Legal Research AI

Utah Shared Access Alliance v. United States Forest Service

Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Date filed: 2002-04-25
Citations: 288 F.3d 1205
Copy Citations
27 Citing Cases

                                                                        F I L E D
                                                                  United States Court of Appeals
                                                                          Tenth Circuit
                                     PUBLISH
                                                                         APR 25 2002
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                      PATRICK FISHER
                                                                              Clerk
                                  TENTH CIRCUIT


THE UTAH SHARED ACCESS
ALLIANCE and ANTHONY
CHATTERLEY,

     Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.                                                      No. 00-4146

UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE
and MARY WAGNER, in her official
capacity as Forest Supervisor of
Dixie National Forest,

     Defendants - Appellees,

SOUTHERN UTAH WILDERNESS
ALLIANCE; THE WILDERNESS
SOCIETY; AMERICAN LANDS
ALLIANCE; SIERRA CLUB, Utah
Chapter; GREAT OLD BOARDS
FOR WILDERNESS; WILDLANDS
CENTER FOR PREVENTING
ROADS; and JOHN GALLAND,

     Defendants - Intervenors -
     Appellees.


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                             for the District of Utah
                             (D.C. No. 99CV0349C)
Kristen L. Cassisa (William Perry Pendley and D. Andrew Wight, Mountain States Legal
Foundation, Denver, Colorado, on the briefs ) for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

David C. Shilton, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C. (Lois J. Schiffer, Ass't. Attorney
General, Environmental & Nat. Resources Division, Paul M. Warner, U.S. Attorney and
Stephen Roth, Asst. U.S. Attorney, Salt Lake City, Utah; Lisa Jones, Dept. of Justice,
Washington, D.C., and Kenneth D. Paur, Office of Gen. Counsel, U.S. Dept. of
Agriculture, Ogden, Utah, on the briefs) for Defendants-Appellees.

Stephen H. M. Bloch (Heidi J. McIntosh and Stephen H.M. Bloch, Southern Utah
Wilderness Alliance, Salt Lake City, Utah, on the briefs) for Defendants-Intervenors-
Appellees.


Before EBEL, Circuit Judge, McWILLIAMS, Senior Circuit Judge, and BROWN*,
Senior District Judge.


BROWN*, Senior District Judge.


       This suit involves a decision by the Forest Service to close numerous roads on

Boulder Top, a popular recreation area in the Dixie National Forest near Teasdale, Utah.

The decision was taken as part of an effort to reduce sedimentation in lakes on Boulder

Top. Biologists had observed that sedimentation was contributing to increased winter kill

of trout populations in area lakes, and the Forest Service concluded that poorly

constructed roads on Boulder Top were a major source of the problem. Appellant Utah

Shared Access Alliance ("US-ALL") challenged the Forest Service's decision in U.S.

District Court, arguing that the Service failed to comply with its obligations under the


       *
         The Honorable Wesley E. Brown, Senior District Judge for the District of Kansas,
sitting by designation.

                                             2
National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"), 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq. Among other

things, US-ALL argued the Forest Service failed to take a "hard look" at the potential

environmental consequences of the proposed action as required by NEPA, and

erroneously determined that the action would not significantly affect the quality of the

human environment. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the

defendants, finding the Forest Service had complied with NEPA and that its decision was

not arbitrary or capricious.1 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and

affirm for the reasons that follow.

                                             I.

       General Requirements of NEPA. NEPA calls for all federal agencies to use a

"systematic, interdisciplinary approach" in agency decision-making, taking into account

the natural and social sciences and the environmental design arts. 42 U.S.C. § 4332(A).

Among other things, NEPA requires federal agencies to prepare a detailed statement of

the environmental impact for "major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of

the human environment." § 4332(C).

       NEPA has been implemented in part by regulations of the Council on

Environmental Quality. See 40 C.F.R. § 1500 et seq. Under the regulations, an agency



       1
         Anthony Chatterley, a disabled recreational user of Boulder Top, was also a named
plaintiff in the complaint filed in district court, but his claims were dismissed for lack of
standing. Aplt. App. at 0887. Chatterley was listed as an appellant in the notice of appeal,
but appellants now concede the dismissal of his claims. See Aplt. Br. at 4.

