## Facts

- Conservationist plaintiffs and environmental organizations sued the U.S. Forest Service and two officials in their official capacities to stop the “Leatherwood Fork” timber sale in the Stanton Ranger District of the Daniel Boone National Forest in Kentucky.
- The project involved timber harvesting near waterways including Leatherwood Fork, Indian Creek, and Spaas Creek, in an area near the Red River Gorge Geologic Area.
- Plaintiffs alleged the project area provided habitat for the endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) and that logging would harm the species and its habitat.
- The Forest Service prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) under NEPA and a Biological Evaluation (BE) addressing effects on the Indiana bat.
- The Forest Service determined the project was “not likely to adversely affect” the Indiana bat and consulted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), which concurred in that determination.
- Plaintiffs challenged the adequacy of the EA and BE and argued the agency’s approach to listed species—avoiding adverse impacts except where mitigated or compensated—failed to prioritize species conservation as required by the ESA.
- Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief under the APA, alleging violations of the ESA, NEPA, and NFMA.
- The case was before the court on cross-motions for summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether the Forest Service’s “not likely to adversely affect” determination for the Indiana bat, supported by consultation and FWS concurrence, was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to the ESA under APA review.
2. Whether the Forest Service satisfied NEPA by taking a hard look at environmental impacts in an EA and reasonably concluding an EIS was not required.
3. Whether the timber sale complied with NFMA and the applicable forest plan provisions governing wildlife and endangered species habitat.

## Decision

- The court denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment for the Forest Service.
- The court upheld the Forest Service’s ESA-related determinations, finding the agency followed required consultation procedures and reasonably relied on FWS’s concurrence and the administrative record.
- The court rejected the NEPA claim, concluding the EA adequately analyzed impacts, alternatives, and mitigation and supported the agency’s determination of no significant impact.
- The court rejected the NFMA claim, finding the project consistent with the forest plan and deferring to the agency’s reasonable interpretation and application of its plan.
- The timber sale was allowed to proceed, and the court declined declaratory or injunctive relief.

## Legal Principles

- Under the APA, a court sets aside agency action only if it is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; courts generally defer to agency technical judgments supported by the record.
- ESA compliance in this context centers on satisfying statutory consultation duties and making effects determinations supported by scientific analysis; agency reliance on FWS input and concurrence is significant under deferential review.
- NEPA requires a hard look at environmental consequences; an EA may suffice when it reasonably evaluates impacts, alternatives, and mitigation and supports a finding of no significant impact.
- Under NFMA, a site-specific project must be consistent with the governing forest plan; an agency’s reasonable construction of its own plan and implementing requirements is generally entitled to deference.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the Forest Service’s approval of a national forest timber sale because the administrative record supported the agency’s endangered-species effects determination and consultation outcome, the EA satisfied NEPA’s hard-look requirement without requiring an EIS, and the project was consistent with NFMA and the forest plan under deferential APA review.


House v. U.S. Forest Serv., 974 F. Supp. 1022 (E.D. Ky. 1997)