Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01721/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01721-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 42:4321 Review of Agency Action-Environment

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

A

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SEQUOIA FORESTKEEPER, CENTER 

FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY and 

WESTERN WATERSHED PROJECT,

 Plaintiffs,

 

 vs.

KEVIN ELLIOTT, in his official capacity as 

Forest Supervisor for the Sequoia National 

Forest of the U.S. Forest Service , and the 

UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, 

 

 

 Defendants. 

1:13-cv-1721 AWI JLT

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND 

ORDER ON PARTIES’ CROSSMOTIONS FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT AND RELATED ORDERS

Doc. #’s 18, 19, 23 and 24

This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to the National 

Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321, et seq. At issue is a planned action by 

defendant Kevin Elliott in his official capacity as Forest Supervisor for the Sequoia National 

Forest and the United States Forest Service (“Forest Service”) (collectively, (“Defendants”) to 

implement what the parties refer to as the Rancheria Forest Restoration Project (“Project”). 

Plaintiffs Sequoia ForestKeeper (“ForestKeeper”), Centers for Biological Diversity and Western 

Watershed Project (“Plaintiffs”) allege that Defendants violated NEPA during the decision 

making process by failing to “provide the Plaintiffs and the public with sufficient information 

during official comment periods to provide meaningful and informed comments prior to issuance 

of [Defendants‟] decision to implement the [Project].” Doc. # 7 at 2:13-15. Currently before the 

Case 1:13-cv-01721-AWI-JLT Document 37 Filed 09/25/14 Page 1 of 26
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-2-

A

court are cross-motions by Plaintiffs and Defendants for summary judgment. Also before the 

court is the motion of Sierra Forest Products to submit a brief as amicus curiae. Federal subject 

matter jurisdiction exists over Plaintiffs‟ claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331. Venue is proper in 

this court.

JOINT STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS

The parties jointly offer the following facts as undisputed.

The Project is located in Kern County and encompasses 5,880 acres near Rancheria Road 

in the Greenhorn Mountains of the Sequoia National Forest. The Project lists three purposes: (1) 

“Promote a healthy, diverse forest ecosystem that is resilient to the effects of wildfire and other 

threats, and environmentally, socially, and economically sustainable.” (2) Reduce fuels and 

[forest] stand density to reduce the risk to people, property, and wildlife habitat from 

uncharacteristically severe wildfire. (3) restore a structure and function that generally resemble 

[sic] pre-settlement conditions.” Doc. # 18-2 at 2:24-27. To realize the purposes of the Project, 

Defendants considered three options. The first, Option 1, was the “no action” alternative and 

requires no further explanation.

Option 2, the option that was eventually adopted, authorized “mechanical thinning, 

including timber and biomass removal, on 1,102 acres, including 842 acres of natural stands and 

260 acres of plantations. Proposed actions on those 1,102 acres include mechanical thinning of 

trees 4 to 30 inches in diameter, whole tree yarding, pile burning, underburning, and pine 

planting.” Doc. # 18-2 at 3:1-4. Option 2 also authorizes “hand thinning, pile burning, 

underburning, or jackpot burning on an additional 4,396 acres in natural stands, plantations, 

meadows, or in goshawk protected activity centers. No treatment is proposed for 381 acres of 

chaparral within the project area.” Id. at 3:5-9.

Option 3, which was not chosen in favor of Option 2, would have authorized the thinning 

by hand only of smaller trees; those from 3 to 8 inches in diameter. Unlike Option2, Option 3 

has no commercial timber removal because thinning is limited to small trees having no 

commercial value. As the court understands the differences between Options 2 and 3, they boil 

Case 1:13-cv-01721-AWI-JLT Document 37 Filed 09/25/14 Page 2 of 26
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-3-

A

down to this: Option 3 is basically a less intense version of Option 2 that limits impacts on the 

ecology of the Project area by avoiding mechanical thinning (and the attendant potential of 

disruption to soils and forest floor watershed), partially avoids the removal of high canopy cover 

by limiting maximum diameter of thinned trees but results in a more limited removal of potential 

fuel from the understory.

The parties‟ Joint Statement of Undisputed Facts (“Joint Statement”) provides the 

following information concerning the process leading to the issuance of the Project 

Environmental Assessment (“EA”). The following information is excerpted or quoted from ¶¶ 

11 through 45 of the parties‟ Joint Statement.

The current iteration of the Project was preceded by a project called the Sawmill Fuels 

Reduction Project (“Sawmill Project”) which incorporated the same general area as the Project. 

Forest Service issued a decision to proceed on the Sawmill Project in April of 2005. That 

decision was successfully administratively appealed by Plaintiff ForestKeeper, who contended 

that the EA issued for the Sawmill Project “failed to provide an adequate cumulative impacts 

analysis of past, present and future logging projects that would reduce canopy cover for Old

Forest dependent species including the Pacific fisher,1 California spotted owl, and northern 

goshawk.” Doc. # 18-2 at 4:6-9. 

After reversal of Forest Service‟s planned Sawmill Project in July of 2005, the Forest 

Service began a planning forum in 2010 referred to as the Sawmill Project Planning Forum. A 

number of stakeholders, including Defendant ForestKeeper participated in the forum, which 

included three public meetings and a field trip. “On May 9, 2011, the Sequoia National Forest 

released its proposal for the Rancheria Project through the NEPA scoping process, seeking 

comments on the proposal through June 15, 2011.” Id. at 5:1-2. The Forest Service received 

 

1

 The parties provide a good deal of information regarding the Pacific fisher‟s environmental 

requirements, but no description of the animal. According to the University of California Cooperative 

Extension Website, ucanr.edu/sites/pacific fisher, the Pacific fisher is a small mammal of the weasel 

family; larger than a pine martin and smaller than a wolverine. The Pacific fisher is nocturnal and 

solitary and is rarely seen by humans. 

