Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00249/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00249-7/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Conservation Congress
Plaintiff
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Defendant
United States Forest Service
Defendant

Document Text:

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

----oo0oo----

CONSERVATION CONGRESS,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, 

and UNITED STATES FISH AND 

WILDLIFE SERVICE,

Defendants.

CIV. NO. 2:15-00249 WBS AC

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: CROSSMOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

----oo0oo----

Plaintiff Conservation Congress brought this action 

against the United States Forest Service (“Forest Service”) and 

the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”), alleging 

that defendants violated the National Environmental Policy Act 

(“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4347, the Endangered Species Act 

(“ESA”), 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-1544, the National Forest Management 

Act of 1976 (“NFMA”), 16 U.S.C. §§ 1600-1614, and the 

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

Case 2:15-cv-00249-WBS-AC Document 49 Filed 02/24/16 Page 1 of 24
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

approving the Harris Vegetation Management Project (“Harris 

Project”) in the Shasta-Trinity National Forest. Pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, plaintiff and defendants both 

move for summary judgment. (Docket Nos. 32, 41.)

I. Factual and Procedural Background

Plaintiff Conservation Congress is a non-profit 

corporation dedicated to maintaining, protecting, and restoring 

the native ecosystems of northern California. (Second Am. Compl.

(“SAC”) ¶ 9 (Docket No. 10).) Plaintiff has an organizational

interest in the lawful management of National Forests in northern 

California. (Id.)

Defendant Forest Service, an agency of the United 

States Department of Agriculture, is responsible for the 

administration and management of the federal lands at issue in 

this case and compliance with NEPA and NFMA. Defendant FWS, an

agency within the United States Department of Interior, is

charged with administering the ESA. 

According to the Forest Service, the Harris Project is 

designed to improve forest health and restore fire-adapted 

ecosystem characteristics on approximately 2,800 acres of 

National Forest System Land within the 9,200 acre project area in 

the Shasta-Trinity National Forest in Siskiyou County. (Admin. 

R. (“AR”) at 1045.) Due to prior forest management activity, 

including railroad logging in the early 1900s and intensive fire 

suppression, the forest currently has overly dense forest stands. 

(Id. at 1048.) As a result, too many trees are competing for 

sunlight, water, and nutrients and the trees are more susceptible 

to drought, disease, insect infestation, and mortality. (Id.) 

Case 2:15-cv-00249-WBS-AC Document 49 Filed 02/24/16 Page 2 of 24
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

The stated purposes of the Harris Project are to improve the 

health and growth of forest stands, develop late-successional 

habitat, reduce fuel loading to levels where predicted fires will 

not destroy the forest stands, encourage the growth of hard 

woods--especially aspen and oaks that are subject to competition 

from conifers, and reduce open road density. (Id.) The Forest 

Service will thin overstocked forest stands by removing 

understory, mid-story, and some dominant trees; diseased and 

dying trees; and residual wildfire fuels like branches and bark. 

(Id. at 1049-50.) The timber harvest associated with the 

treatment will yield 3,392,345 cubic feet of merchantable sawlogs 

and 215,172 cubic feet of merchantable biomass. (Id. at 1309.) 

To determine the predicted effects of the Harris Project’s 

alternatives on threatened and endangered species, the Forest 

Service prepared a Biological Assessment (“BA”) and an 

Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) that incorporated the BA 

by reference. (Id. at 1336.) 

In its SAC, plaintiff alleges the Harris Project 

violates the APA, NEPA, NFMA, and ESA because of the adverse 

effects it will have on the threatened northern spotted owl and 

the endangered gray wolf. (SAC ¶¶ 22-29.) Plaintiff first 

alleges defendants violated NEPA and the APA by failing to (1)

adequately analyze and disclose the cumulative effects of the 

Harris Project on the northern spotted owl and other wildlife 

species; (2) prepare a supplemental EIS in light of significant 

new information on the effectiveness of fuel treatments; (3) take 

a hard look at the environmental impacts on late-successional 

forests, the black-backed woodpecker, the northern spotted owl, 

Case 2:15-cv-00249-WBS-AC Document 49 Filed 02/24/16 Page 3 of 24
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

and the ecological benefits of natural disturbances; and (4)

respond to responsible, opposing scientific opinions. (Id. ¶¶ 

44-71.) 

Plaintiff next alleges defendants violated NFMA and the 

APA by failing to (5) maintain dead or down material, hardwoods, 

and snags at naturally occurring levels; and (6) maintain habitat 

for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species consistent with

the species’ individual recovery plans. (Id. ¶¶ 72-84.) 

Lastly, plaintiff alleges the Forest Service violated 

the ESA and APA by failing to adequately analyze and disclose in 

its BA the potential for adverse effects (7) on the northern 

spotted owl and (8) the gray wolf. (Id. ¶¶ 85-97.) Plaintiff 

also alleges the FWS violated the ESA and APA by (9) concurring 

in the Forest Service’s determination that the Harris Project 

would not adversely affect the northern spotted owl; and (10) 

failing to require the Forest Service to conduct adequate surveys 

to determine if the gray wolf was present in the project area. 

(Id. ¶¶ 98-109.) 

Plaintiff requests the court vacate and remand the EIS, 

BA, FWS Concurrence Letter, and Record of Decision (“ROD”) and 

enjoin timber harvest in the Harris Project until defendants 

comply with NEPA, NFMA, and ESA. (Id. ¶¶ 115-16.) Plaintiff 

also requests reasonable fees, costs, and expenses pursuant to 

the Equal Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412. (Id. ¶ 117.) 

Presently before the court is plaintiff’s motion and 

defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment. (Docket Nos. 32, 

41.) 

II. Discussion

Case 2:15-cv-00249-WBS-AC Document 49 Filed 02/24/16 Page 4 of 24
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

A. Standing

Defendants do not contest plaintiff’s standing. Denise 

Boggs, the executive director of Conservation Congress, states in 

her declaration that she regularly visits the Shasta-Trinity 

National Forest to hike, view wildlife, take photographs, and 

bird watch. (Boggs Decl. ¶ 4 (Docket No. 34).) Boggs 

specifically visited the Harris Project site and looked for 

raptors and their nests in the large old growth trees and snags. 

(Id. ¶ 5.) She has concrete plans to return to the Harris 

Project area again in September 2016. (Id.) Boggs is concerned 

the Harris Project will harm her ability to enjoy and hike 

“through the area in an unimpaired state . . . looking for 

raptors, woodpeckers, songbirds, and owls.” (Id. ¶ 8.) In 

addition, Boggs worries the Harris Project will have adverse 

effects on avian species, wolves, furbearers, northern spotted 

owls, large and old growth trees, and the other species she and 

the Conservation Congress members work to protect. (Id.) These 

facts are sufficient to confer standing on plaintiff to bring 

this suit. See Ocean Advocates v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 402 

F.3d 846, 859-62 (9th Cir. 2005) (discussing standing 

requirements in the context of suits under NEPA). 

B. Standard of Review

Judicial review of actions by administrative agencies 

is governed by the APA. Under the APA, the reviewing court must 

set aside agency actions found to be “arbitrary, capricious, an 

abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 

U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). This is a “deferential standard . . . 

designed to ensure that the agency considered all of the relevant 

Case 2:15-cv-00249-WBS-AC Document 49 Filed 02/24/16 Page 5 of 24
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

factors and that its decision contained no clear error of 

judgment.” Pac. Coast Fed’n of Fishermen’s Ass’n v. Nat’l Marine 

Fisheries Serv., 265 F.3d 1028, 1034 (9th Cir. 2001) (citation 

omitted). An agency action should be overturned only when the 

agency has “relied on factors which Congress has not intended it 

to consider, entirely failed to consider an important aspect of 

the problem, offered an explanation for its decision that runs 

counter to the evidence before the agency, or is so implausible 

that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the 

product of agency expertise.” Id. (citation omitted). The court 

must ask whether an agency considered “the relevant factors and 

articulated a rational connection between the facts found and the 

choice made.” Nat’l Res. Def. Council v. U.S. Dep’t of the 

Interior, 113 F.3d 1121, 1124 (9th Cir. 1997) (citation omitted). 

The court is not empowered to substitute its judgment 

for that of an agency. Ariz. Cattle Growers’ Ass’n v. U.S. Fish 

& Wildlife Serv., 273 F.3d 1229, 1236 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing 

Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 

416 (1971)). The court defers to an agency’s “interpretation of 

its own regulations . . . unless plainly erroneous or 

inconsistent with the regulations being interpreted.” Ctr. for 

Biological Diversity v. U.S. Forest Serv., 706 F.3d 1085, 1090 

(9th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted). 

The court should review an agency’s actions based on 

the administrative record presented by the agency. See Ctr. for 

Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 450 F.3d 930, 

943 (9th Cir. 2006). The court’s role is “to determine whether 

or not, as a matter of law, the evidence in the administrative 

Case 2:15-cv-00249-WBS-AC Document 49 Filed 02/24/16 Page 6 of 24
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

record permitted the agency to make the decision it did.” 

Nehemiah Corp. v. Jackson, 546 F. Supp. 2d 830, 838 (E.D. Cal. 

2008); see also Occidental Eng’g, Co. v. INS, 753 F.2d 766, 769-

70 (9th Cir. 1985). 

C. National Environmental Policy Act Claims

NEPA is “our basic national charter for protection of 

the environment. It establishes policy, sets goals . . . and 

provides means for carrying out the policy.” 40 C.F.R. 

§ 1500.1(a). NEPA “does not set out substantive environmental 

standards, but instead establishes ‘action-forcing’ procedures 

that require agencies to take a ‘hard look’ at environmental 

consequences.” Metcalf v. Daley, 214 F.3d 1135, 1141 (9th Cir.

2000) (citations omitted). NEPA established the Council on 

Environmental Quality (“CEQ”), 42 U.S.C. § 4342, which 

promulgated regulations to govern NEPA compliance. 

When a major federal action may affect the environment, 

NEPA requires the acting agency to undergo a scoping process in 

which it solicits comments and input from the public and other 

agencies to identify specific issues to address and study. 40 

C.F.R. § 1501.7. An EA shall be prepared when the agency has not 

yet determined whether an EIS is necessary and must discuss the 

need for the proposed project, alternatives, and the 

environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives. 

Id. § 1508.9; 36 C.F.R. § 220.7. If the agency determines that 

an EIS is necessary, 40 C.F.R. § 1501.4, it drafts an EIS and 

presents it to the public for notice and comment, id. § 

1503.1(a). The EIS “shall provide full and fair discussion of 

significant environmental impacts and shall inform decisionmakers

Case 2:15-cv-00249-WBS-AC Document 49 Filed 02/24/16 Page 7 of 24
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

and the public of the reasonable alternatives which would avoid 

or minimize adverse impacts or enhance the quality of the human 

environment.” Id. § 1502.1. After the Forest Service evaluates 

and responds to comments, it prepares a Final EIS and provides a 

pre-decisional objection period before issuing its record of 

decision. Id. §§ 1502.9(b), 1502.2; 36 C.F.R. Pt. 218. 

1. Impacts on the Northern Spotted Owl

Plaintiff alleges that the Forest Service violated NEPA 

because it failed to take a “hard look” at the impacts of the 

Harris Project on the northern spotted owl. (Pl.’s Mem. at 26-28

(Docket No. 33).) Specifically, plaintiff contends the Harris 

Project is managing the forest towards a ponderosa pine habitat--

a habitat type that is unsuitable for the northern spotted owl--

and the BA and EIS fail to candidly explain how this shift will 

impact the northern spotted owl. (Id. at 27-28.) 

The court’s task under NEPA “is to ensure that the 

agency has taken a ‘hard look’ at the potential environmental 

consequences of the proposed action.” Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands 

Ctr. v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 387 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir. 2004). 

“Although an agency’s actions under NEPA are subject to careful 

judicial scrutiny, courts must also be mindful to defer to agency 

expertise, particularly with respect to scientific matters within 

the purview of the agency.” Id. The standard of review is 

narrow. Id.

