ELR Citation: ELR 20608
No(s). 86-3808 (9th Cir. Mar 1, 1988)

The court holds that the United States Forest Service (USFS) violated the National Environmental Policy Act in conducting a road reconstruction project and related timber sales in the Kootenai National Forest in Montana. The court first holds that the USFS' environmental assessments (EAs) for portions of the road reconstruction were inadequate. The EAs were not prepared to examine environmental impacts, but to evaluate techniques of maintaining the road. In addition, the EAs do not adequately discuss the effect of the project on wildlife, having only five brief sentences that do not analyze adverse environmental impact. The biological assessment (BA) for the project prepared pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (ESA), though it supplemented the EAs, was insufficient to fill these gaps. The court also holds that the EAs were untimely. The reconstruction contracts were awarded prior to the preparation of the EAs, and construction had already begun by the time the BA was prepared. The court next holds that the road reconstruction and the timber sales were "connected actions" within the meaning of the Council on Environmental Quality regulations, and were therefore required to be considered together in a single EA or environmental impact statement (EIS). The reason for the road reconstruction was increased logging activity in the area, and the USFS rejected the "no action" alternative to the road project on the grounds of the accelerated timber harvest. The cost-benefit analysis of the road considered only timber as the benefit. Although the USFS argues that the road would yield other uses, such as recreational use, it has not demonstrated that such other benefits would justify the road in the absence of timber sales. Moreover, the completion of each segment of the road was tied to a specific timber contract. The court holds that the cumulative impacts of the reconstruction and the timber sales may require preparation of an EIS, since there is an inextricable nexus between the road construction and the logging operations. The court withholds judgment on the question of alleged violations of the ESA, pending a decision on whether to rehear en banc the court's decision in Hallstrom v. Tillamook County, 18 ELR 20149, that the 60-day notice requirement for citizen suits under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, which is similar to the ESA's citizen suit provision, is jurisdictional.

[The district court's decision is published at 16 ELR 20968. Subsequent to this decision, a panel of the Ninth Circuit decided not to rehear Hallstrom en banc, 18 ELR 20606.]

Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellants
Charles Sheroke
Idaho Legal Aid Services, Inc.
P.O. Box 1439, Coeur D'Alene ID 83814
(208) 667-9559

Counsel for Defendants-Appellees
John T. Stahr
Land and Natural Resources Division
Department of Justice, Washington DC 20530
(202) 633-2000

Before Wallace and Fletcher, JJ.