Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-96-05039/USCOURTS-caDC-96-05039-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
California Forestry Association
Appellant
Jack Ward Thomas
Appellee
United States Forest Service
Appellee

Document Text:

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

1CFA also moved for summary judgment, which was denied and from which denial CFA also

appeals. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued October 28, 1996 Decided December 31, 1996

No. 96-5039

CALIFORNIA FORESTRY ASSOCIATION,

APPELLANT

v.

UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE AND

JACK WARD THOMAS, CHIEF, UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE,

APPELLEES

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia

(No. 95cv01116)

Robin L. Rivett argued the cause for the appellant.

Michael S. Raab, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, argued the cause for the appellees. Frank

W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, Eric H. Holder, Jr., U.S. Attorney, and Mark B. Stern,

Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, were on the brief.

Before: WALD, HENDERSON and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge HENDERSON.

KARENLECRAFTHENDERSON, Circuit Judge: The appellant, California Forestry Association

(CFA), seeks to enjoin the United States Forest Service (Forest Service) from relying on a study

produced by the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project (SNEP). CFA claims that SNEP failed to comply

with the requirements ofthe Federal AdvisoryCommittee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. app. 2. The district

court granted the Forest Service's motion for summary judgment,1holding that SNEP is not subject

to FACA because the study it produced was primarily intended for the use of the United States

Congress. CFA argues on appeal that because the Forest Service intended to use the SNEP study

and directed a large amount of discretionary funding to SNEP, FACA is applicable notwithstanding

the fact that the study was also prepared for submission to the Congress. We agree. Accordingly

USCA Case #96-5039 Document #243372 Filed: 12/31/1996 Page 1 of 8
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

we reverse the grant of summary judgment to the Forest Service, grant CFA's cross-motion for

summary judgment and remand to the district court to fashion an appropriate remedy.

I. 

For fiscal year (FY) 1993 Congress appropriated approximately $184 million to the Forest

Service for "forest research." Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act,

1993, Pub. L. No. 102-381, 106 Stat. 1374 (1992) (1993 Appropriations Act or Act). Neither the

1993 Appropriations Act nor the Forest Service's appropriations request for FY 1993 specifically

provided for forest research funding to be spent on a study of the Sierra Nevada. The conference

report accompanying the Act did, however, allocate $150,000 for the "scientific review of the

remaining old growth in the national forests of the Sierra Nevada ... and for a study of the entire

Sierra Nevada ecosystem ... by an independent panel of scientists, with expertise in diverse areas

related to this issue." H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 102-901, at 48 (1992).

In October 1992, the Forest Service sought direction from the Congress on how to proceed

with the Sierra Nevada research. In response the Forest Service received two letters from various

congressmen. One letter, signed by eight members, including the chairmen of the Committee on

Natural Resources, the Committee on Agriculture and the Committee on Merchant Marine &

Fisheries as well as the chairmen of several subcommittees, stated that the appropriation was to

finance an independent panel of scientists to review the old growth in the Sierra Nevada as well as

the ecosystem of the Sierra Nevada as a whole. The letter acknowledged that the $150,000

appropriation was insufficient for such a study and that the signers of the letter intended to seek

further appropriations in the future. In the meantime the $150,000 was to be used to fund an interim

six-month study on the old growth in the Sierra Nevada. The letter made clear that the Congress was

to be the recipient of the study. JA 274 ("This study should provide the Congress with the

comprehensive data needed to make important policy decisions concerning future management ofthe

Sierra Nevada forests."). The other letter was signed by four congressmen and called for an

ecosystem-wide study of the Sierra Nevada and submission of a report to the Congress.

After receiving the two letters the Forest Service formed SNEP, consisting of a Steering

USCA Case #96-5039 Document #243372 Filed: 12/31/1996 Page 2 of 8
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

2

If SNEP is subject to FACA it has to meet a host of procedural requirements. For example, it

must publish meeting notices in the Federal Register, permit interested persons to attend meetings

or file statements and make all records of meetings publicly available. See 5 U.S.C. app. 2, § 10. 

It is uncontested that SNEP failed to comply with the procedural requirements of FACA. 

