WHAT IF THE FACTS WERE DIFFERENT? Suppose that the Forest Service had granted WPG a permit for its helicopter-skiing operations on national forest land without preparing an EIS or soliciting public comment. How might that have changed the court’s ruling?

THE ETHICAL DIMENSION If it turned out that the helicopter-skiing operation had paid a substantial sum to the Forest Service official who prepared the EIS to influence the official’s findings, would the court have been able to consider this fact and invalidate the permit? Why or why not?

Under the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), the U.S. Forest Service manages national forests in accordance with forest plans periodically developed for each forest. The plans for two national forests—the Wasatch-Cache and Uinta forests—were initially adopted in 1985 and revised in 2003. The Forest Service interpreted the 1985 forest plans as requiring the forests to allow helicopter skiing, and the plans expressly recognized helicopter skiing as a legitimate use of the national forests. Wasatch Powderbird Guides (WPG) has continuously operated a guided helicopter-skiing business in the Wasatch-Cache and Uinta national forests since 1973. It operates under the authority of special use permits periodically issued by the Forest Service. Citizens’ Committee to Save Our Canyons and Utah Environmental Congress (referred to collectively as SOC) are nonprofit organizations whose members use the areas in which WPG operates for nonmotorized uses, such as backcountry skiing, snowshoeing, hiking, and camping. They claimed that their recreational opportunities and experiences were diminished by WPG’s operations and argued that the Forest Service failed to comply with relevant laws when issuing WPG’s most recent permit. The district court upheld the Forest Service permit, and SOC appealed.