the objective of the project is to [r]emove roadside safety hazards. The guidelines themselves are contained in a Roadside/Facility Hazard Tree Abatement Action Plan, the purpose of which is to provide parameters for the abatement of road and facility hazard trees. Further, [t]he spirit of these guidelines is to: 1) remove those trees that would likely die to abate potential hazards to visitors ... and 2) retain those trees that will likely survive.... This balance aims to retain healthy forest cover.... (Emphasis added). Such language does not make the guidelines enforceable. In order for an agency document to have the force and effect of law, it must (1) prescribe substantive rulesnot interpretive rules, general statements of policy or rules of agency organization, procedure or practiceand, (2) ... [be] promulgated pursuant to a specific statutory grant of authority and in conformance with the procedural requirements imposed by Congress. W. Radio Serv. Co. v. Espy, 79 F.3d 896, 901 (9th Cir.1996) (concluding that agency manual and handbook were not legally enforceable as they were neither substantive in nature nor promulgated in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act). Here, the language of the guidelines similarly shows that they were not substantive, but provided only internal guidance and parameters for the abatement of danger from hazard trees. Earth Island further fails to show that they were promulgated pursuant to a specific grant of congressional authority. Even if they were enforceable, Earth Island fails to show how the Forest Service failed to observe them given the fact that one of the project purposes was to remove burned trees posing a safety hazard to road traffic in the project area while reestablishing the forest. This balance is precisely what the guidelines call for. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the guidelines were not enforceable. In short, the district court used the correct standard for analyzing Earth Island's likelihood of success on the merits and did not abuse its discretion in finding that Earth Island failed to show that it was likely to succeed on the merits of its NFMA claims.