This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

D designated land in the Targhee and Bridger-Teton National Forests of Idaho and Wyoming, known as the Palisades Further Planning Area where in the land may be considered for all uses, including oil and gas exploration, as long as its potential wilderness quality is preserved. D received applications for oil and gas leases in the Palisades Further Planning Area. After conducting an Environmental Assessment (EA), D granted lease applications, but with various stipulations attached to the leases. D determined that issuance of the leases with the recommended stipulations would not result in significant adverse impacts to the environment. It, therefore, reasoned that no Environmental Impact Statement was required at the leasing stage. These stipulations require the lessee to obtain approval from the Interior Department before undertaking any surface disturbing activity on the lease but do not authorize D to preclude any activities which the lessee might propose. D can only impose conditions upon the lessee's use of the leased land. P made unsuccessful administrative challenges to the decision to issue all the leases in accord with the Forest Service's plan. P then sued seeking declaratory and injunctive relief in that leasing land without preparing an EIS violated NEPA. The district court upheld the finding of 'no significant impact' and the decision to lease without preparing an EIS. P appealed. P concedes that D retains the authority to preclude all surface disturbing activities on land leased with a NSO Stipulation until further site-specific environmental studies are made. By retaining this authority, the Department has ensured that no significant environmental impacts can occur from the act of leasing lands subject to the NSO Stipulation.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.