Minnesota Public Interest Research Group v. Earl v. Butz, Individually, and as Secretary of Agriculture

RE- MINNESOTA PUBLIC INTEREST GROUP, Appellee, SEARCH BUTZ, Individually, as Secre-

Earl V. tary al., Agriculture, et Appellants. 73-1281, 73-1280, 73-1242,

Nos. 73-1282

and 73-1753. Appeals,

United States Court Eighth Circuit. Feb.

Submitted

Decided June

Crucial to our determination is raised sue is whether or not the modifi existing cation contracts virgin timber, of some extension contracts, supervision of these and the day-to-day opera of the activities in cutting tion the timber contracts constitute BWCA area significantly affecting quality of the within the human environment purview of the National Environmental Policy Act of abeyance by A further held in issue the court is whether the Wilderness Act precludes from the Forest allow- Service ing any logging operations all in the Roy, Walters, L. Curtis and Joe A. Court, ple- The BWCA. District after a Minneapolis, appellants. . Minn., for nary hearing, felt that the Forest Serv- Seek, Minn., Minneapolis, Gerald L. would, reviewing possibly ice its en- appellee. for management forego policy, tire cutting hibit the of timber in the BWCA Judge, MEHAFFY, Before and Chief area, mooting issue; thus and if this LAY, HEANEY, BRIGHT, GIBSON, not, jurisdiction the court reserved ROSS, STEPHENSON, WEBSTER, pass upon legal issue of whether the Judges, Circuit en banc. cutting precludes Act Wilderness timber logging activities the wilderness Judge. GIBSON, Circuit area the BWCA. plaintiff, BWAC, The Inter The Minnesota Public located in northern Min- nesota, Group (MPIRG), unique est Research filed a is a natural resource with complaint asking declaratory 1,060,000 lakes, for and in some streams, acres of junctive against logging timber, along adjoin- further relief with the Boundary Quetico-Superior Area Waters Canoe Canadian forest (BWCA). only requested application It also forms the canoe wilderness area System Wilderness Preservation world. The area contains more than management 1964,1 1,000 policies larger acres, Act of lakes than 10 either of, existing por- and to the contracts for tim connected streams convenient tages by, easy ber for executed United allow canoe travel through States Forest BWCA. wilderness area. hearing Court, District a BWCA is administered after enjoined merits, defendants States as United Forest Service a Wil- part Supe- “in those areas of the active derness Area and as a timber sales on rior the BWCA which National Forest. The Draft Man- contiguous agement virgin with the main Plan of the forest Forest Service pending areas of the the Forest the BWCA refers BWCA area completion “unique, pristine, endangered, rugged, Service’s of its new BWCA Management High- accompanying primitive, fragile.” im Plan and beautiful and including pact ly prized by many, plaintiff statement.” 1973). designated Lord, 1. The Honorable Miles United Wilder- pursuant Judge, ness Area to the National States District District of Minnesota. Wilder- (The System ness Preservation Act Wilder- January seq., 3. 42 U.S.C. 4321 et effective § Act), seq. ness 16 U.S.C. et (NEPA). 1, 1970 Group 2. Minnesota Public Interest Research (D.Minn. Butz, appeals present question MPIRG, affords Area the Wilderness private recreational, scientific, educational of NEPA regarded logging operations pursuant highly carried out opportunities. It is also pre-NEPA paper and to by others, Forest Service the defendant like Specifically sales logging companies, the thou- within who value BWCA. question 102(2)(C) of NEPA5 that of marketable of acres sands requires preparation of an contains. “major Federal actions af Novem- was commenced lawsuit fecting envi MPIRG, an association ber ** ronment Should this court Minnesota col- at various of students affirm the District Court’s determina request- leges MPIRG and universities. tion that the Forest re Service’s actions injunc- permanent temporary ed garding these timber after sales Janu against any further ary 1, 1970, constitute federal ac com- the Forest Service BWCA until significantly affecting Impact pletes State- Environmental environment, of the human question a further require- (EIS) complying ment propriety to the as of the Dis separate awas ments of NEPA. There temporary injunction pend trict Court’s logging should be activities claim that filing preparation the fi incompatible in banned the BWCA presented. nal EIS protected values with the wilderness Wilderness Act. Superior National Forest contains approximately acres, there has that 3 million The defendants assert some 1,060,000 since the of which included federal action in the are (January 1, regulation BWCA. Pursuant of NEPA to a effective date 1970), Secretary further, Agriculture,6 MPIRG lacks BWCA They guilty zones, standing laches. been divided and is into two an Inte logging specifically 640,000 rior Zone of in also some acres7 cutting provided which timber allowed, for in is not BWCA Wil 425,000 found The District Court Portal Zone of derness Act. about acres action and which there has been allowed. standing and was At time of suit MPIRG has 11 timber sales were guilty consisting BWCA,8 active of laches. within Butz, Sale, purchased September Earl 4. The 1. Lake Government defendants Shell McGuire, 24, Secretary Agriculture; 1968, original 30, John termination