Joseph Tyree Sneed

“ The flaw in plaintiffs' argument is that section 472 (a) (i) (2) is not a general requirement that small business purchasers of timber bear the costs of roads under all circumstances. It is only a requirement that such purchasers bear the costs under circumstances where larger purchases are required to construct the roads themselves. It does not exclude the possibility that the Forest Service may construct some roads for which the purchaser, large or small, does not bear the entire cost. ”

“ Our task is to discern as best we can what Congress intended to be done under the facts before us.
Plaintiffs -- landowners, ranchers, outfitters, miners, hunters, fishermen, recreational users, and conservation and recreation organizations -- challenge actions of the United States Forest Service in planning and approving a timber road in the Jersey Jack area of the Nezperce National Forest in Idaho. ”

“ The location, the timing, or other aspects of the timber sales, or even the decision whether to sell any timber at all affects the location, routing, construction techniques, and other aspects of the road, or even the need for its construction. But the consideration of cumulative impacts will serve little purpose if the road has already been built. Building the road swings the balance decidedly in favor of timber sales even if such sales would have been disfavored had road and sales been considered together before the road was built. ”

“ That section also provides that
where roads of a higher standard than that needed in the harvesting and removal of the timber and other products covered by the particular sale are to be constructed, the purchaser of the national forest timber shall not be required to bear that part of the costs necessary to meet such higher standard. ”

“ We therefore hold that the district court erred in declining to enjoin construction of the Jersey Jack road pending compliance with the ESA.
Finally, one additional development must be considered. The Forest Service's brief states that now a "biological evaluation" has been completed. The Service's memorandum opposing an injunction pending appeal states that the evaluation was completed on April 15, 1984, i.e., after oral argument in district court but before the court issued its decision. ”