Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00299/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00299-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 05:551 Administrative Procedure Act

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KLAMATH-SISKIYOU WILDLANDS No. 2:05-cv-0299-MCE-PAN 

CENTER, ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION INFORMATION

CENTER, and KLAMATH FOREST 

ALLIANCE,

Plaintiffs,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE,

Defendant.

----oo0oo----

Through the present action, Plaintiffs Klamath-Siskiyou

Wildlands Center, Environmental Protection Information Center,

and Klamath Forest Alliance (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) seek to

prevent implementation of the so-called Meteor Project, as

proposed by Defendant United States Forest Service (“Forest

Service”) for the North and South Forks of the Salmon River

Watershed near Yreka, California. 

///

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-00299-MCE -EFB Document 67 Filed 07/14/06 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

While the Forest Service’s Motion is technically 1

denominated as being for summary judgment, only, at the oral

argument on this matter the parties stipulated to the propriety

of summary adjudication for both sides on the issues presented

herein.

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the 2

administrative record lodged with the Court will be specified as

(continued...)

2

Plaintiffs contend that the Final Environmental Impact Statement

(“FEIS”) issued by the Forest Service in August of 2004 for the

project violates the provisions of the National Environmental

Policy Act (“NEPA”) by failing to adequately disclose and analyze

its environmental consequences. Both Plaintiffs and the Forest

Service now move for summary judgment with respect to the

adequacy of the FEIS, or alternatively for summary adjudication

as to individual claims. In addition, the Forest Service has 1

filed a Motion to Strike certain declarations offered by

Plaintiffs, and Plaintiffs have moved to supplement the

administrative record before the Court in presenting another

declaration. All motions will be addressed below. 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

According to the Forest Service’s August 2004 FEIS, the

Meteor Project is needed to “maintain stand health by leading

[timber] stands into a resilient condition where they can provide

a sustained yield of wood products, reduce the risk of these

stands to catastrophic fire, maintain unique wildlife habitats,

provide an economical, safe and environmentally sensitive

transportation system.” AR 219-20. 

2

Case 2:05-cv-00299-MCE -EFB Document 67 Filed 07/14/06 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

(...continued) 2

“AR”.

3

The Forest Service maintains that it designed the project to

address adverse forest conditions that have resulted from a

combination of overstocking, long-term drought, insects, and

diseases. AR 221, 1865-66. In order to achieve this objective,

the FEIS addressed some seventeen different treatment options,

including a no-action alternative, before adopting Alternative 2,

a program which incorporates a variety of logging methods ranging

from regeneration harvest and group selection of old-growth

trees, to thinning of smaller trees. AR 230. The selected

alternative proposes logging of approximately six million board

feet of timber (along with associated other activities such as

planting, fuel treatment measures and gopher damage control) on

744 acres in 39 different units of the Klamath National Forest,

scattered through a 316,000 acre area comprised of the North Fork

Salmon River Watershed, the Lower South Fork Salmon River

Watershed, and the Upper South Fork Salmon River Watershed. AR

215, 245. Timber harvest would take place by helicopter, cable,

and tractor systems. AR 230.

The Forest Service released a Draft EIS for public comment

on November 21, 2003. Plaintiffs, along with other concerned

groups and individuals, thereafter submitted comments. Those

comments were considered and responded to by the Forest Service

in its final version of the EIS issued in August of 2004. AR

385-441.

///

Case 2:05-cv-00299-MCE -EFB Document 67 Filed 07/14/06 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

The Final EIS analyzed three alternatives in detail,

including a no action alternative and two other proposed measures

for implementing the stated objectives of the Meteor Project. 

Alternative 3 differed from the selected option (Alternative 2)

in several ways, including a different number of acres proposed

for timber harvest and distinctions in terms of fuel and habitat

treatment. Fourteen other action alternatives were also

considered, but not analyzed in detail.

On August 30, 2004, the Forest Service issued its Record of

Decision for the Meteor Project (AR 470), and on October 15,

2004, Plaintiffs filed an appeal. That appeal was ultimately

rejected, with the Forest Service Appeal Reviewing Officer

affirming the Forest Service’s approval for the project on

December 1, 2004. AR 43-59. This lawsuit ensued.