Committee and a Science Team. The six-member Steering Committee was composed of two Forest

Service officials, one representative from the National Park Service and three non-governmental

individuals. The Steering Committee selected the leader of the Science Team and, together with the

leader, appointed the other eighteen members of the Science Team. The Science Team was

comprised of a mix of individualsfrom federal agencies, state universities and one private university.

The Steering Committee set SNEP's budget at approximately $7 million allocated over a

three-year period in the followingmanner: approximately $1 million for FY 1993, approximately $3.5

million for FY 1994 and approximately $2.4 million for FY 1995. Because the congressional

appropriation for FY 1993 totaled only $150,000 SNEP faced a budget shortfall of approximately

$850,000 in itsfirst year. The Forest Service made up the shortfall by budgeting from existing Forest

Service funds. For FY 1994 and FY 1995 SNEP's proposed budgets were submitted to the Congress

as part of the Forest Service's appropriations requests. SNEP submitted its final report to the

Congress in June 1996.

In district court CFA sought a declaratory judgment that SNEP is an advisory committee

subject to the requirements of FACA and an injunction prohibiting the Forest Service from relying

on the final report. On cross-motions for summary judgment the district court granted the Forest

Service's motion, concluding that SNEP is not subject to the requirements of FACA.2

II.

A committee is subject to the provisions of FACA if it is

(A) established by statute or reorganization plan, or

(B) established or utilized by the President, or

(C) established or utilized by one or more agencies,

in the interest of obtaining advice or recommendations for the President or one or

more agencies or officers of the Federal Government.

5 U.S.C. app. 2, § 3(2). All parties agree that SNEP was established by an agency as set forth in

USCA Case #96-5039 Document #243372 Filed: 12/31/1996 Page 3 of 8
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

subsection (C) because it was established by the Forest Service. The only issue is whether SNEP was

established "in the interest of obtaining advice or recommendations for the [Executive Branch]."

We conclude that the circumstances of SNEP's genesis support an inference that SNEP was

in fact established "in the interest" of advising an agency and therefore is subject to FACA. As the

district court expressly found, "SNEP's work product will serve an essential element of the Forest

Service's long-term plan for ecosystem management." California Forestry Ass'n v. United States

Forestry Serv., No. 95-01116, Mem. Op. at 10 (D.D.C. Dec. 22, 1995), (Mem. Op.). Moreover, a

briefing paper submitted to the Congress during the 1994 fiscal year budget process stated in part:

[SNEP] is part of our continuing effort to develop a strong ecosystem management

program and ethic for the Forest Service. Over the last several years we have been

developing and expanding the use of science based assessment to assist in the

development of sound resource and management policies.... These assessments

provide Congress and agency leadership a means and opportunity to view the latest

credible scientific evidence to intelligently manage our Nation's natural resources.

Forest Service Research Briefing Paper for FY 1995 Rescission Hearing 2 (Jan. 18, 1995), reprinted

in JA 200-13 (emphasis added). In addition, minutes of Science Team meetings show that the

Science Team viewed the Forest Service as a user of its work product. See Mem. Op. at 10 ("

"Agency links and information infrastructure were briefly discussed as another key issue, with the

handing off of SNEP data base and tools to the [Forest Service] ... at the end of our process.' "

(quoting SNEP Science Team Minutes for Jan. 31-Feb. 1, 1994, at 5-6)). Finally, it appears that the

Forest Service is currently using the SNEP study in developing its California Spotted Owl Revised

Draft EnvironmentalImpact Statement. See Mem. to Jack Ward Thomas, Chief ofthe Forest Service

(Sep. 4, 1996), reprinted in Appellant ReplyBr., Attach. A. It thus seems clear to us that the SNEP

study was intended for Forest Service use and that the Forest Service has made use of the SNEP

report for its own purposes.

The Forest Service contends that even if it intended to use and is actually using the SNEP

study, FACA nonetheless does not apply because the Congress, and not the Forest Service, was the

primary intended recipient of the SNEP study. The Forest Service relies on our decision in Sofamor

Danek Group, Inc. v. Gaus, 61 F.3d 929, 934 (D.C. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 910 (1996),

in which we held that FACA does not apply if Executive Branch use of a committee's work product

USCA Case #96-5039 Document #243372 Filed: 12/31/1996 Page 4 of 8
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

3H.R. 6013 did not recite the use to which congressional committees might put the report. 