In comparing the alternative action plans in the 

Silviculture Report, the Forest Service found that “Alternative 

1, 4a and 4b overall represent the most aggressive and effective 

treatment actions to advance stand conditions towards the 

Case 2:15-cv-00249-WBS-AC Document 49 Filed 02/24/16 Page 8 of 24
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

objectives” of improving forest health and growth, developing 

late-successional forest, and maintaining aspen and oak. (AR at 

7981-82.) These “alternatives provide the greatest reduction in 

stand density levels both in the short and long term as well as 

most pronounced shift in species composition towards pine.” (Id.

at 7982.) 

In the BA, the Forest Service discusses how thinning 

and the shift in species composition towards pine may impact the 

northern spotted owl. The BA makes clear that the highestquality nesting/roosting habitat will not be treated and, as a 

result, species composition will not be affected in these areas. 

(Id. at 8816.) 

In the moderate-quality foraging habitat, the BA 

explains that forest stands currently have a “higher proportion 

of mixed conifer composition and white fir dominance; larger tree 

size; snags and down wood; higher canopy cover; mid and 

understory layering; but low to no hardwood diversity and few 

openings.” (Id. at 8866.) The thinning “will result in 

increased resilience of the legacy” sugar and ponderosa pine and

increased sunlight and openings “for a second age class of 

natural fir regeneration and understory.” (Id.) This is 

expected “to contribute to within-stand heterogeneity while 

maintaining the function of foraging and dispersal habitat for 

NSOs.” (Id.) Further, the BA explains that the Forest Service 

will refrain from thinning in units 26, 56, 133, or 200 “in order 

to maintain understory layering and vertical structures for prey 

species, thermoregulation and perching structures.” (Id.) The 

Forest Service will also retain untreated areas within treated 

Case 2:15-cv-00249-WBS-AC Document 49 Filed 02/24/16 Page 9 of 24
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

units in order to “contribute to the persistence of high-quality 

components of roosting, foraging, and dispersal.” (Id.) Thus, 

the BA makes clear that while the Harris Project will increase 

the prevalence of ponderosa pine overall, it will also promote 

heterogeneous tree species and other important habitat elements 

in moderate-quality foraging habitat. 

In the existing “lower-quality foraging habitat,” the 

BA explains that the forest stands currently have “a mix of 30-70 

year-old multi-layered ponderosa pine/white fir and even aged (40 

year old), one to two-layered stands dominated by ponderosa pine, 

pockets of young and mature lodgepole pine, and incidental sugar 

pine.” (Id. at 8868.) These units are lower-quality habitat 

because of the higher proportion of pine and the limited 

proximity to other suitable habitat. (Id.) The BA acknowledges 

that “[d]ue to favoring ponderosa pine over white fir and 

lodgepole when thinning in units 25, 44 and 181, changes to the 

understory and midstory species composition are expected over the 

long term.” (Id.) However, the BA also states that “not all 

white fir would be removed and these stands are still expected to 

provide foraging (and dispersal) opportunities for NSOs.” (Id.) 

Treatments “will retain sufficient structural elements and 

species composition that will continue to provide NSO foraging 

opportunities within these lower quality stands and habitat 

function will not be precluded.” (Id.)

More than forty pages of the BA and sixty pages of the

EIS are dedicated to discussing the northern spotted owl and the 

means the Forest Service has taken to limit any adverse effects 

on the listed species. The BA acknowledges that “[t]hinning and 

Case 2:15-cv-00249-WBS-AC Document 49 Filed 02/24/16 Page 10 of 24
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

fuels treatments are expected to result in variable short-term 

effects to foraging habitat quality due to reductions in canopy 

cover and layering, shrub cover, snags, down logs, and coarse 

wood.” (Id. at 8895.) However, the Forest Service concludes 

that the long-term effects will be beneficial. (Id.) 

The Forest Service explains its reasoning and there 

appears to be a rational connection between the facts found about 

the northern spotted owl foraging and dispersal habitat and the 

conclusions regarding thinning and species composition in those 

areas. See Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm 

Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983) (“[T]he 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.” (citation 

omitted)). Given the highly deferential standard of review under 

the APA, the court must find that the Forest Service fulfilled 

its obligation to take a “hard look” at the impacts of the Harris 

Project on the northern spotted owl. 

