## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### A p ril30,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT UT AH E NVI RO NM E NT AL C O N G R E S S , a U tah n o n p ro fit c o rp o r a t i o n ; HI GH UI NT AS PR E SE R V A T I O N C O U N C I L , a U t ah nonpr ofi tcorpor at i on, P l ai nti ffs - A pp el l ants , v. E I L E E N R I C H M O N D , i n heroffi ci al capa ci tyas A ct i ng For es tSuper vi s or o f th e As h l e yNat i o n a l Fo r e s t ; DA LE B O S W O R T H , as C hief of t he F orest Se r vi c e ; U N I TED STA TES FO RE ST SERVI CE, D efen dan t s - A pp el l ees. N o. 06- 4059

AP P EA L F ROM THE UNI TE D S TA TE S DI S TR I CT COURT

F OR THE DI S TR I CT OF UT AH ( D. C. No . 0 5 - CV- 7 2 - TC ) S arah T al , S al tL ake C i ty , U t ah, for Plai nti ffs - A pp el l ants . M ark R . H aag, ( T odd S. A agaa r d, and Sue El l en W ool r i dge, A s s i s t antA t t orney G ener al , E nvi r onm ent& N atur al R es our ces D i vi s i on, D epart m entof J us t i ce, W a sh in g to n , D .C ., a n d E lise F o ste r, O f C o u n se l, O ffice o f

th e G e n e ra l C o u n se l, U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof A gr i cul tur e, O gden, U t ah, on the br i ef) , for D efen dan t s - A pp el l ees.T he H onor abl e C ar l os M ur gui a, D i s tr i ctJ udge, U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ct * C our tforthe D i s tr i ctof K ans as , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. 2 B e fo re , KELLY , E B E L , C ir c u it J u d g e s a n d , M U R G U IA , D i s tr i ctJ udge. * KELLY , C i r cui tJ udge. Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l antU t ah Envi r onm ent al C ongr es s fi l ed s ui ti n fede r al dis tri ctcou rtchall eng i ng the F orestS ervi ce’s app roval of the T routS l op e W est T i m berSal e pr oj ecti n t he A s hl eyN at i onal For es t . U E C br oughti t s s ui tpur s uant to § 7 0 6 o f th e A d m inistrati v e P roc ed u re A ct, arg u ing that the F o rest S erv ice’s appr oval of the pr oj ectw as “arbi tr ary , capr i ci ous , an abus e of di s cr et i on, or o th e rw ise n o t in a c c o rd a n c e w ith law .” S e e 5 U .S .C . § 7 0 6 (2 )(A ); C iti z e n s to P r e s e r v e O v e r t o n P a r k , I n c . v . V o l p e , 4 0 1 U . S . 4 0 2 , 4 1 6 ( 1 9 7 1 ) . S p e c i fi c a l l y, U E C ar gued thatthe For es tSer vi ce fai l ed t o adequa t el ym oni t ort he C ol or ado R iv e r C u tth ro a t T ro u t (a m a n a g e m e n t in d ica to r sp e c ies ), th a t itim p ro p e rly a ss e ss e d th e p rojec t’s im p a c t o n o ld -g ro w th tre e s a n d th a t itfa iled to c o m p lyw ith o ld -g ro w th sta n d a rd s, th a t itfa iled to m a in tain w a ter q u a litysta n d a rd s, a n d th a t it fai l ed t o as s es s the cumul at i ve effec t s of the pr oj ecton the C ol or ado R i ver C u t th r o a tT r o u ta n d w a t e rq u a l i ty. W e exe r ci s e j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. Fort he r eas ons s t at ed bel ow , w e affi r m i n part , r ever s e i n part , and r emand.C u tth roa t trou t are large tr o u t th at resem b le rainb o w tr o u t bu t th at are 1 d istin g u ish e d b y“ re d o r o ra n g e m a rk in g s o n th e lo w e r ja w .” c u tth ro a t tro u t. (n.d.). T h e A m erican H erit ag e D ict ion aryo f th e E n g li sh L an g u ag e (4 th ed . 2 0 0 0 ), r e tr i e v e d M a r c h 1 9 , 2 0 0 7 , f r o m ht tp: //w w w . di ct i onary . com. C ol or ado C ut thr oat T r out( O ncorhynchus cl arki pl eur i t i cus ) have hi s t or i cal l yi nhabi t ed the mostcool w at erhabi t at s of the C ol or ado R i verdr ai nage i n C ol or ado, s outhern W y om i ng, (c o n tin u e d ...) 3 B ackgr ound T h e A sh ley N a tio n a l F o re st c o n sis ts o f 1 ,3 8 4 ,1 3 2 a c re s o f

lan d in nor theas t ern U t ah and W y om i ng. T he TroutSl ope W es tpr oj ect( “the pr oj ect ”) ar ea c om pr i s es 18, 500 acr es of l and i n the V ernal R angerD i s tr i ctof the A s hl ey N at i onal For es ti n U t ah. T he pr oj ectar ea i ncl udes por t i ons of thr ee w at er s heds and i s cover ed w i th pi ne, s pruce, fi r , and as pen tr ees . A s a r es ul tof a 1980s beet l e i nfes t at i on, a s i gni fi cantnum berof tr ees i n the pr oj ectar ea a r e dea d or fal l en. T he pr oj ectw as des i gned t o cl earoutthes e dea d orfal l en tr ees , r ecove r thei reconomi c val ue, and i m pr ove habi t atw i thi n the pr oj ectar ea. T he pr oj ect i ncl udes a numberof m i t i gat i on m eas ur es t o pr ot ectthe w at er s heds fr om in c re a s e d ru n -o ff

a n d e ro s io n re s u ltin g f ro m th e tr e e s ’ r e m o v a l. T he For es tSer vi ce be gan pl anni ng the pr oj ecti n 1998. I n February2004, it i ss u e d a d ra f

t E n v iro n m e n tal Im p a c t S tate m e n t (“ E IS ” ) a n d so u g h t p u b lic comm ent . A tthe s ame t i m e, i ti s s ued a Bi ol ogi cal E val uat i on and B i ol ogi cal A s s es s m entaddr es s i ng the pr oj ect ’ s expec t ed i m pacton s ens i t i ve, thr eat ened, and endange r ed s peci es . T he as s es s m entconcl uded thatthe pr oj ect ’ s i m pacton C ol or ado R i ver C ut thr oat T r out ( “C R C T ”) w oul d be mi ni m al . A ft err evi ew i ng 1( . . . cont i nued) 1 eas t ern U t ah, and extr eme nor thw es t ern N ew M exi co and northeas t ern A r i zona. 4 publ i c comm ent s , the For es tSer vi ce i s s ued a Recor d of D eci s i on ( “R O D ”) and appr oved the pr oj ecton J ul y1, 2004. T he R O D di s cus s ed the pr oj ect ’ s expec t ed i m pacton w at erqual i ty , s tr eam ch an n els, fish eries, and o ther a q u ati c re so u rce s. Itco n clud ed that the p rojec t’ s adver s e effec t s w oul d be ade quat el ym i t i gat ed byr equi r i ng thatno tr ees be r emoved w i thi n 300 fee tof anyfi s h- bear i ng s tr eam, orw i thi n 150 fee tof any others tr eam, pond, l ake, r es ervoi r , orw et l and. T he R O D al s o concl uded thatt he pr oj ectw as cons i s t entw i th t he A s hl eyN at i onal For es tPl an ( “for es tpl an”) s t andar ds forol d- gr ow th t r ees and thati tw oul d nothave a s i gni fi canti m pacton th e a m o u n t o f