date June Jay Chief, Service; 30, 1972 extended to States Eorest June 1973. United Cravens, Regional Forester, Sunnydale Sale, purchased 28, 2. and Harold An- March derson, Supervisor, Superior 1968, 30, National For- termination date June 1978. Sale, 'Jerry purchased April 7, 1964, est. are Consolidated 3. Private defendants Creek original Paper Compa- Papers, Inc.; 20, 1969, termination date March Northwest Ltd.; ny 31, 1971, again ; Products, once Forest Kainz extended to March Northern 31,1974. Logging Company; Abramson; Emil March Corporation. private Beartrap Sale, purchased 30, 4. Boise de- December Cascade 1968, 31, are the termination date December 1973. fendants owners Sale, July purchased 26, 1966, 5. sales at the time filed. Old Road active suit was original 30, 1971, termination date June ex- 4332(2) (C). 30, 5. 42 tended to June 1973. U.S.C. Sale, purchased 3, 6. Trail Block March (1971). 1969, 31, 6. 251.85 termination March 36 C.F.R. date 1973. purchased Compartment Sale, 7. 38 Block January 16, 1968, 100,000 7. March Included this total acres to termination date 31, this 1975 addi- added in 1975. 1973. Portions January Sale, purchased 11 timber sales 8. East Road Block tion were included within the 3, 1967, original active termination date December at time of suit. 30, 1971, extended 1974. to June sales, rights Sale, purchased July to remove tim- Tofte Those 11 West period contract, during 1959, original August 15, ber are as date termination 30,1974. follows: extended June 5,275 29,261 acres, sales,9 on which re- On acres six of these the Forest January 1, mained all uncut. sales had been Service after entered during through period gave made into contract extensions prior January 1, 1970, complete ef- owners additional time to cut ting obliga fective date of NEPA. sales. There was no part tion on the of the Forest Service to harvesting Timber has been a source grant extensions; testimony these public controversy surrounding prac indicated that this awas “routine” November, BWCA. soon after Service, prompted perhaps tice of the formation, requested its MPIRG part by knowledge original prepare an Forest Service to consid- periods not.normally contract were ex ering logging effects of pected to afford sufficient time to com BWCA and halt all cutting. plete complet- BWCA until the statement was Modifications, changes in the land ed. MPIRG was informed that a new occur, area in which could management plan was under con- negotiated by the 7 of pre- being sideration and that the EIS January the sales contracts after pared conjunction plan with the new Many of these modifications ready April, would be were made for “environmental” reasons. changed April, date was later This is some indication that the Forest satisfy objections pre- but to MPIRG’s recognized Service these timber liminary analysis environmental cover- significant impact sales could have a on ing logging was to be made available in Further, the BWCA. the administration August, 1972, public for review. Dissat- of the timber sales contracts preliminary analysis, isfied with this the continual involvement of Forest attempted again MPIRG to have the personnel approving Service locations suspend Forest Service in the logging camps, roads, BWCA until the EIS was filed and also marking of sale boundaries on requested compen- the Forest Service to ground, approving the use of mechanized private sate defendants with timber making equipment, and the of various suggestion outside the BWCA. This agreements. approvals other rejected by the Forest Service on No environmental statements November and MPIRG filed prepared any sales, have been 24,1972. this suit on November unchanged, modified, whether or extend The activities of the Forest Service January 1, posi ed after concerning pre-NEPA these 11 Service, adopted tion of the Forest categories roughly sales fall into three private action, defendants in this extensions, —contract contract modifica- major that there has been no ac federal administrative, tions, and the re- actions tion since the effective date NEPA. quired by the contracts. The District Court held otherwise12 and Sale, purchased analyses lay 10. briefly East Tofte November Toite Sales. These out 30, 1961, original granting termination date March environmental factors considered in extended June an extension and were not intended to be Sale, purchased Spruce required by 11. Black December the detailed EIS 22, 1969, original termination date December 31, 1972, “It is the Court’s conclusion that the cu- extended to June mulative effect administrative actions Jerry Lake, Creek, Road, 9. Shell Old East January 1, of the Forest taken since Block, Spruce Tofte, Road East and Black regard 1970 in timber sales tlie BWCA Sales. major constitute federal actions that have Lake, Sunnydale, Beartrap, significant 10. Shell Old had and continue to have a effect Road, Block, Tofte, Therefore, East Road East human on the environment. an Spruce prepared Black Sales. should have been management on the Forest Service analyses” prepared 1. 1 “Environmental policy dictating conjunction administrative actions.” such with the extensions Lake, Block, Shell East Road and East at 622. por clear-cut; enjoined or case is so these on all actions quantified timber sales Service cannot be tions of seven spent in terms of question.13 dollars to be or tons of

