Opinion ID: 167714
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Griffin Springs Project

Text: 25 During 1994, the Forest Service first reviewed the possibility of implementing the Griffin Springs Project to allow commercial logging in the area. The Project area encompasses 11,835 acres located within the Escalante River and East Fork of the Servier River watershed. Id. at A-18. 26 The Project area's forest type consists primarily of Englemann spruce/subalpine fir, with a strong component of aspen. Other vegetation types represented include sagebrush and mixed conifer. Id. The Forest Service determined that the area at issue contained high stand densities that contribute to declining tree growth and vigor, reduced aspen presence, and bark beetle infestations. Id. at A-22. 27 The Project's January 2002 EIS studied five alternatives to address these concerns, including a no-action alternative. After the Forest Service completed the EIS, it issued a Life History and Analysis of Endangered, Threatened, Candidate, Sensitive, and Management Indicator Species of Dixie National Forest Report (the Life History Report) in September 2002. The Forest Service then determined a Supplemental EIS (SEIS) was required to consider the information provided in the Life History Report. On March 27, 2003, the Forest Supervisor selected Alternative 4 and issued a Record of Decision. 28 Alternative 4 outlines the following actions. Within the 669 acres of aspen, 112 acres will be subject to clear-cut logging, taking place in various patches. Aples' Supp.App. vol. III, at 848. After the logging, prescribed fire techniques will be applied. Within the 8,030 acres of Englemann spruce/sub-alpine fir forest, approximately 3,307 acres would be subject to an intermediate level of commercial logging. Trees will be individually selected to reduce stand densities while maintaining a variety of tree sizes. Id. 29 There will also be clear-cutting in 440 acres of the 3,307 acres of spruce/fir that are stocked with scattered aspen clones. Id. In certain areas and for a period as long as seven years, trees that are infested with spruce beetles or that have been recently killed will be removed. There will be 88 acres of planting of Engelmann spruce seedlings. Finally, approximately seventeen miles of road would undergo reconstruction, and thirty-three miles of road would undergo maintenance. 30 Despite the unchallenged status of the Reynolds Report as the best available science, the Forest Service relied on a study titled Characteristics of Old-Growth Forests in the Intermountain Region for certain calculations. According to the Forest Service, the Reynolds Report did not address all of the Project area's habitat attributes, and the intermountain region report represented better local data. See Aples' Br. at 26. The Forest Service maintains that the Project will create more goshawk habitat than currently exists. Although some foraging goshawks will be displaced, this displacement is not considered significant, according to the SEIS. 31 Similarly, the Forest Service looked to a study titled The Northern Goshawk in Utah: Habitat Assessment and Management Recommendations for its assertions that goshawks can breed successfully in the wake of clear-cutting, rather than following the Reynolds Report's requirement of twenty percent VSS 6. According to the Forest Service, the Project will actually improve goshawk habitat and viability over time. Aplts' Supp.App. at 39-44. The Record of Decision concludes that the project will not negatively effect [sic] any of the MIS species that occur within the [P]roject area. Aplts' App. vol. III, at 850. 32 Here, Ecology Center filed a complaint seeking review of the Griffin Springs Project, contending that the SEIS does not conform with either NEPA or the National Forest Management Act. Ecology Center maintained first that the Forest Service had not disclosed sufficient data pursuant to NEPA to demonstrate how the Griffin Springs Project was consistent with the Forest Plan. Second, Ecology Center argued that the Forest Service had failed to collect appropriate quantitative data regarding the northern goshawk and old growth species, in violation of the National Forest Management Act, which requires compliance with the Forest Plan. In response, the Forest Service filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which the district court granted. 33 For the reasons stated below, we affirm the district court's grant of the Forest Service's motion to dismiss the NEPA claim. However, we reverse the district court's dismissal of the National Forest Management Act claim and direct the district court to remand the case to the Forest Service for the limited purpose of allowing the agency to review the Project pursuant to the appropriate rules.