CANDY MOULTON Star-Tribune correspondent | Posted: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 12:00 am
ENCAMPMENT -- U.S. District Judge William Downes on Tuesday dismissed a lawsuit filed against the U.S. Forest Service to block the closure and sale of the agency's office in Encampment.
He also affirmed Forest Service action that led to relocation of six employees from Encampment to Saratoga.
The judge ruled in favor of the agency on all issues in the lawsuit, which was filed in May 2006 by the Encampment River Valley Association. Oral arguments had been presented in December 2006.
The economic development group not only lacked standing to file the lawsuit, but the organization's claims also "lack merit," the judge wrote in his decision filed on Tuesday.
Association Vice President Russ Caldon expressed disappointment.
"I'm sorry we lost," he said. "We got their attention, though, at least."
The lawsuit had been filed in part because the organization had concerns about economic impacts on the community that would result from transferring the employees to Saratoga, he said.
"The reason we entered into it was just for the people of Encampment and the valley to just try to keep them from turning the facilities into nothing. I guess that is what is going to happen now," Caldon said. "We just wanted to try to keep a group of people at their headquarters, rather than have them move to Saratoga."
The Encampment facility is part of the Hayden Ranger District, which was combined with the Brush Creek District of the Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest in 1994. While most employees had transferred to the Saratoga office then, others remained in Encampment until last September, when they also were moved to the Saratoga facility.
Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest Supervisor Mary Petersen said the decision "certainly is something we expected would happen. We're obviously very happy with the judge's decision."
"On all the points that were raised, the judge used the Forest Service's argument in affirming the Forest Service for our actions," Petersen said.
In earlier court documents, the Forest Service said the relocation of employees will save about $32,000 in annual administrative expenses, result in better management of the district work force and better communication and teamwork, and potentially have a positive effect on recruitment because Saratoga offers more services than does Encampment.
The Encampment River Valley Association had claimed the Forest Service violated the National Environmental Policy Act when it made plans to close the Encampment facility and transfer employees there to work at the Brush Creek-Hayden District office in Saratoga, 18 miles to the north. The group asserted that closure would result in "significant social and economic impacts to the town of Encampment and to the surrounding community."
Downes, however, ruled that the group did not have standing to challenge the agency action. Instead, the case appeared to be based on "primarily economic" interests of the association, a group of around 20 local residents.
Allegations that the action would increase consumption of fuel, energy and natural resources, and that employees would spend more time driving to their jobs and would therefore have less time to "actually monitor, evaluate, manage, and protect the forest" or to monitor and respond to forest fires, are not enough to prove an "injury-in-fact," Downes ruled.
The association "failed to set forth specific facts" showing specific environmental harm, he wrote.
"The allegations were 'so attenuated, so speculative, and so obviously subordinate to plaintiff's primary economic interest'" that they failed to meet the criteria to prove the organization had standing to bring the suit, Downes wrote.
In response to claims by the association that the Forest Service decision to vacate the Encampment facility was arbitrary and capricious, the judge noted that the agency "acknowledged the economic impacts of their decision and organized meetings to discuss how such impacts could be minimized."
"The fact that some people disagreed with the decision, or the (Forest Service) did not resolve their concerns to their satisfaction, does not make it arbitrary and capricious," the judge wrote.
Forest Supervisor Petersen said the agency now will evaluate the ruling and determine a course for future action. "We're going to have to look at our budget, our workload, and our priorities" to see if action to dispose of the Encampment facility will be undertaken this fiscal year, she said.
Before any action to dispose of the land and building, she said the Forest Service will hold public meetings -- as had been set just before the lawsuit was filed.
Brush Creek/Hayden District Ranger Steve Best, who recently came to the forest, said, "I'm glad it's over, so we can proceed one way or the other."
He noted that the future of the Encampment facility now will be evaluated and added, "This seems to be an emotional and high-charged kind of thing."