Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

appealendangered species act

Related Cases

Cold Mountain v. Garber, 375 F.3d 884, 58 ERC 1833, 34 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,055, 04 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6263, 2004 Daily Journal D.A.R. 8537
View Case »
Rocky Mountain Farmers Union v. Corey, 730 F.3d 1070, 77 ERC 1077, 13 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10,463, 2013 Daily Journal D.A.R. 12,647
View Case »
International Paper Co. v. Ouellette, 479 U.S. 481, 107 S.Ct. 805, 93 L.Ed.2d 883, 25 ERC 1457, 55 USLW 4138, 17 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,327
View Case »
Defenders of Wildlife v. Salazar, 729 F.Supp.2d 1207
View Case »
Mount Graham Coalition v. Thomas, 53 F.3d 970, 40 ERC 1851, 25 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,904
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Resources Ltd., Inc. v. Robertson, 35 F.3d 1300, 37 ERC 2111

Facts

Resources Limited challenged the Flathead National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan and the accompanying EIS, asserting violations of the National Environmental Policy Act, the National Forest Management Act, and the Endangered Species Act. The Forest Service had developed the Plan and EIS to allow logging while accommodating endangered species like the grizzly bear and bald eagle. After the district court ruled that Resources Limited lacked standing and that the case was not ripe for adjudication, Resources Limited appealed the decision.

Several threatened or endangered species, including the grizzly bear, the gray wolf, the bald eagle, and the peregrine falcon, live in the Flathead National Forest ('the Forest') in northern Montana.

Issue

Did Resources Limited have standing to challenge the Forest Service's Plan and EIS, and was the EIS adequate under NEPA?

The Forest Service acted arbitrarily and capriciously in concluding that plan to allow logging in forest would not adversely affect endangered and threatened species, and (2) EIS was adequate.

Rule

The federal courts can set aside agency actions that are arbitrary, capricious, or not in accordance with law, and an EIS must contain a reasonably thorough discussion of significant environmental consequences.

Under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), the federal courts have the authority to 'hold unlawful and set aside' agency actions which are 'arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.'

Analysis

The court found that the Forest Service acted arbitrarily and capriciously by concluding that the Plan would not jeopardize listed species, as the agency failed to provide the Fish and Wildlife Service with all necessary data. The EIS was deemed adequate, as it contained a reasonably thorough discussion of the environmental impacts, including cumulative impacts, and the Forest Service had considered a range of alternatives.

The Forest Service acted arbitrarily and capriciously in concluding, on the record as a whole, that the Plan would not jeopardize listed species even at timber harvest levels of 100 mmbf/year.

Conclusion

The court reversed the district court's ruling on standing and ripeness, affirming the adequacy of the EIS while setting aside the Forest Service's determination regarding the jeopardy to listed species. The case was remanded for further consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service.

We reverse the district court's holding that Resources Limited lacks standing and that this case is not yet ripe for adjudication. We affirm the court's conclusion that the EIS is adequate.

Who won?

Resources Limited prevailed in part, as the court found that the Forest Service's conclusion regarding the impact on endangered species was arbitrary and capricious.

Resources Limited challenged the Flathead National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan ('Plan') and the forest-wide Environmental Impact Statement ('EIS').

You must be