Opinion ID: 793549
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: applicable forest service regulations

Text: 9 Before we proceed to UEC's separate challenges, we briefly describe the relevant regulations at issue. Forest Service regulations implement NFMA's requirement that the government address how forest plans provide for plant and animal diversity. Rules enacted in 1982 required the Forest Service to identify and select MIS to estimate the effects of each [management] alternative on fish and wildlife populations. 36 C.F.R. § 219.19(a)(1) (1999). The Department of Agriculture (Department) substantially amended the 1982 regulations in November 2000, see 65 Fed.Reg. 67,568 (Nov. 9, 2000), and followed those somewhat confusing amendments with a bewildering series of transitional rules. First, the 2000 regulations included a transition provision that initially delayed the application of its substantive provisions to project decisions until November 2003. See 36 C.F.R. § 219.35(d) (2001). The Department subsequently proposed revisions to the 2000 regulations and further extended the transition period for applying the substantive provisions to project decisions. See id. (2004); 68 Fed.Reg. 53,294 (Sept. 10, 2003); 67 Fed.Reg. 72,770 (Dec. 6, 2002). New rules replaced the 2000 planning regulations in January 2005. 70 Fed.Reg. 1023 (Jan. 5, 2005). The 2005 rules include yet another transition provision with directions for the application of MIS. 36 C.F.R. § 219.14(f) (2005); 70 Fed. Reg. at 1048, 1052; see generally Silverton Snowmobile Club v. United States Forest Serv., 433 F.3d 772, 785 n. 4 (10th Cir. 2006) (describing how [t]he regulations which implement the NFMA have been frequently amended). 10 Under the transition provisions, from November 9, 2000, until the promulgation of final planning regulations, the Forest Service was directed to consider the best available science in implementing a forest plan. 36 C.F.R. § 219.35(a), (d) (2004). When the Forest Service issued its Decision Notice in October 2001 and filed its appellate brief in this court in May 2004, it did not contend that the transition provisions of the 2000 regulations applied to the Project. The Forest Service only considered authorization of the Project under the 1982 rule, those regulations in place prior to the 2000 amendments. See 36 C.F.R. § 219.19 (1999). 11 In a Rule 28(j) letter filed one week before oral argument, the Forest Service informed us of the Department's publication of an interpretative rule in September 2004. 69 Fed.Reg. 58,055 (Sept. 29, 2004); see also FED. R.APP. P. 28(j). The interpretative rule explained that the 2000 regulations rendered the 1982 rule inoperative for project-specific decisions made after November 9, 2000. The interpretative rule stated that, during the transition period between November 2000 and promulgation of a final rule, the Forest Service should use the best available science under § 219.35(a) for project decisions. 69 Fed.Reg. at 58,056. 12 Significantly, and thankfully, the Forest Service now concedes on appeal that it has waived any argument that the 2000 regulations apply. See Aples' Pet. for Panel Reh'g at 6-7 (Because we did not raise the issue of the 2000 rule until we filed our 28(j) letter, this Court may reasonably conclude that the government has in this case waived any argument that the 2000 rule applies.). We appreciate the candor of the agency's concession in light of its oral arguments and briefing—both on appeal and in the district—under the 1982 rule. Indeed, as the Second Circuit has noted, the standards of the 1982 Rules and the 2000 Transitional Rule are—at least—distinct. Forest Watch v. United States Forest Serv., 410 F.3d 115, 117 (2d Cir. 2005). Like the Second Circuit's case, nothing in the record explains what `best available science' entails. Id.; see also id. (declin[ing] to decide whether work done by the agency under one regime satisfies the demands of another). 13 Thus, we review the Forest Service's obligations under the 1982 rule, and Code of Federal Regulations citations used in this opinion (unless otherwise noted) refer to the 1999 edition, which is the last published edition before the 2000 amendments.