Selkirk Conservation Alliance v. Forsgren

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that if mitigation measures are “in place, then the reviewing agencies ought to consider [them] when evaluating the impact of the proposed actions”
• finding adverse effects to species outweighed by benefits of mitigation plan sufficient to support no jeopardy finding
• expanding the analysis area could dilute the effects of proposed project
• Selkirk Mountains divided into ten BMUs; Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee “considered that each unit would provide an appropriate area in which to monitor and analyze the bears”
• “Disputes involving ‘primarily issues of fact’ must be resolved in favor of the expert agency so long as the agency’s decision is based on a reasoned evaluation of the relevant factors.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).