Case 1:13-cv-01721-AWI-JLT Document 37 Filed 09/25/14 Page 3 of 26
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-4-

A

scoping comments from thirteen of the solicited parties, including from Plaintiff ForestKeeper 

who submitted seventeen pages of scoping comments as well as several attached exhibits. As a 

result of the scoping process, the Forest service released “a more fully developed proposed 

action for the Rancheria Project,” upon which Forest Service sought additional comments 

through May 23, 2013. A cover letter accompanying the proposed action explained that:

[T]he comment period [for the “Proposed Rancheria Forest Restoration 

Project] would close 30-days after publication of notice in the Porterville 

Record. The cover letter further explained that only those who submitted 

timely, specific written comments during this comment period, or 

[submitted comments during] the previous scoping period in May and 

June 2011, would be eligible to appeal the decision, which the Forest 

Service intended to make in the summer of 2013. The cover letter and 

revised proposal document was also sent directly to a list of interested 

parties, including [Plaintiffs].

Id. at 6:1-7.

The public comment period commenced on April 23, 2013, with the publication of notice 

in the Porterville Record and the Bakersfield Californian and closed on May 23, 2013. Plaintiff 

Center for Biological Diversity submitted a 12-page comment letter on May 15, 2012 and 

Plaintiffs ForestKeeper and Western Watershed Project submitted a 7-page comment letter and 

exhibits on May 23, 2013.

Of considerable significance to Plaintiffs‟ action, several “specialist reports” were 

reviewed and approved by Forest Service during the 30-day comment period. Some of these 

reports were finalized and released to the public before the close of the comment period and 

some were finalized and released after the comment period had closed. The specialist reports 

that were finalized and issued after the close of the comment period include the Air Quality 

Report, Range Management Report, Socioeconomics Report, Fuels Report, Management 

Indicator Species Report, Forest Vegetation and Silviculture Report, Wildlife Biological 

Assessment and Evaluation, Supplemental Biological Evaluation for [Pacific] Fisher, Maps for 

the Supplemental Biological Evaluations for the Fisher, Appendix A, and Transportation Report.

Case 1:13-cv-01721-AWI-JLT Document 37 Filed 09/25/14 Page 4 of 26
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-5-

A

“On July 5, 2013, Defendant Sequoia Forest Supervisor Elliot issued the Rancheria 

Project Notice of Decision and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) along with an 

Environmental Assessment, which included a response to public comments. Doc. # 18-2 at 

7:10-12. On July 9, 2013, Forest Service staff provided a web address link to various 

documents, including specialists‟ reports that were related to the Project in response to the 

request of Plaintiff ForestKeeper. On the same date, Plaintiff ForestKeeper sent an email to 

Forest Service staff noting that Forest Service had not provided a “Preliminary EA,” which the 

attorney considered to be not in keeping with past practice. The email also opined that the 

“previous comment period in April-May did not provide sufficient information or any 

preliminary environmental analysis to provide meaningful comments.” Id. at 7:20-21. 

Defendant Elliot responded that the Forest Service was “not required to publish a preliminary or 

draft Environmental Assessment. 

On July 18, 2013, Forest Service released a Supplemental Biological Evaluation for the 

Pacific fisher, however the corrections did not alter the determination reached in the Fisher 

Supplemental Biological Evaluation issued on July 3, 2013. On August 19, 2013, each of the 

Plaintiff parties filed separate administrative appeals of the Project decision. The administrative 

appeals challenged the FONSI on the ground that several of the specialist reports were issued too 

late to be considered and commented upon during the 30-day comment period. The parties‟ 

administrative appeals were denied on September 25, 2013. There is no dispute that Plaintiffs 

have properly exhausted administrative remedies with regard to this action.

The parties have provided a number of joint facts concerning the Pacific fisher. A few of 

these are of importance in the discussion that follows. The entire Project area is contained 

within the Southern Sierra Fisher Conservation Area (“SSFCA”), which was established in the 

2001 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment. The project area represents the southern-most 

Case 1:13-cv-01721-AWI-JLT Document 37 Filed 09/25/14 Page 5 of 26
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-6-

A

extent of area of Pacific fisher habitation. Pacific fishers inhabit portions of the western slope of 

the Sierra Nevada mountain range at elevations between 3,000 and 8,000 feet. The parties agree 

that “Pacific fishers use habitat with high canopy closure, large trees and snags, large woody 

debris, large hardwoods, multiple canopy layers and [avoid] areas lacking overhead canopy 

cover.” Id. at 9:27-10:1.

LEGAL STANDARD

The Parties‟ cross-motions for summary judgment seek the court‟s determination of the 

question whether Defendants issued the EA and FONSI in violation of the requirements of 

NEPA. A district court reviewing a final agency decision follows the legal standard provided by 

the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), a reviewing 

court may not set aside a final agency decision unless it finds that action to be “arbitrary, 

capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law.” Citizens to 

Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 416 (1971). In applying this standard of 

review, the district court bases its decision on the Administrative Record (“AR”) the agency 

presents to the court. Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729, 744 (1985). A court 

generally must be „at its most deferential‟ when reviewing scientific judgments and technical 

analyses within the agency‟s expertise. [Citation.]” N. Plains Res. Council v. Surface Transp. 

Bd., 6688 F.3d 1067, 1075 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Balt. Gas & Elec. Co. v. Natural Res. Def. 

Council, Inc., 462 U.S. 87, 103 (1983). “Judicial review of agency decision-making under 

NEPA is limited to the question of whether the agency took a „hard look‟ at the proposed action 

as required by a strict reading of NEPA‟s procedural requirements.” Bering Strait Citizens for 

Responsible Dev. V. U.S. Army Corps of Eng‟rs, 524 F.3d 938, 947 (9th Cir. 2008). 

