Lexplug logoLexplug

Thomas v. Peterson

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
753 F.2d 754 (1985)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), an agency must prepare a single Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) analyzing the combined effects of connected and cumulative actions, such as a logging road and the timber sales it is designed to facilitate. An agency may not segment a project into smaller parts to avoid assessing the overall environmental impact.


Facts:

  • The U.S. Forest Service planned to build a gravel road, known as the Jersey Jack road, in a roadless area of the Nezperce National Forest in Idaho.
  • The Jersey Jack area is adjacent to the Salmon River and two designated wilderness areas, and it lies within a 'recovery corridor' for the endangered Rocky Mountain Gray Wolf.
  • The stated purpose of the road was to provide access to timber lands for harvesting over the next twenty years.
  • The Forest Service's own cost-benefit analysis for the road considered the value of the timber to be the primary benefit justifying the road's construction.
  • The Forest Service prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the road alone, which did not consider the environmental impacts of the timber sales the road would enable.
  • Based on the road-only EA, the Forest Service issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), concluding a full EIS was not required for the road.
  • Subsequently, the Forest Service prepared separate EAs for individual timber sales in the area, each also resulting in a FONSI.
  • The Forest Service did not prepare a biological assessment to determine if the road and timber sales were likely to affect the Rocky Mountain Gray Wolf, despite the area being identified as its habitat.

Procedural Posture:

  • The Forest Service issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and approved the Jersey Jack road project.
  • Plaintiffs appealed the Forest Supervisor’s decision to the Regional Forester, who affirmed the decision.
  • Plaintiffs then appealed the Regional Forester's decision to the Chief of the Forest Service, who also affirmed.
  • Plaintiffs filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho, challenging the Chief's decision.
  • The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, the Chief of the Forest Service, on all claims.
  • Plaintiffs, as appellants, appealed the district court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) require the Forest Service to prepare a single Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that analyzes the combined environmental impacts of a proposed logging road and the future timber sales that the road is designed to facilitate?


Opinions:

Majority - Sneed, Circuit Judge

Yes, NEPA requires a single EIS covering both the road and the timber sales. The court held that the road and the timber sales are 'connected actions' and 'cumulative actions' that must be considered together in a single EIS. The timber sales cannot proceed without the road, and the road would not be built but for the contemplated timber sales; they are inextricably intertwined. Considering the impacts of the sales only after the road is built would undermine NEPA's purpose, as building the road swings the balance decidedly in favor of the sales, making a comprehensive environmental review at that stage ineffective. The court also held that the National Forest Management Act does not require the economic value of timber to exceed the cost of an access road. Finally, the court found the Forest Service violated the Endangered Species Act by failing to prepare a biological assessment for the project's impact on the Rocky Mountain Gray Wolf, and that this procedural failure requires an injunction pending compliance.



Analysis:

This case is a landmark decision in environmental law that firmly prohibits the practice of 'segmentation,' where an agency breaks a large project into smaller components to avoid a comprehensive environmental review. It clarifies that under NEPA, functionally interdependent actions must be analyzed together from the outset. By requiring a consolidated EIS for the road and the timber sales it facilitates, the ruling ensures that the true, cumulative environmental cost of a project is evaluated before irreversible commitments are made. This precedent forces agencies to assess the big picture and prevents them from using an incremental approach to justify environmentally damaging projects that might not be approved if their full scope were considered at once.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Thomas v. Peterson (1985)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"