Sierra Club v. Lyng (II)
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
663 F.Supp. 556 (1987)
The United States Forest Service (USFS) enacted the Southern Pine Beetle (pine beetle) program (program) under the direction of the U.S. secretary of agriculture (secretary) (defendant) in various southern states. The program’s purpose was to protect commercial-timber interests and private property by controlling pine beetle infestations in wilderness areas. The program involved the extensive cutting and chemical spraying of pine trees within wilderness areas. In Sierra Club v. Lyng (I), 662 F.Supp. 40 (D.C. Cir. 1987), the Sierra Club (plaintiff) and the Wilderness Society (plaintiff) challenged the program on the basis that it was unnecessary and ineffective. The district court found that the program violated the Wilderness Act (Act), 16 U.S.C. §§ 1331-36, because the secretary lacked the authority to take actions within wilderness areas to benefit private interests and had failed to demonstrate that the program was necessary to control pine beetles. The district court delayed a final ruling, pending the USFS’s completion of environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-47. The USFS subsequently published an environmental impact statement (EIS) that narrowed the program’s scope by, among other things, (1) using spot-control techniques that confined cutting to the edges of wilderness areas, (2) authorizing cutting only after a detailed site-specific analysis, and (3) requiring adjacent landowners to take reasonable steps to control pine-beetle infestations on their property prior to initiating control efforts in wilderness areas. The plaintiffs claimed that the revised program was insufficient because the secretary had not shown that the program was “necessary” under § 4(d)(1) of the Act, and that “necessary” meant “essential.” Specifically, the plaintiffs argued that the secretary had not proven the program’s necessity by scientific evidence, that past control-method studies were scientifically unsophisticated, and that area-wide control was required because pine beetles traveled between wilderness and non-wilderness areas. Both parties moved for summary judgment.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Gesell, 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 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read 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. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 177,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 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.