Opinion ID: 153019
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Opposing Views

Text: The Conservation Groups also assert that the Project's EIS failed to consider opposing scientific views on the impact of thinning. They claim that the Project record contains volumes of scientific information that counsel against logging large trees from older forests and that establish that there is, at a minimum, uncertainty as to whether the proposed treatment of older forests will have the desired effect of reducing the risk of natural disturbances. An EIS must contain a reasonably thorough discussion of the significant aspects of the probable environmental consequences. Ctr. for Biological Diversity, 349 F.3d at 1166 (internal quotation marks omitted). A proper NEPA analysis foster[s] both informed decision-making and informed public participation. Churchill County, 276 F.3d at 1071 (quoting California v. Block, 690 F.2d 753, 761(9th Cir. 1982)). Significantly, the Forest Service is only required to acknowledge and respond to comments by outside parties that raise significant scientific uncertainties and reasonably support that such uncertainties exist. Lands Council, 537 F.3d at 1001 (emphasis added). Here, the Conservation Groups incorrectly claim that the Forest Service failed to consider the view that priority should be given to cutting smaller trees. In fact, the Forest Service subscribes to that view, and the majority of tree removal is aimed at smaller trees. EIS 410([T]he greatest density of trees that will be removed is in the smaller size classes, contributing to the greatest risk reduction.). The EIS also explains that cutting small trees alone is not sufficient because reduction of the smaller size classes, in general, does not contribute to reduction of crown bulk density, which is important in preventing crown fires. The Forest Service also concluded that the removal of larger trees is required to reduce susceptibility to insect infestation and disease. In the EIS and ROD, the Forest Service addressed each of the Conservation Groups' suggestions and concerns, even conducting additional modeling to determine if thinning only smaller trees might be feasible. The Conservation Groups also describe two additional opposing views they feel were not taken into consideration. First, they claim that logging older trees would increase the risk of fire because of debris. This issue was adequately addressed and rebutted. The Forest Service stated that debris generated from the cutting would be removed, and the EIS established a maintenance schedule (burning every eight-to-twelve years, hand piling and disposal every fifteen-to-twenty years) for thinned areas to prevent dangerous build-up of ladder fuels. Finally, the Conservation Groups raised concerns about roads that would be built, but the Forest Service explained that the roads would be temporary, barricaded when not in use, and subsoiled to facilitate their return to vegetative productivity. We also note that the REO and the FWS conducted extensive independent reviews of the Project and found it to be consistent with NEPA. See supra Section 4; cf. Ctr. for Biological Diversity, 349 F.3d at 1161, 1169 (holding that Forest Service failed to consider opposing views where the FWS challenged the Forest Service's scientific conclusions). We hold that the Forest Service adequately considered and responded to alternative views about the Project's potential environmental consequences.