Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_00-cv-01239/USCOURTS-cand-3_00-cv-01239-13/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 Defendants no longer seek to strike the Worf declaration. See Defs.’ Reply at 1:6-10.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HIGH SIERRA HIKERS ASSN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

BERNIE WEINGARDT, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C-00-01239 EDL

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’

MOTIONS TO STRIKE EXTRARECORD EVIDENCE

On May 31, 2007, Defendants filed a Motion to Strike the declaration of Anthony Silvaggio

that Plaintiffs filed in support of their Motion for Summary Judgment. On July 24, 2007,

Defendants filed a Motion to Strike the declarations of Gary R. Guenther, David L. Martin, Joan M.

Benner, and William A. Worf which were filed in support of Plaintiffs’ Reply in support of their

Motion for Summary Judgment.1

 The Motions to Strike were fully briefed and on September 5,

2007, the Court heard oral arguments on the parties’ summary judgment motions. 

“Judicial review of an agency decision typically focuses on the administrative record in

existence at the time of the decision and does not encompass any part of the record that is made

initially in the reviewing court.” Southwest Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Forest Service,

100 F.3d 1443, 1450 (9th Cir. 1996). The Court may only consider extra-record materials: (1) if

necessary to determine “whether the agency has considered all relevant factors and has explained its

decision,” (2) “when the agency has relied on documents not in the record,” or (3) “when

supplementing the record is necessary to explain technical terms or complex subject matter.” Id.

Case 3:00-cv-01239-EDL Document 336 Filed 10/30/07 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Extra- record documents may also be admitted “when plaintiffs make a showing of agency bad

faith.” Id. These exceptions are narrowly construed. The Lands Council v. Powell, 395 F.3d 1019,

1030 (9th Cir. 2005) (“These limited exceptions operate to identify and plug holes in the

administrative record. Though widely accepted, these exceptions are narrowly construed and

applied.”). The Ninth Circuit further stated:

The scope of these exceptions permitted by our precedent is constrained, so that the

exception does not undermine the general rule. Were the federal courts routinely or

liberally to admit new evidence when reviewing agency decisions, it would be

obvious that the federal courts would be proceeding, in effect, de novo rather than

with the proper deference to agency processes, expertise, and decision-making.

Lands Council, 395 F.3d at 1030. Moreover, “consideration of the evidence to determine the

correctness or wisdom of the agency’s decision is not permitted . . . .” Arasco, Inc. v. EPA, 616 F.2d

1153, 1160 (9th Cir. 1980). 

Anthony Silvaggio declaration

Plaintiffs offered the Silvaggio declaration “to critique the agency’s survey methodology and

results underlying its needs assessment.” Pls.’ Opp’n at 2:22-23. They argue that the Silvaggio

declaration is admissible “to explain technical terms or complex subject matter.” Even if, as

Defendants argue, this exception to the rule against extra-record evidence does not apply to

materials provided by parties other than the federal agency (see National Audubon Soc’y v. USFS,

46 F.3d 1437, 1447, n.9 (9th Cir. 2003)), the Silvaggio declaration is not necessary to explain the

survey in this matter. Therefore, Defendants’ Motion to Strike the Silvaggio declaration is granted. 

Gary Guenther declaration

Mr. Geunther, a former wilderness ranger for the Inyo National Forest, testified in his

declaration that, inter alia, backpacking equipment has become much lighter in recent years, he

checked over 1000 wilderness permits and all had addresses, young children carried backpacks and

had trouble walking on parts of the trail because it had been degraded by packstock, but that a fiveyear-old child could not ride packstock because of limits on age and double riding, and clients of 

commercial stock pack services pack in excessive gear. While the Guenther declaration contains

some relevant information, the standard for admitting extra-record evidence is not simply relevance. 

Rather, the exceptions to the rule against extra-record evidence are narrowly construed and the

Case 3:00-cv-01239-EDL Document 336 Filed 10/30/07 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Guenther declaration does not fall within any exception. Therefore, Defendants’ Motion to Strike

the Guenther declaration is granted. 

David Martin declaration

Mr. Martin is an expert on the Yosemite Toad who stated in his declaration that the Forest

Service lacks an understanding of basic amphibian biology and the Yosemite Toad specifically. 

Martin Decl. ¶ 3. Mr. Martin testified that the Yosemite Toad study contained in the EIS is flawed

and offered his opinion that the Forest Service failed to consider the impacts to upland areas that

may be habitat for adult Yosemite Toad. Martin Decl. ¶¶ 6-8, 12. Plaintiffs offer the Martin

declaration “to respond to the agency’s argument in its motion for summary judgment that it

lawfully will allow commercial packstock to graze non-breeding habitat for the Yosemite Toad.” 

Opp’n at 8:23-25. 

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have waived or failed to exhaust their administrative

remedies with respect to the upland habitat issue because Plaintiffs failed to raise those issues in

their comments to the DEIS and in their administrative appeal. See Department of Transp. v. Public

Citizen, 541 U.S. 752, 764-65 (2004) (“Persons challenging an agency’s compliance with NEPA

must ‘structure their participation so that it ... alerts the agency to the [parties’] position and

contentions,’ in order to allow the agency to give the issue meaningful consideration.”) (quoting

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978));

Idaho Sporting Cong., Inc. v. Rittenhouse, 305 F.3d 957, 965 (9th Cir. 2002) (“The Administrative

Procedure Act requires that plaintiffs exhaust available administrative remedies before bringing their

grievances to federal court.”). However, for the reasons set forth in the Court’s decision on the

parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, Plaintiffs sufficiently raised the issue of Yosemite

Toad habitat in their comments and in the administrative appeal so they were not barred from raising

the upland habitat issue in this matter. 

To the extent that the Martin declaration is submitted to challenge the wisdom of the Forest

Service’s determinations about the Yosemite Toad, such as Mr. Martin’s statements regarding the

flaws in the Yosemite Toad survey on which the Forest Service relied (see, e.g., Martin Decl. ¶¶ 10-

11), it is stricken. See Northwest Envtl. Advocates v. NMFS, 460 F.3d 1125, 1144-45 (9th Cir.

Case 3:00-cv-01239-EDL Document 336 Filed 10/30/07 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2006) (“Quoting Asarco, Inc. v. EPA, 616 F.2d 1153, 1160 (9th Cir.1980), the district court struck

the declaration because “consideration of extra-record evidence ‘to determine the correctness ... [or]

wisdom of the agency's decision is not permitted.’ ” The district court acted well within its discretion

to do so.”). However, to the extent that the Martin declaration contains information about the

Yosemite Toad that falls within the exception to the rule prohibiting extra-record for materials that

are necessary to determine whether the Forest Service considered all relevant factors and explained

its decision, such as the information regarding the use of upland habitat for long-term population

viability (see, e.g., Martin Decl. ¶ 6), it is admissible. Therefore, Defendants’ Motion to Strike the

Martin declaration is granted in part and denied in part. 

Joan Benner declaration

Ms. Benner testified in her declaration that Forest Service policy requires names and

addresses for permits and that pack station record-keeping was shoddy at best with no consequences

from the Forest Service. Ms. Benner’s knowledge of this issue is derived from her employment with

the Forest Service, which ended in 2000 when she retired. Therefore, her declaration is not relevant

to shed light on current Forest Service policy, and it does not fall within a narrowly construed

exception to the rule against extra-record evidence. Therefore, Defendants’ Motion to Strike the

Benner declaration is granted. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 30, 2007 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:00-cv-01239-EDL Document 336 Filed 10/30/07 Page 4 of 4