While a reviewing court is highly deferential to the factual determinations of the agency 

that are within the expertise of that agency, the review of agency procedure in light of NEPA‟s 

Case 1:13-cv-01721-AWI-JLT Document 37 Filed 09/25/14 Page 6 of 26
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-7-

A

requirements is less deferential. “The council on Environmental Quality (“CEQ”) is charged 

with promulgating regulations to ensure that the policies and requirements of NEPA will be 

carried out by federal agencies. 42 U.S.C. §4344.” Sierra Nevada “Forest Protection Campaign 

v. Weingardt, 376 F.Supp.2d 984, 990 (E.D. Cal. 2005) (“Weingardt”). In particular, those 

procedural rules that mandate involvement of the public, “to the extent practicable, in preparing 

an Environmental Assessment. . . ,” 40 C.F.R. § 1501.4(b), and mandate “diligent efforts to 

involve the public in preparing in preparing and implementing their NEPA procedures” by 

providing “public notice of NEPA-related hearings, public meetings, and the availability of 

environmental documents so as to inform those persons and agencies who may be interested or 

affected,” 40 C.F.R. §§ 1506.6(a) and (b). Subsections 1501.4 and 1506.6 are substantive rules 

whose violation may invalidate an agency action. Citizens for Better Forestry v. U.S. Dep‟t Ag., 

341 F.3d 961, 970 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Weingardt, 376 F.Supp.2d at 989-990 (“agency 

decision taken without the required procedure is „contrary to law‟”).

A motion for summary judgment will be granted where “the pleadings, depositions, 

answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that 

there is no material issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a 

judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). Because the court‟s review of an agency‟s 

decision is limited to the AR, resolution of the question presented requires no fact finding and 

summary judgment is the appropriate means by which the merits of the case can be decided. 

Nw. Motorcycle Ass‟n v. U.S. Dep‟t of Agric., 18 F.3d 1468, 1472 (9th Cir. 1994).

DISCUSSION

I. Preliminary Matters

A. Defendants’ Motion to Strike Extra-Record Materials

Defendants seek to strike all or portions of declarations submitted by Plaintiffs on the 

Case 1:13-cv-01721-AWI-JLT Document 37 Filed 09/25/14 Page 7 of 26
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-8-

A

ground the portions that are requested to be stricken lie outside the AR and are not properly 

sources of evidence for the court‟s consideration. The materials Defendants move be stricken 

include:

1. the entirety of the Declaration of Chad Hanson, Doc. # 18-5

2. the Declaration of Ara Marderosian, Doc. # 18-6, paragraphs 8, 15, 17 and 18.

3. the Declaration of Ileele Anderson, Doc. # 18-3, paragraphs 14, 15 and 2nd and 3rd 

Sentences of paragraph 12;

4. the Declaration of Michael Connor, Doc.# 18-4, paragraph 11; and 

5. the entirety of Exhibit 7 to Plaintiffs‟ Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. # 18-7.

“It is undisputed that the focal point for judicial review [of an agency action under 

NEPA] is the administrative record before the agency at the time of the agency‟s decision and 

„not some new record made initially in the reviewing court.‟ [Citation.]” Sierra Club v. Babbitt, 

69 F.Supp.2d 1202, 1209 (E.D. Cal. 1999) (quoting Camp v. Pitts, 411 U.S. 138, 142 (1973). 

Defendants accurately enumerate the limited exceptions to the general exclusion if extra-record 

materials from the court‟s consideration. As Defendants‟ Motion to Strike states, the exceptions 

to courts‟ generally exclusive reliance on the AR are:

(1) if necessary to determine the agency has considered all relevant factors 

and has explained its decision, (2) when the agency has relied on 

documents not in the record, [ ] (3) when supplementing the record is 

necessary explain technical terms or complex subject matter, [or] . . . (4) 

when plaintiffs make a showing of agency bad faith.

Doc. # 24 at 5:1-5 (quoting Ctr for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish& Wildlife Serv., 930943 

(9th Cir. 2006). “Additionally, where specific facts must be presented in the form of affidavits 

or other evidence to establish standing, the court will take these facts to be true for purposes of a 

summary judgment motion. [Citation].” Nat. Res. Defense Council v. U.S. Forest Services., 

634 F.Supp.2d 1045, 1052-1053 (E.D. Cal. 2007) (citing Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 

Case 1:13-cv-01721-AWI-JLT Document 37 Filed 09/25/14 Page 8 of 26
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-9-

A

U.S. 555, 561 (1992)) (hereinafter “NRDC”). 

In general, Plaintiffs oppose Defendants‟ motion to strike on the ground that the 

depositions, or portions thereof, that Defendants seek to strike were not offered as evidence for 

purposes of the court‟s assessment of Defendants decision. Rather, the depositions were offered 

as statements by representatives of the Plaintiff organizations for the purpose of establishing 

standing. The court will consider each of Defendants‟ motions to strike in light of Plaintiffs‟ 

objections.

1. Declaration of Chad Hanson

Chad Hanson is Plaintiffs‟ expert with regard to the likely effects of the Project‟s

implementation on habitat quality for the Pacific fisher and the spotted owl. Hanson‟s 

Declaration is devoted to this topic. Defendants contend that Hanson‟s declaration does not fall 

within any of the above-cited exceptions and that it has no relevance to the issue of the 

procedural violation of NEPA that is alleged by Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs contend that Hanson‟s 

Declaration is necessary to establish the requested remedy of vacatur of Forest Service‟s 

decision to implement the Project insofar as it establishes the irreparable harm element of 

Plaintiffs‟ request for injunctive relief.

The court agrees that Plaintiffs‟ challenge to Defendants‟ decision to implement the 

Project is based on the allegation of procedural irregularities, not on the technical basis for the 

decision. It follows that any equitable remedy the court may impose will necessarily focus on 

the procedural deficiency identified, if any. The court also finds that the record adequately 

identifies Plaintiffs‟ substantive contentions regarding what they foresee as the Project‟s impacts 

on Pacific fisher and spotted owl populations. The court therefore finds that the Hanson 

Declaration, to the extent it is relevant to the establishment of any fact regarding remedies 

available to Plaintiffs is essentially duplicative of information contained in the AR. The court 

Case 1:13-cv-01721-AWI-JLT Document 37 Filed 09/25/14 Page 9 of 26
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-10-

A

will therefore grant Defendants‟ motion to strike the Hanson Declaration.

2. Declaration of Ara Marderosian

Defendants request the court strike paragraphs 8, 15 and 17 of the Marderosian 

Declaration. The Declaration alleges that Ara Marderosian is the founder and executive director 

of Plaintiff Sierra ForestKeeper. The majority of the Declaration alleges facts that go to 

establish the constitutional standing of Plaintiff ForestKeeper which is not disputed by 

Defendants. 

