Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02764/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02764-1/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CONSERVATION CONGRESS and

KLAMATH FOREST ALLIANCE,

NO. CIV. S-07-2764 LKK/KJM

Plaintiffs,

v.

 O R D E R

UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE,

Defendant.

 /

This action arises from defendant U.S. Forest Service’s

decision to undertake the Pilgrim Vegetation Management Project on

the Shasta-Trinity National Forest. Plaintiffs Conservation

Congress and Klamath Forest Alliance have brought suit, alleging

that defendant failed to comply with the National Forest Management

Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. Specifically,

plaintiffs argue that defendant (1) failed to engage in sufficient

monitoring of management indicator species, (2) failed to classify

a variance from a tree retention standard as significant, (3)

failed to analyze the project’s effects on the northern spotted

Case 2:07-cv-02764-LKK -KJN Document 39 Filed 05/13/08 Page 1 of 33
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

2

owl, and (4) failed to comply with forest plan requirements

pertaining to cavity-nesting species. Pending before the court are

the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. The County of

Siskiyou has also filed an amicus brief in support of defendant,

which argues that the project is necessary to curb the risk of

wildfires. The court resolves the argument upon the parties’

papers and after oral argument. For the reasons explained below,

plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is granted in part and

denied in part.

I. Background

Plaintiff Conservation Congress is a non-profit organization

dedicated to maintaining, protecting, and restoring the native

ecosystems of northern California. Decl. of Denise Boggs ¶ 3.

Plaintiff Klamath Forest Alliance is also a non-profit

organization, whose primary mission is to promote sustainable

forest practices. Decl. of Kyle Haines ¶ 3. Plaintiffs challenge

defendant U.S. Forest Service’s decision to undertake the Pilgrim

Vegetation Management Project (“Pilgrim project”) pursuant to the

Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”). 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706.

A. Pilgrim Project

The Pilgrim project lies northeast of the community of

McCloud, California. In recent years, the project area has

experienced significant tree mortality from insect attacks in

overcrowded portions of the forest and from root disease in

Case 2:07-cv-02764-LKK -KJN Document 39 Filed 05/13/08 Page 2 of 33
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

 This was ascertained through field studies. Administrative 1

Record (“AR”) 168 (“Each stand within the project area was field

examined by a Certified Silviculturist to determine current stand

attributes including age, site class, mortality level, presence of

root disease, and stand density.”); AR 170 (“Field review in June

2005 showed that the stands are continuing to succumb to western

pine beetle attacks.”). 

3

ponderosa pine. AR 521. According to defendant, the basic design 1

of the Pilgrim Project contains four components. Id. First, the

project will thin forest stands that are overcrowded and in which

trees face over-competition for water and nutrients. Id. Second,

the project will remove dead and dying trees from certain stands

in order to control the spread of disease and infestation and allow

the stands to regenerate. Id. Third, in connection with this

sanitation harvest, the project will remove smaller, dense

understory trees that act as fuel ladders to reduce the likelihood

of catastrophic fires. AR 521-22. Fourth, the project will also

remove overtopping conifers to allow oak and aspen stands currently

being lost due to over-competition to reestablish themselves. AR

522.

The vegetation management treatments will take place on

approximately 3,800 acres. AR 166. Specifically, the project

will, among other things, undertake the following: commercial

thinning and sanitation harvest on 3,100 acres of assertedly

overstocked coniferous stands, regeneration treatment in 415 acres

of diseased and insect-infested stands and replanting with conifer

seedlings, and restoration of 275 acres of dry meadows by removal

of encroaching conifer trees. AR 155. With respect to the

Case 2:07-cv-02764-LKK -KJN Document 39 Filed 05/13/08 Page 3 of 33
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

The “regeneration treatment” was also referred to as 2

“Clearcut w/Reserve Trees.” AR 2901.

4

regeneration treatment on the 415 acres, the otherwise applicable 2

standard of retaining 15% of the largest green trees (the “15% GTR”

standard) will not be met on 255 acres, because defendant maintains

that there are not enough disease-free trees to meet the standard.

Id. 

Defendant issued its Record of Decision and Final

Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) on June 1, 2007. AR 153.

Defendant considered three other alternatives to the one ultimately

selected. The No-Action Alternative would implement no vegetation

management actions. AR 524. It was rejected because it would

allow for disease, insect infestation, and hazardous fire

conditions to continue and spread. Another alternative was similar

to the alternative ultimately adopted except that it would retain

the 15% GTR standard. Id. It was rejected because the 15% GTR

standard purportedly could not be met given tree mortality

conditions. Finally, the last alternative would have only thinned

overstocked stands on 535 acres to a 60% or greater canopy closure

but would otherwise conduct thinning in the same manner as the

preferred alternative. Id. This alternative was rejected because

it would not sufficiently address tree mortality. 

B. Statutory and Regulatory Structure

1. NFMA

The Forest Service manages the national forests pursuant to

its duties and obligations under the National Forest Management Act

Case 2:07-cv-02764-LKK -KJN Document 39 Filed 05/13/08 Page 4 of 33
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

5

(“NFMA”). 16 U.S.C. § 1600 et seq. One of these duties includes

the duty to “provide for diversity of plant and animal

communities.” 16 U.S.C. § 1604(g)(3)(B). The Forest Service uses

management indicator species (“MIS”) to gauge the effects of

management activities. An MIS species is a bellwether, or class

representative, “for other species that have the same special

habitat needs of population characteristics.” Inland Empire Pub.

Lands Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 88 F.3d 754, 762 n.11 (9th Cir.

1996).

Management occurs at both the forest level and the individual

project level. At the forest level, the Forest Service develops

a Land and Resource Management Plan (“LRMP” or “forest plan”),

which is a broad, long-term planning document for an entire

national forest. “These plans operate like zoning ordinances,

defining broadly the uses allowed in various forest regions,

setting goals and limits on various uses . . . but do not compel

specific actions.” Citizens for Better Forestry v. U.S. Forest

Serv., 88 F.3d 754, 757 (9th Cir. 1996). At the project level,

NFMA mandates that site-specific projects (such as resource plans,

permits, contracts, or other instruments for occupancy and use of

forest lands) “shall be consistent with the land management plans.”

