## Facts

- The U.S. Forest Service proposed construction of the “Jersey Jack” timber road in Idaho’s Nezperce National Forest to facilitate planned timber sales.
- The project area was near the Salmon River (a designated Wild and Scenic River) and between the Gospel Hump Wilderness and the River of No Return Wilderness.
- The area lay within a recovery corridor identified for the endangered Rocky Mountain gray wolf.
- The Forest Service prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the road only and issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), concluding an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was unnecessary.
- The Forest Service later prepared separate EAs for two timber sales that would use the road, but those EAs did not analyze the combined or cumulative effects of the road and sales.
- A coalition of landowners and resource and conservation organizations sued to enjoin road construction, alleging violations of NEPA, NFMA, and the ESA.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the Forest Service; plaintiffs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether NEPA required an EIS analyzing together the environmental effects of the road and the timber sales the road was designed to enable, rather than separate, segmented reviews.
2. Whether NFMA barred construction of a timber road solely because the road’s cost exceeded the value of timber accessed by the road.
3. Whether the ESA required a biological assessment for the road and associated timber sales due to potential effects on the endangered Rocky Mountain gray wolf, and whether construction had to be enjoined pending compliance.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
- NEPA: Reversed; the road and timber sales were connected actions requiring a single EIS addressing their combined effects.
- NFMA: Affirmed; NFMA did not prohibit the road solely because costs exceeded timber value.
- ESA: Reversed; the Forest Service was required to prepare a biological assessment, and road construction was to be enjoined until ESA procedures were completed.

## Legal Principles

- NEPA prohibits segmentation of interdependent projects; connected actions that are functionally linked and mutually dependent must be evaluated together, including cumulative effects, in a single EIS when significant impacts may occur.
- A road built to enable timber sales, where the sales cannot proceed without the road and the road would not be built but for the sales, is a connected action with those sales for NEPA review.
- NFMA does not impose a per se profitability requirement for individual timber roads; the agency may consider broader multiple-use and management objectives beyond timber value alone.
- Under ESA § 7, federal agencies must complete required procedures for major construction activities, including preparing a biological assessment when an action may affect a listed species.
- Courts may issue injunctive relief to halt agency action until ESA procedural duties are satisfied.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that the Forest Service had to analyze the Jersey Jack road and the timber sales it enabled in a single EIS under NEPA and had to prepare an ESA biological assessment due to potential effects on the endangered gray wolf; it enjoined construction pending compliance, while rejecting the claim that NFMA barred the road based only on unfavorable timber economics.


Thomas v. Peterson, 753 F.2d 754 (9th Cir. 1985)