Plaintiffs take issue with the propriety of the FEIS,

alleging that its disclosures fail to satisfy the procedural

mandates of NEPA in several key respects. Plaintiffs contend 1)

that many large diameter trees are in fact marked for logging,

instead of being protected as the FEIS would appear to suggest;

2) that discussion within the FEIS of geology issues and

landslide potential outside the Jones Gulch watershed is not

adequately addressed; 3) that natural background levels of

turbidity must necessarily be disclosed by the FEIS, but are not;

4) that snag retention levels as contemplated by the FEIS are not

sufficient to protect cavity excavator bird species; and 5) that

the FEIS does not demonstrate how Green Tree Retention levels

exceed 15 percent of the harvest unit, as required by the

Northwest Forest Plan (“NFP”).

Case 2:05-cv-00299-MCE -EFB Document 67 Filed 07/14/06 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

In addition to these disclosure issues, Plaintiffs also

allege that the FEIS on a substantive basis does not properly

analyze the potential environmental effects of gopher baiting

with strychnine poisoning in the Meteor FEIS, and instead

improperly “tiers” or references non site-specific analyses in

environmental assessments prepared for other areas.

Finally, Plaintiffs contend that the FEIS further runs afoul

of NEPA in failing to consider a reasonable range of alternative

actions, with only two nearly identical proposals being

addressed.

Based upon these alleged deficiencies, Plaintiffs assert

that the Forest Service’s decision to implement the Meteor

Project must be overturned as arbitrary and capricious. The

Forest Service, on the other hand, contends that the FEIS

thoroughly analyzed the issues as well as feasible treatment

alternatives. 

PROCEDURAL FRAMEWORK

Congress enacted NEPA in 1969 to protect the environment by

requiring certain procedural safeguards before an agency takes

action affecting the environment. The NEPA process is designed

to “ensure that the agency ... will have detailed information

concerning significant environmental impacts; it also guarantees

that the relevant information will be made available to the

larger [public] audience.” Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project

v. Blackwood, 171 F.3d 1208, 121 (9 Cir. 1998). The purpose of th

NEPA is to “ensure a process, not to ensure any result.” Id. 

Case 2:05-cv-00299-MCE -EFB Document 67 Filed 07/14/06 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

“NEPA emphasizes the importance of coherent and comprehensive upfront environmental analysis to ensure informed decision-making

to the end that the agency will not act on incomplete

information, only to regret its decision after is it too late to

correct.” Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Forest Serv.,

349 F.3d 1157, 1166 (9th Cir. 2003). Complete analysis under

NEPA also assures that the public has sufficient information to

challenge the agency’s decision. Robertson v. Methow Valley

Citizens, 490 U.S. 332, 349 (1989); Idaho Sporting Cong. v.

Thomas, 137 F.3d 1146, 1151 (9th Cir. 1998).

NEPA requires that all federal agencies, including the

Forest Service, prepare a “detailed statement” that discusses the

environmental ramifications, and alternatives, to all “major

Federal Actions significantly affecting the quality of the human

environment.” 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(c). An agency must take a

“hard look” at the consequences, environmental impacts, and

adverse environmental effects of a proposed action within an

environmental impact statement, when required. Kleppe v. Sierra

Club, 427 U.S. 390, 410, n.21 (1976). If an EIS adequately

discloses such effects, NEPA’s goal is satisfied. Inland Empire

Pub. Lands Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 88 F.3d 754, 758 (9th

Cir. 1996) (emphasis in original).

NEPA does not mandate that an EIS be based on a particular

scientific methodology, nor does it require a reviewing court to

weigh conflicting scientific data. Friends of Endangered

Species, Inc. v. Jantzen, 760 F.2d 976, 986 (9th Cir. 1985). 

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-00299-MCE -EFB Document 67 Filed 07/14/06 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

An agency must be permitted discretion in relying on the

reasonable opinions of its own qualified experts, even if the

court might find contrary views more persuasive. See, e.g.,

Kleppe, 427 U.S. at 420, n. 21. NEPA does not allow an agency to

rely on the conclusions and opinions of its staff, however,

without providing both supporting analysis and data. Idaho

Sporting Cong., 137 F.3d at 1150. Credible scientific evidence

that contraindicates a proposed action must be evaluated and

disclosed. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.9(b). 

Because NEPA contains no provisions allowing a private right

of action (see Lujan v. Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n, 497 U.S. 871, 882

(1990)), a party can obtain judicial review of alleged violations

of NEPA only under the waiver of sovereign immunity contained

within the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-

706.

Under the APA, the court must determine whether, based on a

review of the agency’s administrative record, agency action was

“arbitrary and capricious,” outside the scope of the agency’s

statutory authority, or otherwise not in accordance with the law. 

Salmon River Concerned Citizens v. Robertson, 32 F.3d 1346, 1356

(9th Cir. 1994). Review under the APA is “searching and

careful.” Ocean Advocates, 361 F.3d at 1118. However, the court

may not substitute its own judgment for that of the agency. Id.

(citing Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401

U.S. 402 (1971), overruled on other grounds by Califano v.

Sanders, 430 U.S. 99 (1977)).

In reviewing an agency’s actions, the standard to be

employed is decidedly deferential to the agency’s expertise. 

Case 2:05-cv-00299-MCE -EFB Document 67 Filed 07/14/06 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

Salmon River, 32 F.3d at 1356. Although the scope of review for

agency action is accordingly limited, such action is not

unimpeachable. The reviewing court must determine whether there

is a rational connection between the facts and resulting judgment

so as to support the agency’s determination. Baltimore Gas and

Elec. v. NRDC, 462 U.S. 87, 105-06 (1983), citing Bowman Trans.

Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight Sys. Inc., 419 U.S. 281, 285-86

(1974). In short, the court must ensure that the agency has

taken a “hard look” at the environmental consequences of its

proposed action. Or. Natural Res. Council v. Lowe, 109 F.3d 521,

526 (9th Cir. 1997).

Augmentation of the Administrative Record

The Forest Service has moved to strike certain evidence

offered by Plaintiffs in conjunction with the summary judgment

motions presently before the Court. Specifically, the Forest

Service asserts that certain portions of the Declarations of

Kimberly Baker and George Sexton must be disregarded on grounds

that the assertions contained therein were not part of the

underlying administrative record. In response, Plaintiffs have

not only argued that inclusion of the above materials is

appropriate, but they have also moved to supplement the record to

include an additional declaration obtained from John R. (“Jack”)

West.

///

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-00299-MCE -EFB Document 67 Filed 07/14/06 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

The Forest Service correctly points out that “the focal

point for judicial review should be the administrative record

already in existence, not some new record made initially in the

reviewing court.” Camp v. Pitts, 411 U.S. 138, 142 (1973);

Southwest Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Forest Serv., 100

F.3d 1443, 1450 (9 Cir. 1996). The rationale for this general th

rule is that the reviewing court should determine agency

compliance with the law solely on the record before the agency at

the time of its decision. See Citizens to Preserve Overton Park,

Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. at 419. Limiting review in that regard

precludes the reviewing court from conducting a de novo trial and

substituting its opinion for that of the agency. See id. at 416.

Supplementation of an administrative record may nonetheless

be justified where (1) the record needs to be supplemented to

explain agency action; (2) the agency has relied upon documents

or materials not included in the record; (3) supplementation is

necessary to explain or clarify technical matters involved in the

agency action; and (4) there has been a strong showing in support

of a claim of bad faith or improper behavior on the part of

agency decision-makers. Sw. Ctr. for Biological Diversity v.

U.S. Forest Serv., 100 F.3d at 1450; Animal Def. Council v.

Hodel, 840 F.2d 1432, 1436-37 (9th Cir. 1988). Augmentation is

appropriate if any of the above criteria are satisfied. Id.

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-00299-MCE -EFB Document 67 Filed 07/14/06 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

In addition to establishing certain foundational

requirements that are not disputed, the Baker and Sexton

Declarations contain explanatory statements regarding visits to

the timber sale areas and photographs taken during those visits,

many of which were already included in the existing

administrative record in any event. The declarations pertain to

Plaintiffs’ claim that significant environmental impacts were

ignored in the Forest Service FEIS, and that consequently the

provisions of NEPA were violated. In addition, the West

declaration further illuminates the scientific concept of water

turbidity, a key issue in this case. 

In cases challenging the adequacy of agency review under

NEPA, the Ninth Circuit has routinely admitted extra-record

evidence to show that the agency failed to consider all relevant

factors in assessing potential environmental effects. See, e.g.,

Idaho Conservation League v. Mumma, 956 F.2d 1508, 1520 n. 22

(9th Cir. 1992); City of Davis v. Coleman, 521 F.2d 661, 675 (9th

Cir. 1975); Natural Res. Def. Council v. Duvall, 777 F. Supp.

