## Facts

- The U.S. Forest Service proposed the **Upper Eagle River Beetle Salvage Project** in the Holy Cross Ranger District of the White River National Forest, responding to widespread mountain pine beetle mortality in lodgepole pine stands.
- The project aimed to remove and salvage beetle-killed and dying trees to reduce hazardous fuels, speed regeneration, improve firefighter access and suppression options, and address public safety risks from falling dead trees near roads and trails.
- The project area was divided into four “pods,” each containing treatment “units.” One disputed area was **Unit 101** (in the West Grouse pod).
- The Forest Service planned to treat roughly 1,763 acres using even-aged silvicultural methods, including **clearcutting**, “clearcut with leave trees,” and “seed tree removal,” with clearcutting as the primary removal method.
- The agency proposed the project under the **Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (HFRA)**, which directs implementation of “authorized hazardous-fuel-reduction projects” to reduce wildfire risks.
- HFRA defines authorized hazardous-fuel-reduction projects by reference to the Department of the Interior’s Implementation Plan glossary definition of “appropriate tools,” which includes mechanical methods such as **tree removal** (including for commercial products).
- Treating the project as an HFRA authorized project, the Forest Service used HFRA’s **expedited administrative objection process**, rather than the standard notice/comment/appeal process under 36 C.F.R. Part 215.
- The Forest Service completed an **Environmental Assessment (EA)** and issued a **Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)** and decision approving the project.
- Plaintiffs Melissa Decker and Michael Heaphy submitted objections during the HFRA objection process and then sued under the **Administrative Procedure Act (APA)**, raising **HFRA** and **NEPA** claims and focusing on Unit 101.
- Earlier in the case, the court issued a **preliminary injunction** against further logging in Unit 101, finding the EA’s analysis for that area insufficient and directing the agency to supplement its analysis, including addressing project economics.
- The Forest Service prepared a **supplemental EA**, again issued a FONSI and decision approving the project, and plaintiffs filed an amended complaint challenging the renewed decision and the project’s HFRA status.

## Issues

1. Whether the Forest Service acted arbitrarily or capriciously under the APA by determining that the project qualified as an HFRA “authorized hazardous-fuel-reduction project,” where the project relied heavily on clearcutting as the method of tree removal.
2. Whether, given the project’s HFRA status, the Forest Service lawfully used HFRA’s expedited administrative objection process rather than the Part 215 notice/comment/appeal procedures.
3. Whether the EA and supplemental EA satisfied NEPA’s “hard look” requirement and supported the renewed FONSI, including for Unit 101 and the economic analysis addressed after the preliminary injunction.

## Decision

- The court upheld the Forest Service’s approval of the Upper Eagle River Beetle Salvage Project and rejected plaintiffs’ APA/HFRA/NEPA challenges.
- The court concluded the Forest Service reasonably treated clearcutting and related even-aged methods as forms of “tree removal” and therefore within the Implementation Plan’s “appropriate tools” definition incorporated into HFRA.
- Because the project qualified as an HFRA authorized hazardous-fuel-reduction project, the court held the agency could use HFRA’s expedited objection procedures.
- The court found that, after the supplemental EA, the agency’s NEPA analysis was adequate and the renewed FONSI was not arbitrary or capricious.
- The court denied the requested relief and allowed the project, including Unit 101, to proceed.

## Legal Principles

- Under the APA, a court sets aside federal agency action only if it is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; review is based on the administrative record and is deferential.
- HFRA defines “authorized hazardous-fuel-reduction projects” by incorporating the Implementation Plan’s definition of “appropriate tools,” which includes mechanical methods such as tree removal for commercial or pre-commercial products.
- An agency may reasonably interpret a general incorporated term like “tree removal” to include particular removal techniques, such as clearcutting, when the record supports that interpretation and it fits within the statutory scheme.
- If a project qualifies under HFRA, the Forest Service may use HFRA’s streamlined administrative objection process rather than other administrative review paths.
- NEPA is procedural: an EA and FONSI are upheld when the agency takes a hard look at environmental consequences, responds to material concerns through supplementation when required, and explains its decision in a reasoned way.

## Conclusion

In *Decker v. United States Forest Service*, the District of Colorado held that the Forest Service reasonably classified the Upper Eagle River Beetle Salvage Project as an HFRA authorized hazardous-fuel-reduction project despite its reliance on clearcutting, could therefore use HFRA’s expedited objection procedures, and—after completing a supplemental EA following a preliminary injunction—satisfied NEPA’s requirements and lawfully reaffirmed its FONSI and approval of logging in Unit 101.


Decker v. United States Forest Service, 780 F. Supp. 2d 1170 (2011)