Paragraph 8 of the Declaration is the last paragraph of a 3-paragraph exposition 

explaining Plaintiffs‟ past experience with Forest Service and giving some context to Plaintiffs 

contention that Defendants were required under the particular facts of this case to issue a draft 

EA. In sum, the three-paragraph sequence constitutes an explanation of how ForestKeeper 

suffered harm as a result of what they contend were procedural irregularities committed by 

Defendants. As such, the court interprets paragraph 8 of the Marderosian Declaration to be a 

legitimate part of the statement establishing Plaintiff ForestKeeper‟s standing. Defendants‟ 

motion to strike paragraph 8 will be denied.

The court agrees with Defendants that paragraph 15 of the Marderosian Declaration has 

no apparent relevance to either Plaintiffs‟ standing or to the nature of the harm suffered by 

Plaintiffs as a result of the alleged procedural errors. Defendants‟ motion to strike paragraph 15 

of the Marderosian Declaration will be granted. Conversely, the court finds that Paragraph 18 of 

the Marderosian Declaration again goes to an explanation of how Defendants‟ alleged 

procedural conduct caused Plaintiffs harm. Defendants motion to strike the 18th paragraph of 

the Marderosian Declaration will consequently be denied.

3. Declaration of Ileene Anderson

Ileene Anderson is a member of Plaintiff Center for Biological Diversity (“Center”) and 

Case 1:13-cv-01721-AWI-JLT Document 37 Filed 09/25/14 Page 10 of 26
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-11-

A

works as a Senior Scientist for the Center. Defendants request that the court strike paragraphs 14 

and 15 of the Anderson Declaration, Doc. # 18-3, and strike the second and third sentences of 

paragraph 12. The court has examined the Anderson Declaration and finds that paragraphs 14 

and 15 are offered to explain how Defendants alleged conduct harmed Center by limiting the 

scope of information available to Plaintiffs and thereby preventing adequate opportunity for 

comment by Plaintiffs. Since the establishment of harm is a necessary element of standing, 

Defendants‟ motion to strike paragraphs 14 and 15 will be denied. Sentences 2 and 3 of 

paragraph 12 appear, when considered in isolation, to impermissibly state conclusions regarding 

the environmental effects of implementation of the Project. However, when considered in the 

context of the remainder of the paragraph, the two sentences appear to be intended to explain 

Center‟s concerns with Defendants‟ planned Project and their standing to raise issues with regard 

to implementation of the Project. Defendants motion to strike the second and third sentences of 

paragraph 12 of the Anderson Declaration will also be denied.

4. Declaration of Michael Connor

Defendants request the court strike Paragraph 11 of the Declaration of Michel Connor 

(“Connor Declaration”). Connor is a member of Plaintiff Western Watershed Project and is their 

representative for purposes of this action. Paragraph 11 of Connor‟s Declaration is the second 

paragraph in a 2-paragraph explanation of Western Watershed‟s prior interactions with Forest 

Service and makes explicit their allegation that they were not provided a timely description of 

the Project and its environmental effects. The court interprets these two paragraphs as part of 

Western Watersheds‟ injury and, consequently, its standing. Defendants‟ motion to strike 

paragraph 11 of the Connor Declaration will therefore be denied.

5. Exhibit 7

Exhibit 7 of Plaintiffs‟ motion for summary judgment consists of a set of documents that 

Case 1:13-cv-01721-AWI-JLT Document 37 Filed 09/25/14 Page 11 of 26
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-12-

A

pertain to the contract between Forest Service and Sierra Forest Products, the provider of 

services for the portion of the Project that, under the selected option, will provide commercial 

tree harvest and removal in those areas of the Project that are to receive that treatment. The 

court has reviewed the exhibit and its attachments and finds no information is set forth there that 

is germane to the court‟s consideration of the Parties‟ cross-motions. The motion to strike will 

therefore be granted as to Exhibit 7.

B. Motion of Sierra Forest Products to Appear as Amicus Curiae

The motion of Sierra Forest Products to appear as Amicus Curiae is denied because the 

proposed Amicus Brief submitted by them is nothing more than their opinion that Defendants 

supplied sufficient information concerning the Project from Forest Product‟s perspective and in 

consideration of Plaintiffs‟ experience, sophistication and ability to spot and respond to the 

important environmental issues. As Plaintiffs point out, the consideration of an amicus brief is 

solely within the discretion of the court and is seldom appropriate at the level of the trial level 

where the parties are adequately represented by experienced counsel. See Ryan v. CFTC, 125 

F.3d 1062, 1063 (7th Cir. 1997). The court has reviewed the proposed amicus brief by Sierra 

Forest Products and finds it contains no material that is useful to the court or that is not set forth 

adequately by the parties. The motion to appear as Amicus Curiae will therefore be denied.

II. Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment

A. Extent of Agency Duty to Inform

At the heart of Plaintiffs‟ action is the contention that Defendants were required under 

NEPA to make available to the public the entire body of facts, including specialists‟ reports, that 

would be used in reaching a final decision on the proposed Project in time to allow parties to 

submitting public comments to incorporate these facts or specialists‟ reports into their 

comments. Plaintiffs contend that, as a practical matter, the only way Defendants could meet 

Case 1:13-cv-01721-AWI-JLT Document 37 Filed 09/25/14 Page 12 of 26
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-13-

A

this requirement in this case would have been to issue the functional equivalent of a preliminary 

EA; an action Defendants did not take. Plaintiffs argue that Defendants failure to be 

forthcoming with the specialists‟ reports in time to allow public comment prior to Defendants‟ 

final decision to issue a FONSI and a decision to approve the Project violated NEPA procedural 

rules. The court begins its analysis by examining the parameters of factual disclosure required 

under NEPA.