1533, 1534 n.l (E.D. Cal. 1991). In Environment Now! v. Espy,

877 F. Supp. 1397, 1404 (E.D. Cal. 1994), this district permitted

expert declarations in order to highlight perceived deficiencies

in the environmental review process and to explain and assist

understanding the complex and technical subject matter underlying

the agency decision at issue. This liberality in allowing

consideration of material beyond the record makes sense given the

fact that NEPA requires the court to make a “substantial inquiry”

into the nature of a federal agency’s NEPA compliance. 

///

Case 2:05-cv-00299-MCE -EFB Document 67 Filed 07/14/06 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

See Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 US. 402, 415

(1971). As the Ninth Circuit pointed out in Asarco Inc. v. U.S.

Envtl. Prot. Agency, 616 F.2d 1153, 1160 (9th Cir. 1980), “it

will often be impossible, especially when highly technical

matters are involved, for the court to determine whether the

agency took into consideration all relevant factors unless it

looks outside the record to determine what matters the agency

should have considered but did not.”

Given these considerations, and because the materials at

issue herein all relate to NEPA claims, they will be considered

herein. Consequently, the Forest Service’s Motion to Strike is

denied and Plaintiffs’ request to augment the record is granted.

ANALYSIS

A. Large Diameter Trees Marked for Logging

The Meteor Project’s stated objective is to achieve forest

resilience by, inter alia, reducing the risk of catastrophic fire

and maintaining unique wildlife habitats. AR 219-20. The

logging methods incorporated within the selected Alternative 2

purport to “increase the vigor and large tree character of the

forest canopy.” AR 319. Thinning is designed to concentrate

growth on the “larger and more vigorous trees” in any given

timber stand. AR 251. All dominant and co-dominant trees are

proposed to be retained unless they are sick or dying. AR 301.

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-00299-MCE -EFB Document 67 Filed 07/14/06 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

Consequently the FEIS suggests that bigger trees will be

protected, and that generally only smaller trees will be

earmarked for removal.

Plaintiffs argue that the facts belie this contention. In

many units most of the larger trees are marked for logging,

whereas the smaller diameter trees are not so designated. AR 86-

88, 385-395. Photographs attached to the Declaration of George

Sexton appear to show the largest, most fire-resistant overstory

trees marked for logging – a practice seemingly at odds with the

stated objective of the Meteor Project. Sexton Decl., ¶¶ 13-19.

Plaintiffs contend that because the FEIS does not disclose the

effects of logging larger-diameter trees, it runs afoul of NEPA’s

requirement that all relevant information concerning significant

environmental impacts be disclosed. Robertson, 490 U.S. at 349.

In response, the Forest Service focuses on the fact that the

FEIS does contemplate removal of diseased trees. The Forest

Service goes on to argue that even if some large trees are marked

for harvest that does not mean that “tree markings are

inconsistent with the silvicultural prescriptions described in

the Final EIS.” (Defs.’ MSJ, 15:17-19). The Forest Service also

speculates that some of the larger trees identified by Plaintiffs

may in fact have been diseased. Otherwise, the Forest Service

offers no substantive rationale for what appears to be the

intended logging of bigger trees in contravention of the EIS. 

The Forest Service has therefore failed to adequately rebut

Plaintiffs’ contention that it is approaching logging on the

ground differently than the FEIS would appear to dictate. 

///

Case 2:05-cv-00299-MCE -EFB Document 67 Filed 07/14/06 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

Seventh-field watersheds range between approximately 2,500 3

and 10,000 acres in size.

13

The FEIS does not adequately disclose the apparent extent to

which old growth trees are subject to logging, and fails to

adequately analyze the environmental effects of logging those

trees. The failure to disclose this important information is

arbitrary and capricious and hence violates NEPA. 5 U.S.C. §

706(2)(A); Or. Envtl. Council v. Kunzman, 817 F.2d 484, 492 (9th 

Cir. 1987). Plaintiffs are accordingly entitled to summary

adjudication as to this issue.

B. Geology Issues/Landslide Potential

Plaintiffs object to the Geology section of the Meteor FEIS

(AR 267-71) on grounds that the section describes environmental

effects only on the Jones Gulch watershed, which lies within only

one of the fourteen seventh-field watersheds encompassed by the 3

project. Erosion and slope failure occasioned by logging effects

are the primary factors addressed from a geological perspective.

Plaintiffs’ criticism of this portion of the FEIS is

unfounded. A comprehensive Geological Report (AR 1779-1832) was

specifically prepared for the Meteor Project by a licensed

geologist, Juan de la Fuente. That report addresses landslide

and sediment production issues. The report concludes that the

indirect effect of Alternative 2 implementation on landslide

potential would be very small (AR 1780) and the FEIS specifically

incorporates the Geology Report by reference. AR 269. 

