## Facts

- In 2000, wildfires burned about 74,000 acres of the Lolo National Forest, causing damage while also creating post-fire habitat for species such as the black-backed woodpecker.
- The U.S. Forest Service developed the Lolo National Forest Post Burn Project and prepared an environmental impact statement (EIS) evaluating four alternatives, including a no-action option.
- In July 2002, the Forest Service selected a modified version of an alternative authorizing commercial thinning and prescribed burning in old-growth stands and salvage logging of burned and insect-killed timber.
- Ecology Center objected to logging and treatments in old-growth stands due to potential impacts on old-growth-dependent species (including the pileated woodpecker and northern goshawk).
- Ecology Center also challenged the analysis of salvage logging effects on post-fire-dependent habitat (including for the black-backed woodpecker) and raised concerns about the reliability of the soil quality analysis.
- Ecology Center sued under NEPA and NFMA; the district court denied injunctive relief, struck extra-record declarations, and granted summary judgment to the Forest Service.

## Issues

1. Whether the Project complied with NFMA and the Lolo National Forest Plan’s requirements for old-growth management and maintaining viable populations of sensitive species, including any obligation to rely on the best available science.
2. Whether the EIS satisfied NEPA by taking a hard look at impacts on old-growth-dependent species, post-fire-dependent species, and soil quality (including cumulative effects).
3. Whether the Forest Service’s scientific assumptions and methodology warranted deference under APA arbitrary-and-capricious review.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s summary judgment for the Forest Service and remanded.
- The court held the Forest Service’s approval of logging in critical old-growth and post-fire habitats was arbitrary and capricious.
- The court concluded the agency relied on speculative assumptions and insufficient empirical support regarding effects on wildlife habitat and soils, and did not adequately justify its conclusions.

## Legal Principles

- Under the APA, a court sets aside agency action that is arbitrary and capricious, including where the agency fails to consider important aspects of the problem or offers explanations contrary to the record.
- NFMA requires project decisions to be consistent with the governing forest plan, including plan provisions aimed at protecting old-growth habitat and maintaining viable wildlife populations.
- NEPA requires an EIS to take a “hard look” at environmental consequences and provide a reasoned analysis of project-specific effects; generalized assurances are not enough when material uncertainty or contrary information exists in the record.
- Courts defer to agency scientific judgments only when the agency articulates a rational connection between the evidence and its conclusions; deference does not cure internal inconsistency, unsupported assumptions, or acknowledged gaps in monitoring and data.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that the Forest Service’s approval of post-fire thinning, burning, and salvage logging lacked a reasoned, evidence-based analysis of effects on old-growth and post-fire habitats and soil conditions, rendering the decision arbitrary and capricious under NFMA, NEPA, and the APA; the case was reversed and remanded for further proceedings.


Ecology Ctr., Inc. v. Austin, 430 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2005)