                                             3
contemplating action may be required to prepare an "environmental assessment" (or

"EA") containing a concise discussion of environmental considerations and providing a

basis for the agency to determine whether the action is a major one. If the agency finds

that the action will not significantly affect the human environment (and is thus not a

major action), it makes a "Finding of No Significant Impact" (or "FONSI"). If it finds the

action will significantly affect the environment, it is then required to prepare a more

extensive analysis in the form of an "environmental impact statement" (or "EIS"). See

Airport Neighbors Alliance, Inc. v. United States, 90 F.3d 426, 429 (10th Cir. 1996).

       NEPA places upon federal agencies the obligation "to consider every significant

aspect of the environmental impact of a proposed action." Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co. v.

Natural Res. Defense Council, 462 U.S. 87, 97 (1983). It also ensures that an agency will

inform the public that it has considered environmental concerns in its decision-making

process. Id. The Act does not require agencies to elevate environmental concerns over

other appropriate considerations, however; it requires only that the agency take a "hard

look" at the environmental consequences before taking a major action. Id. In other

words, it “‘prohibits uninformed -- rather than unwise -- agency action.’” Custer County

Action Ass’n. v. Garvey, 256 F.3d 1024, 1034 (10th Cir. 2001). The role of the courts in

reviewing compliance with NEPA "is simply to ensure that the agency has adequately

considered and disclosed the environmental impact of its actions and that its decision is

not arbitrary and capricious." Baltimore Gas & Elec., 462 U.S at 97-98.


                                              4
                                             II.

       Boulder Top is a 50,000 acre plateau at about 11,000 feet elevation on top of

Boulder Mountain in the Dixie National Forest. It is interspersed with numerous lakes

and forest areas and is a popular recreation destination for camping, fishing, hiking and

hunting.

       Sixteen lakes on Boulder Top are managed for fish production. The main fish

species on Boulder Top include brook trout and Yellowstone cutthroat trout. Lakes on

Boulder Top that support sport fishing are generally more productive than high-altitude

lakes in other areas of Utah. The lakes that consistently overwinter trout have sufficient

depth and volume to supply fish through the long winter, when snow and ice cover

prevent photosynthesis and the atmospheric input of oxygen. Many of the lakes on

Boulder Top are relatively shallow, and there is a delicate balance concerning a lake’s

ability to overwinter trout from one year to the next. For this reason, any decrease in lake

depth from sediment accumulation can decrease or eliminate trout survival. See Aplt.

App. at 0170.

       The Boulder Top area contains approximately 131 miles of vehicular routes. The

road system was summarized by the Forest Service as follows:

                The majority of the roads are the result of past and ongoing
                dry log timber harvest activities. Other roads have resulted
                from recreationists seeking access to lakes and scenic
                overlooks, and permittees driving between grazing allotments.
                In almost all cases, very little thought was given to proper
                road location, design standards, or maintenance objectives.

                                              5
             Roads were located so as to incur the least amount of work
             and therefore costs. Many have resulted from simply driving
             across the gently rolling open meadows, weaving among the
             rocks wherever possible. Where trees have been encountered,
             primitive road prisms have been constructed if it was
             physically impossible to weave among the rocks and trees.
             The net result is a system of low speed primitive roads
             passable to high clearance vehicles during dry weather, but
             requiring 4-wheel drive during inclement weather.

             Road maintenance on the Boulder Top has been minimal.
             Those involved in the harvest of dry logs have made a good
             faith effort to maintain the roads they are using, but due to the
             road prisms and materials available to work with, their efforts
             are somewhat futile and short lived. Maintenance has
             consisted for the most part of surface blading which usually
             lasts until the next storm when re-rutting of the travel way
             occurs once again. Most of the road prisms consist of wheel
             tracks if blading hasn't occurred and a trench section if
             blading has been performed. Re-blading of the "trench
             section" tends to just deepen the roadway, allowing for the
             collection of more water and thus numerous mud holes.
             When the mud holes become impassible, the practice has been
             to drive around them, resulting in a torn up, dual or triple
             tracked section of roadway.

             The "constructed" sections of roadway generally are in
             timbered areas or areas of excessive rock. Typical sections
             consist of a narrow road prism, often trenched, with slash and
             boulders lining both sides of the roadway, thus preventing
             proper maintenance or drainage work.

Aplt. App. at 0165.

      In the early 1980's, Utah Department of Wildlife Resource ("UDWR") fisheries

biologists realized that many of the lakes on Boulder Top were being impacted by

sediment. Many lakes that had historically supported overwintering populations of trout


                                            6
were becoming shallower due to increased sediment, and as a result, winter kill of trout

was becoming more prevalent. Over the course of several years the UDWR attempted to

reduce winter kill through the use of mechanical aerators, but eventually decided these

attempts were not beneficial and were not addressing the root of the problem. According

to biologists, much of the sediment increase in the lakes was attributable to poorly

located, constructed or improperly drained roads. UDWR eventually recommended that

the Forest Service take steps to reduce the sedimentation. Aplt. App. at 0171.

       By 1993, the Forest Service had commenced a study of the Boulder Top area. On

June 3, 1997, the Forest Service published an Environmental Assessment ("EA") for

Boulder Top with a proposed action and various alternative proposals. The EA

determined that action was needed to "correct the sediment entering the lakes from

improper road location and drainage," and said the purpose of the proposed action was to

"improve watershed conditions, fisheries and the road system on Boulder Top to reduce

on-going damage." Aplt. App. at 0149. The EA noted that although sedimentation of

lakes is a natural process, "[t]he sediment impacts from roads and other uses in the

riparian areas around the lakes has accelerated sedimentation rates," and the increased

sedimentation "is a serious threat to fisheries on Boulder Top." Id. at 0168. The EA

pointed out that lake sedimentation had been identified where poorly located, poorly

drained roads provided access to lakes, and noted that "Raft Lake and Meeks Lake, for

example, contain sediment deltas formed directly from access roads and gullies


                                             7
originating from those roads." Id. Although the EA identified other activities that also

contributed to sedimentation, including timber harvesting and livestock grazing, the

Forest Service viewed these as less urgent problems and asserted that "[a] major source of

this sediment is unplanned, poorly located, or substandard roads." Id. at 149. In

assessing the various alternative courses of action and the potential impact of road

closures to remedy the problem, the EA stated "[r]esearch has shown that up to a 75%

reduction in soil erosion is possible when road closure is applied as a mitigation. When

roads are permanently obliterated, a 95% reduction in erosion from the roadbed is

possible (Guide for Predicting Sediment Yields from Forested Watersheds, 1981)."

Using these figures, the Forest Service estimated potential decreased sediment yields

from roads under each of six alternatives described in the EA, including a “No Action”

alternative. The Forest Service’s initial proposed action called for closing about 43 miles

of roads, leaving 89 miles open. One of the alternative courses of action, identified as

"Alternative D," involved closure of about 86 miles of roads. The EA projected that this

more extensive action would reduce the sediment yield from roads to about one-half of

the yield from taking no action. It involved road closures at 7 of the 11 lakes identified as

being impacted by sediment from roadbed erosion. See Aplt. App., Exh. 4. The EA

concluded that Alternative D would restore about 130 watershed acres, compared to 75

acres that would be restored under the Forest Service’s more limited proposed action.

See Aplt. App. at 0161.


                                              8
       Aside from discussing and comparing the various alternatives, the EA listed and

discussed mitigation measures to be taken to avoid adverse environmental impacts. The

EA also discussed at length (approximately 125 pages) the affected areas of the

environment and the projected consequences of the proposed action and the alternatives,

including the effects on the watershed, fisheries, plant and wildlife, recreation and

wilderness areas, visual quality, and the social/economic impact.

       On August 5, 1997, after a review period involving consideration of public

comments, the Forest Service issued its first Decision Notice and FONSI. That decision

announced that the Forest Service would adopt a combination of the initial proposed

action and Alternative D. After various administrative appeals and proceedings, the

Forest Service withdrew its first decision. On January 12, 1998, the Forest Service issued

a second Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact. Aplt. App. at 0524.

The final decision adopted a modified version of Alternative D under which about 89

miles of Boulder Top roads would be closed, leaving 43 miles open to motorized use.

                                             III.

       On appeal, US-ALL first contends the Forest Service violated NEPA by failing to

take a "hard look" at all of the relevant environmental factors. It objects to the Forest

Service's reliance upon the Guide to Predicting Sediment Yields from Forested

Watersheds (hereinafter "the Guide"), arguing the Service failed to apply the actual

analysis contained in the Guide and "slavishly" adopted that study's quantitative findings


                                              9
without making necessary adjustments for local conditions at Boulder Top. Appellant

also contends the Forest Service erred by failing to analyze sediment yields under the

method described in Determining the Risk of Cumulative Watershed Effects Resulting

from Multiple Activities, USDA Forest Service (1993) or under “some other appropriate

scientific method.” US-ALL further contends the Environmental Assessment was

deficient because it did not consider or propose to address other potential causes of

sedimentation, such as livestock grazing.

       Aside from challenging the methods used in the Environmental Assessment, US-

ALL argues that the Forest Service erred by finding the proposed action would not

significantly affect the human environment. According to appellant, application of the

factors listed in 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27 shows that this proposed action is in fact a "major"

or "significant" one. US-ALL believes the Forest Service failed to adequately consider

several important factors in its determination, including the indirect effects of closing a

majority of the roads on Boulder Top and the impact upon Boulder Top as a unique

geographic area.

                                             IV.

       We have considered appellant’s challenges to the environmental assessment in this

case, but we see nothing to indicate the Forest Service failed to comply with NEPA.

       The Forest Service identified a specific need for action "to correct the sediment




                                             10
entering the lakes from improper road location and drainage." Aplt. App. at 149.2 That

need, and the fact that substandard roads were a major source of the lake sediment

problem, was amply documented by the observations of UDWR and Forest Service

personnel over an extended period of time. For example, a 1992 survey by Forest Service

and UDWR biologists identified numerous examples of roadbed erosion into Boulder Top

lakes and recommended various road closures. See Aple. Supp. App. at 005458.

Common sense alone suggests that a haphazard system of roads in close proximity to

lakes would likely be a significant cause of erosion, and there is no dispute that agency

personnel documented significant visible effects of lake sedimentation from the roads on

Boulder Top. Those observations were duly noted and discussed in the EA. See e.g.

Aplt. App. at 216 ("All lakes being impacted by roads show evidence of sediment delta

fans forming where the roads approach the lakes. In some instances, the roads have

active gullies up to 1.5 feet deep going down to the lakes."). It was not arbitrary or

capricious for the Forest Service to rely upon such observations and informed opinions,

nor was it arbitrary or capricious for the Service to conclude that the roads on Boulder

Top were a major source of lake sedimentation that needed to be remedied.

       Appellant contends the Forest Service’s use of the Guide to Predicting Sediment



       2
        The Environmental Assessment also identified two other needs for the project area.
One was a need to change the management designation of a portion of Boulder Top from
"Timber Management" to "Semi-Private Recreation Opportunities." The other was a need
to provide non-motorized trail access to lakes where road access was being changed.

                                             11
Yields in the course of its assessment was contrary to NEPA’s “hard look” requirement

because the Service did not follow the detailed formulas in the Guide and used that

study’s quantitative findings without making adjustments for local conditions. These

arguments are unavailing. As noted above, the fact that roads were causing significant

sedimentation was documented in the Environmental Assessment. The Forest Service

concedes it did not undertake a comprehensive watershed study on the magnitude of the

one described in the Guide, but correctly points out that NEPA did not mandate such a

massive study as a prerequisite to action. Cf. Sierra Club v. Lynn, 502 F.2d 43, 61 (5th

Cir. 1974) (“NEPA does not demand that every federal decision be verified by reduction

to mathematical absolutes for insertion into a precise formula.”). The record shows that

the Forest Service undertook to calculate the on-site erosion that was being caused by the

roads on Boulder Top. Aple. Supp. App. at 004898. In doing so, the Service relied upon

germane portions of the Guide analyzing sedimentation from roads and the likely

reduction to be obtained through road closure or obliteration. We are not persuaded by

appellant’s argument that this was a misuse of the study. The Guide itself admonishes

users to “use their technical expertise [and] considerable professional judgment to assure

that reasonable use is made of [the] model. Models are simply tools to assist in decision

making, and users ought to test model results against their best technical judgment of

what can logically be expected to actually occur on the ground.” Aplt. App. at 0013.

There is nothing improper about the fact that the Guide was used primarily to estimate the


                                            12
impact of road closures. Moreover, as the district court noted, the record shows the

Forest Service in fact took into account variables reflecting local conditions at Boulder

Top (including the slope and geological erosion rate for that locale) as part of its

discussion and analysis of environmental impact. See Aple. Supp. App. at 004897-

004903.

       The record shows that the Forest Service used the Guide as a basis for comparison

of the various alternatives. It was cited to support the Forest Service’s view that the

action would significantly reduce sedimentation from roads, noting “[r]esearch has shown

that up to a 75% reduction in soil erosion is possible when road closure is applied as a

mitigation” and “[w]hen roads are permanently obliterated, a 95% reduction from the

roadbed is also possible.” Aplt. App. at 0201. Appellant has not shown that reliance

upon these figures was irrational or unsound. Under the circumstances, the Forest

Service’s determination was not arbitrary or capricious, but reflects a rational method of

gauging the impact of various alternatives. Cf. Aplt. App. at 0013 (Introduction to the

Guide stating, “Although [the model in the Guide] produces specific quantitative values

for sediment yield, the results should be treated as rather broad estimates of how real

systems may respond. The validity of this model is best when the results are used to

compare alternatives, not for predicting specific quantities of sediment yielded.”).

