PUBLISH
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Filed 6/3/96 TENTH CIRCUIT
LODGE TOWER CONDOMINIUM )
ASSOCIATION, TOWN OF VAIL, )
)
Plaintiffs-Appellants, )
)
v. ) No. 95-1223
)
LODGE PROPERTIES, INC., WESTERN )
LAND EXCHANGE COMPANY, )
CLAYTON YEUTTER, Secretary, U.S. )
Department of Agriculture; F. DALE )
ROBERTSON, Chief, U.S. Forest Service; )
GARY CARGILL, Regional Forester; NEIL F. )
MORCK, State Director, Bureau of Land )
Management; DELOS CY JAMISON, Director )
of Bureau of Land Management; MANUAL )
LUJAN, Secretary, U.S. Department of the )
Interior, )
)
Defendants-Appellees. )
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
(D.C. No. 89-N-1098)
Charles B. White, (Christopher J. Melcher, Brownstein, Hyatt, Farber & Strickland,
Denver, Colorado, with him on the brief), Petros & White, Denver, Colorado, for
Plaintiffs-Appellants.
James S. Bailey, Jr., (Randall M. Livingston with him on the brief), Bailey, Harring &
Peterson, Denver, Colorado, for private Defendant-Appellees.
Jacques B. Gelin, (Lois J. Schiffer, Assistant Attorney General, Albert M. Ferlo, Jr.,
Attorney, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., Henry J. Solano, United States
Attorney, William R. Lucero, Assistant United States Attorney, Denver, Colorado, with
him on the brief), Attorney, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for federal
Defendants-Appellees.
Before BALDOCK, LOGAN, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.
BALDOCK, Circuit Judge.
Plaintiffs Lodge Tower Condominium Association and the Town of Vail,
Colorado appeal a district court order rejecting their administrative challenges to a
decision by the United States Forest Service to exchange federal land located in Vail for
private land located in a wilderness area. We exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291 and affirm.
Section 1716 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (“FLPMA”)
authorizes the Department of Interior and the Forest Service to exchange public lands for
private lands if “the public interest will be well served by making that exchange.” 43
U.S.C. § 1716(a). Pursuant to this statute, the Forest Service agreed to exchange a
two-acre parcel of federal land--administered by the Forest Service but located within the
boundaries of the Town of Vail--for a 385-acre parcel of privately-owned land located
within the Eagles Nest Wilderness Area. The exchange proponent--Lodge Properties,
Inc.--proposed building an hotel expansion on the two-acre parcel. Western Land
Exchange Company assisted Lodge Properties, Inc. in the administrative proceedings
2
prior to the exchange.
Lodge Tower Condominium Association, an unincorporated association of owners
of condominiums constructed on land adjacent to the two-acre parcel, and the Town of
Vail opposed the exchange at the administrative level. After the Forest Service rejected
Plaintiffs’ objections and approved the exchange, the Bureau of Land Management issued
a patent to the two-acre parcel to Lodge Properties, Inc.
Plaintiffs filed a complaint in the district court seeking judicial review under § 706
of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), of the agency proceedings which
culminated in the land exchange. See 5 U.S.C. § 706. Plaintiffs named as defendants
federal officials who made the administrative decisions which led to the issuance of the
patent to the two-acre parcel. Plaintiffs also named the private exchange proponents as
defendants. Plaintiffs contended that the district court should set aside the exchange
because it violated FLPMA and the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”). The
district court reviewed Plaintiffs’ contentions under the standards governing judicial
review of agency action set forth in § 706 of the APA and concluded that there was “no
basis for setting aside any agency action in this case.” Lodge Tower Condominium Ass’n
v. Lodge Properties, Inc., 880 F. Supp. 1370, 1387 (D. Colo. 1995). Consequently, the
district court dismissed Plaintiffs’ case.
On appeal, Plaintiffs contend the district court erred in dismissing their complaint
because the exchange was arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law. Specifically,
3
Plaintiffs argue: (1) the exchange was not in the public interest as required under
FLPMA, 43 U.S.C. § 1716(a); (2) the exchange violated NEPA because it was premised
on an inadequate environmental assessment; and (3) the Forest Service and the Bureau of
Land Management violated regulations governing administrative stays and issued the
patent to the two-acre parcel in violation of an administrative stay. Plaintiffs request this
court to reverse the district court, rescind the patent to the property, order the Forest
Service to quitclaim the wilderness property back to the private owner, and remand the
case to the agency for further proceedings under FLPMA and NEPA.
We review Plaintiffs’ challenges to the land exchange under the deferential
standard set forth in the APA: “The reviewing court shall . . . hold unlawful and set aside
agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be . . . arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of
discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). “Review
under § 706(2)(A) is narrow, and the agency need only demonstrate that it considered
relevant factors and alternatives after a full ventilation of issues and that the choice it
made was reasonable based on that consideration.” Mount Evans Co. v. Madigan, 14
F.3d 1444, 1453 (10th Cir. 1994).
We have considered the district court’s order, the briefs of the parties, the parties’
oral arguments, and reviewed the entire record on appeal. After examining the applicable
law and applying the deferential standards governing judicial review of agency action set
forth in § 706(2)(A) of the APA, we find no reversible error and affirm.
4
AFFIRMED.
5