Although pla intiffs name seve ral diff ere nt individuals and entities as defe ndants, the 1 Court wi ll r e fe r o nly

to t he F or e st Se rv ic e be c a

us e it p ro mul g ate d th e 20 08 TL MP A me ndme nt. UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE D ISTRIC T OF CO LU M BIA
SOUTH EAST CONFERENCE, etal., P lai nt iffs, v. Ci vilAc ti on N o. 08 -1 59 8 ( JD B) THOMAS VILS ACK , Secre tary, United States De partm ent of Agriculture, et al., De fend ant s.
M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION In 2 00 8, the Un ite d St ate s F or e st Se rv ic e a pp ro ve d th e 20 08 To ng a ss N atio na l F or e st L and and Re source Manag ement Plan Amendment ( "2008 T L MP Amendment" or "Plan" ). The Plan e sta bli sh e d th e F or e st Se rv ic e ' s g oa ls a nd ob je c tiv e s f or the mana g e me nt o f t

he To ng a ss National F orest in Alaska , which include pr omoting the e colog ical, socia l, and ec onomic values de ri ve d f ro m th e To ng a ss. Pla int if fs -- se ve ra l A la sk an c iti e s a nd re g ion a l, n on -p ro fi t
c or po ratio ns -- dis a g re e wi th t he F or e st Se rv ic e ' s v isi on fo r t he To ng a ss, pa

rt ic ula rl y a s it addre sses the timber har

vest. Acc ording ly , they

challeng e seve ral c omponents of the 2008 TL MP Amendment, positing that it improperly reduc es the amount of land ava ilable in the Tong ass for the timber harve st. Bef ore the Court are the par

ties' cross-motions for summar y judgme nt, on which the Court hea rd ora l argument on J anuar y 14, 2010. Upon consider ation of the applica

ble law, the pa

rties' sever al memora

nda, and the entire r ecor d here in, and for the
rea sons stated below, the Court will g rant de fenda nts' motion and de ny

plaintiffs' motion. 1-2- I. L o ca t edi nS o u th ea s tAl as k a, th e 1 6
. 8 m i l l i o nac re T o n gas s Na t i o n al Fo re s ti s th e n at i o n 's lar gestnat io nal for est . "Mo stof t he ar ea of th e To ngass is wi ldandun dev elo ped ." Administrative Record, 2008 T L MP Amendment Final Environme ntal I mpact Statement (" 2008 TL MP A me ndme nt F EI S" ), 1- 3. In s pit e of -- or pe rh a ps be c a us e of -- thi s f e ra l e nv ir onme nt,

" [t]he e c on omi e s o f S outhe a st A la sk a ' s c omm un iti e s r e ly

on the To ng a ss N atio na l F or e st t o p ro v i d e n atura l re s o urc es fo r u s es s u ch as fi s h i n g, t i mb er h arv es t i n g, re cr ea t i n g, t o uri s m , m i n i n g,
and su bs ist e nc e ." I d. He nc e , " [m]ai nta ini ngthe a bund ant n atur a l r e so ur c e s o f t he F or e st, wh ile providing opportunities for their use , is a major conc ern of Southeast Alaska r esidents." I d. The For est Service manag es the Tong ass with these issues in mind. A. The National Fore st Manag ement Ac t of 1976, 16 U.S.C. § 1600 et seq., requir es the For est Service to "de velop, maintain, and, a s appropr iate, re vise land and r esourc e mana g ement pla ns fo r u nit s o f t he Natio na l F or e st s y ste ms. " 16 U. S.C. § 1 60 4( a ). In d oin gso , th e F or e st S erv i ce mu s t"b al an ce co mp et i n g d em an d s o nn at i o n al fo re s t s , i n cl u d i n g t i mb er h arv es t i n g,
rec reational use, and e nvironmental pre servation." L ands Council v. Powell, 395 F.3d 1019, 1025 n.2 (9th Cir. 2005); see a lso 16 U.S.C. § 528 (national forests " administered f or outdoor
rec reation, rang e, timber, watershed, a nd wildlife and fish purpose s") . Indeed, " [u] nlike other ty pes of f eder al conse rvation statutes, the lawregulating the use of national forests embr ace s the
conce pts of ' multipl e use' and ' sustained yield of produc ts and servic es.' " L ands Council, 395 F.3d at 1025 n.2 (quoting 16 U .S.C. § 1607). As part of its manag ement of national forests, the For est Service must "re vise[] from time to time [ its forest plans] when the Secr etar y [of-3-

Ag riculture] finds conditions in a unit have sig nificantly chang ed, but at lea st every fiftee n y ear s." 16 U .S.C. § 1604(f)(5). In addition to the statutory scheme g overningnational fore sts ge nera lly , sever al other statutes specific ally

regulate the Tong ass. Fir st, the Alaska National I ntere st L ands Conservation Act (" ANI L CA") , Pub. L . No. 96-487, 94 Stat. 2371 (De c. 2, 1980), c reated numerous ne w fede ral prope rties in Alaska in orde r to maintain a " proper balanc e betwe en the r eser vation of" land for c onservation and the disposition of "those public lands ne cessa ry and appr opriate f

or
mor e int e ns ive us e ." 16 U. S.C. § 3 10 1( d) . B e c a us e Con g re ss b e lie ve d th at A NI L CApr op e rl y balanc ed these outcomes, it conclude d that "the need f or future leg islation . . . has been obviate d" by the statute. I d. Congr ess there fore prohibited " future e x ecutive br anch a ction which withdraws more than five thousand a cre s, in the ag g reg ate, of public lands within the State of Alaska[, unless] not ice is provided in the F eder al Reg ister and to both Houses of Congr ess." I d. § 3 21 3( a ). Th e F or e st Se rv ic e mus t te rm inate any su c h w ith dr awa l " un le ss C on g re ss p a sse s a joint resolution of approval within one year afte r the notice of such withdra wal has be en submitt ed to Cong ress." I d. Second, the Tong ass Timber Ref orm Act (" TTRA" ), Pub. L . No. 101-626, 104 Stat. 4426 (Nov. 28, 1990), " imposed additional planning require ments for the Tong ass." Natura l Res. Def. Counc il v . U nit e d St ate s F or e st Se rv ., 42 1 F .3 d 7 97 , 8 01 (9 th C ir . 2 00 5) . " Am on gthe se require ments, Congr ess imposed a unique duty on the For est Service to consider the ' marke t demand' for timber" when c reating a fore st plan for the Tong ass. I d. This duty require s the Secre tary of Ag riculture, to the extent consistent with providi ngfor the multiple use a nd sustained yield of-4-

all rene wable f

orest re source s, [t o] seek to provide a supply of timber fr om the Tong ass National F orest which ( 1) mee ts the annual mar ket demand f

or timber from such f

orest and ( 2) mee ts the market de mand from suc h fore st for ea ch planningcycle. 16 U. S.C. § 5 39 d( a ). Al tho ug h th e statut e ' s la ng ua g e is m e re ly

" ho rt ator y ," it n e ve rt

he le ss require s the " For est Service . . . [t o] at least consider mar ket demand a

nd seek to mee t market de mand ." Natur a l Re s. De f. Counc il, 42 1 F .3 d at 80 9. Th e TT RAe nv isi on s " no t an in fl e xible harv estlev el, bu t a b ala nci ng of t he m arke t, th e la w, a ndot her u ses in clu di ng pres erva ti on ." Alaska Wilderness Rec reation & Tourism Ass' n v. Morrison, 67 F.3d 723, 731 ( 9th Cir. 1995). B. Th e F or e st Se rv ic e pr omu lg ate d a nd a pp ro ve d th e 20 08 TL MP A me ndme nt t o f ulf ill its statut or y re sp on sib ili tie s f

or the To ng a ss. In th e Plan, a s in the fo ur pr e vio us To ng a ss f

or e st plans, the F orest Servic e soug ht to meet its obli g ation to "pr ovide for multiple use a nd sustained yield of the produc ts and servic es obtained f rom the National Fore st Sy stem." A dminist rative Record, 2008 T L MP Amendment Record of Dec ision ("2008 TL MP Amendment ROD") , 2 (interna l quotation marks omitted). In other wor ds, the 2008 TL MP Amendment balanc ed " the
many c omp e tin gus e s to wh ic h la nd c an b e put." I d. Of

pa rt ic ula r c on c e rn to p la int if

fs he re is how the F orest Servic e bala nced the needs of

the timber industry

with the other uses of

the To ng a ss. Ac c or din g ly , th e Court wi ll f oc us on tho se c omp on e nts of

the 20 08 TL MP Amendment that ar e re levant to that issue. The 2008 TL MP Amendment sets forth the F orest Servic e' s vision for how the 16.8 milli on acr es of the T ong ass will be manag ed. To do so, the F orest Servic e uses land manag ement planning , which " may be compa

red to c ity , county , or borough zoning. J ust as are as-5-

in a c omm un ity are zon e d a s c omm e rc ia l, i nd us tr ia l, o r r e sid e nti a l, t

he fo re st i s a lso zon e d to
a llo w, or no t a llo w, va

ri ou s u se s and

a c tiv iti e s. " 20 08 TL MP A me ndme nt F EI S at 2- 1. F or e st plan " zoning" is acc omplished by employing la

nd use desig nations, which " specify way s of manag ing a

n are a of la

nd and the r esourc es it contains." I d. For example, land may

be desig nated to prote ct ce rtain re source s, such as old g rowth wildlife habitats, or it may be desig nated to per

mit the harvest of r esourc es, such a s timber or minera ls. See id. In addition, lands may

be desig nated to per

mit a combination of ac tiviti es on the land, " such as pr oviding f or
sc e nic qu a lity

in c omb inatio n w ithtim

be r h arv e sti ng ." I d. As re le va nt h e re , in

the 20 08 TL MP Am e ndme nt t

he F or e st Se rv ic e de signate d 1 .2 2 mi lli on a c re s o f t he To ng a ss a s " old

g ro wth
re se rv e s, " wi th t

he re su lt that ti mbe r h arv e sti ngis p ro hib ite d o n th e se land s. Se e 20 08 TL MP Amendment ROD at 5. The F orest Servic e also ha s desig nated a pproxi mately

2.3 milli on acr es of the To ng a ss f

or tim be r p ro du c tio n, of

wh ic h 6 63 ,0 00 a c re s a

re ava ila ble fo r t he tim be r h arv e st while the 2008 TL MP Amendment remains in ef fec t. See id. at 5-6. The 2008 TL MP Amendment also includes the F orest Servic e' s projection of ma rket demand f or timber fr om the Tong ass. A Tong ass fore st plan must include a projec tion of market de mand fo r t imb e r s o th e F or e st Se rv ic e c an f ulf ill its statut or

y ob lig atio n und e r t

he TT RAto seek to mee t market de mand. To re ach a projec tion of demand, a

nd to assess whethe r the Plan would supply

enoug h timber to satisfy

that demand, the F orest Servic e primar ily relied on a fo re c a st o f m ark e t de mand pr e pa re d b y the Pa c if ic No rt hw e st R e se arc h St atio n. Se e 20 08 TL MP Amendment ROD at 31-35 (discussingAllen M. Br ackle y , et al., Timber Produc ts Output and Timber Ha

rvests in Alaska: Projec tions for 2005-2025 (2006) ). The study "pr oject[ed] the de mand fo r t imb e r f

ro m th e To ng a ss, [wh ic h w a s] de ri ve d f ro m th e de mand

in P a c if ic RimPla int if fs do no t c ha lle ng e the F or e st Se rv ic e ' s r e lia nc e on the Pa c if ic No rt hw e st 2 Resear ch Station's r eport, or the For est Service ' s selection of the expanded lumber sce nario a s the corr ect pr ojection of mar

ket demand. -6- marke ts for the e nd products manuf actur ed fr om that timber." I d. at 31. I t ga ve four differ ent
s ce n ar i o s o f t i mb er

d em an d -- l i m i t edl u mb er , ex p an d edl u mb er , m ed i u mi n t egr at ed , an d h i gh integ rate d -- pr ojectinga ra ng e of f uture avera g e dema

nd for Tong ass timber. See id. The
sc e na ri os re pr e se nt a

sp e c tr um o f m ark e t de mand , w ith" lim ite d lumbe r" pr oje c tin gthe low e st levels of mar

ket demand a

nd "high integ rate d" pr ojectingthe hig hest levels of ma rket de mand. I d. Under

the sce nario de emed most likely -- " expanded lumber" -- mar ket demand is proje cted to rang e fr om 61.9 mill ion board fe et in 2007 to 187.1 mill ion board fe et in 2022, the end of the planningcycle f

or the 2008 TL MP Amendment. See id. at 33. The F orest Servic e adopte d the expanded lumber sce nario a s the measur e of ma rket de mand in its Tonga ss forest plan. See id. at 35. 2 B a se d o n th e de mand sc e na ri o it a do pte d, the F or e st Se rv ic e a pp ro ve d a To ng a ss f

or e st pla n th at se t th e a llo wa

ble sa le qu anti ty

of tim be r f or the ne xt te n ye ars at 2. 67 bil lio n b oa rd fe e t,
or an ave ra g e of

26 7 mi lli on

bo ard fe e t annua lly . Se e id. Th e a llo wa ble sa le qu anti ty

" re pr e se nts the up pe r d e c a da l li mit

on the amou nt o f t imb e r t

hat ma y be of fe re d f or sa le fr om s uit a

ble tim be rl and in t he To ng a ss N atio na l F or e st a s p art of the re g ula

rl y sc he du le d ti mbe r s a le prog ram." Nat. Res. De f. Council, 421 F.3d at 802 n.10 (internal quotation mar ks omitt ed). The For est Service deter

mined that an allowa

ble sale qua

ntity of 267 million board fee t annually not
on ly wo uld satis fy pr oje c te d ma

rk e t de mand , b ut a lso wo uld e ns ur e tha

t th e F or e st Se rv ic e c ou ldPlaintiffs do not challeng e the F orest Servic e' s selection of 2.67 billion board f eet a s the 3 allowable sa le quantity

over the next decade, or

the conc lusion that 267 mi llion board fee t annually is sufficient to both meet proje cted mar ket demand a

nd provide e noug h timber to meet chang ing ma

rket c onditions. -7- me e t un fo re se e n o r c ha

ng ingmark e t c on dit ion s. 3 One suc h chang ing ma

rket c ondition the Fore st Service c onsidered w as the de velopment of an integrate d timber industry . I t concluded that the 2008 TL MP Amendment should be fl e xible e no ug h to pr ov ide su ff ic ie nt t imb e r t o c re ate an " int e g rate d ti mbe r i nd us tr y " in S outhe a st Alaska. See 2008 TL MP Amendment ROD at 35. An integ rate d industry "is one that includes pr oc e ssi ngfa c ili tie s and

mark e ts f

or a ll ty pe s o f l og s f

ro m ti mbe r h arv e st o pe ratio ns c on du c te d in the ar ea, a

nd for by products such a s chips that result from pr ocessingthose log s into lum ber or other produc ts." I d. Although suc h an industry does not curr ently

exis t in Sout heast Ala ska, the F or e st Se rv ic e " c on sid e r[e d] it imp or tant t o p ro vid e an o pp or

tun ity fo r t he tim be r i nd us tr y to b e c o m e m o r e i n t e g r at e d
. " Id
. at3 6
. R e l yi n go nth e P a c i f i c N o rth w e s tR e s e ar c hS t at i o n ' s s tu dy, the For est Service conclude d that "a reliable annual supply

of at lea st 200 mil lion board fe et of economic timber

would be nee ded fr om the Tong ass to meet the objec tive of providingan op po rt un ity fo r t he re e sta bli sh me nt o f a

n inte g rate d in du str

y ." I d. at 37 . A n a llo wa

ble sa le quantity of timber of 267 million board fe et annua lly permitted this opportunity . See id. (" none of the a lternatives with an [allowable sale qua ntity ] l ower

than the ame nded F orest Plan' s meet [t he] criterion" of providingenoug h timber to supply a potentially

integ rate d industry). F ina lly , to g uid e the tim

be r h arv e st i n th e To ng a ss a nd to p ro te c t e nv ir onme nta lly sensitive are as, the F orest Servic e implemented what it termed the Timber Sale Prog ram Ad a pti ve Mana g e me nt S tr ate g y . Se e id. at 64 (" Th e Str ate g y is a n e xtra ste p th e F or e st Se rv ic e is-8-

takingto respond to re commendations fr om many parties that we avoid timber har vest and roa d construction in ar eas of

the Tong ass that ar e per ceive d as beingmore e nvironmentally sensitive . . . . ") . Under

the Strateg y , the " timber harve st will be allowed in three phases a s a mea ns of limit ing timber

harve st and associated roa d construction ac tiviti es to lower qua lity roadle ss are as
un til the le ve l of

tim be r h arv e st w arr ants a llo wi ngsu c h a c tiv iti e s in highe r q ua lity ro a dle ss
are a s. " I d. at 8. Th e pa

rt s o f t he fo re st a

va ila ble to t he tim be r h arv e st und e r t

he 20 08 TL MP Am e ndme nt a

re div ide d into f

our s e pa ra te are a s: r oa de d, low e r v a lue ro a dle ss a re a s, mod e rate value r oadless ar eas, a

nd highe r value roadle ss are as. I d. Ba sed on these divisions, timber ha rv e st a nd a sso c iate d r oa d c on str

uc tio n is a llo we d in

the se are a s in

thr e e ph a se s, wh ic h c ome into effe ct if nec essar

y to meet marke t demand. I d. at 65-66. Phase one includes roa ded ar eas and most of the lower

value r oadless ar eas; pha se two includes pha se one la nds and most of the moderate value r oadless ar eas; a nd phase thre e includes the entire la nd base suitable f

or the tim be r h arv e st. I d. Th e Ti mbe r S a le Ad a pti ve Ma na g e me nt S tr ate g y

lim its the tim

be r h arv e st t o phase one are as until tim ber ha rvest leve ls reac h at least 100 million board fe et per y ear for two
consec utive y ear s. I d. at 65. I f that threshold is met, phase two lands bec ome ava ilable for the timber harve st. I d. at 66. I f the ha rvest leve ls reac h at least 150 million board fe et per y ear for two consec utive y ear s, phase thre e lands be come available f or the timber ha

rvest. I d. C. Plaintiffs bring suit under the Administrative Proce dure A ct, see king de clar atory and injunctive relief

on the g rounds that the 2008 TL MP Amendment violates ANI L CA and the TTRA. In their complaint, plaintiffs cha lleng e thre e compone nts of the Plan. First, they contend that the " old gr owth rese rves" land use de signation, which in their view withdra ws more thanIn their complaint, plaintiffs also a rgue that the 2008 TL MP Amendment has 4 " e ff e c tiv e ly re pe a le d .
. . [the Natio na l F or e st M ana g e me nt A c t]." Com pl. ¶ 5 1. B ut i n r e sp on se to t he Court ' s q

ue sti on re g ard ingwh at c la ims pla int if fs we re a sse rt ingin t

his a c tio n, pla int if

fs ' counsel did not include the c laim based on the N ational For est Manag ement Ac t. Moreover , the sin g le state me nt t

hat th e 20 08 TL MP A me ndme nt " e ff e c tiv e ly re pe a le d" the Natio na l F or e st Manag ement Ac t is insufficient to state a c laim, espec ially wher e plaintiffs have not eve n identified the provisions of the A ct at issue. -9- 5,000 acr es fr om the timber harve st, violates ANI L CA' s provision prohibiting such e x ecutive branc h withdrawa ls. See Compl. at p. 23. They opine that bec ause the For est Service neither sent notice of the desig nations to both houses of Congr ess nor obtaine d a joint cong ressional resolution authorizing the de signations, the "old g rowth re serve s" de signations are illeg al under ANI L CA. Second, plaintiffs a

rgue that the Timber

Sale Adaptive Ma

nag ement Strategy

"w ithdraws
so muc h o f t

he c omm e rc ia l f

or e st l and ba se a s to e ff

e c tiv e ly de str oy the F or e st Se rv ic e ' s a

bil ity to
e x e r c i s e i t s d i s c r e t i o nt o m e e tm ar k e td e m an d

f o r ani n t e g r at e d

t i mb e r i n d u s tr y . " C o mp l
. ¶

4
. In oth e r w or ds , p la int if

fs po sit that th e Str ate g y

" ha [s] re nd e re d it

imp ro ba ble tha t D e fe nd ants could" fulfill their obligation under the TTRA to see k "to mee t market de mand for a n integ rate d timber industry ." Compl. ¶ 51. T h i r d , p l a i n t i f

f s s u g g e s tth atth e 2 0 0 8 T L M P A m e n dm e n ti mp o s e s " n o n - s t atu t o r y" constraints on the F orest Servic e' s "ma ndatory obligation under TTRA to see k to meet marke t demand." Pls.' Mem. in Supp. of Mot. for Partial Summ. J . (" Pls.' Mem." ) [Docket Entry 16], at 38. That is, plaintiffs insist t hat ce rtain ele ments of the Plan, includingthe Timber Sale A daptive Manag ement Strategy , limit the For est Service ' s ability to seek to mee t the marke t demand for an in tegrat ed t im ber i ndus try . S ee P ls .' Re pl y in S up p. of M ot . fo r P art ial S um m. J . ("P ls .' Re pl y ") [Docket Entry

