5/31/12

Allegheny Defense Project v. US Forest Service, 423 F. 3d 215 - Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit 2005 -
423F.3d215(2005)

THEALLEGHENYDEFENSEPROJECT,INC.Heartwood,Inc.thePennsylvaniaEnvironmentalNetworktheNational ForestProtectionAllianceCommunitiesforSustainableForestryJimKleisslerNewkirkJohnsonRachelMartinSusan CurryRyanTalbottBillBelitskusArthurClarkAlexanderDenmarshJohnA.Keslick,Jr.SierraClub v. TheUNITEDSTATESFORESTSERVICERobertT.Jacobs,inhisofficialcapacityastheRegionalForesterfortheEastern RegionKevinElliot,inhisofficialcapacityasSupervisoroftheAlleghenyNationalForestAlleghenyForestAlliance RuffedGrouseSocietyAmericanForestandPaperAssociationIntervenorDefendantsinD.C. AlleghenyDefenseProject,Inc.,Heartwood,Inc.,NationalForestProtectionAlliance,PennsylvaniaEnvironmentalNetwork, CommunitiesforSustainableForestry,TheSierraClub,JimKleissler,RachelMartin,SusanCurry,RyanTalbott,Bill Belitskus,ArthurClark,AlexanderDenmarsh,JohnA.Keslick,Jr.,Appellants.

No.042442. UnitedStatesCourtofAppeals,ThirdCircuit. ArguedMay3,2005. OpinionFiledSeptember15,2005.
217 *217ThomasC.Buchele,(Argued),Pittsburgh,PA,forAppellants.

ThomasL.Sansonetti,AssistantAttorneyGeneral,EllenJ.Durkee,MarkR.Haag,(Argued),Attorneys,DepartmentofJustice,Environment& NaturalResourcesDivision,Washington,D.C.,RonaldMulach(Ofcounsel),OfficeoftheGeneralCounsel,UnitedStatesDepartmentofAgriculture, Milwaukee,WI,forAppelleesUnitedStatesForestService,RobertT.JacobsandKevinElliot. StevenP.Quarles,J.MichaelKlise,(Argued),ThomasR.Lundquist,Crowell&MoringLLP,Washington,D.C.,forAppelleesAlleghenyForest Service,RuffedGrouseSocietyandAmericanForestandPaperAssociation. BeforeMCKEE,VANANTWERPEN,andWEIS,CircuitJudges.

OPINION
MCKEE,CircuitJudge. Appellants(collectivelyreferredtoas"ADP"),appealtheDistrictCourt'sgrantofsummaryjudgmenttodefendant,theUnitedStatesForestService, onCountsIandIIIoftheircomplaint.ADPfiledsuitundertheAdministrativeProcedureAct("APA"),andtheNationalForestManagementAct ("NFMA"),tochallengetheForestServices'sdecisiontoundertakeasitespecificproject(the"EastSideProject")[1]intheAlleghenyNationalForest (the"ANF").[2]ADPclaimedthattheForestServiceimproperlyselectedaharvestingsystemprimarilybasedupondollarreturn,andsoughta declaratoryjudgmentthatselectionoftheharvestingsystemonthatbasisviolatedtheAPAandNFMA.ADPalsosoughttoenjointheForestService fromimplementingtheloggingplanonthatbasis.Forthereasonsthatfollow,wewillaffirmtheDistrictCourt'sgrantofsummaryjudgment.

I.BACKGROUND. A.HistoryoftheANF[3]
TheANFoccupiesmorethan500,000acresinElk,Forest,McKeanandWarrenCountiesinNorthwesternPennsylvania.Originally,Pennsylvania's forestsincludedstandsofverylarge,matureorovermaturetreesofdifferingagesandspecies.Theforestswereinvaryingstagesofrecoveryfrom naturalcatastrophessuchasfiresandwindthrow.[4]DavidA.Marquis,TheAlleghenyHardwoodForestsofPennsylvania,(1975)("Marquis manuscript")(manuscriptavailableatA.R.,Book27,Tab7).Originally,hemlockandbeech,whichareveryshadetoleranttrees,werethemost commonspecies.Together,theyrepresentedfiftyeightpercentoftheforest.Maple,birch,whitepine,andchestnutrepresentedanadditionalthirty percent.Id.at8.Blackcherry,thetreeatissuehere,composedonly0.8%ofthe*218forestfromtheyears1793to1819.However,by1973,22.6% oftheANFwasblackcherry,A.R.,Book33,Tab6at445,andtodayblackcherryamountsto28%oftheoverstoryforestand47%oftheunderstory forest,[5]A.R.,Book31,Tab2,AppendixLat7. WhentheforestwasprimarilyinhabitedbyNativeAmericans,wildlifewasabundant.Itincludeddeer,elk,bear,wolves,cougars,wildcats,andlynx. Whitetaileddeerwerealsocommon,thoughnotabundant.Thewhitetaileddeerpopulationwaskeptdownbynaturalpredatorsandbythelimited availabilityoffood.TheirnumberswerealsocheckedbecausewhitetaileddearwereanimportantsourceofmeatandclothingfortheNative Americans.MarquisManuscriptat9.

218

scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=Allegheny+Defense+Project+v.+United+States+Forest+Service&

1/10

5/31/12

Allegheny Defense Project v. US Forest Service, 423 F. 3d 215 - Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit 2005 -
Thefirst"settlers"arrivedaround179697,andtimberharvestingbecameimportantby1837.Therewere,bythen,anestimated100sawmillsin WarrenCounty,producingfortyfivemillionboardfeetoftimberannually.Industrywasdevelopingintheareaby1860,andthefirstoilwellwas drilledin1859.Therewerealsosteamrailroads,steampoweredsawmillsandsteamlogloaders.By1869,therewerethreerailroads.Marquis statesthat,"[b]etween1890and1920,thevirginandpartiallycutforestswerealmostcompletelyclearcutinwhatmusthavebeenthehighest degreeofforestutilizationthattheworldhaseverseeninanycommerciallumberingarea."Id.at15.However,thedeerpopulationwasstillunder controlbecauseofextensivehunting.Forestfireswerecommonfrom1890to1930inareasthathadoriginallycontainedconifers.Heavycutting andfrequentfiresresultedinareductionofconifersandanincreaseinhardwoods.Marquisconcludedthatfireswereprobablyamajorfactorinthe virtualeliminationofwhitepineandhemlockintheAlleghenyforests."Insomeplaces,firesburnedintenselyenoughtoremoveallhumus,exposing theclaysoilandcreatingsomeofthenumerousopenareasthatarestillpresentonthePlateau."Id.at29.Asthenumberofconifersandwhitepine intheAlleghenyForestwasreduced,theywerereplacedbystandsdominatedbyhardwoodssuchasblackcherry,redmaple,sugarmapleand whiteash;speciesthatareexcellentastimber.AccordingtoMarquis,heavycuttingfavorshardwoodsbecausesmallhardwoodseedlingshavea headstartonnewpineseedlingsandcanoutgrowconiferssuchashemlockseedlings.Id.at28.Inaddition,heavycuttingprovidesidealconditions forforestfires,andfiresaremoredamagingtoconiferousseedlingsthantohardwoodseedlingsbecauseofthehardwoods'abilitytoresprout. Speciessuchasblackcherryalsothrivedduringtheperiodof1890to1930duetotheabsenceofshade.Inthevastopenareascreatedby clearcutting,[6]blackcherry,ashadeintoleranttree,regeneratesmuchmoresuccessfullythanspeciessuchasbeech.