o ld -g ro w th tr e e s in th e fo re s t. U t ah Envi r onm ent al C ongr es s ( “U E C ”) chal l enged the appr oval of the pr oj ectthr ough admi ni s tr at i ve r evi ew . T hos e appe al s w er e deni ed. U E C t hen fi l ed i t s compl ai nti n t he di s tr i ctcourtunder§ 706 of the A PA , al l egi ng thatt he For es tSer vi ce’ s appr oval of the pr oj ectvi ol at ed the N at i onal For es tM anage m ent A ct( “N FM A ”) and i t s i m pl ement i ng r egul at i ons , t he N at i onal E nvi r onm ent al Pol i cyA ct( “N E PA ”) , the for es tpl an, t he For es tSer vi ce M anual , and D epart m ent o f A g ri cu ltu re R eg u lat ion s. T h e d istri ct co u rtaffirm ed the F o rest S erv ice’s a p p ro v a l o f

th e p roje c t.T o dat e, U E C has been a named par tyi n fourotherpubl i s hed ca s es 2 i nvol vi ng s i m i l ari s s ues of for es tpl anni ng and management . Forcl ar i ty , w e r efe r to e a c h re sp e c tiv e c a se w ith a R o m a n n u m e ra l co rre sp o n d in g to th e o rd e r in w hi ch i tw as publ i s hed. 5 D i s cus s i on I. T h e F ed era l R eg u lat o ryF ram ew o rk A . N at i onal For es tM anage m entA ct T h e F o rest S erv ice is an ag en cyw ith in the D ep artm en t of A g ri cu ltu re. I t m anage s t he N at i onal For es tSy s t em undera mul t i tude of feder al s t atut es and r egul at i ons . A m ong thos e s t atut es i s t he N FM A , w hi ch i s pr i m ar i l yconce rned w i th pl anni ng. I tdi r ect s the For es tSer vi ce t o devel op a l and and r es our ce m an ag em en t plan fo r ea ch u n ito f n ati o n al fo rest. S ee 1 6 U . S . C . § 1 6 0 4 (a), (e). T her e ar e tw o l evel s of pl anni ng undert he N FM A : pr ogr am pl anni ng and pr oj ectpl anni ng. See O hi o For es tryA s s n. v. Si err a C l ub, 523 U . S. 726, 729- 30 (1 9 9 8 ); S ilv e rto n S n o w m o b ile C lu b v . U .S . F o re st S e rv ., 4 3 3 F .3 d 7 7 2 , 7 8 5 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). P ro g ra m p lan n in g re fe rs to th e F o re st S e rv ice ’s c re a tio n o f g e n e ra l, for es t - w i de pl anni ng goal s s etouti n a for es tpl an. See U t ah Envt l . C ong. v. B os w or th, 443 F. 3d 732, 737 ( 10th C i r . 2006) [her i naft erU E C I I I ] . B eca us e the 2 For es tSer vi ce mustacc ountfora var i etyof i nt er es t s , eac h for es tpl an cont empl at es thatthe for es tw i l l be us ed form ul t i pl e purpos es , i ncl udi ng “out doorr ecr eat i on, r ange, t i m ber , w at er s hed, w i l dl i fe a nd fi s h, and w i l dernes s . ” Id. (cit ing 1 6 U . S . C . § 1 6 0 4 (e)(1)). P rojec t plan n ing refers to the F o rest S erv ice’sM anag em ent i nd i cat or speci es ar e cert ai n species i den t i fi ed in the fo res t 3 pl an that“ar e a be l l w etherforothers peci es t hathave the s ame spe ci al habi t at needs orpopul at i on char act er i s t i cs . ” U E C I I I , 443 F. 3d at740 n. 7 ( i nt ernal q u o tatio n s o m itt e d ). T h e se sp e c ies “ se rv e a s a p ro x yfo r d e ter m in in g th e e ffe c ts of m anage m entact i vi t i es on ot hers peci es . ” I d. 6 a p p ro v a l o r d isa p p ro v a l o f sp e c ific p rojec ts th a t im p lem e n t (a n d c o n se q u e n tly m u s t c o m p ly w ith ) t h e fo re s t p la n . Id . (c itin g 1 6 U .S .C . § 1 6 0 4 (i )) . T he Secr et aryof A gr i cul tur e has pr om ul gat ed a numberof r egul at i ons t hat s etfor th the pr ocedur es forpl anni ng undert he N FM A . T he fi r s ts etof re g u la tio n s re le v a n t to th is c a s e w a s im p le m e n te d in 1 9 8 2 (3 6 C .F .R . P a rt 2 1 9 ). See 47 Fed. R eg. 43026- 01 ( Sept . 20, 1982) , and i ncl uded pr ovi s i ons di r ect i ng t he For es tSer vi ce, as partof i t s pl anni ng pr oces s , t o i dent i fyand moni t or m a n a g e m e n t in d ica to r sp e c ies . T h e re g u latio n s re q u ire d th e F o re st S e rv ice to 3 col l ectpopul at i on tr end dat a form anage m enti ndi cat ors peci es . 36 C . F. R . §§ 219. 19, 27 ( 1983) . T heyal s o di r ect ed that“[f] i s h and w i l dl i fe ha bi t ats hal l be m anage d t o m ai nt ai n vi abl e popul at i ons of exi s t i ng nat i ve and de s i r ed non- nat i ve v e rte b ra te s p e c ies . . . . ” Id . § 2 1 9 .1 9 . T h e 1 9 8 2 re g u latio n s w e re su p e rc e d e d in N ovember2000 w i th new , s ubs t ant i al l yr evi s ed r egul at i ons . See 65 Fed. R eg. 67, 514 ( N ov. 9, 2000) , codi fi ed at36 C . F. R . Par t219 ( 2001) . T he 2000 r egul at i ons i ncl uded s ever al tr ans i t i on pr ovi s i ons s peci fy i ng w hen the s ubs t ant i ve planni ng provis i on s of t he n ew regul at i on s w ou l d b ecom e effecti ve. T ho se tr ans i t i on pr ovi s i ons al s o s ettr ans i t i on pl anni ng s t andar ds t o govern for es tpl anT he reference i n the r egu l at i on s t o “cu rr ent pl an” m eans t hat the “b est 4 a v a ilab le s c ien c e ” sta n d a rd a p p lied b yfo rc e o f re g u latio n o n lyto p rojec ts im p lem e n tin g fo re st p lan s th a t p re -d a ted th e 2 0 0 0 p lan n in g ru les . S e e U tah E n v tl. C ong. v. T r oy er , - - F. 3d - - , 2007 W L 841637, at*11 n. 4 ( 10th C i r . 2007) [her ei naft erU E C I V ] . Pr oj ect s i m pl ement i ng for es tpl ans t hatw er e adopt ed, r evi s ed, oramended aft erenac t m entof the 2000 pl anni ng rul es , w er e t o be governed bythe s t andar d adopt ed i n the for es tpl an i t s el f. I d. at*11. 7 a me n d me n t s a n d s i t e - s p e c i fi c p r oj e c td e c i s i o n s d u r i n g t h e t r a n s i t i o n p e r i o d . UEC II I, 4 4 3 F .3 d a t 7 4 6 . Forfor es tpl an r evi s i ons and amendm ent s adopt ed dur i ng the tr ans i t i on per i od, agenc yoffi ci al s coul d el ectt o us e the s ubs t ant i ve pl anni ng s t andar ds of ei therthe 1982 r egul at i ons orthe 2000 r egul at i ons . See 36 C . F. R . § 219. 35( b) ( 2001) . Fors i t e- s peci fi c pr oj ectdeci s i ons m ade dur i ng the tr ans i t i on per i od, ho w ever, t he tr ansi t i on rul es di rect ed thatagen cyoffi ci al s “consi der the b est a v a ila b le s c ie n c e in im p le m e n tin g a n d , if a p p ro p ri a te , a m e n d in g th e c u rr e n t p la n .” I d. § 219. 35( a) , ( d) . T he tr ans i t i on per i od fors i t e- s peci fi c pr oj ectdeci s i ons w as 4 s ett o expi r e on N ovember9, 2003, br i ngi ng others ubs t ant i ve pr ovi s i ons of the 2000 r egul at i ons i nt o effect . See i d. § 219. 35( d) . H ow ever , t hatt r ans i t i on per i od w as ext ended fors i t e- s peci fi c pr oj ect s byan I nt er i m Fi nal R ul e i s s ued on Sept ember10, 2003. 68 Fed. R eg. 53294, 53294- 96 ( 2003) . T hatI nt er i m Fi nal R ul e ext ended the tr ans i t i on per i od fors i t e- s peci fi c pr oj ect s unt i l J anuary5, 2005 w hen the D epart m entof A gr i cul tur e r epl ace d the 2000 r egul at i ons w i th a new fin a l ru le . Id . a t 5 3 2 9 5 ; s e e a ls o 7 0 F e d . R e g . 1 0 2 2 , 1 0 2 2 -2 3 (J a n . 5 , 2 0 0 5 ).8

T hus , s i t e- s peci fi c pr oj ectdeci s i ons m ade f r om N ovember9, 2000 t o J anuary5, 2 0 0 5 , tha t im p lem e n ted p re -N o v e m b e r 9 , 2 0 0 0 fo re st p lan s, w e re to b e m a d e o n ly underthe “be s tavai l abl e s ci ence ” s t andar d. See 69 Fed. R eg. 58055, 58056 ( Sept . 29, 2004) . “[N ] ei therthe r emai nderof the 2000 pl anni ng r egul at i ons nor a n yo f th e 1 9 8 2 re g u latio n s w e re b in d in g o n site -sp e c ific d e c isio n s d u rin g th is p eriod . ” E co log yC tr . , Inc . v . U . S . F o rest S erv . , 4 5 1 F . 3 d 1 1 8 3 , 1 1 9 1 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). B . T he A s hl eyN at i onal For es tPl an T he for es tpl an w as adopt ed i n 1986 and i s i nt ended t o “gui de al l natur al r es our ce managementact i vi t i es and es t abl i s h m anage m ents t andar ds and gui del i nes forthe A s hl eyN at i onal For es t . ” I I A pl t . A pp. at348. T he pl an d e sig n a tes tw e lv e m a n a g e m e n t in d ica to r sp e c ies fo r th e A sh ley N a tio n a l F o re st, one of w hi ch i s the C R C T . I d. at553- 54. T he for es tpl an i ncl udes a pr ovi s i on di r ect i ng t he for es ts ervi ce t o: C om pl et e [a n] i nvent oryof M anage m entI ndi cat orSpeci es on the For es tt o det erm i ne thei roccurr ence , abundanc e, di s tr i but i on, habi t at requi rem ents , and po pu l at i on s trends. Id . a t 4 1 9 . W i th r es pectt o C R C T , the for es tpl an gi ves s peci fi c di r ect i ves forhow t he s peci es s houl d be moni t or ed. I tdi r ect s t hatC R C T be moni t or ed us i ng popul at i on es t i m at es and thats uch es t i m at es be conduc t ed and r eport ed eve ryfi ve y ear s . I d. at549, 553. T he pl an s t at es thatfur thereval uat i on of C R C T popul at i ons w i l l beA bi ot i c condi t i on i ndex i s a meas ur ementof w at erqual i tyi n s tr eams or 5 c re e k s . 9 nece s s ary , ora cha nge i n m anage m entdi r ect i on coul d occur , i f ther e i s a 20% r educt i on i n popul at i on ori f the “bi ot i c condi t i on i ndex” dr ops bel ow 75. I d. at 5 553. T h e fo rest plan also co n tai n s stan d ard s g o v ern ing o ld-g row th tr ee s. It di r ect s the For es tSer vi ce t o “[d] es i gnat e and pr ot ectol d gr ow th ar eas for depende nts peci es ” and pr ovi des t hat“[o] l d gr ow th s houl d be a mi ni m um of 160 cont i guous acr es and have ol d gr ow th char act er i s t i cs . ” I d. at419. T he pl an sp e c ifica llyd ire c ts th e F o re st S e rv ice to “ [ r]e tain 5 % o f a re a in o ld g ro w th condi t i ons atal l t i m es . . . . ” I d. T he for es tpl an does notdefi ne ol d gr ow th or speci fya m et ho d fo r i t s i den t i fi cat i on . F or purpo ses of t his proj ect , t he F orest S e r v i c e d e fi n e d o l d g r o wth b yu s i n g t h r e e o l d - g r o wth a t tr i b u t e s i d e n t i fi e d i n R. G. H a m ilt o n , U n ited S tate s D e p a rtm e n t o f A g ric u ltu re , C h a ra c ter istics o f O ld G row th F o rests i n the In term o u n tai n R eg ion (19 9 3 ). C . T he N at i onal E nvi r onm ent al Pol i cyA ct T he N E PA r equi r es fede r al agenc i es t o exami ne and di s cl os e the envi r onm ent al i m pact s of thei rpr opos ed ac t i ons . B al t i m or e G as & E l ec. C o. v. N a tu ra l R e s. D e f. C o u n c il, 4 6 2 U .S . 8 7 , 9 7 (1 9 8 3 ). T h e N E P A im p o se s o n ly pr ocedur al r equi r ement s and does notm andat e r es ul t s . R obert s on v. M ethow V al l eyC i t i zens C ounci l , 490 U . S. 332, 350- 51 ( 1989) . R el evantt o thi s cas e, t heI f the pr opos ed ac t i on w i l l nots i gni fi cant l yaffectt he qual i tyof the 6 hu m an en vir on m ent, then the N E P A dir ect s the ag encyt o p repar e ei ther a l ess det ai l ed “e nvi r onm ent al as s es s m ent , ” ori n the ca s e of a pr opos ed ac t i on thathas been pr edet erm i ned nott o “i ndi vi dual l yorcumul at i vel yhave a s i gni fi canteffect o n th e h u m a n e n v i r o n m e n t , ” a “ c a t e g o r i c a l e x c l u s i o n . ” S e e U E C I V , 2 0 0 7 WL 841637, at*3. 10 N E PA r equi r es fede r al agenc i es t o pr epar e an EI S foral l “maj orFeder al act i ons s ig n ific a n tly a ffe c tin g th e q u a lity o f th e h u m a n e n v ir o n m e n t . . . .” 4 2 U .S .C . § 43 32 (2) (C ). U nd er the N E P A ’s i m plem enti ng regul at i on s, an ag encyprepares a

6 dr aftE I S i n w hi ch i teval uat es the pr opos ed ac t i on and i t s di r ect , i ndi r ect , and c u m u la tiv e im p a c t o n th e e n v ir o n m e n t. 4 0 C .F .R . § 1 5 0 2 .1 4 (2 0 0 6 ). S p e c ifica lly , the N E P A re q u ire s th a t an E IS p ro v id e “ c u m u lativ e e ffe c ts” a n a ly sis bas ed on ac tual dat a. T he N E PA defi nes “cumul at i ve effec t s ” as “the i m pacton the envi r onm entw hi ch r es ul t s fr om t he i ncr ement al i m pactof the ac t i on w hen added t o otherpas t , pr es ent , and r eas onabl yfor es eea bl e futur e ac t i ons . . . . ” I d. § 1 5 0 8 .7 . I n the dr afts t age, the age ncym us tcompar e the pr opos ed ac t i on t o other rea so n ab le alt ern ati v es, i n clud ing takin g n o ac ti o n at all . Id. § 1 5 0 2 . 1 4 . A fter a peri od of p ub l i c com m ent and revi ew , t he ag encyres po nd s t o an ycom m ents , m a k e s a p p ro p ri a te c h a n g e s , a n d c ir c u la te s a fin a l d ra f t o f th e E IS . Id . § 1 5 0 3 .4 . T h e a g e n c yu ltim a te ly ad o p ts a c o u rs e o f a c tio n b yis s u in g a n R O D .11