The current state of the law reflecting the duty of agencies to both provide factual 

information on the likely environmental consequences of planned actions and receive and 

consider public comment is set forth in a trio of cases cited by both parties. The first of these is 

Citizens for Better Forestry, 341 F.3d 962 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Citizens”). In that case, the 

appellate court noted that the plaintiffs were “deprived of the opportunity to comment on the 

[defendant‟s] EA and FONSI at all points in the rulemaking process.” Id. at 970. The Citizens

court recognized that, while no prior case had established “a minimum level of public comment 

and participation required,” the public participation requirements of NEPA had to have some 

substantive meaning and the complete absence of opportunity for informed public comment 

violated the statute. Id. Of significance to this action, the Citizens court held, in pertinent part, 

that the withholding of information of environmental consequences of planned action and the 

failure to allow public comment “undermines the very purpose of NEPA, which is to ensure[ ] 

that federal agencies are informed of environmental consequences before making decisions and 

that the information [regarding environmental consequences] is available to the public.” Id. at 

970-971.

In Weingardt, the second case in the trio, this district court directly addressed the 

question of whether a draft EA is required under NEPA under facts that are similar, if not 

identical, to the facts of the case at bar. In Weingardt, two sets of plaintiffs challenged Forest 

Case 1:13-cv-01721-AWI-JLT Document 37 Filed 09/25/14 Page 13 of 26
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-14-

A

Service approval of projects authorizing logging in a total of four distinct projects in Northern 

California. Although the procedural path taken by Forest Service is not identical in each of the 

four projects, the extensive factual background presented in the District Court‟s opinion 

indicates the Forest Service‟s processes of consideration and decision in each of the four projects 

share features that are typified by Forest Service actions in the project referred to as the “North 

49 Project.” The court will briefly recap the facts set forth in Weingardt regarding the “North 49 

Project” in order to give adequate context to the decision reached in that case.

In the North 49 Project, the Forest Service first engaged public participation by notifying 

interested parties of an intention to allow logging for the purpose of restoring “fire adapted forest 

ecosystems and reduce the risk of wildfires.” Weingardt, 376 F.Supp.2d at 986. A “scoping 

notice” was prepared that included a description of the proposed projects and “approximately 

two and one-half pages of discussion of anticipated mitigation measures that would reduce 

impacts to wildlife” and invited comments in response. The parties in Weingardt responded to 

the “scoping notice” timely and requested “a copy of any draft EA or [EIS].” Id. at 987. 

About two months after the “scoping notice” was sent out the Forest Service sent out a 

notice that it was initiating “a second [30-day] public comment period as required by 36 C.F.R. § 

215.6. The Forest Service accepted public comments for the statutory 30-day period after which

it “prepared a series of internal reports totaling more than three hundred pages that evaluated the 

potential impacts of the proposed [projects], including impacts on silvicultural resources, 

wildlife, hydrology, sensitive plants, aquatic species and visual resources.” 376 F.Supp.2d at 

987. From the internal reports, and presumably in consideration of the public comments, the 

“Forest Service prepared a fifty-page EA discussing the impacts of the project, including the 

cumulative impacts as well as alternatives to the project in light of the information in the 

reports.” Id. On the same date that the EA was released to the public, the Forest Service issued 

Case 1:13-cv-01721-AWI-JLT Document 37 Filed 09/25/14 Page 14 of 26
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-15-

A

a FONSI and a Notice of Decision approving the proposed project. Id. Although the details 

vary slightly from project to project in Weingardt, the shared characteristics in each case reflect 

that: (1) the Forest Service invited public comment during a scoping period that typically lacked 

availability of any detailed information on likely environmental impacts; (2) following the 

public comment period allowed during scoping, the Forest Service permitted a second 30-day 

comment period pursuant to 36 C.F.R. § 215.6; and (3) during the section 215.6 comment 

period, Forest Service did not make available to the public any of the specialized environmental 

impact reports that would ultimately form the factual basis for Forest Service‟s decisions to issue 

FONSI‟s with regard to the projects.

The plaintiffs in Weingardt challenged the Forest Service‟s issuance of a FONSI and the 

Notice of Decision on the ground that Forest Service had failed “to adequately involve and 

inform the public in the preparation and consideration of the EA for each of the projects.” Id. at 

989. The parties in Weingardt framed their positions at the two extremes of the issue of duty to 

inform the public under NEPA; the plaintiffs contending that nothing short of circulation of a 

draft EA would suffice and Forest Service contending that they had no obligation other than to 

inform the public that the projects were under consideration and to make the EA available once 

it was completed. Id. at 991. 

In synthesizing regulatory requirements and case authority, the Weingardt court held that 

“although the CEQ regulations do not require circulation of a draft EA, they do require that the 

public be given as much environmental information as is practicable, prior to completion of the 

EA, so that the public has a sufficient basis to address those subject areas that the agency must 

consider in preparing the EA. Depending on the circumstances, the agency could provide 

adequate information through public meetings or by a reasonably thorough scoping notice” Id. 

In reaching this synthesis, the Weingardt court gave particular attention to the sequence of events 

Case 1:13-cv-01721-AWI-JLT Document 37 Filed 09/25/14 Page 15 of 26
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-16-

A

prescribed by 40 C.F.R. §§ 1501.4 and 1506.6. The court noted that these regulations “require 

that an agency give environmental information to the public and then provide an opportunity for 

informed comments to the agency [. . . .] This process of disclosing information to the public 

must occur before the agency has reached its final decision on whether to go forward with the 

project.” Id. at 990 (internal citation to statutes omitted and italics added).

The final case of the trio is Bering Strait Citizens for Responsible Dev. v. U.S. Army 

Corps of Eng‟rs, 524 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2008) (“Bering Strait”). Essentially, the appellate court 

in Bering Strait considered the issue raised in Weingardt in a different factual context and 

endorsed the approach taken in Weingardt. The Bering Strait court restated the above-quoted 

holding from Weingardt as follows:

The district court in [Weingardt] evaluated this issue soundly, and we 

commend its approach. As that court observed, “the way in which the 

information is provided is less important than that a sufficient amount of 

environmental information – as much as is practicable – be provided so 

that a member of the public can weigh in on the significant decisions the 

agency will make in preparing the EA.” [Citation.] Stated another way, 

we now adopt this rule: An agency, when preparing an EA, must provide 

the public with sufficient environmental information, considered in the 

totality of circumstances, to permit members of the public to weigh in 

with their views and thus inform the agency decision-making process.