16 U.S.C. § 1604(i). Once a forest plan is approved, the Forest

Service implements the plan by approving or denying site-specific

actions. Forest Guardians v. U.S. Forest Serv., 329 F.3d 1089,

1092 (9th Cir. 2003).

////

Case 2:07-cv-02764-LKK -KJN Document 39 Filed 05/13/08 Page 5 of 33
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

 Both parties agree that another set of regulations, passed 3

in 2005, are no longer in effect because of the injunction issued

in Citizens for Better Forestry v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 481 F.

Supp. 2d 1059 (N.D. Cal. 2007). Both parties also agree that the

recently revised regulations, promulgated on April 21, 2008, 73

Fed. Reg. 21,468 (Apr. 21, 2008), do not apply to the project

because of a transition provision.

It is not at all clear to the court that habitat monitoring 4

is a better "available science" than species monitoring, or in what

sense it is superior. The plaintiffs, however, while objecting to

habitat monitoring as violative of the forest plan, do not rely

upon the question of whether it is the best available science.

Accordingly, the court does not consider the question further. 

At oral argument, the parties essentially conceded that the 5

dispute was immaterial to the outcome of the litigation.

6

a. Applicable Regulations

The parties disagree as to which set of NFMA regulations --

those promulgated in 1982 or 2000 -- apply here. It is not at all 3

clear, however, why this dispute is material. It appears that the

legally relevant question ostensibly sought to be answered by this

dispute is whether monitoring the habitat of MIS species is a

permissible substitute for monitoring the population of MIS species

(the so-called “proxy-on-proxy” approach). As detailed in the

analysis section below, however, Ninth Circuit case law

interpreting the 1982 rule concluded that such habitat monitoring

was permissible, at least under certain circumstances. Similarly,

the 2000 rule also permitted habitat monitoring as a surrogate for

species monitoring (under the general direction that officials

consider the “best available science” in implementing forest

plans). Thus, for purposes here, it is immaterial which set of 4

regulations apply.5

Case 2:07-cv-02764-LKK -KJN Document 39 Filed 05/13/08 Page 6 of 33
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

7

b. Shasta-Trinity National Forest Land and Resource

Management Plan

Regardless of whether the 1982 or 2000 regulations apply, it

is clear that site-specific projects must nevertheless be

consistent with the governing forest plan. Here, the governing

forest plan for the Shasta-Trinity National Forest (“STNF”) is the

STNF LRMP, which was adopted in June 1995. AR 4063-4411. That

plan also incorporates the Northwest Forest Plan, which was adopted

in April 1994 to provide a regional strategy for addressing issues

related to the northern spotted owl (“NSO”), a threatened species

under section 4 of the Endangered Species Act. 16 U.S.C. § 1533.

To provide for diversity of wildlife, the STNF LRMP

denominated several management indicator assemblages. AR 4109.

The assemblages are named by either their habitat or habitat

components, such as Late Seral, Openings and Early Seral, Multihabitat, Hardwood, and Snag and Down Log (the assemblages relevant

to the present action). Id. There are a total of nine wildlife

assemblages and three fish assemblages, although not all

assemblages are used as management indicators for every project.

AR 4109. The planners also listed examples of species that would

be associated with each assemblage. Thus, for example, the species

associated with the Late Seral assemblage include the NSO, goshawk,

fisher, marten, Towbridge shrew, and northern flying squirrel. AR

4110.

The STNF LRMP also established a rather inscrutable

Case 2:07-cv-02764-LKK -KJN Document 39 Filed 05/13/08 Page 7 of 33
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

This document is laid out in table format and is comprised 6

of mostly sentence fragments. It displays the following

categories: Activity, Practice, or Effect; Techniques and/or Data

Sources; Intensity and Standard; Frequency of Measuring/Reporting;

Expected Precision/Reliability; and Variability in Standard Which

Would Require Further Evaluation and/or Corrective Action.

8

“Monitoring Action Plan” with three levels of monitoring, ranging 6

from the general to the more specific. AR 4305-06. First, at the

highest level, is “validation” of the MIS monitoring program. AR

4306. Validation is conducted “to determine if changes are needed

in management practices. . . to provide adequate protection to

wildlife.” AR 4306. This validation occurs at the regional and

forest-wide level every ten years. AR 4306. Second, at the

intermediate level, is “effectiveness monitoring,” which, according

to defendant, ascertains whether certain management activities are

having their desired effects, as measured by changes in an

indicator species or habitat components. The plan directs

officials to “[u]se appropriate indicator species or habitat

components to represent the assemblages.” Id. (emphasis added).

Effectiveness monitoring is conducted every one to five years, and

is reported every five years. Third, at the lowest level, is

“implementation monitoring,” which “ensure[s] that management

requirements and standards and guidelines are being met or exceeded

with on-the-ground activities.” AR 4305. This monitoring is ongoing but is reported every two years. Id.

2. NEPA

The National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"), 42 U.S.C. §§

4321–4370f, is essentially a procedural statute that requries

Case 2:07-cv-02764-LKK -KJN Document 39 Filed 05/13/08 Page 8 of 33
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

9

federal agencies to analyze foreseeable environmental impacts of

major federal actions and to explore possible alternatives. 42

U.S.C. §§ 4321, 4331; 40 C.F.R. § 1501.1. Its primary purpose is

to ensure that federal agencies take a “hard look” at the

environmental consequences of proposed actions. Robertson v.

Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 350–51 (1989). When

an agency proposes a major federal action that significantly

affects the quality of the human environment, it must prepare an

Environmental Impact Statement. 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C).