earth to moved. I. FEDERAL ACTION MAJOR Applicability A. Review NEPA involvement the Forest Service’s Does First, we faced major constitute timber sales these Forest Service’s determination affecting federal action major there has been no federal action. environment? quality accepted It generally involved preparation 102(2) (C) requires Section agency responsibility federal “every recommendation of an EIS for making the threshold determination as legislation and report proposals for What signifi NEPA.15 Federal other applied standard of review should be affecting the hu cantly determining added). whether this initial deter (emphasis man environment.” require comports mination with the other constitutes What ments the Act? The District Court Act, nor is not defined determined that the re Forest Service’s very legislative history illumin is the “arbitrary, prepare fusal to an EIS was in dis ating.14 S.Rep.No. 91-296 capricious and unlawful.” 102(2)(C) cussing states: Section the standard this circuit has agency proposes (c) Each adopted reviewing deci substantive propos- project major actions, such as proceed project sion to with a after reg- legislation, als, proposals for new prepared adequate ha's expan- statements, ulations, policy considering the effects. environmental ongoing programs, sion or revision Corps Environmental Defense Fund v. as to shall make a determination Engineers, 470 F.2d proposal have a would whether the denied, 1972), Cir. cert. quality of the effect on (1973). 2749, S.Ct. See 37 160 L.Ed.2d proposal If the human environment. also, Citizens to Park Preserve Overton effect, such an to have is considered 814, 416, v. 402, 401 91 S.Ct. U.S. report or then the recommendation Apache 28 (1971); L.Ed.2d 136 Jicarilla proposal supporting * must include * Morton, ->:(cid:127) Tribe of Indians 471 F.2d v. findings by [those 1973); 1275, (9th Calvert 1281 Cir. 102(2) (C)]. Coordinating v. Cliffs’ Committee Atom question as to whether The threshold Energy U.S.App.D.C. Commission, ic 146 requiring major is a there federal 33, 1109, (1971). de 449 1115 The F.2d presented in compliance not NEPA fendants this standard should cases; majority is little there applied be determina threshold govern- question the federal that when to build ment of dollars commits millions highways Hanly power plants, Circuit, dams, The v. Klein Second nuclear (2d dienst, 823, action. a F.2d there is federal 471 829-830 Cir. by question presented 1972), denied, S. 908, the instant 412 cert. 93 U.S. enjoined Lake, ; S.Rep.No. 91-296, Cutting 2751, (1969) 13. on the 91st was Shell 2769 Boad, Sunnydale, Jerry Creek, Beartrap, Cong., (1969). Old 1st Sess. Tofte, Tofte and East Sales. West 15, Coordinating See, Wyoming e.g., Outdoor continue District Court allowed to (10th Butz, v. 484 F.2d 1249 Council they remaining surrounded sales as Kreger, 1973) ; v. Ten Acres Cir. Save Our logged by previously areas that had 1973); (5th Han F.2d 464 Cir. 472 virgin represented intrusion into no further (2d Cir.), ly Mitchell, 460 F.2d v. forest. denied, 93 S.Ct. cert. I). (1972) (Hanly L.Ed.2d Cong., H.R.Rep.No. 91-378, 1st 14. 91st See Admin.News, Cong. Sess., 2 & at U.S.Code (Hanly only (1973) within narrow bounds. exercised Ct. 36 L.Ed.2d 974 II), adopted review which could have a this standard of Action agency’s the environment should cov effect on be threshold determination. by However, circuits, Fifth ered an statement.18 We other two to Tenth, think decision as threshold determinated have prepare un an EIS should whether not to initial determination is to be tested arbitrary and ca der that set be reviewed not on the a rule of reasonableness like pricious Wyoming used test a substan Park.17 standard to forth Overton Out balancing Coordinating Butz, tive door decision which entails Council v. already weighing (10th 1973); F.2d of alternatives Cir. Save studied, Kreger, grounds rea but on of its Our Ten v. Acres 472 F.2d 1973). sonableness. 465-466 Cir. only NEPA is not an environmental concerning agency An decision law, intended full-disclosure but was also requirements is not one commit NEPA changes in de- effectuate substantive agency’s law ted to discretion making. cision Environmental Defense meaning APA, within the U.S.C. supra Corps Fund at Engineers, Congressional seq.19 com et primarily here We are concerned agencies cooperate mand that in attain action-forcing provisions

with the goals of “to fullest NEPA 102(2) (C), Sec. the full dis- without possible” requires extent the courts required by closure NEPA for good look faith efforts of actions, there ba- exists sound upset agency comply. an To aspects sis to evaluate the environmental prepare determination an not to project. of a And without this basis statement, be shown that still must way evaluation, is no to determine agency’s was rea determination not whether a decision to substantive under sonable the circumstances. arbitrary capricious. ceed is showing project will 102(1) quality of Section of the Act con could affect Congressional tains en Ten direction that the human Save Our environment. supra Kreger, “to vironmental factors be considered Acres at 466. We agen possible.” the fullest initial extent An therefore hold that review an cy’s prepare prepare precludes decision not im an EIS determination not to pact the full directed Con consideration measured gress. circumstances, envi view concern for reasonableness in the NEPA, present arbitrary, ronmental disclosure whether ca agency’s pricious, the an discretion, discretion as to whether an abuse of or oth impact properly statement not in erwise accordance with law.20 cumulatively impact 17. The : Court stated on the inquiry Also involved this initial is a environment from federal action. whether determination of on the facts the Wyoming Coordinating 19. See Outdoor Coun Secretary’s reasonably decision can be said Butz, supra 1249; Hanly II, * * * cil v. at su range cf. to be within that [of dis- pra at 829. by Act], sup- (emphasis cretion vested the plied). regard 20. In this it should also be noted that Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Circuit, though adopting the Second arbitrary even the . supra at 416 The Act in Overton involved capricious review, and of standard 4(f) Department Park was Transportation Act, of Sec. the of requires agency develop the a reviewa- 1653(f). 49 U.S.G. § making ble environmental when record its basically position This is the taken the threshold determination of Quality (CEQ). Hanly I, supra also, Council on Environmental at 647. See See, Guidelines, Fed.Reg. CEQ Arizona Public Service Federal Power Co. (April 23, provides 1971), Commission, (D.C.Cir. Sec. 483 F.2d 5(b) 1973). Hanly goes requires : II and further agency prepare impact give public The lead an to notice of the action anticipate provide opportunity statement if it reasonable to to submit facts They operations. ronment Determina- B. Was The The Guidelines further with a Federal actions pact, further actions environment considerable.21 pared. 5. Actions affecting fected, ment” is to be construed vidually limited but should many constitutes procedure ect -X- tion Reasonable? (b) CEQ Application but if there is Federal decisions about a complex bear mind that the view of the action may * * * ^[*] Guidelines state: to included. statutory be localized may -X- existing environment, significantly contemplated). projects be action overall, section -X- potential proposed provide: considering what significantly af clause is to projects cumulatively can be -X- cumulative 102(2) (C) their affecting effect agencies environ agencies be (and “major ^[*] proj Such indi pre im assert that Federal action tion, eral creates termined vironment must be determined. pra at 644. terpretation But Accord, Julis v. Hanly Iowa, Council fense Fund v. ty, Defendants claim that jor quired fer to the environment. We ants that ent 468 F.2d 1164 quality action; cf. (D.Wyo.1973) Federal action” refers I * * two preceded it, Wyoming project, impact rationale); to whether Butz, supra, F.Supp. of the human complete tests. impact of next, *. Tennessee statutory two significantly the amount adopted City if there is a Outdoor that action First, there concepts are differ- (which adopted agree it, Environmental Cir. of Cedar (N.D.Iowa rev’g but Valley Authori the term phrase it must project is a 1972). environment” Coordinating Hanly does not to the cost major fed- on the affecting time re- planning This in- defend- Rapids, “major be on 1972). I, su- “ma- De en- de- ac- re- programs. To the maximum extent separate To the consideration 102(2) practicable (C) pro the section magnitude action from of federal applied cedure further should be does little on the environment having signif major Federal actions e., Act, purposes of the i. foster even icant effect on environment range beneficial the widest “attain though they projects or arise from degra without uses of the environment programs prior initiated to enactment safety, dation, to health risk January 1, Act unintended other undesirable and bifurcating By consequences.”24 defendants that the actions possible language, statutory be Forest Service must be would isolated sig- subsequent impact speak from the on the envi- “minor federal of a bearing may degree completion Hmly II, determination. work supra determining whether considered project, is essential ceed with 21. Revised Guidelines were issued proceeding impacts the environmental CEQ, August 1, Fed.Reg. poli- pursuant the Act’s are reassessed 5, although See. § renumbered to re- 1500.6 * * (empha- procedtires *. and cies substantially mains the same. supplied). sis by 22. See. 11 was altered the Revised Guide- Volpe, also, Virginians Dulles v. for 23. See lines to make clear (E.D.Va.1972); F.Supp. Conserva projects NEPA to initiated before its effec- Vermont, Society Inc. of Southern tive date. Added in fol- was the F.Supp. (D.Vt.1972); Citi lowing : Laird, F. Park v. for Reid State zens Supp. Agencies obligation have an to reassess (D.Me.1972). ongoing projects programs and in order 4331(b)(3). 101(b)(3), avoid or minimize adverse 24. Sec. U.S.C. environmental * * * effects. While the of the status nificantly affecting quality individually cumulatively limited but environment,” Apart may

