Usfs

Earth Island Institute v. United States Forest Service

Good Law
697 F.3d 1010·2012 WL 4125866·42 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20194·75 ERC (BNA) 2124·2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 19769
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSeptember 20, 201211-16718California6,557 words

Opinion

Opinion

Smith, J.

Under the National Forest Management Act (“NFMA”), an agency’s project is required to comply with 1982 viability requirements only to the extent they have been incorporated in the relevant forest plan. Earth Island Inst. v. Carlton, 626 F.3d 462, 470 (9th Cir.2010). Here, we conclude that the Lake Tahoe Forest Plan did not require the Forest Service to demonstrate at the project level that the Angora Fire Restoration Project (“Angora Project”) would maintain viable population levels of management indicator species, including the black-backed woodpecker. Therefore, the Forest Service’s analysis of the Angora Project’s impact on the black-backed woodpecker’s habitat was not arbitrary and capricious under NFMA.

The National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) requires an Environmental Assessment (“EA”) to comply with certain procedural requirements to ensure that agencies will make informed decisions about the environmental effects of proposed federal actions and to make this information available to the public. Ecology Center v. Castaneda, 574 F.3d 652, 656-57 (9th Cir.2009). Here, because the Forest Service did not fail to (1) ensure the scientific integrity of the final…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.