II. Standard

In challenges to final agency action, the court does not

employ the usual summary judgment standard for determining

whether a genuine issue of material fact exists. Home Builders

Ass'n of N. Cal. v. United States Fish & Wildlife Serv., 268 F.

Supp. 2d 1197, 1206 (E.D. Cal. 2003). This is because the court

is not generally called upon to resolve facts in reviewing

agency action. Id. at 1207; Occidental Eng'g Co. v. INS, 753

F.2d 766, 769-70 (9th Cir. 1985). Instead, the court's function

is to determine whether or not, as a matter of law, the evidence

in the administrative record permitted the agency to make the

decision it did. Occidental Eng'g, 753 F.2d at 769-70; Home

Builders Ass'n, 268 F. Supp. 2d at 1207. 

The APA authorizes the court to set aside agency action

that is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or

otherwise not in accordance with the law.” 5 U.S.C. §

706(2)(A); Nw. Envt'l Def. Ctr. v. Bonneville Power Admin., 477

Case 2:07-cv-02764-LKK -KJN Document 39 Filed 05/13/08 Page 9 of 33
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

The danger of ambiguity is that it, in effect, permits the 7

court to substitute its judgment for that of the agency. That fact

suggests that at the least reasonable clarity is required. Here,

where much of the agency's record is far from comprehensible, the

court must resist the temptation to decide under the guise of

interpretation.

10

F.3d 668, 682 (9th Cir. 2007). While “the scope of review under

the arbitrary and capricious standard is narrow and a court is

not to substitute its judgment for that of the agency,” “the

agency must examine the relevant data and articulate a

satisfactory explanation for its action including a rational

connection between the facts found and the choice made.” Id. at

687 (internal quotation marks omitted).

"That is, an agency must cogently explain why it has

exercised its discretion in a given manner and in reviewing that

explanation, [the court] must consider whether the decision was

based on a consideration of the relevant factors and whether

there has been a clear error of judgment." Id. (internal

quotation marks omitted). The court "may uphold a decision of

less than ideal clarity if the agency's path may reasonably be

discerned.” Beno v. Shalala, 30 F.3d 1057, 1073 (9th Cir. 1994)

(internal quotation marks omitted).7

III. Analysis

A. MIS Monitoring

1. STNF LRMP

Plaintiffs’ principal claim is that defendant failed to

conduct adequate MIS monitoring in deciding whether to undertake

the Pilgrim project. Here, the monitoring requirements imposed

Case 2:07-cv-02764-LKK -KJN Document 39 Filed 05/13/08 Page 10 of 33
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

11

by the STNF LRMP are less than pellucid. The Monitoring Action

Plan, under the heading of “effectiveness monitoring,” directs

officials to “[u]se appropriate indicator species or habitat

components to represent the assemblages. Survey for occupancy,

reproductive success, population stability and growth,

ecological health.” AR 4306. On the one hand, the plan is

clearly written in the disjunctive, permitting either population

monitoring or habitat monitoring. To read the plan as

plaintiffs urge would render the word “or” a nullity. On the

other hand, terms such as “occupancy” and “reproductive success”

clearly refer to animal species biology and thus would only make

sense in the context of population monitoring. AR 3115. It

could be the case that the portion of the plan incorporating

these terms is only meant to be relevant if and when population

monitoring is undertaken; but if that was the plan’s intended

purpose, its wording hardly conveys that intent. In any event,

the court need not resolve the issue, because, as explained

below, even assuming that the plan permits either habitat

monitoring or population monitoring -- the interpretation urged

by defendant -- the court is unpersuaded that habitat monitoring

is appropriate given the facts of this case. 

2. Proxy-On-Proxy Approach

The purpose of monitoring MIS is to estimate the effects of

proposed management activities on fish and wildlife populations. 

Inland Empire, 88 F.3d at 754 n.11. MIS are selected as proxies

for other species that have the same habitat needs or population

Case 2:07-cv-02764-LKK -KJN Document 39 Filed 05/13/08 Page 11 of 33
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

12

characteristics. Id. While some circuits have barred the use

of monitoring the habitat of MIS as a proxy for monitoring MIS

themselves, see Utah Envtl. Congress v. Dombeck, 372 F.3d 1219

(10th Cir. 2004); Sierra Club v. Martin, 168 F.3d 1 (11th Cir.

1999), the Ninth Circuit has not. Instead, the Ninth Circuit

has permitted the use of this so-called “proxy-on-proxy”

approach so long as certain conditions are satisfied. “Our case

law permits the Forest Service to meet the wildlife species

viability requirements by preserving habitat, but only where

both the Forest Service’s knowledge of what quality and quantity

of habitat is necessary to support the species and the Forest

Service’s method for measuring the existing amount of that

habitat are reasonably reliable and accurate.” Native

Ecosystems Council v. Dombeck, 428 F.3d 1233, 1250 (9th Cir.

2005); Idaho Sporting Cong. v. Thomas, 137 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir.

1998) (“the Forest Service's decision to use habitat as a proxy

for fish populations was not arbitrary and capricious”).

Even when interpreting the 1982 regulations (which are

arguably more demanding than the 2000 regulations), the Ninth

Circuit held that habitat management was permissible. Inland

Empire, 88 F.3d at 761-62 (“We recognize that the [Forest]

Service's methodology necessarily assumes that maintaining the

acreage of habitat necessary for survival would in fact assure a

species' survival. The Service is entitled to rely on

reasonable assumptions in its environmental analyses.”); id. at

761 n.8 (“We therefore reject Plaintiffs' argument that the

Case 2:07-cv-02764-LKK -KJN Document 39 Filed 05/13/08 Page 12 of 33
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

13

Service must assess population viability in terms of actual

population size, population trends, or the population dynamics

of other species.”).

