## Facts

- Executive Order 11644 (as amended) and the Forest Service’s 2005 Travel Management Rule (TMR) require the U.S. Forest Service to consider “minimization criteria” when designating where off-road vehicles, including over-snow vehicles, may operate in national forests.
- The Beaverhead–Deerlodge National Forest in Montana spans roughly 3.35 million acres; the Forest Service revised its forest plan and made winter travel management decisions that allowed snowmobile use across a large portion of the forest while limiting use in other areas.
- The Forest Service supported the revised plan with an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that discussed motorized-winter-recreation effects at a forest-wide level and stated, in general terms, that the plan met the minimization criteria.
- The EIS did not analyze the minimization criteria for each individual area (or route/area designation) opened to snowmobile use and did not clearly tie its discussion to the specific minimization criteria listed in the TMR.
- Conservation and quiet-recreation groups (including WildEarth Guardians) sued under the Administrative Procedure Act, raising NEPA claims (including inadequate disclosure and analysis of big-game winter range and user conflicts) and claims that the Forest Service failed to satisfy the TMR/Executive Order minimization requirements.
- The Montana Snowmobile Association intervened to support the Forest Service.
- The district court resolved the case on summary judgment, and the parties cross-appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether NEPA’s “hard look” requirement was met when the EIS did not adequately disclose and present location-specific information about big-game winter range and related impacts from snowmobile designations.
2. Whether the Forest Service satisfied the TMR and Executive Order 11644 minimization criteria through a general, forest-wide discussion, or whether it had to apply the criteria to each designated area or route opened to over-snow vehicle use.
3. Whether a challenge to TMR Subpart C (governing over-snow vehicles) was ripe where the Forest Service had not relied on Subpart C as the basis for the challenged designations.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
- The court held the EIS failed NEPA’s disclosure and “hard look” requirements regarding big-game winter range because the agency did not provide adequate, usable information about the location and extent of winter range necessary for informed public review.
- The court held the Forest Service did not satisfy the TMR/Executive Order minimization criteria with a forest-wide conclusion; the agency had to show it actually considered the minimization criteria when designating each area (and related routes/areas) for over-snow vehicle use.
- The court agreed that a challenge to TMR Subpart C was not ripe on this record because the agency had not applied Subpart C in a way presenting a concrete dispute fit for review.
- The court otherwise left intact the district court’s rejection of the remaining NEPA and NFMA challenges.

## Legal Principles

- NEPA requires agencies to take a “hard look” at environmental consequences and to provide high-quality information, including disclosure of underlying data, in a form that allows meaningful public comment and judicial review.
- When NEPA analysis depends on the location and extent of sensitive resources (such as winter range), the agency must present that information clearly enough that the public can understand the scope and significance of the affected areas.
- Executive Order 11644 and the TMR require the Forest Service, when making motorized-use designations, to consider specified minimization factors (resource damage, wildlife impacts, and conflicts with other uses).
- A generalized, program-level statement that minimization occurred is not enough; the record must show the minimization criteria were applied to the specific areas or routes the agency designated for motorized use.
- Claims are not ripe when they attack a regulatory provision in the abstract without a concrete agency application creating an injury suitable for review.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit sent the Beaverhead–Deerlodge winter motorized-use decision back to the agency because the EIS did not adequately disclose and present big-game winter range information and because the Forest Service did not document an area-by-area application of the Travel Management Rule’s minimization criteria for snowmobile designations, while rejecting an unripe challenge to Subpart C and affirming the agency on the remaining claims.


WildEarth Guardians v. Montana Snowmobile Association, 790 F.3d 920 (2015)