I I . St andar d of R evi ew W e r evi ew the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deci s i on aff i r m i ng appr oval of the Trout Sl ope W es tpr oj ectde novo. See O l enhous e v. C om m odi tyC r edi tC orp. , 42 F. 3d 1560, 1564 ( 10th C i r . 1994) . N ei thert he N FM A , t he N E PA , nort he for es tpl an p rov ides fo r a p ri v ate righ t of ac ti o n , so o u r rev iew o f th e F o rest S erv ice’s deci s i on t o appr ove the pr oj ecti s governed by§ 706 of the A PA , w hi ch al l ow s us t o setasi de an agen cyact i on on l yi f t he acti on i s “arbitrary , capri ci ou s, an ab use o f d iscreti o n , o r oth erw ise n o t i n ac co rda n ce w ith law . ” 5 U . S . C . § 7 0 6 (2)(A ); U E C I I I , 443 F. 3d at739. U ndert hi s s t andar d, w e mustcons i derw hether“the [age ncy ’ s ] deci s i on w as bas ed on a c ons i der at i on of the r el evantfac t or s and w hetherther e has been a cl earerr orof j udgm ent . ” O vert on Par k, 401 U . S. at 4 1 6 . A n a g e n c ya c tio n is a rb itrar ya n d c a p ric io u s “ if th e a g e n c y. . . en tirely fai l ed t o cons i deran i m por t antas pectof the pr obl em, offe r ed an e xpl anat i on for i t s deci s i on thatruns count ert o the evi dence befor e the age ncy , or[i f the deci s i on] i s s o i m pl aus i bl e thati tcoul d notbe as cr i bed t o a di ffe r ence i n vi ew or th e p ro d u c t o f

a g e n c ye x p e rtise .” M o to r V e h icle M f rs. A ss ’n v . S tate F a rm M u t. A u to . In s . C o ., 4 6 3 U .S . 2 9 , 4 3 (1 9 8 3 ). A lth o u g h o u r in q u irym u st b e th o ro u g h , the F o re st S e rv ice ’s d e c isio n is

“ e n title d to a p re s u m p tio n o f re g u la ri ty.” S e e O v e rt o n P a rk , 4 0 1 U .S . a t 4 1 5 . T his defe rence i s “especi al l ystrong w here the ch al l eng ed d eci si on [] i nv olve[s] tech n ical or sc ientifi c m att ers w ith in the ag en cy ’s area o f e x p erti se.” U E C III ,12

443 F. 3d at739 ( ci t i ng M ar s h v. O r . N atur al R es . C ounci l , 490 U . S. 360, 378 (19 8 9 )). A d d it ion all y , w e g ive g rea t defere n ce to the F o rest S erv ice’s i nt erpr et at i on of i t s ow n r egul at i ons , and w e w i l l onl yr ej ectt hos e i nt erpr et at i ons w hen theyar e “unr eas onabl e, pl ai nl yerr oneous , ori ncons i s t entw i th the r egul at i on’ s pl ai n m eani ng. ” B arM K R anche s v. Y uett er , 994 F. 2d 735, 738 ( 1 0 th Ci r . 1 9 9 3 ) . T h u s , “ th e u l t i ma t e s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w i s a n a rr o w o n e [ a n d we ar e] notempow er ed t o s ubs t i tut e [our ] j udgm entfort hatof the age ncy . ” O ver t on Par k, 401 U . S. at416. I I I . U E C ’ s C hal l enges t o A ppr oval of the TroutSl ope W es tPr oj ect A. Th e M o n i t o r i n g o f CRCT U E C ar gues thatthe dec i s i on t o appr ove the pr oj ectw as cover ed byt he 1982 pl anni ng r egul at i ons of the N FM A and thei rs peci fi c rul es r egar di ng the m oni t or i ng of i ndi cat ors peci es . I tar gues t hatt hos e r egul at i ons r equi r ed the For es tSer vi ce t o pr ovi de quant i t at i ve popul at i on tr end dat a foral l i ndi cat or sp ec ies (i n clud ing the C R C T ). S ee 3 6 C . F . R . § § 2 1 9 . 1 9 an d 2 1 9 . 2 7 (19 8 3 ). It ar gues thatthe For es tSer vi ce ne vergather ed ac tual popul at i on tr end dat a, but i n s t e a d r e l i e d o n s tr e a m i n v e n t o ry a n d s tr e a m c o n d i t i o n d a t a a s a p r o x y. T he For es tSer vi ce a r gues thati tw as notr equi r ed t o compl yw i th the 1982 r egul at i ons , butthati thad onl yt o us e the “be s tavai l abl e s ci ence ” as r equi r ed by the 2000 tr ans i t i on r egul at i ons . T he di s tr i ctcourtfound thatt he 1982 r egul at i ons app l i ed, and i taffirm ed the forestservice’ s approv al of the proj ectun der tho se13

