## Facts

- The Forest Service revised motorized route designations for the Minidoka Ranger District of the Sawtooth National Forest to comply with national off-road vehicle travel management requirements.
- On February 22, 2008, the Forest Service issued a Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) supported by an Environmental Assessment (EA), declining to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
- The decision allowed motorized use on a system of roads and trails, including routes in or near Recommended Wilderness Areas (RWAs) and inventoried roadless areas.
- Environmental groups alleged the decision would impair wilderness characteristics, wildlife habitat (including greater sage-grouse habitat), and non-motorized recreation.
- Plaintiffs sued under NEPA and NFMA; motorized recreation organizations intervened in support of the Forest Service.
- The case was decided on cross-motions for summary judgment on the administrative record under the APA.

## Issues

1. Whether the EA took the required “hard look” at environmental effects of motorized route designations, including effects on RWAs, roadless areas, wildlife habitat, and non-motorized recreation.
2. Whether the Forest Service considered a reasonable range of alternatives, including options that would significantly reduce motorized use in sensitive areas.
3. Whether the FONSI (and decision not to prepare an EIS) was arbitrary and capricious in light of the EA’s analysis and NEPA significance factors.
4. Whether the travel plan was inconsistent with the governing forest plan in violation of NFMA.
5. What remedy was appropriate under the APA for any NEPA or NFMA violations.

## Decision

- The court granted in part and denied in part the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment.
- The court held the Forest Service violated NEPA by providing an inadequate analysis of effects on RWAs and by failing to evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives that would provide substantially greater protection to RWAs and other sensitive areas.
- The court held these NEPA defects rendered aspects of the EA and the FONSI arbitrary and capricious under the APA.
- The court rejected certain other challenges, including portions of plaintiffs’ NFMA claims, and upheld the agency decision in part.
- The court remanded to the Forest Service for further analysis and reconsideration consistent with the opinion, rather than vacating the entire travel management decision.

## Legal Principles

- Under NEPA, an agency must take a “hard look” at environmental consequences and provide enough analysis to permit informed decisionmaking and public review, even when proceeding by EA rather than EIS.
- NEPA requires consideration of a reasonable range of alternatives sufficient to allow meaningful comparison of environmental effects; alternatives analysis is central to the statute’s procedural scheme.
- A FONSI must be supported by an EA that adequately analyzes impacts; analytical gaps can undermine the agency’s conclusion that impacts are not significant.
- Courts review NEPA and NFMA compliance under the APA and set aside agency action that is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.
- NFMA requires site-specific decisions to be consistent with the applicable forest plan, but a plaintiff must show clear conflict with binding plan standards to obtain relief.

## Conclusion

The court ordered a remand because the Forest Service’s EA did not sufficiently analyze impacts to recommended wilderness areas and evaluated an overly limited set of alternatives, which also weakened the basis for the FONSI; however, the court upheld other parts of the decision and rejected certain forest-plan consistency claims.


Wilderness Soc'y v. U.S. Forest Serv., 850 F. Supp. 2d 1144 (D. Idaho 2012)