ELR Citation: ELR 20403
No(s). 87-F-1714 (D. Colo. Aug 24, 1989)

The court upholds in part and remands in part the Forest Service's Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP or the Plan) and environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Rio Grande National Forest under the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), respectively. The court allows evidence outside the administrative record to explain the computer model used in developing the Plan. The court finds that the Forest Service failed to provide a reasonable basis for some decisions. Specifically, although the court upholds the Plan's soil study provision, the Forest Service must identify technology to prevent soil damage. The court holds that the plaintiff fails to state a claim under the NFMA regarding identification of hazards to resources. The court remands the Plan to the agency to conduct an economic efficiency analysis and to further explain the timber production suitability analysis. The court holds that the Plan's cost efficiency analysis is not arbitrary and capricious. The court holds that the Forest Service must consider a broader range of alternatives as well as consider the listed alternatives in greater detail. The court holds that although the Plan adequately considers the environmental effects on visual resources and water quality, it fails to address compliance with the Clean Water Act. The court holds that the NFMA does not require that an economic feasibility analysis for individual timber sales be carried out in the LRMP. The court holds that the plaintiff failed to exhaust its administrative remedies regarding post-plan events. While holding that the Plan fails to explain why it did not use additional current price data, the court upholds the Plan's use of a horizontal demand curve. The court upholds the EIS on the grounds that it contains adequate discussion of soil characteristics and provides for site-specific studies prior to implementation. The court holds there is no statutory requirement that the EIS discuss cumulative impacts. Finally, the court holds that plaintiff fails to state a claim under the Endangered Species Act.

Counsel for Defendants
J. Greg Whitehair, Ass't U.S. Attorney
1200 Bryon G. Rogers Bldg., 1961 Stout St., Denver CO 80294
(303) 844-2064

Wells D. Burgess
Land and Natural Resources Division
U.S. Department of Justice, P.O. Box 663, Ben Franklin Station, Washington DC 20044-0663
(202) 272-6959

Counsel for Plaintiff-Intervenors
Ronald J. Wilsoon, F. Kaid Benfield
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
1535 P St. NW, Washington DC 20005
(202) 783-7800

David C. Von Gunten, Michael J. Cook
Faegre & Benson
370 17th St., No. 2500, Denver CO 80202-4004
(303) 592-5900

Frances M. Green
1405 Arapahoe #200, Boulder CO 80302
(303) 444-1188

Grove T. Burnett
Rte. 1, Box 9-A, Glorieta NM 87535
(505) 757-8408