978-0078023859 Case19_1

subject Type Homework Help
subject Pages 2
subject Words 759
subject Authors Daniel Cahoy, Marisa Pagnattaro

Unlock document.

This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
page-pf1
Case 19.1
SIERRA FOREST LEGACY V. SHERMAN
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
646 F.3d 1161; 73 ERC (BNA) 1050; 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 10655 [July 8, 2010]
FACTS:
The Sierra Forest Legacy and other plaintiffs challenged the National Forest Service’s plan for
allowing additional timbering activities in the Sierra Nevada Forest, claiming that the
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was
inadequate.
The Plaintiffs argued that the Forest Service violated NEPA when approving the 2004 plan by failing
to disclose and to respond to the views of experts opposed to intensified management.
Sierra Forest and others presented an array of experts who submitted comments to the 2004 draft
environmental impact statement (EIS).
As a general matter, the final supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) incorporates a
science consistency review that raises conflicting perspectives.
It also acknowledges and responds to general critiques concerning the use of science.
Plaintiff’s experts’ more specific criticisms can be broken down into five categories: (1) Most
critiques concerned the California spotted owl. (2) The experts expressed concerns regarding the
uncertainty inherent in long-term modeling. (3) The experts argued that the 2004 Framework will
lead to further decline of fisher and marten populations. (4) The experts raised concerns regarding
meadow species, such as the willow flycatcher and Yosemite toad. (5) The experts critique the fire
ecology underpinning the core management analysis.
The Plaintiffs argued that “the agency did not bring attention to …critical expert comments but
rather mixed them into the stack of all public comments.
The Plaintiffs also contend that the “SEIS does not disclose that these ‘other’ viewpoints were
expressed by the country’s leading spotted owl experts, including the retired Forest Services owl
expert….and the agency’s own wildlife office.”
PROCEDURE: The federal District Court upheld the Forest Service’s plan, and the Plaintiffs appealed.
ISSUE: Did the Forest Service violate the NEPA by failing to consider short-term impacts of the 2004
Framework and by failing to disclose and rebut expert opposition?
the 2004 Framework or approving the Basin Project.
RULE: “The NEPA……does not impose any substantive requirements on federal agencies—it ‘exists to
ensure a process.’” So long as “the adverse environmental effects of the proposed action are
adequately identified and evaluated, the agency is not constrained by NEPA from deciding that other
values outweigh the environmental costs.”
REASONING:
page-pf2
1. The Court determined that the Forest Service adequately addressed cumulative impacts of the
proposed management action.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
The Sierra Nevada is an 11.5 million acre area in the western United States that contains eleven
national forests. It is managed by the United States Forest Service pursuant to the National Forest
Management Act (NFMA), which “specifies the procedural and substantive requirements under
which the Forest Service is to manage National Forest System lands.”
The NFMA directs the Forest Service to create a “forest management plan” to govern its activities
in each national forest “unit,” including the Sierra Nevada. The current forest management plan
practices insensitive to the needs of old forest species.”

Trusted by Thousands of
Students

Here are what students say about us.

Copyright ©2022 All rights reserved. | CoursePaper is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university.