Nevertheless, habitat monitoring is only permissible where 

two conditions are satisfied: first, there must be an accurate

and reliable correlation between habitat health and species

health, and second, the methodology for measuring habitat must

also itself be accurate and reliable. See Native Ecosystems

Council, 428 F.3d at 1250; Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Serv., 378 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir. 2004)

(“The test for whether the habitat proxy is permissible . . . is

whether it ‘reasonably ensures’ that the proxy results mirror

reality.”); Lands Council v. Powell, 395 F.3d 1019, 1036 n.23

(9th Cir. 2005) (“The ‘proxy on proxy’ approach to studying MIS

population trends operates on the assumption that as long as a

species' habitat is maintained, the species will likewise be

maintained.”); Inland Empire, 88 F.3d at 762-63 (“Because the

number of remaining nesting and feeding territories has a direct

impact on the population of the species, the EIS effectively

predicts a slight downward population trend in pileated

woodpeckers as a result of the timber sales.”) (emphasis added).

With respect to the demonstrating of an accurate and

reliable relationship between habitat health and species health,

Gifford Pinchot is instructive. 378 F.3d at 1066-67. There,

the Ninth Circuit permitted the use of proxy-on-proxy analysis -

- first approved in the NFMA context in Inland Empire -- in the

Case 2:07-cv-02764-LKK -KJN Document 39 Filed 05/13/08 Page 13 of 33
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

14

context of the Endangered Species Act. It characterized Inland

Empire as embodying “the principle of allowing an agency to use

proxy modeling to evaluate species population so long as that

proxy has a high correlation with the relevant species'

population.” Id., 378 F.3d at 1066 n.4. “If the modeling

approach was reasonable in ensuring an accurate population

estimate of a species for NFMA purposes, it follows that a

similar modeling approach to estimate species population for ESA

purposes is permissible.” Id. The issue in Gifford Pinchot was

whether the Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”) properly analyzed

the jeopardy to the NSO posed by a proposed timber harvest. 

Under the facts of the case, the Ninth Circuit found that the

“detailed model for owl population [was] sufficient to ensure

that the FWS's habitat proxy reasonably correlates to the actual

population of owls.” Id. at 1066 (noting also that “the habitat

proxy [did] not exist in a vacuum” because FWS had conducted

demographic studies to verify habitat results).

Similarly, with respect to measuring habitat itself, the

agency must also employ an accurate and reliable methodology. 

The habitat analysis in Gifford Pinchot, for example, was “not

just a simple ‘x number of acres = y number of owls’ type of

equation.” Id. Instead, the agency had taken into account the

type of land, the extent of existing degradation of the habitat,

the owls’ distribution, the owls’ range, and non-habitat

factors, including competition from other species, insects, and

disease. Id. Conversely, where the agency’s methodology for

Case 2:07-cv-02764-LKK -KJN Document 39 Filed 05/13/08 Page 14 of 33
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

This portion of the analysis, as reported in the Project 8

Level Management Indicator Assemblage Report (“assemblage report”),

appears reasonably detailed. That report first summarized the

thirteen different treatment types prescribed by the project (e.g.,

thinning, regeneration harvest, hardwood management). AR 480. It

then analyzed the effects of each of the thirteen treatment types

by each of the three alternatives (excluding the No-Action

Alternative). AR 482-84. For example, the assemblage report

indicated that the regeneration harvest used by the three

alternatives would convert all 415 acres of Late Seral assemblage

existing before the project into 415 acres of Openings and Early

Seral assemblage post-project. AR 483. 

15

measuring habitat relies on unverified assumptions, proxy-onproxy analysis is inappropriate. In Earth Island Institute, the

Forest Service listed the project areas that were “assumed to

provide high and moderate capability habitat.” Earth Island

Institute v. U.S. Forest Serv., 442 F.3d 1147, 1175 (9th Cir.

2006). The Ninth Circuit rejected this analysis, because there

was no identification of the methodology used in determining

what constituted suitable habitat. Id., 442 F.3d at 1175-76.

3. Pilgrim Project

Here, defendant selected five habitat assemblages based

upon the types of habitat present in the project area. These

assemblages included Late Seral, Openings and Early Seral,

Multi-habitat, Hardwood Assemblage, and Snag and Down Log. AR

235. It then analyzed each alternative examined in the EIS in

terms of its potential impact on each selected habitat

assemblage. AR 483-86. Finally, defendant supplemented its 8

habitat monitoring by selecting certain individual species and

analyzing the potential effects of each project alternative in

relation to population trends for the selected species. AR 486-

Case 2:07-cv-02764-LKK -KJN Document 39 Filed 05/13/08 Page 15 of 33
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

16

513.

Plaintiffs argue that defendant has failed to document a

sufficient relationship between habitat health and species

health. Here, the mule deer was selected to represent the Open

and Early Seral and Multi-Habitat assemblages, the whitebreasted nutnatch was selected to represent the Hardwood

assemblage, and the red-breasted nuthatch was selected to

represent the Late Seral and Snag and Down Log assemblage. 

“These species were selected because they are found within the

project area, the populations are known to be sensitive to

habitat quality and there is high confidence population trend

data for each.” AR 235.

a. Mule Deer

Defendant analyzed the habitat for mule deer based on

various factors, including quality of forage (with a preference

for deer brush, willow, and bitterbrush), cover and water, and

cover-to-forage ratio (with an ideal ratio of 50:50). AR 236. 

In terms of the Open and Early Seral assemblage, the project

would convert 535 acres of deer cover habitat into deer forage

habitat for fifteen to twenty years while the planted conifer

trees of regeneration harvest grow into pole size stands or midseral habitat. AR 237. The forage-to-cover ratio would be 2:1

immediately post-harvest, which is within the range of moderate

habitat quality. Id. While the project would increase the

openings and seral stage habitat on the forest (representing a

net .07% gain in forage habitat for the mule deer), and might

Case 2:07-cv-02764-LKK -KJN Document 39 Filed 05/13/08 Page 16 of 33
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

17

indirectly stem the risk of fires (through thinning) that would

create more of such habitat, these net effects were deemed

insignificant. AR 494; AR 495 (“the final analysis is ‘no

observable effects.’”).