219

Theincreaseincherryfromturnofthecenturyloggingandtheresultingincrease*219inthepercentageofcherryintheforestshadacost.The environmentalimpactincludedseriousflooding,erosionandotherharmtothearea'swatersheds.Italsoharmedwildlifespecies,someofwhichare onlynowbeingreintroducedtothearea.Furthermore,thepopularityofvenisoninhotels,lumbercampsandcitymarketsreducedthedeer populationtosuchscarcitythatmeasureshadtobetakentoincreasetheirnumbers.Thesemeasuresincludedappointmentofagamecommission in1896.Ataboutthesametimethataffirmativestepswerebeingtakentoprotectdeer,extensivetimberharvestingwasresultinginincreased accumulationof"browse"forthedeertofeedon.Withpredatorseliminated,browseaccumulatinginclearcutareas,anddoesbeingprotectedfrom hunting,conditionswereripeforthedeerpopulationtoexplode. Inhis1975article,Marquisreportedthataftertheoriginalforesthadbeencleared,thewoodusingindustriesoftheAlleghenyPlateausuffereda significantdecline.Id.at32.Thoseindustriesdidnotbegintorebounduntilaround1960.By1975,thesecondgrowthforeststhatsproutedafterthe clearcuttingsof18901920werefiftytoeightyyearsold.Treesintheolderstandswerethereforelargeenoughtobevaluablefortimber.According toMarquis,muchoftheforestlandwasthenundersomesortofsustainedyieldmanagement.Thishadbeeninsuredbysettinglargeacreages asideinthenationalandstateforestswherecuttingwascarefullyregulatedandintegratedwithotheruses.Marquisbelievedthattimbercutting wouldneverreturntothe"cutandgetout"typeofoperationthatsawtheentireregioncutoverathirtytofortyyearperiod.Id.at33.However,he recognizedtherewerestillproblems.Forexample,itwasverydifficulttoobtainpromptregenerationafterthematuretreeshadbeenremoved.This waspartlybecauseofthelargedeerpopulation.[7]Marquisobservedthat"[m]uchresearchisunderwaytofindwaysofincreasingadvance regeneration,ofprotectingseedlingsfromdeer,andofestablishingnewstandsthroughseedingorplantingsothatourAlleghenyhardwoodforests willcontinuetoprovideallofthemanygoodsandserviceswehavecometoexpectfromthem."Id. Deerwerenottheonlyobstacletosuccessfulregeneration.TheANFwasalsoaffectedbyaseriesofdroughtsfrom1991through1996,aswellas epidemicpopulationsofparasites.Thelatterincludedelmspanworm,foresttentcaterpillarandsherryscallopshellmoth.A.R.,Book12,Tab4, SubTab17at283.ThisresultedinaseriesofdefoliationsacrossawideswathofnorthernPennsylvania,includingtheANF.Asaresult,a substantialportionoftheANFatissueherewasrepeatedlydefoliated.Thestressoftheserepeateddefoliationsweakenedtreesandmadethem moresusceptibletoattackbysecondarypathogensthatactuallykilltrees.Asaresult,by1994,theANFcontainedasizable"zoneofmortality" areasofdeadanddecliningtrees. Thespeciesmostaffectedbytheseeventsweresugarandredmaples,Americanbeech,birchandwhiteash.A.R.,Book42at1.Althoughblack cherrysuffereddefoliationalongwiththeotherspecies,nutrientdemandingspecieslikesugarmapleandwhiteashsufferedgreaterlevelsof mortality.Thosespeciesaremorevulnerabletodroughtanddefoliationstressonsiteswithlownutrientcapitalliketheunglacieatedplateausites andupper*220slopesintheareasinvolved.Id.at13335,137. AccordingtoADP,absentcertainmeasuressuchasmoreclearcuttingorotherevenagedmanagement[8]followedbyfertilizationandthe constructionofhundredsofmilesoffencing,extensiveherbicideuse,andthinningtoeliminatehardierspeciesoftrees,mostoftheforestedareas ofnorthwesternPennsylvaniawouldeventuallyreverttothenativeshadetolerantbeechhemlockforest.

220

B.StatutoryandRegulatoryFramework
IntheOrganicAdministrationActof1897,16U.S.C.475,Congressidentifiedthepurposesforwhichnationalforestsmaybeestablishedand administered.Thosepurposesinclude"improvingandprotectingtheforest,obtainingfavorableconditionsforwaterflows,andfurnishinga continuoussupplyoflumberforthecitizensoftheUnitedStates."Id.MorethansixtyyearsafterCongressenactedtheOrganicAdministrationAct, CongressenactedtheMultipleUseSustainedYieldActof1960("MUSYA"),16U.S.C.528.ThatActprovides,inrelevantpart: ItisthepolicyoftheCongressthatthenationalforestsareestablishedandshallbeadministeredforoutdoorrecreation,range,timber, watershed,andwildlifeandfishpurposes... Id.[9]

scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=Allegheny+Defense+Project+v.+United+States+Forest+Service&

2/10

5/31/12

Allegheny Defense Project v. US Forest Service, 423 F. 3d 215 - Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit 2005 -
In1969,CongressenactedtheNationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct,("NEPA"),42U.S.C.4331,etseq.NEPArequiresallfederalagenciesto prepareanenvironmentalimpactstatement("EIS")foreveryrecommendation,reportorproposal,legislation,orotheractionsthatsignificantlyaffect thequalityofthehumanenvironment.42U.S.C.4332(2)(C).Thereafter,in1976,CongressenactedtheNFMA,16U.S.C.1604,et.seq., requiringtheSecretaryofAgriculturetopromulgateregulationsforthedevelopmentandrevisionoflandmanagementplans,guidelinesand standardsprescribedpursuanttotheNFMA. TheNFMAfurtherrequiresthattheregulationsissuedbytheSecretaryofAgricultureinclude: (3)...guidelinesforlandmanagementplansdevelopedtoachievethegoalsoftheProgramwhich (A)insureconsiderationoftheeconomicandenvironmentalaspectsofvarioussystemsofrenewableresourcemanagementincluding

221

therelatedsystemsofsilviculture[10]andprotectionofforestresources,toprovideforoutdoorrecreation(includingwilderness),*221 range,timber,watershed,wildlife,andfish;... (D)permitincreasesinharvestlevelsbasedonintensifiedmanagementpractices,suchasreforestation,thinning,andtree improvement... (E)insurethattimberwillbeharvestedfromNationalForestSystemlandsonlywhere (iv)theharvestingsystemtobeusedisnotselectedprimarilybecauseitwillgivethegreatestdollarreturnorthegreatestunitoutputof timber;[11]and (F)insurethatclearcutting,seedtreecutting,shelterwoodcutting,andothercutsdesignedtoregenerateanevenagedstandoftimber willbeusedasacuttingmethodonNationalForestSystemlandsonlywhere (I)forclearcutting,itisdeterminedtobetheoptimummethod,andforothersuchcuts,itisdeterminedtobeappropriate,tomeetthe objectivesandrequirementsoftherelevantlandmanagementplan. 16U.S.C.1604(g). TheForestService'sregulationsimplementingtheseprovisionsoftheNFMAarecodifiedat36C.F.R.Part219.Thefirst"planningrule"was adoptedin1979,substantiallyamendedin1982,andpartiallyamendedagaininJuneandSeptemberof1983.The1982rule,asamended,guided thedevelopment,amendment,andrevisionoftheforestplansnowinplacefortheANFaswellasallothernationalforestsandgrasslandsinthe UnitedStates. Thefollowingprovisionisparticularlyrelevanttoourinquiry: Managementprescriptionsthatinvolvevegetativemanipulationoftreecoverforanypurposeshall (1)Bebestsuitedtothemultipleusegoalsestablishedfortheareawithpotentialenvironmental,biological,culturalresources, aesthetic,engineering,andeconomicimpacts,asstatedintheregionalguidesandforestplans,beingconsideredinthisdetermination; (2)Assurethatlandscanbeadequatelyrestocked... (3)Notbechosenprimarilybecausetheywillgivethegreatestdollarreturnorthegreatestoutputoftimber,althoughthesefactorsshall beconsidered; ... (6)Providethedesiredeffectsonwaterquantityandquality,wildlifeandfishhabitat,regenerationofdesiredtreespecies,forage production,recreationuses,aestheticvalues,andotherresourceyields. 36C.F.R.219.27(b). This1982rulewassupercededinNovember,2000,whentheSecretaryofAgriculturesubstantiallyrevisedcertainprovisionsofPart219.Thenew ruleincludedatransitionalprovision.Thetransitionalprovisiondelayedtheapplicationofthenewruletositespecificdecisions(suchastheEast SideProject)untilafterNovember8,2003.36C.F.R.219.35(d)(2001)("Sitespecificdecisionsmadebytheresponsibleofficial3yearsfrom November9,2000andafterwardmustbeinconformancewiththeprovisionsofthissubpart.").

