Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Administrative Law

Environmental Assessment Not Required to Contain
Population Data for Indicator Species

Ross H. Pifer
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant

Summary of Decision

In Sierra Club v. Bosworth, No. CIV. 03-3572, 2005 WL 82234, at *1 (D.Minn. Jan. 14, 2005), the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota ruled that an Environmental Assessment prepared by the Forest Service was not required to contain population data on indicator species within the area affected by the Big Grass Timber Sale.

Background

The United States Forest Service (Forest Service) issued a Decision Notice authorizing the sale of timber from a specified area within the Superior National Forest. See id. at *1. Prior to issuing the Decision Notice, the Forest Service prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and concluded that a full Environmental Impact Statement was not necessary because "the Project was not a major federal action that would impact the quality of the human environment significantly." Id. Plaintiff Sierra Club filed an administrative appeal of the Forest Service's decision, which was resolved in favor of the Forest Service. See id. at *3. Thereafter, Sierra Club filed suit against Dale Bosworth, Chief of the Forest Service, and other defendants alleging violations of the NEPA, the Administrative Procedures Act, and the Endangered Species Act. See id.

Arguments

Sierra Club argued that the Forest Service violated the National Forest Management Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1604(i), and its implementing regulations by failing to maintain population data for five of the indicator species within the project area. See id. *5, *6. The defendants argued that an EA is not required to contain population data. See id. at *6. The EA prepared by the Forest Service had relied on "the presence of habitat and not on actual population data." Id.

Analysis and Holding

The court stated that the Forest Service was "required to monitor the population trends" of indicator species. Id. at *5. The court, however, agreed with the defendants' argument that the EA prepared by the Forest Service was not required to contain specific population data. See id. at *6. The court noted that the EA contained a summary table of population trends for all of the indicator species at issue as well as an analysis of potential impacts to the habitat of those species. See id. Accordingly, the court concluded "that the EA was sufficient without population data." Id. at *7.

The case was decided on January 14, 2005; this summary was posted Mar. 24, 2005.