human to hold and NEPA considerable.” from what inapplicable ifYet be value,”27 to such an action. referred to as “existence significant effect, the action it is has a the evidence that di indicated there are the intent it be of NEPA that rect on effects the human environment subject logging. Logging detailed consideration from excess creates by NEPA; algal mandated activities nutrient run-off which causes agencies growth streams, cannot be isolated in the lakes and affect impact upon Logging may their purity. environment. water roads approach pollution with more consonant cause erosion and water purpose supported long years; of NEPA and is remain for visible as as 100 CEQ supra, S.Rep.No.91-296, beauty in rustic, and the this affects the natural recognized BWCA, unique Guidelines. as Logging Forest Service stroys virgin de itself.28 Looking to the timber now only forest, not for recrea question, sales it was established use, tional educa but scientific signif Court there is District that a purposes tional are as well. All these icant effect logging operations. from these on the BWCA impacts on the human envi These effects ronment. fully opinion Dis detailed of the However, con trict Court.25 defendants signifi- The Forest Service has been any tend that adverse effect cantly involved with these timber sales “significantly BWCA does not affect January since the effective date as human environment” to, of NEPA. Its contracts showing there is human no evidence that alia, approve inter of timber locations users of a the BWCA even seen have roads, buildings; camps and appears a too timber sale. This to be negotiate cut; mark the trees to be significantly restrictive af view what payment addi- cut. think fects human environment. We tion, it extended six of the sales after NEPA is concerned with indirect effects made effective date of NEPA and well as as direct There effects. contract with the consent modifications increasing recognition man that purchasers the sales. on seven of may and all other life on be this earth monetary Further, which there is a affected insignificant. appear found on the surface involvement. District Court recognition by re This has CEQ; the revenue the Forest Service received many effect deci ceives from its sales “the Federal * * * clearly proj’ect inadequate to sions about be finance can marjoram creeping 25. 358 at ered basil and 609-617. ragwort yellow thyme, with columbine Guidelines, CEQ Sec. 5. The more so dramatic abundance. feeling 27. Existence value refers of us it difficult to conceive find just people knowing lasting, underlying importance some have some- indeed the bogs perhaps where there remains un- true wilderness un- because wetlands — feeling hands, derstandably recognize, touched such as the or we we do not people might begin- forget, insignificant of loss feel the extinction our own wish they whooping though Judge nings crane even had Hand called in what Learned See, Society (footnote omitted). never seen “primordial one. Conservation ooze.” Vermont, Volpe, supra of Southern Inc. accurate, perhaps the defendants 28. While 767-768: argue, plaintiff none of the members To those of us who are so fortunate to live sale, de- a timber MPIRG have ever seen Vermont and to wildness have little greatest surrounding us, probably num- fendants also assert diffi- so may users use areas cult as it ber of recreational for others to conceive preservation previously logged. in- been This would terms of the of all mankind have importance are visible hill that effects of of a little dicate the limestone many rising valley abruptly floor, users. from a cov- involvement the reforestation determining the mature timber is cut. was gument tions were as of a carilla ton, supra, tions is Service these found to be contractually right-of-way they timber Apache that because the participation. unpersuasive. and the cannot be the sales properly Tribe program required after significance committed and coal stack clear-cutting as was considered Defendants’ Indians v. the context Forest the to these federal of financial approval heights Service Forest in Ji when some Mor ar ac ac 2d 287 power. that S. abused its discretion temporary tion then is whether the Practice States, 88 L.Ed. 834 State Toll Struthers-Dunn, (1972). the District Court does have that Bradford fj (7th Cf. (1st Cir. Highway Authority, injunction. S.Ct. (1944); Silva Cir.), 1969); Cir. ^[2] Inc., Township v. cert. 1973). (2d E. 7 Moore’s Federal Romney, in Yakus v. United W. denied, ed. District Court granting 64 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d F.2d Bliss 1974). v. Illinois 473 F. 409 U. Co. ques F.2d the Forest pursuant timber 670 acres no find discretion We abuse of major federal found to sales be Service here. Plaintiff established a violation Wyoming Coordinat action in Outdoor cutting If the allowed agree ing Butz, supra. We Council pending preparation to continue there the District Court that with regarding logging, the EIS effects of significantly af “major Federal action the District en Court would have been fecting envi gaging futility, in an exercise in because impact statement ronment” and an damage any might that have avoid required.29 irreversibly study ed after would have weighed occurred. District Court THE INJUNC- OF damage II. PROPRIETY possible to each defendant injunction TION granting from and con cluded that whatever harm suffered determining Upon vi- was that NEPA slight. appears balance, On would enjoined olated, tim- the District Court properly to us District Court cutting part active on all or of seven ber exercised its discretion to maintain Until EIS timber sales quo pending preparation and status private prepared defend- and filed. The filing necessary EIS. injunction not ants that an addition, granted. in No. have been an the Forest After Service appeals Papers 73-1753, Consolidated filing draft EIS cover nounced a to dissolve refusal the District Court’s Plan, Management draft BWCA injunction upon motion. later its timber continue to allow which would challenge power cutting, Papers do not moved Defendants Consolidated enjoin injunction District Court activities on the Old to lift its court filing EIS; asserting equities pending is clear Sale, an Road contemplates change departure Forest Service Tlie or a circumstances policy filed will cover to be overall covered EIS. Management requirements their all facets of new BWCA of NEPA are not meant policy Plan, including Service an without discretion Forest leave cutting. responsibilities. fulfilling We are of view “NEPA is timber its jack- paper tiger, consideration the overall but neither is it strait management policy of the Forest Service Institute Public Informa- et.” Scientists’ complying NEPA, Commission, Energy tion, adminis- each v. Atomic EIS Inc. 1973). pursuant policy (D.C.Cir. action taken trative F.2d 1091-1092 separate statement, By statement. intimate will not the above we words, opinion if effects In other the environmental as to whether or not cutting statutory responsi- discharging the over- of timber considered permit part EIS, all an individual for each timber will bilities Management required, sale would not be a material Plan. absent its new BWCA 1824 substantially compliance NEPA,

