F OR P UBLICATION



### UNIT E D ST AT E S CO URT O F APPE AL S FO R T H E NINT H CIRCUIT

W I L D E A R

T H G U A R D I A N S ; F R I E N D S
O F T H E B I T T E R

R O O T ; M O N T A

N A N S
F O R Q U I E T R E C R

E A T I O N , I

N C ., Plaintiffs-Appellants

,

v

.

M O N T A N A S N O W M O B I L E A S S O C I A T I O N ; I D A H O S N O W M O B I L E A S S O C I A T I O N , Intervenors-Appellees

,

U N I T E D S T A T E S F O R

E S T S E R V I C E ; L E S L I E W E L D O N , in her official capacity as Reg ional F orester for Reg ion 1; G L O R

I A M A N N I N G , in her official capacity

as the appeal deciding officer for the Chief of the F orest Service; D A

V E M E Y E R , in his official capacity

as F orest Supervisor for the B eaverhead Deerlodg e National F orest,

Defendants-Appellees

. N o. 12-35434

D.C. No. 9:10-cv-00104- DW M

OPI NI ON

A ppeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Donald W . Molloy , Senior District J udg e , PresidingW I LD E A R T H G U A R D I A N S V

. USF S 2

Arg ued and Submitted November 7, 2013—Seattle, W ashing ton

F iled J une 22, 2015

B efore: Alex K oz inski, Richard A. Paez

, and Marsha S. B erz on, Circuit J udg es.

Opinion by J udg e Paez

SUMMARY *

Environm ental Law

The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district

c ourt’s judg ment in an action challeng ing the United States F orest Service’s decision to desig nate over two million acres of public land in the B e averhead-Deerlodg e National Fo r e st for use by winter motoriz ed vehicles.

Ex ecutive Order 1 1644, issued in 1972, directed ag encies
to promu l g ate reg ulations c oncerning areas and trails allowing off-road vehicles on public lands to mini m iz e environmental damag es and minimiz e co n flicts w ith other recreational uses. T he Secretary of A g riculture promulg ated
t h e 2 0 0 5 T r a v e l M a n a g e m e n t R u l e t o i m p r o v e implementation of the Ex ecutive Order, and e s t a blished the “minimiz a tion criteria.” I n 2010, the F orest Service issued a Record of Decision i mplementing the travel manag ement

* T h is su m m ary co n stitu

tes n o part o f th e o p in io n o f th e co u rt. It h as b een p rep ared b y

co u rt staf

f f o r th e co n v en i en ce o f

th e read er.W I LD E A R T H G U A R D I A N S V

. USF S 3

decisions in a Revised F orest Plan, design ating o ver two million a c r es of the F orest for snowmobile u se, which decreased the area open to snowmobiles.

Addressing pl a i n tiffs’ challeng es under the National Environmental Policy Act, the p anel held that the E n vironmental I mpact Statement prepared by the F o r es t Service d id not provide the public adequate access to information about the impact of snowmobiles on b i g g ame wildlife and habitat, and did n ot allow the public to play a role in the decision making process. The panel reversed the district court’s gr a nt of summary judg ment to the F orest S er v i ce o n this issue. T he panel a lso held that the F orest Service prov i d e d sufficient information to establish that it took a “hard look” a t the impacts of snowmobile use on nonmotoriz ed r ecreational uses throug h o u t the Revised F orest Plan ar e a , and the panel affirmed the district court’s ruling
t hat the Environmental I mpact Statement sufficiently analy z ed these conflicts.

Addressing plaintiffs’ challeng e to the F ores t Service’s compliance with Ex e cutive Order 11644, the panel reversed the district court’s ruling t h at the F orest Service adequately applied the minimiz ation criteria i n t he Travel Manag ement Rule. The panel held that the F orest Service must provide a
more g ranular minimiz ation analy sis to fulfill the objectives of Ex ecutive O rder 1 1 6 4 4
, which the T ravel Manag ement Rule was desig ned to implement. The panel ag reed with the district court that plaintiff s ’ c h alleng e to the Subpart C

ex e mption in the Travel Manag ement Rule, which ex e mpted

over-snow v ehicles from compliance with the minimiz ationW I LD E A R T H G U A R D I A N S V

. USF S 4

criteria, w as not r i pe for review because the F orest Service did not apply

Subpart C to justify its actions in this case.

The panel remanded for further proceeding s.

COUNSEL

J ack R. Tuholske (arg

ued )

, Tuholske L aw Office, P.C., Missoula, Montana; Sara h Peters, Eug ene, Oreg on, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

B everly F

. L i (arg u e d ) and David G unter, Attorney s, United States Departmen t of J ustice, Environment & Natural Resources Division; Christine R. Everett, O ffice of the General Counsel, U nited States Department of Ag riculture; I g nacia S. Moreno, Assistant A ttorney General, W ashing ton D.C., for F ederal Defendants-Appellees U.S. F orest Service, et al.

Paul A

. T u rcke (arg

ued), Moore, Smith, B ux ton & Turcke, CHTD., B oise, I daho, f

o r I ntervenors-Appellees Montana Snowmobile Association, et al.W I LD E A R T H G U A R D I A N S V

. USF S 5

OP INION

PAEZ , Circuit J udg e:

W ildEarth Gua rd i ans, Montanans for Quiet Recreation, I n c., and F r iends of the B itterroot, I nc. (collectively

, “W ildEarth”), challeng e the U nited States F orest Se r v i c e’s decision to desig nate over two million acres o f public land in the B eaverhead-Deerlodg e National F o rest (“F orest”) for use by winter motoriz ed vehicles, principa l ly snowmobiles. W ildEarth alleg e s that the F or e s t Service’s review o f the environ m e n tal impacts of snowmobiles under the National Envir o n m e ntal Policy Act (“NEPA”) 1 was inadequate in

s e v e r al material respects. W ildEarth also alleg es that t h e F orest Service fai l ed to comply with the minimiz ation requirements of Ex ecutive Order 1 1644. W e affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceeding s.

I.

At 3.35 million-acres, the F o rest is the l a rg est n ational forest in the state of Montana. T h e i sland mountain rang e s within the F orest provide a variety of h abitats spanning from cold d e sert to alpine p eaks. Over 3 00 terrestrial land species live in t h e F o rest, including g riz z ly bears, wolves, wolverines, ly nx , and a b road variety of “big g a me” species, such as mule deer, white-tailed deer, b lack bear, moose, elk, big horn sheep, mountain g oat, a nd antelope. The F orest is also n ationally

r e n owned as a recreation destination. Recreational opportunities in c lude non-motoriz ed activities such a s fishing

, hunting

, hiking

, skiing

, and mountain biking

, as w ell

1 4 2 U.S.C. § § 4 3 2 1

– 4 3 7 0

.W I LD E A R T H G U A R D I A N S V

. USF S 6

as motoriz e d activities, including motorc y cle riding a nd snowmobiling

.

I n 2002, the F orest Service issued a notice of int e n t t o revise the L and and Resource Manage m e n t Plan (“forest plan”) for the F orest pursuant to the Natio n a l Fo r e st Manag ement Act, 1 6 U.S.C. § 1 604. 67 F ed. Reg

. 22,396 (May 3
, 2 0 0 2 )

. The purpose of a forest p lan is to g u ide decisions r eg arding natural r esource manag ement and other activity over a period of ten to f ifteen y ears. B ecause a forest plan may have a sig n ificant impact on the env i r o n m ent, N E P A requires the F o rest Service to prepare a n environmental impact statement.

I n J anuary 2009, af

t e r considering various a lternative plans, the Reg ional F orester sig ned a n d released a Record o f Decision (“ROD”) approving the Environmental I mpact Statement 2 (“EI S”) and a dopting the B e a verhead-Deerlodg e Revised F orest Plan (“Revised F orest Plan” or “R e vised Plan”). The Revised P l a n , which adopts “modified Alternative Six ,” covers eig ht “revi s i on topics,” including “Recre a tion and Travel Manag ement,” which g overns

s n owmobile access within the F orest. The Revised Fo r e s t P lan divides the F orest into twelve different “landsca p e areas,” which are, in turn, divided into multiple “manag ement

area s

. ” I n 2010, the F orest Service issued a second ROD (“2010 ROD”) implementin g the travel manag ement decisions in the Revised Plan.

2 Su b seq u en t to ap p ro v al, ad ditio n a l e d i ts w ere m ad e to th e Fin al En v iro n m en tal Im

p act Statem en t. T h ese ed its w ere co n tain ed in th e

“ C o rrected Fin al En v iro n m en tal Im pact Statem en t.” A ll ref

eren ces t o th e

“ EIS” are to th is latter d ocu m en t.W I LD E A R T H G U A R D I A N S V

. USF S 7

At issu e i n this case is the desig nation in the Revised F orest Plan o f over two million acres, or 60%, o f the F orest for snowmobile use. As compared to prior forest plans, 3 the Revised Plan decreased t h e a r ea open to snowmobiles. The revision, however, w ill not necessarily result in a reduction o f snowmobile impacts. There has b e e n a sharp increase in snowmobile use since the 1980s, and a dvances in technolog y allow snowmobiles to reach altitudes and terra i n not previously

accessible.

The Reg ional F orester acknowledg ed in the ROD that “the unmanag ed e x pansion of motoriz ed uses[
, includi n g snowmobiles, ] h as resulted in resource damag e, wildlife impacts, and competition and conflict between user g roups.” Snowmobiles affect wil dlife in part because they stress animals and provoke a flig h t r esponse during the winter
season, w hen the animals are par t i c u larly vulnerable to depletion of their energ y reserves. Because some species avoid all motoriz ed vehicles, snowmobi l e s can effectively reduce the amount of available habitat. There is also evidence that snowmobiles can disturb reproduction c y cles o f wi l d l i f e species such as the w olverine. I n addition to disturbing w ildlife, snowmobiles can interfere w ith nonmotoriz ed w inter recreation a c tivities b ecause of the noise and pollution they

g enerate.

W ildEarth a

nd other g roups f

i led a number o f administrative appeals challeng i n g t h e EI S and ROD. I n October 2009, the Reviewing O f f icer for the F orest Service consolidated and rejected the appeals. Wild E a r th

3 T h e p rev io u s f

o rest p lan s w ere created sep arately f o r th e B eav erh ead Natio n al Fo rest (1 9 8 6 ) a n d t h e Deerlo d g e Natio n al Fo rest (1 9 8 7). In 1 9 9 6 , th e f

o rests w ere co n so lid ated to ach iev e ad m in istrativ e ef f icien cy

.W I LD E A R T H G U A R D I A N S V

. USF S 8

subsequently filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Montana. Relevant to this appeal, W ildEarth alleg ed that: (1) the F orest Service violated NEPA because it failed to analy

z e adequ a tely the site-specific impacts o f snowmobile use on b ig g a me winter h abitat and conflicting recreational uses; (2) the F orest Service violated E x e c u tive Order 1 1644, 37 F ed. Reg

. 2877 (F eb. 8, 1972), a nd Ex ecutive Order 11989, 42 F ed. Reg

. 26,959 ( May 24, 1977), because it failed to apply specified criteria when desig nating

areas o pen to snowmobile use; and, ( 3) Subpart C of the 2005 Travel Manag ement Rule (“TMR”), 3 6 C.F .R. §§ 212.80–81, which ex empts over-snow v ehicles (“OSVs”) f r o m compliance w ith the minimiz ation criteria in Ex ecutive Order 11644 an d 11989, is invalid. The Montana Snowmobile Association and the I daho State Snowmobile Association intervened as Defendants.

The p arties filed cross-motions for summary judg ment, which the district court g ranted in part, and d enied i n p a r t

. W ildlands CPR, Inc. v. U.S. Forest Serv.
, 872 F

. Supp. 2d 1064 (D. Mont. 2012). The c ourt conclud e d t h at, althoug h the F orest Service’s environmental analy s i s of snowmobile impacts o n wildlife “lack[ ed] clarity ,” the analy si s w a s nevertheless adequate g iven the deference affo rded to ag encies by the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U .S.C. § 7 0 4
, a n d NEPA. Id. at 1078. Turning to Ex ecutive Order 11644, the cour t concluded that the F orest Service met the Order’s requirem e n ts in desig n a ting the
g eneral area s to close to snowmobile use, but n ot in making desig nations a t the route-specific level. Id. at 1082. F inally

, the co u rt ruled that W ildEarth’s challeng e to the ex emption for over-snow vehicles in Subpart C o f the TMR was not ripe because the F orest Service did n ot rely on Subpart C to justify its actions under the Revised F orest Plan. Id. at 1083.W I LD E A R T H G U A R D I A N S V

. USF S 9

W ildEarth timely ap p ealed. W e have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

II.

W e review de novo the district court’s g rant of summary judg ment. Lands Council v. P o well

, 3 9 5 F .3d 1019, 1026 (9th Cir. 2005). A final ag ency a c tion “for which there is no other a dequate remedy in a court” is subject to judicial r eview under the APA. 5 U.S.C. § 7 04; W

. Radio Servs. Co. v. U

.S. Forest Serv.
, 578 F .3d 1116, 1122 (9th Cir. 2009). W e may set aside an ag ency ’s action if it is “arbitrary

, c a p ricious, an abuse of d iscretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A); P auly v. U.S. D ep’t of Agric.
, 348 F .3d 1143, 1148 ( 9th Cir. 2 003). “W e must uphold ag ency decisions so long a s the a g enc[ y ] ha[ s] considered the relevant f a ctors and a

rticulated a r ational connection b etween the factors found and the choices made.” City of Sausalito v

. O’Neill

, 3 86 F .3d 1186, 1206 (9th Cir. 2004) (i n t ernal quotations omitted). W e have also said that an EI S is adequate if it “contains a r easonably t horoug h discussion o f the sig nificant aspects of the probable environmental consequences.” Id. (internal quotations omitted).

