Yesterday, we filed our reply brief in Granat v. USDA, where we ask the court to review the U.S. Forest Service’s decision to close thousands of previously available roads and trails to motorized travel in Plumas National Forest. Federal law requires the Forest Service, before deciding about road-closings in national forests, to consider meaningful alternatives and to coordinate with local governments. As we explained in our opening brief, however, the Service’s “alternative” analysis failed to consider more than 700 of the then-existing 1,100 miles of roads and trails in Plumas. Further, the Service’s idea of “coordination” with our clients Plumas and Butte Counties was—as the Service itself acknowledged—nothing more than allowing the counties to participate in “public-involvement opportunities.”
Ultimately, the Service argues that its discretionary authority to shut down access to a public forest trumps all other concerns. The court should reject the Service’s straw-man argument. We have never disputed that the Service enjoys discretion. What we argue—and what the law requires—is that the Service’s discretion includes the obligations to consider meaningful alternatives and to coordinate with the local counties. In other words, the Service’s discretion does not include the authority to evade its legal obligations. We hope the court sees through the Service’s argument.