ELR Citation: ELR 20799
No(s). 94-1005 (8th Cir. Feb 1, 1995)

The court holds that the U.S. Forest Service need not prepare a site-specific environmental impact statement (EIS) for two timber sales in the Victoria Project Area of the Black Hills National Forest in South Dakota. Environmental groups challenged the Forest Service's environmental assessment (EA) and finding of no significant impact (FONSI) for the sales. The court first holds that the district court erred in concluding that 40 C.F.R. §1508.7 does not require analysis of the impacts of activities on private land, but this error has little consequence because the EA's consideration of those impacts was not so deficient as to make the Forest Service's FONSI arbitrary and capricious. The court rejects the groups' argument that an EA must address the impacts from events on private lands such as the owners deciding to clear cut all of their land. What is required is that the EA recognize the impacts of activities reasonably expected to occur on private lands, and this the EA did. Also, the Forest Service did not find any significant impacts involving private lands, nor do the environmental groups suggest any. The court next holds that with regard to the impacts of past timber sales and habitat fragmentation, the EA is sufficient to prevent the FONSI from being arbitrary or capricious. The court further holds that the EA need not consider the effects of changing the land management designation of 1,504 acres in the Victoria Project Area to permit commercial timber harvesting, which the Forest Service claimed it did because the original designation was wrong and did not correspond to actual conditions. An EA need not consider impacts arising from an error in a forest plan. With respect to the groups' contention that the EA failed to include a complete analysis of a diversity unit in the Victoria Project Area, the court holds that this analysis would not have contributed much of value to the EA, because so little of the unit lies within the project area. Finally, the court holds it irrelevant whether the district court misunderstood what kind of EIS the environmental groups were seeking and accordingly considered the issue under the wrong standard. With a project-specific EIS such as the groups claim to have sought, the standard is whether the Forest Service's FONSI was arbitrary and capricious, and the court holds that the Forest Service reasonably concluded the FONSI was appropriate.

[The district court's opinion is published at 25 ELR 20313.]

Counsel for Plaintiffs
Jack Tuholske
401 N. Washington St., Missoula MT 59802
(406) 721-6986

Counsel for Defendants
Robert A. Mandel, Ass't U.S. Attorney
U.S. Attorney's Office
515 9th St., Rm. 226, Rapid City SD 57701
(605) 342-7822

Before McMILLIAN, Circuit Judge, LAY, Senior Circuit Judge, and BOWMAN, Circuit Judge.