ROBERTSON V. METHOW VALLEY CITIZENS COUNCIL
490 U.S. 332 (1989)
NATURE OF THE CASE: The Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether the National
Environmental Policy Act requires federal agencies to include in each environmental impact
statement: (a) a fully developed plan to mitigate environmental harm; and (b) a 'worst case'
analysis of potential environmental harm if relevant information concerning significant
environmental effects is unavailable or too costly to obtain' and whether the Forest Service
may issue a special use permit for recreational use of national forest land in the absence
of a fully developed plan to mitigate environmental harm.'
FACTS: This case arises out of the Forest Service's decision to issue a special use
permit authorizing the development of a major destination alpine ski resort at Sandy Butte
in the North Cascade Mountains. Methow Recreation, Inc. (MRI), applied for a special use
permit to develop and operate its proposed 'Early Winters Ski Resort' on Sandy Butte and a
1,165-acre parcel of land it had acquired adjacent to the National Forest. The Forest
Service, in cooperation with state and county officials, prepared an EIS known as the Early
Winters Alpine Winter Sports Study (Early Winters Study or Study). The stated purpose of the
EIS was 'to provide the information required to evaluate the potential for skiing at Early
Winters' and 'to assist in making a decision whether to issue a Special Use Permit for
downhill skiing on all or a portion of approximately 3900 acres of National Forest System
land.' The Study concluded that, although the construction, maintenance, and operation of
the proposed ski area 'will not have a measurable effect on existing or future air quality,'
the off-site development of private land under all five alternatives -- including the 'no
action' alternative -- 'will have a significant effect on air quality during severe
meteorological inversion periods.' The EIS identified actions that could be taken by the
county government to mitigate the adverse effects of development, as well as those that the
Forest Service itself could implement at the construction stage of the project. The EIS
concluded that no endangered or threatened species would be affected by the proposed
development, and that the only impact on sensitive species was the probable loss of a pair
of spotted owls and their progeny. The Washington Department of Game voiced a special
concern about potential losses to the State's largest migratory deer herd, which uses the
Methow Valley as a critical winter range and as its migration route. The Regional Forester
recommended the permit. Four organizations opposing the decision to issue a permit appealed
the Regional Forester's decision to the Chief of the Forest Service. After a hearing, he
affirmed the Regional Forester's decision. Stressing that the decision, which simply
approved the general concept of issuing a 30-year special use permit for development of
Sandy Butte, did not authorize construction of a particular ski area and, in fact, did not
even act on MRI's specific permit application, he concluded that the EIS' discussion of
mitigation was 'adequate for this stage in the review process.' Respondents brought this
action under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 701-706, to obtain judicial
review of the Forest Service's decision. The Magistrate noted that additional mitigation
strategies would be included in the master plan, that the Forest Service continues to
develop mitigation plans as further information becomes available, and that the Regional
Forester's decision conditioned issuance of the special use permit on execution of an
agreement between the Forest Service, the State of Washington, and Okanogan County
concerning mitigation. The Court of Appeals reversed. The court held that the Forest Service
could not rely on 'the implementation of mitigation measures'' to support its conclusion
that the impact on the mule deer would be minor, 'since not only has the effectiveness of
these mitigation measures not yet been assessed, but the mitigation measures themselves have
yet to be developed.'
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment