Lexplug logoLexplug

Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council

Supreme Court of United States
490 U.S. 332 (1989)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires federal agencies to discuss potential environmental mitigation measures in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), but it does not impose a substantive duty on agencies to adopt a complete mitigation plan or conduct a 'worst-case analysis' for uncertain environmental harms before approving a major federal action.


Facts:

  • In 1978, Methow Recreation, Inc. (MRI) applied to the U.S. Forest Service for a special use permit to develop a major ski resort on Sandy Butte in Washington's Okanogan National Forest.
  • The proposed 'Early Winters Ski Resort' would occupy 3,900 acres of national forest land and was projected to cause significant off-site commercial and residential growth in the surrounding Methow Valley.
  • The Forest Service prepared an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), known as the Early Winters Study, to assess the project's effects.
  • The EIS identified potentially severe adverse off-site impacts, including degradation of air quality from increased wood stove use and a significant reduction in the state's largest migratory mule deer herd due to development on their critical winter range.
  • The EIS discussed several potential mitigation measures to address these harms, but described them as conceptual and noted that their implementation would largely depend on future actions by state and local governments, not the Forest Service.
  • The Washington Department of Game commented that the project could reduce the local mule deer herd by up to 50 percent.
  • After completing the EIS, the Forest Service's Regional Forester decided to issue the special use permit, authorizing the ski resort project to proceed to the next stage of planning.

Procedural Posture:

  • Methow Valley Citizens Council and other environmental groups (respondents) sued the Forest Service in federal district court to challenge the decision to issue the special use permit.
  • The case was assigned to a United States Magistrate, who ruled in favor of the Forest Service, finding the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was adequate.
  • Respondents appealed the magistrate's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
  • The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that the EIS was legally inadequate because it failed to include a complete, fully-developed mitigation plan and did not perform a 'worst-case analysis' of uncertain environmental impacts.
  • The Forest Service (petitioners) successfully petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) require a federal agency to include a fully developed, concrete mitigation plan in its Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and to conduct a 'worst-case analysis' when faced with scientific uncertainty about potential environmental harm before it can approve a project?


Opinions:

Majority - Justice Stevens

No. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is a procedural statute that does not require an agency to include a fully developed mitigation plan or conduct a 'worst-case analysis' in its Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). NEPA's 'action-forcing' procedures require that an agency take a 'hard look' at environmental consequences and provide this information to the public, but it does not mandate particular substantive results. While an EIS must contain a reasonably complete discussion of possible mitigation measures to allow for a proper evaluation of a project's adverse effects, it does not require that a complete mitigation plan be formulated and adopted before an agency can act. Furthermore, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) amended its regulations to replace the 'worst-case analysis' requirement with a more flexible standard based on credible scientific evidence. This new regulation is entitled to substantial deference and aligns with NEPA's goal of preventing uninformed, rather than unwise, agency action.


Concurring - Justice Brennan

No. Concurring with the Court's conclusion, this opinion emphasizes that the discussion of steps that can be taken to mitigate adverse environmental consequences is an important ingredient of an Environmental Impact Statement.



Analysis:

This decision solidifies NEPA's role as a procedural statute, confirming that it mandates a process of consideration rather than specific environmental outcomes. By relieving agencies of the duty to formulate complete, adopted mitigation plans, the ruling gives them greater discretion to approve projects with known environmental costs, provided those costs are adequately disclosed. The rejection of a mandatory 'worst-case analysis' in favor of a standard based on 'reasonably foreseeable' impacts lowers the analytical burden on agencies when facing scientific uncertainty. This holding reinforces judicial deference to agency expertise and limits the courts' ability to block projects on substantive environmental grounds under NEPA.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council (1989) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council