524 F.3d at 953 (internal citation to Weingardt omitted).

B. Parties’ Contentions

The central issue presented by both parties is whether Defendants provided information 

on likely environmental impacts that was both sufficient and timely for purposes of 40 C.F.R. §§ 

1501.4 and 1506.6. The parties‟ arguments center on the process of informational transfer that 

occurred at three discrete points during the process of Project development; during the Sawmill 

Forum, during the scoping period and during the final 30-day section 215.6 comment period. 

The court will consider the parties contentions with regard to each in turn.

Case 1:13-cv-01721-AWI-JLT Document 37 Filed 09/25/14 Page 16 of 26
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-17-

A

1. The Sawmill Forum

The parties agree that the Sawmill Collaborative Forum (“Forum”) was instituted in 2010 

to restart the earlier, abandoned Sawmill Project. The parties agree that in conducting the 

Forum, Forest Service sought input “from a diverse group of stakeholders and interests, which 

included scientists and community leaders from environmental organizations, local government, 

wildlife management, air quality, forestry and timber industries, tribal members and 

landowners.” Doc. # 18-1 at 7:7-10 (citing AR2252and AR2736-37). Defendants characterize 

the Forum meetings as being led by a professional mediator and providing the attendees “with 

materials regarding the Project, including scientific literature on the Pacific fisher and technical 

reports on potential treatment prescriptions. Doc. 23-1 at 7:10-12 (citing AR 2711 and 2720). 

Plaintiffs make two contentions regarding the Forum. First, Plaintiffs contend that it 

should not be considered as fulfilling or partially fulfilling Defendants‟ obligations to disclose 

pertinent information under DEPA because the Forum was not announced, or open, to the public.

Rather, invitations to participate were sent to individuals identified by Forest Service as stake 

holders in the Project. Plaintiff ForestKeeper alleges that it was invited and participated, as did 

Dr. Chad Hanson, who apparently participated in the Forum as an individual prior to his 

affiliation with Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs Center for Biological Diversity and Western Watershed 

Projects did not participate. Plaintiffs allege that information generated through the Forum was 

distributed only to those who participated; no information from the Forum was made available 

generally to the public. Second, Plaintiffs contend that, to the extent information regarding 

environmental impacts was disseminated or considered during the Forum, the information was 

 

2

 The designation “AR” refers to pages from the administrative record, portions of which are excerpted 

and provided in printed format at Doc.# 35. The complete Administrative Record has been provided to 

the court on a compact disc.

Case 1:13-cv-01721-AWI-JLT Document 37 Filed 09/25/14 Page 17 of 26
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-18-

A

general background information and was not information pertaining specifically to the 

environmental impacts of the Project since the Project had not been formulated at the time of the 

Forum.

Given that the decision in Bering Strait directs the court to assess the adequacy of an 

agency‟s sharing of information with the public according to “the totality of the circumstances,”

the court finds it must give consideration to the give and take of information that occurred 

within the Forum. However, the court has examined the portions of the AR referenced by both 

parties and finds that Plaintiffs are correct in noting that information that disseminated through 

the Forum process, while it provided information on sensitive species such as the Pacific fisher, 

did not provide any specific information with regard to the likely effects of the Project on 

populations of any of the species of concern because there was no specific information on the 

actions contemplated in the Project. In addition, the court finds it is of some significance that the 

attendees of the Forum meeting of March 17, 2010, identified the need for Forest Servicegenerated research to be made available to enable “leverage organizational resources more 

effectively.” AR02714. The court interprets this portion of the meeting minutes as expressing 

Plaintiffs‟ (and possibly other participants‟) expectation that any “original research” done or 

directed by Forest Service would be provided to the public in order for them to leverage their 

limited time and resources in responding during comment periods.

2. Scoping

The parties agree that the Project was presented for public scoping on May 16, 2011. 

The documents that initiated the scoping process were a letter from Forest Service explaining the 

scoping process and an attached 13-page document describing the Project. Defendants refer to 

this document as the “Scoping Proposal.” Defendants characterizes the Scoping Proposal as 

presenting descriptions of the sensitive species inhabiting areas within the Project area, the 

Case 1:13-cv-01721-AWI-JLT Document 37 Filed 09/25/14 Page 18 of 26
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-19-

A

proposed treatments in those areas, and special considerations pertaining to sensitive species 

including spotted owls and the Pacific fisher. Plaintiff also points out that the Scoping Proposal 

points the reader to “the Conservation Biology Institute‟s report on impacts on the species in the 

Southern Sierra Nevada (Spencer et al., 2008) (available at AR1999), AR 1702, and specifies the 

treatment prescriptions for this habitat, including retention of snags and potential nesting sites.” 

Doc. # 23-1 at 8:7-10. Plaintiffs do not dispute any of Defendants characterizations and the 

court finds Defendants‟ characterization is essentially accurate.3 

Plaintiffs‟ primary contention with regard to the scoping process is that Forest Service 

communicated the intention of Forest Service to issue a Draft EA following which Plaintiffs 

would be permitted to submit further comment. To support this contention, Plaintiffs cite first a 

memorandum issued by the Acting District Ranger for the Kern River Ranger District which 

provided “direction to move forward with a project analysis, [and] which listed responses to 

Plaintiffs‟ scoping comments on various issues, including statements that „[r]equested details 

will be available for public comment in draft NEPA document‟ (AR 1359), and a „[d]raft EA 

will be circulated for public comment. AR1363.” Doc # 18-1 at 8:8-11. Plaintiffs also allege 

that on the “following March 18, 2013, Rancheria Project Interdisciplinary Team notes stated 

that „[t]he preliminary EA is due to the SO [Sequoia Forest Supervisor‟s Office] on April 9.‟ 

AR1353.” Doc. 3 18-1 at 8:11-13.

The court has reviewed the cited portions of the AR and finds they state what Plaintiffs‟ 

allege. However, the nature of the documents is not entirely clear; that is, it is not clear from the 

titles of the cited documents whether they were intended for public review or whether they 

 

3 The document referred to as “Spencer, et al. 2008” is represented in the Excerpts of the ER by its cover 

page only. There being no allegation to the contrary, the court presumes the document was available to 

Plaintiffs either directly from Defendants or online.