222

*222TheDepartmentthenproposedrevisingthe2000ruleandextendingthetransitionperiod,anditpublishedaninterpretativeruleclarifyingthe

intentofthetransitionprovision.OnJanuary5,2005,theDepartmentofAgriculturerescindedthe2000regulationsandreplacedthemintheir entiretywithanewfinalruleentitled"NationalForestSystemLandManagementPlanning."70Fed.Reg.1022,1023(Jan.5,2005),tobecodifiedat 36C.F.R.Part219.The2005regulationsdonotcontainthelanguagefoundinthe1982regulationsprohibitingforestmanagementthatmaximizes thedollarreturnortheoutputoftimber. OnMarch23,2005,however,theForestServiceissuedseveralinterimdirectivesthatwereeffectiveimmediately.Oneofthosedirectivesstates,in relevantpart:

scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=Allegheny+Defense+Project+v.+United+States+Forest+Service&

3/10

5/31/12

Allegheny Defense Project v. US Forest Service, 423 F. 3d 215 - Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit 2005 -
VegetationManagementRequirements TheminimumspecificmanagementrequirementstobemetincarryingoutsitespecificprojectsandactivitiesintheNationalForest System(NFS)aresetforthinthissection...aresponsibleofficialmayauthorizesitespecificprojects...toharvesttimberonlywhere:... 4.Theharvestingsystemtobeusedisnotselectedprimarilybecauseitwillgivethegreatestdollarreturn. 70Fed.Reg.14637,Section1921.17a(Mar.23,2005).[12] UnderNEPAandNFMA,forestplanningandmanagementoccursattheprogrammaticlevelandattheprojectlevel.Attheprogrammaticlevel,the ForestServicedevelopsaforestplanforeachNationalForest.Theplanisdesignedto"provideformultipleuseandsustainedyieldoftheproducts andservicesobtained[fromtheforest]inaccordancewith[MUSYA]...and,inparticular,includecoordinationofoutdoorrecreation,range,timber, watershed,wildlifeandfishandwilderness."16U.S.C.1604(e)(1).Eachforestplancontains(1)asummarizedanalysisofthemanagement situation;(2)adescriptionoftheforestmultipleusegoalsandobjectives,includingadescriptionofthedesiredfutureconditionoftheforestandan identificationofgoodsandservicesthatareexpectedtobeproduced;(3)multipleuseprescriptions;(4)standardsandguidelines;and(5) monitoringandevaluationrequirements.Theforestplandividestheforestintodifferentmanagementareas("MA")unitsoflandinwhichthe

223

provisionofaparticularmanagementgoalisemphasizedandsetsout*223foreachMAanemphasisstatement,goals,desiredfuturecondition, description,andstandardsandguidelines.Thedevelopmentoftheforestplanisaccompaniedbyapublicreviewprocessconductedinaccordance withNFMAandNEPA.See16U.S.C.1604(d)and(g)(1). Thesecondlevelinvolvesprojectactivities.AtthisstagetheForestServiceproposes,analyzesanddecidesuponsitespecificactionsthatmustbe consistentwiththeforestplan.TheymustalsobeconsistentwiththelimitationsimposedunderNEPA.Therefore,theForestServicemustproduce eitheranEISandrecordofdecision("ROD")[13]oranenvironmentalassessment("EA")andafindingofnosignificantimpact("FONSI").[14]Each proposedsitespecificprojectmayproceedonlyifitisconsistentwiththeforestplan,hasbeenanalyzedunderNEPA,andhasbeenspecifically approvedbytheappropriateForestServiceofficial.16U.S.C.1604(I). PursuanttotherequirementsoftheNFMA,theForestServiceadoptedtheAlleghenyNationalForestLandandResourceManagementPlanin 1986.ThePlanrecognizedthat: ForestPlansmustassurethattheyprovideformultipleuseandasustainedyieldofproductsandservices.Inaddition,ForestPlans mustprovidethismultipleuseandsustainedyieldofgoodsandservicesfromtheAlleghenyNationalForestinawaythatmaximizes longtermnetpublicbenefitsinanenvironmentallysoundmanner. ThePlandividedthenationalforestinto11MAs,determinedthedesiredfutureconditionandfeaturedloggingmethodforeachMA,andsetboth forestwideandmanagementareaspecificstandardsandguidelines.

C.TheCurryLitigation
In1995,theForestServiceundertookaseriesofstudiestoassesstreemortalityintheANFinanefforttoidentifytreatmentsthatcouldpromotea healthyforestecosystem.AftercompletinganEAandissuingaFONSIpursuanttoNEPA,theForestServiceapprovedaprojectknownas"Mortality I."ThatprojectidentifiedecosystemmanagementactionsfortreatingportionsoftheANFthathadsufferedthemostseveremortalityanddecline. WhenMortalityIwascompleted,theForestServiceundertookanadditionalproject,"MortalityII,"tocontinuetheeffortsbegununderMortalityI. MortalityIIaddressed"ecosystemsustainability,harvesting,andreforestationconcernsonadditionalareaswithinthezoneofmortality."A.R.,Book 42at2.ItalsoproposedsellingtimberfromwithintheANF.Morespecifically,itauthorized4,800acresofevenagedloggingand2,750acresof postloggingherbicideapplicationsinMA3.0.
224

ManyofthesameindividualswhoareappellantsinthisappealinitiatedanactionintheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtforthe*224WesternDistrictof PennsylvaniatochallengeMortalityII.TheyclaimedthatproposedsalesoftimberviolatedtheNFMA,theMigratoryBirdTreatyAct,andtheNEPA. SeeCurryv.UnitedStatesForestService,988F.Supp.541(W.D.Pa.1997).Plaintiffsallegedthattheevenagedmanagementtechniquesthatwere tobeusedundertheMortalityIIprojectcouldhavesignificantadverseenvironmentaleffectsonwildlifeandoldgrowthforests.Theyclaimedthe Project'seffectscouldirreparablydestroytherecreational,researchandaestheticvaluesoftheaffectedareas.Id.at546. TheDistrictCourtconcludedthatthemagnitudeoftheMortalityIIprojectanditsselectionofevenagedmanagementasthepredominant managementtechniqueunderminedthedefendants'claimthattheprojectwouldnothaveasignificantimpactonthehumanenvironment.Id.at 551.ThecourtidentifiedseveralfactorsindicativeoftheseverityofMortalityII'simpact,andconcludedthattheForestServicehadnotdonean analysisofthecombinedeffectsofMortalityIandMortalityII.Id.at552.TheDistrictCourtagreedthattheForestService'sfailuretoprepareanEIS forMortalityIIviolatedNEPA,andtheServices'sdecisiontoapprovetheprojectwithoutanEISwas"arbitraryandcapricious."Id.[15] Accordingly,onOctober15,1997,theDistrictCourtissuedanordergrantingtheCurryplaintiffs'motionforsummaryjudgmentontheirNFMAand theNEPAclaims,andenjoiningtheForestServicefromimplementingtheMortalityIIProjectuntilitpreparedanEISandconsideredabroadrange ofalternativetechniquesformanagingtheANF.TheDistrictCourtalsodirectedtheForestServicetoreconsideritsdeterminationthatthe"even agedmanagement"techniquesproposedbytheMortalityIIprojectforMA3metthe`optimality'and`appropriateness'requirementssetforthin16 U.S.C.1604(g)(3)(F).Id.at556.

scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=Allegheny+Defense+Project+v.+United+States+Forest+Service&

4/10

5/31/12

Allegheny Defense Project v. US Forest Service, 423 F. 3d 215 - Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit 2005 -

D.TheEastSideProject
TheForestServiceproducedanEISfortheEastSideProjectpursuanttotheDistrictCourt'sorderinCurry.TheEastSideProjectcombinedthe MortalityIIproposalwithseveralothersmallerloggingproposalsandincludedactivitiesinthreeoftheANF'smanagementareas:MA3,MA2,and MA6.1.TheProjectwasintendedtoimplementtheForestPlanbyrestoringtheforestedecosystemandmovingtheareatowardsthedesiredfuture conditiondescribedintheForestPlan.Morespecifically,theProjectwasintendedto:(1)initiatereforestationtreatmentstorestorethedeclining forestecosystem;(2)establishtreeseedlingstorestoretreeregenerationorreplacementandtoimprovethehorizontalandverticaldiversityinthe ecosystem;(3)enhancethevigorofforestedstandsbyregulatingstockingandspeciescomposition;(4)promotesustainabledeliveryofforest productsinMA3;(5)supplyforestproductstomeetpublicdemandandtocontributetotheeconomicvitalityoflocalcommunities;(6)improveroad accessandsafetyandmaintainwaterqualitybyimprovingandmaintainingneededroadsandeliminatingunnecessaryroads;and(7)restore wildlifehabitat.ROD,App.at34A35A.
225

MostoftheactivitiescomprisingtheEastSideProject,includingevenagedloggingandclearcutting,weretooccurinMA*2253which,at327,000 acres,isthelargestmanagementareaintheANF.AccordingtotheForestPlan,theprimarypurposesofMA3includeproviding"asustainedyield ofhighqualityAlleghenyhardwoodandoaksawtimberthroughevenagedmanagement,"andproviding"avarietyofageorsizeclasshabitat diversityfromseedlingtomaturesawtimberinavarietyoftimbertypes."A.R.,Book35at482.AdditionalstatedprimarypurposesforMA3include providingahabitatforwildlifethatprefertheopeningscreatedbyevenagedcuttingandcreatingandmaintainingroadsforrecreation.Id.The Projectauthorizes125milesofroadconstructionandreconstruction,3,419acresofpostloggingherbicideapplication,1,293acresoffertilizer application,and2,282acresoffencingaroundthelargeopeningscreatedbytheevenagedlogging.Id. TheProjectalsoincludestreatingvegetationinMA2,whichcomprises6,000acresofprimarilyunevenagedNorthernhardwoodsandhemlock. UndertheForestPlanthismanagementapproachisprimarilyintendedto: Provideacontinuousforestedscenethroughpracticingunevenagedmanagementwhichwillpromote[shade]tolerantspeciesand producequalitysawtimber. Featurewildlifespeciesassociatedwithshadetolerantvegetation,primarilysongbirdsandcavitynestingbirdsandmammals. ProvidetheopportunityforavarietyofdevelopedanddispersedmotorizedrecreationopportunitiesinaRoadedNaturalsetting. Id.at470. TheProjectalsoincludesreforestationtreatmentsinthe101,000acrescomprisingMA6.1.Theemphasisinthismanagementareaisintendedto maintainorenhancescenicquality,providefordispersedrecreation,andprovidehabitatforwildlifespeciesthatrequirematureandovermature hardwoodforests.Id.at4110.TheForestPlanallowsfortheuseofbothevenagedandunevenagedmanagementinMA6.1.Id.at4116. PursuanttotherulinginCurry,andastheRODfortheProjectexplains,beforefinalizingthedetailsoftheProject,theForestServiceevaluatedfive alternativesindetailandadditionalalternativeswereeliminatedfromdetailedstudyafterbeingevaluated.Oneofthealternativesconsideredin

226

detailAlternative4wouldhavemadeextensiveuseofunevenagedmanagement.[16]Inaddition,morelimiteduse*226ofunevenaged managementwasincludedinAlternative1and3. Ultimately,theActingForestSupervisoroftheForestServiceselectedAlternative1astheoptionthatwouldbestachievetheProject'sintended purposes.TheForestSupervisorfoundAlternative1consistentwiththeForestServiceNaturalResourceAgendawithrespecttowatershed protection,sustainableforestsandroads.App.at36A37A.TheSupervisoralsofoundAlternative1tobethebestresponsetotheissuesidentified fortheProjectbecauseitcouldbestattainthedesiredconditionenvisionedbytheForestPlan.App.at37A. TheRODdescribedtheproposedactivitiesofAlternative1,whichincludedtransportationactivities,wildlifetreatmentsandtimberoutputs.App.at 39A40A.TheRODalsodiscussedtheenvironmentalconsequencesofAlternative1,includingareviewoftheimpactonecologicallandtypes, water,transportation,oil,gasandmineral,vegetation,wildlife,heritageresources,recreation,scenicresources,economics,andhumanhealthand safety.App.at44A47A.TheRODalsodiscussedthereasonsthatAlternatives25wererejected,App.at47A48A,anditevaluatedtheuseof evenagedloggingandconsideredwhetherunevenagedloggingcouldbeused.Id. Ultimately,whenconsideringwhetherAlternative1wasconsistentwiththeForestPlanandfederallaws,theRODconcludedthatevenagedlogging

227

is"appropriate,"andclearcutting"optimal,"inordertoregeneratethespeciesandforesttypesfoundintheANF.[17]App.at49A50A.*227TheROD concludedthatevenagedloggingwouldmovetheprojectareatowardthedesiredfutureconditionsetforthintheLandManagementPlan.The RODstatesthatthismanagementisnecessarytorestoreandmaintainahealthy,sustainableforestintheProjectarea.

E.ProceduralHistory
ADPfiledanadministrativeappealoftheRODonFebruary5,2001.TheRegionalForesterdeniedthatappealonMarch22,2001.ADPthenfileda tencountcomplaintintheDistrictCourt,raisingmultipleissuesunderNFMAandNEPA. TheDistrictCourtultimatelyadoptedtheMagistrateJudge'ssecondReportandRecommendation("R&R").AlleghenyDefenseProjectv.U.S. ForestService,No.01895,slip.Op.(W.D.Pa.Mar.23,2004).InthefirstR&R,theMagistrateJudgerecommendedsummaryjudgmentinfavorof

scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=Allegheny+Defense+Project+v.+United+States+Forest+Service&

5/10

5/31/12

Allegheny Defense Project v. US Forest Service, 423 F. 3d 215 - Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit 2005 -
ADPonCountsIandIII,thetwocountsatissueinthisappeal.App.185A. CountIallegedthat,intheEastSideDecision,theForestServicechosetomanagetheANFasablackcherrytreefarminviolationofMUSYA, whichrequiresthatthenationalforestsbeestablishedandadministeredfor"outdoorrecreation,range,timber,watershed,andwildlifeandfish purposes,"16U.S.C.528,andNFMA,whichrequiresthattheregulationsspecifyguidelinesforlandmanagementplanswhich"insurethattimber willbeharvestedfromNFSlandsonlywhere...theharvestingsystemtobeusedisnotselectedprimarilybecauseitwillgivethegreatestdollar returnorthegreatestunitoutputoftimber,"16U.S.C.1604(g)(3)(E)(iv).CountIIIallegedthattheEastSideDecisionviolatedtheAPAandthe NFMAbecausetheDecision'sdeterminationthatclearcuttingwas"optimal"andthatevenagedloggingwas"appropriate"werebasedonthefact thattheseloggingmethodswouldproducethemostcherrysawtimberandregeneratethemostcherryforfuturelogging,therebygivingthegreatest dollarreturn.[18] AfterappelleesandintervenordefendantsfiledobjectionstotheR&R,theMagistrateJudgevacatedtheR&Randheardoralargumentonthe outstandingmotionsforsummaryjudgment.Thereafter,theMagistrateJudgeissuedhersecondR&R,recommendingthatsummaryjudgmentbe grantedinfavorofthedefendantsonCountsIandIII.App.at56A.TheMagistrateJudgeconcluded:"Itisclearthatthehighvalueofblackcherry wasamajorconsiderationindevelopingtheEastSideDecision.WhethertheEastSideDecisionwasbasedprimarilyonthefactthatblackcherry willgivethegreatestdollarreturnorthegreatestunitoutputoftimberisnotsoclear."App.at74A.TheMagistrateJudgewentontoconcludethe followingastoCountI: Consideringthat:(1)Congressdidnotdefinethemeaningof"primarily"intheNFMA;(2)nocourthasheldthattheSecretaryof Agriculturehasactedarbitrarilyandcapriciouslyinviolationofthe[APA]andtheNFMAbyselectingevenagedmanagementasthe harvestingsystemprimarilybecauseitwouldgivethegreatestdollarreturnorthegreatestoutputoftimber;(3)thatwhentheANFwas

