Forest guardians v. Forsgren and NFMA planning reform: The return of maximum forest service discretion

Denver University Law Review

Volumn 85, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 653-683

  Mason, David ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 44349175010     PISSN: 08839409     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (386)

1. 478 F.3d 1149 (10th Cir. 2007).
2. 16 U.S.C.A. §§1531-1544 (2008).
3. 478 F.3d at 1154-56, 1159-60.
4. 523 U.S. 726 (1998).
5. 542 U.S. 55 (2004).
6. See generally Turtle Island Restoration Network v. Nat'l Marine Fisheries Serv., 340 F.3d 969 (9th Cir. 2003);
7. Pac. Rivers Council v. Thomas, 30 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 1994);
8. Citizens for Better Forestry v. USDA, 481 F. Supp. 2d 1059, 1095 (N.D. Cal. 2007);
9. see also Sierra Club v. U.S. Dep't of Energy, 255 F. Supp. 2d 1177, 1189 (D. Colo. 2002).
10. See TANYA SHENK, GENERAL LOCATIONS OF LYNX (LYNX CANADENSIS) REINTRODUCED TO SOUTHWESTERN COLORADO FROM FEBRUARY 4, 1999 THROUGH FEBRUARY 1, 2005, 1 (2005), http://wildlife. state.co.us/NR/rdonlyres/F92E6FCD-BCB5-4711-8EE6-A9398EA77999/0/ LynxLocations_Feb2005.pdf.
11. See, e.g., Colo. Env't Coal. v. Dombeck, 185 F.3d 1162, 1168-69 (10th Cir. 1999);
12. Final Rule Determining Threatened Status for the Canada Lynx, 65 Fed. Reg. 16052 (2000) (to be codified at 50 C.F.R. pt 17) [hereinafter 2000 Listing]
13. Erika Trautman, Will Listing Hurt the Colorado Lynx?, HIGH COUNTRY NEWS, Jan. 21, 2002, available at http://www.hcn.org/servlets/hen.Article?article_id=10963.
14. See, e.g., Mindy Sink, The Long-Elusive Lynx Is Returned to Colorado, N.Y.TIMES, Feb. 4, 1999, at A20;
15. see also Allen Best, Lynx Reintroduction Links Unexpected Allies, HIGH COUNTRY NEWS, May 10, 1999, available at http://www.hcn.org/servlets/hcn.Article?article_id=4976.
16. 16 U.S.C.A. §§1531-1544 (2008);
17. see Mark Matthews, Case of the Missing Lynx Sparks Studies, Debate, WASHINGTON POST, Nov. 16, 1998, at A3.
18. 2000 Listing, supra note 8.
19. See TANYA M. SHENK, POST-R ELEASE MONITORING OF LYNX REINTRODUCED IN COLORADO: ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT FOR THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE DECEMBER 2001 (2001), available at http://www.cde.state.co.us/ artemis/nr6/nr6219920054internet.pdf.
20. See Forest Guardians, http://www.fguardians.org (last visited Feb. 2, 2008).
21. See Forest Guardians v. Forsgren, 478 F.3d 1149 (10th Cir. 2007). The Carson National Forest covers 1.5 million acres of land in northern New Mexico ranging from 6,000 to 13,161 feet in elevation, including mountainous terrain similar to that designated as critical lynx habitat across its northern border, the Colorado state line. Parts of the forest are located in a portion of the southern San Juan Mountains geographically contiguous with the portion of the San Juans in which lynx were originally released in Colorado.
22. See Carson National Forest, http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/carson/ index.shtml [hereinafter Carson National Forest Homepage] (last visited Feb. 2, 2008). The Santa Fe National Forest is located on 1.6 million acres generally located on the southern borders of the Carson, and is comprised of similar terrain, including the southern end of the San Juan Mountains.
23. See Santa Fe National Forest, http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/sfe/about/ about_forest.html [hereinafter Santa Fe National Forest Homepage] (last visited Feb. 2, 2008).
24. Adam Rankin, Groups ' Suit Says Lynx Not Protected, ALBUQUERQUE JOURNAL, Feb. 11, 2004, at 5.
25. Id.
26. Forest Guardians, 478 F.3d at 1152.
27. Id.
28. Id.
29. 16 U.S.C.A. §§1600-1687 (2008).
30. Forest Guardians, 478 F.3d at 1159.
31. 16 U.S.C.A. §1536(a)(2) (2008).
32. Norton v. S. Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55, 73 (2004); 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 4321-4370f(2008).
33. See Forest Guardians, 478 F.3d at 1152-56.
34. See generally UNITED STATES DEPT. OF AGRIC, USDA FOREST SERVICE STRATEGIC PLAN FY 2007-2012 (2007), available at http://www.fs.fed.us/publications/strategic/fs-sp-fy07-12.pdf.
35. See Id.
36. See Id.
37. 16 U.S.C.A. §§ 1531-1544 (2008).
38. 16 U.S.C.A. §§ 1600-1687 (2008).
39. Citizens for Better Forestry v. USDA, 481 F. Supp. 2d 1059, 1080 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (quoting High Sierra Hikers Ass'n v. Blackwell, 390 F.3d 630, 639 (9th Cir. 2004)).
40. Id. at 1080 (quoting 42 U.S.C.A. § 4332(2)(C) (2008)).
41. See, e.g., Nat'l Audubon Soc. v. Hoffman, 132 F.3d 7, 18 (2d Cir. 1997) (Forest Service's decision not to prepare EIS in conjunction with building of a logging road was arbitrary and capricious where the agency ignored substantial evidence in the administrative record that significant impacts were likely);
42. Sierra Club v. Marita, 46 F.3d 606, 615-17 (7th Cir. 1995) (Forest Service required to prepare EIS prior to adoption of forest plan).
43. Citizens, 481 F. Supp. 2d at 1080.
44. Id. at 1081.
45. Id.
46. Id.
47. Compare West v. U.S. Dep't of Trans., 206 F.3d 920, 928-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (holding Federal Highway Administration's application of a CE for "changes in access control" to construction of a major highway interchange was arbitrary and capricious) with Alaska Ctr. for the Env't v. U.S. Forest Serv., 189 F.3d 851, 853-54 (9th Cir. 1999) (affirming Forest Service's application of CE for "approval, modification, or continuation of minor short-term . . . special uses of National Forest land" to issuance of commercial helicopter permits).
48. See 42 U.S.C.A. §§4321-4370f (2008).
49. Tenn. Valley Auth. v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 159 (1978).
50. 16 U.S.C.A. §§1531(b) (2008) ("The purposes of this [Act] are to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered and threatened species depend may be conserved, to provide a program for the conservation of such endangered species and threatened species ....").
51. 16 U.S.C.A. §§1533(a)-(b) (2008).
52. §1533(f).
53. 16 U.S.C.A. §§1538, 1540 (2008).
54. 16 U.S.C.A. §1539(a)(1)(B) (2008).
55. 16 U.S.C.A. §1536(g) (2008);
56. see also Jared des Rosiers, The Exemption Process under the Endangered Species Act: How the "God Squad" Works and Why, 66 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 825 (discussing ESA exemption process).
57. 16 U.S.C.A. § 1540(g) (2008).
58. § 1536(a)(2).
59. § 1536(c)(1).
60. See §1536(a)(2);
61. Thomas v. Peterson, 753 F.2d 754, 763 (9th Cir. 1985).
62. §1536(b)(3).
63. See Id.
64. Thomas, 753 F.2d at 763 (noting agency failure to adopt prudent alternative to proposed action as outlined in biological opinion likely to constitute a violation of ESA);
65. Am. Rivers v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, 271 F. Supp. 2d 230, 257-58 (D.D.C. 2003) (agency in violation of ESA where failure to adopt prudent alternatives outlined in biological opinion rendered significant take of threatened species imminent).
66. See generally Citizens for Better Forestry v. USDA, 341 F.3d 961 (9th Cir. 2003) (agency decision to relax forest planning requirements an "action" under § 7(a)(2));
67. Pac. Rivers Council v. Thomas, 30 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 1994) (forest plan an agency action requiring consultation with FWS under §7(a)(2));
68. Tenn. Valley Auth. v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153 (1978) (agency decision to complete construction and commence operation of a dam constituted "action" under § 7(a)(2));
69. but see Nat'l Assoc, of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, 127 S. Ct. 2518 (2007) (§ 7(a)(2) consultation requirement does not apply where agency action is non-discretionary and required by statute);
70. Cal. Sportfishing Prot Alliance v. FERC, 472 F.3d 593 (9th Cir. 2006) (operation of project under FERC license not agency action under § 7(a)(2));
71. Envir. Prot. Info. Ctr. v. Simpson Timber Co., 255 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2001) (FWS lacked sufficient discretionary control over previously issued incidental take permit to require re-initiation of § 7(a)(2) consultation).
72. 50 C.F.R. § 402.02 (2007).
73. § 402.03.
74. § 402.02.
75. Home Builders, 127 S. Ct. at 2536 (2007);
76. but See Id. at 2542 (Stevens, J., dissenting).
77. See, e.g., Sierra Club v. Babbitt, 65 F.3d 1502, 1509 (9th Cir. 1995) (holding §7(a)(2) consultation duty not triggered where agency action was non-discretionary in nature).
78. See, e.g., Tenn. Valley Auth. v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 172-73 (1978).
79. 30 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 1994).
80. Id. (agency decision to complete construction and commence operation of a dam constituted "agency action" triggering ESA § 7(a)(2) consultation requirements).
81. Id. at 1053.
82. Tenn. Valley Auth., 437 U.S. at 172-74, 194.
83. Pac. Rivers, 30 F.3d at 1051-52.
84. Id. at 1053.
85. Id.
86. Id. at 1054.
87. Id.
88. Id.
89. Id. at 1054-55.
90. Id at 1055.
91. Id. at 1056.
92. 127 S. Ct. 2518(2007).
93. Id at 2533-36.
94. Id at 2528-29.
95. 33 U.S.C.A. §§ 1251-1387 (2008).
96. See Home Builders, 127 S. Ct. at 2531.
97. Id. at 2535-36.
98. Id. at 2536, 2538.
99. 16 U.S.C.A. § 1531 (2008).
100. See Forest Guardians v. Forsgen, 478 F.3d 1149, 1151 (10th Cir. 2007).
101. See Id. at 1151-52.
102. Robert Breazeale, Is Something Wrong with the National Forest Management Act?, 21 J. LAND RESOURCES & ENVTL. L. 317, 323 (2001).
103. 16 U.S.C.A. §§1600-1614 (2008).
104. See W. Va. Div. of Izaak Walton League of Am. v. Butz, 522 F.2d 945, 950 (4th Cir. 1975) (noting only 500 million acres out of approximately one to one and one quarter billion acres of American forests existing at the end of the 18th century remained uncut in 1893).
105. PAUL W. HIRT, A CONSPIRACY OF OPTIMISM: MANAGEMENT OF THE NATIONAL FORESTS SINCE WORLD WAR TWO xvii (1994).
106. Izaak Walton League, 522 F.2d at 950-52.
107. Id. at 952 (also known as the "Pettigrew Amendment");
108. see also 16 U.S.C.A. § 476 (repealed 1976).
109. Izaak Walton League, 522 F.2d at 950-52;
110. see also 16 U.S.C.A. §476 (repealed 1976);
111. HIRT, supra note 86, at 32.
112. See HIRT, supra note 86, at 31-32.
113. Id. at 31-33.
114. Id. at 32, 34.
115. Id. at 35-36.
116. Id. at 36.
117. See Id. at 45, 50-53.
118. See Id. at xxiv.
119. See Id. at 55-57.
120. See W. Va. Div. of Izaak Walton League of America v. Butz, 522 F.2d 945, 955 (4th Cir. 1975).
121. See HIRT, supra note 86, at 52-53 (discussing dramatic increase in recreational use of the national forests during 1940s and 1950s).
122. Id. at 53.
123. 16 U.S.C.A. §§528-531 (2008);
124. SEE CHARLES F. WILKINSON & H. MICHAEL ANDERSON, LAND AND RESOURCE PLANNING IN THE NATIONAL FORESTS 29-30 (1987).
125. § 531.
126. Id.
127. § 528.
128. Id.
129. United States v. New Mexico, 438 U.S. 696, 714-15 (1978);
130. see also 16 U.S.C.A. §476 (repealed 1976).
131. See WILKINSON & ANDERSON, supra note 101, at 69-70.
132. Id. at 41-42;
133. see also W. Va. Div. of Izaak Walton League of Am. v. Butz, 522 F.2d 945, 955 (4th Cir. 1975).
134. 16 U.S.C.A. §§ 1600-1614 (2008).
135. See Citizens for Better Forestry v. USDA, 481 F. Supp. 2d 1059, 1064 (N.D. Cal. 2007);
136. see also Izaak Walton League, 522 F.2d at 953;
137. GAIL L. ACHTERMAN, K. NORMAN JOHNSON & SUSAN K. STEVENS, NFMA and FLMPA: Fifteen Years of Planning, in PUBLIC LAND LAW 5-1,5-13 (Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation 1992);
138. WILKINSON & ANDERSON, supra note 101, at 70-72;
139. HIRT, supra note 85, at 260-65.
140. HIRT, supra note 86, at 263.
141. See Citizens, 481 F. Supp. 2d at 1064.
142. See Id. (forest plans are also referred to as "land resource management plans" or "LRMPs" );
143. see also § 1604(a).
144. Citizens, 481 F. Supp. 2d at 1064;
145. see §1604(f)-(g), (i).
146. § 1604(k).
147. See § 1604(e)(1).
148. Citizens, 481 F. Supp. 2d at 1064.
149. Id.; § 1604(f).
150. See § 1604.
151. § 1604(a), (f)(2).
152. § 1604(b).
153. § 1604(g).
154. § 1604(g)(1).
155. § 1604(g)(2).
156. § 1604(g)(3)(B).
157. § 1604(g)(3)(C).
158. § 1604(h)(1).
159. § § 1604(d), 1612(a).
160. See § 1604(g)(3).
161. See 16 U.S.C.A. § 1536(a)(2) (2008).
162. See, e.g., Ohio Forestry Ass'n v. Sierra Club, 523 U.S. 726, 731 (1998). Claims under NFMA and NEPA are usually made under § 702 of the APA, which provides a right of action to any person "adversely affected or aggrieved" by or "suffering legal wrong because of agency action. 5 U.S.C.A. § 702 (2008). Section 706 permits the courts to "compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed." 5 U.S.C.A. § 706(1) (2008). Section 704 reads, in pertinent part, "[a]gency action made reviewable by statute and final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court are subject to judicial review." 5 U.S.C.A. § 704 (2008).
163. 523 U.S. 726 (1998).
164. Id. at 729-30.
165. Id. at 731.
166. Id. at 732-39.
167. Id. at 733-35.
168. Id. at 735-36.
169. Id. at 736-37.
170. Id. at 733-35.
171. 542 U.S. 55 (2004).
172. Id. at 72.
173. 43 U.S.C.A. §§ 1701-1785 (2008).
174. See Norton, 542 U.S. at 58-60.
175. See 16 U.S.C.A. §1604 (2008);
176. see also WILKINSON & ANDERSON, supra note 101, at 64 (citing 43 U.S.C. §§1715, 1716, 1751-1753 (1982)) (noting FLMPA contains sections applicable to the Forest Service, including provisions on "acquisition of land, exchanges of land, and grazing within the national forests.").
177. Norton, 542 U.S. at 68.
178. Id. at 71.
179. Id. at 69-71.
180. Id. at 69.
181. Id.
182. Id. at 71.
183. Id. at 71-72. But see Justin C. Konrad, Comment: The Shrinking Scope of Judicial Review in Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 77 U. COLO. L. REV. 515, 540 (2006) (arguing that clear legal obligations increase quality of federal land management).
184. Compare Norton, 542 U.S. at 71, with Ohio Forestry Ass'n v. Sierra Club, 523 U.S. 726, 733 (1998), and 2005 Final Rule, 70 Fed. Reg. 1023,1031 (Jan. 5,2005) (to be codified at 36 C.F.R. pt 219).
185. see also 2005 Final Rule, 70 Fed. Reg. at 1032 (citing Ohio Forestry for the proposition that "timber management provisions of land management plans are tools for further agency planning and guide, but do not direct future development").
186. 481 F. Supp. 2d 1059 (N.D. Cal. 2007).
187. 2005 Final Rule, 70 Fed. Reg. 1023 (Jan. 5, 2005).
188. Citizens, 481 F. Supp. 2d at 1067. Simultaneously, the Forest Service issued a separate categorical exclusion exempting "all proposals to develop, amend, or revise land use plans which did not approve particular projects or site-specific activities." Id.
189. See Id. at 1067, 1073-74, 1076.
190. Id. at 1075.
191. Id. at 1068.
192. 478 F.3d 1149 (10th Cir. 2007).
193. Id. at 1151.
194. Id. at 1152.
195. Pac. Rivers Council v. Thomas, 30 F.3d 1050, 1051-52 (9th Cir. 1994).
196. Forest Guardians, 478 F.3d at 1152.
197. Id.
198. See Id. at 1152.
199. Norton v. S. Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55, 73 (2004);
200. Forest Guardians, 478 F.3d at 1153.
201. Forest Guardians, 478 F.3d at 1153.
202. Ibid
203. 36 C.F.R. §219.16 (2005).
204. Forest Guardians, 478 F.3d at 1154.
205. Id. Compare Id., with Citizens for Better Forestry v. USDA, 481 F. Supp. 2d 1059, 1067-68 (N.D. Cal. 2007), and 2005 Rule, 70 Fed. Reg. 1023-01, 1032, 1040 (Jan. 5, 2005).
206. Forest Guardians, 478 F.3d at 1154-55.
207. See Id. at 1156.
208. Id. at 1157.
209. Id. at 1160.
210. Id. at 1157.
211. Id.
212. Id at 1158.
213. Id at 1159.
214. Id.
215. Compare Id. at 1158, with Norton v. S. Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55, 71 (2004).
216. Forest Guardians, 478 F.3d at 1153;
217. see also Id. at 1156 n.9. Interestingly, the court also declined to rely on Ohio Forestry for its holding that forest plans are unchallengeable except at adoption, amendment, or revision, even though the Supreme Court essentially laid out the same rule in the same context-NFMA forest planning, as opposed to BLM planning at issue in Norton. The explanation for reliance on Norton instead of Ohio Forestry likely lies in the nature of the agency "action" challenged. In Norton, agency inaction was at issue, whereas the challenge in Ohio Forestry was to the forest plan's authorization of specific harvesting practices. The Tenth Circuit likely chose to rely on Norton instead of Ohio Forestry because Forest Guardians sought to compel the Forest Service to initiate consultation rather than revise a specific provision of the plan (i.e., to compel specific action in the face of agency inaction rather than enjoin an agency action).
218. See Pac. Rivers Council v. Thomas, 30 F.3d 1050, 1051-52 (9th Cir. 1994).
219. 16 U.S.C.A. § 1604(i) (2008).
220. Pac. Rivers, 30 F.3d at 1051-56.
221. See Ohio Forestry Ass'n v. Sierra Club, 523 U.S. 726, 734 (1998).
222. See, e.g., Id. at 734-35.
223. See, e.g., 2007 Proposed Rule, 72 Fed. Reg. 48514, 48526-27 (Aug. 23, 2007) (to be codified at 36 C.F.R. pt. 219) (authorizing categorical exclusion of forest plans from environmental analysis under NEPA);
224. Robert B. Keiter, Ecological Concepts, Legal Standards, and Public Land Law: An Analysis and Assessment, 44 NAT. RESOURCES J. 943, 950 (2004).
225. Charles Wilkinson, The National Forest Management Act: The Twenty Years Behind, the Twenty Years Ahead, 68 U. COLO. L. REV. 659, 673-74 (1997).
226. Martin Nie, The 2005 National Forest System Land and Resource Management Planning Regulations: Comments and Analysis, 27 PUB. LAND & RESOURCES L. REV. 99, 105 (2006).
227. See Id. at 100. The Forest Service has also cited project delays caused by litigation under various federal statutes as justification for its regulatory reforms.
228. See U.S. FOREST SERVICE, THE PROCESS PREDICAMENT: HOW STATUTORY, REGULATORY, AND ADMINISTRATIVE FACTORS AFFECT NATIONAL FOREST MANAGEMENT 7, 19 (2002) [hereinafter PROCESS PREDICAMENT], available at http://www.fs.fed.us/projects/documents/ Process-Predicament.pdf (discussing litigation related delays to California timber salvage project and wildfire recovery project).
229. See, e.g., Keiter, supra note 187, at 946.
230. See, e.g., Id. at 946-47.
231. See, e.g., 1982 Rule, 36 C.F.R. §§ 219.14-.27 (1982).
232. Id 219.19.
233. Id. § 219.26.
234. Id § 219.12.
235. See, e.g., 2007 Proposed Rule, 72 Fed Reg. 48514-01, 48515 (Aug. 23, 2007) (to be codified at 36 C.F.R. pt. 219);
236. 2005 Rule, 70 Fed. Reg. 1023-01, 1024, 1027 (Jan. 5, 2005).
237. See Keiter, supra note 187, at 948 (noting the Clinton Administration's commitment to "instilling a new ethic in the public land agencies . . ..").
238. See Id. at 964.
239. See 2000 Rule, 65 Fed. Reg. 67514, 67516 (Nov. 9, 2000);
240. see also Citizens for Better Forestry v. USDA, 481 F. Supp. 2d 1059, 1065 (N.D. Cal. 2007);
241. Wilkinson, supra note 188, at 672-73.
242. See Keiter, supra note 187, at 962.
243. See Utah Envtl. Cong. v. Bosworth, 483 F.3d 1127, 1132 (10th Cir. 2007) (noting the transitional provision of the 2000 Rule permitted forest planners to base site-specific decisions on a "best available science" standard instead of the substantive provisions of the 2000 Rule);
244. Ecology Ctr. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 451 F.3d 1183, 1190-91 (10th Cir. 2006) (noting the substantive provisions of the 2000 Rule were never implemented).
245. Citizens, 481 F. Supp. 2d at 1065.
246. See 2007 Proposed Rule, 72 Fed. Reg. 48514-01, 48515 (Aug. 23, 2007) (to be codified at 36 C.F.R. pt. 219).
247. Ecology Ctr., 451 F.3d at 1190; 2002 Proposed Rule, 67 Fed. Reg. 72770 (Dec. 6, 2002) (to be codified at 36 C.F.R. pt. 219).
248. Citizens, 481 F. Supp. 2d at 1067-68.
249. See infra notes 181-212 and accompanying text.
250. Citizens, 481 F. Supp. 2d at 1100.
251. 2007 Proposed Rule, 72 Fed. Reg. at 48515.
252. Id.
253. 1982 Rule, 36 C.F.R. § 219.19 (1982).
254. Id.
255. Id § 219.19(a)(1).
256. Id.
257. Id. (emphasis added).
258. Compare Id., with 2007 Proposed Rule, 72 Fed. Reg. 48514-01, 48536, 48538 (Aug. 23, 2007) (to be codified at 36 C.F.R. pt. 219). The term "best" is wholly subjective and practically meaningless; because courts will be especially reluctant to second-guess agency discretion on technical matters, this term is likely to allow the Service to substitute science consistent with its preferred policies for more valid science that contradicts those policies. Second, "available" narrows further the range of science the Service must account for-namely, to the science the Service chooses to avail itself of prior and up to adoption of a plan. Third, "take into account" is vague and lends itself to an interpretation of implied discretion more than "on the basis of." The latter phrase implies agency decision making driven by science as opposed to agency politics, budgetary pressures, or public opinion. If plans are to be "based on" available science, the Service is, at least, tied to a specific methodology with regard to the role of science in planning. On the other hand, the "take into account" language does not imply such constraints on agency discretion, for better or worse.
259. 1982 Rule, 36 C.F.R. § 219.10(f) (1982) (requiring responsible official to follow ordinary plan adoption procedures where proposed plan amendment would "result in a significant change in the plan").
260. 2007 Proposed Rule, 72 Fed. Reg. at 48528.
261. Id. at 48536;
262. see also PROCESS PREDICAMENT, supra note 190, at, 24.
263. 2007 Proposed Rule, 72 Fed. Reg. at 48535;
264. PROCESS PREDICAMENT, supra note 190, at 23.
265. Keiter, supra note 187, at 975.
266. 2007 Proposed Rule, 72 Fed. Reg. at 48535.
267. Keiter, supra note 187, at 951.
268. See International Organization for Standardization 14000 Essentials, available at http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_14000_essentials (last visited Feb. 2, 2008) [hereinafter ISO 14000 Essentials].
269. Nie, supra note 189, at 106 (discussing the Committee of Scientists report and "dozens of scholarly books and articles" calling for adoption of adaptive management by the Forest Service).
270. Id.;
271. see also PROCESS PREDICAMENT, supra note 190, at 23-24.
272. See, e.g., Nie, supra note 189, at 106.
273. 2007 Proposed Rule, 72 Fed. Reg. 48514-01, 48535 (Aug. 23, 2007) (to be codified at 36 C.F.R. pt. 219);
274. ISO 14000 Essentials, supra note 224.
275. ISO 14000 Essentials, supra note 224.
276. See supra notes 88-130 and accompanying text.
277. 16 U. S.C.A. § 1604(g)(3)(B) (2008).
278. Keiter, supra note 187, at 946.
279. § 1604(g)(3)(B).
280. Compare Id., with 1982 Rule, 36 C.F.R. § 219.26 (1982).
281. 1982 Rule, 36 C.F.R. § 219.19.
282. See 2007 Proposed Rule, 72 Fed. Reg. 48514-01, 48530 (Aug. 23, 2007) (to be codified at 36 C.F.R. pt. 219).
283. Id. at 48538.
284. Id. This approach is antithetical to the 2000 rule, which exalted biodiversity above other values. See sources cited supra note 199-201.
285. Keiter, supra note 187, at 963. Although Keiter writes about the now-enjoined 2005 Rule, his discussion is entirely applicable to the 2007 Rule, as the latter's biodiversity language is borrowed from the language of the former word for word. Compare 2005 Rule, 70 Fed. Reg. 1023, 1059 (2005), with 2007 Proposed Rule, 72 Fed. Reg. at 48538.
286. 1982 Rule, 36 C.F.R. § 219.6(a)(1).
287. Id. §§ 219.6(b)-(c).
288. See id § 219.6(b).
289. See id 219.6(d).
290. See Id. § 219.6(e).
291. See 2007 Proposed Rule, 72 Fed. Reg. at 48537.
292. See Id.
293. See Id. at 48526.
294. See 40 C.F.R. §§ 1501.7, 1502.9, 1502.19, 1503.4, 1506.6(2007).
295. See 1982 Rule, 36 C.F.R. §§ 219.12(a), (f)-(k).
296. See 2007 Proposed Rule, 72 Fed. Reg. at 48535.
297. See Id.
298. See Colo. Wild. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 435 F.3d 1204, 1221-22 (10th Cir. 2006) (affirming agency's categorical exclusion of major timber sales where agency decision not to do EISs was not arbitrary and capricious); Joshua Nathaniel, Survey, Forests on Fire: The Role of Judicial Oversight, Forest Service Discretion, and Environmental Regulations in a Time of Extraordinary Wildfire Danger, 84 DENV. U. L. REV. 923, 937-39 (discussing 2003 announcement of the Healthy Forests Initiative [HFI] and passage of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act [HFRA] and categorical exclusions of major timber harvests from NEPA analysis under HFI and HFRA);
299. Nie, supra note 189, at 102 (discussing Forest Service's categorical exclusion of major timber sales).
300. See 2007 Proposed Rule, 72 Fed. Reg. at 48535.
301. See 1982 Rule, 36 C.F.R. § 219.4(b)(2).
302. See Keiter, supra note 187, at 970-71.
303. See 2007 Proposed Rule, 72 Fed. Reg. at 48537.
304. See 1982 Rule, 36 C.F.R. § 219.26.
305. See Id.
306. See 1982 Rule, 36 C.F.R. § 219.14.
307. See 2007 Proposed Rule, 72 Fed. Reg. at 48530.
308. See supra notes 248-57 and accompanying text.
309. See, e.g., supra note 253 and accompanying text.
310. The 1982 Rule required completion of an EIS for each forest plan adopted. See 1982 Rule, 36 C.F.R. § 219.12(a), (f)-(g), (j).
311. See 1982 Rule, 36 C.F.R. § 219.26.
312. 1982 Rule, 36 C.F.R. § 219.14. The 1982 Rule mandated cost-benefit review of production on lands identified for potential timber harvest. See § 219.14(b).
313. See, e.g., 2007 Proposed Rule, 72 Fed. Reg. 48514, 48515-16 (Aug. 23, 2007) (to be codified at 36 C.F.R. pt. 219);
314. see also, Nie, supra note 189, at 100.
315. See Keiter, supra note 187, at 249-50.
316. See, e.g., 1982 Rule, 36 CFR § 219.19 (imposing species viability and management indicator species requirements on Forest Service).
317. 2007 Proposed Rule, 72 Fed. Reg. at 48536.
318. See Id. at 48535.
319. See HIRT, supra note 85, at 295-96.
320. Wilkinson, supra note 188, at 679;
321. see also Keiter, supra note 187, at 960-61 (discussing the open-ended nature of statutory language in federal public land and wildlife laws and the agencies' role in defining the scope of statutory terminology);
322. Nie, supra note 189, at 104.
323. See Nie, supra note 189, at 104.
324. See, e.g., Ohio Forestry Ass'n v. Sierra Club, 523 U.S. 726, 728 (1998) (noting Forest Service jurisdiction encompasses "nearly 300,000 square miles of land located in 44 states, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.").
325. See Wilkinson, supra note 188, at 669-77 (discussing changes in national forest management and forest conditions since passage of NFMA).
326. See, e.g., HIRT, supra note 86 and accompanying text.
327. See, e.g., Roger A. Sedjo, Streamlining Forest Service Planning, in NEW APPROACHES ON ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT 101 (Richard D. Morgenstern and Paul R. Portney, eds., 2004) available at http://www.fs.fed.us/ems/includes/article3.pdf.
328. See PROCESS PREDICAMENT, supra note 190, at 34;
329. see also Jodi Peterson, The End of 'Analysis Paralysis'?, HIGH COUNTRY NEWS, Feb. 19, 2007, available at http://www.hcn.org/servlets/hcn.Article?article_id=16838 ("Each [forest] plan took five to seven years of effort and cost around $5 million to $7 million.").
330. See Citizens for Better Forestry v. USDA, 481 F. Supp. 2d 1059, 1067-68 (N.D. Cal. 2007). Compare 1982 Rule, 36 C.F.R. § 219.10(b) (1983), with 2005 Rule, 70 Fed. Reg. 1023, 1032, 1056 (Jan. 5, 2005),
331. and 2007 Proposed Rule, 72 Fed. Reg. 48514, 48535 (Aug. 23, 2007) (to be codified at 36 C.F.R. pt. 219).
332. See 40 C.F.R. §§ 1502.12-1502.16 (2008).
333. See supra notes 52-58 and accompanying text.
334. See William J. Wailand, Note: A New Direction? Forest Service Decisionmaking and Management of National Forest Roadless Areas, 81 N.Y.U. L. REV. 418, 428 (2006);
335. Wilkinson, supra note 188, at 681.
336. See 16 U.S.C.A. § 1604(f)(5) (2008);
337. 1982 Rule, 36 C.F.R. § 219.10(g).
338. Interview by Ray Suarez with Rick Cables, U.S. Forest Service Regional Forester, Region 2, Newshour with Jim Lehrer: Forest Rules (PBS television broadcast Dec. 23, 2004) (transcript available at http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/environment/july-dec04/forest_12-23.html).
339. See, e.g., 2005 Rule, 70 Fed. Reg. 1023, 1041 (Jan. 5, 2005).
340. See Id. at 1031 (discussing 1997 Committee of Scientists criticisms of the use of EIS at the forest plan level).
341. Id. (discussing the speculative nature of plan content where agency realizes "over the 15-year life of a plan it can only expect the unexpected.").
342. See Id. (noting difficulties with data collection over the breadth of national forest system and management units and duplication of NEPA analysis at planning and project levels).
343. See 2007 Proposed Rule, 72 Fed. Reg. 48514, 48516 (Aug. 23, 2007) (to be codified at 36 C.F.R. pt 219) ("Land management plans are strategic" and "do not command anyone to do anything or to refrain from doing anything ... do not grant, withhold, or modify any formal legal license, power, or authority ... do not subject anyone to any civil or criminal liability [or] create legal rights or obligations.").
344. See Nie, supra note 189, at 104.
345. See 2007 Rule, 72 Fed. Reg. at 48537-38.
346. Id.
347. Interview by Ray Suarez with Rick Cables, U.S. Forest Service Regional Forester, Region 2, The Newshour with Jim Lehrer: Forest Rules (PBS television broadcast Dec. 23, 2004) (transcript available at http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/environment/july-dec04/forest 12-23.html). These are the "paid gladiators" Cables mentions.
348. See 2007 Rule, 72 Fed. Reg. at 48516 (citing Ohio Forestry and Norton for the proposition that forest plans are not agency action).
349. Id. at 48535.
350. Id at 48516.
351. See Forest Guardians v. Forsgren, 478 F.3d 1149, 1154, 1156 (10th Cir. 2007).
352. See Nathaniel, supra note 252, at 937-39 (discussing categorical exclusions of major timber harvests under HFI and HFRA).