2. Response to Opposing Scientific Opinions

Plaintiff next argues the Forest Service violated NEPA 

by failing to address and respond to reasonable opposing 

scientific views. (Pl.’s Mem. at 28.) Plaintiff contends the 

Forest Service should have issued a supplemental EIS to address a

recently published study by Jamie M. Lydersen, which found that

fire-regimes are not effective in preventing severe fires. 

Plaintiff argues the Lydersen study calls into question the 

effectiveness and reasonableness of thinning the Harris Project 

Case 2:15-cv-00249-WBS-AC Document 49 Filed 02/24/16 Page 11 of 24
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

area in order to reduce the risk of stand-replacing fires. (Id.

at 30.) 

In the Final EIS, the acting agency is required to 

respond to comments and “discuss at appropriate points . . . any 

responsible opposing view which was not adequately discussed in 

the draft statement and shall indicate the agency’s response to 

the issues raised.” 40 C.F.R. § 1502.9(b). 

For example, in Center for Biological Diversity v. 

United States Forest Service, 349 F.3d 1157, 1169 (9th Cir. 

2003), the Ninth Circuit remanded the Final EIS to the Forest 

Service because it failed to disclose and discuss responsible 

opposing scientific viewpoints in violation of NEPA. The Forest 

Service’s action plan rested on the assumption that northern 

goshawks were habitat generalists yet the Final EIS failed to

disclose or respond to seven scientific studies submitted during 

scoping that contradicted this assumption. Id. at 1161, 1167. 

The Forest Service’s inclusion in the administrative record of 

intra-office memoranda prepared after the issuance of the Final

EIS addressing the seven studies and responding to plaintiffs’ 

comments was insufficient. Id. at 1169. The Ninth Circuit found 

that “[b]ecause the commenters’ evidence and opinions directly 

challenge the scientific basis upon which the Final EIS rests and 

which is central to it, we hold that Appellees were required to 

disclose and respond to such viewpoints in the final impact 

statement itself.” Id. at 1167; see also Sierra Club v. 

Bosworth, 199 F. Supp. 2d 971, 980 (N.D. Cal. 2002) (finding it 

is not adequate to “merely include scientific information in the 

administrative record”); Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project v. 

Case 2:15-cv-00249-WBS-AC Document 49 Filed 02/24/16 Page 12 of 24
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

13

Blackwood, 161 F.3d 1208, 1214 (9th Cir. 1998) (finding EA must 

reference support and opposition to Forest Service’s 

conclusions). 

In this case, the BA was issued on September 9, 2013 

and the Final EIS on July 1, 2014. It was not until a month 

later, on August 26, 2014, that plaintiff submitted an objection

to the Harris Project and attached a pre-publication copy of the

Lydersen study. (See AR at 127.) Unlike in Center for 

Biological Diversity, the study was unavailable at the time the 

EIS was issued and could not have been included. Rather than 

issue a supplemental EIS, as plaintiff contends was necessary, 

the Forest Service responded to the Lydersen study by drafting an 

internal memorandum. (Id. at 9259.) 

An agency must “prepare supplements to either draft or 

final environmental impact statements if” there are “significant 

new circumstances or information relevant to environmental 

concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts.” 40 

C.F.R. § 1502.9(c)(1)(ii). “This reflects the paramount 

Congressional desire to internalize opposing viewpoints into the 

decision-making process to ensure that an agency is cognizant of 

all the environmental trade-offs that are implicit in a 

decision.” California v. Block, 690 F.2d 753, 771 (9th Cir. 

1982). However, while “NEPA requires agencies to allow the 

public to participate in the preparation of an SEIS, there is no 

such requirement for the decision whether to prepare an SEIS.” 

Friends of Clearwater v. Dombeck, 222 F.3d 552, 560 (9th Cir. 

2000). The Ninth Circuit has made clear that public comment “is 

not essential every time new information comes to light after an 

Case 2:15-cv-00249-WBS-AC Document 49 Filed 02/24/16 Page 13 of 24
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

EIS is prepared” for if it were “to hold otherwise, the threshold 

decision not to supplement an EIS would become as burdensome as 

preparing the supplemental EIS itself.” Id.

In its internal memorandum, the Forest Service

acknowledged Lydersen’s finding that “even in forests with a 

restored fire regime, wildfires can produce large-scale, highseverity fire effects under the type of weather conditions that 

often prevail when wildfire escapes initial suppression efforts.” 

(AR at 9260.) The agency concluded, however, that this finding 

does not contradict the scientific evidence cited in support of 

the Harris Project for two reasons. First, Lydersen examined 

fire behavior in 90th percentile weather conditions. The EIS, in 

contrast, suggests the treatment alternatives would reduce flame 

lengths and result in less active fire crowns in weather 

conditions under the 90th percentile. (Id. at 9260, 1334.) 

Second, the Harris Project only sets out to moderate 

fire behavior for the next ten years and Lydersen’s study 

actually acknowledges that fire-regimes are effective in such 

short-term timeframes. Lydersen found that plots treated within 

fourteen years “‘burned predominately at low severity despite 

recent drought conditions, suggesting that forests with restored 

frequent-fire regimes are resilient to wildfire under less-thanextreme fire weather conditions.’” (Id. at 9259-60.) The

memorandum therefore concluded that “the key findings presented”

in Lydersen’s study “do not contradict the information presented 

in the fire and fuels analysis for the Harris Vegetation 

Management Project.” (Id. at 9262.) 

Case 2:15-cv-00249-WBS-AC Document 49 Filed 02/24/16 Page 14 of 24
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

In the final ROD, which was circulated to the public, 

Forest Supervisor David R. Myers explained that the Lydersen

study had been reviewed and addressed by the Forest Service in 

the internal memorandum included in the administrative record. 

(Id. at 1058-59 n.7.) He concluded, “As the responsible 

official, I fully considered the Lydersen paper/review. The 

information in this article did not change the Harris analysis or 

conclusions.” (Id.) 

The court must therefore defer to the Forest Service’s 

finding that the Lydersen study did not constitute significant, 

new, or opposing information that required a supplemental EIS. 

40 C.F.R. § 1502.9(c)(1)(ii); Marsh v. Or. Natural Res. Council, 

490 U.S. 360, 377-78 (1989) (finding that the court must defer to 

“the informed discretion of the responsible federal agencies” on 

the factual question of whether new information suffices to 

establish a “significant effect” requiring a supplemental EIS). 

The agency considered the Lydersen study in its internal 

memorandum and the ROD and made a reasoned decision that it did 

not change the Harris analysis or conclusions.

Accordingly, the court must deny plaintiff’s motion for 

summary judgment and grant defendants’ cross-motion on 

plaintiff’s NEPA claims.

D. Endangered Species Act Claims

The ESA was enacted “to provide a means whereby the 

ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species 

depend may be conserved, [and] to provide a program for the 

conservation of such endangered species and threatened species.” 

16 U.S.C. § 1531(b). ESA section 4 provides for the listing of 

Case 2:15-cv-00249-WBS-AC Document 49 Filed 02/24/16 Page 15 of 24
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

species as “threatened” or “endangered,” the designation of 

“critical habitat,” and the development of “recovery plans” for 

listed species. Id. § 1533. 

Under section 7(a)(2) of the ESA, each federal agency, 

in consultation with the FWS, must ensure that its actions are 

“not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any 

endangered species or threatened species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species.” 

Id. § 1536(a)(2). In fulfilling this obligation, each agency 

must use “the best scientific and commercial data available.” 

Id. 

If listed species are present in the proposed action 

area, the Forest Service may conduct a BA to evaluate the 

potential effects on listed species and critical habitat. Id.

§ 1536(c)(1); 50 C.F.R. § 402.12. The Forest Service then 

submits the BA to the FWS. 50 C.F.R. § 402.12(j). If the Forest 

Service concludes that no listed species are likely to be 

adversely affected and the FWS concurs, formal consultation is 

not required. Id. § 402.12(k)(1). 