///

Case 2:05-cv-00299-MCE -EFB Document 67 Filed 07/14/06 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

In addition, the geology section of the FEIS also incorporates

modeling data for all fourteen seventh-field watersheds contained

in the water quality section of the FEIS. That data includes

calculations based on the Mass Wasting Model, which predicts

sediment volumes from landslide activity associated with a flood

event occurring at an interval rate of ten to twenty years. AR

277, 281. Based on the Mass Wasting Model data, the FEIS

concludes that the effects of the proposed activities are very

small in relation to the impact of past events. AR 271.

While Plaintiffs argue that disclosure (which incorporates

by reference various portions of the 6,000 page administrative

record) does not comport with the law because it is not

sufficiently accessible to the public, the Court disagrees. In

this instance we have specific incorporation of not only a

project-specific geology report, but also an on-point discussion

of landslide potential in the very next portion of the EIS – a

section literally separated by less than ten pages from the

geology portion of the report. The Forest Service is entitled to

summary adjudication as to this issue.

C. Snag/Green Tree Retention Requirements

The Meteor Project is subject to the provisions of the

Northwest Forest Plan (“NFP”). The Record of Decision for

certain amendments to the NFP requires that the Forest Service

retain enough snags (standing dead trees) to support 40 percent

of the potential population levels of cavity-nesting bird species

such as woodpeckers. AR 5642. 

Case 2:05-cv-00299-MCE -EFB Document 67 Filed 07/14/06 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

The same Record of Decision similarly requires that at least 15

percent of the area associated with each cutting unit be

preserved as a “green tree retention” for bird habitat purposes. 

AR 5641. Plaintiffs argue that the Meteor Project FEIS fails to

demonstrate how it satisfies these criteria. In fact, Plaintiffs

point out that the logging prescriptions for several units

falling within the project call for retention of only one or two

large diameter trees per acre, and that treatment plans for other

units include clear cuts of up to two and a half acres, where no

trees will be retained. According to Plaintiffs, the FEIS does

not demonstrate that these allowances will adequately support 40

percent of potential cavity-nesting bird populations, as they

must in order to pass muster under the NFP. Plaintiffs contend

that the decision to implement the Meteor Project in the absence

of such analysis/determination violates NEPA as being arbitrary

and capricious. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).

In response, the Forest Service points out that the Meteor

Project MIS Assessment provides that “moderate capability snag

habitat” in timber harvest units can be maintained through the 15

percent retention of green trees and snags in patches, and

through retention of an average of five large snags per acres

across the project area landscape. AR 1902-03. 

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-00299-MCE -EFB Document 67 Filed 07/14/06 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

While neither the FEIS itself or the MIS Assessment illuminate

how such “moderate capability snag habitat” relates to the

prescribed percentage of potential bird population mandated by

the NFP, the Forest Service points to the Klamath Land and

Resources Management Plan (“LRMP”) indicates that moderate

capability habitat for snag-dependent species can support 60 to

80 percent of “optimum” population levels. AR 5159. The Forest

Service argues that because these figures exceed 40 percent, the

analysis in the Meteor FEIS is adequate for NEPA purposes.

The Court disagrees. First, the concept of “optimum”

population levels described in the LRMP is not identical to the

“potential” population level mandated by the NFP, and the FEIS

does not explain how the terms differ. Second, the Forest

Service cannot defer on a site-specific analysis simply by

referring to a broad programmatic document like the LRMP which

may be outdated or no longer scientifically substantiated. In

any event, the requirements of NEPA are not satisfied by the

FEIS’ discussion of snag retention in terms of cavity-nesting

bird habitat. Consequently, Plaintiffs are entitled to summary

adjudication with respect to snag/green tree retention

requirements.

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-00299-MCE -EFB Document 67 Filed 07/14/06 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

D. Turbidity

The Clean Water Act requires that each state implement water

quality standards, and that federal agencies comply with those

standards. 33 U.S.C. §§ 1313, 1323. California law delegates to

Regional Water Control Boards the responsibility for developing

“Basin Plans” that establish appropriate water quality conditions

and waste discharge requirements. Cal. Water Code §§ 13241,

13263. With respect to the area encompassed by the proposed

Meteor Plan, the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board

provides that “[t]urbidity shall not be increased more than 20

percent above naturally occurring background levels.” AR 5742. 

Turbidity is defined as “the optical property of water as

affected by suspension of material such as sediment.” AR 350.