18], at 40, 41. 4-10- II. Under Fe d. R. Civ. P . 56(c) , summary judgme nt is appropriate when the ple ading s and the evidenc e demonstrate that " there is no ge nuine issue as to any materia l fac t and that the moving pa

rty is entitled to judgment as a matter of la

w." In a ca se involving r eview of a fina l ag ency action under

the Administrative Proce dure A ct, 5 U.S.C. § 706, however , the standar d set forth in Rule 56(c) does not apply beca use of the limited role of

a cour t in reviewingthe administrative re cord. See Prof' l Drivers Council v. B ur. of Motor Car rier Saf ety , 706 F.2d 1216, 1229 (D.C. Cir. 1983); Sierra Club v. Mainella, 459 F. Supp. 2d 76, 89-90 (D .D.C. 2006). The ag ency resolves f

actua l issues in a manner that is supported by the administrative re cord. Summary judgme nt is then the mecha nism for dec iding whe ther a s a matter of law the a g ency
a c tio n is su

pp or te d b y the a dmi nis tr ativ e re c or d a nd is o the rw ise c on sis te nt w iththe APA standard of

revie w. See Citiz ens to Preser ve Ove rton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U .S. 402, 415 (1971); Sw. Merc handising Corp. v. Nat. L abor Relations Bd., 53 F.3d 1334, 1341 ( D.C. Cir. 1995); Richard v. Immigration & Naturalization S erv., 554 F .2d 1173, 1177 & n.28 ( D.C. Cir. 1977). A cour

t must "hold unlawful and se t aside ag ency action, finding s, and conc lusions" that are "arb it rary , cap ri cio us , an abu se o f di scr eti on , o r ot herw is e no t i n acco rdan ce wi th law ," 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) , in excess of statutory authority , id. § 706(2)(C), or "w ithout observance of proce dures r equire d by

law," id. § 706(2)(D ). The sc ope of r eview, how ever , is narrow . See Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass' n of U.S., Inc. v. State F arm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1 98 3) . It pr e sume s th e a g e nc y ' s a c tio n is va lid . Se e Vo lpe , 4 01 U. S. at 41 5. An d th e " c ourt is not to substi tute its judgment for that of the a g ency ." State F arm, 463 U.S. at 43. More over,-11-

wher e an a g ency

"is e valuatingscientific data within its t echnic al expertise," the Court must give th e a g e n c y " ane x tr e m e d e g r e e o f d e f e r e n c e . " A m . F ar

mB ur e a uF e d ' nv . E n v t l
. P r o t . A g e n c y, 559 F.3d 512, 519 ( D.C. Cir. 2009) (interna l quotation marks omitted); see also Am. Radio Relay L e a g ue , Inc . v . F e d. Commc ' n Co mm' n, 52 4 F .3 d 2 27 , 2 33 (D .C. Cir . 2 00 8) (" Whe re a ' highly technica l question' is involved, ' courts nec essar ily must show considerable defe renc e to an ag ency' s expertise.' " ( quoting MCI Cellular Tel. Co. v. Fe d. Commc'n Comm' n, 738 F.2d 1322, 1333 (D.C. Cir. 1984))) . But the c ourt must be satisfied that the a g ency has " ' examine[ d] t he rele vant data a

nd articulate[d] a satisfa ctory explanation for its action including a rational
connec tion between the fac ts found and the c hoice made .' " A lpharma, I nc. v. L eavitt, 460 F.3d 1, 6 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (quotingState Fa rm, 463 U.S. at 43).

III . Pla int if fs c on te nd

that th e " old

g ro wth r e se rv e s" land

us e de signatio n in

the 20 08 TL MP Amendment violates 16 U.S.C. § 3213(a) , ANI L CA' s provision prohibiting executive bra nch withdrawa ls. Accor ding to plaintiffs, the "old growth re serve s" de signation has the eff ect of closing the desig nated land to the timber harve st. See Pls.' Mem. at 20; Pl s.' Reply at 2. And be c a us e thi s la

nd is c los e d to the tim

be r h arv e st, pla int if

fs po sit that th e " old

g ro wth r e se rv e s" de signatio n " wi thd

ra ws " land wi thi n th e me anin gof

16 U. S.C. § 3 21 3( a ). He nc e , in pla int if fs ' view, the " old gr owth rese rves" desig nation can be upheld only if the F orest Servic e notifies Congr ess and se eks a joint resolution approvingthe desig nation. The F orest Servic e has not done so, and the ref

ore pla intiffs contend that the 2008 TL MP Amendment is not "in acc ordanc e with law." Pls.' Mem. at 25.-12-

Although pla intiffs' argument rests on the a ssumption t hat the statutory definition of a wi th draw al e nco mp ass es l andus e des ignat io ns , p lai nt if fs n ever defi ne t he t erm"wit hdrawal ." Nor, to be f

air, doe s ANI L CA. In the abse nce of a def inition of the term in ANI L CA, the Court
mus t lo ok to h owoth e r, re late d s tatut e s d e fi ne wi thd ra wa l, s e e , e .g ., Ar lin g ton

Ce nt. Sc ho ol D ist
. Bd. of Educ. v. Murphy , 548 U.S. 291, 300-03 (2006); Pierc e v. Unde rwood, 487 U.S. 552, 564- 65 (1988), a s well as to the conte x t in which the term is used in the statute at issue, see, e .g ., Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., 513 U.S. 561, 569 (1995); United Saving s Ass' n of Texas v. Timbers of Inwood For est Assocs., 484 U.S. 365, 371 (1988). One suc h related statute is the Fe dera l L and Policy and Mana g ement Ac t, which, like AN I L CA , g ov e rn s th e mana g e me nt o f c e rt a in f e de ra l la nd s. Un de r t

hat st atut e , a

wi thd ra wa l is statutorily define d as a " withholding [of] an area of F eder al land fr om settlement, sale, location, or entry , under some or

all of the g ener al land laws, f or the purpose of limiti ngactivities under those laws in orde r to maintain other public va lues in the are a or r eser ving the are a for

a pa rt ic ula r p ub lic purp os e or

pr og ra m." 43 U. S.C. § 1 70 2(

j) . Inte rp re tin gthat pr ov isi on , th e D. C. Circuit describe d a withdra wal as a n action that " exempts t he cove red la nd from the ope ration of pu bli c land laws ." Ne w M e xico v. Watkin s, 96 9 F .2 d 1 12 2, 11 24 (D .C. Cir . 1 99 2) ; se e a lso Sag ebrush Rebe llion, I nc. v. Hode l, 790 F.2d 760, 761 n.1 (9th Cir. 1986) ( "Awithdrawa l withholds an are a of f

eder al land fr om sale, lea se or use under the g ener al land laws . . . in orde r to preser ve a public va lue in the ar ea or for a public purpose." ). Public, or g ener al, land laws "a uthorize the transfe r of f

eder al lands to the private domain." Sag ebrush Rebe llion, 790 F.2d at 761 n.1. Putti ngthe def

initions toge ther, then, a

withdrawa l exempts cover ed land f rom theTh e F e de ra l L and Pol ic y and Mana g e me nt A c t' s d e fi nit ion of wi thd ra wa l a lso re fl e c ts 5 the g e ne ra l us e of

the te rm in p ub lic land

jur isp ru de nc e : " A w ith dr awa l make s la nd un ava ila ble fo r c e rt a in k ind s o f p ri vate a pp ro pr iatio n und e r t

he pu bli c land laws ." So. Ut ah Wil de rn e ss Al li ance v . Bur eau o f L andMgmt ., 42 5 F. 3d73 5, 78 4 (1 0t h C ir . 2 00 5) ( cit in g Cha rl es F. Wheatley , J r., I IStudy

of Withdrawals and Rese rvations of Public Domain L ands A-1 ( 1969)). "Just as Congre ss . . . can pa ss laws openingthe public lands to private se ttlement, so also it can rem ov e th e publ ic l and s fr om th e op erat io n o f t ho se s ame law s. Th at i s w hata wi th draw al d oes ." I d. I t is reasona

ble to believe that Congre ss wrote AN I CL A with the Fe dera l L and Policy 6 and Mana g ement Ac t's de finition of withdrawa l in mind given that Cong ress pa ssed the F eder al L and Policy

and Mana g ement Ac t just four y ear s befor e ANI L CA. Compare F eder al L and Policy and Mana g ement Ac t, Pub. L . No. 94-579, 90 Stat. 2743 (Oc t. 21, 1976), with ANI L CA, -13- operation of laws that otherw ise authorize the tra nsfer of fe dera l lands to the private domain f or private use
. This definition acc ords with the way sever al other pr ovisions of ANI L CA use the ter m withdrawa l. For e x ample, in a pr ovision discussing ANI L CA' s eff ect on withdra

wals of land made pr ior to ANI L CA' s passag e, Cong ress stated that withdrawn lands " shall not be dee med
ava ila ble fo r s e le c tio n, a

pp ro pr iatio n, or

dis po sit ion ." 16 U. S.C. § 3 20 9( a ). Th e phra se

" s e l e c t i o n , a

p p r o p r i at i o n , o r

d i s p o s i t i o n " e c h o e s th e p h r a s e " s e t t l e m e n t , s a l e , l o c at i o n , o r e n tr y"
us e d in the F e de ra l L and

Pol ic y and Ma na g e me nt A c t' s d e fi nit ion of wi thd ra wa l. F ur the rm or e , in an ANI L CA provision reg ardingmineral lea sing r ights, Cong ress found that cer tain lands " are . . . withdrawn f

rom all forms of a

ppropriation or disposal unde r public land law s." 16 U .S.C. § 410hh-5. This construc tion mirrors the D.C. Circuit' s descr iption that a withdrawa l under the Fe dera l L and Policy

and Mana g ement Ac t "e x empts the cove red la nd from the ope ration of public land laws." Watkins, 969 F.2d at 1124. The statutory evidenc e, then, supports the 5
a pp lic atio n o f t

he F e de ra l L and

Pol ic y and Ma na g e me nt A c t' s d e fi nit ion of wi thd ra wa l to ANI L CA. 6Pub. L . No. 96-487, 94 Stat. 2371 (De c. 2, 1980).

See, e.g ., L ands Council, 395 F.3d at 1033 (discussing la nd use desig nations); Morrison, 7 67 F.3d at 726 (same)
. -14- Be cause other provisions of AN I L CA ref lect the de finition of withdrawa l set forth in the Fe dera l L and Policy

and Mana g ement Ac t, the Court is persuade d that the term withdra wal in 16 U. S.C. § 3 21 3( a ) s ho uld

be g ive n th at de fi nit ion

a s w e ll. Se e Un ite d Savin g s A ss' n o f T e xas, 484 U.S. at 371 (" A provision that may seem ambiguous in isolation is often clar ified by the
re ma ind e r o f t

he sta tut or y sc he me . . . . " ). Ac c or din g ly , f or " old g ro wth r e se rv e " land

us e desig nations to be withdrawa ls, they must "exempt[ ] t he cove red la nd from the ope ration of public land laws." Watkins, 969 F.2d at 1124. But plaintiffs make no alleg ations that the desig nations here have the eff ect of suspendingany

public lands laws. Nor

could they
. L and us e de signatio ns -- wh ic h a re pa rt of ne arl y e ve ry fo re st p lan -- are me re ly

7 examples of the For est Service ' s statutory responsibility

under the National F orest Mana g ement Act to " provide for

multipl e use a

nd sustained yield of the produc ts and servic es of units of the National F orest Sy stem." 16 U .S.C. § 1604(e). They neither e x empt lands from the ope ration of pu bli c land laws , n or su sp e nd the op e ratio n o f t

ho se laws on

c e rt a in l and s. L and

us e desig nations simply

have no e ffe ct on laws that a uthorize the transfe r of f

eder al lands to the private doma in -- and pla intiffs have not pointed this Court to any authority sug g esting otherwise. I

ndeed, the only

court to consider

plaintiffs' contention that land use de signations are withdrawa ls summarily

reje cted it. See Seattle Audubon Society v. Ly ons, 871 F. Supp. 1291, 1315 (W.D. Wash. 1994). Considering a challeng e under

the Fe dera l L and Policy

and Manag ement Ac t, the Ly ons court held that e mploy ing la nd use desig nations was " mere ly an-15-

exercise of

the Secr etar

y ' s multi ple-use pla

nning r esponsibiliti es," and thus could not be a withdrawa l. I d. So too here. The F orest Servic e' s responsibility under the National F orest Mana g ement Ac t to plan for multipl e uses ne cessa

rily means that not all lands ar e ava ilable for a ll purposes. See, e .g ., 16 U.S.C. § 1604(g) (3)( E) (F orest Servic e must ensure that timber will be harve sted from National F or e st Sy ste m la

nd s o nly wh e re , f or e xamp le , " (i ) s oil , s lop e , o r o the r w ate rs he d c on dit ion s w ill
no t be ir re ve rs ibl y dama g e d" ); id. § 1 60 4( k) (" In d e ve lop ingla nd mana g e me nt p lans purs ua nt t o this subchapter, the Secre tary shall identify

lands within the manag ement ar ea which ar e not suited for timber pr oduction, consideringphy sical, ec onomic, and other pertinent fa ctors to the
e xtent f e a sib le
. . . . " ). To a c c e pt p la int if fs ' argume nt t

hat la nd us e de signatio ns are wi thd ra wa ls would be to assume that Cong ress implicitly repe aled this " multipl e use" approa ch, ar rog ating power to promulgate fore st plans. The Court finds no rea son to read A NI L CA so broadly

when its plain langua g e and c ontext support a more measure d construction. That construction, the Court notes, acc ords with the fa ct that " Congr ess has g iven no indication as to the we ight to be
a ssi g ne d e a c h v a lue and

it mus t be a ssume d th at th e de c isi on a s to the pr op e r m ix of

us e s w ith in any particula r ar ea is lef

t to the sound discretion and e x pertise of the For est Service ." Sier ra Club v. Hardin, 325 F. Supp. 99, 123 (D . Alaska 1971) ; acc ord Mountain States L eg al Found. v. Gl ic kma n, 92 2 F . Su

pp . 6 28 , 6 34 (D .D .C. 19 95 ) ( " Di str ic t c ourt s h ave a lso he ld t hat th e F or e st Service has wide discr etion to weig h and dec ide the prope r uses within any are a of the National F or e sts ." ), a ff

' d, 92 F .3 d 1 22 8 ( D. C. C ir . 1 99 6) . A c c or din g ly , th e land us e de signatio ns of

" oldPlaintiffs also sugg est that are as of the T ong ass identified a s Timber Sale Ada ptive 8 Manag ement Strategy

phase two a

nd phase thre e lands a

re w ithdrawa ls under 16 U.S.C. § 3213(a) . Compl. ¶ 57; see also Pls.' Reply at 15. B ut these lands ar e not closed e ven to the timber harve st -- the Timber Sale Adaptive Ma

nag ement Strategy

mere ly indicates at what point these lands may

be har vested. And, in a

ny event, the Strateg y , as with the " old gr owth rese rves," does not purport to suspend a ny public land laws. Plaintiffs do not contend other wise. -16- g rowth re serve s" in the 2008 TL MP Amendment are not withdrawa ls under 16 U.S.C. § 3213(a)
. 8 Neve rtheless, plaintiffs sug g est that the Court nee d not be guided only by the statutory de fi nit ion of wi thd ra wa l. I ns te a d, a c c or din gto p la int if fs , th e " re a lit ie s o f t

he sit uatio n" sh ou ld inform the Court' s analy sis -- and be cause the " old gr owth rese rves" are closed to the timber ha rv e st, the y

mus t, a s a

pr a c tic a l matte r, be wi thd ra wa ls und e r 1 6 U .S. C. § 32 13 (a ). F or thi s argument, plaintiffs rely

on Mountain States L eg al Found. v. Andrus, 499 F. Supp. 383 (D . Wy o. 1980). At issue there was whe ther the Sec reta ry of the Interior' s failure to act on applica tions for mineral lea ses that had be en pendingbefor e him for se vera l y ear s was a w ithdrawa l under the Fe dera l L and Policy

and Mana g ement Ac t. See Mountain States, 499 F. Supp at 393, 396. The court c oncluded that the Sec reta ry ' s delay in actingon the lease applications pre cluded plaintiffs from eve r per fec ting a

potential proper

ty rig ht under fe dera l law. See id. at 397. The delay had the ef fec t of preve nting plaintiffs f rom exercisingtheir rig ht to seek minera l leases on f eder al land under

the public land laws. See id. I n the cour t's vie w, " the re alities of the situation" me ant that delay was tantamount to a prohibition of private ac tion on certa in fede ral land. See id. Th e Mo un ta in S tate s d e c isi on c ann ot b e ar t

he we ig ht p la int if

fs a ssi g n to it. To be g in wi th, the Ni nth

Cir c uit re je c te d th e de c isi on ' s r e a so nin ga s unp e rs ua siv e . Se e B ob Ma rs ha ll Alliance v. H odel, 852 F.2d 1223, 1230- 31 (9th Cir. 1988) (" Mountain States is not bi nding on-17-

us and we do no t f

ind its re a so nin gpe rs ua siv e ." ). Pla int if fs su g g e st that th is C ourt

sh ou ld
never theless follow Mountain States and imbue the statutory definition of withdraw al with a pr a c tic a l c omp on e nt. Th is C ourt do e s n ot r e a d th e c a se so br oa dly . M ounta in S tate s me re ly ap p l i edth e F ed er al L an d

P o l i cy an d M an age m en tAc t 's d ef

i n i t i o no f w i th dra wa l -- th e S ec re t ary 's delay was a withdrawa l beca

use it had the e ffe ct of suspendingthe oper ation of public land law s that g rante d private individuals the rig ht to apply for miner al lease s on public lands. I d. at 396- 97. I t spoke of the " rea lities of the situation" only beca use there was no e x ecutive br anch a ction that aff irmatively

suspended the public la

nd laws. The c ourt did not, theref ore, c reate an
a lte rn ativ e , mo re pr a c tic a l de fi nit ion of wi thd ra wa l. A c c or din g ly , M ounta in S tate s is ina pp os ite to plaintiffs' ANI L CA challeng e. IV. Plaintiffs nex t assert that the 2008 TL MP Amendment violates the TTRA bec ause the Timber Sale Ada

ptive Manag ement Strategy "w ithdraws so much of the commerc ial fore st land base a s to effe ctively

destroy the For est Service ' s ability to exercise its discretion to meet mar ket demand f or an integrate d timber industry ." Compl. ¶ 4 (e mphasis added) . That is, plaintiffs be lie ve that th e Str ate g y

" ha [s] re nd e re d it

imp ro ba ble that D e fe nd ants c ou ld" fu lf ill the ir ob li gati on un der t he T TRA t o s eek "t o m eetmarketdem andfor an i nt egratedti mb er i ndus try ." Com pl. ¶ 5 1. Th is c ha lle ng e , h ow e ve r, pr oc e e ds fr om t he e rr on e ou s p re mis e that th e TT RA obligates the F orest Servic e to see k to meet the mar ket demand f

or an integrate d timber industry
. In fac t, the TTRA only

instructs the For est Service to "se ek to provide a supply of timber fr om the Tong ass National F orest which ( 1) mee ts the annual mar ket demand f

or timber fr om such fore st and (2) me ets the marke t demand fr om such fore st for ea ch planningcycle." 16 U.S.C. §-18-

539d(a) ; see a lso Natural Res. De f. Council, 421 F.3d at 809 (For est Service attempted to meet marke t demand by

"usingits own economists' pr ojections of the a nnual and plan- cycle mar ket demand f or Tong ass timber" ). The T TRA say s nothing at all about an integ rate d timber industry
. T h e F o r e s tS e r

v i c e h a s d i s c r e t i o nt o m ak e p r e d i c t i o n s o f m ar k e td e m an d
. A c c o r d i n g l y, the For est Service could projec t market de mand base d on the nee ds of an integrate d timber industry . In that case , the TTRA mig ht indeed oblig e the F orest Servic e to see k to meet marke t de mand fo r a n inte g rate d ti mbe r i nd

us tr y . B ut i n th e 20 08 TL MP A me ndme nt, the F or e st Service chose a

projec tion of market de mand that was not ba sed on an integrate d timber industry -- whic h in fac t does not curr ently exis t in the Tong ass. See 2008 TL MP Amendment ROD at 31-35. It expl icitly

reje cted two pr ojections that wer e base d on an integ rate d timber industry , and explained why

it was doing so. See id. Ther efor e, the F orest Servic e is not obligated under the TT RAto s e e k to me e t th e mark e t de mand of an inte g rate d ti mbe r i nd

us tr y in t he 20 08 TL MP Amendment. Ne ve rt he le ss, pla int if

fs re pe ate dly , a

nd c on sis te ntl y , c on te nd

that th e 20 08 TL MP Amendment and its Timber Sale Adaptive Ma nag ement Strategy

preve nt the For est Service from seekingto meet marke t demand for an integ rate d timber industry . See, e.g ., Compl. ¶ 3 (the 2008 TL MP Amendment "e ffe ctively eliminat[ es] the Fore st Service' s ability to exercise its discretion to m e e t annua l and

c y c lic a l ma

rk e t de mand

. . . b y pr ov idi ngthr e e y e ars vo lum e of e c on omi c timber under c ontrac t to an integ rate d timber industry ") ; Compl . ¶ 4 (the T imber Sale Ada ptive Mana g e me nt S tr ate g y

" wi thd ra ws so muc h o f t

he c omm e rc ia l f

or e st l and ba se a s to e ff

e c tiv e ly destroy the For est Service ' s ability to exercise its discretion to meet mar ket demand f

or an int e g rate d ti mbe r i nd

us tr y " ); Com pl. ¶ 4 9 ( " B e c a

us e the De fe nd ants have ne ve r p ro pe rl yIn their litigation papers, plaintiffs similarly , and consistently , contend that the 2008 9 TL MP Amendment preve nts the Fore st Service f rom seekingto meet marke t demand for an int e g rate d ti mbe r i nd

us tr y . Se e , e .g ., Pls. ' Me m. a t 29 (" [T]he F or e st Se rv ic e wi ll n ot b e a ble to seek to mee t market de mand, which it has identified a s an annua l minim um of 200 [mi llion board fee t] to ree stablish an integ rate d industry .") ; id. at 30 (" Thus, [t he Timber Sale Adaptive M an a g e me n t S tr ate g y ] w il l a lw ay s b e s tu c k in Ph a s e 1 at 1 0 0 [m il li o nb o ar d f e e t] , notwithstanding the 2008 TL MP Amendment' s rec og nition that a minim um of 200 [mi llion board f eet] per year

is neede d to seek to mee t the marke t demand for an integ rate d industry .") ; id. at 33 (the Timber

Sale Adaptive Ma

nag ement Strategy

provides " only

half of the volume the Reg ional For ester ha s determined is ne eded to se ek to meet mar ket demand f

or an integrate d industry ") ; id. at 34 (the Timber Sale Adaptive Ma nag ement Strategy

is flawed be cause the 2008 TL MP Amendment "a cknowledg es that the industry needs a minimum of 200 [mil lion board fee t] per year

to ree stablish a fully

integ rate d industry ") ; id. at 44-45 (the F orest Servic e ca nnot "supply the volume of timber that they have ide ntified is neede d to meet marke t demand for an integ rate d timber industry ")
. -19- evaluated or de termined the volume of timber and the [allowable sa le quanity ] t o provide thre e y e ars of e c on omi c tim

be r u nd e r c on tr a c t to an inte g rate d in du str y , it fo llo ws tha

t [th e Str ate g y ] is

. . . a rb itr ary and c a pr ic iou s . . . ." ); Com

pl. ¶ 5 1 ( the 20 08 TL MP A me ndme nt " ha [s] re nd e re d it improbable that De fenda

nts could exercise their disc retion to provide suff icient ec onomic timber to m e e t ma

rk e t de mand

fo r a n inte g rate d ti mbe r i nd

us tr y " ). May

be so , b ut p la int if

fs ' c la im 9 simply misses the mark. Pla int if fs ' c ha lle ng e se e ks to h old the F or e st Se rv ic e to a

sta nd ard it i s n ot r e qu ir e d to fu lf ill . Wh e the r o r n ot t

he Ti mbe r S a le Ad a

pti ve Ma na g e me nt S tr ate g y

wi ll p re ve nt t

he F or e st Service from see king to mee t the marke t demand of a n integ rate d timber industry is an irre levant question. Plainti ffs c ould have a lleg ed that the Strate g y preve nts the Fore st Service f rom seeking to m e e t it s a c tua l pr oje c tio n o f m ark e t de mand . B ut t he y did no t. And the Court

wi ll n ot r e wr ite plaintiffs' complaint and brie fs to asser t the proper

claim. Plaintiffs' contention that the Timber Sa le Ad a pti ve Mana g e me nt S tr ate g y vio late s th e TT RAthe re fo re fa ils at th e outse t.-20-

To be sure , in a supplemental memora ndum filed at the Court' s reque st, plaintiffs do
s u gges tth atth e 2 0 0 8 T L M P Am en dm en tan d i t s T i mb er

S al e A d ap t i v e M an age m en tS tra t egy prec lude the F orest Servic e fr om meetingits own projection of mar ket demand. See Pls.' Responses to the Court' s J anuar y 21, 2010 Questions (" Pls.' Resp." ) [Docket Entry 30], at 9-10. Th is s ing le a lle g atio n, ho we ve r, is i ns uf fi c ie nt t o r e sc ue pla int if

fs ' c la ims un de r t

he TT RA . F ir st, as discussed a

bove, their c omplaint is devoid of any asser tion that the Timber Sale Ada ptive Manag ement Strategy

preve nts the Fore st Service f rom seekingto meet its actual proje ction of marke t demand. Plaintiffs' post hoc answe r in a supplementa l brief doe s not chang e how they have c onsistently

litigated this ca se. S ec o n d , ev en as s u m i n g p l ai n t i ff s p ro p er l y p re s en t eda c h al l en ge t o th e F o re s tS erv i ce 's projec tion of market de mand, they have not pr ovided suffic ient evidenc e to over come the

" e xtre me de g re e of

de fe re nc e " g ive n to an a g e nc y ' s e va luatio n o f " sc ie nti fi c data wi thi n it s technica l expertise." Am. F arm B urea u Fe d' n, 559 F.3d at 519. The F orest Servic e conc luded that the 2008 TL MP Amendment and its Timber Sale Ada ptive Manag ement Strategy , "a llows the projec ted level of

long- term dema

nd to be met." 2008 TL MP Amendment ROD at 35. Plaintiffs, however , sug g est that " [t ]he failure to provide a suff icient volume of e conomic timber in t he 20 08 [TL MP A me ndme nt' s] 5 ye ar t imb e r s a le sc he du le " re nd e rs the F or e st Se rv ic e un a ble to meet its own projection of ma rket de mand. Pls.' Resp. at 10. And they further contend that there is an insufficient a

mount of timber that either is ava ilable for sa le or ha s been sold but not y et har vested to per

mit the Fore st Service to mee t its projection of marke t demand. See id. at 9. But plaintiffs' argument ignor es the fa ct that " [t ]he Fore st Service e mploy s a ' pipeline' approa ch to timber sale pla nning to pr ovide a stable timber sale pr og ram a nd a continuous flow-21-

of tim be r t o r e g ion a l pr oc e sso rs ." 20 08 TL MP A me ndme nt F EI S at 3- 33 4. Th at is , th e F or e st Service seeks to mee t market de mand throug h a mix of timber ava ilable for sa le, timber sold but not y et har

vested, a nd timber that is beingplanned f or sale. See id. On the basis of this pipeline, the For est Service conclude d that the 2008 TL MP Amendment would permit it to meet its actual projec tions of market de mand. See 2008 TL MP Amendment ROD at 35. Al tho ug h th e Court

re c og nize s th at th e F or e st Se rv ic e and pla int if fs dis a g re e on

thi s point, the Court cannot say that the For est Service ' s conclusion is incorre ct. Plaintiffs have not p ro v i d edth e n ec es s ary

ev i d en ce t o o v er co m e "'t h e c o n s i d er ab l e d ef er en ce t o an age n cy 's expertise' " where "a

' highly technica l question' is involved." Am. Radio Relay L eague, Inc., 524 F.3d at 233 (quoting MCI Cellular Tel. Co., 738 F.2d at 1333). They have not, f

or example, shown that the F orest Servic e will not be able to mee t market de mand for e ach year the 2008 TL MP A me ndme nt i s in

e ff e c t. I n f a c t, t he y c on c e de tha

t e ve n w ith out any

fu rt he r t imb e r s a le s, there is enoug h timber in the " pipeline" to meet marke t demand throug h 2012. See Pls.' Resp. at 9. Fur thermore , plaintiffs' position does not take into account timber sa les conduc ted under the Ti mbe r S a le Ad a

pti ve Mana g e me nt S tr ate g y , whic h w ill lik e ly inc re a se the amou

nt o f t imb e r i n th e p ip e li n e . Se e D e f

s . ' Re s p o n s e s to th e Co urt' s Janu ar y 2 1 , 2 0 1 0 Q u e s ti o n s [D o c k e t E n tr y 3 1 ],
at 2. Th e Court

sim ply c ann ot c on c lud e , in

the a bs e nc e of any e vid e nc e mars ha le d b y

pla int if fs , that the 2008 TL MP Amendment will not m eet the F orest Servic e' s projection of ma rket de mand. No r c an p la int if

fs save the ir

c a us e by po int ingto t

he fa c t th at in

the 20 08 TL MP Amendment the F orest Servic e re cog nized the importance of "pr ovid[ ing] an opportunity for the timber industry

to become mor e integ rate d." 2008 T L MP Amendment ROD at 36. In the Plan, the F or e st Se rv ic e c on c lud e d th at th e 20 08 TL MP A me ndme nt s ho uld be fl e xible e no ug h to-22-

provide suff

icient timber to cre ate a

n integ rate d industry . See id. at 36-37. Rely ing on the Pacific N orthwest Resea

rch Station' s study , the For est Service found that " a re liable annua l
su pp ly of at le a st 2 00 mil lio n b oa

rd fe e t of e c on omi c tim

be r w ou ld b e ne e de d f

ro m th e To ng a ss to meet the objec tive of providingan opportunity for the r eesta

blishment of an integ rate d industry ." I d. at 37. I t theref ore se t the allowable sa le quantity of timber at 267 million board fee t annually

to provide that opportunity . This decision mere ly builds flex ibilit y

into the 2008 TL MP Amendment such that the for est plan could, in the F orest Servic e' s expert view, p o t e n t i a l l y

m e e tth e m ar

k e td e m an d

a s s o c i at e d

w i than y i n t e g r at e d

i n d u s tr y th atd e v e l o p s . It does not, howeve r, alter

the For est Service ' s projections of mar ket demand. And there fore it has no eff ect on the F orest Servic e' s obligation under the TTRA to see k to meet the ac tual marke t demand pr ojection. V. F i n a l l y, p l a i n t i f

f s a l s o s u g g e s tth atth e 2 0 0 8 T L M P A m e n dm e n ti mp o s e s " n o n - s t atu t o r y" constraints on the F orest Servic e' s seek- to-meet oblig ation -- limitations, plainti ffs opine, that prec lude the F orest Servic e fr om fulfilling its obligations under the TTRA. As the Court discussed in Part IV, howeve r, plaintiffs do not contend in their complaint or in their brie fingthat the 2008 TL MP Amendment will preclude the For est Service from see king to mee t its actual projec tion of market de mand. Henc e, they prese nt no alleg ation or ar g ument that the " nonstatutory " c onstraints specific ally limit the For est Service ' s ability to seek to mee t market demand. Rathe r, plaintiffs spec ifically cast their " non-statutory " c onstraints argument, as they do their cha lleng e to the Timber Sale Adaptive Ma nag ement Strategy , in terms of the mar ketPlaintiffs would fare no better e ven if the Court re ache d the merits of their c halleng e. 10 Although pla intiffs' asser t in their supplemental re sponse that the 2008 TL MP Amendment and its Timber Sale Adaptive Ma nag ement Strategy

prec lude the F orest Servic e fr om seekingto meet its actual projec tion of market de mand, see Pls.' Resp. at 9-10, the Court has alre ady conclude d that the re sponse does not provide suf ficient e vidence to overc ome the " considera ble def ere nce" g iven to ag ency

evaluations of "sc ientific data within its technica l expertise," se e Am. F arm B ur e a u, 55 9 F .3 d at 51 2; s e e a lso Part I V, su pr a . T hat c on c lus ion

a pp lie s w ithe qu a l f

or c e to pla int if fs ' " no n- statut or

y " c on str a int s argume nt.

-23- demand f or an integrate d timber industry . See, e.g ., Pls.' Reply at 36, 40, 41. Plaintiffs' "nonstatutory " c onstraints argument there fore also fails at the thre shold. 10 VI . For the fore g oing r easons, de fenda nts' motion for summar

y judgme nt will be gr anted, a nd pla int if fs ' mot ion fo r s umm ary

jud g me nt w ill be de nie d. A s e pa ra te or de r h a s b e e n is su e d o n th is date. / s / J OHN D. B ATES Un i t edS t at es Di s tri ctJ u d ge Dated: F ebrua

ry 17, 2010