Rather, it simply stated without further explanation, "[T]he reports ... shall ... be submitted to the

Committees on Interior and Insular Affairs and Agriculture of the House of Representatives and

to the Committees on Energy and Natural Resources and Agriculture; Nutrition, and Forestry of

the Senate." Id. § 7. 

is "subsequent and optional" in relation to the use by a non-Executive Branch entity. The 1993

Appropriations Act did not specify the recipient of the study as either the Congress or an agency in

the Executive Branch. Because the statute is silent on the point, the Forest Service points to the

legislative history to support its position. First, the Forest Service relies on the two letters already

discussed, which were signed by twelve congressmen in toto and which indicated that the Congress

was to be the recipient of the SNEP study. Second, the Forest Service attempts to rely on the fact

that one of the letters and a statement made by then- Representative Leon Panetta on the floor of the

House of Representativesindicate that the study of the Sierra Nevada wasto be conducted in accord

with H.R. 6013, 102d Cong. (1992), a bill which was approved by the House Committee on

Agriculture but was never considered by the full House. Under the provisions of H.R. 6013 a report

on the Sierra Nevada ecosystem was to be submitted to certain House and Senate committees,

presumably for their use,3as well as to the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture and the

Secretary of the Department of the Interior for publication. H.R. 6013 also provided that the

committee producing the report on the Sierra Nevada ecosystem "shall not be subject to the Federal

Advisory Committee Act." Id. § 3(c)(9).

We disagree that the legislative historydemonstratesthat theForest Service's use ofthe SNEP

study is "subsequent and optional" within the meaning of Sofamor. Sofamor involved the actions of

the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (AHCPR) which the Congress established in 1989.

The Congress expressly authorized AHCPR by statute to convene panels of experts to produce

guidelines on various health issuesintended for use by non-governmental officialssuch as physicians

and educators. In the accompanying conference report the joint conferees stated that they intended

the guidelines to be used by the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), which administers

the Medicare and Medicaid programs. See Sofamor, 61 F.3d at 935 n.33. The AHCPR established

the Low Back Panel to develop guidelines regarding low back disorders. Sofamor Danek, a

USCA Case #96-5039 Document #243372 Filed: 12/31/1996 Page 5 of 8
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

4The statute authorized AHCPR to ensure:

the development and periodic review and updating of

(1) clinically relevant guidelines that may be used by physicians, educators,

and health care practitioners to assist in determining how diseases, disorders, and

other health conditions can most effectively and appropriately be prevented,

diagnosed, treated, and managed clinically; and

(2) standards of quality, performance measures, and medical review criteria

through which health care providers and other appropriate entities may assess or

review the provision of health care and assure the quality of such care.

42 U.S.C. § 299b-1(a). 

manufacturer ofmedical devices,sought declaratory and injunctive relief claiming that the Low Back

Panel was subject to FACA because the Congress intended an Executive Branch agency (HCFA) to

use the guidelines. We rejected the argument as follows:

Sofamor Danek's dual-purpose contention fails to appreciate the distinction noted by

Congress when enacting FACAbetween the purpose for establishing a committee and

the government's subsequent and optional use of a committee's work product.

Id. at 934.

At issue in Sofamor wasthe statutory text indicating that guidelines drafted by expert panels

were to be used by nongovernmental health care personnel.4 Because the statute designated the

primary user, we concluded that HCFA's use of the Low Back Panel's work product wassubsequent

and optional. See id. at 935 ("Congress expressly stated the purpose for the establishment of the

panelsimproving health care by developing, reviewing, and updating guidelines for use by clinical

health care practitioners. In light of that express purpose, the court will not lightly infer any other

purpose...."). Here we have no similar statutory directive. In the absence of a statutory directive,

and in light of the evidence supporting the conclusion that SNEP was established in the interest of

advising the Forest Service, we cannot conclude that the Forest Service's use of the study is merely

subsequent and optional.