III.

NEPA se rv e s two f

undamental objectives. F irst, it “ensures that the ag ency , in reaching its decision, w i l l have available, a

nd will c arefully consider, detailed informat i o n concerning sig nificant environmental impacts.” Robertson v

. Methow Valley Citizens Council

, 4 90 U.S. 332, 349 ( 1 9 8 9 ). And, second, it requires “that the relevant information will be made available to the lar ge r audience that may also p lay a role in both the decisionmakin g p r ocess and theW I LD E A R T H G U A R D I A N S V

. USF S 10

implementation of that decision.” Id. N EPA does n ot impose substantive oblig atio n s on the action ag ency , but it does establish “procedural requirements desig ned t o f o r c e a g encies
to take a ‘hard look’ at environmental consequences.” Earth Island Inst. v. U.S. Forest Serv.
, 351 F

. 3d 1291, 1300 (9th Cir. 2003). NEPA a

n d the Council on Envir o n mental Quality ’ s (“CEQ”) re gu lations implementing N EPA, 40 C.F .R. §§ 1500–1508, prescribe the procedures that must be followed in conducting environmental review. C h u rchill Cnty. v. Norton
, 276 F .3d 1060, 1071 (9th Cir. 2 0 01). “W e must

. . . strictly interpr et the procedural requirements in NEPA and the CEQ r eg ulations to the fullest ex tent possible consistent with the policies embodied in NEPA.” I d. at 1072 (internal quotations omitted).

W ildEarth raises two NEPA arg uments: first, that the F orest Service did not a dequately analy z e the si t e -specific impact of snowmobile use on big g ame wildlife, and second, that the F orest Service’s analy sis of conf l i cts b etween snowmobiles and other recreational uses was insufficient. W e ex amine these arg

u ments in order.

A. Im pact of snow m obile use on big gam e w ildlif e

As requi r e d by NEPA, the EI S is structured around alternatives that provide vary ing deg rees of protection for big
g ame wildlife by m anag ing v ehicle access. 4 See 42 U .S.C.

4 T h e Fo rest Serv ic e ’ s ap pro ach to big g am e p ro tectio n cen ters on

v eh icle access m an ag em en t, w h ich

, based o n an ex p ert stu d y , th e Fo rest Serv ice i d e n tif

ied as th e p rim ary m an ag em en t to o l f o r elk

. S ee A .G. Ch risten sen et a l.

, Elk Ma n a g emen t in t h e N o r t h ern Reg io n: Co n s id era tio n in Fo rest Pla n Up d a tes or Revisio n s (1 9 93 ). W ild E a r t h d o es n o t d isp u te th at v eh icle access is th e p ro p er m an ag em en t to o l f o r b ig
g am e sp ecies g en erally

.W I LD E A R T H G U A R D I A N S V

. USF S 11

§ 4332(C)(iii). I n the W ildlife Habitat section o f the EI S, Table 1 76 c ompares the alternatives in terms of the percentag e of big g ame winter rang e closed to snowmobiles throug hout the F orest and in each landscape area. I n the same

sec t ion, Table 175 compares the “open road density for wildlife” in each alternative. I n addition to this quantitative data, the EI S includes for each alternative a short qualitative discus sion of the e ffects that snowmobiles would have on wildlife habitat, particularly the big g ame winter rang e.

W ildEarth arg ues t h a t the E I S fails to comply with NEPA’s p rocedural requirements b ec a use it d oes not: (1) identify the location of the winter rang e f o r big g ame animals; (2) establish where snowmobiles impact that rang e; and ( 3) discuss what options are a vailable to avoid the concomitant impacts. We ag ree. Th e information provided in the EI S meets neither the public d i s c l osure purpose o f NEPA nor the specific requirements in the CEQ reg ulations.

The CEQ reg ulations state that, to comply with N EPA, an ag ency “must insure that environmental information is available to public officials and c itiz ens before decisions a re made and before actions are taken. The information must be of hig h q uality

. A cc urate scientific analy sis, ex pert ag ency comments, and public scrutiny are essential to implementing NEPA

. ” 4 0 C.F .R. § 1500.1(b). To fulfill NEPA’s public disclosure r equirements, th e a ge ncy must provide to the public “the underlying environmental data” from w h i ch the F orest Service develops its opinions a n d arrives at its decisions. See I

d a h o Sporting Cong. v. Thomas

, 137 F .3d 1146, 1150 (9th Cir. 1998), overruled o n other gro u n ds by L a n ds Council v. M

cNair
, 537 F .3d 981 (9th Cir. 200 8 ) ( e n banc). Alternately

, the a ge n c y may incorporate publicly available d ata underlyin g t h e EI S by reference. 40 C.F .R.W I LD E A R T H G U A R D I A N S V

. USF S 12

§ 1502.21; see Jones v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv

. , 741 F

. 3d 989, 998 (9th Cir. 2013). To incorporate underly ing data by reference, the ag ency

must cite the source in the EI S

a n d b r iefly describe the content. 4 0 C.F .R. § 1 5 02.21

. A

source may be incorporated by reference o nly if “ it is reasonably available for inspection by potentially interested
persons within the time a llowed for comment.” Id. ; see also 40 C.F .R. § 1502.24 (requiring the ag e ncy to “make ex plicit reference by footnote to the scientific and other sources relied upon for conclusions in the [ EI S] ”).

Here, t h e W ildlife Habitat section of the EI S lists the
p e r c e n tag e of big g ame winter rang e protected in each l a n dscape area, b ut provides virtually no information abo u t where the big g ame winter rang e is actually located, nor the concentration of g a me in each area. I n o ther words, the E I S does not make public the “underly ing e n v i r onmental data,”

nor specifically reference any d o cumenta r y s ource that the F orest Service relied upon in making it s determinations on snowmobile a ccess. See Idaho Sporting C o n g

. , 137 F .3d at 1150; 40 C.F .R. §§ 1502.21, 1502.24.

T h e F orest Service points to several parts of the E I S t o arg ue that it provided o r referenced data adequately for the public to assess snowmobile impacts on the big g a me winter
rang e

. H owever, none are sufficient to sa t i s fy NEPA’s requirements.

F irst, the F o r e s t Service refers to a “wolverine habitat prediction” map in the EI S. This map uses the big g ame winter rang e as an indicator of wolverine habitat b e c ause wolverines depend on big g a me carrion for food. No t ably

, the map is contained in an a ppendix that discusses impact on wolverine denning habita t , n ot b ig g ame. The EI S does notW I LD E A R T H G U A R D I A N S V

. USF S 13

mention that the wolverine habitat map identifies the big
g ame winter rang e. Nor does the EI S ex plain any where that the wol v e r ine habitat prediction map serves as a prox y f or a map of the big g ame winter rang e. An interested person, without more, would n ot be able to discern that a map entitled “wolverine habitat prediction” provides the baseline data for the tables depicting the big g ame winter r ang e in the EI S. See 40 C.F .R. § 1502.21. And even if someone d i d manag e to make this connection, that wouldn’t be enoug h to access the F orest Service’s baseline data, as the F orest Service concedes that this map does not accurately depict the big g ame winter
rang e

. The F orest Service states that it remedied this error b y using update d maps provided by Montana F ish, W ildlife & Parks (“MF W P”) in its final analy s is. B ut those maps a re neither included, nor referenced, in the EI S. “To tak e the required ‘hard look’ at a proposed project’s effects, an ag ency may not rely o n incorrect assumption s o r data in an EI S.” Native Ecosystems Council v. U.S. Fo r e s t S erv. , 418 F .3d 953, 964 (9th Cir. 2005) ( citing 40 C.F .R. § 15 0 0

. 1 ( b)). I t surely follows that the d ata the F orest Service provides to the public to substantiate its analy sis a nd co n c l usions must also be accurate. I f the wolverine habitat prediction map d oes not accurately depict the big g ame winter rang e, and the F orest Service ultimately worked from a different, ac c u r ate map, then it is the accurate map that must be dis c l o s e d to the public. 5

5 T h e Fo rest S erv ice ref

ers to “ p o l y g o n an aly sis” i n th e ad m in istrativ e

reco rd as ev id en ce th at it rev ised its an aly sis o n th e b asis o f u p d ated m ap s f ro m MFW P

. T h e resu lts o f th e p o ly g o n an aly sis are p resen ted i n a sp read sh eet th at d iv id es f orest area in to p o ly g o n s an d states h ow m u ch of th e area in each p oly g o n is b ig g am e w in t er ran g e. T h e p oly g o n an aly sis, h o w ev er, is n o t i n clu d ed i n th e EIS, an d th e Fo rest Serv ice d o es n o t arg u e th at it is oth erw ise p u

b licly av ailab le. Fu

rth er, ev en if th e po ly g on

an aly sis w ere av ailab le, th e EIS d o es n o t ref eren ce th e s o u rce o f th e d ataW I LD E A R T H G U A R D I A N S V

. USF S 14

Second, the F orest Service st ates that the information W ildEar t h d e mands in the form of a map was “otherwise provided” in the tables and accompany ing qu a l i tative discussion in the EI S. As WildEarth acknowledg es, t he F orest Service was not required to present the data i n a n y particular format. Se e E c o l o gy Ctr. v. Castaneda

, 574 F .3d 652, 667 (9th Cir. 2 009) ( “W e defer to an ag e ncy ’s choice o f format f o r s c i e ntific data.”). T h e issue, however, is one o f substance, not format. Without data on the location of the big
g ame winter rang e , the public w as severely limited in its ability to participate in the decision-making process.

F or instance, MF W P’s comments show why g eog raphy
matters. I t subm i t t e d ex tensive comments to the F orest Service on the impact snowmobile use would have on moose,

one of the big g ame species, in several specific manag ement

areas within the B oulder River L andscape. One comment states that “[ m] oose o c c ur commonly throug hou t [t h e B o u l d er River-Sheepshead Manag ement Area] and their needs should be specifically addressed, including t h e i m portance of not

a p p r oaching o r stressing them during the winter

. . . . [I ]t i s apparent that snowmobiles are driving cross-country throug h willow communities, likely

. . . reducing moose for a ge

. ” There is vir t u a l l y n othing in the EI S responsive to the MF W P’s comments.

The F orest Service maintains that it n onetheles s did adequately discuss impacts on moose. I n support, the F orest Service refer s only to Table 176 in the EI S, showing the percentag e of big g a me winter rang e closed to snowmobiles,

u p o n w h ich t h e an aly sis relied

. Fin ally

, w ith o u t a m ap o f th e b i g g a m e

w in ter ran g e th at co rresp o n d s to th e p o ly g o n an aly sis, th ere is n o w ay

to

u n d erstan d to w

h i ch areas th e p o l y g on s ref er.W I LD E A R T H G U A R D I A N S V

. USF S 15

and a o ne-sentence statement t h at winter non-motoriz ed “allocations a

re desig ned to protect low elevation winter
rang e for d eer, elk, a

nd moose.” T h is paltry information does
not allow the public to determine where the rang e for moose is located, whether the ar e a s o pen to snowmobile use will affect that rang e, or whether the F o rest Service considered alternatives that would avoid adverse impacts on moose and other big g ame wildlife. I n other w ords, the EI S d o e s n ot provide the information necessary to determine how specific land should be allocated to protect pa rticular habitat important to the moose and o ther b ig g ame wildlife. B ecause the F orest Service did not make the “relevant i n f o r m ation” available, Methow Valley Citizens Council

, 490 U.S. at 349, the public was limited to two-dimensional advocacy

— interested persons could a r g ue only for the allocation of more

or less land for snowmobile use, but not for the protection o f particular a

reas. A s a result, the F orest Service effectively sty mied the “public’s ability to challen g e ag ency action.” Ecology Ctr. , 574 F .3d at 667.

T h i r d, the F orest Service arg ues that it adequate l y considered impacts on big g ame w ildlife because it

a cknowledg e d that “motoriz ed winter recreation c a n adversely affect wildlife by causing them to move away when demands o n their energ y reserves a re h ig hest,” and provided i l lustrative data. This d ata is contained in T able 179 of the EI S showing the comparative probability that e l k a n d mule deer would take flig h t f rom all-terrain vehicle s , bicy cle riders, horse riders, a

nd hikers p assing b y at different distances. There is no basis for c o ncluding that th i s table provides probative evidence of how big g ame wildlife would respond to snowmobiles in winter.W I LD E A R T H G U A R D I A N S V

. USF S 16

The study from which Table 17 9 i s drawn is specific to mule, deer, and elk, not to big g ame species g enerally

. Michael J

. W isdom, et al., Effects of Off-Road Recreation on Mule Deer a nd Elk

, Transactions of the 69th North American W ildlife a

nd Natural Resour c e Conference 531–50 (2004). F urther, the study measures flig ht response to four-wheel allterrain vehicles, not snowmobiles. Id. at 534. And, n otably

, the study measures flig ht r e s p o nse in spring

, summer, a nd fall, but n ot winter. There is no discussion in the EI S, nor the study itself, w hether this information is probative of how big
g ame, g enerally

, would respond to snowmobiles in winter. Id. Nor is there any acknowledg ment or ex plan a t i o n i n the EI S of the a

bsence of data on snowmobile disturbance o f specific species. See 4 0 C. F. R

. § 1502.22 (establishing that if data is “incomplete or unavailable,” then “the ag ency shall alway s make clear that such information is lacking ”).

W e have stated that N EPA “emphasiz es the importance of coherent and comprehensive up-front environmental analy sis to ensure informed decisionma k i ng to the end that ‘the ag ency will not act o n incomple t e information, only to reg ret its d e cision after it is t o o l a t e to correct.’” Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project v

. Blackwood

, 161 F .3d 1208, 1216 (9th Ci r

. 1 9 9 8 ) ( quoting Marsh v. Or. Natural Res. Council

, 490 U.S. 3 60, 371 (1989)). Here, the F orest Service asks us to a ssume the a d equacy and a ccuracy of p artial data without providing any basis for doing so. NEPA requires

more.

I n sum, we conclude that the EI S d oes not provi d e the public adequate access to information about the im p a c t o f snowmobiles on b ig g ame wildlife a nd habitat. The information included in and referenced by the EI S therefore does not allow the public to “play a role in both theW I LD E A R T H G U A R D I A N S V

. USF S 17

decisionmaking process and the implementation of that decision.” See Methow Valley Citizens Council , 490 U.S. at 349. W e reverse the d istrict court’s g rant o f s u mmary judg ment to the F orest Service on this issue.

B. Conf licts betw een snow m o b i l e s a n d other recreational

uses

W ildEarth nex t a

rg u e s that the F orest Service v iolated NE P A because it did not adequately address how the

sn o w m obile allocations in the Revised Plan affect other winter recreational ac t i v i ties, such as cross-country skiing and snowshoeing

. W e disag ree and affirm the district court’s ruling on this issue.

U n d e r t h e M u l t i p l e

- U s e S u s t a i n e d

- Y i el d A ct (“MUSYA”), the F orest Service mus t a d minister n ational forests in a manner that balances d ifferent uses and interests. 16 U.S.C. §§ 528–31. I n allocating land for di ff erent uses, the F orest Service was bound by this “multiple-use mandate.” See 16 U.S.C. § 1 604(e). As the ROD ex plains, “[ d] e cisions about the ty

p e and location of public r e creation access a re among the most difficult for land manag ers b e cause of the delicate balance between competing public values and natural resource protection.”

The Revised F orest Plan acc o m plishes this delicate task by creating five c ateg ories of r e creational opportunities: (1) a reas e mphasiz ing motoriz e d recreation; (2) areas where motoriz ed u se is permitted in winter, but not in summer; (3) areas where only non-motoriz ed use is allowed, “providing for quiet recreation y ear-round”; (4) “semiprimitive backcountry

” areas with a “wide mix ” o f motoriz ed and non-moto r i z ed desig nations; and ( 5) desig natedW I LD E A R T H G U A R D I A N S V

. USF S 18

wilderness areas where motoriz ed use and as well a s mountain biking are prohibited. Althoug h snowmobile use is permitted in roug hly 6 0% of the forest, 100% of the forest is
open to at least some non-motoriz ed winter recreation

a c t i v ities. The F o rest Service ex plained in the EI S that i t allocated recreational opportunities to meet “differ ent user

ex p ectation[ s] ” a

n d t o “ c r eate log ical areas where recreational setting s could effectively

be manag e d.”

W ildEarth’s arg u ment that the F orest Service did not adequately review the conse q u e nces of its recreation allotments is not supp o r t e d i n the record. The E I S includes

a section devoted to “recreation and travel manag ement,” which covers b oth summer and winter r ecreati o n activities. This section addresses the results of a survey estimating visitation levels and the ty pe of recreation in which v isitors

e n ga ge d ; d i s c u s ses a p p l i c at i o n o f t h e “ R ec r e a t i o n Opportunity Spectrum,” a method used to “categ oriz e , evaluate, and monitor setting s a nd o pportunities based on the natural, manag erial, and social environment”; presents a discussion o f forest-wide r ecreation trends; and presents an

ex tensive comparison of r ecreational oppo r t u n ities at the landscape level u nder each a lternative. The ROD an d E I S illustrate that the Fo r est Service collected information and, based on that information, adopted g uidelines that it applied in its decision-making process. T he F orest Service made that information a vailable to the public so that interested persons could effectively participate in the process. S ee M ethow Valley Citizens Council , 490 U.S. at 349.

W ildEarth sp e cifically complains about the F orest Service’s allocation decisions in the M t

. J efferson

m a n ag ement area. The ROD notes that manag ement o f snowmobile use will be difficult in this area because there isW I LD E A R T H G U A R D I A N S V

. USF S 19

not an “effective topog raphical barrier to illeg al motoriz ed entry ” into non-motoriz ed areas. A s we understand W ildEarth’s arg ument, the mere possibility o f “illeg al motoriz ed entry ” trig g ered a responsibility under N EPA to address in the EI S the possibility of non-compliance. NEPA, however, does n ot require th a t the F orest Service affirmatively address in a n EI S e very u ncertainty

. Cf. Lands Council

, 537 F .3d at 1001. Here, the F orest Service aimed to b a l a n c e r e c r e a t i o n a l u s e s , a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t t h e effectiv e n e ss of its decision r elies upon voluntary compliance, created monitoring protocols for th e area, a nd stated that it plans to re-evaluate its decision if noncompliance occurs.

I n sum, the F orest Service provided suffici e nt information
to establish that it took a “hard l o o k ” a t the impacts o f snowmobile u se o n non-motoriz e d r ecreation in these particular manag ement areas a n d throug h out th e R e vised Plan

area. See Earth Island Inst. , 351 F .3d at 1300.

IV.

W e nex t turn to W ildEarth’s arg ument that the F orest Service failed to comply with the minimiz ation requirements in Ex ecutive Order 11644. 6 I n 1972, President Richard Nix on

6 A lth o u g h W ild Earth f

ram es its arg u m en t as a ch allen g e to th e Fo rest Serv ice’ s im

p lem en tatio n

o f b o th Ex ecu t iv e Ord er 1 1 6 4 4 an d Ex ecu tiv e Ord er 1 1 9 89
, its arg u m en t is co n f i n ed to t h e ap p licatio n o f th e criteria set f o rth i n 1 1 6 44 § 3 (1 )– (3 ). Ex ecu tiv e Ord er 1 1 9 8 9
, i s s ue d i n 1 9 7 7 b y P resid en t J im

m y Carter, am en d e d E xe cu tiv e O rd er 1 1 6 4 4 to req u ire ad d itio n ally th at ag en cies clo s e are a s o r trails w h en ev er th e ag en cy d eterm in e s th at u se o f ORVs “ w ill cau se o r is cau sin g co n sid erab le ad v erse ef

f ects o n th e so il, v eg etatio n , w ild lif e, w ild lif e h ab itat o r cu ltu

ral

o r h isto ric reso u

rces o f p articu lar areas o r trails.” Ex ec. Ord er N o

. 1 1 9 8 9

.W I LD E A R T H G U A R D I A N S V

. USF S 20

issued Ex ecutive Order 11644, directing ag en cies to promulg a te reg ulations that require that all “ areas a nd trails” allowing off-road vehi cles (“ORVs”) 7 on public lands be located in areas that:

(1)

. . . minimiz e damag e to soil, wa t e r shed,
veg etat ion, or other resources of the public lands[ ;] (2)

. . . minimiz e h a r assment o f wildlife or sig n ificant disruption of wildlife habitats[ ; and,] ( 3)

. . . minim i z e c onflicts between off-road vehicle use and other

ex isting or proposed recreational use s of the

same or neig h

b ori n g p u

blic lands, and to

ensure the compatibility of su ch uses with

ex isting conditions in p opulated areas, taking into account noise and other factors.

Ex ec. Order 11644 § 3(1)–(3).

B e fore 2 005, the F orest Service permitted each n ational forest, or other administrative u nit, to desig nate areas a nd trails open to ORV use o n an ad hoc basis

. S ee 3 6 C.F .R. § 295.2 (repealed 2005); Georg e Cameron Cog g ins & Robert L

. Glicksman

, 3 Pub. Nat. Resources L

. § 31:8 (2nd ed.) (2010). Recog niz ing that a sharp i n c r e a s e in ORV u se, coupled with “advances in [ ORV] power, r ang e, a nd capabilities,” had made it impossible to fulfill the i n t e n t o f Ex ecutive Orders 11644 a nd 11989 without taking a more active approach to r eg ulati o n , F inal Rule: Travel

7 T h e Fo rest Serv ice h as ack n o w led g ed th at sn o w

m o b iles are a ty

p e o f O RV f or p u rp o ses o f Ex ecu tiv e Ord er 1 1 6 4 4

. Fin a l Ru le: T r a v e l Ma n a gemen t

; Desig n a ted Ro u tes a n d Area s fo r Mo to r Veh i cle Use
, 7 0 Fed . Reg . 6 82 6 4

- 0 1 , 6 8 27 3 (No v . 9 , 2 0 0 5 ).W I LD E A R T H G U A R D I A N S V

. USF S 21

Management; Designated Routes and Areas f o r Motor Vehicle Use
, 70 F ed. R e g

. 6 8264-01, 68265 (Nov. 9
, 2005), the Secretary of Ag riculture 8 p romulg ated the 2 005 T ravel Manag ement Rule (“TMR”) to improve implementation o f the ex ecutive orders and establish a national sy stem o f roads,
t r a ils, and areas with restricted ORV u se. Id. ; 36 C

. F. R

. §§ 212.50–212.57. The relevant section of the T MR requires that,

in d esign a ting National F o rest Sy stem trails and a reas on National Forest Sy stem lands, the respo n s ible official shall consider effects

on the foll o wing

, with the objective o f minimiz ing : (1) Damag e to soil

, watershed,
veg etation, and other forest resources; (2) Hara s s m e nt of wildlife and sig nificant d i sruption of wildlife habitats; (3) Conflict s between motor vehicle use a n d e x isting o r proposed recreational uses of N ational F o r e st Sy stem lands or neig hboring F ederal lands.

36 C.F .R. § 212.55(b), (b)(1)–(3) (“minimiz ation criteria”).

Notably

, W ildEarth does not frame its arg ument under the T M R
, b u t r a t h e r c h alleng e s th e Fo r e s t S er v i c e ’s implementation of Ex ecutive Order 11644. W ildlands

, 872 F

. Supp. 2d at 1 080–81. Where the F orest Service has placed “restrictions or prohibitions” on snowmobile us e w i t hin a forest plan area, as it has here, the F orest Ser v i c e m u st comply with the TMR, including the section implementing the criteria i n Ex ecutive Order 11644. 3 6 C.F .R.

8 T h e F o rest Serv ice is an ag en cy w ith in th e Un ited States Dep artm en t

o f A g ricu ltu

re.W I LD E A R T H G U A R D I A N S V

. USF S 22

§ 2 1 2 .81(c). 9 Thus, b y challeng ing the F orest Service’ s implementation of Ex e cutive Order 1 1644’s minimiz ation

c r i t e r i a , W i l d E a r t h i s n e c e s s a r i l y c h al l e n gi n g t h e implementation of the TMR.

The district court concluded that Ex ecutive Order 11644 could be enforced throug h a p rivate rig ht of action. W e need
not address that issue, however, because we co n s t r u e W ildEarth’s claim as seeking to e n f orce the T MR. Under the Administrative Procedure A ct, a n ag g rieved person may challeng e an a g ency ’s implementation of its own reg ulation,

see 5 U.S.C. §§ 702, 706; Gifford Pinchot Task Force v

. U .S. Fish & W ildlife Serv. , 378 F .3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2004).

The F o rest Service arg ues that its analy sis of snowmobile

a l l o cations in the EI S satisfied the TMR. 1 0 Specifically

, t h e F orest Service cites to g eneraliz ed statements in the EI S that it desig ned snowmobile a llocations to “protect low elevation winter rang e f

or deer, elk, and moose;

. . . [ to] protect[ ] hig h elevation secure habitat for mountain goat and wolverine;[ ] and to provide quiet winter recreation opportunities in locations people can drive to” as evidence that it considered

9 Un der th e cu rren t reg u latio n s, if th ere are n o restrictio n s o r p ro h ib itio n s p laced o n s n o w

m o b i le u se, th en Fo rest Serv ice is n o t req u ired to co m p ly

w ith th e T MR. 3 6 C.F.R. § § 2 1 2 .5 1 (a)(3 ), 2 1 2 .8 1 (c). T h e p arties ref er to th is as th e “ Su

b p art C ex em

p tio n ,” w h ich is d iscu ssed in m o re detail in fra

.

10 W e d o n o t i n terp ret th e m in im izatio n criteria as req u irin g th e ag en cy to im po se an “ ab so lu te, d iscern ib le lim it” o n sn ow m o b ile u se, reg ard less

o f w h eth er th er e a r e co m

p etin g u s es o r reso u rces. In stead

, o u r in q u iry

assu m es t h at th e T MR req u ires th e Fo res t S e r v ice to co m ply w ith th e

m in im izatio n criteria in a m an n er th at is f easib le, p ru d en t, an d reaso n ab le in lig h t o f th e ag en cy ’ s m u ltip le- u se m an d ate. S

ee Grea t Old Bro ad

s f o r W ild ern ess v. Kimb rell , 7 0 9 F.3 d 8 3 6, 8 53 (9 th Cir. 2 0 1 3).W I LD E A R T H G U A R D I A N S V

. USF S 23

the minimiz a tion criteria. Th e d istrict court ag r eed, concluding that the N EPA analy sis, w ith its comparison o f the environmental impacts in each of the six alternativ e s, adequately demonstrated that the F orest Service c o mplied with the minimiz ation cri t e ri a in desig n ating areas open to snowmobile use.

W e disag ree. The EI S’s reference to plan-wide data and
g eneral decision-making principles is inadequate u n der the TMR. T here is n othing in the T M R
, or any where else, that allows the F orest Service to d esig nate multiple areas for snowmobile use on the b a sis of a sing le forest-wide analy sis and g eneral decisionm a k i ng principles. I nstead, the TMR requires the F orest Service to a pply the minimiz ation criteria
to each area it desig nated for snowmobile use.

True, the TMR refers to a desig nated area as “an area on National F orest Sy stem lands that is d esig nated for motor vehicle u se,” 36 C.F .R. § 212.1, without s p e cify ing h ow narrowly an area must be drawn. B ut it is a pparent that the F orest Service must provide a more g ranular m i n i m i z ation analy sis to fulfill the objectiv e s of Ex ecutive Order 11644, which the TMR was des i gn e d to implement. See P roposed Rules: Travel Management; Designated Routes a nd Areas for Motor Vehicle Use
, 6 9 F ed. Reg

. 42381-01, summary (J uly 15, 2004); 70 F ed. Reg

. 68264-01, summary (Nov. 9, 2005). Ex ecuti v e Order 11644 directs affected ag encies to promulg a te rules requiring app l i ca tion of the minimiz ation criteria for “desig nation of the specific are a s a n d trails on public lands o n which the use o f off-road vehicle s may be permitted.” Ex ec. Order 11644 § 3 (emphasis added).

Our c onclusion does n ot require the F orest Service to conduct an e ntirely sepa r a t e environmental review for e achW I LD E A R T H G U A R D I A N S V

. USF S 24

area and trail it de s i gnates for snowmobile use. The TMR does not p revent the F orest Service fr o m conducting an analy sis of multiple areas and trails at once, n or from integ rating N EPA and TMR compliance into a sing le
process. 1 1 I ndeed, the F orest Service h as contemplated such efficiencies in its rulemaking and g uidance. See, e.g. , 70 F ed. Reg

. at 68279 (ex plaining that “public involvement associ at e d w ith the NEPA process will often fulfill” the public partic i p a tion requirements in the TMR). I f there is data available pertinent to c o m p liance with both NEPA a nd the TMR, the F orest Service ca n ce r t a i nly use it for both
p u rposes. W hat is r equired is that the F orest Servi c e document how it evaluated and a p plied the dat a o n a n areaby -area b asis with the objective o f minimiz ing impacts a s specified in the TMR. There is nothing in the record to sug g est that the F orest Service did so.

I n fact, the EI S and ROD demonstrate that the F o r est Service neg lected to consider the minimiz ation criteria in the TMR at all. At the end of each of six t e e n s ec t i ons in the principal substantive chapter of the EI S devoted t o “environmental consequences analy sis,” th e F orest Service identified the “[ l] eg al and [a ] d m i nistrative framework” for
t h e preceding section. F or instance, the Recreation a n d Travel Manag ement section identifies seven “laws a nd

ex e c utive o rders,” and f

ive “reg ulation[ s] and polic[ ies] ” that form the leg a l and administrative f ramework for the analy sis

11 W e d o n o t m ean to im p ly th at if th e Fo rest Serv ic e co m p lies w i th NEP A
, it n ecessarily w ill h av e satisf i ed t h e T MR criteria. A lth o u g h related

, NEP A an d T MR set f o rth sep arat e req u irem en ts. S ee 7 0 Fed

. Reg

. at 6 8 2 6 8 (ex p lain in g th at reg u latio n s i m p lem en tin g NEP A sh o u ld n o t b e co n f lated w i th reg u latio n s im

p lem en tin g th e T MR, an d th at th e T MR d o es n o t ad d ress NEP A

co m plian ce).W I LD E A R T H G U A R D I A N S V

. USF S 25

in that section. T h e re is n ot a sing le citation to the TMR, Ex ecutive O rder 11644, or Ex ecutive Order 1 1 989 in the Recreation and Tr a vel Manag ement Section, or any of the other fifteen sections.

I t is n ot c l e a r wh y the F orest Service o mitted the TMR from its analy sis. B ut, in one of the few r efe r e n ce s to the TMR in the record, the ROD ex plains that the “ Fo rest Supervisor will issue a second ROD

. . . making site-specific decisions based on the Revised F orest Plan

. . . t h a t wi ll include further analy sis to desig nate routes fo r motoriz ed travel under 36 C.F .R. [ §] 2 12.” T he second ROD, issued in 2010, states that it “enacts the allocations and standa r d s s et forth in the 2009 Revised F orest Plan” and incorporates all its underlying analy sis

. The 2 010 ROD acknowledg es that “[ t] he 2005 Travel Manag em e n t Rule (36 C.F .R. [ §] 212) prescribed a new process for making site-specific decisions” for route and a

rea desig nations. Ye t t he 2010 ROD ag ain defers compliance with the TMR when it s t a tes that “[ t] he

nex t stag e of travel planning will include further ana l y sis to formally desig nate routes for motoriz ed travel in areas where motoriz ed use is permitted under 3 6 C

. F. R

. [ §] 212 Subpart B .” This discussion in the 20 1 0 R OD illustrates that, upon implementation of the allocations in the Revised F orest Plan, the F orest Service h ad not compli e d w ith § 212.55, but was waiting until the “nex t stag e of travel planning .” The F orest Service does not ex plain w hen—or whether—this “nex t stag e” of plann i ng occurred, nor whether it e ver considered the TMR for purpose s o f winter motoriz ed travel desig nations. There is no evidence in the record that it did.

M o re over, as v arious district courts have held, me r e

co n s i d e ration of the TMR’s minimiz ation criteria is not sufficient to c o m p ly with the reg ulation. I n I dahoW I LD E A R T H G U A R D I A N S V

. USF S 26

Conservation League v. Guzman
, for ex ampl e, the district
court determined that, althoug h ma t r i c es included in an E I S showed t h a t t he F orest Service “met its duty to consider the minimiz ation criteria,” 766 F

. Supp. 2d 1056, 1071 (D. I daho 2011), the F orest Service nonetheless failed to comply with the TMR because it did not include a “description of how the selected routes w ere desig n ed ‘with the objective o f minimiz ing ’ impacts,” id. at 1073 (quoting 36 C.F .R. § 212.55(b)). As a result, there was “ no way to know how o r if the F orest Service used [ the information in the matrices] to select routes w ith the objective of minimiz ing impacts.” Id.
at 1072. As another district c o urt ex plained, the F orest Service is under an “affirmative ob l i g a tion

. . . to actually show that it aimed to minimiz e environmental damag e when desig nating trails and areas.” Cent. S ierra Envtl. Res. Ctr. v

. U.S. Forest Serv.
, 916 F

. Supp

. 2 d 1 078, 1096 (E.D. Cal. 2013); see also Defenders of W ildlife v. Salazar

, 877 F

. Supp. 2d 1271, 1304 (M.D. F la. 2012).

Center for Biological Diversity v. United State s B u reau of Land Management
, 746 F

. Supp. 2d 1 055, 1079–81 (N.D. Cal. 2009) similarly noted that, “ ‘ [ m] inimiz e’.

. . d o es not refer to the number of r ou t e s , n o r their overall mileag e.

