ELR Citation: ELR 21237
No(s). 89-35688 (9th Cir. Jul 23, 1991)

The court denies an environmental group's petition for rehearing of a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) claim against the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) based on the recent listing of the northern spotted owl as an endangered species. The court holds that the endangered species designation does not affect the group's claim that a BLM timber sale in Oregon violated NEPA because the groups had not presented significant new evidence that BLM's timber management plan environmental impact statement (EIS) for the area does not conform to NEPA. The fact that the group may assert an Endangered Species Act claim does not require remand for reconsideration of the NEPA case. A dissenting judge would grant the group's petition because the EIS does not take into consideration the new status of the owl. The judge argues that the court has a duty to decide the issues in each case before it, including those that have been presented during the course of litigation and before judgment.

[Prior decisions in this litigation are published at 19 ELR 21159 and 20 ELR 21378.]

Counsel for Appellant
Todd D. True
Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund
216 First Ave. S., Ste. 330, Seattle WA 98104
(206) 343-7340

Counsel for Appellee
Martin W. Matzen
Environment and Natural Resources Division
U.S. Department of Justice, Washington DC 20530
(202) 514-2000

Michael E. Haglund
Haglund & Kirtley
101 S.W. Main, Ste. 700, Portland OR 97204
(503) 225-0777

Per Curiam (before Wallace, Ferguson, and Brunetti, JJ.):