Here are a couple of cases:
1. Wild and Scenic Rivers ǀ Region 8.
Circuit Court Upholds District Court Decision in American Whitewater v. Tidwell. On November 4, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina’s ruling that the Forest Service’s decision to allow limited floating activities on the headwaters of the Chattooga River was not arbitrary and capricious in violation of the APA and was not in violation of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The Court concluded that the Forest Service made a reasoned decision in limiting headwaters floating opportunities to specific portions of the river during the months of December to April and, accordingly, deferred to the Agency’s expertise. On American Whitewater’s Wild and Scenic Rivers Act claims, the Court found (1) that the Forest Service was not required by the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to manage the river with “floating” as an ORV and (2) that the Forest Service correctly determined that floating could interfere with other recreational uses and therefore, restrictions on headwaters floating are consistent with the Act. The Court also upheld the District Court’s rulings on intervenors, the Rust Family and Georgia ForestWatch’s claims. (13-1960, 4th Cir.)
1. Herbicide Application ǀ Wildlife ǀ Region 6.
Circuit Court Affirms in Part, Reverses in Part, and Remands in Challenge to the Forest Service’s Approval of Herbicide Application on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest in LOWD v. USFS. On October 30, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the District Court’s ruling in Plaintiff, League of Wilderness Defenders/Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project’s challenge to a Project to apply herbicides in the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. The Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling on Plaintiff’s NFMA claim finding that the Forest Service did not violate NFMA by failing to discuss in the EIS that the Project would be consistent with INFISH and PACFISH. However, the Circuit reversed the District Court’s ruling on Plaintiff’s NEPA claim finding that the Forest Service was required by NEPA to include an explicit INFISH/PACFISH consistency analysis in the EIS. (13-35054, 9th Cir.)