Plaintiffs argue that because the FEIS fails to disclose the

relevant background turbidity levels, it by definition violates

NEPA because in the absence of that data it is impossible to tell

whether the Meteor Project substantively complies with the

applicable Basin Plan. (Pls.’ Reply in Support of Pls.’ MSJ,

14:7-9). The Forest Service admits that the FEIS did not

disclose natural background turbidity levels, but claims that its

adoption of Best Management Practices (“BMPs”) made such

disclosure unnecessary. See Defs.’ MSJ, 12:7-9; Defs.’ Opp. to

Pls.’ MSJ, 2:9-12, 18-21.

The BMPs upon which the Forest Service relies consist of

inference points developed on the basis of three different models

that estimate sedimentation by considering various factors such

as disturbance type and land sensitivity. AR 2120-24. 

Case 2:05-cv-00299-MCE -EFB Document 67 Filed 07/14/06 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

Two of the models utilized in the FEIS, the Surface Erosion Model

and the Mass Wasting Model, contain inference points identified

as 800 and 200 percent, respectively, over estimated background

turbidity levels. AR 277, 2116. Hence the Forest Service Models

themselves gauge the applicable thresholds of concern, or

inference point, against the background turbidity level. Despite

its concession that those background levels have not been

disclosed by the FEIS, the Forest Service still maintains that

the BMPs it utilizes have been found to be effective in

maintaining water quality in conformance with the Basin Plan. AR

351. The effectiveness of BMPs in ensuring compliance has

nonetheless not been absolute; effectiveness as determined by

Forest Service random samples has ranged between the high 80s and

90s every year since 1993. AR 351.

In Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association v.

Peterson, 795 F.2d 688 (9th Cir. 1986), the Ninth Circuit was

confronted with a Basin Plan similar to the instant plan which

prohibited water turbidity from increasing more than twenty

percent over background levels. Also similar to this case was

the government’s argument in Indian Cemetery that measurement of

background turbidity levels was superseded by Forest Service

BMPs. Significantly, the court found that “[a]dherence to the

BMPs does not automatically ensure that applicable state

standards are being met.” 

///

///

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-00299-MCE -EFB Document 67 Filed 07/14/06 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

795 F.2d at 697. Moreover, while Or. Natural Res. Council v.

Lyng, 882 F.2d 1417, 1424 (9th Cir. 1989), states that stateapproved BMPs may constitute compliance with the Clean Water Act

if monitoring does not reveal that violation of water quality

standards has nonetheless occurred even with implementation of

the pertinent BMPs, as stated above even the Forest Service

concedes in this instance that BMPs do not always assure

compliance.

The Forest Service has simply not shown that background

levels of turbidity are irrelevant and meaningless to a careful

evaluation of the Meteor Project under NEPA. Background levels

are an essential component of both the Basin Plan’s calculus and

an evaluation of the BMPs themselves, which similarly use as a

basis point the same natural levels of turbidity. The failure to

disclose background turbidity levels was a violation of NEPA, and

Plaintiffs are entitled to summary adjudication on this issue.

E. Gopher Baiting

The Meteor Project authorizes the application of strychninetreated grain to eradicate gophers. AR 231, 462. In analyzing

the potential environmental effects of such baiting, the FEIS

purports to “summarize” two other analyses of gopher baiting

undertaken in two different environmental assessments (“EAs”). 

AR 241, see Defs.’ MSJ 20:2-3 (“[t]he FEIS summarized several

environmental assessments”). 

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-00299-MCE -EFB Document 67 Filed 07/14/06 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

The Forest Service concedes this point. As stated in its 4

initial points and authorities in support of summary judgment,

“NEPA regulations permit an environmental assessment to tier to

an EIS, but do not allow an EIS to tier to an environmental

assessment.” Defs.’ Mem. In Support of Summ. J., 19:22-24. 

20

Both of the EAs considered gopher control activities “in conifer

plantations”, and while one considered such effects within the

same Salmon River Ranger District where the Meteor Project is

situated, the other was in a wholly different locale, the Scott

River Ranger District. AR 3989, 3499. Neither EA was sitespecific to the area contemplated for gopher eradication in the

Meteor Project.

Plaintiffs contend that by relying solely on results from

EAs, the Forest Service impermissibly “tiered” their assessment

within the EIS in violation of NEPA. NEPA regulations define

“tiering” as “the coverage of general matters in broader

environmental impact statements ... with subsequent narrower

statements or environmental analyses.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.28. 

