From our private database of 33,800+ case briefs...
Cowpasture River Preservation Association v. Forest Service
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
911 F.3d 150 (2018)
In 2012, the United States Forest Service (the Forest Service) issued a land-management-planning rule (the 2012 rule) establishing requirements concerning soil, riparian zones, and threatened and endangered species. In 2016, the Forest Service amended the 2012 rule to require the Forest Service to apply the 2012 rule to forest-plan amendments if the rule’s requirements were directly related to the amendments. In 2015, Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC (Atlantic) applied to the Forest Service for permits to build a natural-gas pipeline with a proposed route that crossed 21 miles of national-forest land. In its record of decision (ROD) granting the permits, the Forest Service amended a total of 13 standards in the forest plans related to soil, water, riparian, threatened and endangered species, and recreational and visual resources. The ROD stated that the purpose of the amendments was to meet the requirements of the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) by relaxing these standards to allow construction of the pipeline, but it failed to analyze whether the requirements of the 2012 rule were related to the amendments’ purpose. Instead, the ROD concluded that the requirements were not related to the amendments’ purpose and moved directly to an analysis of the effects of the amendments. The Forest Service decided that the amendments’ effects had to be both substantial and long-term to be directly related to the 2012 rule. Despite finding that the project would cause several years of substantially increased soil loss and that forested sites would take many decades to recover, the ROD concluded that the amendments would have neither a substantial nor a long-term effect and that there was no requirement for the amendments to comply with the 2012 rule. Cowpasture River Preservation Association (plaintiff) and others challenged the amendments, arguing that the Forest Service had violated the NFMA by failing to apply the 2012 rule to the amendments.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Thacker, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 604,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 604,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 33,800 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.