Oregon Natural Resources Council v. United States Bureau of Land Management

Oregon Natural Resources Council Fund et al. (ONRC) appeals a summary judgment in favor of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). We reverse and remand.

ONRC challenged the “Mr. Wilson” logging project in the Glendale Resource Area of the Medford BLM District in Oregon, on the ground that the project violated the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 -4370Í. The specific violation was alleged to consist of conducting an insufficient Environmental Analysis. ONRC argues that the BLM did not sufficiently consider the cumulative impact of the Mr. Wilson logging project in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects on timber harvest levels and on the northern spotted owl’s critical habitat. The district court concluded that because logging operations had been completed the cause was moot, and granted summary judgment.

I. Background

The BLM issued an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Mr. Wilson logging project in the Glendale Resource Area of the Medford BLM District in July 2001. In October 2001, the BLM issued a Finding of No Significant Impact on the human environment and therefore did not prepare a more thorough…

dissenting:

The district court dismissed this case “because logging operations had been completed [and] the cause was moot.” Maj. op. at 819. Without disagreeing with the underlying facts — that all logging and hauling operations have been completed and all that remains to be done to complete the project is some minor cleanup work in the form of hand piling and slash burning' — the majority holds that this case is not moot. Because, in this case which presents only a challenge under the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 4321 -4370f, I disagree with that conclusion, I respectfully dissent.

“A moot action is one where ‘the issues presented are no longer “live” or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.’ ” Nw. Envtl. Def. Ctr. v. Gordon, 849 F.2d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir.1988) (quoting Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 481 , 102 S.Ct. 1181 , 71 L.Ed.2d 353 (1982) (per curiam)). It is the constitutional “duty of this court, as of every other judicial tribunal ... to decide actual controversies by a judgment which can be carried into effect, and not to give opinions on moot questions.” Neighbors of Cuddy Mountain v. Alexander, 303 F.3d 1059, 1072…

I. Background

The BLM issued an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Mr. Wilson logging project in the Glendale Resource Area of the Medford BLM District in July 2001. In October 2001, the BLM issued a Finding of No Significant Impact on the human environment and therefore did not prepare a more thorough Environmental Impact Statement.

ONRC commenced this action to halt the project in a timely manner but did not succeed in obtaining a preliminary injunction. ONRC contends that the BLM failed to comply with NEPA’s environmental review requirements and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. The parties cross-moved for summary judgment, and the district court issued an order granting summary judgment to the BLM on June 23, 2004. Meanwhile, logging proceeded.

On August 23, 2004, ONRC moved the district court for relief from the summary judgment, citing two subsequent decisions: Lands Council v. Powell, 379 F.3d 738 (9th Cir. 2004), as amended 395 F.3d 1019 (2005), and Klamath- Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr. v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 387 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2004) (KSWC).

The district court denied the requested relief, holding that a change in law does not trigger Federal Rule of Civil…