## Facts

- The U.S. Forest Service approved two timber-harvest projects in Pennsylvania’s Allegheny National Forest: the Minister Watershed Project and the South Branch Willow Creek Project.
- The Forest Service prepared environmental assessments under NEPA and issued Findings of No Significant Impact for both projects, concluding no environmental impact statement was required.
- USDA regulations required administrative appellants to (i) identify specific portions of the decision challenged, (ii) state reasons in terms of specific laws or regulations violated, and (iii) identify specific changes sought.
- James Kleissler filed administrative appeals raising multiple objections under NEPA and NFMA, including concerns about environmental impacts and wildlife.
- The Regional Forester affirmed the project decisions.
- Kleissler then sued in federal district court to enjoin the projects, asserting NEPA and NFMA claims that were similar in topic to his administrative objections but not the same in their specific theories and contentions.

## Issues

1. Whether Kleissler’s NEPA and NFMA claims were barred for failure to exhaust administrative remedies because his administrative appeals did not present, with required specificity, the same claims later asserted in federal court.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the Forest Service.
- The court held Kleissler failed to exhaust because his administrative appeals did not provide sufficiently specific written notice of the particular objections later pursued in court.
- The court declined to relax exhaustion requirements based on Kleissler’s pro se status during the administrative process.
- Because exhaustion was not satisfied, the court did not reach the merits of the NEPA and NFMA challenges.

## Legal Principles

- When governing regulations require administrative exhaustion, a challenger must raise objections in the administrative process with enough specificity to give the agency a fair opportunity to consider and resolve the same claims later brought to court.
- Under the Forest Service/USDA administrative appeal rules at issue, an appellant must: (i) identify specific portions of the decision objected to, (ii) state reasons in terms of the specific laws or regulations violated, and (iii) identify specific changes sought.
- Generalized concerns, vague references, or new legal theories presented for the first time in litigation do not satisfy exhaustion.
- Pro se status does not excuse noncompliance with clear regulatory exhaustion requirements.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit held that environmental challenges to Forest Service project approvals must be preserved through specific, written administrative objections matching the later judicial claims; because Kleissler’s court theories were not fairly presented during the agency appeal, his NEPA and NFMA claims were barred for non-exhaustion.


Kleissler v. U.S. Forest Serv., 183 F.3d 196 (3d Cir. 1999)