Sierra Forest Legacy v. Sherman
646 F.3d 1161
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- 11.5 million acres of Sierra Nevada federal lands governed by 2004 Framework and Basin Project under NEPA/NFMA challenge.
- Sierra Forest Legacy and California alleged NEPA violations (short-term impacts, opposing expert views) and NFMA violations (monitoring, viability) related to 2004 Framework and Basin Project.
- District court found NEPA violation re: alternatives analysis; remanded for SEIS; denied injunction on interim basis.
- Appellants appealed; Ninth Circuit held on standing, NEPA analysis, and remand for NFMA considerations.
- Posture includes multiple parties: Sierra Forest, Center for Biological Diversity, NRDC, Sierra Club, Wilderness Society, California; various intervenors and federal agencies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| NEPA standing to challenge 2004 Framework facially | Sierra Forest and California have concrete interests | Forest Service argued lack of facial standing | Yes, standing established for facial NEPA challenge |
| NEPA short-term vs long-term impacts in 2004 Framework SEIS | Focus on long-term modeling ignores near-term harms | SEIS adequately discusses short-term risks and monitoring | SEIS adequately addresses short-term impacts; NEPA satisfied on this point |
| Disclosures of opposing expert views under NEPA | Agency failed to disclose/respond to expert opposition | SEIS addresses substantial critiques; not required to highlight identities | Not violated; SEIS meaningfully responds to public/expert critiques |
| Basin Project cumulative impacts analysis under NEPA | EA failed to disclose cumulative impacts | Cumulative impacts discussed in Basin EA and 2004 Framework SEIS | No NEPA violation; substantial cumulative analysis present |
| NFMA retroactivity of 2007 Amendment to 2004 Framework | Retroactive effect not authorized; limits monitoring requirements | 7 Amendment provides retroactive authority | Remand to determine compliance with 2004 Framework without 2007 Amendment; NFMA issues not ripe yet |
Key Cases Cited
- Ohio Forestry Ass'n v. Sierra Club, 523 U.S. 726 (1998) (ripeness in NFMA challenges; plan must matter for site-specific review)
- Lands Council v. McNair, 537 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2008) (arbitrary and capricious NEPA review standard; deference to agency not absolute)
- Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332 (1989) (NEPA requires hard look; discussion of alternatives)
- Winter v. NRDC, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (retention of agency deference limits in injunctions; procedural posture)
- Sierra Forest Legacy v. Rey, 577 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 2009) (precedent on NEPA framework changes and remedial scope)
- Pit River Tribe v. U.S. Forest Serv., 615 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2010) (remand/remedial review in agency process; finality considerations)