Range-wide data from the California Department of Fish and

Game indicates that mule deer population has been decreasing

since the early 1960s. AR 494. The State of California

believes the decrease to be attributable to reductions in early

seral habitat, whereas the Mule Deer Foundation believes it is

due to heavy predator pressure. Id. “Currently, the available

data is not sufficient to conclude the causes of the decline.” 

Id.

This admitted uncertainty makes proxy-on-proxy analysis

inappropriate. Such analysis is only appropriate where the

habitat “has a high correlation with the relevant species'

population.” Gifford Pinchot, 378 F.3d at 1066 n.4. Here, the

EIS itself indicates that a potential confound of predator

pressure makes the link between habitat health and species

health sufficiently complex that habitat is an inappropriate

proxy for species. Defendant counters that the only thing that

it can directly control is the condition of the habitat, rather

than the population of species. But that is not what is being

asked of defendant. The purpose of monitoring is to gauge the

effects of proposed management activity on species; that purpose

can still be served by monitoring either management indicator

species directly, or, where appropriate, their habitat. Indeed,

Case 2:07-cv-02764-LKK -KJN Document 39 Filed 05/13/08 Page 17 of 33
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

18

defendant appears to argue that the species represent the

habitat, rather than reverse. This improperly inverts the

relationship such that species become the proxy for habitat.

Where the agency cannot show that impacts on habitat will

correlate with impacts on species’ population, as here, habitat

monitoring is inappropriate. Because it is unclear whether the

decline in mule deer population is attributable to a decline in

their relevant habitat, it was improper for the agency to rely

on monitoring of such habitat.

b. White-Breasted Nuthatch

Although white-breasted nuthatches can survive in

coniferous forests, they have a strong association with

hardwoods. AR 495. They tend to nest and live in old

woodpecker holes and will excavate their own cavities in soft

snags (dead, standing trees) over 14" diameter at breast height. 

AR 495-96. In the project area, the hardwood habitat is

comprised of twenty acres of scattered aspen. AR 496. Due to

this limited size, forage opportunity is poor. Id. Soft snags

are also uncommon due to rapid felling from termites and

carpenter ants, and thus the white-breasted nuthatches tend to

nest in woodpecker holes. Id. The project would remove

competing conifers and increase the presence of aspen. AR 497.

The assemblage report found that “[a]lthough we [] lost

14,856 acres of hardwood habitat on the Forest due primarily to

wildfire . . . hardwoods frequently respond well to fire and

hardwoods are likely to replace the burnt stand.” AR 498. In

Case 2:07-cv-02764-LKK -KJN Document 39 Filed 05/13/08 Page 18 of 33
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

19

addition, “[c]urrent policy on the Forest is to retain and

enhance growing conditions for hardwoods . . . Given this

retention, we believe hardwood occurrence is likely to be stable

or increasing despite the known losses from wildfire.” Id. 

Meanwhile, the population of white-breasted nuthatches in

the local and surrounding strata has been increasing. AR 499. 

Strata are divided at the regional level according to similar

habitats, conditions, and fauna. AR 475. “Particularly with

highly mobile animals such as birds, these biogeographic regions

allow [the pooling of] data from individual routes, evening out

the highly variable data at a route level.” Id. Accordingly,

it appears that, because the habitat and population of the

white-breasted nuthatch are correlated with one another, the

Forest Service could properly rely on the use of the former.

c. Red-Breasted Nuthatch

The red-breasted nuthatch is a common resident in

coniferous forests. AR 500. It depends on snags for nesting

sites, and is attracted to mature mixed conifer, which make it

representative of the Snag and Down Log assemblage and the Late

Seral assemblage. Id.; AR 508. The average snag density in the

project area is measured at three per acre, AR 501, and Snag and

Down Log assemblage habitat has been increasing despite loss due

to wildfire and harvest, AR 505. Similarly, there has been a

net gain in Late Seral habitat. AR 511.

The population of red-breasted nuthatches showed

statistically insignificant increases in the local strata and

Case 2:07-cv-02764-LKK -KJN Document 39 Filed 05/13/08 Page 19 of 33
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

The Fish and Wildlife Service has proposed dropping the area 3

encompassing the project from the CHU. 72 Fed. Reg. 32,450, 32,472

(map), 32,516 (map) (Jun. 12, 2007) (Proposed Revised Designation

of Critical Habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl). Of course,

until it actually does so, that proposal is not immediately

relevant. 

 “[W]e concur with your determination . . . based . . . on 4

the following: (1) no northern spotted owls or activity centers are

known to occur within 1.3 miles of the proposed action based on

20

statistically insignificant decreases in two nearby strata. AR

505. It also showed a statistically significant increase in one

nearby strata and a statistically significant increase survey

wide. Id. The report stated that given these mixed results,

“it is hard to conclude that there is any significant

relationship between forest wide increases in late seral

assemblage habitat type and population trends for the redbreasted nuthatch.” Id. Thus, as with the mule deer analysis,

the court concludes that there is an insufficient basis for

defendant’s reliance on the habitat of the red-breasted

nuthatch.

3. Selection of Species

Plaintiffs also argue that defendant should have selected

the NSO as one of its management indicator species, because the

Pilgrim project is within a Critical Habitat Unit (“CHU”) for

the NSO. As an initial matter, however, it is important to 3

note that defendant conducted a separate Biological Assessment

(“BA”) of the project’s impacts on the NSO. The BA is appended

to the EIS, AR 339–92, and the Fish and Wildlife Service

concurred in the assessment. AR 393–428. Impacts to the NSO 4

Case 2:07-cv-02764-LKK -KJN Document 39 Filed 05/13/08 Page 20 of 33
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

recent surveys; and (2) foraging activity by potential dispersing

northern spotted owls is highly unlikely and discountable due to

habitat fragmentation poor habitat conditions extensive amount of

diseased trees lack of water supply and associated low prey

density.” AR 395.