s t a n d a r d s . UE C v . Ri c h mo n d , No . 0 5 - CV - 7 2 T C, 2 0 0 6 WL 3 2 5 3 7 5 , a t* 1 2 - 1 3 ( D. U ta h F e b . 1 0 , 2 0 0 6 ). A tthe ons et , w e not e thatU E C has es t abl i s hed the r equi r ed nexus betw een th e F o re st S e rv ice ’s m o n ito rin g o f C R C T a n d th e p rojec t’s a p p ro v a l to g iv e it s t andi ng. W e mayonl yr evi ew a moni t or i ng pr ogr am “t o the ext enti tbear s on the ap proval of a pa rt i cularproj ect . ” U E C II I, 44 3 F . 3d at74 9. T he F orest Ser vi ce a r gues thatdes pi t e i t s m oni t or i ng of C R C T , t he pr oj ect ’ s i m pact s on C R C T a re s o m in im a l, th a t d e fic ie n c ie s in C R C T m o n ito ri n g a re ir re le v a n t. A p lee . B r. at 2 2 . In U E C III, h o w e v e r, w e sta ted th a t “p o p u latio n tre n d d a ta is nece s s aryt o eval uat e a pr opos ed pr oj ect ’ s actual effecton the envi r onm ent - - s uch as w her e . . . a pr opos ed pr oj ectw i l l cr eat e a s i gni fi canti m pacton the e n v ir o n m e n t, th u s re q u ir in g a n [ E IS ] . . . .” Id . a t 7 5 0 . An EI S wa s i s s u e d i n th i s c a s e . Ad d i t i o n a l l y , t h e p a r t i e s a g r e e t h a tCRCT ar e pr es enti n t he pr oj ectar ea. Fur therm or e, t he pr oj ectcont ai ns a numberof m iti g a tio n m e a su re s d e sig n e d to re d u c e n e g a tiv e e ffe c ts th e p rojec t w o u ld o th e rwi s e h a v e o n CRCT p o p u l a t i o n s . W i th o u tp r e - d e c i s i o n a l d a t a o n CRCT popul at i ons , the For es tSer vi ce c oul d nothave f ul l yeval uat ed w hethert he pr oj ect ’ s m i t i gat i on m eas ur es w er e ade quat e. N orcoul d i teval uat e the effi cac y of those m i t i gati on m easures i n the futur e. T aken t og et her, t hese facts sugg est thatadequa t e moni t or i ng dat a w oul d be nec es s aryt o eval uat e the pr oj ect ’ s effect o n th e e n v ir o n m e n t a s p a rt o f th e in itia l a d m in is tr a tiv e a p p ro v a l.A l though the For es tSer vi ce a t t empt ed t o amend t he For es tPl an i n 2004 7 to re d u c e th e n u m b e r o f in d ica to r sp e c ies , tha t am e n d m e n t w a s s u c c e ss f u lly c h a l l e n g e d b yU E C a n d r ej e c t e d b yt h e d i s tr i c tc o u r t . S e e R i c h m o n d , 2 0 0 6 WL 32 53 75 , at*8 . T hu s, the “cu rr ent pl an” in pl ace w hen t he T routS l op e W est pr oj ectw as appr oved w as the 1986 ver s i on. 14 A s pr evi ous l ydi s cus s ed, the 1982 r egul at i ons w er e ent i r el ys uper cede d by the 2000 tr ans i t i on r egul at i ons w i th r es pectt o s i t e- s peci fi c pr oj ectdeci s i ons i m plem enti ng pre- N ov em ber 9, 20 00 forestplans. T he fo res tplan i n thi s case w as adopt ed i n 1986. T he pr oj ectR O D w as i s s ued on J ul y1, 2004, dur i ng the 7 tr ans i t i on per i od. A ccor di ngl y , the dec i s i on t o appr ove the pr oj ectw as governed b yth e “ b e st a v a ilab le s c ien c e ” sta n d a rd , n o t th e sp e c ific m o n ito rin g re q u ire m e n ts o f th e 1 9 8 2 re g u la tio n s . S e e U E C IV , 2 0 0 7 W L 8 4 1 6 3 7 , a t * 1 1 . U E C ar gues that , des pi t e the tr ans i t i onal “bes tavai l abl e s ci ence ” s t andar d, the F orestS ervi ce w as bou nd t o fo l l ow t he 1 98 2 m on i t ori ng requi rem ents becau se th o se re q u ire m e n ts w e re in c o rp o ra ted in to th e 1 9 8 6 fo re st p lan a n d sp e lled o u t in th e F o re st S e rv ice M a n u a l. T o b e su re , the F o re st S e rv ice is re q u ire d to c o m p ly w i th exi s t i ng for es tpl ans , s ee 16 U . S. C . § 1604( i ) , w hi ch her e i ncl udes t he r equi r ementt o m oni t orcert ai n m anage m enti ndi cat ors peci es , i ncl udi ng the C R C T . M oreove r, the F orestS ervi ce M anu al i s useful i n ident i fy i ng t he F orest Ser vi ce’ s s t andar d pol i ci es and pr act i ces . H ow ever , t he 1986 for es tpl an di d not expr es s l yr efe r ence the 1982 r egul at i ons ( then codi fi ed at§ 219. 19) i n adopt i ngU E C in sis ts th a t th e fo re st p lan ’s r e fe re n c e to § 2 1 9 .2 7 n e c e ss a rily 8 i ncorpor at es § 219. 19 beca us e § 219. 27 “does r efe r ence , expl i ci t l yci t e and in c o rp o ra te d ire c tio n f ro m § 2 1 9 .1 9 .” A p lt. R e p . B r. at 2 6 (c iti n g U tah E n v tl. C o n g . v . B o s w o rt h , 3 7 2 F .3 d 1 2 1 9 , 1 2 2 5 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) [ h e re in a f te r U E C I] ). U E C I, h o w ev er, co n side red § 2 1 9 . 2 7 an d § 2 1 9 . 1 9 in the co n text o f w h ethe r § 219. 19 appl i es t o s i t e- s peci fi c pr oj ectpl anni ng, notw hetherr efe r ence t o ei ther s ect i on i n a For es tPl an i ncorpor at es t he 1982 moni t or i ng r equi r ement s . See 372 F. 3d at1225. T he For es tSer vi ce c oncede d ator al ar gum entt hati tm us tfol l ow t he 9 fo rest plan an d su g g ested that the p lan d id n o t con fli ct w ith the re g u lat o ry re q u ir e m e n t to c o n s id e r t h e “ b e s t a v a ila b le s c ie n c e .” 15 r equi r ement s t o m oni t orm anage m enti ndi cat ors peci es des i gnat ed byt he pl an. 8 Fur therm or e, the for es tpl an expr es s l ys t at ed that“the admi ni s tr at i on and m anag em ent of the F orestw i l l be g uided byexis t i ng and futur e l aw s, regul at i on s, p o lic ie s a n d s ta n d a rd s a n d g u id e lin e s .” II A p lt. A p p . a t 5 4 8 (e m p h a s is a d d e d ). W e m a d e c lea r in U E C III th a t su c h lan g u a g e in a fo re st p lan d o e s n o t in c o rp o ra te the 1982 moni t or i ng r egul at i ons . See 443 F. 3d at748 and n. 12. T her efor e, t he For es tSer vi ce i s obl i gat ed t o appl yt he new r egul at i ons , s ee Ecol ogyC tr . , 451 F. 3d at1191, and i s al s o bound t o appl yt he t erm s of the 1986 for es tpl an, i ncl udi ng the obl i gat i on t o m oni t ort he managementi ndi cat ors peci es l i s t ed i n t he pl an, t o the ext entthe pl an does notconfl i ctw i th the “be s tavai l abl e s ci ence ” s t andar d. 9 W hil e si gn i fi cant port i on s of t he p art i es’ bri efs di scuss w hethert he F orest Ser vi ce metthe 1982 moni t or i ng r egul at i ons , nei therbr i ef di s cus s es w hethert he For es tSer vi ce’ s pl anni ng actual l ycompl i ed w i th the “be s tavai l abl e s ci ence ”16

s t andar d. I ndeed, ther e i s no evi dence t hatt he For es tSer vi ce i nt ended t o m ake us e of the “be s tavai l abl e s ci ence ” w hen appr ovi ng the pr oj ect . See R i chmond, 2 0 0 6 WL 3 2 5 3 7 5 , a t* 1 2 . T h u s , we a r e fa c e d wi th t h e s a me s c e n a r i o we en co u n tered in E co log yC en ter. I n E col ogyC ent er , the di s tr i ctcourtanal y zed the For es tSer vi ce’ s 2003 appr oval of a l oggi ng pr oj ectforcompl i ance w i th the 1982 moni t or i ng r e g u l a t i o n s . S e e E c o l o g yCtr . , I n c . v . Ru s s e l l , 3 6 1 F . S u p p . 2 d 1 3 1 0 , 1 3 1 6 - 1 7 ( D. U tah 2 0 0 5 ). T h e d istric t co u rt fo u n d th a t th e F o re st S e rv ice h a d c o m p lied w ith the 1982 r egul at i ons and thati t s appr oval of the pr oj ectw as notarbi tr aryand capr i ci ous . I d. at1317. W hi l e the For es tSer vi ce a r gued on appe al t hatt he 2000 tr ans i t i onal “bes tavai l abl e s ci ence ” s t andar d governed, t her e w as no evi dence thati tactual l ycons i der ed the “be s tavai l abl e s ci ence ” s t andar d w hen appr ovi ng the pr oj ect . E col ogyC tr . , 451 F. 3d at1192. A l though E col ogyC ent ernever a r g u e d th a tth e F o r e s tS e r v i c e fa i l e d t o u s e t h e “ b e s ta v a i l a b l e s c i e n c e , ” we vaca t ed and r emanded t he For es tSer vi ce’ s appr oval of the pr oj ect , hol di ng that the For es tSer vi ce’ s fai l ur e t o cons i derorm ent i on the “be s tavai l abl e s ci ence ” s t andar d r ender ed i t s appr oval of the pr oj ectarbi tr aryand capr i ci ous . I d. at1195 (cit ing F o rest W atch v . U . S . F o rest S erv . , 4 1 0 F . 3 d 1 1 5 , 1 1 9 (2d C ir . 2 0 0 5 )). In this case, there i s no ev i den ce t hat the F orestS ervi ce uti l i zed the “best avai l abl e s ci ence ” s t andar d i n appr ovi ng the TroutSl ope W es tpr oj ect . I ndeed, th e R O D a p p ro v in g th e p roje c t n e v e r u s e d th e p h ra s e “ b e s t a v a ila b le s c ie n c e ,”I n hi s concurr ence and di s s enti n U E C I V , J udge M cC onnel l not es t hat 10 ther e i s “no pr ece dentj us t i fy i ng r ever s al of s i gni fi cantagenc yact i on, aff i r m ed by the di s tr i ctcourt , on t he bas i s of a c hal l enge the pl ai nt i ff di d notm ake i n di s t r i ct c o u rt a n d d id n o t m a k e in th is C o u rt .” U E C IV , 2 0 0 7 W L 8 4 1 6 3 7 , a t * 1 9 . N everthel es s , the maj or i tyi n U E C I V cl ear l yvi ew ed appl i cat i on of the pr oper pl anni ng s t andar d as a l egal m att er , i nt er tw i ned w i th the mer i t s of the cha l l enge, t o be addr es s ed bythi s court , and w e, of cour s e, ar e bound byt hatdeci s i on. 17 m uch l es s cons i der ed the s ubs t ant i ve qual i tyof the s ci ence ut i l i zed i n appr ovi ng the pr oj ect . See I I I A pl t . A pp. at644- 61. E ven on appe al , t he For es tSer vi ce fai l s t o expl ai n how the s ci ence i tut i l i zed w as i n fac tt he “be s tavai l abl e s ci ence . ” T he fa ctthatU E C neverar gued thatt he For es tSer vi ce fai l ed t o us e the “bes tavai l abl e s ci ence ” s t andar d br i ngs i nt o confl i ctt w o es t abl i s hed l i nes of pr ece dent . T he fi r s ti s thatw e w i l l not , abs entm ani fes ti nj us t i ce, vaca t e or re v e rs e a d is tr ic t c o u rt d e c is io n b a s e d o n a n a rg u m e n t n o t m a d e b yth e p la in tiff. S e e S u ss m a n v . P a tters o n , 1 0 8 F .3 d 1 2 0 6 , 1 2 1 0 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 7 ). T h e se c o n d , is thatw e maynotaff

i r m an age ncydeci s i on bas ed on r eas oni ng thatt he age ncy i t s el f neve rcons i der ed. See Ecol ogyC tr . , 451 F. 3d at1195 ( ci t i ng SE C v. C h e n e ryC o rp ., 3 3 2 U .S . 1 9 4 , 1 9 6 (1 9 4 7 )); F o re st W a tch , 4 1 0 F .3 d a t 1 1 9 . T h is con fl i ctw as r esol ved byE cologyC enterand U E C IV w hich di ct at e t hat w e m ust v a c a te th e F o re st S e rv ice ’s a p p ro v a l o f th e T ro u t S lo p e W e st p rojec t fo r fa ilu re to cons i derthe “be s tavai l abl e s ci ence ” s t andar d. See U E C I V , 2007 W L 841637, at * 17- 18; E col ogyC tr . , 451 F. 3d at1195. W e offerno opi ni on as t o w hethert he 10 For es tSer vi ce’ s m oni t or i ng of C R C T compl i ed w i th the “be s tavai l abl e s ci ence ”B ecause the 200 0 tr ansi t i on regul at i on s m and at e use of t he “b est 11 avai l abl e s ci ence , ” and w er e i m pl ement ed af t ert he 1986 for es tpl an, t he r egul at i ons m aypr eempts om e moni t or i ng pr ovi s i ons of the 1986 for es tpl an, a ss u m in g th o se m o n ito rin g p ro v isio n s a re n o t b a se d o n th e “ b e st a v a ilab le s ci ence . ” Fur therm or e, ther e i s a pos s i bi l i tyt hatt he for es tpl an, byi t s r efe r ence t o “futur e l aw , r egul at i ons , pol i ci es and s t andar ds and gui del i nes , ” mi ght i ncorpor at e the “be s tavai l abl e s ci ence ” s t andar d i n l i eu of i t s or i gi nal m oni t or i ng p ro v isio n s. D e sp ite th e F o re st S e rv ice ’s s u g g e stio n th a t th e fo re st p lan a p p e a rs to be cons i s t entw i th t he “be s tavai l abl e s ci ence s t andar d, ” the part i es di d notbr i ef thes e ques t i ons , and gi ven thatthe For es tSer vi ce fai l ed eve n t o i ncorpor at e and a p p ly th e “ b e s t a v a ila b le s c ie n c e ” s ta n d a rd , th e ya re n o t r ip e fo r r e v ie w . 1 8 sta n d a rd , the fo re st p lan , o r th e fo re st s e rv ice m a n u a l. 11 O n r emand, as di s cus s ed above , t he For es tSer vi ce w i l l be governed byt he r e q u i r e m e n t s i n th e c u r r e n tfo r e s tp l a n a n d t h e m o s tr e c e n tv e r s i o n o f t h e N F MA im p lem en ti n g reg u lat ion s, w h ich w ere ad o p ted in 2 0 0 5 . T h o se re g u lat ion s req u ir e the For es tSer vi ce t o: ( 1) D ocumenthow the bes tavai l abl e s ci ence w as t aken i nt o acc ount i n the pl anni ng pr oces s w i thi n the cont extof the i s s ues bei ng cons i der ed; ( 2) E val uat e and di s cl os e s ubs t ant i al uncert ai nt i es i n that sc ien c e ; (3 ) E v a lu a te a n d d isc lo se su b sta n tial risk s a ss o c iate d w ith pl an component s bas ed on thats ci ence ; and ( 4) D ocumentt hatt he s c ie n c e w a s a p p ro p ri a te ly in te rp re te d a n d a p p lie d . 36 C . F . R . § 2 19 . 11 (a) (1) -( 4) ( 20 05 ). A s w e st at ed in E cologyC enter , t he F orest Ser vi ce ne ed notnece s s ar i l ycol l ectnew dat a, buti tm us t“s eek outand cons i der al l exi s t i ng s ci ent i fi c evi dence r el evantt o the dec i s i on . . . [and] det erm i ne w hi ch dat a ar e the mostacc ur at e, r el i abl e, and r el evant . ” 451 F. 3d at1194 n. 4 ( i nt ernal q u o ta tio n s a n d c ita tio n s o m itte d ). A f te r c o n s id e ri n g th is “ b e s t a v a ila b le s c ie n c e ,” th e F o re st S e rv ice m a yth e n iss u e a n e w R O D o n th e T ro u t S lo p e W e st p rojec t.1 9

B . W at erQ ual i tySt andar ds U E C a rg u e s th a t th e T ro u t S lo p e W e st p rojec t w ill d a m a g e w a ter q u a lity and ther ebyvi ol at e the 1982 r egul at i ons and the for es tpl an. Speci fi cal l y , t he 1982 r egul at i ons m andat e thatther e s houl d be no managementpr act i ces t hat caus e detr i m ent al change s i n w at ert emper atur e, chemi cal composi t i on, or depos i t s of s edi m ent , al l of w hi ch adve r s el yaffectw at ercondi t i ons . See 36 C . F. R . § 219. 27( e) ( 1983) . Si m i l ar l y , t he for es tpl an r equi r es t he For es tSer vi ce t o “[m]a i nt ai n ori m pr ove curr ents tr eam channel s t abi l i tyr at i ngs , ” I I A pl t . A pp. at427, and t o m ai nt ai n a bi ot i c condi t i on i ndex of a tl eas t75 i n al l s tr eams, i d. at 42 0. U E C argues that the p roj ectw i l l adv ers el yaffect al l of these st and ards. T he For es tSer vi ce r es ponds thatt he s ubs t ant i ve s t andar d of § 219. 27( e) di d not a p p lyto th e p rojec t’s a p p ro v a l b e c a u se th e 1 9 8 2 re g u latio n s w e re su p e rc e d e d in 2000. R egar dl es s , i tar gues i tcompl i ed w i th the r egul at i ons and the for es tpl an r equi r ement s conce r ni ng s tr eam channel s t abi l i tyand the bi ot i c condi t i on i ndex. A s i s cl earfr om ourdi s cus s i on above, t he s ubs t ant i ve s t andar d of § 219. 27( e) di d notappl yt o t he pr oj ect ’ s appr oval beca us e the 1982 r egul at i ons w ere s up erceded in 200 0. A gain, ho w ever, t here i s no ev i den ce t hat the F orest S e rv ic e c o n s id e re d th e “ b e s t a v a ila b le s c ie n c e ” c o n c e rn in g w a te r q u a lity. C on sequen t l y , as w i th the m on i t ori ng of C R C T , t he F orestS ervi ce m ust re e v a lu a te th e p rojec t’s e ffe c t o n w a ter q u a lityu til izin g th e “ b e st a v a ilab le s ci ence ” as r equi r ed bythe curr entN FM A r egul at i ons . Fort he s ame r eas onsT o t he ext entthatther e have been c hanges i n the amountof ol d- gr ow t h, 12 orcumul at i ve effec t s s i nce the fi r s tR O D w as i s s ued, t he For es tSer vi ce may , of c o u rs e , b e re q u ir e d to a lte r o r a m e n d its a n a lysis o f th e s e a re a s in th e n e w R O D . 2 0 s t at ed above , w e offerno opi ni on as t o w hethert he For es tSer vi ce’ s eval uat i on of w at er qual i tycom pli ed w i th the “bestavail able s ci ence” st and ard and t he fo res t pl an. See s upr a n. 11. C . U E C ’ s R emai ni ng C hal l enges W hi l e the For es tSer vi ce’ s fai l ur e t o cons i dert he “be s tavai l abl e s ci ence ” stan d ard ca u ses u s to rem an d the c ase fo r an o rde r va ca ti n g the p rojec t’ s appr oval , tw o others ubs t ant i al ar gum ent s r egar di ng w hethert he For es tSer vi ce c o m p lied w ith th e fo re st p lan a n d th e N E P A w e re ra ise d b yU E C a n d a d e q u a tely b rie fe d a n d a d d re ss e d b yth e p a rties . A s th e se iss u e s w o u ld lik e lyb e re a rg u e d in a s ubs equentappea l , w e el ectt o addr es s t hem now and s o narr ow t he s cope of our rem an d o rde r. 12