had been altered. This with a result not to encouraged. motion See, was denied an order of Octo- be Environmental De argues 9, T.V.A., supra ber Consolidated that fense Fund v. at 1182- probability 1183; Arlington Transpor since the that the Forest Coalition prohibit 1323, Service would further v. tation 458 1329 F.2d denied, 1000, was a factor in the Dis- Cir.), cert. U.S. 93 S. grant injunctive trict (1972); City Court’s initial Ct. 34 L.Ed.2d relief, States, not to F.Supp. fact is be New York v. United prohibited requires (E.D.N.Y.1972). Moreover, dissolution injunction. here found District no unrea Court delay, sonable and its conclusion is war agree. We cannot The District ranted the record. upon injunction Court’s is conditioned compliance the Forest with Service’s Compliance IV. made STANDING has not been prepares until Forest Service Defendants assert that MPIRG lacks assessing files a final standing, alleged “inju- in that it no has logging upon the environment. ry in fact” meet sufficient to consti- statement draft is not basis [A] standing requirement. tutional The en- agency of an decision. Its function vironmental asserted interests to elicit comment that will contribute MPIRG well the zone in- within statement, to a is the fi- final and it protected by terests NEPA. United supposed nal to SCRAP, v. States U.S. 686 n. agency serve as the basis for assess- 37 L.Ed.2d 254 S.Ct. implica- ment of the environmental (1973). project. tions of the think that We MPIRG has Mason,