Tiering is appropriate only when an analysis of greater scope is

utilized to assess an analysis of lesser scope. Id. A sitespecific document may consequently be tiered under certain

circumstances to an earlier programmatic EIS, but not to a less

rigorously scrutinized EA. Or. Natural Desert Ass’n v. Green,

953 F. Supp. 1133, 1147 (D. Or. 1997).4

Plaintiffs contend that not only are the studies relied upon

here are EAs, but also that the EAs at issue are distinguishable

in any event because they dealt with gopher baiting activities in

already regenerated conifer plantations rather than areas, like

the Meteor Project, containing mature and old growth forests. 

Case 2:05-cv-00299-MCE -EFB Document 67 Filed 07/14/06 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

AR 250-52. Because of this difference between the subject matter

of the EAs at issue, Plaintiffs argue that additional sitespecific analysis for the Meteor Project was required, and that

its absence violates NEPA.

The Forest Service unconvincingly argues that because it did

not use the word “tier” in its discussion of the earlier EAs

which assessed gopher baiting, the proscription against tiering

should not apply since at most the Meteor FEIS merely

“summarized” the earlier EA results. This is a distinction

without a difference given the fact that summarizing the EA

results in support of the Meteor FEIS amounts to exactly the same

thing as tiering. Moreover, the EAs assessed gopher control

under different conditions. The Forest Service does not dispute

the fact that the Granite Gopher Baiting EA and the Scott River

Gopher Control EA involved “conifer plantations” but contend that

conditions are still analogous because gopher baiting in the

Meteor Project would occur in “reforested” areas.

This still does not make the two situations comparable, let

alone permit “tiering” from the EAs to the Meteor Project FEIS. 

Conifer plantations by definition entail areas reserved virtually

solely for producing wood products, whereas the Meteor Project

purports to be designed specifically to promote the thinning and

sustainability within the context of an established forest

framework including bigger trees and mature conditions. The

Meteor Project cannot tier to the EAs in question both because of

the general proscription against such tiering and because the

subject matter of the EAs is different. 

///

Case 2:05-cv-00299-MCE -EFB Document 67 Filed 07/14/06 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

Without site-specific analysis of gopher baiting, the Meteor FEIS

fails to meet NEPA standards. Plaintiffs are entitled to summary

adjudication as to this issue as well. 

F. Whether Reasonable Range of Alternatives Analyzed

An FEIS must “rigorously explore and objectively evaluate

all reasonable alternatives” to an agency’s proposed action, so

as to provide a “clear basis for choice among options by the

decisionmaker and the public.” 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14(a). Although

an EIS is inadequate if it fails to address viable but unexamined

alternatives (see Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. F.A.A., 161

F.3d 569, 575 (9th Cir. 1998)), only feasible alternatives,

rather than an infinite range of alternatives, need be considered

under the so-called “rule of reason” standard. City of Carmelby-the-Sea v. U.S. Dept. of Transp., 123 F.3d 1142, 1155 (9th

Cir. 1997).

In the present matter, Plaintiff assert that the two action

alternatives considered by the FEIS at length (Alternatives 2 and

3) were “nearly identical” and failed to provide enough

information for the public to make an informed decision about the

environmental effects of each alternative. Plaintiffs argue that

for the most part the effects of the two action alternatives were

simply discussed together, and contend that in the absence of a

“reasonably full range of alternatives” such virtually identical

alternatives are insufficient to satisfy the prerequisites of

NEPA. See Muckleshoot Indian Tribe v. U.S. Forest Serv., 177

F.3d 811, 813 (9th Cir. 1999).

Case 2:05-cv-00299-MCE -EFB Document 67 Filed 07/14/06 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

Plaintiffs’ argument in this regard is unfounded. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 proposed different harvest and fuel

treatments on a different number of total acres (744 versus 650)

and harvest units (39 as opposed to 34). AR 229-32. Alternative

3 also entails different timber harvest prescriptions and would

not treat riparian reserves. AR 254. Consequently, while the

alternatives may share certain effects, they are nonetheless not

identical.

Significantly, Plaintiffs do not dispute the Forest

Service’s contention that the remaining fourteen other

alternatives mentioned in the FEIS were either not conducive to

the Meteor Project’s stated purposed and need, were not feasible,

or would have caused unnecessary environmental harm. See AR 241-

243. They simply argue that not enough information was provided

to distinguish between alternatives, or to weigh the relative

effects of each alternative.

