Forsgren

Selkirk Conservation Alliance v. Forsgren

Good Law
336 F.3d 944·2003 WL 21665242
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 17, 2003No. 02-35635California9,386 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Tallman, J.

The issue in this case is whether federal agencies adequately followed our environmental laws both procedurally and substantively in approving a road-building project for Stimson Lumber Company (“Stimson”). Stimson sought an easement in order to access its land surrounded by the Colville National Forest. This forest is home to several threatened or endangered species. Once Stimson has access to its land, it will manage it for perpetual logging.

The United States Forest Service (“Forest Service”), in granting the easement to Stimson, was required to complete an Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”). The Forest Service and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (“Fish & Wildlife”) had to ensure that granting the easement would not jeopardize the continued existence of any animal species. Both the EIS and the no-jeopardy determination demanded that the Forest Service and Fish & Wildlife contemplate the “cumulative impacts” of the easement on the land and animals in the area. Selkirk Conservation Alliance and other environmental groups (“Selkirk”) contend that the decision to grant the easement was arbitrary and capricious because the agencies failed to consider cumulative…

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.