228

establishedin1923ithadalreadybeensubstantiallyclearcut,resulting*228instandsofconifersandwhitepinesbeingreplacedby standsdominatedbyhardwoodssuchasblackcherry,redmaple,sugarmapleandwhiteash,whichwereexcellentforsawtimber;(4) theForestServiceisrequiredtoconsiderthecostsandbenefitsofitsmanagementpractices;(5)indevelopingtheEastSideDecision theForestServiceincludedinitspurposes,inadditiontoprovidingasustainedyieldofhighqualityAlleghenyhardwood,theprovision ofavarietyofageorsizeclasshabitatdiversityaswellasdiversityofwildlife;(6)healthproblemsexistingintheANF;and(7) managementoftheANFisacomplexmatter;thisCourtcannotfindthatintheEastSideDecisionDefendantsarbitrarilyand capriciouslyselectedtheirharvestingsystemprimarilybecauseitwouldgivethegreatestdollarreturnorthegreatestunitoutputof timberinviolationoftheNFMA. App.at111A112A. InexplaininghergrantofsummaryjudgmentonCountIII,theMagistrateJudgestated: Congressagaindidnotdefinewhatitmeantbythe"optimummethod"and"appropriate"cutsandthesetermswouldappeartobe extremelyambiguous.Therefore,CongresswouldappeartohavedelegatedtotheForestServicetheroleofdeterminingwhatthey mean,aslongastheirdefinitionisnotarbitraryandcapricious.Plaintiff'sadmitthattheForestServicemadethedeterminationthat evenagedloggingwas"appropriate,"andthatclearcuttingwas"optimal"butassertthatitdidthis"inordertoregenerateblackcherry andothercommerciallydesirablespecies"andachievethe"desiredfuturecondition"setforthintheLandManagementPlan. Duringoralargument...counselforPlaintiffsadmittedthattheirargumentastoCountIIIisessentiallythesameastheirargumentin CountIthattheForestServicechosetheloggingmethodswhichwouldproducethemostcherryandtherebygivethegreatestdollar return.ForthereasonsgivenintheanalysisofCountI,PlaintiffshavenotshownthatDefendants'determinationsthatclearcuttingis "optimal"andthatevenagedloggingis"appropriate"are"arbitraryandcapricious"inviolationofthe[APA]. App.at113A114A. TheDistrictCourtadoptedtheMagistrateJudge'ssecondR&Randenteredsummaryjudgmentfordefendants.SeeAlleghenyDefenseProject, supraat25.Thisappealfollowed.

II.DISCUSSION. A.Jurisdiction
TheDistrictCourthadjurisdictionunder28U.S.C.1331and5U.S.C.702.Wehaveappellatejurisdictionpursuantto28U.S.C.1291. ArticleIIIandtheAPArequireapartychallenginganadministrativeordertoshowinjuryinfact.SierraClubv.Morton,405U.S.727,733,92S.Ct. 1361,31L.Ed.2d636(1972)."[T]heallegedharmmustbeactualorimminent,not`conjectural'or`hypothetical.'"Whitmorev.Arkansas,495U.S. 149,155,110S.Ct.1717,109L.Ed.2d135(1990).Anassociationhasstandingtobringsuitonbehalfofitsmemberswhenitsmemberswould otherwisehavestandingtosueintheirownright,theinterestsatstakearegermanetotheorganization'spurpose,andneithertheclaimasserted
229

northereliefrequestedrequirestheparticipationofindividualmembersinthelawsuit.FriendsoftheEarth,Inc.v.LaidlawEnv.Servs.,Inc.,*229 528U.S.167,181,120S.Ct.693,145L.Ed.2d610(2000).TheSupremeCourthasheldthatenvironmentalplaintiffsadequatelyallegeinjuryinfact whentheyaverthattheyusetheaffectedareaandarepersons"forwhomtheaestheticandrecreationalvaluesoftheareawillbelessened"bythe

scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=Allegheny+Defense+Project+v.+United+States+Forest+Service&

6/10

5/31/12

Allegheny Defense Project v. US Forest Service, 423 F. 3d 215 - Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit 2005 -
challengedactivity.SierraClubv.Morton,405U.S.at735,92S.Ct.1361. Here,neitherthegovernmentnortheDistrictCourthavequestionedappellants'standing;nordowe.[19]Indeed,weseenothingimprobableabout thepropositionthattheForestService'sproposedactivitiesintheANFwouldcausenearbyresidentstocurtailtheirrecreationaluseoftheforest andwouldsubjectthemtoeconomicandaestheticharms.SeeFriendsoftheEarth,528U.S.at18485,120S.Ct.693.

B.StandardofReview
Ourreviewofadistrictcourt'sgrantofsummaryjudgmentinfavorofanadministrativeagencyisdenovo.ConcernedCitizensAlliance,Inc.v. Slater,176F.3d686,693(3dCir.1999).Moreover,under706oftheAPA,wereviewtheagency'sfinaldecisiontodeterminewhethertheagency actedinamannerthatwas"arbitrary,capricious,anabuseofdiscretionorotherwisenotinaccordancewithlaw."5U.S.C.706(2)(A).Thoughthe agencyisentitledtosomedeference,seeKleisslerv.U.S.ForestServ.,183F.3d196,198(3dCir.1999),"thatpresumptionisnottoshield[the agency's]actionfromathorough,probing,indepthreview,"SocietyHillTowersOwners'Ass'nv.Rendell,210F.3d168,178(3dCir.2000).

C.AllegedDeficienciesoftheEastSideProject
ADP'smaincontentionisthattheForestService'sdecisiontouseevenagedharvestingcombinedwithfertilizerandherbicide,andfencing,violates theAPAandtheNFMA"becauseitseeksprimarilytoachievethehighestdollarreturnby...emphasizingtheloggingandregenerationofblack cherrytimber,whichisbyfarthemostcommerciallyvaluablespeciesintheAllegheny."ADPReplyBriefat2.ADPalsocontendsthattheForest ServiceincorrectlydeterminedthattheevenagedloggingauthorizedbytheProjectwas"appropriate"andtheclearcutting"optimal"whenthat loggingwasauthorizedprimarilytogivethegreatestdollarreturn.[20]ThenumerousfactorsADPcitestosupportthatpositioninclude: Initssummaryjudgmentbrief,theForestServiceassertedthattheRODadoptedtherecommendationsoftheNortheasternForest ExperimentalStationassetforthintheMarquismanuscript.Pageoneofthemanuscriptstatesthatitisdesignedprimarilyasa
230