In Laguna Greenbelt, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Transp., 42 F.3d

517 (9th Cir. 1994), the Ninth Circuit upheld an EIS that, like

the present case, discussed in detail a no-action alternative

along with two similar action alternatives. The Laguna court

explained that the project EIS “discusse[d] in detail all the

alternatives that were feasible and briefly discusse[d] the

reasons others were eliminated” before concluding that “[t]his is

all that NEPA requires.” Id. at 524.

Laguna’s reasoning is equally applicable here and the

alternatives examined within the Meteor Project FEIS withstand

scrutiny under NEPA. 

///

Case 2:05-cv-00299-MCE -EFB Document 67 Filed 07/14/06 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

G. Exhaustion Issues 

In addition to opposing Plaintiffs’ challenges to the

sufficiency of the Meteor Project FEIS on their merits, the

Forest Service also contends that certain of the arguments

posited by Plaintiffs are barred because Plaintiffs did not raise

the issues in question during the administrative appeal process. 

The Forest Service asserts that Plaintiffs’ claims regarding 1)

snag/tree retention requirements and 2) improper tiering of

gopher baiting analysis have not adequately been exhausted.

To challenge an administrative decision such as agency

approval of an FEIS, a plaintiff must first exhaust all available

administrative remedies required by statute. Darby v. Cisneros,

509 U.S. 137, 146-47 (1993). Statutes and regulations governing

the Forest Service impose an exhaustion requirement on Plaintiffs

herein in challenging the Meteor Project. See Idaho Sporting

Cong., Inc. v. Rittenhouse, 305 F.3d 957, 965-66 (9th Cir. 2002);

Native Ecosystems Council v. Dombeck, 304 F.3d 886, 898-99 (9th

Cir. 2002). If Plaintiffs failed to raise issues during the

administrative process, they forfeit any objection to an EIS on

the basis of those issues. Dep’t of Transp. v. Pub. Citizen, 541

U.S. 752, 764-65 (2004). The Forest Service must have been

afforded the opportunity to give any issue raised by Plaintiffs

“meaningful consideration” during the administrative process. 

Id.

Review of the administrative record does not support the

Forest Service’s contention that issues now litigated by

Plaintiffs are absent from the underlying administrative record. 

Case 2:05-cv-00299-MCE -EFB Document 67 Filed 07/14/06 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

Comments provided by Plaintiff Klamath Forest Alliance address

the failure of the EIS to discuss snag recruitment (AR 883) and

to properly address environmental effects occasioned by gopher

baiting (AR 888). Plaintiff Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center

also raised the issue of gopher baiting in its commentary. (AR

907 (challenging dangerous nature of practice); 896 (improper

tiering). Moreover, the Forest Service’s own Response to

Comments on the draft EIS also confronts these issues. (AR 389,

399, 401, 429 (tree/snag retention); AR 392, 430 (gopher

baiting).

All issues raised by Plaintiffs are therefore properly

before the Court. 

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, summary judgment is DENIED with

respect to both Motions presently before the Court. Summary

adjudication is partially GRANTED, however, in favor of both

Plaintiffs and the Forest Service. Plaintiffs are entitled to

summary adjudication as to the following issues: 1) that the FEIS

fails to adequately analyze the field designation of significant

numbers of larger trees for logging; 2) that snag/green tree

retention requirements do not adequately address cavity-nesting

bird habitat; 3) that background turbidity levels are not

disclosed, as they must, in the FEIS; 4) that in the absence of a

site-specific analysis of gopher baiting, the FEIS fails to meet

NEPA standards; and 5) that all issues before the Court are

adequately exhausted. 

Case 2:05-cv-00299-MCE -EFB Document 67 Filed 07/14/06 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

On the other hand, the Forest Service prevails with respect to 1)

issues pertaining to geology and landslide potential; and 2)

consideration of reasonable project alternatives.

In addition, the Forest Service’s Motion to Strike is DENIED

and Plaintiffs’ request to supplement the administrative record

with the Declaration of John R. West is GRANTED.

While declaratory relief is granted to both parties in

accordance with the above, the Court has determined that further

proceedings are needed before determining the proper scope of any

injunctive remedy in light of the present rulings. A further

hearing on that issue is scheduled for September 11, 2006 at 9:00

a.m. Briefing shall be conducted in accordance with Local Rule

78-230.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 13, 2006

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00299-MCE -EFB Document 67 Filed 07/14/06 Page 26 of 26