Sierra Club establishing shown facts it has (D.Conn.1973). more than a mere interest the out litigation. come the final statement has been Until * * * only give judi- filed to it would serve “Injury in fact” serves recognition “futility” cial distinguish person with a direct process NEPA if the dis- District Court litigation— stake outcome injunction solved on the basis though person even small—from a draft statement. That would constitute problem. with a mere interest that the has admission final decision supra SCRAP, n. United States already been made without consideration public reaction and comments that some of its MPIRG has shown Although such draft statement. members use for wilderness the BWCA reality, may be the it should not be opportunities it It recreational affords. appearance process. of the NEPA review demonstrated an effect has wil- in re- There of discretion abuse qualities derness of the BWCA from the fusing injunction. dissolve logging operations. This suffices to that its have suffered or show members III. LACHES injury requisite in fact will suffer standing. rep- support may Defendants also MPIRG guilty injured proceed- This doc MPIRG laches. in a resent its members recognized available, trine, judicial has while Sierra Club v. review. reception received Morton, a lukewarm suits 92 S.Ct. presenting questions, (1972). environmental L.Ed.2d 620 We therefore 31 agree only plaintiff others than the will Court the District possible standing litigate suffer the adverse environmen MPIRG escape effects, questions presented. tal but the will pursuant the of THE ACT enactment to the V. WILDERNESS NEPA Congress authorization in the Wilder attempted defendants have The expenditures ness Act. No federal in their the to demonstrate briefs original involved in either contracts the provides specifically for Wilderness Act inor the thereof. Some of extensions cutting timber within the BWCA. partially complet the contracts had been premature, and we decline to claim granted ed when extensions of time were to its in this address ourselves merits routinely just they granted been had proceeding. The held the District Court past. contracts, the Some of the such they to claims as relate the Wilderness Sunnydale Beartrap Sales, as the and abeyance Act in until Forest Service the had expired, not no been extensions had completes its Man action on new BWCA granted, only “major” and the federal agement accompanying Plan and supervision action involved continued for the This issue remains statement.30 contracts a reduction in the area and deter District Court’s consideration logged. question to be area in total proceedings in mination in further percent was one less than of the BWCA the ease.31 and the location of the areas to be judgment Court District logged adjacent any portion was not pend granting temporary injunction the BWCA used for recreational filing completion of the EIS and purposes.1 Indeed, no member of the (C) 102(2) NEPA is Minnesota Public Interest Research judgment Dis affirmed.32 Group had ever or seen refusing the in to vacate trict Court these areas of the BWCA. junction in affirmed. No. 73-1753 is question, The statute 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2) requires agencies (C), all ROSS, Judge, whom with Circuit government every to “include in WEBSTER, Circuit STEPHENSON report proposals recommendation on dissenting. Judges, join, legislation major for Federal other made a In this the Forest Service case significantly affecting quali- supervision or the routine decision that ty environment, of the human a detailed completion of the time for extension of responsible on official question contracts —(i) impact of the the environmental having “major” not federal action proposed action . . .” The first . “significant” quality of effect suggested by test to be made is obvious think human environment. We Does the words of the statute. the con- this decision dictates that common sense templated comparable rise that the decision was correct and “proposals legislation,” status of for court reversed. trial should be Congress equated “other with which opin- en- had been contracts Federal our actions”? prior ion, tim- into the routine extension of several tered (1973) pro 30. 358 at 589. 