Summary of a Recent
Judicial
Development in
Administrative Law
Failure to File Public Comments on Proposed Forest Service Project
Results in Dismissal of Claims
Walt McCarterNational AgLaw Center Research Associate
Summary of Decision
In Wildwest Institute v. Rainville, No. CV07-466-S-EJL, 2008 WL 5220938 (D. Idaho Dec. 11, 2008), the United States District Court for the District of Idaho held that a plaintiff had failed to exhaust its administrative remedies prior to bringing an action in state court against the United States Forest Service because the plaintiff had not filed public comments on the Forest Service's proposed project during the project's 30-day public comment period, and therefore dismissed the plaintiff's claims.
Background
The United States Forest Service (USFS) opened a public comment period on a proposed project and published public notification that it was conducting an environmental analysis. Id. at *1. WildWest Institute submitted comments on the project, and the project was subsequently dropped without a decision. Id. at *1-2. The USFS later released a letter informing the public of a new proposed project, which it claimed was a modified version of the previous project with a different purpose and need. Id. The purpose of the new project was to improve habitat for the northern Idaho ground squirrel whereas the purpose of the former project was to reduce fuels. Id. Both projects included prescribed burning and seeding of native grasses, although the acreage of each project was different. Id. There were several other differences in the projects as well. Id. WildWest did not comment on the new project, but it later filed an administrative appeal challenging the project's approval. Id. The USFS dismissed the appeal without review, allegedly in accordance with 36 C.F.R. § 215.16 because WildWest did not provide comments during the comment period for the new project, and thus was not eligible to appeal the project approval, and WildWest appealed. Id.
Arguments
WildWest argued that the new project was merely a revision of the old one and not a wholly unrelated new project, and therefore its comments made during the comment period for the original project enabled it to appeal the new project's approval. Id.
The USFS argued that the two projects were not the same, and since WildWest did not comment on the new project, it was ineligible to appeal. Id.
Analysis and Holdings
The court determined that the two forest service projects were different in scope and concluded that they were not the same project. Id. at *3-5. It therefore held that WildWest had failed to exhaust administrative remedies when it failed to file public comments on the new project, and dismissed the case. Id.
The case was decided on December 11, 2008.