guidebookforpracticingforesterswhosegoalistimberproduction.*230Also,theMagistrateJudgefoundthattheobjectofthe manuscript"wastoproducethemaximumprofitfromevenagedmanagement."[21] Inthesamebrief,theForestServicecitedtoadifferentMarquispublicationentitled,"QuantitativeSilvicultureforHardwoodForestsof theAlleghenies"andexplainedthatitusedthepublication's"SILVAH"systemasthescientificbasisfortheROD.ADPcontendsthatthe expressgoaloftheSILVAHsystemisto"maximizegrowthandvalue."ADPalsomaintainsthatthisdocumentisa"lengthyhowto manualforcultivatingblackcherryandotherhighvaluehardwoodspecies,"andthedocumentwarnsthattheuseofunevenaged loggingwillresultinfewerAlleghenyHardwoodsandlessprofits. Severalmonitoringreports,includingonespecificallycitedbytheForestService,documenthowmanagementtechniquessimilarto thoseauthorizedbytheRODhavenegativelyimpactedothersitesintheANF.Thus,accordingtoADP,bychoosingtoemploythese techniques,blackcherrypromotionandregenerationandtheresultingfinancialreturnsmustbetheForestService'sprimarygoals. InitsresponsetoADP'sadministrativeappealoftheROD,theForestServicenotedthatmoreunevenagedloggingwasnotincluded becauseitwouldnotregenerateblackcherry.Additionally,theForestServiceexplainedthatfertilizerwouldbeappliedtoencourage moreblackcherryandnotbecausetheforest'ssoilswereotherwisedepleted. ADPalsomaintainsthattheForestService'sexplanationsforwhyitselectedtheparticularsilviculturaltechniquesaremerelypretextualsince"none ofthesejustificationscanevenbegintoexplaintheEastSideDecision'soverwhelmingpreferenceforevenagedloggingandtheaccompanying techniques."ADPBriefat38.Forexample,accordingtoADP: TheForestServicecannotjustifyitschoiceofsilviculturaltechniquesbyrelyingontheassertionthatthesuccessofunevenaged managementisuncertainsince,accordingtotheMagistrateJudge,unevenagedmanagementcouldworkifitwassupportedbythe samesupplementalmanagementherbicidesandfencingthattheForestServiceusestosupportevenagedmanagement. AccordingtoADP,researchhasfoundthatunevenagedmanagementcouldbeusedtoobtainadequateregenerationofdiversetree speciesandatthesametimepromoteandprotectothermultipleuseresources. HealthconcernsalsocannotjustifytheForestService'ssilviculturalpracticessince(1)thousandsofacresthatwillbesubjectedtothe ForestService'smanagementschemearequitehealthyandarenotthreatenedbydisease,and(2)evenagedmanagementcreates standswiththeirownhealthproblems,includingspecificthreatstothehealthofblackcherrytreessuchastheCherryScallopMothand GroundLevelOzonecausedbypollution. TheForestService'sargumentthatitchoseevenagedmanagementtomaintaindiversityisnotsupportedbytherecord.Accordingto ADP,evenagedmanagementwouldresultintheleastamountofoldgrowthhabitat,the*231highestamountofsoilcompaction,the lowestamountofstandingdeadandlyingdeadtreesforwildlifehabitat,thehighestacreageofforestwithmorethan30%stockingof interferingfernsandgrasses,andthelowestacreageofforestwithanintactmidstoryofallalternatives.Conversely,accordingtoADP, simplynotloggingorusingmoreunevenagedharvestingtechniqueswouldcreatethemostdiversityintheANF. TheForestServicecannotjustifyitspracticesbyclaimingthatitissimplymaintainingconditionscreatedbyearlierloggingsincethe

231

scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=Allegheny+Defense+Project+v.+United+States+Forest+Service&

7/10

5/31/12

Allegheny Defense Project v. US Forest Service, 423 F. 3d 215 - Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit 2005 -
sameharvestingsystemauthorizedbytheRODhasintherecentpastsignificantlyincreasedtheANF'sblackcherrycomponent. TheForestServicecannotblamethewhitetaileddeerfortheANF'sincreasedconversiontoaforestdominatedbyblackcherry since,accordingtoADP,theevenagedloggingbeingemployedbytheForestServicecontributestothedeerproblem.

D.Analysis
TheForestServicemaintainsthattheEastSideProjectisconsistentwithNFMA'sprohibitionagainstselectingaharvestingsystemprimarily becauseitwillgivethegreatestdollarreturn.Weagree.AlthoughitisbeyondseriouscontentionthattheForestServiceconsideredtheeconomic benefitsofgeneratingblackcherrystandsinstructuringtheProject,economicconcernsmaybeconsideredundertheOrganicAct,MUSYAand NFMA.[22]Indeed,Congresshasmandatedconsiderationofeconomicfactors.See1604(g)(3)(A)(providingthatforestplanningregulationsshall includeguidelinesthat"insureconsiderationoftheeconomicandenvironmentalaspectsofvarioussystemsofrenewableresourcemanagement"). However,therecorddoesnotsupportADP'sclaimthateconomicconsiderationswereparamountordeterminativeintheForestService'sselection ofappropriateforestmanagementtechniquesfortheProject. "Whenapartychallengesagencyactionasarbitraryandcapriciousthereasonablenessoftheagency'sactionisjudgedinaccordancewithits statedreasons."Inre:ComptrolleroftheCurrency,156F.3d1279(D.C.Cir.1998)(citingCitizenstoPreserveOvertonPark,Inc.v.Volpe,401U.S. 402,91S.Ct.814,28L.Ed.2d136(1971)).Moreover,wecanassessthefactsandevidenceofrecord;wecannotspeculateabouttheagency's ulteriormotivestoanextentnotsupportedbytherecord.SeeOhioForestryAss'n.Inc.v.SierraClub,523U.S.726,73637,118S.Ct.1665,140 L.Ed.2d921(1998)(chastisingtheCourtofAppealsfortheSixthCircuitforsurmising,withoutevidencesupportedby"recordcitation,"that"the ForestServicesufferedfromakindofgeneral`bias'infavoroftimberproductionandclearcutting.").Here,thevoluminousrecordillustratesthatthe ForestService'sdecisiontoutilizeevenagedmanagementinMA3wasnotarbitraryandcapricious.Rather,therecordshowsthatdecisionwas basedonathoroughanalysisofavarietyofbotheconomicandnoneconomicfactors.AstheRODexplains,theoverallpurposeoftheProjectisthe
232

implementationoftheForestPlanby"maintain[ing]andrestor[ing]healthyandresilientwatershedsandecosystems."*232App.at33A.Inorderto dothis,theForestServicemustinitiatereforestationtreatments,establishtreeseedlings,improvethehorizontalandverticaldiversityinthe ecosystem,regulatestockingandspeciescomposition,supplyforestproductstomeetpublicdemandandtocontributetotheeconomicvitalityof localcommunities,andrestorewildlifehabitat.SeeApp.at34A35A. TheRODalsoembracessomeofthediverseconsiderationsthatprovidedtheoriginaljustificationfortheadoptionoftheForestPlanin1986.Those considerationsincludedtreespeciesmix;wildlifespeciesmix;foreststructure;andthefactthatunevenagedmanagementismoreproblematicin termsofdeerbrowsing,[23]requiresmoreandlongertermuseofherbicides,andislesscosteffectivethanevenagedmanagement.[24]SeeApp.at 49A. Therecordshowsthatinstandstreatedwithevenagedmethods,theANFisachievingadequatelevelsofregeneration.Infact,thereisasmuchas a94percentreforestationsuccessrate.A.R.,Book43atF78;seealsoApp.38A(MagistrateJudgesecondR&R).Moreover,therecordreflects the"marginal"regenerationsuccessratesofunevenagedmanagement.AnAppendixtotheEastSideEISexplains: reforestationsuccesswithunevenagedmanagementhasbeenverymarginal,whereasresultswithevenagedmanagementhave beenquitegood.Largescaleimplementationisnotconsistentwiththeobjectivesofcertainmanagementareasestablishedbythe ForestPlan,anditdoesnotseemprudentuntilmoreisknownabouthowtodevelopadequatetreeseedlingsofappropriatespecies. A.R.,Book43atF7.Giventhisrecord,wesimplycannotconcludethattheForestServiceshouldrefrainfrompursuingaplanthataddressesallof theaforementionednondollarrelatedfactorsmerelybecausetheForestServiceconsideredeconomicfactorsaswell. TheRODalsodocumentswhytheForestServicechoseAlternative1(emphasizingevenagedmanagement)overAlternative4(emphasizing unevenagedmanagement).Thereasonsincludethefollowing:(1)evenagedharvestingbetterachievesthedesiredfutureconditioninMA3of Alleghenyhardwoodsbecausesuchshadeintolerantspeciesregeneratebetterwithlargerforestopening;(2)severaloftheshadetoleranttree speciesareexperiencingdeclineordisease,andunevenagedmanagementcouldresultingreatersusceptibilitytoinsectanddiseaseoutbreaks;