21

were also discussed in the EIS as well. AR 217-26. 

Accordingly, it appears that plaintiffs’ criticism is primarily

one of form rather than substance.

Defendant also notes that the project area does not contain

NSO habitat that would qualify as suitable under the Forest

Service’s Habitat Capability Model except to the extent that it

may contain stands that constitute transient “dispersal”

habitat. AR 347, 353. This is because of the project area’s

generally discontinuous forest canopy, insufficient slope, and

lack of open water and suitable prey. AR 347–50, 355, & 366–67. 

As of 2004, no owls had been spotted within 1.3 miles of the

project area (the typical NSO home range radius) over the

previous twenty years. AR 347-50, 355, 366-67. In addition,

defendant argues that insect infestation and disease makes it

likely that the project area will become even less suitable as

NSO habitat in the future. AR 347-49.

The fact that the habitat at issue is for dispersal does

not undermine its significance: the area was designated a CHU

to provide for easterly distribution of the NSO. AR 2784. 

But the fact that NSO have not been using it as dispersal

habitat, and that the area will become further degraded due to

insect infestation and disease, are more valid considerations. 

Case 2:07-cv-02764-LKK -KJN Document 39 Filed 05/13/08 Page 21 of 33
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

In addition to the NSO, plaintiffs also argue that the black 5

bear should have been used instead of the red-breasted nuthatch.

But as defendant explained, black bears would be poor MIS species

because they are transient and wide-ranging, using a wide variety

of different habitats.

Plaintiffs also maintain that the acorn woodpecker should have

been used instead of the white-breasted nuthatch, because the

white-breasted nuthatch prefers to forage on deciduous trees

whereas the project area contains almost entirely coniferous trees.

However, one of the purposes of the project is to release

previously suppressed hardwood habitat, AR 522, and the whitebreasted nuthatch is listed in the LRMP as representative of that

assemblage.

22

The Fish and Wildlife Service found that the proposed project

would have an adverse effect on the dispersal habitat but

concluded that, due to the factors cited above and “the

limited amount of dispersal habitat to be affected in the

action area (i.e., 673 acres), the Service does not expect

that this adverse affect will impede the ability of the action

area to provide for the intended conservation needs of the

[NSO].” AR 2789. In light of all these considerations -- the

fact that impacts to the NSO were analyzed in a separate BA,

that NSO have not used the project area as dispersal habitat

for over twenty years, and that the area will become more

degraded due to insect and disease -- the court cannot

conclude that that defendant’s decision not to select the NSO

as one of its MIS species was arbitrary or capricious.5

4. Breeding Bird Survey Data

 Plaintiffs also argue that the population data for redand white-breasted nuthatches is derived from the Bird and

Breeding Survey (“BBS”), which is conducted at a scale

Case 2:07-cv-02764-LKK -KJN Document 39 Filed 05/13/08 Page 22 of 33
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

Although this issue of BBS data reliability is effectively 6

moot for the red-breasted nuthatch (given the court’s earlier

finding that habitat analysis for this species is inappropriate),

it is not moot for the white-breasted nuthatch.

23

inappropriate for assessing project-specific impacts. The 6

BBS, prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey, contains a

“disclaimer” on use that states: “The survey covers such a

large area that regional differences in number and quality of

survey routes are inevitable.” The disclaimer, however, also

goes on to report that the BBS is extensively used for both

agency decision-making and academic research, and that more

than 270 scientific publications have relied on its data. 

Earth Island Institute expressed reservations about the

use of BBS data. 442 F.3d at 1174. In particular, it found

that reliance on BBS data for the Williamson’s sapsucker and

black-backed woodpecker were insufficient as they were “listed

in the ‘red’ category, meaning the results are ‘very

imprecise,’” and the hairy woodpecker was “listed in the

‘blue’ category, which reflects data of ‘moderate precision.’” 

These reservations thus appear to be reasonably fact-specific. 

Cf. AR 3446 (both red-breasted and white-breasted nuthatch

rated at the highest credibility level); AR 499 (examining

three strata -- Pitt Klamath Plateau, California, and

California Foothills -- with highest level of credibility

given by BBS). Accordingly, the court finds that the use of

BBS data in this case was permissible.

////

Case 2:07-cv-02764-LKK -KJN Document 39 Filed 05/13/08 Page 23 of 33
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

24

B. Fifteen Percent Green Tree Retention Standard

Under the NFMA, an amendment to a forest plan that

results in a “significant” change must be adopted through the

same procedures required of the initial forest plan itself

(e.g., preparation of an EIS). 16 U.S.C. § 1604(d) & (f)(4). 

Here, the STNF LRMP provides that fifteen percent of the area

associated with each cutting unit (stand) shall be retained

(i.e., the 15% GTR -- green tree retention -- standard). AR

4047. On a portion of the project area (approximately 255

acres of the project’s 3,800 acres), however, this standard

will be violated. The issue here is not whether this variance

was substantively justified but whether defendant’s procedural

treatment of the variance as a non-significant plan amendment

was an abuse of discretion. Wilderness Soc’y v. Bosworth, 118

F. Supp. 2d 1082, 1110 (D. Mont. 2000) (“[T]he determination

of whether or not an amendment is significant is a

discretionary decision.”). 

As an initial matter, defendant argues that plaintiffs

failed to raise this issue at the administrative level and

therefore waived the argument. Two other organizations,

however, did raise this issue. AR 52. There is no need for a

litigant to have personally raised the issue, so long as the

issue was raised by another party and the agency had the

opportunity to consider the objection. Kern v. BLM, 38 F.

Supp. 2d 1174, 1180 (D. Or. 1999), rev’d on other grounds, 284

F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2002); City of Sausalito v. O'Neill, 211

Case 2:07-cv-02764-LKK -KJN Document 39 Filed 05/13/08 Page 24 of 33
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

25

F. Supp. 2d 1175, 1198 n.3 (N.D. Cal. 2002), aff'd in part and

rev'd in part on other grounds, 386 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 2004). 

Defendant responds that these cases did not involve

statutorily mandated administrative exhaustion, as implicated

here, and that the Supreme Court has held that where

exhaustion is mandated by statute, it cannot be waived. See,

e.g., Darby v. Cisneros, 509 U.S. 137, 153-54 (1993). Of

course, the court is not “waiving” any exhaustion requirement;

rather, the court concludes that the exhaustion requirement

was fully satisfied by virtue of other organizations who

voiced the objection.

On the merits, the issue of whether a plan amendment is

significant is guided by several factors, including the timing

and duration of the proposed change, the location and size of

the project, and whether the change would alter the long-term

relationships between the levels of goods and services

provided by the Forest. Forest Service Handbook at

1909.12.5.32 (Aug. 3, 1992); Wilderness Soc’y, 118 F. Supp. 2d

at 1110 (citing Forest Service Handbook). 

With respect to timing, amendment of the GTR standard

would be in effect only for the treatment duration of the

affected cutting units, and would not be a permanent plan

amendment. AR 287. Thus, after the project’s completion, the

15% GTR standard would remain in place for other areas of the

Case 2:07-cv-02764-LKK -KJN Document 39 Filed 05/13/08 Page 25 of 33
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

 Nonetheless, as far as the area affected is concerned, the 7

change is permanent since there will be no green trees in the clear

cut area.

26

forest.7

With respect to size, the variance from the GTR standard

impacts 255 acres of cutting units. Id. Specifically,

between less than .0001% and .004% of commercial forest lands

and between less than .0001% and .02% of late successional

forest in the watershed would be affected. Id.; cf. Am.

Wildlands v. U.S. Forest Serv., No. 97-160, 1999 U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 22243, at *17-20 (D. Mont. Apr. 14, 1999) (finding

significance where amendment would have affected between 3%

and 13% of forests at issue, or 160,000 acres). Plaintiffs

respond, however, that the project area will impact 5% of the

available stands for NSO in the relevant watersheds that serve

as dispersal habitat and sometimes foraging habitat. AR 2815. 

As noted above, however, no NSO has used the project area for

dispersal habitat in the last twenty years, and the condition

of the dispersal habitat is expected to degrade even further.

Finally, defendant argues that the variance is necessary

because it will actually work toward meeting the goals of the

LRMP by controlling a root disease problem that would result

in greater losses to forest cover if no action were taken. AR

287. One of the alternatives would have retained the 15% GTR

standard but was rejected because most of the diseased trees

that would have been retained under this alternative would die

Case 2:07-cv-02764-LKK -KJN Document 39 Filed 05/13/08 Page 26 of 33
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

within two to ten years. AR 207-08. “Leaving up to 15% live,

root diseased pine trees on approximately 255 acres of the

regeneration harvest stands would continue the root disease

cycle within these stands and to adjacent stands as root

disease can spread underground.” Id.

This last argument has particular intuitive appeal -- why

retain trees that will shortly die anyhow? Plaintiffs’

response is twofold. First, plaintiffs argue that decadent

trees are also beneficial to certain species, so it is

inappropriate to think of the 15% GTR standard as applying

only to healthy trees. But defendants note that while the

decadent trees might persist for a time, they would ultimately

fall down altogether and eliminate even their usefulness for

cavity-nesting species. Second, plaintiffs argue that the 15%

retention rule already took into account the role of insects

and disease. AR 4196 (“Forest stand densities are managed to

maintain and enhance growth and yield . . . recognizing the

natural role of fire, insects, and disease.”). The cited

section of the forest plan, however, appears to discuss the

15% retention of pockets of late-successional forest across

the watershed, rather than the 15% retention standard that

applies to individual cutting units. The 15% requirement as

it applies to watersheds is not violated by the project. AR

213 (post-project, 28% for Ash Creek Watershed and 20% for

Upper McCloud Watershed).

In sum, the size of the project weighs in favor of

Case 2:07-cv-02764-LKK -KJN Document 39 Filed 05/13/08 Page 27 of 33
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

28

finding that the variance was a non-significant plan

amendment. Similarly, while the issue of whether the trees at

issue on the 255 acres would inevitably die is a more complex

issue, it too appears to weigh in favor of defendant. Based

upon the totality of the circumstances, the court finds that

defendant permissibly exercised its discretion in construing

the variance as a non-significant plan amendment.

C. Impacts to NSO

NEPA requires federal agencies to analyze foreseeable

environmental impacts, including cumulative impacts, of major

federal actions. 42 U.S.C. § 4332(c)(i). Cumulative impacts

are impacts “on the environment which result[] from the

incremental impact of the action when added to other past,

present, and reasonably foreseeable future action . . .

Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but

collectively significant actions taking place over a period of

time." 40 C.F.R. § 1508.7. Agencies must identify the area

in which the effects of the project will be felt, the impacts

from the project in that area, and other past, proposed, and

future actions. See City of Carmel-By-The-Sea v. U.S. Dep’t

of Transp., 95 F.2d 892, 902 (9th Cir. 1996).

Here, plaintiffs argue that defendant used an

inappropriate scale for its impacts analysis. In particular,

plaintiffs contend that the review of cumulative impacts to

NSO was too large and that “[t]he only apparent reason for

using such a large analysis area . . . was to try to minimize

Case 2:07-cv-02764-LKK -KJN Document 39 Filed 05/13/08 Page 28 of 33
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

29

the stated impacts to the NSO.” Of course, there is no onesize-fits-all approach for impacts analysis: sometimes,

agencies should employ larger geographic scales, Idaho

Sporting Congress, 305 F.3d at 973, whereas other times,

agencies should employ smaller geographic scales, Anderson v.

Evans, 314 F.3d 1006, 1021 (9th Cir. 2002).

