Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-r6qrq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T21:09:45.078Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

RESEARCH ARTICLE: Twenty Years of Forest Service National Environmental Policy Act Litigation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2010

Amanda M.A. Miner ,
Robert W. Malmsheimer ,
Denise M. Keele  and
Michael J. Mortimer
Amanda M.A. Miner
Affiliation:
SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, New York
Robert W. Malmsheimer*
Affiliation:
SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, New York
Denise M. Keele
Affiliation:
Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan
Michael J. Mortimer
Affiliation:
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia
*
Address correspondence to: Robert W. Malmsheimer, SUNY ESF, 320 Bray Hall, One Forestry Drive, Syracuse, NY 13210-2778; (phone) 315/470-6909; (fax) 315/470-6535; (e-mail) rwmalmsh@esf.edu
Get access

Abstract

The USDA Forest Service is sued more often than any other federal agency under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). This analysis examines Forest Service land management cases initiated from 1989 to 2008 to understand how the agency fared in NEPA cases. Of the 1,064 completed cases, 671 (63.1%) involved a NEPA challenge. The agency won the final outcome of 343 cases (51.1%), lost 176 (26.2%), and settled 152 (22.7%). Case characteristic analyses indicate that case decisions peaked at the end of the 1990s, occurred mostly in the Ninth Circuit, and predominately involved vegetative management, forest planning, roads, recreation, and wildlife management activities. In addition to these general case outcomes, we conducted an in-depth analysis of the 411 cases where a judge or panel of judges specifically ruled on a NEPA challenge. The agency won the NEPA claim in 69.3% of these cases. The Forest Service was most successful litigating supplemental environmental impact statement cases and least successful in categorical exclusion cases. Most challenges to Forest Service NEPA implementation were based on environmental assessments (EAs) and environmental impact statements (EISs). The agency was more likely to win a direct and indirect effects EA challenge and a range of alternatives EIS challenge. Since the Forest Service accounts for a large portion of all NEPA litigation, this research enhances understanding of legal challenges to NEPA's implementation.

Environmental Practice 12:116–126 (2010)

Type
Features
Information
Environmental Practice , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , June 2010 , pp. 116 - 126
Copyright
Copyright © National Association of Environmental Professionals 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Broussard, S.R., and Whitaker, B.D.. 2009. The Magna Charta of Environmental Litigation: A Historical Look at 30 Years of NEPA–Forest Service Litigation. Forest Policy and Economics 11(2):148–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burris, R.K., and Canter, L.W.. 1997. Cumulative Impacts Are Not Properly Addressed in Environmental Assessments. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 17(1):5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Committee on Resources. 2005. Task Force on Improving the National Environmental Policy Act and Task Force on Updating the National Environmental Policy Act: Initial Findings and Draft Recommendations. Committee on Resources, US House of Representatives, Washington, DC, 30 pp. Available at http://www.law.georgetown.edu/gelpi/research_archive/nepa/NEPATaskForce_FinalDraft.pdf (accessed April 14, 2010).Google Scholar
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 2009. NEPAnet. CEQ, Washington, DC. Available at http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/nepanet.htm (accessed May 7, 2009).Google Scholar
Gambino Portuese, B., Malmsheimer, R.W., Anderson, A.M., Floyd, D.W., and Keele, D.M.. 2009. Litigants' Characteristics and Outcomes in Forest Service Land Management Cases 1989 to 2005. Journal of Forestry 107(1):16–22.Google Scholar
Jones, E.S., and Taylor, C.P.. 1995. Litigating Agency Change: The Impact of the Courts and Administrative Appeals Process on the Forest Service. Policy Studies Journal 23(2):310–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaiser, B.A. 2006. The National Environmental Policy Act's Influence on USDA Forest Service Decision-Making, 1974–1996. Journal of Forest Economics 12(2):109–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keele, D.M., Malmsheimer, R.W., Floyd, D.W., and Perez, J.E.. 2006. Forest Service Land Management Litigation 1989–2002. Journal of Forestry 104(4):196–202.Google Scholar
MacGregor, D.G., and Seesholtz, D.N.. 2008. Factors Influencing Line Officers' Decisions about National Environmental Policy Act Project Design and Development. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-766.USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR, 27 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malmsheimer, R.W., Keele, D., and Floyd, D.W.. 2004. National Forest Litigation in the US Courts of Appeals. Journal of Forestry 102(2):20–25.Google Scholar
McCold, L.N., and Saulsbury, J.W.. 1996. Including Past and Present Impacts in Cumulative Impact Assessments. Environmental Management 20(5):767–776.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moriarty, K.H. 2004. Circumventing the National Environmental Policy Act: Agency Abuse of the Categorical Exclusion. New York University Law Review 79:2312–2340.Google Scholar
Mortimer, M.J. 2002. The Delegation of Law-Making Authority to the United States Forest Service: Implications in the Struggle for National Forest Management. Administrative Law Review 54(3):907–982.Google Scholar
Mortimer, M.J., Stern, M.J., Malmsheimer, R.W., Blahna, D.J., Cerveny, L., and Seesholtz, D.. In press.Environmental and Social Risks: Defensive NEPA in the U.S. Forest Service. Journal of Forestry.Google Scholar
Neznek, R. 2004. Healthy Forests Initiative and its effect on appeals. Journal of Forestry 102(2):5–7.Google Scholar
Smith, M.D. 2006. Cumulative Impact Assessment under the National Environmental Policy Act: An Analysis of Recent Case Law. Environmental Practice 8(4):228–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, M.D. 2007. A Review of Recent NEPA Alternatives Analysis Case Law. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 27(2):126–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stern, M.J., Predmore, S.A., Mortimer, M.J., and Seesholtz, D.N.. 2010. From the Office to the Field: Areas of Tension and Consensus in the Implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act within the US Forest Service. Journal of Environmental Management 91(6):1350–1356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thatcher, T.L. 1990. Understanding Interdependence in the Natural Environment: Some Thoughts on Cumulative Impact Assessment under the National Environmental Policy Act. Environmental Law 20:611–647.Google Scholar