Native Ecosystems Council, and ALLIANCE FOR THE WILD ROCKIES; v. TOM TIDWELL, Regional Forester of Region One of the United States Forest Service

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The Honorable Michael W. Mosman, United States District Judge for**
the District of Oregon, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NATIVE ECOSYSTEMS COUNCIL, and
ALLIANCE FOR THE WILD ROCKIES;
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
TOM TIDWELL, Regional Forester of
Region One of the United States Forest
Service, and UNITED STATES FOREST
SERVICE, an agency of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture;
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 09-35544
D.C. No. 9:08-cv-00121-DWM
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Donald W. Molloy, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted February 2, 2010
Seattle, Washington
Before: W. FLETCHER and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and MOSMAN, **
District Judge.
FILED
FEB 19 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Appellants Native Ecosystems Council and Alliance for the Wild Rockies
(collectively NEC) appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor
of Appellees Tom Tidwell and the United States Forest Service (collectively Forest
Service).
The Forest Service met its NEPA obligation when it determined that the
challenged project fell within two of its categorical exclusions. See Bicycle Trails
Council of Marin v. Babbitt, 82 F.3d 1445, 1456 n.5 (9th Cir. 1996), as amended
(“An agency satisfies NEPA if it applies its categorical exclusions and determines
that neither an EA nor an EIS is required[.]” ).
Contrary to NEC’s assertion, general citations to General Accounting Office
reports regarding the overall economic success of the Forest Service’s timber sale
program do not establish a violation of the National Forest Management Act
(NFMA). Because “we are not free to impose on [an] agency our own notion of
which procedures are best or most likely to further some vague, undefined public
good[,]” The Lands Council v. McNair, 537 F.3d 981, 993 (9th Cir. 2008) (en
banc) (citation, alterations and internal quotation marks omitted), we conclude that

-- 2 of 3 --

3
the Forest Service’s accounting methodology satisfied the requirements of the
NFMA.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --