The US Forest Service (USFS)
was interested in building a road through a forest that contained
endangered wolves.
Environmental Groups sued for
an injunction.
The environmental groups
sought an injunction to stop the USFS from building the road until they
were in compliance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. §1351).
The environmental groups
argued that the road wasn't an end in itself. The purpose of the road
was to allow timber companies access to the area and cut down all the
trees. A big project like that was likely to harm the wolves.
USFS had not made a formal
request to the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to determine the impact
they road would have on the wolves, as they were required to do under the
ESA §7(a)(2).
USFS argued
that a small project like a road wasn't likely to hurt a species like a
wolf, so it was not necessary to get a formal assessment.
The Trial Court denied the
injunction. The environmental groups appealed.
The Trial Court found that
the USFS technically should have alerted the FWS, but it didn't matter
because the FWS was already aware there were endangered wolves in the
area.
The Appellate Court reversed
and issued the injunction.
The Appellate Court found
that once an Agency is aware that an endangered species is present, the ESA requires that they prepare a biological
assessment to determine if their proposed actions are likely to affect
the species.
USFS did not do this, and
did not ask FWS to do it for them.
The Appellate Court likened
this to a failure to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (required
under NEPA), and so there should
be similar sanction.
The Court found that
Agencies couldn't bypass the ESA
by 'segmenting' a project to make it seem smaller. When deciding if
action under the ESA is
required, the Agency has to consider all foreseeable consequences of the
project, not focus solely on the project itself.
For example, if you are
intending on cutting down an entire forest, you can't split the project
up into a million individual projects each cutting down a single tree,
and then claim that each of those projects won't harm the environment
because the loss of one tree is unimportant.
