ELR Citation: ELR 21031
No(s). 92-1121-AS (D. Or. Sep 24, 1993)

The court holds that the U.S. Forest Service (Forest Service) did not act arbitrarily and capriciously in meeting the habitat requirements of old growth inhabiting species in the Winema National Forest in Oregon under the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), and regulations promulgated under it. The court also holds that the Forest Service did not act arbitrarily and capriciously in not preparing an additional environmental impact statement (EIS) for an amendment to the land and resource management plan (LRMP) that determines which parts of the old growth forest would be preserved. The court first holds that plaintiff environmental organizations have standing and that the record of decision (ROD) adopting the LRMP and the decision notice adopting the amendment constitute final agency action. The court next holds that the Forest Service did not act arbitrarily and capriciously in meeting the habitat requirements of old growth inhabiting species in the LRMP, because the Forest Service's decisions in the LRMP regarding the habitat requirements of old growth inhabiting species are amply supported by scientific prescriptions in the record. Even though new research findings are now available on several wildlife species, the Forest Service properly based the decision made in the LRMP on the research available at the time of decision. The court further holds that the Forest Service's rationale for selecting management indicator species is not arbitrary and capricious and is fully explained in LRMP records, as required by agency regulations implementing the NFMA.

The court next holds that the decision to adopt the amendment to the LRMP without conducting an additional EIS is not arbitrary and capricious because the amendment is premised on the fact that the LRMP ROD already determined how many acres of old growth forest would be preserved. The LRMP is based on an old growth inventory that has not been shown to be incomplete or inaccurate and that was performed according to the Regional Guide's definition of old growth. The original EIS properly estimates the LRMP's effect on wildlife. The amendment implements the LRMP by deciding which acres are to be preserved. Moreover, the environmental organizations' objections were addressed by the Forest Service in the administrative appeal process. The court also holds that the Forest Service did not act arbitrarily and capriciously in deciding that the existence of a new inventory of old growth forest does not require a change in the analysis of the environmental impacts of the LRMP. Finally, the court holds that it will not reopen the administrative record, because there are no extraordinary circumstances to justify doing so and the Forest Service has adequate mechanisms for instituting revisions of the LRMP if necessary.

Counsel for Plaintiffs
Gary K. Kahn
Reeves & Kahn
610 SW Alder St., Rm. 910, Portland OR 97205
(503) 227-5144

Counsel for Defendants
Thomas C. Lee, Ass't U.S. Attorney
U.S. Attorney's Office
312 U.S. CtHse., 620 SW Main St., Portland OR 97205
(503) 326-2101