ELR Citation: 53 ELR 20079
No(s). 21-35504 and 21-35785 (9th Cir. May 16, 2023)

The Ninth Circuit vacated two district court rulings in challenges to the Forest Service's approval of a logging project in the Idaho Panhandle National Forest. An environmental group sued the Forest Service in two separate suits, arguing it violated the Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA) and NEPA by applying a categorical exclusion (CE) to the project without establishing that it met the statutory definition of "wildland-urban interface." In the first challenge, the district court found the record did not show that the project fell within the statutory definition of "wildland-urban interface," and ordered further analysis supporting the CE on remand. The Service subsequently issued a supplement to its initial decision memo, further justifying the CE. In the second challenge, the district court found the Service could not invoke the CE and issued a preliminary injunction. The appellate court held that in the first challenge, the district court erred in finding that the group's public comments adequately put the Service on notice of its claim, and it remanded to the district court to consider the group's unaddressed argument. As to the second challenge, the appellate court agreed with the district court that the Service's reliance on a community wildfire protection plan that designated the project's location as a wildland-urban interface was not enough to establish that the CE was validly applied; but also found that the district court's conclusion was based on an erroneous interpretation of the HFRA. It vacated the injunction and remanded for further proceedings.