233

(3)unevenagedmanagementislesscosteffective;and(4)therearegeneraluncertaintiesastowhetherunevenagedmanagementcouldmeet theneedsofthePlan.ROD,App.at48A.*233AdditionalnoneconomicreasonsforselectingAlternative1includethefactthat:(1)clearcuttingisthe optimummethodformaintainingaspenduetoitsintoleranceforshade;(2)evenagedmanagementprovidesabundantsunlightenablingseedlings toquicklygrowoutofthereachofdeer;and(3)evenagedmanagementimprovesageclassdistribution,increasesspeciesdiversityandmovesthe projecttowardthedesiredfutureforestconditionforthevariousMAs.ROD,App.at44A47A. ADPstressesthefactthatevenagedmanagementtendstoincreasetheamountofblackcherry,andwerealizethatblackcherryisavery profitablespecies.Nevertheless,wecannotaccepttheinferencethattheForestServicereachedthisresultprimarilybecauseoftheeconomic rewardsendemicinevenagedmanagementgiventheconditionsintheANF.ADP'sargumentwouldrequireustoinvalidateanyproperlydeveloped forestmanagementplanthatmighthaveaconcomitanteconomicbenefit;aresultthatisevenlessdefensiblegiventhecongressionalmandateto considereconomicconcernsaslongastheydonotdrivethePlan. ThisrecordsimplydoesnotsupporttheinferencethatADPasksustodrawthatevenagedmanagementwaschosenprimarilybecauseitwillgive thegreatestdollarreturn.TherecorddemonstratesthattheForestService'semphasisonblackcherryisnotbasedonthevalueofthetreealone. Blackcherryalsohasnumerousenvironmentalbenefits,includingitssuperiorresiliencetodrought,deer,andpestssuchasinsects.[25]TheForest

scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=Allegheny+Defense+Project+v.+United+States+Forest+Service&

8/10

5/31/12

Allegheny Defense Project v. US Forest Service, 423 F. 3d 215 - Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit 2005 -
Serviceissurelynotrequiredtoignorethesebenefitsmerelybecauseblackcherryhastheadditionalbenefitofitscommercialvalue.Accordingly, wecannotconcludethattheForestService'schoiceofsilviculturalpractices,whichemphasizedtheregenerationofblackcherry,wasbased primarilyonfinancialconcerns.AlthoughADPmaydisagreewiththeForestService'sdecisiontomanageMA3throughevenagedharvesting,this disagreementisinsufficienttoestablishthattheForestService'schoiceofAlternative1wasarbitrary,capricious,oranabuseofdiscretion.The recordprovidesamplesupportfortheForestService'sstatedrationaleandconfirmsthatevenagedmanagementwasnotselectedprimarilyto securethegreatestdollarreturn.

III.CONCLUSION.
Accordingly,forthereasonssetforthabove,wewillaffirmtheDistrictCourt'sordergrantingsummaryjudgmenttotheForestServiceoncountsI andIIIofADP'scomplaint.
[1]TheEastSideProjectisaneffortbytheUnitedStatesForestServicetoaddress,interalia,treemortalityanddeclineinElk,Forest,McKeanandWarrencountiesontheMarienvilleand BradfordRangerDistrictsoftheAlleghenyNationalForest.TheProjectincludesmanagementactivitiesonover8,000acresoftheeasternportionoftheForest. [2]TheonehalfmillionacreANFwasestablishedinSeptember1923.ItistheonlyNationalForestinPennsylvania. [3]Becausethesefactsarenotindispute,muchofthissectionhasbeenexcerptedfromtheMagistrateJudge'sReport&Recommendation. [4]"Windthrow"occurswhentreesareuprootedbyexcessivewinds.Seehttps://www.uwsp.edu/natres/nres743/Definitions/Windthrow.htm(lastvisitedSept.1,2005). [5]"Overstory"isthetermusedforthelayeroffoliageinaforestcanopyincludingthetreesinatimberstand.Intheoverstory,tallmaturetreesriseabovetheshorterimmatureunderstorytrees. SeeAbout,Forestry,athttp://forestry.about.com/library/glossary/blforgln.htm(lastvisitedAug.24,2005). "Understory"isthetermusedfortheareaofaforestthatgrowsintheshadeoftheoverstoryorcanopy.Plantsintheunderstoryconsistofamixtureofseedlingsandsaplingsofcanopytrees togetherwithunderstoryshrubsandherbs.SeeWikipedia,theFreeEncyclopedia,Understory,athttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Understory(lastvisitedAug.24,2005). [6]Clearcuttingisaforestmanagementtechniquethatinvolvesharvestingallofthetreesinoneareaatatime.NeilStoloff,EnvironmentalLawDictionary(1993). [7]Deercanpreventsuccessfulregenerationbecausetheyfeedonwoodytwigstherebydestroyingnewseedlings.MarquisManuscriptat3132. [8]"Evenagedmanagement"referstoaloggingmethodthatischaracterizedbyclearcut,shelterwood,orseedtreecutting,resultinginalloralargepercentageoftreesinanareabeingcut downatonetime,sothatwhentheforestregeneratesallthetreesthatgrowwillbethesameage.A.R.,Book34at425. "Unevenagedmanagement"isaloggingmethodthatinvolvesselectingtreestocuteitheronebyoneorbygroups,resultinginacontinuouslevelofhighforestcover,recurringregenerationof trees,andtheorderlydevelopmentoftreesthrougharangeofageclasses.A.R.,Book34at426. [9]UnderboththeOrganicAdministrationActandtheMUSYA,timberproductionplaysalegitimateroleinmaintainingandadministeringnationalforests. [10]AccordingtoawebsitecopyrightedbytheUniversityofMissouri,SchoolofNaturalResources,"Silvicultureisthescience,artandpracticeofcaringforforestswithrespecttohuman objectives."SeeSilviculture,http://www.snr.missouri.edu/silviculture(lastupdatedMarch9,2002)(thewebsitealsoprovidesanoverviewofthescienceofforestry,forestryterminology,and linkstoadditionalresourcesforunderstandingforestmaintenance). [11]ADPhasnotpursuedaclaimthatthesystematissueherewasselectedinviolationof1604'sprohibitionagainstselectingasystembasedonthe"greatestunitoutputoftimber." Consequently,weareonlyconcernedwithADP'sclaimthattheForestService'schosenharvestingsystemviolates1604'sprohibitionagainstselectingasystembasedon"greatestdollar return." [12]TheForestServicemaintainsthatthe2005Regulationsconfirmthatthe1982forestplanningruleisnolongerbindingontheForestServiceinthecontextofsitespecificdecisionssuchas theEastSideProject.Incontrast,ADPcontendsthatnothingintheactual2005Regulationsexpresslystatesthatthe1982regulationshavebeenentirelyrepealedorthatsitespecificdecisions madebeforethe2005Regulationswereissuedarenow,retroactively,controlledbythesenewregulations.Furthermore,ADPmaintainsthat,evenifthe2005Regulationsapplyhere,theinterim directiveissuedonMarch23rd,2005,whichimposesthesamemandatoryrequirementasthe1982Regulationsandthestatuteitself,isbindingontheForestService. Atoralargument,theForestServiceconcededthatthequestionofwhethertheEastSideProjectiscontrolledbythe1982Rule,the2005Ruleor1604,isinconsequentialsincetheInterim Directivetracksthelanguageofthe1982Ruleandthestatuteitself.Therefore,theForestServiceadmitted,therequirementthattheharvestingsystemnotbeselectedprimarilybecauseitwill givethegreatestdollarreturnisthesame.BecausetheForestServiceadmitsasmuch,weneednotdecidewhichRegulationsinfactcontrolhere,andwewillproceedunderthepremisethatthe EastSideProjectmustbeconsistentwiththisrequirement. [13]ARecordofDecisionisa"documentsignedbyaResponsibleOfficialrecordingadecisionthatwasprecededbypreparationofanenvironmentalimpactstatement."36C.F.R.218.2. [14]NEPArequiresthatfederalagenciesprepareanEISfor"majorFederalactionssignificantlyaffectingthequalityofthehumanenvironment."42U.S.C.4332(2)(C).Anagencymayfirst prepareanEAwhichislessinvolvedandlessexpensivethananEIS.TheagencymaythenutilizetheEAtodetermineifcircumstancesrequiretheadditionaleffortofpreparingthemoreinvolved andmoreexpensiveEISinordertoascertainthepotentialimpactsofthefederalactionthatiscontemplated.40C.F.R.1501.4,1508.9.IfanEAshowsthattheproposedactionwillnothavea significanteffect,theagencymayissueaFONSIandproceedwithoutpreparinganEIS.Id. [15]TheForestServicehadonlyconsideredtwoalternativesforMortalityIIanoactionalternativeandtheproposedactioninvolvingtheoverwhelminguseofevenagedmanagement techniques.ThecourtconcludedthattheForestService'sactionofonlyconsideringthesetwoalternativeswas"arbitraryandcapricious."Id.at553. [16]TheRODexplainswhyAlternative4wasnotselected.TheRODexplains: ThedebateoverthekindofsilviculturalsystemtoemphasizeontheANFdidnotoriginatewiththeEastSideProject.TheanalysiscompletedfortheForestPlanincludedadetailedlookatthe tradeoffsbetweenevenagedandunevenagedmanagement,includingtheeffectsondispersedrecreation,timberharvestvolumesandvalues,andeffectsonwildlifehabitat.Theselectionof ForestPlanFEISAlternativeDwasbasedontheprogrammaticdecisiontoemphasizeevenagedmanagementinMA3.0andunevenagedmanagementinMA2.0,andwasmadebecauseit providedthebestmixofgoods,services,andusestothepublic(maximizesnetpublicbenefitper36C.F.R.Part219.1). Aspartofthebackgroundworkforthisproject,IdirectedtheForestSilviculturisttoexaminenewresearchfindingspertainingtounevenagedmanagement,andtoassesslocalapplicationand resultsofunevenagedtreatments.ThisreviewdidnotcausemetoquestiontheForestPlananalysis,thereforeIbelievetheconclusionsreachedintheForestPlanarestillvalid.Successofthis silviculturalpracticeonalargescaleisuncertain.Thereisalikelihoodthatdesiredoutcomeswouldnotoccurevenaftersignificantexpenditureoffunds.Muchreliancewouldhavetobeplaced onexperimentaloradaptivemanagementtechniques.Thefollowingprovidesadditionalrationale: 1.ThelimitationsanduncertaintywithunevenagedmanagementinthepredominantvegetationtypeswithinEastSidereducetheopportunitytoaddressmorefullythepurposeandneedwithin theprojectarea.Alternative1offersabroaderrangeofactivitiestomeetForestPlandirectionasprovidedinMA3.0. 2.Thebiologyandsiterequirementsofexistingshadeintolerantspeciesinevenagedstandsdonotlendthemselvestotheapplicationofunevenagedtechniques,increasingthecostof

scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=Allegheny+Defense+Project+v.+United+States+Forest+Service&

9/10

5/31/12

Allegheny Defense Project v. US Forest Service, 423 F. 3d 215 - Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit 2005 -
implementation. 3.Severaloftheshadetoleranttreespeciesareexperiencingdecline(maple)ordisease(beech).Creatinglargeracreagesofthesespeciesthroughunevenagedmanagementcouldresultin greatersusceptibilityoftheforesttoinsectanddiseaseoutbreaks.Alternative1(and3)offersanopportunitytomaintainamoresustainableforest. 4.Alternative4hasacost/benefitratiooflessthanoneforthemajormanagementactivities,makingitalessdesirablechoice. 5.Alternative4isnotaseffective,norisitasreliable,inmovingtheEastSideprojectareatowardsthedesiredfutureconditionasdescribedintheForestPlan.Importantly,theanalysisinthe FEISdoesnotdescribeattributesofthisalternativethatleadmetotheconclusionthattheaffectedresourcesintheEastSideprojectwouldbebetterservedbydeviatingfromthecurrentForest PlandirectionforMAs3.0and6.1.TheenvironmentalconditionswithintheEastSideprojectarea,andmorespecifically,theparticularvegetativeconditionswithinthestandsproposedfor treatmentdonotsuggestthatdeviatingfromprogrammaticForestPlandirection(toapplyunevenagedmanagementtreatmentsbroadlythroughoutMA3.0)iswarranted. IndividualtimberrattlesnakesandNorthernwatershrewscouldbeimpactedbythisalternative,buttheseimpactswouldnotcausealossofviabilityoratrendtowardsfederallisting... ThevegetativeconditionsthatresultfromimplementationofAlternative4donotcontributetowardsachievingthedesiredfutureconditionasdescribedintheForestPlan,andduetothe uncertaintyofimplementingunevenagedmanagementonsuchalargescale,donotcontributetowardsobjectivesoftheNaturalResourceagenda.Therefore,IdidnotselectAlternative4. App.at47a48a. [17]Aspreviouslynoted,16U.S.C.1604(g)(3)(F)requiresthatclearcuttingonlybeusedwhereitisthe"optimum"method,andthatshelterwoodandseedtreecuttingonlybeusedwhere "appropriate." [18]Thus,althoughCountsIandIIIstateseparatecausesofaction,theybothturnonwhetherthemethodofforestmanagementandadministrationselectedwaschosen"primarilytomaximize dollarreturn." [19]"[E]everyfederalappellatecourthasaspecialobligationtosatisfyitselfnotonlyofitsownjurisdiction,butalsothatofthelowercourts,ineveryappealpresentedtoit,regardlessofwhether thepartiescontestjurisdiction."Lewisv.Int'lBroth.ofTeamsters,826F.2d1310(3dCir.1987)(citingBenderv.WilliamsportAreaSch.Dist.,475U.S.534,106S.Ct.1326,89L.Ed.2d501(1986) (internalquotationsomitted)). [20]AlthoughADParticulatestwodifferentarguments,thesetwoargumentsaremerelydifferentsidesofthesamecoin.Accordingly,theMagistrateJudgerealizedthattheydidnotrequirea separateanalysis.SeeApp.at114a("Duringoralargument...counselforPlaintiffsadmittedthattheirargumentastoCountIIIisessentiallythesameastheirargumentinCountIthatthe ForestServicechosetheloggingmethodswhichwouldproducethemostcherryandtherebygivethegreatestdollarreturn."). [21]TheMagistrateJudgefoundtheForestService'sadoptionofthemanuscript"troubling."App.at110A. [22]Indeed,initsbrief,ADPadmitsthat: thefinancialreturnstobegainedfromproposedloggingarearelevantconsiderationandtheEastSideDecisionisnotillegalsimplybecausetheForestServicenotesandconsidersthe commercialvalueofitsproposedlogging. ADPBriefat28. [23]TheRODexplains: WhitetaileddeercauseextensivedamagebyfeedingonseedlingsoftreespeciesfoundontheANF.Onlyevenagedmethodsthatprovideabundantsunlightenablingseedlingstoquicklygrow outofthereachofdeerarepractical.Eventhen,reforestationpractices(suchasfencing,fertilization,andsitepreparation)areoftennecessary.Thechoiceofsilviculturalsystemswouldbe widerwereitnotfortheunusuallyhighdeerbrowsingthatoccursontheANF. App.at49A. [24]Inalectureincludedin"QuantitativeSilvicultureforHardwoodForestsoftheAlleghenies,"theauthorsexpressedtheirconcernfortheuseofunevenagedmanagement: Wemustincludeoneveryimportantwarninginourdiscussionof[unevenagedmanagement],however.Thereisnoassurancethat[unevenagedmanagement]canbeusedsuccessfullyinany regionwheredeerpopulationsarehigh...TherearemanylocationswherereproductionsimplyCANNOTbeobtained. A.R.,Book28at334(emphasisinoriginal). [25]Inlightoftheseenvironmentalbenefits,itisalsoreasonabletoconclude,thattheresilienceofblackcherryanditsrobustnesshavecontributedgreatlytotheincreaseinthatspeciesof AlleghenyHardwoodintheANF.Wecannotsaythetree'ssuccessisprimarilytheresultofaneconomicallydeterminedmanagementplanoftheForestService.

SavetreesreadcourtopinionsonlineonGoogleScholar.

scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=Allegheny+Defense+Project+v.+United+States+Forest+Service&

10/10