Mineral County et al. v. Ecology Center, Inc.

Topic(s): 
Hazardous Substances and Environmental Protection
Docket Number: 
6-344
Case Description: 
  1. Should this Court further review the Ninth Circuit's holding that, on the particular facts of this case, the U.S. Forest Service was required under the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 4321 et seq., and the National Forest Management Act, 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1604(g)(3)(B), to verify its hypothesis that commercial thinning and prescribed burning of old-growth stands would not be harmful before implementing those practices?
  2. Should this Court further review the Ninth Circuit's holding that, in this case, the U.S. Forest Service was required to collect on-site soil data for affected timber harvest units?
  3. Should this Court further review the Ninth Circuit's holding that a now-repealed regulation promulgated under the National Forest Management Act and the applicable Forest Plan require the U.S. Forest Service to maintain wildlife viability?

Brian Wolfman and Jennifer Soble of Public Citizen represented the respondent at the cert stage, and the Supreme Court denied cert.