Case 1:13-cv-01721-AWI-JLT Document 37 Filed 09/25/14 Page 19 of 26
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-20-

A

represent internal process documents that were made available only as part of the discovery 

process. Of some significance to the court‟s analysis, the Forest Service‟s “Analysis of 

Comments” includes an item labeled “Wildlife – Pacific Fisher.” See AR1363. Under that item, 

Forest Service identifies the issue as follows:

Snag densities are currently too low for fishers; Analyze impacts of forest 

thinning on large down logs for fisher habitat. Studies show that fisher[s]

want 65 [down logs] per acre [while] Sequoia Forest only has 19 down 

logs per acre an average based on FIA plots; Why does ecological 

restoration including removal of trees by logging[?]

Id. Under the heading titled “Resolution/Disposition/Rationale” is entered the statement that

“Project will analyze potential effects to fisher.” Id.

3. 30-Day Comment Period Pursuant to Section 215.6

The final event pertaining to disclosure of information to the public and the receipt of 

public input by Forest Service was the statutory 30-day comment period required pursuant to 36 

C.F.R. § 215.6. It is undisputed that the 30-day comment period commenced on April 23, 2013, 

with the publication of notice in the Porterville Record and the Bakersfield Californian, two 

regional newspapers. Previously identified parties, including Plaintiffs Sierra ForestKeeper and 

Center for Biological Diversity, received notice by mail including a two-page cover letter 

explaining the mechanics of submission of comments and 19-page document titled “Proposed 

Rancheria Forest Restoration Project” (“Proposed Project Document”) which explained the 

decision to be made and provided a condensed factual background of the issues that had been 

identified in the scoping process. Among the issues identified in the Proposed Project Document 

was the observation that “[r]eduction of canopy cover, snag levels, and downed logs will have an 

adverse effect on fisher, spotted owl, and other wildlife species.” AR1336. The Proposed 

Project Document also provided a detailed map showing the treatment to be applied to specific 

areas within the Project zone, including the areas identified for mechanical thinning of trees with 

Case 1:13-cv-01721-AWI-JLT Document 37 Filed 09/25/14 Page 20 of 26
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-21-

A

diameters from four to thirty inches. See AR1337-1338.

The final comment period closed on May 23, 2013. During the comment period Plaintiff 

Center for Biological Diversity submitted a 12-page comment that generally challenged 

Defendants assumptions concerning the effect of mixed severity fires, including localized high 

intensity fires on sensitive species. See AR1125-1136. The comment touches briefly on the 

sensitivity of fishers to mixed severity fires, referring to a study conducted by Plaintiffs‟ expert, 

Chad Hanson. Plaintiffs ForestKeeper and Western Watershed Project submitted a joint 7-page 

comment letter on May 23, 2013, which was much more explicit and rigorous in challenging the 

favored action on the basis of its effects on fisher populations and in challenging Forest Service 

assumptions concerning the effects of mixed severity fires on sensitive species generally. See

AR966-971.

At the center of Plaintiffs‟ contentions regarding the inadequacy of Defendants‟ efforts to 

inform public comment is the undisputed fact that several of the specialized scientific studies 

that were considered by Defendants in making the decision to issue a FONSI were not released 

to the public until after the close of the comment period. Specifically, the Biological Evaluation 

(“BE”) of species within the Project area was not released until July 3, 2013, even though the 

report itself indicates it was completed as of April 2013. See AR 470. Similarly, the 

Supplemental BE for the Pacific fisher was released on July 3, 2013, as were the maps and 

appendix for the Supplemental BE . Of significance from the court‟s perspective is the fact that 

the final EA justifying the issuance of the FONSI specifically cites to the Supplemental BE for 

the fisher in reaching its conclusion. See AR278.

C. Analysis

Since the Ninth Circuit‟s decision in Bering Strait, a number of district court decisions 

have interpreted its holding that a draft EA is not necessarily required in a variety of contexts. 

Case 1:13-cv-01721-AWI-JLT Document 37 Filed 09/25/14 Page 21 of 26
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-22-

A

See, e.g., Sierra Nevada Forest Protection Campaign v. Rey, 573 F.Supp.2d 1316, 1351 (E.D. 

Cal. 2008) (“Rey”); NRDC v. Forest Service, 634 F.Supp.2d 1045 (E.D. Cal. 2007); Wilderness 

Society v. U.S. Forest Service, 850 F.Supp.2d 1144 (D. Idaho. 2014). In each of these cases, 

districts courts found that some level of dissemination of information and acceptance of 

comment short of the issuance of a draft EA was sufficient to satisfy NEPA‟s requirements to 

adequately inform the public and include the public to the extent practicable in the decision 

making process pursuant to 40 C.F.R. §§ 1501.4 and 1506.6. Plaintiffs‟ complaint can be fairly 

read to allege both that Defendants violated NEPA by failing to issue a draft EA and that 

Defendants violated NEPA by failing to provide pre-decisional information that was available 

but not distributed during the final comment period. Under Bering Strait, the issue before the 

court in this case boils down to a single question of whether Defendants‟ failure to provide the 

General BE to the public prior to the close of the comment period violated the NEPA-imposed 

duty to provide adequate pre-decision information to allow for informed public input.

Plaintiffs contend the facts of this action align more-or-less exactly with those of 

Weingardt, and that a similar outcome is appropriate. Defendants contend that Wingardt can be 

distinguished on the basis of the extent to which Forest Service provided Project-Specific 

information through public meetings, field trips, the Forum process and in scoping documents. 

In this regard, Defendants contend that they are entitled to summary judgment because Plaintiffs 

have failed to distinguish the facts of this case from similar fact patterns in Rey, NRDC, and 

Wilderness Society. The core feature of Plaintiffs‟ claim of procedural error is the undisputed 

fact that the EA and the FONSI were based, to some extent on scientific studies that were not 

provided to the public but which were released to the public at such time it could reasonably be 

inferred that the studies could have been provided to the public with only a very modest delay in 

the decision timetable. This fact places this case somewhat in line with the factual context of 

Case 1:13-cv-01721-AWI-JLT Document 37 Filed 09/25/14 Page 22 of 26
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-23-

A

Weingardt but differentiated from that case by the fact that evidence is lacking that the scientific 

studies were in the possession of the Forest Service during the comment period. 

