Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands v. MacWhorter, No. 13-35453 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
KS Wild filed suit against the Forest Services, alleging that the Forest Service had permitted suction dredge mining in the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, which provides designated critical habitat for coho salmon, without consulting with NMFS, in violation of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2). The district concluded that KS Wild's notice of intent to sue under the ESA was deficient and, therefore, the district court dismissed the claim against the Forest Service for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court concluded that KS Wild's June notice letter was sufficient notice under the citizen suit notice provision of the ESA, and that there is subject matter jurisdiction in the district court over KS Wild’s suit to
enforce the Forest Service’s obligations under Section 7. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded.
Court Description: Environmental Law. The panel reversed the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction of an Endangered Species Act claim brought by Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center against the U.S. Forest Service concerning its approval of suction dredge mining projects in the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest. Under the citizen suit provision of the Endangered Species Act, a private citizen may bring suit to remedy a violation of the Act, provided that the private citizen gives written notice of the alleged violation or violations upon which the suit is based at least sixty days before suit is filed. The panel held that the Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center’s June 2012 notice letter was sufficient notice under the citizen suit notice provision of the Endangered Species KS WILD V. MACWHORTER 3 Act. The panel also held that there was subject matter jurisdiction in the district court over the Center’s suit to enforce the Forest Service’s obligations under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. The panel left other questions in the suit to be addressed by the district court on remand.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.