CFA raises one additional argument. A committee is subject to FACA if it is "established or

utilized by one or more agencies, in the interest of obtaining advice or recommendations for the

[Executive Branch]." 5 U.S.C. app. 2, § 3(2) (emphasis added). CFA claims that even if SNEP was

USCA Case #96-5039 Document #243372 Filed: 12/31/1996 Page 6 of 8
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

not "established" within the meaning of FACAit has nonetheless been "utilized" under the statute and

therefore is subject to the procedural requirements of FACA. The district court held that the terms

"establish" and "utilize" under FACA "are exclusive, i.e., that only one of these possibilities can be

realized in any given instance." Mem. Op. at 14 n.7 (citing Public Citizen v. United States Dep't of

Justice, 491 U.S. 440 (1989); Food Chem. News v. Young, 900 F.2d 328, 332-33 (D.C. Cir. 1990)).

CFA argues that Public Citizen does not support the district court's interpretation of the terms

"established" and "utilized" as exclusive. In light of our holding that the Forest Service "established"

SNEP "in the interest of obtaining advice or recommendations," 5 U.S.C. app. 2 § 3(2), we do not

reach either CFA's alternative argument relying on the "utilized" language ofthe statute or the district

court's rejection of that argument. 

III.

Because we conclude that SNEP is subject to the requirements of FACA we reverse the

district court's grant of summary judgment to the Forest Service and grant CFA's cross-motion for

summary judgment. CFA also seeks an order enjoining the Forest Service from relying on the SNEP

report. We are unable to determine the propriety of injunctive relief at the summary judgment stage

because the district court has yet to make factualfindings. For example, the Forest Service contends

that even though the SNEP study was not produced in compliance with FACA, CFA will not be

aggrieved by the Forest Service's use of the study in any rulemaking because the rulemaking will be

subject to full notice and comment and ultimately to judicial review. In response CFA contends that

it has already been denied an adequate opportunity to review the scientific evaluations used to

produce the report, the underlying evaluations are not now effectively reviewable and the integrity

of the report hastherefore been irreparably compromised. We cannot assess these competing claims

at this stage and therefore remand to the district court to fashion an appropriate remedy in the first

instance. Cf. CC Distribs., Inc. v. United States, 883 F.2d 146, 156 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (district court's

dismissal of action for lack ofstanding reversed and remanded to evaluate advisability of preliminary

injunction).

Courts that have considered the availability of injunctive relief to remedy FACA violations

USCA Case #96-5039 Document #243372 Filed: 12/31/1996 Page 7 of 8
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

have reached different results. Compare Alabama-Tombigee Rivers Coalition v. Department of the

Interior, 26 F.3d 1103, 1106-07 (11th Cir. 1994) (affirming award ofinjunctive relief) with National

Nutrition Foods Ass'n v. Califano, 603 F.2d 327, 336 (2d Cir. 1979) (affirming denial of injunctive

relief). We acknowledge that an injunction might be appropriate in some cases, and perhaps even in

this case, if the unavailability of an injunctive remedy would effectively render FACA a nullity. On

remand, however, the district court should inquire whether under the circumstances an injunction

would promote FACA's purposes. The preparation of the report has already consumed millions of

dollars. If the Forest Service needs a scientific evaluation of the Sierra Nevada for its own use, an

injunction prohibiting its use of the SNEP study would require it to commission another (presumably

duplicative)study ofthe Sierra Nevada. That result would not meet FACA's aim to "reduce wasteful

expenditures." Public Citizen, 491 U.S. at 459. A second purpose of FACA is to "enhance the

public accountability of advisory committees established by the Executive Branch." Id. The record

indicates that at least some of the Science Team meetings were open to the public. Furthermore,

SNEP made other efforts to keep the public informedit published newsletters and provided

information to a "key contacts group" comprised of eighty-seven individuals and representatives of

various organizations, including CFA. The need for injunctive relief may be reduced where, as here,

there has been at least some attempt to ensure public accountability.

For the foregoing reasons we reverse and remand to the district court for further proceedings

consistent with this opinion.

So ordered.

USCA Case #96-5039 Document #243372 Filed: 12/31/1996 Page 8 of 8