. . [ but] to the effect

s o f r o u te desig nations, i.e. the [ B u reau o f L and Manag ement] is required to p lace r outes specifically to minimiz e ‘damag e’ to public resources, ‘harassment’ a nd

‘ disruption’ of wildlife and its habitat, a nd min i m i z e ‘conflicts’ of uses.” Id. (quoting 43 C.F .R. § 8342.1(a)–(c)). 1 2

12 A l th ou g h th ere are so m e sm all d istin ctio n s b etw een th e Bu reau of L an d Man ag em en t’ s an d th e F o rest Serv i ce’ s m in im izatio n criteria, th ey

are larg ely an alo g o u s. Co m p a re 3 6 C.F.R. § 2 1 2 .5 5 (b ) w ith 4 3 C .F.R. § 8 3 4 2.1

.W I LD E A R T H G U A R D I A N S V

. USF S 27

W e ag r ee with the approach taken b y these district courts. F irst, mere “consideration” o f the minimiz ation criteria is not enoug h to comply with the TMR. Rather, the F orest Service
must apply the data it has compiled to show how it desig n ed the areas open to snowmobile use “with the objective o f minimiz ing ” “damag e to

. . . forest resources,” “harassment of wildlife,” a

nd “conflicts [ with other] recreational uses.” 36 C.F .R. § 212.55( b ), ( b)(1)–(3). Second, the F orest Service
cannot rely upon a forest-wide r eduction in the total area open to snowmobiles as a basis for demonstrating compliance with the minimiz a tion c r iteria. The TMR is concerned w ith the effects of each particulariz ed area and trail desig nation. The minimiz ation criteria must be applied according ly

.

I n sum, the F orest Service’s desig nation of areas open to snowmobile use was “not in a c cordance with law.” 5 U .S.C. § 706(2)(A). W e therefore rever s e the district court’s
summary judg ment ruling on this claim as it r e l a t e s to area desig nations and remand for further proceeding s.

V.

W e turn to W ildEarth’s final arg ument, that the dis trict
court erred when it concluded that the c halleng e to Subpart C

o f the T MR was unripe. A s ex plained a bove, Subpart B o f the TMR implements the minimiz ation c riteria in Ex ecutive Order 11644. 36 C.F. R § 212.55. Subpart C, however,

ex e mpts over-snow vehicles (“OSV”) from compliance with Subpart B if the F orest Service does not “propose[ ] restrictions or prohibitions on use by over-snow vehicles.” 36W I LD E A R T H G U A R D I A N S V

. USF S 28

C.F .R § 212.81(c) (“ S u bpart C ex emption”). 1 3 W ildEarth
arg ues that the Subpart C ex e mption is invalid because there is no distinction b etween motor vehicles an d O SVs in Ex ecutive Order 11644. The district court determined that bec au s e t h e F orest Service did not apply the Subpart C

ex e mption to justify its actions in this case, the issue was not rip e f o r review. W

ildlands

, 872 F

. Supp. 2d at 1082–83. I ndeed, the F orest Service arg ued in the d i s t r i c t court, a nd continues to a r gu e b efore this court, that it satisfied the minimiz ation criteria.

The ripeness doctrine serves to “preve n t courts from entang ling themselves in a bstract disag reements o ver administrative policies, and also to protect the a g encies from judicial interference u ntil an administrative decision has been formaliz e d and its effects fel t i n a c oncrete way by the challeng ing parties.” Abbott Labs. v. Gardner

, 387 U.S. 136, 148-49 (1967), abrogated on other gr o u n d s by Califano v

. Sanders

, 430 U.S. 99 (1977). To determine r ipe n e s s , a reviewing court considers: (1) w hether the issu e s ar e fit for judicial decision, and; (2) the hards h i p t o the p arties o f withholding review. Id. at 149. “ Ag ency action is fit for

1 3 In 2 0 1 3, a d istrict co u rt stru ck d o w n th e Su b p art C ex em

p tio n o n th e g ro u n d th at it v io lated Ex ecu tiv e Ord er 1 1 6 4 4

. W in ter W ild la nd s Allia n ce

v. U.S

. Fo rest S

erv ., N o

. 1 :1 1- CV- 5 8 6- REB
, 2 0 1 3 W L 1 3 1 9 5 9 8 (D. Id ah o Mar. 2 9
, 2 0 1 3 )

. T h e d istrict co u rt o rd ered th e Fo rest Serv ice to issu e a

n ew ru le co m

p l ian t w ith Ex ecu tiv e Ord er 1 1 64 4 b y Sep t em b er 9
, 2 0 1 4

. T h e F orest Serv i ce h as p r o m u l g a t ed a p ro p o sed rev isio n f o r p u b l ic

co m m en t. Use b

y Over-sn ow Veh icles ( Tra vel Ma n a g emen t Ru le)

, 7 9 Fed

. Reg

. 3 4 67 8

- 0 1 (J u n e 1 8
, 2 01 4 ). A lth o u g h th e Fo rest Serv ice did

n o t ap peal th e d istrict co u rt’ s d eci s i o n s trik in g d ow n th e Su b part C

e x em p t i o n , in terv en o rs in th e case did f ile an ap p eal, w

h i ch w a s l a t e r d ism issed o n th e in terv en o rs’ m o tio n

. S ee W in t er W ild la nd s Allia nce v. U.S . Fo rest S

erv. , No . 1 3

- 3 5 6 6 0 (9 th

Cir. Filed Sep t. 1 9 , 2 0 1 3 ).W I LD E A R T H G U A R D I A N S V

. USF S 29

review i f t h e issues presented are purely leg al and the
reg ulation a t issue is a final ag e ncy a c tion.” Ass’n of A m

. Med. Colleges v. U.S.
, 217 F .3d 770, 780 (9th Cir. 2 000) (internal q

uotations omitted). I n Lu j a n v

. National W

ildlife Federation

, 497 U.S. 871, 8 7 3 (1990), the Supreme Court

c a u t i oned a g ainst eng ag ing in judicial review before the “co n t roversy has been reduced to manag eable proportions, and its factual components fleshed out, by concrete action that harms or threatens to harm the complainant.”

Althoug h the TMR itself was a final ag ency ac t i o n, the F ore s t S ervice has not applied subpart C of the TMR in this

case. W ildEarth’ s c h a l leng e to the ex emption is therefore a purely a bstract d isag reement at t h i s juncture. Moreover, because the F o rest Service has n ot invoked the ex emption, the record contains no facts c o ncerning the ex e m p t ion’s impact
to inform our decisionmaking

. F i n ally

, because we f ully review compliance with the minimiz a tion criteria under the TMR, there is no hardship to W ildEarth in decli n i ng to

ex e r cise jurisdiction over the validity of the Subpart C Ex emption. I n sum, we conclude that t he district court did
not err in ruling that W ildEarth’s challeng e to the Subpart C

ex e mption is unripe.

VI.

W e affi r m t h e district court’s ruling that the E I S sufficiently analy

z ed the conflicts between snowmobiles a nd other recreational uses in the Revised F orest Plan. F urther,

we ag ree that W ildEarth’s challeng e to the Subpart C

ex e mption in the TMR is not ripe for review. W e reverse the district court’s NEPA r

u ling

, in part, because the F orest Service did not properly disclose the information underly ing its analy sis of snowmobi l e impacts on big g ame wildlife inW I LD E A R T H G U A R D I A N S V

. USF S 30

the EI S. W e also reverse the district court’s ruling that the F orest Service adequately applied the minimiz ation criteria in the T MR. W e remand for further proceeding s c onsistent with this opinion. The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.

AF F IRMED IN P A RT, REVERSED IN P ART, AND REMANDED.