Friends of the Norbeck v. United States Forest Service, 661 F.3d 969

Norbeck Wildlife Preserve is within Black Hills National Forest; Forest Service manages ~28,000 acres there under the Norbeck Organic Act (NOA).
NOA directs the Preserve be set aside for protection and breeding of game animals and birds; prior management challenges include dense ponderosa pine stands and beetle outbreak.
Forest Service proposed the Norbeck Wildlife Project (6,000 acres) to thin pines via prescribed fire and selective logging to improve habitat and combat beetle outbreak.
EIS process began in 2007; four alternatives were considered, including a no-action option; final EIS released March 2010 with a Record of Decision selecting alternative 4.
Friends of the Norbeck challenged the decision arguing NEPA violation (no separate EIS for a focus-species list) and NOA compliance; South Dakota intervened in support.
District court dismissed for lack of NEPA exhaustion and NOA compliance; on appeal, court affirmed dismissal of NEPA claim and upheld NOA-compliant decision.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Friends of the Norbeck exhausted NEPA claim	Norbeck exhausted by comments in the EIS/appeal	Exhaustion not satisfied; focus-species EIS not raised properly	Exhaustion required; claim not exhausted; review denied
Whether Forest Service's Project violates NOA under APA review	Project violates NOA by harming habitat and not adequately considering effects	NOA provides standards; action duly considered and rationally balanced	Project not arbitrary or capricious; NOA compliance affirmed

Vt. Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 435 F.2d 519 (Supreme Court, 1978) (NEPA is essentially procedural; need informed decision-making)
Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332 (Supreme Court, 1989) (NEPA requires identification and evaluation of adverse environmental effects)
Marsh v. Oregon Natural Res. Council, 490 U.S. 360 (Supreme Court, 1989) (Deference to agency expertise in technical matters)
Public Citizen v. Dept. of Transportation, 541 U.S. 752 (Supreme Court, 2004) (Administrative record must allow meaningful agency consideration)
Sierra Club-Black Hills Group v. U.S. Forest Service, 259 F.3d 1281 (10th Cir., 2001) (NOA compliance and Forest Service standards in review)
Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (Supreme Court, 2006) (Exhaustion requirements and administrative procedure rules)
Sierra Club v. Kimbell, 623 F.3d 549 (8th Cir., 2010) (NEPA review under APA framework in the Eighth Circuit)
Cent. S.D. Coop. Grazing Dist. v. Sec'y, U.S. Dep't of Agric., 266 F.3d 889 (8th Cir., 2001) (Arbitrary-and-capricious standard; defer to agency with rational connection)
Nebraska ex rel. Bruning v. U.S. Dep't of Interior, 625 F.3d 501 (8th Cir., 2010) (De novo review of agency action under APA where applicable)