The New 49’ers, Inc. v. Karuk Tribe of California

1. Did the court of appeals err when, in addressing a question of first impression in the federal courts, it held that the U.S. Forest Service’s review and authorization of proposed mining operations on public land pursuant to a miner’s “notice of intent” to engage in mining operations is an “agency action” requiring interagency consultation under the Endangered Species Act, when the agency exercises broad discretion and authority over mining that adversely affects listed species and when the record in this case shows that the agency has exercised its authority to deny or impose conditions on mining proposed via a notice of intent?

2. Did this case become moot following the issuance of the court of appeals’ decision when California enacted a permanent moratorium on one type of mining at issue in this case, in-stream suction dredging, even though other types of mining that were authorized in the challenged agency actions are not covered by the moratorium and would continue unabated and without ESA compliance absent the court of appeals’ decision?