## Facts

- The U.S. Forest Service approved four timber sales in the Buffalo Ranger District of the Ozark National Forest in Arkansas.
- The projects involved timber harvesting on about 3,011 acres, reconstruction of an existing logging road, and construction of roughly five miles of new road.
- For each sale, the Forest Service prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) that evaluated environmental effects and alternatives, including a “no action” option.
- The Forest Service also prepared biological evaluations addressing impacts on wildlife, including listed or potentially listable species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and concluded the projects would have “no impact” or were “not likely to adversely affect” listed species such as the bald eagle.
- After public notice and comment, the Forest Service issued decision notices: two sales in May 1994 (completed after administrative appeals) and two in May/June 1995.
- Conservation groups and individuals challenged the approvals, alleging violations of the ESA and NEPA (and related forest-management requirements), and sought injunctive relief.

## Issues

1. Whether ESA § 7 required the Forest Service to initiate formal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service because the timber sales “may affect” listed species or critical habitat.
2. Whether plaintiffs could obtain relief under the ESA citizen-suit provision by showing the timber sales would cause a prohibited ESA § 9 “take” of listed species.
3. Whether NEPA required an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) rather than EAs and Findings of No Significant Impact (FONSIs) for the four timber sales.
4. Whether NEPA was violated by inadequate cumulative-impacts review or by treating the timber sales as separate actions to avoid fuller analysis.

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit affirmed judgment for the Forest Service.
- The court held the ESA consultation claim failed because the administrative record supported the agency’s determination that the projects were not likely to adversely affect listed species, so formal consultation was not required.
- The court held the ESA “take” theory failed because plaintiffs did not show an actual or imminent take attributable to the timber sales, rather than speculative harm.
- The court held NEPA was satisfied because the EAs and FONSIs reflected adequate consideration of environmental consequences and reasonable evaluation of alternatives, making an EIS unnecessary.
- The court held the Forest Service’s cumulative-impacts review was reasonable and did not improperly segment the projects.

## Legal Principles

- Judicial review of ESA and NEPA compliance for agency approvals proceeds under the Administrative Procedure Act’s “arbitrary and capricious” standard.
- ESA § 7 consultation duties are triggered when an agency action may affect listed species or critical habitat; an agency’s “not likely to adversely affect” determination will be upheld when supported by the administrative record.
- ESA citizen-suit claims premised on a future “take” require proof of an actual or imminent take; generalized predictions of habitat disturbance, without concrete evidence of harm to listed species, are insufficient.
- NEPA is procedural and requires reasoned evaluation and disclosure of environmental effects; agencies may rely on EAs and FONSIs when supported by a record showing impacts are not significant.
- NEPA cumulative-impacts analysis is governed by a reasonableness standard; agencies must consider aggregate effects of related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions, but need not provide exhaustive predictions.

## Conclusion

The Eighth Circuit upheld four Forest Service timber sales in the Ozark National Forest, concluding that the agency’s biological evaluations and EAs provided a rational basis to forgo formal ESA consultation and an EIS, and that plaintiffs failed to prove an actual or imminent ESA “take” or a NEPA defect in cumulative-impacts analysis.


Newton Cnty. Wildlife Ass’n v. Rogers, 141 F.3d 803 (8th Cir. 1998)