## Facts

- The U.S. Forest Service approved a timber sale and road-improvement project in Vermont’s Green Mountain National Forest, including logging and improvement/extension of two roads, with anticipated effects on motorized access.
- The agency prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) and issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), declining to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
- The project area included state-designated critical habitat for black bears, and the agency acknowledged that road work and logging could increase human disturbance.
- The Forest Service anticipated increased unauthorized all-terrain vehicle (ATV) use from improved access but did not quantify the expected increase or analyze its likely effects in detail.
- As mitigation, the agency proposed destroying a portion of one road to create an “apparent end” intended to deter unauthorized users.
- The agency did not study the likely effectiveness of that mitigation, commit to monitoring, or systematically evaluate alternatives to the mitigation approach.
- Environmental organizations and individuals sued, alleging NEPA violations for failure to take a “hard look” and prepare an EIS, and NFMA violations for inconsistency with the governing Forest Plan.
- The district court ruled for plaintiffs on NEPA (requiring an EIS) but granted summary judgment to the Forest Service on NFMA; both sides appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the Forest Service’s EA and FONSI satisfied NEPA’s “hard look” requirement, such that the agency could lawfully forgo preparing an EIS.
2. Whether the project violated NFMA because it was inconsistent with the Green Mountain National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit held the Forest Service violated NEPA because the EA/FONSI did not take the required hard look at impacts on black bear habitat and migratory birds, particularly given foreseeable increases in unauthorized motorized use and reliance on untested mitigation.
- The court required preparation of an EIS for the project.
- The Second Circuit rejected the NFMA claim and affirmed summary judgment for the Forest Service, concluding plaintiffs did not demonstrate inconsistency with the Forest Plan.
- The court affirmed the district court’s NEPA ruling and affirmed the NFMA judgment, with further proceedings consistent with the requirement of NEPA compliance.

## Legal Principles

- NEPA is procedural and requires an agency to take a “hard look” at environmental consequences before acting; courts review whether the agency followed the required process rather than the merits of the policy choice.
- An EA supporting a FONSI must provide a convincing, reasoned explanation why impacts are not significant; conclusory analysis is insufficient where serious environmental questions are raised.
- When a FONSI depends on mitigation to avoid significant impacts, the mitigation must be evaluated with more than speculation; lack of analysis of effectiveness, absence of monitoring commitments, and failure to consider reasonable alternatives can render a FONSI unlawful.
- An EIS is required when a proposed action may significantly affect the environment; the threshold is relatively low where the record raises serious questions about potentially significant impacts.
- Under NFMA, site-specific projects must be consistent with the applicable Forest Plan, and courts generally defer to a rational agency interpretation absent a showing of inconsistency under APA review.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit required an EIS because the Forest Service’s EA/FONSI did not adequately analyze foreseeable wildlife impacts and relied on unexamined mitigation, but it upheld the project against an NFMA challenge because plaintiffs failed to show inconsistency with the Forest Plan.


Nat'l Audubon Soc'y v. Hoffman, 132 F.3d 7 (2d Cir. 1997)