Here, defendant selected an analysis area of 89,000 acres

of public and private land for the NSO. AR 220. It appears

that, contrary to plaintiffs’ concern, the analysis area was

selected to include impacts, rather than to hide them: “This

cumulative effects area was used because there are two other

vegetation management projects currently being planned within

the CHU and will overlap in time with this project.” AR 220. 

These two projects, the Mudflow Project and the Algoma

Project, were specifically discussed in the EIS. AR 221-22. 

In addition, as plaintiffs note, the EIS discussed several

other projects, including the Mt. Thin and Fuels Project, the

Edson Project, the Davis Vegetation and Road Management

Project, the McCloud Flats Phase I Project, the Mud Forest

Health Project, and the South Flats Multiproduct Project, the

acreage of affected habitat for each project, and the harvest

methods used. AR 220-21. 

The EIS then analyzed these cumulative effects in

conjunction with the preferred alternative, finding that

within CHU CA-2 “[t]he combined effects of the proposed action

with these effects would/has result in the removal of

Case 2:07-cv-02764-LKK -KJN Document 39 Filed 05/13/08 Page 29 of 33
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

Plaintiffs note that in 2003, one owl was spotted -- not in 8

the project area or within the 1.3 mile radius but in the adjacent

Elk Flat Late-Successional Reserve. The BA concluded that the owl

likely moved on in search of adequate prey and habitat because the

Elk Flat LSR habitat is low capability, and the project area “is

naturally considerably worse.” AR 2810; AR 357 (“Because the

operation will not modify the limiting factors making the area

unsuitable . . . it is highly unlikely that owls would occupy the

area post-project.”)

30

approximately 2,000 acres of foraging/dispersal habitat . . .

and the temporary degrading of approximately 4,200 acres of

[such] habitat. Most of the removed habitat (about 1,800

acres) is the result of root disease and [] infestations.” AR

224.

Further, as defendant argues, had it ended its cumulative

effects analysis at the local level, it would have been easier

to conclude that the project had no significant adverse impact

on NSO habitat. This is because, as noted above, the project

area is largely unsuitable as NSO habitat due to the land’s

natural conditions, and no owl has been spotted within the 1.3

miles of the project area for over twenty years. AR 347–50, 8

355, & 366–67. 

Finally, the EIS found that “[t]he greatest cumulative

impact to the [NSO] and its critical habitat in CHU CA-2 is

the continued loss of habitat from insect infestations and

root disease centers.” AR 222 (noting that, in the last five

years, three percent of forage/dispersal habitat in CHU have

been lost to insects and disease). Conversely, where

vegetation treatments have been implemented in the last five

Case 2:07-cv-02764-LKK -KJN Document 39 Filed 05/13/08 Page 30 of 33
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

31

years, they have benefitted owl habitat in the analysis area. 

AR 414. While plaintiffs argue that speculative long-term

gains do not outweigh short-term losses, Pacific Coast

Federation of Fisherman's Ass'ns v. National Marine Fisheries

Service, 265 F.3d 1028, 1036 (9th Cir. 2001), it is the shortterm losses here that seem the most speculative. See Envtl.

Prot. Info. Ctr. v. United States Forest Serv., 451 F.3d 1005,

1017 (9th Cir. 2006)("[W]e conclude that the [Environmental

Assessment] adequately discloses and discusses the short-term

increase of fire risk, and USFS's conclusion that the Project

will meet the goal of long-term risk reduction is not

arbitrary or capricious").

In sum, the court finds that the impacts analysis was

sufficient and conducted on an appropriate scale.

D. Cavity-Nesting Species

Finally, plaintiffs argue that defendant violated the

LRMP’s requirements regarding cavity-nesting species. The

plan provides that “snags are to be retained . . . based on .

. . an average of 1.5 snags per acre greater than 15 inches in

diameter and 20 feet in height.” AR 4048. In fact, the

project aims to do better than that, retaining an average of

2-3 snags per acre where feasible. AR 187; AR 501 (“snag

density was set to 2 per acre with the expectation that more

pathogenic activity would create an excess of 3 snags per

acre. This exceeds the minimum standards established in the

[LRMP].”)

Case 2:07-cv-02764-LKK -KJN Document 39 Filed 05/13/08 Page 31 of 33
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

32

The EIS indicates that where not even the 1.5 snags per

acre requirement can be met, “one 10x10 minimum slash pile or

equivalent 5-15 tons maximum large deadwood per acres will be

left unburned where tractor piling is described.” AR 346. 

The EIS explained that in some cases, there simply are not

enough snags available, particularly where the stand in

question is still relatively young. AR 446 (“Most of the

plantations being treated in this project are from brushfield

conversions; few if any snags existed in the reforested areas

at the time they were planted. The trees in the plantations

are not large enough to meet the LRMP size requirements for

snags.”). Although plaintiffs argue that this violates the

LRMP, the requirement is obviously only one that needs to be

satisfied where it is at least possible to do. 

Furthermore, the requirement must be satisfied on

“average,” and it appears that the project will in fact exceed

the 1.5 snags per acre requirement on average. Indeed, the

EIS predicts that the project will ultimately produce snags of

better quality, because thinning understory trees leads to

more vigorous growth in the remaining trees, which will in

turn produce better quality and larger snags. AR 240. 

Accordingly, the court rejects plaintiffs’ claim that the

project violates the forest plan’s requirements with respect

to cavity-nesting species.

///

///

Case 2:07-cv-02764-LKK -KJN Document 39 Filed 05/13/08 Page 32 of 33
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

33

IV. Conclusion

For the reasons explained above, both plaintiffs’ and

defendant’s motions for summary judgment are granted in part

and denied in part. The court finds that defendant failed to

comply with its monitoring obligations under the relevant

forest plan, in violation of the NFMA and APA. Accordingly,

it enjoins the Pilgrim project and remands the matter to the

agency for further action consistent with this order. The

clerk’s office is directed to enter judgment and close the

case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 13, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-02764-LKK -KJN Document 39 Filed 05/13/08 Page 33 of 33