ELR Citation: ELR 20330
No(s). 93-C-1039W (D. Utah Oct 5, 1994)

The court holds that the U.S. Forest Service adequately analyzed in a final supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) the environmental impacts of a timber harvesting project in the Dixie National Forest in Utah. The court first holds that the citizen group challenging the timber sale has standing to assert some, but not all, of its claims. The court next holds that the Forest Service adequately analyzed in the final SEIS the project's direct and indirect impacts on riparian habitat. With respect to direct impacts, the Forest Service excluded riparian areas from harvest under all the alternatives it considered. In its treatment of soil and water conservation practices, the SEIS addresses indirect impacts related to potential erosion in areas adjacent to riparian habitat. The court holds that the absence of a management indicator species (MIS) as a tool for monitoring potential impacts on riparian habitat is not, by itself, a fatal flaw in the SEIS. The court next holds that the group lacks standing to raise issues involving a downstream "cumulative effects" area and fisheries habitat, because the group has failed to assert any direct interest in the fisheries habitat. The court next holds that the Forest Service adequately considered the impact of the project on the northern goshawk. Not only did the Forest Service withdraw its original record of decision in response to the discovery of goshawk and other resources in the project area, it formulated two new alternatives specifically designed to improve goshawk habitat over current conditions. The Forest Service then selected the alternative forecast to be the most favorable to goshawk after two years of further administrative study and procedure. The court next holds that the Forest Service adequately analyzed the project's impacts on recreation and visual quality. Although the record does not treat every possible aspect of recreational and visual impacts, on the whole the SEIS acknowledges the general areas of concern and adequately assesses the project for National Environmental Policy Act purposes.

Turning to the group's claims that the Forest Service violated the National Forest Management Act, the court holds that the group lacks standing to assert that the Forest Service failed to make management decisions with a properly selected MIS. The group has not shown a direct, adverse impact on the project area as a result of the analysis that was performed without an adequate MIS and, thus, cannot show any injury to its own interests. Moreover, because the group cannot articulate any unique circumstances creating a particularized need for an MIS in this case, there is no causal connection between the alleged injury and the Forest Service's failure to maintain a riparian MIS. The court holds that the group also lacks standing to assert that the Forest Service was required to amend the forest plan when it implemented portions of the management recommendations for the northern goshawk. Although the discovery of the goshawk in the project area ultimately became a major factor in the alternative chosen, it was not a factor in the decision to permit logging per se, and the group has not articulated an injury caused by the Forest Service's selected alternative. The court next holds that the Forest Service did not fail to protect sufficient old growth habitat in the project area. The Forest Service reasonably assumed that other areas in the forest contain ample old growth habitat to compensate for the deficit resulting from the timber sale. The court holds that the group lacks standing to assert that the government is not receiving fair market value for the timber products, because such a claim does not invoke a case or controversy.

Finally, the court holds that the project does not violate the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. The record in this case demonstrates that the Forest Service gave ample attention to water quality issues, including provisions expressly designed to meet requirements of applicable state regulations. Thus, the Forest Service's claim that the project will meet water quality standards is not arbitrary or capricious.

Counsel for Plaintiff
Grove T. Burnett, Eric Ames
Western Environmental Law Ctr.
1807 Second St., Ste. 8, Santa Fe NM 87505
(505) 988-4714

Counsel for Defendants
Kenneth D. Paur
Office of the General Counsel
U.S. Department of Agriculture
205 Forest Service Bldg., 507 25th St., Ogden UT 84401
(801) 625-5441