353. Ohio Forestry Ass'n v. Sierra Club, 523 U.S. 726, 737 (1998).
354. But see Thomas v. Peterson, 753 F.2d 754, 763 (9th Cir. 1985).
355. Ohio Forestry, 523 U.S. at 737.
356. See National Environmental Policy Act Documentation Needed for Limited Timber Harvest, 68 Fed. Reg. 44598 (July 29, 2003) (authorizing categorical exclusion of three types of sitespecific actions: 70 acre live tree harvests with 'A mile of road construction; 250 acre salvage of dead/dying trees with 'A mile of road construction; and 250 acre commercial harvest "of any trees necessary to control the spread of insects and disease" with 1/2 of road building);
357. Nie, supra note 189, at 103 (discussing HFRA's authorization of project-level NEPA categorical exclusions).
358. See, e.g., 2007 Proposed Rule, 72 Fed. Reg. 48514, 48537 (Aug. 23, 2007) (to be codified at 36 C.F.R. pt. 219) (providing for changes to monitoring program and program information by administrative correction);
359. Id. at 48536 (providing for a variety of changes to plan content by administrative correction, including timber management projections and other "non-substantive" changes).
360. See Citizens for Better Forestry v. USDA, 481 F. Supp. 2d 1059, 1078-80 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (holding Forest Service did not violate APA by issuing a 2004 rule without notice and comment as that rule clarified applicability of various planning regulations to agency planning and was interpretive in nature).
361. See Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 750-51 (1984).
362. See Norton v. S. Utah Wild. Alliance, 542 U.S. 55, 66-67 (2004);
363. Chevron v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 467 U.S. 837, 844 (1984);
364. Sierra Club v. Marita, 46 F.3d 606, 619 (7th Cir. 1995) (noting scope of review of agency action is narrow and that "court is not permitted to submit its judgment for that of the agency");
365. Lisa Schultz Bressman, Judicial Review of Agency Inaction: An Arbitrariness Approach, 79 N.Y.U. L. REV. 1657, 1702-03 (2004);
366. Keiter, supra note 187, at 961 (distinguishing agency regulations and policies and discussing the application of Chevron deference to agency decisions).
367. See, e.g., Citizens, 481 F. Supp. 2d at 1095 (noting forest plans are ongoing agency action under § 7(a)(2) of the ESA).
368. See Michael J. Gippert & Vincent L. DeWitte, The Nature of Land and Resource Management Planning Under the National Forest Management Act, 3 ENVTL. LAW 149, 182-83 (1996) (noting Eighth Circuit only other to have "expressly found that Forest Plans are reviewable" on an ongoing basis).
369. Compare Ohio Forestry Ass'n v. Sierra Club, 523 U.S. 726, 733 (1998) (holding challenge to forest plan unripe where "delayed review would [not] cause plaintiffs hardship . .. judicial intervention would inappropriately interfere with further administrative action [and].. . [where] the courts would benefit from further factual development of the issues presented"), with Pac. Rivers Council v. Thomas, 30 F.3d 1050, 1053-56 (9th Cir. 1994) (holding forest plans constitute ongoing agency action under the ESA).
370. See Gippert & DeWitte, supra note 307, at 183-86.
371. See 2007 Proposed Rule, 72 Fed. Reg. 48514, 48536 (Aug. 23, 2007) (to be codified at 36 C.F.R. pt. 219).
372. Nie, supra note 189, at 106.
373. See Interview by Ray Suarez with Rick Cables, U.S. Forest Service Regional Forester, Region 2, Newshour with Jim Lehrer: Forest Rules (PBS television broadcast Dec. 23, 2004) (transcript available at http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/environment/july-dec04/forest_12-23.html).
374. See Nie, supra note 189, at 106.
375. See supra notes 108-130 and accompanying text.
376. See Forest Guardians v. Forsgren, 478 F.3d 1149, 1154-56 (10th Cir. 2007) (noting forest plans are subject to judicial review at adoption, amendment, or revision, or when making sitespecific decisions).
377. See 2005 Rule, 70 Fed. Reg. 1023, 1033 (Jan. 5, 2005).
378. See supra notes 92-111 and accompanying text.
379. See 2007 Proposed Rule, 72 Fed. Reg. 48514, 48535 (Aug. 23, 2007) (to be codified at 36 C.F.R. § 219.4(b)).
380. Id. at 49536 (permitting plan amendment by administrative correction).
381. Id. at 48535.
382. See Citizens for Better Forestry v. USDA, 481 F. Supp. 2d 1059, 1067 (N.D. Cal. 2007) ("By the USDA's admission, the 2005 Rule 'embodies a paradigm shift in land management planning.'").
383. See Forest Guardians v. Forsgren, 478 F.3d 1149, 1159-60 (10th Cir. 2007).
384. See FOREST GUARDIANS, PETITION TO CHANGE THE LISTING STATUS OF CANADA LYNX TO ENCOMPASS THE MOUNTAINOUS REGION OF NORTH-CENTRAL NEW MEXICO 3 (2007), available at http://www.fguardians.org/support_docs/petition_canada-lynx_8-1 -07.pdf.
385. Id. at 1-2.
386. See Notice of Remanded Determination of Status for the Contiguous United States Distinct Population Segment of the Canada Lynx, 68 Fed. Reg. 40076, 40083 (2003).