       Appellant also contends the Forest Service violated NEPA by failing to consider

important aspects of the sediment problem, such as the degree to which grazing or other


                                             13
uses contributed to sedimentation, and by failing to analyze the “synergistic and

cumulative” effects of multiple sources of siltation under the method described in

Determining the Risk of Cumulative Watershed Effects Resulting from Multiple

Activities, USDA Forest Service (1993). As the district court noted, however, the Forest

Service did consider other aspects of sedimentation in assessing the proposed action. For

example, the Forest Service identified grazing as a substantial environmental concern,

Aplt. App. at 0168, but decided grazing was being addressed in the East Slope Allotment

Management Plan and was beyond the scope of this project, which was directed

specifically at the roads. Id. at 0169; Aple. Supp. App. at 005161. In response to public

comments, the Forest Service noted that the new allotment plan would defer grazing on

Boulder Top one out of every three years, which should give plants a chance to mature

and thereby reduce the impact of grazing. Aplt. App. at 0432. Given this fact, and in

view of the documented impacts from poorly located and constructed roads, the Forest

Service concluded that erosion from the roads presented a greater and more urgent

problem that needed to be addressed if the lakes on Boulder Top were to be preserved for

fishing. Aplt. App. at 0451. See also Aple. Supp. App. at 004705(1992 Forest Service

study noting that although grazing was contributing to the problem, “[p]oor road

condition and/or improper road location are yielding the most impacts.”). The Forest

Service also noted in the EA that recent implementation of proper use standards for

livestock grazing and the construction of several grazing exclosures, when combined with


                                            14
the proposed road closures, would begin to improve the riparian habitat condition on

Boulder Top. Aplt. App. at 0258. Our review of the record persuades us that the Forest

Service gave proper consideration to all relevant aspects in connection with its proposed

action. The Forest Service’s review contained an assessment of the impact of all current

and foreseeable future uses, including livestock grazing, road building, off-road vehicle

use, recreation and timber harvesting. The assessment examined the direct, indirect, and

cumulative effects of these activities in light of the proposed action. The fact that the

Service did not employ a particular method of analysis in its study, such as the approach

for determining impacts on endangered species described in Determining the Risk of

Cumulative Watershed Effects Resulting from Multiple Activities, USDA Forest Service

(1993), does not render its Environmental Assessment inadequate. Cf. Committee to

Preserve Boomer Lake Park v. Dept. of Transportation, 4 F.3d 1543, 1553 (10th Cir.

1993) (courts are not in a position to decide the propriety of competing methodologies,

but should simply determine whether the challenged method had a rational basis and took

into consideration the relevant factors).

       NEPA requires that we review the record to ascertain whether the agency decision

is founded on a reasoned evaluation of the relevant factors. Marsh v. Oregon Nat.

Resources Council, 490 U.S. 360, 373-74 (1989). Once we are satisfied that an agency’s

exercise of discretion is truly informed, we must defer to that informed discretion. Id. at

377. It is true here, as it is in every case, that the agency could have discussed the


                                              15
relevant environmental impacts in greater detail. Yet the EA in this case was hardly

superficial, and it was consistent with the fundamental purpose of an EA:

              An EA is essentially a more concise and less detailed version
              of an EIS. One of the principal purposes of an EA is to
              “[b]riefly provide sufficient evidence and analysis for
              determining whether to prepare an [EIS] or a [FONSI].” By
              conducting an EA, an agency considers environmental
              concerns yet reserves its resources for instances where a full
              EIS is appropriate. The EA must “include brief discussions of
              the need for the proposal, of alternatives..., of the
              environmental impacts of the proposed actions and
              alternatives, and a listing of agencies and persons consulted.
              [citations omitted]

Committee to Preserve Boomer Lake Park v. Dept. of Transportation, 4 F.3d 1543, 1554,

n. 9 (10th Cir. 1993). The record in this case shows the Forest Service made a reasoned

evaluation of the available information and its method was not arbitrary or capricious.3

Accordingly, we reject appellant’s contention that the EA for this project failed to meet

the “hard look” requirement of NEPA.

