Case Summary
Issue:
Whether an entity with purely economic interests that is affected adversely by agency action decision may challenge the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) document upon which the action was based or may only entities with environmental interests bring NEPA claims?
Plaintiffs:
American Independence Mines and Minerals Company; Ivy Minerals, Inc.
Defendant:
United States Department of Agriculture
Join the Fight
Since 1977, MSLF has fought to protect private property rights, individual liberties, and economic freedom. MSLF is a nonprofit public interest legal foundation. We represent clients pro bono and receive no government funding. Make your 100% tax deductible contribution today and join the fight.
Case History
In 2005, the U.S. Forest Service promulgated a new Travel Management Rule, which required each national forest to designate which specific roads within the forest are open to travel. Previously, the Payette National Forest had a policy of allowing travel on all roads that were not specifically closed; the Travel Management Rule replaced the “open unless closed” policy with a “closed unless open” policy.
The Payette National Forest proposed a travel management plan to specify the roads open for travel. To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)—which requires federal agencies to analyze major federal actions that significantly affect the quality of the human environment—Payette issued a draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) to analyze the proposed plan and various alternatives to that plan. Although all NEPA studies must include a “no action” alternative, the Payette DEIS “no action” alternative did not keep open all roads that were open prior to 2005. The mining companies noted the deficiency to the Forest Service, but the agency did not correct the error in its Final EIS (FEIS), and then issued a record of decision implementing an alternatives analyzed in the FEIS.
After an unsuccessful administrative appeal, the companies sued. The district court dismissed the case in 2010 holding that they lacked standing because the economic interest they asserted was not in the “zone of interest” of NEPA; in 2012, the Ninth Circuit affirmed and denied rehearing. In January 2013, the companies filed their petition.