Of the cases cited by Defendants, one warrants close examination; not because it shares 

with Weingardt the feature of available environmental information not shared with the public, 

but because it takes a more incisive look at legal basis of the decision in Weingardt. In NRDC v. 

Forest Service, 634 F.Supp.2d 1405 (E.D. Cal. 2007), the district court took considerable effort 

to determine whether the criticism by the Weingardt court against the Forest Service for the 

failure to provide information on the expected environmental impacts of the particular project 

under consideration, even though the Forest Service possessed such information, was the legal 

basis for the court‟s holding or whether it was dictum. See id. at 1067 (presenting the parties‟ 

arguments as to the centrality of the failure to provide project specific environmental information 

in the Weingardt decision). The NRDC court concluded that “in preparing an EA, the 

regulations only require that an „agency shall involve the public, the extent practicable . . . .‟ 40 

C.F.R. § 1501.4(b). This court agrees with [the decision in Biodiversity Conservation Alliance 

v. United States Bureau of Land Mgmt., 404 F.Supp.2d 212, 220 (D.D.C. 2005)] that 

„[d]etermining whether the public was adequately involved is a fact-intensive inquiry made on a 

case-by-case basis.‟” NRDC, 634 F.Supp.2d at 1167.

The focal point of the “fact-intensive inquiry” is to determine whether the agency has 

taken the requisite “hard look” at the likely environmental consequences of its action. See Town 

of Cave Creek, Arizona v. F.A.A., 325 F.3d 320, 327 (9th Cir. 2003). The obvious goal of 

public participation is to avoid uninformed decisions affecting the environment. It follows then 

that a court conducting a “fact-intensive inquiry” at agency decision-making should look both at 

the nature of the information that is alleged to not have been provided and to the information that 

the parties challenging the agency‟s decision placed before the agency. The idea here is that a 

Case 1:13-cv-01721-AWI-JLT Document 37 Filed 09/25/14 Page 23 of 26
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-24-

A

court reviewing an agency decision under NEPA can only provide relief to a challenging party if 

it can be shown that information that was not before the agency would, if properly considered, 

present a “seriously different picture of the environmental landscape.” Nat‟l Comm. for the New 

River v. F.E.R.C., 373 F.3d 1323, 1330 (D.C.Cir. 2004); see also, High Sierra Hikers Ass‟n v. 

Blackwell, 390 F.3d 630, 642 (9th Cir. 2004) (although injunctive relief is not automatic, it 

should issue if, as a result of NEPA violation uninformed decision is evident).

When the court examines the comments prepared by Plaintiffs in response to the 30-day 

final comment period, including the attachments to the comment by Center for Biological 

Diversity and Western Watershed Project, the court must concluded that Plaintiffs placed before 

Defendants all the information they intended Forest Service to consider. Essentially, Plaintiffs‟ 

substantive argument is that Forest Service‟s assessment of the environmental effects of highintensity fire, even stand replacing fire, on sensitive old growth species such as the fisher and the 

spotted owl is erroneous. In particular, the attachment titled “Conservation Science Perspectives 

on Complex Early Seral Forests: What They Are and How To Manage Them in the Sierra 

Nevada Ecoregion” by DellaSala, Bond & Hansen presents a reasonably comprehensive case for 

permitting high-intensity stand replacing fires for the benefit of sensitive species such as the 

spotted owl. The Plaintiffs comments make clear their contention that the same policies favor 

the Pacific fisher as well. Further, it is clear from comments and responses in the EA, that Forest 

Service gave due consideration to Plaintiffs‟ contentions concerning the need for fuel reduction 

and responded to those contentions with references of their own.

The court finds it telling that Plaintiffs do not identify, either in their complaint or in their 

moving papers, any specific information that they would have included in their comments but 

did not because of the failure of Forest Service to provide the scientific reports that were not 

available during the comment period. They only generally contend that they were unable to 

Case 1:13-cv-01721-AWI-JLT Document 37 Filed 09/25/14 Page 24 of 26
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-25-

A

prepare comments that were adequately responsive. Further, the court can finding nothing in 

Plaintiffs‟ complaint, the Parties arguments, or in the Administrative Record that indicates that 

information Plaintiffs could, or might have, placed in their responses at any point in the process 

was of a nature that would “present a seriously different picture” of the environmental issues 

being contested. What is evident from consideration of the whole of the information provided is 

that Plaintiffs preferred the third option (hand thinning only), Defendants preferred the second 

option (some mechanical thinning), and that Defendants gave consideration to information that 

included at least the substance of the information relied upon by Plaintiffs. The procedural 

requirements of NEPA demand no more than that. See Weingardt, 376 at 990 (“NEPA is 

designed to ensure a process and not to produce a particular result”).

The court finds that the specificity and scope of information Plaintiffs did provide in their 

comments shows that they were adequately informed of the issues to provide sufficient 

information to permit the requisite “hard look” by Defendants. Defendants are therefore entitled 

to summary judgment. The court feels it is worth noting that the court‟s decision does not 

amount to an endorsement of Defendants‟ decision to not issue a draft EA or to use unreleased 

scientific reports to support its final EA. What tips this rather close case in favor of Defendants 

is the lack of any evidence that, had Plaintiffs been informed of the scientific reports 

underpinning the final EA prior to its finalization, they would have been able to put information 

before Defendants that would have been substantially different from what the Defendants did 

consider.

THEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants‟ 

motion for summary judgment is hereby GRANTED. Plaintiffs‟ motion for summary judgment 

is correspondingly DENIED. Defendants‟ motions to strike are GRANTED to the extent set 

Case 1:13-cv-01721-AWI-JLT Document 37 Filed 09/25/14 Page 25 of 26
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-26-

A

forth above. The motion of Sierra Forest Products to appear as amicus curiae is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 25, 2014 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01721-AWI-JLT Document 37 Filed 09/25/14 Page 26 of 26