1. O l d-G row th T rees T h e fo re st p lan re q u ire s th a t th e F o re st S e rv ice : “D e sig n a te a n d p ro tec t o ld gr ow th ar eas fordepende nts peci es . O l d gr ow th s houl d be a mi ni m um of 160 cont i guous acr es and have ol d gr ow th char act er i s t i cs . . . . [A nd the for es ts ervi ce m us t ] [r ] et ai n 5% of ar ea i n ol d gr ow th condi t i ons atal l t i m es . . . . ” I I A pl t . A pp. at419. T he for es tpl an does notdefi ne “ol d gr ow th, ” s o i n or derfort he Trout Sl ope W es tpr oj ectt o compl yw i th the ol d- gr ow th s t andar ds , t he For es tSer vi ce w as r equi r ed t o i dent i fya met hod t o del i m i tw hatol d gr ow th m eans i n the A s hl ey2 1

N at i onal For es t . A s pr evi ous l ynot ed, t he EIS and pr oj ectR O D r efe r ence d the ol d- gr ow th m eas ur ementcr i t er i a i dent i fi ed i n H ami l t on. T hatpubl i cat i on defi nes o ld g ro w th b a s e d o n s ix c ri te ri a fo r l iv e tr e e s a n d fo u r c ri te ri a fo r d e a d tr e e s . U E C a rg u e s th a t th e F o re st S e rv ice o n lyre lied u p o n “ S tan d E x a m D a ta” in an att empt t o m eetol d- gr ow th s t andar ds adopt ed fort he pr oj ect . U E C ar gues t hat the s t and exa m dat a cons i der ed onl yt hr ee of t he s i x ol d- gr ow th cr i t er i a forl i ve tr ees and no cr i t er i a fordead tr ees . C ons equent l y , U E C ar gues t hat“no m eani ngful concl us i on of w hatar eas cons t i tut e ol d gr ow th can be extr apol at ed fr om St and Exam dat a. ” A pl t . B r . at34. U E C ar gues i tw as arbi tr aryand c a p ric io u s fo r th e F o re st S e rv ice n o t to u se a ll th e o ld -g ro w th sta n d a rd s it r efe r ence d fr om H ami l t on. A ddi t i onal l y , U E C ar gues t hatt he For es tSer vi ce fai l ed t o appl yt he 160 c o n tig u o u s a c re sta n d a rd . It arg u e s th a t a s tan d o f tre e s c o u ld q u a lifya s o ld gr ow th underH ami l t on, butnotundert he for es tpl an w hi ch r equi r es 160 cont i guous acr es forol d gr ow th. U E C ar gues t hatt he For es tSer vi ce ha d tr ee s t a n d d a t a fo ro n l y2 8 % o f th e ma n a g e me n ta r e a e n c o mp a s s i n g t h e p r oj e c t . Of that28% ( 154, 727 acr es ) the For es tSer vi ce de s i gnat ed 32, 068 acr es as ol d gr ow t h, w hi ch cons t i tut e r oughl y5. 8% of the managementar ea. H ow ever , of the 32, 068 acr es des i gnat ed as ol d gr ow th, t he For es tSer vi ce a dm i t s t hatonl y57% ( 18, 278 acr es ) occuri n s t ands gr eat erthan 160 ac r es . T hus , U E C ar gues t hatonl y3. 3% of th e m a n a g e m e n t a re a w a s re s e rv e d fo r o ld g ro w th , n o t th e 5 % th a t w a s re q u ir e d .2 2

H ow ever , H ami l t on i ndi cat es t hatt he thr ee c r i t er i a ac tual l yus ed byt he F o re s t S e rv ic e fo r t h e p roje c t a re “ re q u ir e d m in im u m s .” II I A p lt. A p p . a t 8 1 7 . T hus , the For es tSer vi ce a r gues t hati tw as notnece s s aryt o cons i deral l t en H ami l t on cr i t er i a, w hen thr ee a r e s uffi ci ent . Fur therm or e, t he For es tSer vi ce ar gues thati tneveradopt ed al l the H ami l t on cr i t er i a i n the fi r s tpl ace , beca us e the E I S spe ci fi cal l ynot es thatthe H ami l t on cr i t er i a ar e “us eful forcl as s i fy i ng i ndi vi dual s t ands of ol d gr ow th, butar e nota managementr equi r ementand do not a d d re s s o ld g ro w th re te n tio n a c ro s s a la n d s c a p e .” Id . a t 7 2 8 (e m p h a s is a d d e d ). T h e E IS w e n t o n to n o te “ sta n d s th a t m e e t H a m ilt o n ’s m in im u m o ld g ro w th c h a ra c ter istics c a n b e e stim a ted f ro m C o m m o n S tan d E x a m d a ta.” Id . (em p h a sis added) . E ven s o, the For es tSer vi ce c ons i der ed addi t i onal cr i t er i a, as i de fr om t he th r e e H a m i l t o n c r i t e r i a , i n c l u d i n g d a t a o n s t a n d c o m p o s i t i o n , s t e m d e n s i ty, r oadl es s ar eas , and pas tharves tact i vi t i es . I A pl ee. Supp. A pp. at84- 90. G i ven the fo res tplan’ s l ack o f dir ect i on on w hat const i tutes old grow th, and t he F orest Ser vi ce’ s expert i s e i n t hi s ar ea, w e det erm i ne thati t s us e of the thr ee mi ni m um H ami l t on cr i t er i a, al ong w i th t he C om m on St and Exam dat a and the addi t i onal cri t eri a, i s r easona ble i n these ci rcum st ances. W i th r es pectt o t he 160 ac r e and 5% s t andar ds , t he For es tSer vi ce ha s tre a ted th e tw o a s in d e p e n d e n t re q u ire m e n ts s in c e th e fo re st p lan ’s a d o p tio n in 1986. I n otherw or ds , the For es tSer vi ce onl ycons i der s cont i guous bl ocks of 160 o r m o re a c re s in d e sig n a tin g a n d p ro tec tin g “ o ld g ro w th a re a s,” b u t itc o n sid e rs a llUE C r e s p o n d s th a tth e r e i s n o th i n g i n t h e fo r e s tp l a n t o i n d i c a t e t h e t wo 13 st and ards s ho uld be ap pli ed indep end entl y . T his si m plyi l l ust rat es that the fo res t pl an i s vague on how t o appl ythe tw o s t andar ds , i ndi cat i ng thatdefe r ence t o t he a g e n c yis a p p ro p ri a te . T h e F o re s t S e rv ic e h a d tr e e s ta n d d a ta fo r o n ly 2 8 % o f th e p roje c t a re a . 14 I ts eems fa i rt o ar gue, and the For es tSer vi ce doe s , t hatt he r emai ni ng 72% of a c re a g e w o u ld in c lu d e a d d itio n a l s ta n d s o f o ld -g ro w th tr e e s . 2 3 s t ands w i th ol d- gr ow th char act er i s t i cs fort he 5% s t andar d. A pl ee. B r . at38. T h e F o rest S erv ice’s interp retati o n is r ea so n ab le be ca u se th e tw o stan d ard s are se p a ra te in th e fo re st p lan , u se d iffe re n t lan g u a g e , an d a re n o t b o th a p p lied to e v e rym a n a g e m e n t ar e a . F u rth e rm o re , n o th in g in th e fo re st p lan c lea rlysu g g e sts th e tw o re q u ire m e n ts s h o u ld b e re a d c o nju n c tiv e ly . W e a re o b lig e d to d e fe r to 13 th e F o re s t S e rv ic e ’s in te rp re ta tio n . S e e U E C II I, 4 4 3 F .3 d a t 7 3 9 . B eca us e the pr oj ectar ea w i l l i ncl ude atl eas t32, 068 acr es of ol d gr ow th, 14 r oughl y , 5. 8% , the For es tSer vi ce mett he 5% cr i t er i a. W i th r es pectt o the 160 a c re c riter ia, it ap p e a rs th a t o n lyo n e c o n tig u o u s s tan d o f m o re th a n 1 6 0 a c re s w ill be affec t ed bythe pr oj ect , s ee I I I A pl t . A pp. at647, 695, 733- 38, and thatt he s t and w i l l m er el ys uffe ra “s ani t at i on/ s al vage” harves tt hatw i l l r emove dead, dy i ng and di s eas ed tr ees , r es ul t i ng i n no netl os s of ol d- gr ow th acr eage , s ee i d. at 73 8. F urtherm ore, the p roj ectw i l l res ulti n a h arvestof o nly40 acres of tr ees, l ow er i ng t he 5. 8% r et ent i on of ol d gr ow th t o 5. 79% . T hus , t he For es tSer vi ce appea r s t o have c om pl i ed w i th t he for es tpl an s t andar ds form ai nt ai ni ng ol dg ro w th tre e s. A t th e v e rylea st, its in terp re tatio n o f th e sta n d a rd s a n d its24

app l i cat i on of them i s not arbitraryand capri ci ou s.

2 . C u m u lativ e E ffe c ts o n C R C T a n d W a ter Q u a lity U nderthe N E PA , an EIS mustanal y ze the cumul at i ve effec t s of a pr opos ed proj ecton the en vir on m ent. T he N E P A defines cum ulat i ve effect s as: the i m pacton the envi r onm entw hi ch r es ul t s fr om t he i ncr ement al i m pactof the ac t i on w hen adde d t o otherpas t , pr es ent , and r eas onabl yfor es eea bl e futur e ac t i ons r egar dl es s of w hatagenc y (F e d e ra l o r n o n -F e d e ra l) o r p e rs o n u n d e rt a k e s s u c h o th e r a c tio n s . C um ul at i ve i m pact s can r es ul tfr om i ndi vi dual l ym i norbut col l ectvel ys i gni fi cantact i ons t aki ng pl ace overa per i od of t i m e. 4 0 C . F . R . § 1 5 0 8 . 7 (20 0 6 ). U E C ar gues thatthe EIS fort he pr oj ectdes cr i bed the cumul at i ve effec t s of th e p rojec t b u t fa iled to a n a ly z e “ w h a t th e n a tu re a n d e x ten t o f th e im p a c ts w o u ld b e . ” S e e De fe n d e r s o f W i l d l i fe v . Ba b b i t t , 1 3 0 F . S u p p . 2 d 1 2 1 , 1 3 8 ( D. D. C. 2 0 0 1 ). It fu rth e r a rg u e s th a t th e E IS lac k s “ m e a n in g f u l an a ly sis ,” a n d th a t itis concl us ory , des cr i bi ng the nega t i ve i m pact s of the pr oj ectbutfai l i ng t o pr ovi de a “r eal i s t i c eva l uat i on of the cumul at i ve i m pact s . ” A pl t . B r . at49. T he For es tSer vi ce c orr ect l ynot es , how ever , t hatt he N E PA does not pr ohi bi tappr oval of pr oj ect s w i th negat i ve cumul at i ve effec t s ; i tonl yr equi r es t hat the For es tSer vi ce c ons i derand di s cl os e s uch effec t s . See R obert s on, 490 U . S. at 3 5 0 -51 . T h e F o rest S erv ice p o inted to n u m ero u s cit es in the a d m inistrati v e re co rd w here there i s evi den ce of i t s cum ulat i ve effect s anal y si s. S pecifi cal l y , t he F orest Ser vi ce us ed tw o comput erm odel s t o cal cul at e the amountof expe ct ed runoff25

r es ul t i ng fr om the pr oj ectand the effec ton s tr eam channel s . B oth m odel s s how ed thatthe i m pactof the pr oj ect , w hen cons i der ed w i th pr evi ous act i ons t aken i n t he proj ectarea, w ou l d b e m i nim al . II I A plt . A pp . at75 6. A dd i t i on al l y , t he F orest Ser vi ce a nal y zed the pr oj ect ’ s i m pactw hen cons i der ed t ogetherw i th pas tt i m ber s al es , al l pas tt i m berharves t s , ol d burns , and l i ves t ock gr azi ng. I d. at726. A gai n, U E C s im p ly d is a g re e s w ith th e s u b s ta n c e o f th e F o re s t S e rv ic e ’s c o n c lu s io n s . T h is is in su fficie n t b e c a u se w e m u st d e fe r to th e F o re st S e rv ice ’s r e a so n a b le concl us i ons r egar di ng “t echni cal ors ci ent i fi c mat t er s w i thi n the age ncy ’ s ar ea of e x p e rt is e .” U E C II I, 4 4 3 F .3 d a t 7 3 9 . W e have s ai d t hatthe N E PA s i m pl yr equi r es an age ncyt o t ake a “har d l ook” a t th e p o te n tia l im p a c t o f its p ro p o s e d a c tio n s . E c o lo g yC e n te r, 4 5 1 F .3 d a t 1 1 8 9 . A s l on g as t he F orestS ervi ce com pli ed w i th the N E P A ’s proced ural requi rem ents , w e w i l l not“s econd- gues s the w i s dom of the ul t i m at e dec i s i on. ” I d. I n thi s cas e, the For es tSer vi ce t ook a “ha r d l ook, ” ana l y zed a s ubs t ant i al amount of dat a, and sim p lyre a c h e d a c o n c lu sio n th a t U E C th in k s is in c o rre c t. T h e c u m u lativ e e ffe c ts r equi r ementof the N E PA w as s at i s fi ed. A ccor di ngl y , w e A F F I R M thos e port i ons of the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s or der reje c tin g U E C ’s c h a lle n g e s c o n c e rn in g o ld g ro w th a n d c u m u la tiv e e ffe c ts . H ow ever , w e R EV ER SE the p o rt ion o f th e d istri ct co u rt ’s ord er rejec ti n g U E C ’s chal l enge t o t he For es tSer vi ce’ s m oni t or i ng of C R C T and i t s anal y s i s of w at er qual i tyand s etas i de i t s aff i r m ance of the pr oj ect ’ s appr oval . W e RE M AND to26

the di s tr i ctcourts o i tm ayr emand t o the For es tSer vi ce forfur theradmi ni s tr at i ve a c tio n c o n s is te n t w ith th is o p in io n .