Case Law Details

Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council

Project Description:

The Forest Service approved a special use permit for the construction of a ski resort in the Okanogan National Forest in Washington. The project, which would use 1,165 acres of privately owned land and 3,900 acres of national forest land, was located in an “unspoiled” and “sparsely populated” area of the Okanogan County. A Forest Service study had concluded that the location had the highest potential of any site in the State of Washington for development as a major downhill ski resort. The Forest Service prepared an EIS for the project, which contained a conceptual mitigation plan. The Forest Service noted that because of the uncertainty of potential development of off-site development, many of the mitigation measures included in the plan were primarily suggestions for actions that could be taken by state and local governments to mitigate the off-site development expected from the project.

Case Number:
490 U.S. 332
Court:
490 U.S. 332
State:
U.S. Supreme Court
Case Date:
05/01/1989
Project Name:
Methow Valley Ski Resort
Project Type:
Other

Case Summary

Plaintiffs challenged the decision to grant the special use permit, arguing, in part, that the EIS was inadequate because it failed to contain a complete and enforceable mitigation plan. The district court rejected the claim, but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, finding that there was an “affirmative duty” under NEPA for the Forest Service to develop “the necessary mitigation measures before the permit is granted.” On petition for writ of Certiorari, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Ninth Circuit.

Key Holdings

NEPA

Mitigation Measures. The Supreme Court found that NEPA did not require formulation and adoption of a complete mitigation plan. The Court found that NEPA required that the EIS contain a discussion of possible mitigation measures “in sufficient detail to ensure that the environmental consequences have been fairly evaluated.” The Court noted that it would be “incongruous” to find that NEPA required a federal agency not to act on a proposal until mitigation measures within the jurisdiction of state and local agencies had been adopted.

File Attachment

Download the decision

Send CLUE Comments

Respond to a case law update.