## F I LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### M ar c h 21, 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 CO N G RE SS, P lain tiff -A p p e llan t, v. N o. 05- 4183 JA C K T R O Y E R , in h is o f f icia l ca p a c ity a s R e g io n a l F o re ste r o f th e In ter m o u n tain Re g i o n o f

th e U. S. Fo r e s tSe r v i c e ; DA LE B O S W O R T H , C hief of t he F orest Se r vi c e ; U N I TED STA TES FO RE ST S E R V IC E , D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees.

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 . 1 : 0 4 - CV- 1 5 5 - P GC) Sar ah Tal ( J oel B an on the br i efs ) , of W i l dl aw , Sal tL ake Ci ty , U t ah, forPl ai nt i ffA p p e llan t. J ohn E . A rbab, U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof J us t i ce, E nvi r onm entand N atur al R es our ces D i vi s i on, W as hi ngt on, D . C . ( M ark R . H aag, U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof J us t i ce, W a s h in g to n , D .C .; S u e E lle n W o o ld ri d g e , A s s is ta n t A tto rn e yG e n e ra l, W a s h in g to n , D .C .; E l i s e Fos t er , O ffi ce of

the G ener al C ouns el , U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof A gr i cul tur e, O gd en U t ah, of C ou nsel , w i th h i m on the b ri ef), for D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees. B ef o re B R I S C O E , H O L L O W A Y , and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es.-2-

B RI S CO E , C i r cui tJ udge. Pl ai nt i ff U t ah Envi r onm ent al C ongr es s ( U E C ) br oughtthi s act i on al l egi ng that defe ndant s , r epr es ent at i ves of the U ni t ed St at es For es tSer vi ce ( For es tSer vi ce) , vi ol at ed fede r al l aw byauthor i zi ng s i x s epar at e pr oj ect s i n fournat i onal for es t s i n the St at e of U t a h . T h e d i s tr i c tc o u r te n t e r e d j u d g m e n ti n f a v o ro f d e f e n d a n t s . U E C n o w a p p e a l s . We exer ci s e j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291, aff i r m the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deci s i on aff i r m i ng author i zat i on of thr ee of thos e pr oj ect s , r ever s e the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deci s i on af firm ing au tho ri za ti o n o f th e re m ainin g three p rojec ts, an d rem an d to the d istri ct co u rt w i th d i rect i on s t o v acat e t he F orestS ervi ce’s app roval of those l at t er three proj ect s. I. A . Stat utory andR egu latory Fra m ew ork T he For es tSer vi ce, an age ncyw i thi n the U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof A gr i cul tur e, m anage s the N at i onal For es tSy s t em unders ever al fede r al s t atut es and ac company i ng r egul at i ons . W e begi n ourr evi ew of thi s appea l , as w e r ece nt l ydi d i n a s i m i l arcas e fi l ed b yp lain tiff

U E C , b yo u tli n in g th e sp e c if ic s tatu to rya n d re g u lato ryf ra m e w o rk a p p lica b le to th e iss u e s ra ise d b yU E C . U tah E n v t’l C o n g . v . B o sw o rth , 4 4 3 F .3 d 7 3 2 , 7 3 5 -3 6 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) ( U E C II I) . 1) Nat i o n a lFo r e s tM

a n a g e men tAc t(

NFM A) T he N at i onal For es tM anage m entA ctof 1976 ( N FM A ) r equi r es the For es tSer vi ce t o “deve l op a l and and r es our ce managementpl an, comm onl yknow n as a for es tpl an, for-3-

e a c h u n it o f

th e N a tio n a l F o re s t S y s te m .” U E C II I, 4 4 3 F .3 d a t 7 3 6 (c itin g 1 6 U .S .C . § 1 6 0 4 (a ), (e ), (g )(3 )(B )). E a c h f o re st p lan “ e n v isio n s th e f o re st w ill b e u se d f

o r m u lti p le 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 derness. ’” I d. at73 7 (quo t i ng 16 U . S . C . § 1 60 4(e) (1) ). “A tthe sam e t i m e, the fo res t pl an pr ovi des for‘ di ver s i tyof pl antand ani m al comm uni t i es bas ed on the s ui t abi l i tyand capa bi l i tyof the s peci fi c l and ar ea. ’ ” I d. ( quot i ng 16 U . S. C . § 1604( g) ( 3) ( B ) ) . I n tur n, the For es tSer vi ce i m pl ement s eac h for es tpl an “byappr ovi ng ordi s appr ovi ng part i cul ar p roje c ts ,” e a c h o f

w h ic h “ m u s t c o m p ly w ith th e a p p lic a b le f o re s t p la n .” Id . 2) The N F M A ’s i m pl em ent i ng r egulat i ons “B efor e a f

or es tpl an maybe cr eat ed, N FM A ‘ expl i ci t l yr equi r es the Secr et aryof A gr i cul tur e t o i s s ue r egul at i ons thats etoutthe pr oces s forthe deve l opm entand r evi s i on of l and managementpl ans foruni t s of the N at i onal For es tSy s t em, and r egul at i ons that es t abl i s h m anage m entpl anni ng s t andar ds and gui del i nes . . . . ’ ” I d. ( quot i ng 47 Fed. R eg. 43, 026, 43, 037 ( Sept . 30, 1982) ) . “O f part i cul arconce rn i n thi s cas e ar e pl anni ng rul es the For es tSer vi ce a dopt ed i n 1979 and r evi s ed i n 1982, codi fi ed at36 C . F. R . § 219 ( 1982) , w hi ch govern For es tSer vi ce managementatboth the pr ogr amm at i c and pr oj ect l evels . ” Id. “In N ov em ber 200 0, the F orestS ervi ce subst anti al l yam end ed these r egul at i ons , know n as the 1982 pl anni ng rul es , r epl aci ng them w i th the 2000 pl anni ng rul es , codi fi ed at36 C . F. R . § 219 ( 2001) . ” I d. A s partof the 2000 pl anni ng rul es , the For es tSer vi ce a dded a ne w r egul at i on, 36 C .F .R . § 2 1 9 .3 5 , en tit led “ T ra n sitio n ,” th a t atte m p ted to o u tli n e h o w re sp o n sib le o f f icia ls-4-

w ith in th e F o re s t S e rv ic e w e re to “ tr a n s itio n ” f ro m th e 1 9 8 2 ru le s to th e 2 0 0 0 ru le s . Sect i on 219. 35 i ndi cat ed thatthe for es tpl an foreac h uni tof the N at i onal For es tSy s t em w o u ld b e re v is e d p u rs u a n t to a s c h e d u le e s ta b lis h e d b yth e C h ie f o f th e F o re s t S e rv ic e . 36 C . F. R . § 219. 35( g) ( 2001) . C ons i s t entw i th thatgoal , § 219. 35( a) announce d an i ndefi ni t e “tr ans i t i on per i od, ” “be gi n[ni ng] on N ovember9, 2000 and end[ i ng] upon the compl et i on of the r evi s i on pr oces s . . . foreac h uni tof the N at i onal For es ts y s t em. ” I m por t ant l y , forpurpos es of thi s cas e, § 219. 35( b) cr eat ed a gr ace per i od dur i ng w hi ch r es pons i bl e off

i ci al s w i thi n t he For es tSer vi ce c oul d, atthei rdi s cr et i on, r evi s e for es tpl ans u tiliz in g e ith e r t h e 1 9 8 2 p la n n in g ru le s o r t h e 2 0 0 0 p la n n in g ru le s . W ith re sp e c t to th e im p lem e n tatio n o f f o re st p lan s, § 2 1 9 .3 5 (a ) p ro v id e d th a t, “[d] ur i ng the tr ans i t i on per i od, ” r es pons i bl e off i ci al s w oul d be r equi r ed t o “cons i dert he bes tavai l abl e s ci ence i n i m pl ement i ng and, i f appr opr i at e, amendi ng” the then- exi s t i ng f o re s t p la n s (i .e ., f

o re s t p la n s th a t h a d y e t to b e re v is e d ). A t th e s a m e tim e , h o w e v e r, § 2 1 9 . 3 5 (d) a lso stated : “S it e-sp ec ifi c d ec isi o n s m ad e b ythe re sp o n sible o ff ici al 3 y ea rs f ro m N o v e m b e r 9 , 2 0 0 0 a n d a f ter w a rd m u st b e in c o n f o rm a n c e w ith th e p ro v isio n s o f th is s ubpart . ” Thus, r es pons i bl e off i ci al s w er e l eftt o r es ol ve the t ens i on betw een § 219. 35( a) ’ s m andat e thatthey“cons i derthe bes tavai l abl e s ci ence i n i m pl ement i ng” exi s t i ng for es tpl ans dur i ng the tr ans i t i on per i od, and § 219. 35( d) ’ s pr ovi s i on thats i t es p e c if ic d e c is io n s d id n o t h a v e to c o n f o rm to “ th is s u b p a rt ,” in c lu d in g , p re s u m a b ly, § 2 1 9 . 3 5 (a), u n ti l N o v em b er 9 , 2 0 0 3 an d there af ter. I n M ay2002, the For es tSer vi ce publ i cl ynot ed that“fi el d per s onnel ” had r ai s ed-5-

conce rns r egar di ng thei rabi l i tyt o compl yw i th the 2000 rul es i n t erm s of m aki ng s i t esp e c if ic d e c isio n s. 6 8 F R 5 3 2 9 5 . A t th a t ti m e , the F o re st S e rv ice in d ica ted “ th a t it expec t ed t o addr es s thes e conc erns byr emovi ng the r equi r ementorext endi ng the or i gi nal tr ans i t i on dat e fors i t e- s peci fi c pr oj ect s . ” I d. A ft erpubl i s hi ng a pr opos ed r evi s i on on D ece m ber6, 2002, i d. , the For es tSer vi ce i s s ued an i nt er i m fi nal rul e on Sept ember10, 2003, amendi ng § 219. 35( d) t o r ead: “The dat e byw hi ch s i t e- s peci fi c dec i s i ons m ade by th e re sp o n sib le o f

f icia l m u st b e in c o n f

o rm a n c e w ith th e p ro v isio n s o f th is s u b p a rt is ext ended f

r om N ovember9, 2003, unt i l the D epart m entpr om ul gat es [i t s ] fi nal pl anni ng r egul at i ons . . . . ” I n doi ng s o, the For es tSer vi ce a cknow l edged that“[t ] her e [w a] s a l ack o f c lar itya b o u t h o w p rojec ts [ w e ]re to b e c o m p lian t w ith th e ru le,” a n d th a t “[ t]h is uncert ai ntyand l ack of

cl ar i ty[coul d have] pos e[d] an unr eas onabl e ana l y s i s bur den on f ie ld u n its w h e n p la n n in g f o r s ite -s p e c if

ic p roje c t d e c is io n s .” 6 8 F R 5 3 2 9 5 . U nfor tunat el y , the For es tSer vi ce’ s ext ens i on of s ubs ect i on ( d) ’ s gr ace per i od di d not hi ng t o e l i mi n a t e th e t e n s i o n b e twe e n s u b s e c t i o n s ( a ) a n d ( d ) . I n d e e d , a s e x e mp l i f i e d b ys o me o f th e p rojec ts a t issu e in th is a p p e a l, th e S e p tem b e r 1 0 , 2 0 0 3 in ter im f in a l ru le c o u ld have be en i nt erpr et ed byr es pons i bl e off i ci al s as an i ndi cat i on thattheyw er e not obl i gat ed t o appl ythe bes tavai l abl e s ci ence s t andar d t o s i t e- s peci fi c dec i s i ons , i ncl udi ng pr oj ectappr oval s , unt i l the fi nal r egul at i ons w er e pr om ul gat ed. O n Sept ember29, 2004, the For es tSer vi ce i s s ued a f i nal rul e “t o cl ar i fythe i nt ent of the tr ans i t i on s ect i on of the pl anni ng r egul at i ons , ” i . e. , § 219. 35, “r egar di ng the cons i der at i on and us e of the bes tavai l abl e s ci ence t o i nform pr oj ectdeci s i on m aki ng t hat-6-

i m pl ement [ed] a [pr e- 2000] l and managementpl an . . . . ” 69 FR 58055. I n doi ng s o, t he F o re s t S e rv ic e a c k n o w le d g e d th a t “ [ c ]o n s id e ra b le u n c e rt a in ty h a [ d ] a ri s e n re g a rd in g . . . the tr ans i t i on pr ovi s i ons , ” i d. , and that“[t ] hi s uncert ai ntyha[d] aff ect ed the abi l i tyof the F orestS ervi ce t o u t i l i ze fu l l ythe p rovi si on s of § 2 19 . 35 paragraph (a) t o co nsi der the b est sc ien c e a v a ilab le in . . . p rojec t d e c isio n m a k in g .” Id . at 5 8 0 5 6 . T h e f in a l ru le u lti m a tely added a n appendi x ( A ppendi x B ) t o the end of § 219. 35 addi ng cl ar i fy i ng l anguage . I d. at 58057. “These tr ans i t i on pr ovi s i ons r emai ned on the books unt i l J anuary2005 w hen the new rul es w er e fi nal l yi m pl ement ed. ” U E C I I I , 443 F. 3d at737 ( ci t i ng 36 C . F. R . §§ 219. 1 t o . 16 ( 2005) , and 70 Fed. R eg. 1, 023 ( J an. 5, 2005) ) . “The 2005 rul es r et ai ned the b est av ail ab le scien ce stan d ard , req u ir ing the ‘R esp o n sible O ff ici al [to] take i nt o account the bes tavai l abl e s ci ence ’ by‘ document [i ng] how the bes tavai l abl e s ci ence w as t aken i nt o acc ounti n t he pl anni ng pr oces s , ’ and eva l uat i ng and di s cl os i ng s ubs t ant i al uncert ai nt i es and r i s ks i n t hats ci ence . ” I d. ( quot i ng 36 C . F. R . § 219. 11( a) ( 2005) (em p h asis ad d ed )). 3 ) Nat i o n a lEn v i r o n men ta lPo l i c y Ac t( NEPA) “The N at i onal E nvi r onm ent al Pol i cyA ct( ‘ N E PA ’ ) r equi r es fede r al agenc i es s uch as the For es tSer vi ce t o anal y ze e nvi r onm ent al cons equenc es befor e i ni t i at i ng act i ons t hat pot ent i al l yaff

ectthe envi r onm ent . ” I d. at735- 36. “I n conduct i ng thi s anal y s i s , the For es tSer vi ce mustpr epar e one of the fol l ow i ng: ( 1) an envi r onm ent al i m pacts t at ement [ E IS ], ( 2 ) a n e n v ir o n m e n ta l a s s e s s m e n t [ E A ], o r ( 3 ) a c a te g o ri c a l e x c lu s io n .” Id . a t 7 3 6 .-7-

O f thes e thr ee, “[a ] n envi r onm ent al i m pacts t at ementi nvol ves the mostr i gor ous anal y s i s , and i s r equi r ed i f a pr opos ed ac t i on w i l l ‘ s i gni fi cant l yaff ect [] the qual i tyof the h u ma n e n v i r o n me n t . ’ ” I d . ( q u o t i n g 4 2 U. S . C. § 4 3 3 2 ( 2 ) ( C) a n d 4 0 C. F . R. § 1 5 0 2 . 4 ) . An envi r onm ent al as s es s m enti s “cons i der abl yl es s det ai l ed, ” and maybe pr epar ed “[ i ] f an agenc yi s uncert ai n w hetherthe pr opos ed ac t i on w i l l s i gni fi cant l yaff ectthe envi r onm ent

. . . . ” I d. at736 ( ci t i ng 40 C . F. R . § 1508. 9) . “A n envi r onm ent al as s es s m entpr ovi des

‘ s uffi ci entevi dence and ana l y s i s ’ t o det erm i ne w hethera pr opos ed pr oj ectw i l l cr eat e a s i gni fi canteff

ecton t he envi r onm ent . ” I d. ( quot i ng 40 C . F. R . § 1508. 9) . “I f s o, the agenc ym us tthen deve l op an envi r onm ent al i m pacts t at ement ; i f not , the envi r onm ent al as s es s m entr es ul t s i n a ‘ Fi ndi ng of N o Si gni fi cantI m pact , ’ and no furtheragenc yact i on is r eq u ir ed . ” Id . (qu o ti n g 4 0 C . F . R . § 1 5 0 8 . 9 ). O c c a s io n a lly, a p ro p o s e d a c tio n w ill “ f a ll[ ] w ith in a c a te g o ri c a l e x c lu s io n , i.e ., thos e ac t i ons pr edet erm i ned nott o ‘ i ndi vi dual l yorcumul at i vel yhave a s i gni fi canteff ect on the h um an en vir on m ent. ’” I d. (quoti ng 40 C . F . R . § 1 50 8. 4). In such cir cum st ances, the age ncy“i s notr equi r ed t o pr epar e ei theran envi r onm ent al as s es s m entoran envi r onm ent al i m pacts t at ement . ” I d.

B . The N

at i onalFor es t

s and the as s oci at ed pr oj ect s atis s ue A ti s s ue i n t hi s cas e ar e s i x s epar at e pr oj ect s encompas s ed w i thi n fourdi ffe r ent N at i onal For es t s i n U t ah. T he pr oj ect s , cat egor i zed bythe N at i onal For es tof w hi ch they a r e a p a r t , a r e d i s c u s s e d i n d e t a i l b e l o w. 1) T he W asatch- C ach e N

ati on al Fo restT h e P lan a lso lists g o sh a w k s a s a n M IS , b u t U E C d o e s n o t o th e rw ise m e n tio n th is 1 s peci es i n i t s appea l . A pp. at756. -8- T h e W a sa tch -C a c h e N a tio n a l F o re st (W C N F ) e n c o m p a ss e s tw o o f th e six p rojec ts ati s s ue: the B earH odges I I T i m berSal e and the EastFor k Fi r e Sal vage pr oj ect s . T he For es tPl an forthe W C N F, w hi ch w as r evi s ed i n 2003, s t at es , i n pert i nentpart , that m anage m enti ndi cat ors peci es ( M I S) “ar e r equi r ed under36 C FR 219. 19, ” A pp. at759, and “a r e us ed t o as s es s the ef fec t s of a managementact i vi tyon w i l dl i fe. ” I d. at760. For purpos es of m anagi ng the W C N F, the For es tPl an des i gnat es beave r , s now s hoe har e, and cu tth roa t trou t as M IS . Id. at 75 6 -57 , 7 6 0 . T h e F o rest P lan in d icates tha t th ese M IS are 1 to b e m o n it o red in the fo ll o w ing m an n er:

• B eave r- “B eave rpopul at i ons acr os s the For es t ” ar e t o be moni t or ed. I d. a t 7 5 6 . T h e s e p o p u la tio n s a re to b e m e a s u re d b yth e “ [ n ]u m b e r o f . . . a c tiv e d a m s.” Id . T h e m e a su re m e n t an d re p o rtin g f re q u e n c yis: “ 1 -2 4 th or derH U C ’ s [hy dr ol ogi c uni t s ] pery earaft erbas el i ne es t abl i s hm ent . ” I d.

• Snow s hoe har e - T he For es tPl an r equi r es “[s ] now s hoe har e pr es ence and popul at i on i ndex” t o be det erm i ned. I d. T hi s i s t o be per form ed byw ayof “[p] el l etcount s al ong tr ans ect s . ” I d. T he meas ur ementand r eport i ng fr equenc yi s : “Fi r s t2 yr s [e] s t abl i s h bas el i ne. A nnual updat e. E val uat ed at 5- y eari nt erval s . ” I d. • C u tth ro a t tro u t - T h e F o re st P lan re q u ire s th e F o re st S e rv ice to o b tain “ [ c ]u tth ro a t tro u t p o p u latio n e stim a tes .” Id . at 7 5 7 . T h e se e stim a tes a re to be made byw ayof the “Fi s h C ondi t i on i ndex. ” I d. T he meas ur ementand r eport i ng fr equenc yi s : “O ne 4th or derH U C pery ear . ” I d. a) T h e B e a r Ho d

g e s II T im b e r S a le . T hi s pr oj ecti nvol ves a harves tof appr oxi m at el y3. 1 m i l l i on boar d fee tof t i m berfr om tw el ve s epar at e uni t s compri s i ng appr oxi m at el y701 acr es i n and adj ace ntt o the T. W . D ani el s E xper i m ent al For es t , l ocat ed-9-

in th e B e a r H o d g e s a re a o f th e L o g a n R a n g e r D is tr ic t, a ll o f w h ic h a re p a rt o f

th e W C N F . I d. at793- 94, 807. T he pr oj ect , w hi ch i nvol ves both perm anentand t empora ryr oad cons truct i on i n t he pr oj ectar ea, i s i nt ended t o: “1) pr ovi de r es ear ch and de m ons tr at i on oppor tuni t i es on the U t ah St at e U ni ver s i tyT . W . D ani el E xper i m ent al For es tthr ough test ing an d d em o n str ati n g d iffe ren t si lvicu ltu ral m etho d s, 2 ) m aintain th e m ature char act erof the s pruce- fi rfor es ti n the nea rfutur e w hi l e begi nni ng t o devel op m or e age cl as s di ver s i ty , and 3) pr ovi de a mer chant abl e pr oductforthe t i m beri ndus try . . . . ” I d. at 793. T he For es tSer vi ce f i r s tpr epar ed an EA forthi s pr oj ect , fol l ow ed byan EIS. I d. at 793- 94, 815. T he pr oj ect ’ s R ecor d of D eci s i on ( R O D ) i s s ued on M ay14, 2004, and concl uded, i n pert i nentpart , thatthe pr oj ectw as cons i s t entw i th the For es tPl an. I d. at 806, 816. T he EIS conc l uded that , w i th r es pectt o the thr ee r el evantM I S: ( 1) ther e ar e no w et l and orr i par i an ar eas , and thus no beave rhabi t at , w i thi n the pr oj ectar ea, i d. at800, 8 0 2 , 1 1 2 8 ; (2 ) sn o w sh o e h a re h a b itat e x ists w ith in th e p rojec t ar e a , b u t th e p rojec t w o u ld nots i gni fi cant l yi m pacts now s hoe har e popul at i ons orthei rhabi t atbeca us e pr oj ect tr eatm ent s w er e des i gned t o m ai nt ai n s pruce- fi rhabi tus ed bythe s peci es , i d. at804, 1128; and ( 3) B onnevi l l e cutthr oatthr oatar e notpr es enti n the pr oj ectar ea, i d. at803, 805. b ) The E as tFork Fi r e Salvage pr oj ect . T h e F o re st S e rv ice p lan n e d th is p rojec t in r es pons e t o a fi r e thatbur ned appr oxi m at el y14, 200 acr es of the Evanst on R angerD i s tr i ct i n the W C N F i n l at e J une and mostof J ul y2002. I d. at2034. T he pr oj ecti ncl udes the-10-

“harves tof fi r e ki l l ed tr ees , ” i d. , i n tw entyuni t s t ot al i ng 781 acr es . I d. at2035. T he pr oj ectal s o i ncl udes the “mai nt enanc e and i m pr ovementof dr ai nage on a bout20 m i l es of exi s t i ng r oads ” i n t he pr oj ectar ea. I d. T he purpos e of the pr oj ect“i s t o pr ovi de t i m ber fo r co m m erc ial h arv est an d to ca p ture e co n o m ic va lue o f ti m b er k il led b ythe . . . [f ]i re cons i s t entw i th goal s forw at er s hed hea l th, s us t ai nabl e ec os y s t ems, bi odi ver s i tyand v ia b ility a n d s c e n ic /r e c re a tio n o p p o rt u n itie s .” Id . A n E I S w as pr epar ed forthi s pr oj ect , and the pr oj ectR O D i s s ued on J une 14, 2004. T he EIS conc l uded, w i th r es pectt o the M I S: ( 1) beave ract i vi tyw i thi n the pr oj ect ar ea w as s t abl e ori ncr eas i ng, and the pr oj ectw oul d have no e ffe cton beave rhabi t at b ec au se n o salv ag e a cti v ityis pro p o sed w ith in ri p arian are as, i d . at 20 4 0 , 2 0 4 3 ; ( 2 ) th ere w as no s now s hoe har e popul at i on w i thi n the pr oj ectar ea be caus e the 2002 fi r e that pr eci pi t at ed the pr oj ectdes tr oy ed the har es ’ habi t at , and the s al vage s al e w oul d nothave anyadver s e ef

fec ton t he r ees t abl i s hm entof thathabi t at , i d. at2042- 43, 2061; and ( 3) popul at i on tr ends forB onnevi l l e cutthr oattr outw i thi n the pr oj ectar ea w er e fl at , and the pr oj ecti ncl uded mi t i gat i on m eas ur es des i gned t o r educe the pot ent i al fors edi m entfr om buffe rs tr i ps on t w o s al vage uni t s fr om negat i vel yi m pact i ng fi s h- bear i ng s tr eams, i d. at 2045, 2047. 2) T he Man t i -La S al N

ati on al Fo rest T h e M a n ti-L a S a l N a tio n a l F o re st (M L N F ) c o v e rs tw o p rojec ts a t issu e in th is appea l : the SI T L A and the South M ant i T i m berSal vage pr oj ect s . T he For es tPl an fort he M L N F w as appr oved on N ovember5, 1986. I d. at590, 2085. A l though the For es tPl anT h e F o rest P lan a lso inc lud es a s M IS the R o ck yM o u n tai n elk, m u le de er, 2 n o rth ern g o sh aw k , an d g o lden ea g les. A p p . at 20 7 0 , 2 0 8 7 . N o n e o f th ese M IS , h o w ev er, a re a t issu e in th is a p p e a l. -11- d o e s n o t ex p re ss lyc ite to th e 1 9 8 2 p lan n in g ru les (i.e., 3 6 C .F .R . § 2 1 9 .1 9 ), itlists var i ous M I S, i ncl udi ng m acr oi nvert ebr at es . I d. at79, 2087. M acr oi nvert ebr at es , w hi ch 2 are fo u n d in the fo rest i n str ea m fish eries, l ak es, reserv o ir s, tun n els an d ca n als, are “e co log ical i n d icator sp ec ies i n aq u ati c h ab it ats an d the a b il ityo f th at ha b it at t o su p p o rt f ish e rie s.” Id . at 8 0 . T h e ya re m o n ito re d a n d re p o rte d e v e ryf iv e y e a rs u sin g B io tic C o n d itio n In d e x (B C I) a n d th e H a b ita t C o n d itio n In d e x (H C I) . Id . a t 7 9 , 8 2 , 8 9 , 9 1 , 1 0 4 . B C I “i s a t oo l for asses si ng ov eral l aqu at i c-ecosy st em health. ” Id. at20 69 . “T he F orest Pl an St andar d [forB C I ] i s 75 orgr eat er . ” I d. at96, 2069. H ow ever , the For es tPl an “pr ovi des no di r ect i on aboutw her e t o s ampl e orthe des i r ed dens i tyof s ampl i ng s i t es acr os s the For es t , ” and “ [t ] he maj or i tyof s tr eam sy s t ems on the For es thave notbeen s ampl ed orm oni t or ed. ” I d. at97. A nd, w i th r es pectt o thos e s tr eams thathave be en sa m p led , ita p p e a rs th a t th e re su lti n g d a ta is so sp a rse th a t itis (o r a t lea st w a s) “ n o t re a lly pos s i bl e t o cal cul at e a s t at i s t i cal l yval i d tr end w i th thr ee t o fourdat a poi nt s . ” I d. at100. In a n u n d a ted F o re st M o n ito rin g R e p o rt c o n tain e d in th e a d m in istra tiv e re c o rd , it i s not ed thatfr es hw at erm acr oi nvert ebr at e comm uni t i es “go thr ough cy cl i cal hi ghs and l ow s r el at i ng t o natur al condi t i ons , ” and, “[d] ue t o the natur al y eart o y earvar i abi l i tyof thes e” c ondi t i ons , “s ever al y ear s of dat a ar e r equi r ed t o es t abl i s h adequa t el ythe r ange of var i at i on i n comm uni tys tructur e and pr oduct i vi tyand t o di s t i ngui s h betw een na tur al var i abi l i tyand thatdue pos s i bl yt o hum an- caus ed l and us es oract i vi t i es . ” A A , V ol . 12 atA ccor di ng t o t he r ecor d, the A l as ka N at i onal I nt er es tL ands C ons ervat i on A ctof 3 1980 ( A N I L C A ) , 16 U . S. C . § 3210, r equi r es thatow ner s of non- fede r al l and w i thi n t he N F sy st em be p rovi ded adeq uate access t o thei r l and . A pp . at20 78 . T hat access , how ever , “mustcompl yw i th otherl aw s and r egul at i ons , ” i ncl udi ng N E PA . I d. -12- S M 05 37 a (i nternal quotat i on m arks om i t t ed). T he repo rtfurther notes that “[t ]he Fo res t Pl an pr ovi des no di r ect i on aboutw her e t o s ampl e orthe des i r ed dens i tyof s ampl i ng s i t es acr os s the For es t , ” and that“[t ] he maj or i tyof the s tr eam sy s t ems on the For es thave not been s ampl ed orm oni t or ed. ” I d. atSM 05378c. a) The SITLA pr oj ect . T he St at e of U t ah School and I ns t i tut i onal T rus tL ands A dm i ni s tr at i on ( SI T L A ) ow ns cert ai n “i n- hol di ngs ” l ocat ed on EastM ount ai n i n the M ant i - L a Sal N F, appr oxi m at el y15 m i l es nor thw es tof H unt i ngt on, U t ah. A pp. at2072, 2 0 7 5 . S IT L A a p p lied to th e F o re st S e rv ice in o rd e r to o b tain “ p e rm a n e n t ro a d a c c e ss to the[s e] i n- hol di ngs ” i n or der“t o fac i l i t at e the harves tof up t o fi ve mi l l i on boar d fee tof t i m beron tw o s ect i ons of [i t s ] l and, and the cons truct i on of one e xpl or at orynatur al gas w el l on a s epar at e s ect i on of [i t s ] l and[] . ” I d. T he pr oj ect“i nci dent al l yw oul d pr ovi de 3 acc es s t o an addi t i onal pr opos ed expl or at orynatur al gas w el l on N at i onal For es tl ands by Pr i m a O i l and G as C om pany . ” I d. T he pr oj ect“i nvol ves r oad cons truct i on and reconstruct i on on N at i on al F orestl and s i n an d o uts i de the bo un dari es of t he E ast M ount ai n I nvent or i ed R oadl es s A r ea ( I R A ) and aggr egat e pi tdevel opm entw i thi n the IR A b o u n d a ri e s .” Id . A n E I S w as pr epar ed forthe pr oj ect . I d. at2077- 78, 2101. T he R O D i s s ued on J ul y12, 2004, i d. at2091, and conc l uded, i n pert i nentpart , thatthe pr oj ect“w oul d not-13-

aff ectdr ai nages w i th aquat i c macr oi nvert ebr at e habi t at , ” and ther efor e “ther e w oul d be n o a f f e c t [ s ic ] t o a q u a tic m a c ro in v e rt e b ra te s o r t h e irh a b ita t.” Id . a t 2 0 8 7 . U E C fi l ed an a dm i ni s tr at i ve appe al chal l engi ng the R O D . T he For es tSer vi ce deni ed thatadmi ni s tr at i ve appe al on Sept ember29, 2004, A A , V ol . 46 atS003298, concl udi ng i n pert i nentpartthatthey“ha[ d] compl i ed w i th the moni t or i ng pr ovi s i ons of the N FM A . ” I d. atS003299. b ) T h e So u th M

a n ti T im b e r S a lva g e p ro

jec t. T he South M ant i T i m berSal vage p rojec t “w a s in iti a ted in re sp o n se to e p id e m ic s p ru c e b e e tle . . . a c tiv itya c ro ss th e S o u th M ant i l ands cape . ” A pp. at578. “The pr oj ectar ea i ncl udes appr oxi m at el y24, 597 acr es of N at i onal For es tl ands w i thi n t he s outhern por t i on of the W as at ch Pl at eau on the Ferr on- Pr i ce a nd Sanpet e R angerD i s tr i ct s of the” M L N F. I d. B eca us e “[ a] n abundanc e o f d e a d tr e e s c a n p re d is p o s e a n a re a to th e o c c u rr e n c e o f a la rg e , in te n s e w ild la n d f ir e ,” i d. at580, the purpos e of the pr oj ecti s t o r educe the pot ent i al fors uch w i l dfi r es by salv ag e h arv esti n g ap p rox im ately1 9 to 2 5 m il li o n b o ard fe et “o f d ea d an d d y ing ti m b er .

. . .” Id . at 5 8 1 . T h e p rojec t als o in c lu d e s “ re f o re sta tio n a c ro ss a to tal ra n g e o f 9 7 0 to 1 ,2 5 1 a c re s . . . .” Id . A n E IS w as p rep are d fo r th e p rojec t and co m p let ed in M ay2 0 0 0 . Id. at 57 8 . It not ed, i n pert i nentpart , thatm acr oi nvert ebr at e “[ m ] oni t or i ng s t at i ons [w e] r e l ocat ed at the For es tboundaryon Ferr on, M uddy , and Tw el vemi l e C r eeks , ” al l of w hi ch w er e i n the p rojec t ar e a . A A , V o l. 16 a t S M 0 9 0 5 3 . A lth o u g h th e E IS n o ted th a t “[ w ]a ter q u a lityin T w el vemi l e C r eek appear [ed] t o have i m pr oved s t eadi l ys i nce . . . l ands l i de and f l oodi ng-14-

event s [i n] 1983 and 1984, ” i ts t at ed that“[d] at a r es ul t s forFerr on C r eek a nd M uddy C r eek [ w e] r e s o var i abl e thatther e [w a] s no appar enttr end. ” I d. T he EIS furthernot ed that the “ [p ]ri m aryef

fe cts o f c o n ce rn w h en asse ssing ti m b er treatm en t pro jects are i ncr eas es i n s edi m entt o s tr eams, w hi ch . . . degr ades habi t atdi ver s i tyof aqua t i c macr oi nvert ebr at es . ” I d. atSM 09109. T he EIS conc l uded that , w i th r es pectt o thr ee of the four al t ernat i ves being co nsi dered, “[h]arvestact i vityi n the w at ers hed s w ou l d incr ease sed im en t y iel d , an d af

fe ct aq u ati c h ab it at, ” the reb yresu lt ing in “[ d ]ec li n es in fil terfee di ng m acr oi nvert ebr at e s peci es . . . . ” I d. atSM 09111. T h e R O D w a s is s u e d b yth e F o re s t S u p e rv is o r o n J u n e 1 6 , 2 0 0 4 . A p p . a t 5 7 7 , 5 9 3 . T he R O D not es , i n pert i nentpart , that“[t ] empora ryi ncr eas es i n s edi m ent at i on w i l l be expec t ed fr om t empora r yr oad cons truct i on, r econs truct i on, m ai nt enanc e, and decomm i s s i oni ng. ” I d. at583. “O verthe l ong- t erm , ” how ever , “r oad r econs truct i on, m ai nt enanc e, and dec om m i s s i oni ng as s oci at ed w i th the” pr oj ect“w i l l r es ul ti n r educt i ons in s e d im e n t.” Id . F u rt h e r, t h e R O D n o te s th a t “ [ n ]o h a rv e s tin g o r m e c h a n ic a l e n tr y. . . w i l l be p erm i t t ed w i thin 100 feetof ea ch si de o f perenn i al stream s, seeps, l akes, r es ervoi r s , orw et l ands . ” I d. A l though the R O D br i efl ydi s cus s es the ef fec tof the pr oj ect o n s o m e o f

th e M IS lis te d in th e F o re s t P la n , it d o e s n o t m e n tio n m a c ro in v e rt e b ra te s . In s te a d , in a s e p a ra te s e c tio n , th e R O D s im p ly sta te s th a t “ [ t] h e d iv e rs ity in d e x D A T . . . w i l l be mai nt ai ned atorabove 11, the s t andi ng cr op atorabove 1 a nd the bi ot i c condi t i on i ndex atorabove 75, ” and thati f thes e i ndi cat or s “fa l l bel ow s etl evel s then eva l uat i on of caus e of s edi m ents our ce w oul d be done a nd corr ect i ve meas ur es t aken a s s oon as-15-

pos s i bl e. ” I d. at605. U E C a p p e a led f

ro m th e R O D , cla im in g in p a rt th a t th e F o re st S e rv ice “ f a iled to m eetthe mandat e of the [N FM A ] byfai l i ng t o adequa t el ym ai nt ai n m oni t or i ng dat a . . . . ” I d. at612. I n r es pondi ng t o t hi s appea l , the For es tSer vi ce not ed that“[t ] he 1982 [N FM A ] r egul at i ons ( 36 C FR 219) pr ovi de[d] the s peci fi c [moni t or i ng] r equi r ement s . ” Id . T h e F o re st S e rv ice f u rth e r n o ted th a t th e F o re st P lan “ d [ id ] n o t in d ica te a n ysp e c if ic pr oj ectl evel m oni t or i ng r equi r ement s , ” and that , “[a ] s w i th goal s and obj ect i ves , no s i ngl e pr oj ectcan pr ovi de moni t or i ng i nform at i on thatm eet s al l of the r equi r ement s for th e F o re s t P la n .” Id . T h u s , th e F o re s t S e rv ic e e m p h a s iz e d , “ [ t] h e d ir e c tio n to m o n ito r . . . a p p lie s to th e N a tio n a l F o re s t, n o t in d iv id u a l p roje c ts .” Id . U E C a lso a p p e a led th e R O D c laim in g th a t th e F o re st S e rv ice “ f a iled to m e e t it s m andat e underN FM A t o col l ectr equi r ed quant i t at i ve popul at i on tr end dat a and det erm i ne r el at i ons hi ps betw een managementact i vi t i es orhabi t atchange s and popul at i on trend ch ang es for . . . m acroi nv ert ebrat es . . . . ” Id. at61 3. In r espon se, the F orest Ser vi ce not ed: T he For es tPl an M oni t or i ng R eport( 1987- 1991) s t at es thats tr eam condi t i ons acr os s the For es tgener al l yappea rt o be i m pr ovi ng bas ed on m a c ro in v e rt e b ra te s a m p lin g d a ta a n d th e B io tic C o n d itio n In d e x . . . . M acr oi nvert ebr at e i nvent or i es fr om 1990- 2000 ar e i n the pr oj ectr ecor d and w e re u se d to m a k e th e d e ter m in a tio n th a t “f o r a ll stre a m s a n d re se rv o ir habi t at s , m acr oi nvert ebr at e i ndi ces w oul d notbe expe ct ed t o fal l bel ow For es tM anage m entPl an s t andar ds ” ( Fi nal E nvi r onm ent al I m pact S tate m e n t (F E IS ), p . 4 -2 1 ; A q u a tic M a c ro in v e rte b ra te M o n ito rin g R e p o rt; 5 /18 /20 0 0 ). I d.-16-

c) T he Ui nta N

ati on al Fo rest T h e U in ta N a tio n a l F o re s t ( U N F ) c o v e rs th e W h ite R iv e r S a lv a g e S a le p roje c t. T he For es tPl an forthe U N F, w hi ch w as r evi s ed i n 2003, l i s t s the C ol or ado R i ver cutthr oattr out( C R C T ) as one of s ever al M I S. I d. at622, 728. T he For es tPl an i ndi cat es that , forthe C R C T , popul at i on es t i m at es m us tbe conduc t ed annua l l yon atl eas t33% of the s tr eams i n t he U N F ( butr eport ed onl yeveryfi ve y ear s ) . I d. T he For es tPl an furt her p rov ides that, fo r th e C R C T , h ab it at co n d it ion s m u st be m o n it o red an d rep o rt ed ev ery f i v e y e a r s . I d . As o f

th e t i me th e F o r e s tP l a n wa s a me n d e d i n 2 0 0 3 , “ [ s ] e l e c t e d s tr e a ms ha[d] been i nvent or i ed” f orC R C T “and/ orm oni t or ed i n conj unct i on w i th” the U t ah D epart m entof W i l dl i fe Resour ces , and a “ [f] or es t - w i de moni t or i ng pr ot ocol [w as bei ng] d e v e lo p e d .” Id . T h e W h ite R iv e r S a lv a g e S a le p rojec t, l o c a ted w ith in th e L e f t F o rk o f th e W h ite R i verdr ai nage i n t he Spani s h For k R angerD i s tr i ct , “enc om pas s [es ] [the s al e of] appr oxi m at el y300 acr es [w or th] of m i xed coni fers t ands . ” I d. at720. T he purpos e of the pr oj ecti s tw o- fol d: ( 1) “t o r educe . . . the amountof tr ee mor t al i tyand def or m i tycaus ed bythe D ougl as - fi rbeet l e and dw ar f m i s t l et oe, ” and ( 2) “t o r es t or e a mor e natur al var i abi l i tyof age cl as s es and vege t at i ve composi t i on i n the for es t ed s t ands w i thi n [the] treatm ent ar ea. ” Id. at72 5. “T em po raryroads and ski d tr ai l s w ou l d b e uti l i zed to access s ta n d s , a n d w o u ld b e re h a b ilita te d f o llo w in g c o m p le tio n o f h a rv e s t a c tiv itie s .” Id . a t 7 2 0 . I n addi t i on, por t i ons of tw o N at i onal For es tSy s t em R oads i n the pr oj ectar ea “ w i l l be m ai nt ai ned t o br i ng the[m] c l os ert o O bj ect i ve M ai nt enanc e Level s t o addr es s er os i on and-17-

run- off c oncerns . ” I d. at726. O n D e c e m b e r 1 2 , 2 0 0 3 , a re p o rt re g a rd in g “ C u tth ro a t T ro u t P o p u latio n T re n d s” in the U N F w as publ i s hed. I d. at653. T hatr eports t at ed that“[p] opul at i on tr end dat a us i ng in d ice s o f

o v e ra ll co n d iti o n ” f

o r C R C T “ in d ica te[ d ] a slig h t in c re a se . . . in th e o v e ra ll c o n d iti o n o f

[ C R C T ] . . . d u rin g th e p e rio d b e tw e e n 1 9 7 5 a n d 2 0 0 2 ,” b u t “n o o b se rv a b le change ” “dur i ng the t i m e per i od betw een 1991 a nd 2002 . . . . ” I d. T hi s dat a w as s ubs equent l yi ncorpor at ed i nt o a February6, 2004 r eportent i t l ed “Cut thr oatT r out P o p u lat ion M o n it o ri n g - U inta N ati o n al F o rest F Y 2 0 0 3 . ” Id . at 65 4 . T h is 20 0 4 rep o rt i ndi cat ed thatdur i ng fi s cal y ear2003, U N F st aff “conduc t ed popul at i on i nvent oryand/ or m oni t or i ng s ur vey s on . . . ei ghts tr eams c ont ai ni ng” C R C T , w hi ch “e quat e[d] t o . . . 53 p e rc e n t o f

th e [ C R C T ] p o p u la tio n s o n th e F o re s t.” Id . a t 6 5 5 . A n E A w as p rep are d fo r th e p rojec t and p u b li sh ed in M arc h 2 0 0 4 . Id. at 72 3 . It not ed, i n pert i nentpart , that“[p] opul at i on tr end dat a” i n the pr oj ectar ea “ i ndi cat e[d] t hat th e o v e ra ll co n d iti o n ” o f C R C T “ w a s lo w e r in 1 9 9 8 th a n in 1 9 9 5 ,” e v e n th o u g h f o re stwi d e tr e n d d a t a “ s h o w[ e d ] n o o b s e r v a b l e c h a n g e i n th e o v e r a l l c o n d i t i o n ” o f CRCT po pu l at i on s. Id. at73 1. T he E A further noted t hat “[t ]he exi st i ng high sedi m ent l oad s, s tr eam channel i ns t abi l i ty , and i m pact ed r i par i an ar eas m aycurr ent l ybe r es tr i ct i ng the r at e of r ecove r yof” CR C T popul at i ons i n the pr oj ectar ea. I d. A l though the EA not ed th a t “e x istin g ro a d s [ w e ]re m a jo r c o n trib u to rs o f

se d im e n t” in th e p rojec t ar e a , itsta ted “ it [w a] s notant i ci pat ed that[the] t i m berharves t i ng [as s oci at ed w i th the pr oj ect ] w [oul d] i ncr eas e r i s ks t o t he [CR C T ] w i thi n the [pr oj ectar ea] bey ond thos e curr ent l ypr es ent-18-

underexi s t i ng envi r onm ent al condi t i ons . ” I d. at736. T he EA al s o s t at ed thatthe pr oj ect w as “notl i kel yt o [] ei therr es ul ti n a tr end t ow ar d fede r al l i s t i ng of the s peci es [] oraff ect thei rvi abi l i ty . ” I d. O n M ar ch 4, 2004, a D eci s i on N ot i ce a nd Fi ndi ng of N o Si gni fi cantI m pact ( FO N SI ) w as i s s ued bythe For es tSer vi ce f orthe pr oj ect . I d. at737. T he FO N SI s t at ed, in p e rt in e n t p a rt , th a t “ [ a ]f te r c o n s id e ri n g th e e n v ir o n m e n ta l e f f e c ts d e s c ri b e d in th e E A ,” the For es tSer vi ce “ ha[d] det erm i ned that[the pr oj ect ] w [oul d] nothave a s i gni fi cant eff ecton the qual i tyof the human envi r onm entcons i der i ng the cont extand i nt ens i tyof i m pact s , ” and that , i n turn, an EIS “w [oul d] notbe pr epar ed” f orthe pr oj ect . I d. at745. U E C fi l ed an a dm i ni s tr at i ve appe al fr om the D eci s i on N ot i ce, as s ert i ng i n partt hat the F orestS ervi ce “ha [d] fai l ed to be co nsi st ent w i th the [N F M A ] and t he 2 00 3 F orest P lan b e c a u se th e yh a [ d ] n o t g a th e re d q u a n tit a tiv e [ M IS ] tre n d o r d e ter m in e d its r el at i ons hi p t o habi t atchange s . ” A pp. at751. T he For es tSer vi ce, i n r es pons e, began by not i ng that“[s ] ur vey s for[C R C T ] occurr ed i n the W hi t e R i verSy s t em i n 1995, 1998, and 2003, ” and that“phy s i cal habi t atdat a w as al s o col l ect ed. ” I d. T he For es tSer vi ce f ur ther not ed that“[t ] he moni t or i ng di r ect i on i n the [For es tPl an] foraquat i c s peci es [w a] s not p rojec t lev e l sp e c if

ic, b u t [ w a ]s u se d in a n a d a p tiv e m a n a g e m e n t ap p ro a c h to v a lid a te as s um pt i ons m ade dur i ng the For es tpl anni ng pr oces s and as an i nform at i on s our ce f or adapt i ve management . ” I d. T he For es tSer vi ce a l s o not ed thatthe r evi s ed For es tPl an

“ w a s s ig n e d A p ril 2 0 0 3 a n d m o n ito rin g to sa tisf yp lan re q u ire m e n ts [ w a ]s e x p e c ted to begi n i n 2004, ” and thus “[i ] t[w a] s pr ematur e t o det erm i ne cons i s t encyw i th For es tPl an-19-

m oni t or i ng r equi r ement s s i nce they[w e] r e i n thei rfi r s ty earand ha[ d] noty etbeen i ni t i at ed. ” I d. T hus , the For es tSer vi ce c oncl uded, “[t ] he D i s tr i ctR anger[w ho m ade the R O D ] had the bene fi tof exi s t i ng dat a fr om s ur vey s i n 1995, 1998, and 2003 t o m ake a re a s o n a b le a n a lysis a n d d e c is io n .” Id . d) T he D i xi e N ati on al Fo rest T he D i xi e N at i onal For es t( D N F) cover s the D ark V al l eyV eget at i on M anage m ent pr oj ect . T he For es tPl an forthe D N F l i s t s as M I S B onnevi l l e cutthr oattr out( B C T ) and othertypes of tr out . I d. at61. M oni t or i ng of thes e M I S i s t o be conduc t ed and r eport ed annual l y . T he For es tPl an al s o pr ovi des , how ever , that“[i ] f fi s h popul at i on dat a i s not av ail ab le fo r a p arti cu lar w ater b o d y , the m ac roin v erteb rate b ioti c c o n d it ion ind ex (B C I) w ill b e u s e d to a s s e s s f

is h h a b ita t c a p a b ility.” Id . T he D ark V al l eyV eget at i on M anage m entpr oj ectencompas s es the comm er ci al harves tof D ougl as fi r , s pruce a nd ponder os a pi ne tr ees on appr oxi m at el y237 acr es l ocat ed i n t he Loa/ T eas dal e R angerD i s tr i ctof the D N F. I d. at70. T he purpos e of the pr oj ect“i s t o r educe veget at i on dens i t i es i n or dert o pr ot ectthe ar ea f r om i ns ect i nfes t at i ons and pot ent i al s t and r epl aci ng w i l dfi r es . ” I d. T he pr oj ectar ea “ has a bui l d- up of fue l s and s om e i ns ectand di s eas e outbr eaks thati ncl ude mi s t l et oe, s pruce be et l e, D ougl as - fi rbeet l e, and r ootr ot . ” I d. “The pr opos ed tr eatm ent s ar e nee ded t o r educe s t and dens i t i es , r educe fuel l oads , and pr ot ectfor es theal th. ” I d. “To acce s s ar eas n e e d in g v e g e tatio n m a n a g e m e n t, ab o u t 1⁄2 m ile o r le ss o f tem p o ra ryro a d c o n stru c tio n w ill be r equi r ed. ” I d. at74.-20-

A D ec isi o n M em o ap p rov ing the p rojec t i ssu ed o n O ctob er 7 , 2 0 0 4 . Id. at 73 . In anal y zi ng the pr oj ect , the For es tSer vi ce c oncl uded thatpot ent i al habi t atand exi s t i ng p o p u la tio n s o f

B C T o r o th e r t ro u t v a ri e tie s d id n o t e x is t in th e p roje c t a re a . Id . a t 7 1 -7 2 . A ccor di ng t o t he part i es , the pr oj ectw as cat egor i cal l yexcl uded underN E PA . A pl t . B r . at 53. C . C ase proc edu ralhis t ory U E C i ni t i at ed thi s act i on on O ct ober27, 2004. O n February15, 2005, U E C fi l ed an amended compl ai ntal l egi ng thatthe For es tSer vi ce’ s appr oval of the s i x pr oj ect s at i s s ue w as contr aryt o N FM A , i t s i m pl ement i ng r egul at i ons , and the A PA . O n J ul y6, 2005, the di s tr i ctcourti s s ued a mem or andum deci s i on r ej ect i ng al l of U E C ’ s cl ai m s and e n ter in g ju d g m e n t in f

a v o r o f d e f e n d a n ts. U E C h a s s in c e f iled a tim e lyn o tice o f

a p p e a l. II. Standar ds of

r evi ew “B ec au se n eith er N E P A n o r N F M A p rov ide a p ri v ate righ t of ac ti o n , this co u rt r evi ew s the For es tSer vi ce’ s appr oval ” of the pr oj ect s ati s s ue “a s . . . fi nal agenc y act i on[s ] underthe A PA . ” U E C I I I , 443 F. 3d at739. U nderthats t andar d, w e “w i l l not overturn the age ncy ’ s deci s i on unl es s i ti s ‘ arbi tr ary , capr i ci ous , an abus e of di s cr et i on, or o therw ise n o t i n ac co rda n ce w ith law . ’” Id . (qu o ti n g 5 U . S . C . § 7 0 6 (2)(A )). A n ag en cy ’s d e c isio n w ill b e d e e m e d “ a rb itrar ya n d c a p ric io u s ‘if th e a g e n c y. . . en tirelyf a iled to cons i deran i m por t antas pectof the pr obl em, offe r ed an e xpl anat i on fori t s deci s i on that runs count ert o t he evi dence befor e the age ncy , ori s s o i m pl aus i bl e thati tcoul d notbe-21-

as cr i bed t o a di ffe r ence i n vi ew orthe pr oductof age ncyexpert i s e. ’ ” I d. ( quot i ng M ot or V e h ic le M f

rs . A s s ’n v . S ta te 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 )) . L i kew i s e, an age ncy ’ s deci s i on w i l l be dee m ed arbi tr aryand capr i ci ous i f the age ncy fai l ed t o bas e i t s deci s i on on “cons i der at i on of the r el evantfac t or s , ” ori f “ther e has been a c le a r e rr o r o f

ju d g m e n t” o n th e a g e n c y ’s p a rt . Id . D oes the 1 98 2 rule app l y t o the ForestServi ce’s ap prova lof the si

x project s? In its f irst iss u e o n a p p e a l, U E C a rg u e s th a t th e d istric t co u rt c o m m itt e d re v e rsib le e rro r b ya p p ly in g th e 2 0 0 0 p lan n in g ru les , an d th e ir “ b e st a v a ilab le s c ien c e ” sta n d a rd , to eac h of the s i x pr oj ect s ati s s ue, r atherthan the 1982 pl anni ng rul es and thei rfocus on M I S. W e r evi ew the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deci s i on on thi s i s s ue de novo. U E C I I I , 443 F. 3d at 7 3 9 . In d o ing so , h o w ev er, w e m u st “g ran t[] ‘sub stan ti al de fe ren ce ’ t o the a g en cy ’s i nt erpr et at i on of i t s ow n r egul at i ons . ” I d. “W e mayr ej ectthe age ncy ’ s i nt erpr et at i on o n lyw h en itis ‘ u n rea so n ab le, p lai n lyerro n eo u s, o r i n co n sist en t w ith the re g u lat ion ’s p lai n m ea n ing . ’” Id . (qu o ti n g B ar M K R an ch es v . Y u ett er, 99 4 F . 2 d 7 3 5 , 7 3 8 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 3 )). D e f e n d a n ts a rg u e th a t, “u n d e r th e 2 0 0 0 ru le’ s tra n sitio n p ro v isio n s, th e 1 9 8 2 ru le d id n o t a p p ly to s ite -s p e c if ic d e c is io n s , s u c h a s th e s ix p roje c ts ” a t is s u e . A p le e . B r. a t 2 6 . In ste a d , d e f

e n d a n ts a rg u e , “th e F o re st S e rv ice w a s re q u ire d to c o n sid e r ‘b e st a v a ilab le s ci ence ’ dur i ng the tr ans i t i on per i od thatbegan i n N ovember2000, ” and “ [t ] he r emai nder o f th e 2 0 0 0 ru le d id n o t a p p ly u n til th e e x p ir a tio n o f th e tr a n s itio n p e ri o d .” Id . a t 2 7 . A ccor di ng t o defe ndant s , “[t ] he tr ans i t i on per i od ended i n J anuary2005, w i th the r epea l-22-

of the 2000 rul e and the pr om ul gat i on of the 2005 rul e. ” I d. D efe ndant s al s o as s ertt hat “U E C ’s arg u m en t th at th e 1 9 8 2 rule is co n tr o ll ing is . . . co n tr aryto the F o rest S erv ice’s [Sept ember29, ] 2004 i nt erpr et at i ve rul e expl ai ni ng the 2000 rul e. ” I d. T hat i nt erpr et at i ve rul e, defe ndant s as s ert , “unequi vocal l ys t at ed that , dur i ng the tr ans i t i on p e ri o d , th e 1 9 8 2 ru le d id n o t a p p ly to s ite -s p e c if ic d e c is io n s .” Id . W e a c c e p t in p a rt a n d re jec t in p a rt d e f

e n d a n ts’ a rg u m e n ts. T h re e o f th e six pr oj ect s ati s s ue w er e i nt ended t o i m pl ementfor es tpl ans thatpr e- dat ed the 2000 pl anni ng rul es : the SI T L A and Sout h M ant i T i m berSal vage pr oj ect s , both of w hi ch i m pl ement ed the M ant i - L a Sal N at i onal For es tPl an, and the D ark V al l eyV eget at i on M anage m ent proj ect , w hich i m plem ented the D i xie N at i on al F orestP l an. N ei ther of those tw o fo res t plans “expli ci t l yrefer ence[ d] or adop t [ed] § 2 19 . 19 of the 19 82 [planning] rules , conce rni ng the s el ect i on and moni t or i ng of m anage m enti ndi cat ors peci es . ” U E C I I I , 443 F . 3d at74 8. T hu s, “[u]nd er the tr ansi t i on provis i on of the 20 00 regul at i on s, the F orest Ser vi ce w as r equi r ed t o cons i derthe ‘ bes tavai l abl e s ci ence ’ w hen i m pl ement i ng [the thr ee] s i t e- s peci fi c pr oj ect s w i thi n [thos e tw o] for es tpl an[s ] . ” The E col ogyC tr . , I nc. v. U n ite d S ta te s F o re s t S e rv ., 4 5 1 F .3 d 1 1 8 3 , 1 1 9 0 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) ( c itin g 3 6 C .F .R . § 2 1 9 .3 5 (a ) ( 2 0 0 1 )) . T h e re m ainin g three p rojec ts, i. e., the B ea r H o d g es II p rojec t, the E ast F o rk F ir e S a lv a g e p roje c t, a n d th e W h ite R iv e r S a lv a g e S a le p roje c t, p re s e n t a d if f e re n t s itu a tio n . T h e se th re e p rojec ts w e re in ten d e d to im p lem e n t tw o f o re st p lan s th a t w e re re v ise d in 20 03 i n acco rdance w i th the 200 0 p l ann i ng rul es, i . e. , the W asat ch-C ache N at i on al F orestH ad the Fo res tS ervi ce i ntended subsect i on (a) t o m and at e app l i cat i on of the best 4 avai l abl e s ci ence s t andar d t o al l for es tpl ans dur i ng the tr ans i t i on per i od ( i . e. , both pl ans thatpr e- dat ed the 2000 pl anni ng rul es and pl ans thatw er e r evi s ed i n acc or dance w i th the 2000 pl anni ng rul es ) , i tcoul d have s ai d s o i n a numberof cl earw ay s . Forexampl e, s ubs ect i on ( a) coul d s i m pl yhave omi t t ed the r efe r ence t o “curr ent . ” The i ncl us i on of the t erm “curr ent , ” how ever , part i cul ar l yw hen r ead i n combi nat i on w i th the fi r s ts ent ence of s ubs ect i on ( a) ( r efe r r i ng t o t he r evi s i on of ea ch for es tpl an) and s ubs ect i on ( b) ( aff or di ng re sp o n sib le o f

f icia ls d isc re tio n to a p p lye ith e r th e 1 9 8 2 o r th e 2 0 0 0 p lan n in g ru les in r evi s i ng for es tpl ans dur i ng the i ni t i al per i od of t i m e fol l ow i ng adopt i on of the 2000 p lan n in g ru les ), lea d s u s to c o n c lu d e th a t th e F o re st S e rv ice in ten d e d to m a n d a te appl i cat i on of the bes tavai l abl e s ci ence s t andar d onl yi n the i m pl ement at i on of a s ubs et of all forestplans, i . e. , tho se forestplans that pr e-dat ed the 20 00 planni ng rul es. D efen dan t s appea r t o co nced e t hat ForestS ervi ce personn el did not applythe b est 5 a v a ila b le s c ie n c e s ta n d a rd in th e ir2 0 0 4 d e c is io n d o c u m e n ts . A p le e . B r. a t 2 9 n .2 . -23- Pl an and the U i nt a N at i onal For es tPl an. B yi t s pl ai n l anguage , § 219. 35( a) w as i nap pli cable t o those proj ect s. T hat i s, § 2 19 . 35 (a) m and at ed ap pli cat i on of the best avai l abl e s ci ence s t andar d t o t he i m pl ement at i on of “c urr entpl an[s ] , ” w hi ch w e cons true, i n the cont extof the tr ans i t i on pr ovi s i on as a w hol e, as encompas s i ng onl ypl ans thatpr ed a ted th e 2 0 0 0 p lan n in g ru les . T h u s, w e lo o k to se e w h a t sta n d a rd s w e re in c o rp o ra ted in 4 the tw o r evi s ed for es tpl ans . A s expr es s l yauthor i zed by§ 219. 35( b) , both of the r evi s ed for es tpl ans i ncorpor at ed the ol d M I S st andar ds , r atherthan the bes tavai l abl e s ci ence s t andar d. I ndeed, the W as at ch- C ache N at i onal For es tPl an expr es s l yr efe r ence d the 1982 p lan n in g ru les . A c c o rd in g ly , itw a s th e M IS sta n d a rd s, ra th e r th a n th e b e st a v a ilab le sc ien c e sta n d a rd , tha t w a s a p p lica b le to th e se th re e p rojec ts. T o th e e x ten t th a t d e f e n d a n ts cont end t o the contr ary , w e conc l ude thei rpos i t i on i s i ncons i s t entw i th the pl ai n l anguage of § 219. 35 and ourexi s t i ng pr ece dent . See U E C I I I , 443 F. 3d at748 ( i ndi cat i ng thati f a 5 for es tpl an expl i ci t l yr efe r ence s oradopt s § 219. 19 of the 1982 pl anni ng rul es , a pr oj ect-24-

im p lem e n tin g th a t p lan h a s to c o m p lyw ith th e M IS m o n ito rin g re q u ire m e n ts s e t f o rth in the 1982 pl anni ng rul es , notw i ths t andi ng the fa ctthatthe pr oj ectati s s ue w as appr oved af ter th e S ep tem b er 2 9 , 2 0 0 4 fin al rule). D i d the dis tr i ct

cour ter ri n cons i der i ng pos t - decis i onaldata? In its se c o n d iss u e o n a p p e a l, U E C a rg u e s th a t th e d istric t co u rt e rre d in cons i der i ng, r atherthan s tr i ki ng, document s i n the admi ni s tr at i ve r ecor d “thatcont ai ned i nform at i on aboutpart i cul arM I S i n the W as at ch- C ache N at i onal For es tthatpos t - dat e the d a tes w h e n th e p rojec ts o n th is F o re st w e re a p p ro v e d .” A p lt. B r. at 2 1 . A c c o rd in g to U E C , thi s i ncl udes “[t ] he bul k of the W as at ch- C ache ’ s s now s hoe har e dat a, ” as w el l as “[p]ost -deci si on al data for B on nev i l l e cutthroattrout. . . . ” Id. U E C argues that these document s s houl d have be en s tr i cken f orpurpos es of r evi ew beca us e they“w er e not befor e the dec i s i on- m akeratthe t i m e of a ppr oval of thes e pr oj ect s . . . . ” I d. at22. W e agr ee w i th U E C . A s di s cus s ed i n gr eat erdet ai l bel ow , the 1982 pl anni ng rul es r equi r ed the For es tSer vi ce, pr i ort o appr ovi ng a part i cul arfor es tpr oj ect , t o gather quant i t at i ve popul at i on dat a on the var i ous M I S l i s t ed i n the part i cul arfor es tpl an ati s s ue, det erm i ne popul at i on tr ends forthos e M I S, and det erm i ne the l i kel yeff ectof the pr opos ed pr oj ecton thos e M I S. O bvi ous l y , pos t - deci s i onal dat a r egar di ng the popul at i on num ber s and/ ortr ends of a pa r t i cul arM I S i s i rr el evantt o w hetherthe For es tSer vi ce pr oper l yful fi l l ed thes e obl i gat i ons pr i ort o appr ovi ng a part i cul arpr oj ect . T hus , the di s tr i ctcourts houl d nothave t aken a nypos t - deci s i onal dat a i nt o acc ounti n det erm i ni ng w hetherdefe ndant s vi ol at ed fe der al l aw i n appr ovi ng the pr oj ect s ati s s ue.-25-

Suf f i ci ency of

the Fores tSer vi ce’s M I S m oni t or i ng In its th ird iss u e o n a p p e a l, U E C a rg u e s th a t th e F o re st S e rv ice lac k e d a d e q u a te M I S popul at i on tr end dat a atthe t i m e i tappr oved ea ch of the pr oj ect s ati s s ue. A tthe o u tse t, w e su m m a rilyre jec t U E C ’s a rg u m e n t w ith re sp e c t to th e S IT L A , S o u th M a n ti, and D ark V al l eypr oj ect s . A s w e have al r eadyconcl uded, thos e thr ee pr oj ect s w er e, p u rsua n t t o § 2 1 9 . 3 5 (a), su b ject t o the b est av ail ab le scien ce stan d ard . T h u s, U E C ’s s peci fi c cha l l enges t o t hos e pr oj ect s ar e i nappos i t e. T urni ng t o U E C ’s chall eng es t o the r em ai ning three proj ect s, w e beg i n b yfi rs t re v ie w in g th e re q u ir e m e n ts im p o s e d o n th e F o re s t S e rv ic e u n d e r t h e 1 9 8 2 p la n n in g ru le s . S ect i on 21 9. 19 of the 19 82 planni ng rul es provi ded , i n p ert i nen tpart , as fol l ow s: Fi s h and w i l dl i fe ha bi t ats hal l be managed 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 vert ebr at e s peci es i n the pl anni ng ar ea. Forpl anni ng purpos es , a vi abl e popul at i on s hal l be r egar ded as one w hi ch has the es t i m at ed number s and di s tr i but i on of r epr oduct i ve i ndi vi dual s t o i ns ur e i t s cont i nued exi s t ence i s w el l di s tr i but ed i n the pl anni ng ar ea. I n or dert o i ns ur e thatvi abl e popul at i ons w i l l be mai nt ai ned, habi t atm us tbe pr ovi ded t o s uppor t , atl eas t , a mi ni m um num berof r epr oduct i ve i ndi vi dual s and thathabi t atm us tbe w el l di s tr i but ed s o that thos e i ndi vi dual s can i nt er actw i th other s i n the pl anni ng ar ea. ( a) * * * ( 1) I n or dert o es t i m at e the ef fec t s of ea ch al t ernat i ve on fi s h and w i l dl i fe popul at i ons , cert ai n vert ebr at e and/ ori nvert ebr at e s peci es pr es enti n the a re a s h a ll b e id e n tif

ie d a n d s e le c te d a s m a n a g e m e n t in d ic a to r s p e c ie s . . . . T h ese sp ec ies sh all b e se lected b ec au se th eir po p u lat ion ch an g es a re bel i eved t o i ndi cat e the ef fec t s of m anage m entact i vi t i es . * * * (2 ) P lan n in g a ltern a tiv e s s h a ll b e sta ted a n d e v a lu a ted in ter m s o f b o th amount and qual i tyof habi t atand of a ni m al popul at i on tr ends of the m anag em ent i nd i cat or speci es. * * * ( 6) Popul at i on tr ends of the managementi ndi cat ors peci es w i l l be m o n ito re d a n d re latio n sh ip s to h a b itat c h a n g e s d e ter m in e d . T h is m oni t or i ng w i l l be done i n cooper at i on w i th St at e fi s h and w i l dl i fe-26-

agenc i es , t o t he ext entpr act i cabl e. * * * 3 6 C . F . R . § 2 1 9 . 1 9 (19 9 9 ). In U tah E n v ir o n m en tal C o n g ress v . B o sw o rth , 3 7 2 F . 3 d 1 2 1 9 , 1 2 2 4 -25 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) (U E C I), w e h e ld th a t th e p ro v isio n s o f § 2 1 9 .1 9 , alth o u g h p rim a rilya p p lica b le to the deve l opm entof For es tPl ans , al s o appl yt o the For es tSer vi ce’ s author i zat i on of i ndi vi dual pr oj ect s i m pl ement i ng a For es tPl an. Fur ther , w e hel d i n U E C I “that§ 219. 19 req u ir es th e F o rest S erv ice to u se a ctua l, q u an ti tat ive p o p u lat ion d ata to e ff ec tuate it s M IS m oni t or i ng obl i gat i ons . ” I d. at1226. M or e s peci fi cal l y , w e conc l uded thati n or dert o eff

ectuat e i t s M I S m oni t or i ng dut i es underthe l anguage of [ th e 1 9 8 2 p lan n in g ru les ], th e F o re st S e rv ice m u st g a th e r q u a n tit a tiv e d a ta on actual M IS po pu l at i on s that al l ow s i tt o est i m at e t he ef fect s of an yforest m anage m entact i vi t i es on the ani m al popul at i on tr ends , and det erm i ne the rel at i on shi p b et w een m anag em ent act i vit i es and p op ulat i on trend ch ang es. I d. at1227. W asatch- C ach e N

ati on al Fo rest U E C cont ends that , w i th r es pectt o the tw o pr oj ect s w i thi n the W as at ch- C ache N at i onal For es t( B earH odges I I and EastFor k Fi r e Sal vage) , defe ndant s fai l ed t o gather a d e q u a te d a ta r e g a rd in g th re e M IS sp e c ies : sn o w sh o e h a re , b e a v e r, an d B o n n e v ill e cutthr oattr out . U E C ’ s s peci fi c ar gum ent s r egar di ng eac h of thes e s peci es w i l l be a d d r e s s e d b e l o w. a) Sn ow shoe h are U E C co m p lai n s tha t th ere w as in su ff ici en t data c o ll ec ted re g ard ing sn o w sh o e h are beca us e ( a) the For es tSer vi ce i t s el f ac know l edged thats ur veydat a i tcol l ect ed i n 1973-27-

and 19 78 w as not s uff

i ci ent t o d et erm i ne p op ulat i on trends, (b) data ci t ed in the F orest Pl an M oni t or i ng R eporti s pr i m ar i l yfr om an ar ea di s t antt o the B earH odges I I pr oj ect a r e a , a n d ( c ) a l th o u g h th e M o n i t o r i n g R e p o r tr e f e r e n c e s d a t a t a k e n f

r o m o n e tr a n s e c tb y a U t ah D epart m entof W i l dl i fe Resour ces empl oy ee, the R eporti t s el f ac know l edges that dat a fr om onl yone tr ans ecti s i ns uffi ci entt o dr aw concl us i ons on popul at i on tr ends a n d /o r h a b ita t r e la tio n s h ip s . A p lt. B r. a t 2 6 . D e f e n d a n ts f irst re sp o n d b ya rg u in g th a t U E C h a s o v e rlo o k e d th e ir sp e c if ic fin d ing s “re sp ec ti n g the lac k o f im p ac t of the [ tw o ] projects on sn o w sh o e h are p o p u latio n s a n d h a b itat.” A p lee . B r. at 3 7 . A s f o r U E C ’s s p e c if

ic c o m p lain ts, d e f

e n d a n ts a rg u e th a t, “ b e c a u s e th e d a ta [ w a ]s to b e e v a lu a te d a t 5 -ye a r i n te rv a ls u n d e r t h e re v is e d . .

. for es tpl an, and gi ven thatthe r evi s ed for es tpl an i s s ued i n 2003, the fi r s teval uat i on of s now s hoe har e popul at i on dat a . . . w as noty etdue w hen the B earH odges I I E I S i s s ued i n 2004. ” I d. Fur ther , defe ndant s ar gue that“eve n though [they ] di d noty ethave the benef i tof the fi r s t5- y earpopul at i on tr end ana l y s i s cont empl at ed bythe for es tpl an w hen the B earH odges I I and EastFor k R O D s i s s ued i n 2004, ” the ava i l abl e dat a “i ndi cat ed thats now s hoe har e popul at i ons ha[d] been s t abl e ac r os s the [f or es t ] overa s ubs t ant i al s w ath of t i m e. ” I d. at38. D efe ndant s al s o poi ntt o pos t - deci s i onal dat a thattheys ay s uppor t s the conc l us i ons theyr eac hed atthe t i m e of the R O D s . I d. at38- 39. W e fi nd defe ndant s ’ ar gum ent s , otherthan thei rr el i ance on pos t - deci s i onal dat a, per s uas i ve. T urni ng fi r s tt o t he B earH odges I I pr oj ect , w e conc l ude the For es tSer vi ce ef fe cti v elyco m p li ed w ith the F o rest P lan’s re q u ir em en t t o d eterm ine “ [s]n o w sh o e h areT h e F o re st S e rv ice d id h a v e d a ta in d ica tin g th a t th e sn o w sh o e h a re p o p u latio n in 6 the Logan D i s tr i ctof the For es thad dr amat i cal l yi ncr eas ed i n 2002 and 2003. A pp. at 754. -28- pr es ence ” bec aus e, i n t he R O D , i tnot ed thats now s hoe habi t atexi s t ed i n the pr oj ectar ea, and i n turn assum ed thata snow shoe p op ulat i on al so exis t ed. Iti s true that the F orest Ser vi ce di d nothave a n es t i m at e of the pr eci s e s now s hoe har e popul at i on i n the pr oj ect ar ea ( or , forthatm att er , i n t he For es tas a w hol e) , atl eas ti n partbeca us e the For es tPl an w a s re v ise d o n lya y e a r p rio r to th e p rojec t ap p ro v a l, an d th e 2 0 0 4 a n n u a l su rv e yre su lts fors now s hoe har e had noty etbeen r ece i ved. H ow ever , U E C has fai l ed t o es t abl i s h how 6 the pr es ence of s uch dat a coul d have a l t er ed the For es tSer vi ce’ s deci s i on r egar di ng t he i m pactof the B earH odges I I pr oj ect . A s pr evi ous l ynot ed, the For es tSer vi ce c oncl uded thatthe pr oj ectw oul d nots i gni fi cant l yi m pactanys now s hoe har e popul at i ons orhabi t at in th e p rojec t ar e a b e c a u se th e p rojec t trea tm e n ts w e re d e sig n e d to m a in tain sp ru c e -f ir hab i t atused b ythe spec i es. T he fa ctthat the F orestS ervi ce w as unaw are of t he p reci se n u m b e rs o f

sn o w sh o e h a re in th e p rojec t ar e a d o e s n o t, i n o u r v iew , u n d e rm in e th is con cl usi on –n or, for that m at t er, do es U E C exp res sl ysugg estthat i tdo es. W i th r es pectt o t he EastFor k pr oj ect , U E C ’ s ar gum ent s over l ook the fa ctthatt he 2 0 0 2 fire tha t prec ipit ated the p rojec t eff ec ti v elyd estroy ed all av ail ab le sn o w sh o e h are hab i t atand , i n turn, l eftno snow shoe h are pop ulat i on i n the proj ectarea. In l i gh tof these fac t s , defe ndant s r eas onabl yconcl uded thatthe pr oj ectw oul d nothave a negat i ve i m pact on s now s hoe har e popul at i on orhabi t ati n the pr oj ectar ea. M or eover , anyfai l ur e on the partof def

endant s t o adequa t el ym oni t ors now s hoe har e popul at i ons i n otherpor t i ons of-29-

the F oresti s i rr el evan ti n li gh tof these fi nd i ng s and co nclusi on s. b) B eave r U E C ar gues thatther e w as i ns uffi ci entdat a r egar di ng beave rbeca us e ( a) the M o n ito rin g R e p o rt in d ica tes th a t b e a v e r p o p u latio n s w e re e stim a ted p e r sq u a re m ile bas ed on pot ent i al habi t at , and s uch extr apol at i on i s notperm i t t ed underthe Pl an orthe 1982 pl anni ng rul es , ( b) i n appr ovi ng the B earH odges I I pr oj ectthe For es tSer vi ce i m pr oper l yr el i ed on the ana l y s i s of ae r i al phot os ( U E C ar gues thatphot o i nt erpr et at i on of h a b itat o r p o p u latio n tre n d s is su b jec tiv e a n d in e x a c t), an d (c ) d a ta f ro m o n e m o u n tain ra n g e w ith in a f

o re st c a n n o t b e u se d to d e ter m in e th e e f f e c ts o f m a n a g e m e n t ac tiv iti e s in a s epar at e mount ai n r ange w i thi n t he s ame for es t( as U E C al l eges occurr ed w i th r es pect to ap p rov al of

the E ast F o rk F ir e S alva g e p rojec t) . W e conc l ude thatU E C ’ s cl ai m s l ack mer i t . T o begi n w i th, the For es tPl an in d ica tes th a t b e a v e r p o p u latio n s a re to b e m e a su re d b yth e n u m b e r o f a c tiv e d a m s, a n d is s i l entw i th r es pectt o t he pr eci s e met hod of m eas ur ement . I n a s ubs equentFi nal E nvi r onm ent al I m pactSt at ement , the For es tSer vi ce c oncl uded thatm oni t or i ng of bea ver p o p u l a t i o n s c o u l d “ b e d o n e f r o m t h e g r o u n d o rth e a i r. . . . ” App . a t7 7 0 . Al th o u g h UEC obj ect s t o t he For es tSer vi ce meas ur i ng beave rpopul at i ons fr om the ai r , i thas not p e rsu a siv e lye sta b lish e d w h yth is m e th o d is d e f icie n t, an d w e c o n c lu d e w e m u st d e f e r to the def endant s on t hi s t echni cal i s s ue. U E C I , 372 F. 3d at1223 ( not i ng that“choi ces of s ui t abl e s ci ent i fi c met hodol ogyar e entrus t ed t o the age ncy ”) . T hus , w e conc l ude that d e f e n d a n ts’ u se o f

a e ria l p h o to s w a s p ro p e r u n d e r th e P lan . F u rth e r, b e c a u se d e f e n d a n ts-30-

s peci fi cal l ym oni t or ed byai rthe bea verpopul at i ons i n the tw o pr oj ectar eas ( concl udi ng w i th r es pectt o t he B earH odges I I pr oj ectthatther e w as no beave rhabi t atand thus no beave rpopul at i on, and conc l udi ng w i th r es pectt o the EastFor k Fi r e Sal vage pr oj ectt hat the b ea v er p o p u lat ion in the p rojec t area w as e ith er stab le or inc rea sing ), an d in turn concl uded bas ed on thatm oni t or i ng thatthe tw o pr oj ect s w oul d notnegat i vel yi m pact b e a v e r p o p u latio n s o r h a b itat (c o n c lu sio n s w h ich U E C d o e s n o t sp e c if ica llyc h a llen g e ), it is i rreleva n t w h ethe r or n o t def en d an ts ad eq u atelym o n it o red b ea v er p o p u lat ion s in o ther, n o n -p rojec t ar e a s o f

th e F o re st. S e e U E C I, 3 7 2 F .3 d a t 1 2 2 8 (“ W e c o n c lu d e th a t f o re stw i de dat a i s notr equi r ed i f the For es tSer vi ce c an det erm i ne the vi abi l i tyof the M I S at issue w ith o u t a fo rest-w ide s u rve y . ”). c) B onnevi l l e cut thr oattr out L astl y , U E C co m p lai n s tha t, w ith resp ec t t o B o n n ev il le cu tth roa t trou t, (a) there was i n s u f

f i c i e n tq u a n t i t a t i v e p o p u l a t i o n tr e n d d a t a t o p r e d i c ttr e n d s f o rth i s s p e c i e s ( UEC not es thatm os tof the s tr eams i n t he W C N F have onl ybeen s ampl ed once ortw i ce i n the pas ttw entyy ear s ) , and ( b) the mostr ece ntdat a r egar di ng the B earH odges I I pr oj ectar ea i s f r o m 1 9 9 9 , e v e n th o u g h th e F o r e s tP l a n r e q u i r e s s u c h d a t a t o b e c o l l e c t e d a n n u a l l y. W e fi nd U E C ’s argum ents un persuasi ve. In U E C I, w e held that the F orest S erv ice m u st m ak e g o o d fa ith ef fo rt s to d eterm ine “ the a b sen ce o r pre sen ce o f a n M IS s peci es . . . i n or dert o ful fi l l i t s M I S m oni t or i ng obl i gat i ons under§ 219. 19. ” 372 F. 3d at 1230. I f the For es tSer vi ce ha s m ade thi s good fai th eff or tt o det erm i ne w hetherornotan M I S i s pr es ent , how ever , i ti s nototherw i s e r equi r ed “t o att empt t o tr ack s peci es w her e no-31-

p o p u latio n [ th e re o f

] e x ists . . . .” Id . (in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s o m itt e d ). T h a t is p re c ise ly th e s i tu a t i o n p r e s e n t e d h e r e . De f e n d a n t s a s s e r t , a n d UEC d o e s n o td i s p u t e , th a tn o BCT r es i de i n the B earH odges I I pr oj ectar ea, and thatthe pr oj ectar ea i n fac tcont ai ns no habi t ats ui t abl e forB C T . A ccor di ngl y , w e conc l ude i tw as unnece s s ary , and i ndeed im p o ss ib le, f

o r d e f e n d a n ts to h a v e p ro d u c e d q u a n tit a tiv e p o p u latio n d a ta f o r th e B C T in the p rojec t area. S ee U tah E n v t’ l C o n g . v . B o sw o rth , 4 3 9 F . 3 d 1 1 8 4 , 1 1 9 2 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) (U E C II) (reac h ing sim il ar c o n clus ion w h ere the F o rest S erv ice c o n clud ed there w as no s agebrus h habi t atw i thi n pr oj ectar ea) ; U E C I I I , 443 F. 3d at751 ( concl udi ng For es tSer vi ce di d nothave t o col l ectpr oj ect - l evel dat a on B C T “bec aus e no fi s h- bear i ng s tr eams a nd l akes exi s t [ed] w i thi n t he cumul at i ve ef fec t s ar ea” ) . I n turn, U E C has not offe r ed anyper s uas i ve r eas ons w hydefe ndant s w er e w r ong i n concl udi ng thatthe B ear Hod g e s I I p r o

j e c twou l d h a v e n o e f

f e c to n th e BCT. Ui nta N ati on al Fo rest U E C cont ends that , w i th r es pectt o the U i nt a N at i onal For es tand the W hi t e R i ver S a lv a g e S a le p rojec t w ith in it, d e f e n d a n ts f a iled to c o llec t ad e q u a te p o p u latio n tre n d d a ta forthe C ol or ado R i verC ut thr oatT r outi n the LeftFor k of the W hi t e R i ver( the pr oj ect ar ea i s i n the LeftFor k W hi t e R i verw at er s hed) . A l though U E C acknow l edges thatthe For es tSer vi ce a nd the U t ah D epart m entof W i l dl i fe Resour ces col l ect ed annua l dat a on C R C T betw een 1991 a nd 2002, U E C ar gues thatthe tw o agenc i es “us ed var i ous s ur vey pr ot ocol s i n di ffe r entl ocat i ons , ” thus m aki ng i ti m pos s i bl e t o pr eci s el ydet erm i ne p o p u latio n tre n d s a s re q u ire d b yth e F o re st P lan . Id . at 5 0 . F u rth e r, alth o u g h U E C a d m its-32-

th a t d e f e n d a n ts c o llec ted p o p u latio n d a ta f o r C R C T in 2 0 0 3 , this d id n o t in c lu d e a n yd a ta forthe LeftFor k of the W hi t e R i ver . B eca us e i ti s undi s put ed ther e i s no m i gr at i on betw een CR C T popul at i ons w i thi n the For es t( fr om s tr eam t o s tr eam) , U E C ar gues that th e 2 0 0 3 d a t a c a n n o ts e r v e t o s a t i s f yth e r e q u i r e me n t s o f

th e Fo r e s tPl a n . Nor , UEC as s ert s , can the habi t attr end dat a ci t ed bythe di s tr i ctcourts at i s fythe r equi r ement s of the F o r e s tP l a n a n d th e NF M A. D efe ndant s ar gue, i n r es pons e, thatthe dat a ci t ed byU E C does , i n fac t , have

“ sc ien tific u til ity .” A p lee . B r. at 4 9 . In p a rticu lar , d e f e n d a n ts a ss e rt th a t th e a v a ilab le dat a “i ndi cat e[s ] thatdur i ng the t i m e per i od betw een 1991 a nd 2002 the over al l condi t i on of cutthr oattr outw i thi n t hes e s i t es s how [ed] no obs ervabl e cha nge. ” I d. at49- 50. A s for thei ral l eged f

ai l ur e t o obt ai n dat a forthe LeftFor k of the W hi t e R i veri n 2003, defe ndant s ar gue thattheydi d, i n fac t , att empt t o obt ai n s uch dat a but“the s tr eam channel w as d ryw h en m o n it o red that p arti cu lar y ea r. ” Id . at 50 . D ef en d an ts al so d ispu te U E C ’s as s ert i on thatthe For es tPl an r equi r es eac h of the four“cons ervat i on popul at i ons ” of C R C T t o b e s e p a r a t e l y m o n i t o r e d . I n f a c t , d e f e n d a n t s a r g u e , th e P l a n “ d o e s n o ti d e n t i f y” th e s e f o u r“ c o n s e r v a t i o n p o p u l a t i o n s ” “ a s s e p a r a t e M I S p o p u l a t i o n s . ” I d . a t5 1 . L a s t l y, defe nd ants den ythat theyused h abit atdata fr om the L eftF ork of the W hit e R i ver as a p ro x yto sa tisf

yth e re q u ire m e n ts o f

th e F o re st P lan a n d th e N F M A . In ste a d , d e f e n d a n ts as s ert , thi s habi t atdat a w as us ed t o s at i s fythe Pl an’ s r equi r ement“form eas ur i ng habi t at c o n d iti o n s e v e ryf

iv e y e a rs, a s w e ll as c o n sid e rin g 3 3 % o f sa m p le s tre a m s a n n u a llyto det erm i ne C R C T popul at i on es t i m at es . ” I d. at52.-33-

W e fi nd defe ndant s ’ ar gum ent s per s uas i ve. A l though i n U E C I w e i nt erpr et ed § 2 1 9 .1 9 a s re q u irin g q u a n tit a tiv e p o p u latio n d a ta, w e o th e rw ise im p o se d n o sp e c if ic requi rem ents on the type o f data that m ustbe co l l ect ed. In this regar d, defe nd ants ’ co n clus ion that the a v ail ab le po p u lat ion d ata w as sc ientifi ca ll yu sef u l i s n eith er a rbitrary n o r c a p ric io u s. S e e U E C III, 4 4 3 F .3 d a t 7 3 9 (n o tin g th a t “[ d ]e f e re n c e to th e a g e n c yis esp ec ial lystr o n g w h ere the c h all en g ed d ec isi o n s inv o lve tec h n ical or sc ientifi c m att ers w ith in th e a g e n c y ’s a re a o f e x p e rtise .”). A s f

o r U E C ’s a ss e rtio n th a t d e f e n d a n ts f a iled to gatherquant i t at i ve dat a forthe LeftFor k of the W hi t e R i veri n 2003, defe ndant s have per s uas i vel ydemonstr at ed thattheym ade a good fai th att empt t o col l ects uch dat a but th a t it w a s im p o s s ib le to d o s o b e c a u s e th e s tr e a m c h a n n e l w a s d ry th a t p a rt ic u la r ye a r. G i ven the def

endant s ’ good fai th eff

or t , w e ther efor e conc l ude, cons i s t entw i th our deci s i on i n U E C I , thatno m or e w as r equi r ed of the For es tSer vi ce. D ef end an t s’f ailure t o a

pp l y the b est

ava i lab l e sci ence st an da rd A l tho ug h w e hav e con cl ud ed thatthe F orestS ervi ce w as bou nd t o ap plythe b est avai l abl e s ci ence s t andar d i n appr ovi ng the SI T L A , Sout h M ant i , and D ark V al l ey p rojec ts, itis ob v iou s fro m the re co rd o n ap p ea l th at th e F o rest S erv ice f ail ed to d o so . In p a rticu lar , itis b e y o n d d isp u te th a t th e F o re st S e rv ice re lied so lelyo n M IS -b a se d a n a ly sis in ap p rov ing thes e thre e p rojec ts. F u rth er, w e a re n o t persu ad ed , as th e d istri ct co u rt app arent l yw as, that the F orestS ervi ce’s fai l ure w as harm l ess, i . e. , that the F orest Ser vi ce’ s r el i ance on ot heravai l abl e dat a ef fec t i vel ys at i s fi ed the bes tavai l abl e s ci ence r equi r ement s . See The E col ogyC tr . , 451 F. 3d at1193- 95 ( concl udi ng, unders i m i l ar-34-

ci r cumst ance s , thatFor es tSer vi ce’ s fai l ur e t o appl ybes tavai l abl e s ci ence s t andar d w as notharm l es s ) . W e ther efor e conc l ude, cons i s t entw i th ourdeci s i on i n T he Ecol ogy C e n ter , tha t itis n e c e ss a ryto 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 se th re e p rojec ts an d rem an d so that the F o rest S erv ice “ ca n h av e the firstch an ce to ap p ly[th e p rop er] s t andar ds . ” I d. at1194; s ee SEC v. C heneryC orp. , 332 U . S. 194, 196 ( 1947) ( not i ng t hat the pr opr i etyof an a gencydet erm i nat i on m us tbe j udged “s ol el ybythe gr ounds i nvoked bythe age ncy ”) ; For es tW at ch v. U . S. For es tSer v. , 410 F. 3d 115, 119 ( 2d C i r . 2005) (v a c a tin g F o re s t S e rv ic e ’s a p p ro v a l o f p roje c t u n d e r s im ila r c ir c u m s ta n c e s ). I n r eac hi ng thi s concl us i on, w e have gi ven ca r eful cons i der at i on t o the pr ocedur al hi s t oryof thi s cas e. I n t he di s tr i ctcourt , U E C chal l enged the SI T L A , Sout h M ant i , and D a rk V a lleyp rojec ts o n th e g ro u n d s th a t th e F o re st S e rv ice f a iled to c o llec t th e re q u isite M I S dat a. T he For es tSer vi ce, i n r es pons e, m ade no ment i on of the 2000 pl anni ng rul es orthe bes tavai l abl e s ci ence s t andar d. I ns t ead, the For es tSer vi ce a r gued thati thad gather ed suf

fi ci ent quan t i t at i ve d at a t o sat i sfythe 1 98 2 p l ann i ng rul es. Th e d i s tr i c tc o u r t , i n i t s me mo r a n d u m o p i n i o n a n d d e c i s i o n r e j e c t i n g UEC’ s c l a i ms o n th e m e rits, w a s th e f irst to m e n tio n th e 2 0 0 0 p lan n in g ru les a n d th e ir b e st a v a ilab le s ci ence s t andar d. I n part i cul ar , the di s tr i ctcourtconcl uded thatthe 2000 pl anni ng rul es re q u ire d th e F o re st S e rv ice to c o n sid e r th e b e st a v a ilab le s c ien c e sta n d a rd in i m pl ement i ng the pr oj ect s ati s s ue. I n turn, the di s tr i ctcourt , i n uphol di ng thes e thr ee pr oj ectdeci s i ons , concl uded thatthe For es tSer vi ce ha d eff ect i vel ycompl i ed w i th the bes tavai l abl e s ci ence s t andar d bycons i der i ng onl yM I S- bas ed dat a. T hati s , the di s tr i ct-35-

courtaff i r m ed the thr ee pr oj ectappr oval s bas ed on i t s ow n aft er - the- fac tappl i cat i on of the bes tavai l abl e s ci ence s t andar d. U E C , i n chal l engi ng the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s rul i ng on appea l , corr ect l ypoi nt s outt hat the For es tSer vi ce i t s el f neve rappl i ed the 2000 pl anni ng rul es i n appr ovi ng the pr oj ect s at iss u e . F o r e x a m p le, in its o p e n in g b rie f , U E C n o tes th a t th e d istric t co u rt in c o rre c tlyh e ld

“ th a t th e 2 0 0 0 N F M A re g u latio n s w e re a p p lied in th e a p p ro v a l f o r e a c h p rojec t,” A p lt. B r . at13, and that“[e ] vi dence thatthe For es t s ‘ el ect ed’ t o appl ythe 1982 r egul at i ons ( and neve rel ect ed t o appl ythe 2000 N FM A r egul at i ons ) can be found thr oughoutthe [admi ni s tr at i ve] r ecor d. ” I d. at14. Si m i l ar l y , i n i t s appel l at e r epl ybr i ef, U E C not es t hat the a d m inistrati v e re co rd “ is si lent in reg ard s to the n ew ‘be st av ail ab le scien ce ’ st an d ard b e c a u s e it w a s n o t a p p lie d o r a d h e re d to in th e p la n n in g o r a p p ro v a l o f th e s e ” p roje c ts . A p lt. R e p lyB r. at 7 . In tu rn , U E C a rg u e s: “ H a d th e [ F o re st S e rv ice ]’s re sp o n se s to U E C ’ s admi ni s tr at i ve appe al poi nt s been pr emi s ed on the ‘ bes tavai l abl e s ci ence ’ s t andar d U E C w oul d have ha d t he opt i on t o chal l enge thes e pr oj ect s underthi s rul e. B ut thi s w as notthe ca s e. ” I d. A l though the For es tSer vi ce on appeal as ks us t o adoptthe s ame appr oach a s the di s tr i ctcourtand conc l ude thatthe ana l y s i s actual l yengage d i n by th e F o re st S e rv ice e f

f e c tiv e lysa tisf

ies th e b e st a v a ilab le s c ien c e sta n d a rd , U E C tak e s th is pos i t i on t o t as k, corr ect l ynot i ng that“[a ] r evi ew i ng courtm aynots uppl ythe bas i s fort he agenc y ’ s deci s i on thatthe age ncyi t s el f has notgi ven. ” I d. at8; s ee Chenery , 332 U . S. at 196 ( hol di ng thata r evi ew i ng “courti s pow er l es s t o aff i r m the admi ni s tr at i ve ac t i on by s ubs t i tut i ng w hati tcons i der s t o be a mor e ade quat e orpr operbas i s ”) ; T he Ecol ogy-36-

C ent er , 451 F. 3d at1195 ( concl udi ng thata r evi ew i ng courtcannotpr oper l yaff i r m an admi ni s tr at i ve dec i s i on w hen the i s s ui ng agenc ycl ear l yfai l ed t o appl ythe pr oper stan d ard ); F o rest W atch , 4 1 0 F . 3 d at 11 9 (sam e). T he pr ocedur al pos tur e of thi s cas e thus di s t i ngui s hes i tfr om U E C I I I . U nl i ke U E C III , U E C in this ca se c learlyarg u ed , an d af ter review ing the a d m inistrati v e re co rd w e agr ee, thatthe For es tSer vi ce a ct ed arbi tr ar i l yand capr i ci ous l ybyfai l i ng t o appl yt he a p p l i c a b l e r e g u l a t i o n s . T h u s , c o n s i s t e n tw i th th e S u p r e m e C o u r t ’ s d e c i s i o n i n C h e n e r y, w e maynotaff

i r m the pr oj ectappr oval s on a “ba s i s . . . [not ] . . . s etfor th [i n the r ecor d] w ith su c h c lar itya s to b e u n d e rsta n d a b le.” 3 3 2 U .S . at 1 9 6 . A c c o rd in g ly , the o n ly s ol ut i on i s t o vaca t e the pr oj ectappr oval s and r emand so thatthe For es tSer vi ce, i n the fi r s ti ns t ance , m ayappl ythe pr opers t andar d. W e A FFIRM the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s or deraff i r m i ng author i zat i on of the B earH odges II T i m ber Sale, E astF ork F i re Sal vag e, and W hit e R i ver Salvage S al e proj ect s, R E V E R S E th e d istric t co u rt’s o rd e r a f f irm in g a u th o riz a tio n o f

th e S IT L A , S o u th M a n ti a n d Dark Val l e yp r o

j e c t s , a n d REM AN D t o th e d i s tr i c tc o u r twi th d i r e c t i o n s t o VA CA TE th e F o re s t S e rv ic e ’s a p p ro v a l o f th e S IT L A , S o u th M a n ti a n d D a rk V a lle yp roje c ts .Utah E nvi r onm entalC ongr es s v. Troy er , 05- 4183

M c CO NNELL , J., c o n c u rrin g in p a rt a n d d iss e n tin g in p a rt.

T he maj or i tyr ever s es the di s tr i ctcourtand overturns an age ncydeci s i on on the b a sis o f a n a rg u m e n t n e v e r m a d e b yth e p lain tiff in th is c a se . I th e re f

o re re sp e c tf

u lly d iss e n t f ro m th e p o rtio n s o f

th e d e c isio n re v e rsin g a n d re m a n d in g th e S IT L A , S o u th M a n ti, a n d D a rk V a lle yp roje c ts . T h is c a se in v o lv e s s ix u n re late d f o re st p rojec ts in f

o u r n a tio n a l f

o re sts in th e S tate of U t ah. A l l w er e cha l l enged byU t ah Envi r onm ent al C ongr es s ( U E C ) on the gr ound that the For es tSer vi ce ha d fai l ed t o col l ectadequa t e dat a r egar di ng M anage m entI ndi cat or Speci es ( M I S) , as r equi r ed bythe 1982 pl anni ng r egul at i ons and the for es tpl ans . T he For es tSer vi ce de fende d on t w o pr i m arygr ounds : thatthe 1982 pl anni ng r egul at i ons have b e e n su p e rse d e d b ya n e w re q u ire m e n t th a t f o re st m a n a g e rs e m p lo yth e “ b e st a v a ilab le s ci ence ” forthe purpos e of f or es tm anage m entdeci s i ons , and, i n the al t ernat i ve, thatt he p rojec ts sati sfied the re q u ir em en ts of the 1 9 8 2 p lann ing reg u lat ion s. T h e d istri ct co u rt uphel d al l s i x pr oj ect s on the fi r s ttheory , hol di ng thatthe “be s tavai l abl e s ci ence ” s t andar d— r atherthan the 1982 pl anni ng r egul at i ons — appl i ed. A tno poi nthas pl ai nt i ff U E C a rg u e d th a t th e p rojec ts v io late d th e “ b e st a v a ilab le s c ien c e ” sta n d a rd . B o th in d istri ct co u rtan d o n ap p ea l, U E C ’s so le arg u m en t has b ee n that the f o rest m an ag ers w ere re q u ire d to c o m p lyw ith th e 1 9 8 2 p lan n in g re g u latio n s, a n d d id n o t. I n a ca r eful anal y s i s of the r egul at oryl ands cape , the maj or i tyconcl udes thatthe “bes tavai l abl e s ci ence ” s t andar d appl i es t o the SI T L A , Sout h M ant i , and D ark V al l eyIt is th e re f o re u n n e c e ss a ryto c o n sid e r w h e th e r U E C is c o rre c t th a t d e f icie n c ies in 1 data col l ect i on un der the g eneral forestplan r equ i re i nv al i dati on of spe ci fi c forest pr oj ect s . T hi s C our thas s om et i m es as s um ed thatfai l ur e t o s at i s fyM I S dat a col l ect i on requi rem ents i n the 198 2 p l ann i ng regul at i on s necessi t at es i nv al i dati on of spe ci fi c forest p roje c ts . S ee Utah E n viro n m en tal C o n g ress v. B o sw o rth (U E CIII ) , 443 F. 3d 732, 749 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ) (“ In lim ited c irc u m sta n c e s . . . w e m a yre v iew a m o n ito rin g p ro g ra m to the ext enti tbear s on t he appr oval of a pa r t i cul arpr oj ect . ”) ( ci t i ng E col ogy C ent erv. U. S. For es tSer vi ce , 1 9 2 F .3 d 9 2 2 , 9 2 6 n .6 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 9 )). T h e C o u rt h a s e x p lain e d th a t “if a proj ect ’s app roval i s cond i t i on ed u po n the fulfi l l m ent of cert ai n m on i t ori ng ob l i gati on s, a p la in tif f m a yb ri n g a c la im o f

d e f ic ie n t m o n ito ri n g . W ith o u t s u c h a re la tio n s h ip , a cl ai m of def

i ci entm oni t or i ng i s s i m pl ynotcogni zabl e. ” U E CIII , 4 4 3 F .3 d a t 7 5 0 . B eca us e the moni t or i ng per form ed i n connec t i on w i th the B earH odges I I , E as tFor k, and W hi t e R i verpr oj ect s i s notdefi ci enti n thi s cas e, ther e i s no need t o det erm i ne w hether th e s e p r o j e c t s w e r e c o n d i t i o n e d i n th a tw a y. -2- p rojec ts, b u t th a t th e f

o re st p lan s a p p lica b le to th e B e a r H o d g e s II , E a st F o rk , an d W h ite R iv e r p rojec ts in c o rp o ra te s p e c if ic M IS d a ta c o llec tio n re q u ire m e n ts. I a g re e w ith th is anal y s i s . T he maj or i tyal s o concl udes thatB earH odges I I , E as tFor k, and W hi t e R i ver proj ectdata col l ect i on sat i sfi es tho se r equ i rem ents . I al so agree w i th those con cl usi on s. 1 H avi ng r ej ect ed U E C ’ s ar gum entthatthe M I S dat a r equi r ement s of the 1982 pl anni ng r egul at i ons appl yt o t he SI T L A , Sout h M ant i , and D ark V al l eypr oj ect s , and gi ven that U E C has notar gued thatthes e pr oj ect s fai l ed t o compl yw i th the “be s tavai l abl e s ci ence ” stan d ard , that sh o u ld b e the en d o f th e m att er. R em arkabl y , ho w ever, the m aj ori tyrever ses the d i stri ctcou rtand ov erturns these pr oj ect s on t he bas i s of an a r gum entneverm ade bythe pl ai nt i ff: “A l though w e have co n clud ed that the F o rest S erv ice w as b o u n d to ap p lythe b est av ail ab le scien ce stan d ard i n appr ovi ng the SI T L A , Sout h M ant i , and D ark V al l eypr oj ect s , i ti s obvi ous fr om the re c o rd o n a p p e a l th a t th e F o re st S e rv ice f a iled to d o so .” M a

j. O p . at 3 3 . T h e m a

jo rity-3-

then pr ocee ds t o appl yharm l es s err oranal y s i s — notpl ai n err oranal y s i s , and notw ai ver anal y s i s — t o t he i s s ue, and conc l udes ( w i thoutfur therdi s cus s i on) thatthe err orw as not harm l ess. T hi s vi ol at es w el l - es t abl i s hed pr i nci pl es of appe l l at e r evi ew . H arm l es s err or a n a ly sis is re se rv e d f

o r c a se s in w h ich th e a p p e llan t p ro p e rlyo b jec ts to a n e rro r a t trial, the appe l l at e courtfi nds ther e w as err or , and the appe l l ee c ont ends thatthe dec i s i on s h o u ld n o n e th e le s s b e a f f ir m e d . See, e. g. P ol

ys v. Trans - C ol or ado A i r l i nes , I nc. , 941 F .2 d 1 4 0 4 , 1 4 0 9 -1 0 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 1 ); U nited S tates v. R i vera , 900 F. 2d 1462, 1469- 70 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 0 ). H e re , U E C n e v e r o b jec ted to th e e rro r, if it w a s e rro r. T h u s, a t m o st, w e s h o u ld b e a p p lyin g p la in e rr o r r e v ie w . I d. M o re o v e r, in its o p e n in g b rie f to th is C o u rt, U E C d id n o t ch a llen g e th e d istric t co u rt’s c o n c lu sio n th a t th e d isp u ted p rojec ts sati sfied the “ b est av ail ab le scien ce ” stan d ard . U E C arg u ed o n lythat the d istri ct co u rt erred in co n clud ing that the “ b est av ail ab le scien ce ” stan d ard w as a p p li ca b le. U E C ’s “S t at em ent of Is sues” r eads as foll ow s: 1. D i d t he di s tr i ctcourtpr oper l yappl ythe corr ectr egul at i ons underthe N at i onal F o re st M a n a g e m e n t A c t? 2. D i d t he di s tr i ctcourtpr oper l yal l ow the i ncl us i on of pos t - deci s i onal popul at i on i nform at i on forvar i ous M anage m entI ndi cat orSpeci es ( M I S) i nt o the r ecor d and ca n this po st- d ec isi o n al i n fo rm ati o n b e u sed to su p p o rtthe F o rest S erv ice’s deci s i on? 3. D i d t he For es t s have a dequat e quant i t at i ve popul at i on tr end dat a for M anage m entI ndi cat orSpeci es ( M I S) pur s uantt o the For es tPl ans and 1982 r egul at i ons , underthe N at i onal For es tM anage m entA ct( N FM A ) , thatw er e us ed bythe var i ous For es tSer vi ce de ci s i onm aker s w hen theym ade thei ror i gi nal decis i on s approv i ng these project s? A ppel l ant ’ s B r . at7. C ons pi cuous l yabs entfr om the St at ementof I s s ues i s anyar gum ent-4-

in th e a ltern a tiv e : th a t ev e n if th e d istric t co u rt w a s c o rre c t to a p p lyth e “ b e st a v a ilab le s c ie n c e ” s ta n d a rd , it n o n e th e le s s e rr e d in its a p p lic a tio n o f th a t s ta n d a rd to th is re c o rd . N orcan a nys uch ar gum entbe t eas ed outof U E C ’ s openi ng br i ef. I tfol l ow s thatthe i s s ue w as w ai ved. D ubbs v. Head Star t , I nc. , 336 F. 3d 1194, 1 2 0 2 n .4 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 3 ); P erry v. W oo dw ard , 1 9 9 F . 3 d 1 1 2 6 , 1 1 4 1 n . 1 3 (10 th C ir . 1999) . T o be s ur e, “w hen mani fes ti nj us t i ce w oul d otherw i s e r es ul t , ” thi s C our tcan r eac h is s u e s th a t w e re n o t s p e c if ic a lly ra is e d o n a p p e a l. Sus s m an v. P at t ers on , 108 F. 3d 1206, 1210 ( 10th C i r . 1997) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . B utI can f i nd no pr ece dent ju stif y in g re v e rsa l o f

sig n if ica n t ag e n c ya c tio n , af

f irm e d b yth e d istric t co u rt, o n th e b a sis o f a c h a lle n g e th e p la in tif f d id n o t m a k e in d is tr ic t 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 i s a s ophi s t i cat ed l i t i gant , s peci al i zi ng i n pr eci s el ythi s s or tof ca s e. I f i tchos e not t o br i ng a part i cul arl egal chal l enge, w e s houl d notcomb t he r ecor d and br i ng the chal l enge su a sp o n te . T he maj or i tyt akes the di s tr i ctcourtt o t as k forbei ng “the fi r s tt o m ent i on the 2000 pl anni ng rul es and thei rbes tavai l abl e s ci ence s t andar d” and f or“af fi r m [i ng] the thr ee pr oj ectappr oval s bas ed on i t s ow n aft er - the- fac tappl i cat i on of the bes tavai l abl e s ci ence stan d ard . ” M aj. O p . at 34 -35 . T h e m ajoritythu s ch ara cterizes the d istri ct co u rt ’s appr oach a s a vi ol at i on of SE Cv. C hener y C or p. , 332 U . S. 194, 196 ( 1947) . I offe rno opi ni on on w hetherthatchar act er i zat i on i s corr ect , beca us e U E C di d notm ake a nys uch a rg u m e n t (a t lea st n o t in its o p e n in g b rie f ). In d e e d , in its o p e n in g b rie f U E C d o e s n o t cite C h e n e r y C o r p . oranyof i t s pr ogeny . U E C cr aft ed i t s appea l as an ar gum entthattheE ven the quot ed s ent ence s fr om the r epl ybr i ef f al l s hor tof m aki ng the ar gum ent 2 the maj or i tyw i s hes t o r eac h. T he s ent ence s ar e i n s uppor tof thi s s ubj ectheadi ng: “The 1982 N FM A R egul at i ons appl yt o t he ac t i ons athand. ” A pl t . R epl yB r . at6. I ndeed, U E C c a n d id lya c k n o w led g e s th a t “U E C h a d n o b a sis to c h a llen g e th e p rojec ts u n d e r th is rul e [i . e. , the 2000 r egul at i ons ] . ” Id . at7. U E C exp l ai ns: “H ad the [F orestS ervi ce’s ] re sp o n se s to U E C ’s a d m in istra tiv e a p p e a l p o in ts b e e n p re m ise d o n th e ‘b e st a v a ilab le sc ien c e ’ sta n d a rd U E C w o u ld h a v e h a d th e o p tio n to c h a llen g e th e se p rojec ts u n d e r th is rul e. B utthi s w as notthe ca s e. ” I d. I n otherw or ds , U E C ’ s r epl ybr i ef w as notan a t t e mptt o i n tr o d u c e a n e w i s s u e a tth e r e p l yb r i e f s t a g e ; i twas a n e x p l a n a t i o n whyUEC di d notchoos e t o l i t i gat e thi s cas e underthe “be s tavai l abl e s ci ence ” s t andar d, and w hy w e s houl d t r eatthe 1982 r egul at i ons as contr ol l i ng i ns t ead. -5- For es tSer vi ce r emai ns bound t o fol l ow the M I S m oni t or i ng s t andar ds of the 1982 r egul at i ons — notas an ar gum entthatthe di s tr i ctcourtaff i r m ed on gr ounds nots uppor t ed bythe r ecor d. T o be s ur e, the maj or i tyquot es tw o s ent ence s fr om U E C ’ s r epl ybr i ef thatcan be re a d to s u p p o rt s u c h a n a rg u m e n t. See M a j. O p . a t 3 5 , quot i ngA pl t . R epl yB r . at7. B ut “[t ] hi s courtdoes notor di nar i l yr evi ew i s s ues r ai s ed forthe fi r s tt i m e i n a r epl ybr i ef. ” St um p v. G at es , 211 F. 3d 527, 533 ( 10th C i r . 2000) . T he maj or i ty ’ s s ol e quot at i on fr om 2 th e o p e n in g b ri e f

o n th is p o in t, s ee M a

j. O p . a t 3 5 , quot i ngA pl t . B r . at13- 14, i s notan a rg u m e n t th a t th e d istric t co u rt e rre d in its m a n n e r o f a p p lica tio n o f

th e “ b e st a v a ilab le s ci ence s t andar d”; i ti s an ar gum entthat , beca us e the For es tSer vi ce “ el ect ed” t o empl oy the 1982 r egul at i ons i n t he pr oj ectdeci s i on, thos e r egul at i ons ar e l egal l ybi ndi ng. T h e m ajority ’s de cisi o n d ir ec tl yco n fli cts w ith a re ce n t dec isi o n b ythis C o u rt . In U E CIII , thi s C our tr ej ect ed the pl ai nt i ff’ s cont ent i on thata part i cul arfor es tpr oj ectw as subjectt o the 198 2 M IS data- coll ect i on rul es and inst ead co ncluded that the “b est avail able s ci ence” st and ard w as appli cable. 44 3 F . 3d at74 8. A s here, U E C i n thatcase-6-

n e v e ra r g u e d th a tth e “ b e s ta v a i l a b l e s c i e n c e ” s t a n d a r d was mi s a p p l i e d . I n d e e d , UEC fr amed i t s ar gum ent s i dent i cal l yt o the ar gum ent s i n the ca s e bef or e us : thatthe 1982 re g u la tio n s c o n tr o lle d , a n d th a t th e 2 0 0 0 re g u la tio n s “ c o u ld n o t h a v e re p la c e d [ th e m ].” U E CIII , A ppel l ant ’ s B r . at46. A ccor di ngl y , the C our ti n U E CIII h e l d th a t : “ Si n c e UEC d o e s n o t ar g u e th a t th e F o re st S e rv ice f a iled to c o n sid e r th e b e st a v a ilab le s c ien c e w h e n it i m pl ement ed the Seven M i l e Pr oj ect , w e fi nd no err ori n the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s or der aff i r m i ng the age ncy ’ s deci s i on. ” I d. at749. T hatdeci s i on s houl d contr ol ourdi s pos i t i on of thi s cas e. Th e ma j o r i ty ’ s a t t e mp t s t o d i s t i n g u i s h th i s c a s e f r o m U E CIII ar e unconvi nci ng; th e a rg u m e n ts in th e tw o c a s e s ’ o p e n in g b ri e f s a re , o n th is is s u e , s u b s ta n tia lly id e n tic a l. T he maj or i tynot es that , i n ourcas e, U E C ’ s openi ng br i ef s t at es that“[e ] vi dence thatt he For es t s ‘ el ect ed’ t o appl ythe 1982 r egul at i ons ( and neve rel ect ed t o appl ythe 2000 N FM A r egul at i ons ) can be found thr oughoutthe [a dm i ni s tr at i ve] r ecor d. ” M aj . O p. at35 ( quot i ng A ppel l ant ’ s B r . at14) . I n U E CIII , the appe l l ant s ar gued that“the di s tr i ct court ’ s r el i ance on t he tr ans i t i onal 2000 rul e conf l i ct s w i th s t at ement s i n the pr oj ect r ecor d thats t at e thatthe 1982 r egul at i ons w er e the appl i cabl e r egul at i ons . ” U E CIII , A ppel l ant ’ s B r . at47. I n U E CIII , this C o u rt h e ld th a t su c h lan g u a g e c o u ld n o t p ro p e rly be under s t ood as an ar gum entthatthe “be s tavai l abl e s ci ence ” s t andar d appl i es , and I s ee n o re a s o n to c o m e to a d if f e re n t c o n c lu s io n h e re . N orcoul d A ppel l ant s have ha d anydoubtthattheyw er e expe ct ed t o m ake s uch an arg u m en t exp li cit lyif th eyw ishe d itto b e c o n side red . A fter U E CIII , A ppel l ant s w er e onT h e S e c o n d C ir c u it c a s e c ite d b yth e m a jo ri ty is n o t h e lp f

u l to its p o s itio n . See 3 M a j. O p . 3 4 , 3 6 , ci t i ng For es tW at ch v. U. S. For es tSer vi ce , 4 1 0 F . 3 d 1 1 5 , 1 1 9 (2d C ir . 2005) . I n thatcas e, the pl ai nt i ffs expl i ci t l ym ade the C hen ery ar gum enti n thei ropeni ng br i ef, ci t i ng ci r cui tpr ece dentr atherthan C hen ery its e lf. ForestW atch v. U. S. Forest Ser vi ce , 41 0 F . 3d 11 5 (N o. 04 -2839 -C V ), A pp el l ants ’ B r. at32 -33. If U E C had do ne so h e re , w e w o u ld n o t h a v e a p ro b le m . -7- n o ti ce that a d ir ec t at tack o n the a p p li ca ti o n o f th e “ b est av ail ab le scien ce ” stan d ard w o u ld b e re q u ire d , if th a t sta n d a rd w a s f o u n d to b e c o n tro lli n g . U E C su b m itt e d b rie f s in thi s cas e on J une 1, 2006, tw o m onths aft erthe U E CIII o p inion w as issu ed . T h eir failure t o ar gue, atthatpoi nt , thatthe “be s tavai l abl e s ci ence ” s t andar d w as i ncorr ect l yappl i ed appea r s t o be a t act i cal l i t i gat i on choi ce, and w e do nottypi cal l yr ew ar d s uch choi ces by ma k i n g th e a p p e l l a n t ’ s a r g u me n tf o rh i m. T h e m a jo ri ty su g g e s ts th a t a n o th e r r e c e n t d e c is io n , E col ogy C ent er, I nc. v. U ni t ed Stat es For es tSer v. , 4 5 1 F .3 d 1 1 8 3 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ), p o in ts th e o th e r w a y . See M aj . O p. at33- 34. I cannotagr ee. T o be s ur e, the C our ti n E cology C enter r emanded a pr opos ed f o re s t p roje c t to th e a g e n c yf o r a p p lic a tio n o f

th e “ b e s t a v a ila b le s c ie n c e ” s ta n d a rd . E col ogy C ent er , 451 F. 3d at1195. B utthe opi ni on i n thatcas e makes no r efe r ence t o any fai l ur e on the partof the pl ai nt i ff t o r ai s e the i s s ue, and thus cannotbe tr eat ed as preceden tfor di sr egardi ng ou r tradi t i on al w ai ver rules . U E CIII expl i ci t l yaddr es s es t he 3 p l a i n t i f f ’ s f a i l u r e t o r a i s e th e i s s u e , a n d th u s p r o v i d e s th e p r e c e d e n twe mu s tf o l l o w. M o re o v e r, E cology C enter d iffe rs fro m this case in a f u n d am en tal resp ec t. In E col ogy C ent er , the C our tr ever s ed the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s appl i cat i on of the 1982 pl anni ng r egul at i ons t o t he di s put ed pr oj ect . T he ques t i on, then, w as w hetherthaterr orw as-8-

h a rm les s. In th is c a se , b yc o n tra st, w e h a v e a f f irm e d th e d istric t co u rt’s d e c isio n to a p p ly the “be s tavai l abl e s ci ence ” s t andar d t o thes e thr ee pr oj ect s , and no one ha s r ai s ed any cl ai m that the d i stri ctcou rterr ed in i t s appli cat i on of thatst and ard. W e need no task w h e th e r t h e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s d e c is io n w a s h a rm le s s , b e c a u s e it w a s n o t e rr o r. A nd fi nal l y , as s um i ng ar guendo that thes e tw o p rec ed en ts directl yco n fli ct, w e a re o b lig e d to f

o llo w th e ru lin g o f

th e e a rl ie r p a n e l— in th is c a s e , U E CIII. Hi l l erv. O klah o m a ex rel. U

sedMo tor V

eh icl e a n d

P a rts C o m m ’n , 3 2 7 F . 3 d 1 2 4 7 , 1 2 5 1 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) (“T o the e x tent that [tw o 1 0 th C ir cu itp an el de cisi o n s] are in co n fli ct, . . . w e a re o b lig a ted to f

o llo w th e e a rlier p a n e l d e c isio n o v e r th e late r o n e .”); s ee al s o McMel l on v. U ni t ed Stat es , 387 F. 3d 329, 333 ( 4th C i r . 2004) ( not i ng ei ghtci r cui t s thatgi ve p rec ed en ce to the ea rl ier of tw o co n fli cti n g p an el de cisi o n s). T he m aj ori tyst at es that “i ti s obv i ou s fr om the record on app eal ” t hat the F orest S e rv ice f a iled to a p p lyth e b e st a v a ilab le s c ien c e sta n d a rd . M a j. O p . at 3 3 . T o m e , this s t at ementi l l us tr at es w hyw e s houl d notgo ventur i ng off i n pur s ui tof ar gum ent s notm ade bythe part i es . T he r ecor d i n t hi s cas e compr i s es 46 vol um es , w i th m anythous ands of pages of t extand exhi bi t s . I tcont ai ns a gr eatdeal of s ci ent i fi c det ai l . I do notknow how the age ncy ’ s anal y s i s of the var i ous i s s ues s t acks up agai ns tthe “be s tavai l abl e s ci ence ” sta n d a rd . B u t n e ith e r d o e s th e m a jo rity . F o r a ll w e k n o w , the M IS d a ta a n a ly z e d in con necti on w i th these proj ect s are the bes tavai l abl e s ci ence . U E C does notar gue otherw i se. Itargues on l ythat the d at a are defi ci ent unde r the 1 98 2 p l ann i ng gu i deli nes, w h ich is a d iffe ren t qu esti o n . If U E C h ad arg u ed that the d ec isi o n s in q u esti o n w ere-9-

defi ci entunderthe “be s tavai l abl e s ci ence ” s t andar d, the For es tSer vi ce w oul d have be en a b le to re s p o n d , a n d th e d is tr ic t c o u rt w o u ld h a v e b e e n a b le to m a k e a p p ro p ri a te f in d in g s . T hati s w hyw e have appel l at e rul es : t o ens ur e thatboth s i des have not i ce of the di s put ed is s u e s a n d a n o p p o rt u n ity to w e ig h in .