Jayne v. Sherman

Jan 7: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 11-35269, 11-35292, 11-35305, and 11-35322. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Idaho. In a summary, the court staff indicate that the panel affirmed the district court's judgment in appeal No. 11-35269, and adopted the district court's opinion as their own, Jayne v. Rey, 780 F. Supp. 2d 1099 (D. Idaho 2011). The panel dismissed as moot cross appeals Nos. 11-35292, 11-35305, and 11-35322. Plaintiffs challenged the United States Forest Service's October 16, 2008 Record of Decision adopting the modified Idaho Roadless Rule, which creates different categories of land within Idaho's 9.3 million acres of "inventoried roadless areas."

 

    The district court held that plaintiffs, who used and enjoyed numerous National Forest roadless areas in Idaho, satisfied standing and ripeness requirements to seek injunctive relief. The district court also held that the Fish and Wildlife Service did not violate the Endangered Species Act in preparing the Biological Opinion (finding that the new Idaho Roadless Rule was not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species). The district court found that the Forest Service did not violate the National Environmental Policy Act in relying on the Biological Opinion or in preparing the final environmental impact statement and Record of Decision approving the Idaho Roadless Rule.

 

    Specifically, the Appeals Court said, "After scouring both the administrative and district court records in this case, we conclude that the district court's grant of summary judgment to the defendants was warranted. The inclusive, thorough, and transparent process resulting in the challenged rule conformed to the demands of the law and is free of legal error. Thus, we affirm the district court's judgment in Appeal No. 11-35269. . ." In conclusion, the Appeals Court said, "The Court finds the FWS did not violate the ESA in preparing the Biological Opinion. The Court also finds that the Forest Service did not violate NEPA in relying on the Biological Opinion or in preparing the FEIS and ROD approving the Idaho Roadless Rule. For these reasons, the Court will grant the defendants' motions for summary judgment and deny plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. The Court will issue a separate Judgment as required by Rule 58(a)"

 

    Access the complete opinion (click here). [#Land, #Wildlife, #CA9]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

For a short time you can access the complete daily eNewsUSA issue (click here)

Access subscription information (click here)

Want to know more about WIMS? Check out our LinkedIn company website (click here).

33 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals