From our private database of 35,800+ case briefs...
National Audubon Society v. Hoffman
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
132 F.3d 7 (1997)
The Forest Service (defendant) issued an environmental assessment according to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for a logging project in Vermont’s Green Mountain National Forest that was part of a larger National Forest Plan. The logging project consisted of a timber management program, improvement of two existing roads, and improving conditions for all-terrain vehicles (ATV). It was likely that unauthorized ATV use would increase with the improvements to the roads. The Forest Service did not quantify the amount of unauthorized traffic that would occur as a result of the road improvement. The Forest Service proposed ways to mitigate the logging project’s potential negative effects on black bears in the area of the project but made a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) on the human environment in the area. To decrease the adverse impact on black bears, the Forest Service proposed a mitigation measure of destroying a part of the road to create an apparent end that deters unauthorized users. The Forest Service did not conduct a study of the proposed mitigation measure’s likely effects, propose monitoring to determine effectiveness, or consider alternatives to the proposed mitigation measure. The National Audubon Society and other environmental groups (the environmental groups) (plaintiffs) filed suit against the Forest Service, alleging that the Forest Service violated NEPA by failing to consider the negative effect of the project on black bears in state-designated critical bear habitats and the effect on migratory bird populations. The district court found that the Forest Service’s FONSI violated NEPA because the Forest Service failed to take a hard look at the relevant effects of the proposed action and that had the Forest Service taken a hard look, it would have determined that the project could result in a significant impact and require an environmental-impact statement (EIS).
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Cardamone, 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 620,000 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 620,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,800 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.