1. See 36 C.F.R. vides as follows: note that the dissent assumes We harvesting permitted in Por- Timber timber Wilderness Act authorizes designed pro- under tal Zone conditions ques- This is the crucial within BWCA. primitive tect maintain recreational further determination Timber 400 feet of values. within and, question ceedings case as this this and streams suitable shorelines lakes proceeding, presented we ex- this . . will be or canoe . for boat travel press opinion the Wilder- as to whether harvesting, specifically excluded from cutting. prohibits ness Act allows or harvesting operations be de- will injunction crossings signed unnecessary We the view that avoid filing portages. the final terminate will Any challenge adequacy of EIS. sepa- final EIS will institution proceeding. rate supervision Act; ber sales continued visions of the Wilderness and the logically accepted of others cannot be considered trial court should have at least “proposals to be on same level that determination at that and dis- time legislation.” However, injunction. solved the inas- majority much as the has held that the recognize there is of au We division injunction must be dissolved when thority as to what fed constitutes impact filed, final statement is which we significant is eral and what understand will be in June of terms of effect on environ the human majority inasmuch as the made it ment. A review of the cited cases impact clear that test final below2 and of the in the cases cited ma separate lawsuit, must be jority opinion, pri indicates that is purpose by no useful would be served marily judgment a matter of toas what part further discussion of that action, is consti what majority opinion. tutes a effect on the human agree environment. with the We observations sitting Burger, Chief Justice as a Cir- The actual crux of this is not lawsuit Justice, cuit in Aberdeen R. & Rockfish advisability logging the balance SCRAP, 1217-1218, Co. 409 v. particular contracts, of these rather but 1, 7, (Burger, 93 34 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 21 stop plaintiffs is effort all Justice, 1972): Circuit theory in the Their BWCA. permitted society governmental the forest Our and its periodically by means, having instrumentalities, thin itself natural been less (i. fires) e. forest rather than com- than alert to the needs our environ- logging. appear generations, mercial It from would ment for have now taken opinion judge protective steps. of the trial that he developments, plaintiffs. shares that view with praiseworthy, however should not lead judgment, our this a decision best left equitable powers courts to exercise expertise to the of the Forest Service casually loosely or whenever a claim subject only right Congress damage” of “environmental assert- change policy expressed as heretofore go ed. world must and new in the Wilderness Act. legislation environmental must be agree Neither do we the trial carefully meshed with more tradition- injunc- court should have continued regulation. patterns al of federal filing preliminary tion after the process judges decisional is one of draft of the At statement. balancing and it is often a most diffi- point it became obvious that the Forest cult task. going Service was all not to discontinue would We reverse with directions to BWCA, decision was certainly injunction. entitled to make dissolve under Butz, F.Supp. Valley (N. Auth., F.Supp. 2. Kisner v. Tennessee D.W.Va.1972), (N.D.Ala.1972), raising [Construction of 4.3 miles [Routine lowering Forest Service road in at dam national forest held water level not TVA ; Virginians not to call covered NEPA.] environmental state for Dulles ; (EIS).J Maryland-National Capital F.Supp. (E.D. ment v. 577-578 Planning stretcli-jets Va.1972), [Allowing operate Park & Comm’n v. U.S. Postal Serv., (D.D.C. F.Supp. airport national federal action 1972), necessary affecting [No EIS for construction the human environment. I; park.]; of bulk mail center industrial Ju itizens for Reid Park State C City Laird, Rapids, F.Supp. 783, (D.Maine 1972), lis of Cedar (N.D.Iowa 1972), [Widening park 89-90 [No street for use of state for two to four marme lanes for blocks assault exercises.]. fourteen city ; did not Morris v. EIS.]

Case Details

Case Name: Minnesota Public Interest Research Group v. Earl v. Butz, Individually, and as Secretary of Agriculture

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Date Published: Jun 10, 1974

Citation: 498 F.2d 1314

Docket Number: 73-1242, 73-1280, 73-1281, 73-1282 and 73-1753

Court Abbreviation: 8th Cir.