       Appellant’s second main contention concerns the Forest Service’s Finding of No

Significant Impact, or “FONSI.” Under NEPA, an agency must go beyond the initial

environmental assessment and must perform an extensive environmental impact statement

for "major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment."



       3
        We note that the Environmental Assessment includes a monitoring plan designed to
assess whether the proposed measures have an effect on overwinter survival of trout in
several of the Boulder Top lakes and whether additional measures are needed to minimize
sediment delivery. Aplt. App. at 0321-22.

                                            16
42 U.S.C. § 4332(C). The Forest Service examined the factors relating to “significance”

under 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27 and concluded this action would not significantly affect the

quality of the human environment. Appellant argues this finding was erroneous because

it failed to take into account certain factors, including the increased pressures from

human impact on areas of Boulder Top that remain open to vehicle traffic and the

environmental effect on Boulder Top as a unique geographic area.

       “An agency’s decision to issue a FONSI and not prepare an EIS is a factual

determination which implicates agency expertise and accordingly, is reviewed under the

deferential arbitrary and capricious standard of review.” Committee to Preserve Boomer

Lake Part v. Dept. of Transportation, 4 F.3d 1543, 1555 (10th Cir. 1993). “In our review,

we ‘must consider whether the decision was based on a consideration of the relevant

factors and whether there has been a clear error of judgment.’ This inquiry must ‘be

searching and careful,’ but ‘the ultimate standard of review is a narrow one.’” Id. (citing

Marsh v. Oregon Nat. Resources Council, 490 U.S. 360, 378 (1989)).

       The regulations implementing NEPA direct agencies to consider all effects on the

human environment, both direct and indirect, in determining whether an Environmental

Impact Statement is required. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.8. The “human environment” includes

“the natural and physical environment and the relationship of people with that

environment.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.14. In determining whether the human environment is

“significantly” affected, the agency must examine both the context and intensity of the


                                             17
impact from the proposed action. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27.

       Under these standards, we cannot say that the FONSI in this case was arbitrary and

capricious. Contrary to appellant’s argument, the record indicates the Forest Service in

fact assessed all of the relevant factors. The EA contains an extensive discussion of the

effects of the action, including the anticipated impact on recreational opportunities, soils

and watersheds, fisheries, and transportation. It included an in-depth assessment of the

direct and indirect effects on camping, fishing, hiking, horseback riding, hunting, cross-

country skiing and wood gathering, among others, as well as the cumulative effects

thereof. The Forest Service specifically recognized that the road closures would likely

result in a large shift from vehicle-based activities to walk-in activities such as hiking,

and also considered the possible increase in traffic density on roads that remained open or

were improved. Aplt. App. at 0269-70. As the Forest Service noted, there was a

difference of opinion as to whether the road closures would ultimately result in a net

increase or decrease in access and use of Boulder Top. See Aplt. App. at 0528. The EA

concluded that although some activities such as hiking would increase, the decrease in

road access would cause a reduction in other activities such as dispersed camping,

fishing, hunting and use of all-terrain vehicles. (The EA also noted that impacts from

road construction and repair would lessen in view of the decreased road network.) The

EA found that Alternative D would result in a large shift in the type of recreational

opportunities available for users but an overall reduction in the number of actual


                                              18
“Recreation Visitor Days” in the affected area. Aplt. App. at 0259. Additionally, in

response to a specific concern from the UDWR as to whether the action would cause

increased fishing pressure at Horseshoe Lake, the Forest Service considered that issue and

decided that monitoring of the recreational use would be sufficient to guide any future

decisions concerning access to that lake. Aplt. App. at 0527. Similarly, the Forest

Service adequately considered the unique characteristics of Boulder Top in reaching its

FONSI, as demonstrated by its discussion of the area’s specific qualities throughout the

EA’s review of environmental impacts. Among other things, the FONSI noted that the

action would not affect any historical or cultural resources, wild or scenic rivers, or

ecologically critical areas; it was localized in nature and would not set a precedent for

other projects; it would not adversely affect safety; it did not involve controversial or

uncertain risks to the human environment; and it would not adversely affect any

endangered or threatened plant or animal species. Aplt. App. at 0529-30. All things

considered, the Forest Service had a plausible basis for finding the action would not

significantly affect the human environment. In sum, we find that the Forest Service’s

decision was based on a consideration of the relevant factors, and no showing has been




                                             19
made that the FONSI constituted “a clear error in judgment.” Cf. Committee to Preserve

boomer Lake Park, 4 F.3d at 1556.

      Conclusion.

      The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.




                                          20