ELR Citation: ELR 20620
No(s). 90-2150 (W.D. Ark. Oct 22, 1992)

The court holds that the U.S. Forest Service did not violate the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) or the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) when it issued a land and resource management plan for timber harvesting in the Ouachita National Forest in Arkansas and Oklahoma and selected a vegetation management program pursuant to a record of decision (ROD) that amended the plan's approach to herbicide use. The Forest Service's plan calls for even-aged management—cutting existing trees and growing pine trees of uniform height. The court holds that the Forest Service did not violate the NFMA by issuing the plan and the ROD as separate documents, because the plan and the ROD together constitute a set of documents for purposes of the NFMA. The court further holds that the agency acted reasonably in issuing two environmental impact statements (EISs), one to accompany the plan and one analyzing vegetation management alternatives, because the plan addresses multi-resource management, while the ROD concerns only vegetation management.

The court holds that the agency's site-by-site method of choosing harvesting techniques, rather than at the plan level, is reasonable, because it allows site-specific analysis of the appropriateness of the cutting method. The court also holds that the NFMA does not require the Forest Service to identify which specific acres are unsuited to timber production. The court holds that the agency acted rationally in adopting its methodology for addressing diversity issues, and defers to the agency's expertise. The court holds that the agency's inventory of forest resources was not arbitrary or capricious, because the plaintiffs do not support their allegations that the inventory is deficient or the allegations are simply incorrect. Further, the agency has considerable discretion in preparing its inventory.

The court next holds that the agency did not violate NEPA by not considering a herbicide-free selection cutting with a timber-wildlife emphasis alternative, because the Forest Service considered sufficient alternatives to permit a reasoned choice. The court finds no bias toward even-aged management of forest resources in the agency's EIS, and rejects claims that the agency's discussion of water issues in its EISs was inadequate and that it failed to discuss monitoring measures in the EISs. The agency addressed the water issues in sufficient depth to provide sufficient information to permit a reasoned choice, and monitoring measures are provided in the land and resource management plan. Finally, the court holds that Arkansas' claim that the plan does not comply with the state's water quality regulations is not entitled to review, because the claim was not submitted to the agency in its appeals process.

[A prior decision in this litigation is published at 22 ELR 20195.]

Counsel for Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenors
Michael H. Crawford
415 Ouachita Ave., Hot Springs AR 79102
(501) 321-1982

Counsel for Defendants
Rebecca A. Donnellan, David F. Shuey
Environment and Natural Resources Division
U.S. Department of Justice, Washington DC 20530
(202) 514-2000

Counsel for Intervenor-Defendants
Steven P. Quarles, Thomas R. Lundquist
Crowell & Moring
1001 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington DC 20004
(202) 624-2500