## Facts

- Federal agencies approved the Paiute Cutthroat Trout Restoration Project to restore threatened Paiute cutthroat trout to Silver King Creek in the Carson–Iceberg Wilderness in California.
- The project planned to eradicate non-native trout along an approximately 11-mile stream reach by applying rotenone, then restock the creek with genetically pure trout from donor streams.
- Implementation would occur entirely in congressionally designated wilderness and included intensive on-the-ground activity and use of motorized, gasoline-powered mixing equipment for the rotenone treatment.
- Environmental organizations and individual users of the area sued to set aside the approval documents and stop implementation, alleging violations of the Wilderness Act and NEPA, with review under the APA.
- On standing, only one individual plaintiff submitted evidence of recreational and aesthetic use of the affected wilderness area and anticipated injury from the project; other plaintiffs did not submit comparable evidence.

## Issues

1. Whether at least one plaintiff had Article III standing to challenge the agencies’ approval of the project.
2. Whether authorizing chemical treatment and motorized/intrusive actions in a designated wilderness violated the Wilderness Act’s requirement to preserve wilderness character and its limitation on motorized equipment and other nonconforming uses absent necessity to meet minimum administrative requirements.
3. Whether the agencies’ EIS/EIR and decisionmaking complied with NEPA and were not arbitrary and capricious under the APA.

## Decision

- The court held that the individual plaintiff who documented use of the area and concrete aesthetic and recreational injury had standing; it dismissed other plaintiffs who failed to show injury.
- The court granted summary judgment to plaintiffs on the Wilderness Act claim.
- The court set aside the agencies’ approvals and the associated EIS/EIR and enjoined implementation of the project.

## Legal Principles

- A plaintiff establishes standing by showing concrete recreational or aesthetic injury fairly traceable to agency action and likely to be redressed by vacatur or injunction.
- The Wilderness Act requires administration of wilderness areas to preserve wilderness character; departures from wilderness norms must be justified in the administrative record.
- Motorized equipment, structures, and other generally prohibited uses in wilderness may be allowed only if “necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area” as wilderness; agencies must support that necessity with reasoned analysis and consideration of less intrusive options.
- Under the APA, agency action is set aside if the agency fails to consider an important aspect of the problem or provides an unsupported or conclusory explanation, including for required Wilderness Act balancing and minimum-requirements determinations.

## Conclusion

The court invalidated and enjoined a rotenone-based trout restoration project in a designated wilderness because the agencies did not adequately weigh competing wilderness values, identify which values controlled their administration of the area, or justify motorized and intrusive methods as the minimum necessary under the Wilderness Act, rendering the approvals arbitrary and capricious under the APA.


Californians for Alternatives to Toxics v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 814 F. Supp. 2d 992 (E.D. Cal. 2011)