## Facts

- The U.S. Forest Service approved a 123-acre timber-thinning project in the Fishlake National Forest in Utah to treat spruce beetle-infested trees and limit spread to nearby stands.
- The agency authorized the project using a NEPA categorical exclusion for timber thinning/harvest projects up to 250 acres undertaken to control insects or disease.
- Before approval, the Forest Service conducted field and aerial surveys and evaluated potential effects on wildlife habitat, including for the northern goshawk and three-toed woodpecker.
- The agency concluded the project would not have significant environmental effects and that any impacts to sensitive species or habitat would be minor or mitigated.
- Utah Environmental Congress sued, alleging the Forest Service unlawfully avoided preparing an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement and inadequately evaluated effects on sensitive wildlife.
- The district court upheld the approval; Utah Environmental Congress appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the Forest Service lawfully relied on a NEPA categorical exclusion to approve the 123-acre insect-control timber-thinning project without preparing an EA or EIS.
2. Whether the Forest Service reasonably determined that no “extraordinary circumstances” existed—particularly regarding sensitive species or habitat—that required more detailed NEPA analysis.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit affirmed the judgment for the Forest Service.
- The court held the project fell within the categorical exclusion’s scope and acreage limit for insect/disease control timber projects.
- The court held the Forest Service reasonably found no extraordinary circumstances requiring an EA or EIS.
- Applying APA arbitrary-and-capricious review, the court concluded the agency considered relevant factors and explained its decision in the administrative record.

## Legal Principles

- NEPA permits agencies to use categorical exclusions for categories of actions determined not to have significant individual or cumulative environmental effects.
- Even when a categorical exclusion applies, an agency must evaluate whether “extraordinary circumstances” (such as effects on sensitive resources or species) make the exclusion inappropriate.
- Under APA review, a court upholds NEPA compliance if the agency considered relevant factors and articulated a rational connection between the record and its decision; the court does not substitute its judgment for the agency’s.
- NEPA is primarily procedural; within a valid categorical-exclusion framework, the agency’s obligation is to confirm the project fits the exclusion and to reasonably address extraordinary-circumstances considerations.

## Conclusion

The Tenth Circuit upheld the Forest Service’s approval of a 123-acre beetle-treatment timber-thinning project under a NEPA categorical exclusion because the project fit the exclusion’s limits and the agency reasonably determined, based on surveys and wildlife review, that no extraordinary circumstances required an EA or EIS.


Utah Env’t Cong. v. Bosworth, 443 F.3d 732 (10th Cir. 2006)