Colorado Wild v. U.S. Forest Service
United States District Court for the District of Colorado
523 F.Supp.2d 1213 (2007)
The Leavell-McCombs Joint Venture (LMJV) owned property surrounded by National Forest System (NFS) land. The property was accessible by car through Forest System Road 391 (FSR 391), a single-track gravel road open to seasonal vehicle use, with certain restrictions. LMJV sought to construct a year-round resort on its property and to extend Tranquility Road, which was located north of FSR 391. LMJV submitted an access-permit application for the road extension to the United States Forest Service (USFS) (defendant), pursuant to the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), 16 U.S.C. § 3210(a). ANILCA required the federal government to provide landowners with access to NFS land, to the extent adequate to provide reasonable use and enjoyment of the landowners’ property. The local county approved the resort as a Planned Use Development (PUD) in 2004, while LMJV’s USFS permit application was still pending. The PUD anticipated the use of Tranquility Road. The local county’s approval was vacated in state court in 2005, on the basis that road access under FSR 391 was inadequate and that the USFS had not yet approved the Tranquility Road extension. In 2006, the USFS released a final environmental impact statement (FEIS) and Record of Decision in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 4332 et seq. The FEIS did not consider any alternatives to the proposed resort. The USFS based its alternatives analysis on three premises: (1) LMJV would build the resort regardless of whether the USFS granted additional road access, (2) the reasonable use and enjoyment of LMJV’s property was the county-approved resort, and (3) FSR 391 did not provide adequate access to the resort. Colorado Wild, Inc. and others (plaintiffs) challenged the USFS’s decision. The United States District Court for the District of Colorado issued a temporary restraining order pending judicial review. The plaintiffs moved to continue the preliminary injunction.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Kane, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 711,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 711,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,600 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.