From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...
Wilderness Society v. United States Forest Service
United States District Court for the District of Idaho
850 F.Supp.2d 1144 (2012)
The United States Forest Service (USFS) (defendant) revised a travel plan for the Sawtooth National Forest (Sawtooth) in Idaho. The revision was required by the 2005 Travel Management Rule (Rule), 36 C.F.R. §§ 212.1-261.55, and by the Sawtooth forest plan. Motor-vehicle use was largely unregulated prior to the Rule’s enactment, resulting in the uncontrolled use of cross-country vehicles, unplanned routes, and environmental damage. The revised plan designated 94 miles of existing routes as open to off-road vehicle (ORV) use, and closed 650 miles of routes to ORV use. The USFS issued an environmental assessment (EA), a decision notice, and a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) for the revised plan, concluding that an environmental impact statement (EIS) was not required because the plan did not significantly impact the environment. The Wilderness Society (Wilderness) (plaintiff) sued the USFS, claiming that an EIS was required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 2 U.S.C. §§ 4321 et seq., because the EA failed to address the impacts of newly designated and closed routes. Wilderness also claimed that the USFS had violated the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), 16 U.S.C. §§ 1600 et seq., by failing to include mitigation measures for water-quality impacts as required by the Sawtooth forest plan. Finally, Wilderness claimed that the USFS violated Executive Order 11644 as amended by Executive Order 11989 (EOs), which required the USFS to consider the compatibility of ORV use with existing or proposed recreational land uses. The USFS argued that (1) an EIS was not required, because the project designated existing routes rather than new routes, eliminated cross-country motor-vehicle use, closed trails, and maintained designated routes; (2) water-quality impacts were addressed by a forest-plan consistency checklist; and (3) the EOs did not provide for a private right of action.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Lodge, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 218,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.