Cluster 2348595

Sierra Club v. Babbitt, 69 F. Supp. 2d 1202, 1244 (E.D.

“It is undisputed that the focal point for judicial review [of an agency action under NEPA] is the administrative record before the agency at the time of the agency’s decision and ‘not some new record made initially in the reviewing court.’ [Citation.]” Sierra Club v. Babbitt, 69 F.Supp.2d 1202, 1209 (E.D.Cal.1999) (quoting Camp v. Pitts, 411 U.S. 138, 142 , 93 S.Ct. 1241 , 36 L.Ed.2d 106 (1973)).

Sierra Club v. Babbitt, 69 F.Supp.2d 1202, 1244 (E.D.Cal.1999) (ISHI).

E.g., In re *1200 Nelson, 391 B.R. 437, 443 (9th Cir. BAP 2008) (“The test for prudential mootness of an appeal is whether the appellate court can grant the appellant any effective relief in the event that it decides the matter on the merits in its favor”); Sierra Club v. Babbitt, 69 F.Supp.2d 1202, 1244 (E.D.Cal.1999) (applying the doctrine of prudential mootness, and quoting S. Utah Wilderness Alliance, 110 F.3d at 727-28).

Sierra Club v. Babbitt, 69 F.Supp.2d 1202, 1251 (E.D.Cal.1999).

See Sierra Chib v. United States, 23 F.Supp.2d 1132, 1134 (N.D.Cal.1998) (substantial likelihood NPS violated NEPA); Sierra Club v. Babbitt, 69 F.Supp.2d 1202, 1263 (E.D.Cal.1999) (NPS violated WSRA and NEPA); Friends of Yosemite, 348 F.3d at 797, 799, 803 (NPS violated WSRA).

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 3 In a prior action challenging the NPS's failure to comply with the WSRA by neglecting to develop a CMP for the Merced, the district court ordered the agency to "prepare and adopt a valid Comprehensive Management Plan pursuant to 16 U.S.C. § 1274 (d) in regard to the Merced River as designated under the [WSRA] no later than twelve months after the entry of this decision." Sierra Club v. Babbitt, 69 F.Supp.2d 1202, 1263 (E.D.Cal.1999).

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In a prior action challenging the NPS’s failure to comply with the WSRA by neglecting to develop a CMP for the Merced, the district court ordered the agency to “prepare and adopt a valid Comprehensive Management Plan pursuant to 16 U.S.C. § 1274 (d) in regard to the Merced River as designated under the [WSRA] no later than twelve months after the entry of this decision.” Sierra Club v. Babbitt, 69 F.Supp.2d 1202, 1263 (E.D.Cal.1999).

Relying on Sierra Club v. Babbitt, 69 F.Supp.2d 1202, 1217 (E.D.Cal.1999), plaintiffs argue that the agency’s use of the design-build method in this case violates the NEPA.

See, e.g., Akiak Native Community v. United States Postal Service, 213 F.3d 1140, 1147 (9th Cir.2000); Sierra Club v. Babbitt, 69 F.Supp.2d 1202, 1214 (E.D.Cal.1999).

See 16 U.S.C. § 1 (“to conserve ... and to provide for the enjoyment of-”); 16 U.S.C. § 271 (“to preserve ... for the inspiration, benefit, and use of the public .... ”); see also Bicycle Trails Council v. Babbitt, 82 F.3d 1445, 1468 (9th Cir.1996) (finding that the NPS “struck a reasoned balance among the sometimes competing goals of recreation, safety, and resource protection as well as among the sometimes competing recreational interests of bicyclists and other park visit…

See Sierra Club v. Babbitt, 69 F.Supp.2d 1202, 1249 (“The second procedural requirement of WSRA is the planning requirement of Section 1274(d).”) The defendants argue that the Forest Service has satisfied the WSRA regarding capiacity limits because they have complied with the procedural requirement -in 16 U.S.C. § 1274 (d) through a number of steps taken during the planning process leading up to the 2012 Decisions.

See 69 F.Supp.2d at 1259-60 .

See Sierra Club v. Babbitt, 69 F.Supp.2d 1202, 1263 (E.D.Cal.1999) (ordering NPS to “prepare and adopt a valid [CMP] pursuant to 16 U.S.C. § 1274 (d) in regard to the Merced River as designated under the [WSRA] no later than twelve months after the entry of this decision”).

See Sierra Club v. Bab- bitt, 69 F. Supp. 2d 1202, 1263 (E.D.

See Sierra Club v. Babbitt, 69 F.Supp.2d 1202, 1209 (E.D.Cal. 1999) (finding extra-record declarations permissible and helpful in understanding the factual complexities of the case).

The USFS is required to review “all boundaries, classifications, and plans” to ensure their conformity with the requirements of “this subsection,” meaning subsection (d) of § 1274, through regular agency processes. 16 U.S.C. § 1274 (d)(2); see Sierra Club v. Babbitt, 69 F.Supp.2d 1202, 1249-50 (E.D.Cal.1999).

See, e.g., Sierra Club v. Babbitt, 69 F.Supp.2d 1202, 1251-52 (E.D.Cal.1999) (“The reluctance of courts to apply injunctive relief in cases where the sole infraction is the failure of the agency to conform to planning requirements appears to reflect courts’ judgment that the loss of agency ability to act is too severe a penalty to apply when the only violation is procedural”); see also Newton County Wildlife Ass’n, 113 F.3d at 112-13 ; Sierra Club, 23 F.Supp.2d at 1137 .