1. ESA Challenges to the Gray Wolf Determination

Plaintiff argues in its SAC that defendants violated 

the ESA by arbitrarily and capriciously determining that 

Alternative 4b would not affect the gray wolf. However, in 

plaintiff’s reply memorandum, plaintiff admits that its gray wolf 

claims were mooted when the Forest Service reinitiated ESA 

section 7 consultation and issued a BA Addendum in October 2015, 

which found that the Harris Project “may affect, but is not 

likely to adversely affect” the gray wolf, and the FWS concurred. 

Case 2:15-cv-00249-WBS-AC Document 49 Filed 02/24/16 Page 16 of 24
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

(Pl.’s Reply at 2; see also Defs.’ Mem. at 13 (Docket No. 41-1).) 

Accordingly, the court must dismiss as moot plaintiff’s ESA 

challenges to defendants’ gray wolf determination.

1 

2. ESA Challenges to the Northern Spotted Owl

Determination 

Plaintiff also argues the Forest Service’s conclusion 

that Alternative 4b “may affect, but is not likely to adversely 

affect” the northern spotted owl in its BA and the FWS’s

concurrence in this determination were arbitrary and capricious 

and a violation of the ESA. (Pl.’s Mem. at 4.) 

Plaintiff first argues the Forest Service failed to 

consider the adverse effects of degrading foraging habitat within 

an already spatially-deficient home range. (Id. at 6-7.) While 

the BA acknowledges that the ST-218 northern spotted owl home 

range is below the recommended threshold by approximately 276 

acres, (AR at 8855), plaintiff alleges it does not address how 

losing an additional 17 acres of foraging habitat could 

exacerbate the adverse effects from spatial deficiency, (Pl.’s 

Mem. at 7). 

Degrade is a term of art defined by the BA as 

signifying “when treatments have a negative influence on the 

quality of habitat due to the removal or reduction of NSO habitat 

 

1 Because claims eight and ten are moot, the court need 

not rule on plaintiff’s request for judicial notice of two 

exhibits regarding the gray wolf, (Docket No. 37), or whether to 

admit Ogden’s declaration into evidence with its attached extrarecord evidence, (Docket No. 35). Defendants withdrew their 

motion to strike these six extra-record documents because 

plaintiff admitted claims eight and ten are moot. (Docket No. 

47.) 

Case 2:15-cv-00249-WBS-AC Document 49 Filed 02/24/16 Page 17 of 24
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

elements but not to the degree where existing habitat function is 

changed.” (AR at 8863); see also Conservation Cong. v. U.S. 

Forest Serv., Civ. No. S-11-2605 LKK EFB, 2012 WL 2339765, at *12 

(E.D. Cal. June 19, 2012), aff’d, 720 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2013). 

Degrade therefore does not signify that the habitat will be 

“downgraded,” meaning it will not function in the capacity that 

exists pre-treatment, or “removed,” meaning it will no longer 

function as habitat suitable for northern spotted owl. (Id. at 

8863-64.) The northern spotted owl will be able to continue to 

feed, shelter, or disperse within the degraded portions of ST218. (Defs.’ Mem. at 23.) The Forest Service therefore did not 

discuss the loss of 17 acres of foraging habitat because it will 

only be “temporarily degraded” in the short-term of fifteen to 

twenty years and will continue to function as habitat. (Id.; AR 

at 8863.) The court therefore finds that the Forest Service did 

not violate the ESA by mentioning the spatial-deficiency but 

failing to characterize the Harris Project treatment as 

exacerbating the deficiency. 

Plaintiff next contends the BA violated the ESA by 

failing to comply with the northern spotted owl Recovery Plan

and, more specifically, Recovery Action 10. (Pl.’s Mem. at 10.) 

Plaintiff argues that the BA adopts an overly aggressive 

management approach and fails to explain why the long-term 

benefits of treating foraging and dispersal habitat within the 

ST-218 home range and dispersal habitat within the ST-222 home 

range outweigh the short-term adverse effects. (Id. at 12-13.) 

Recovery plans describe “site-specific management 

actions as may be necessary to achieve the plan’s goal for the 

Case 2:15-cv-00249-WBS-AC Document 49 Filed 02/24/16 Page 18 of 24
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

conservation and survival of the species”; objective, measurable 

criteria for when a species should be removed from the list; and 

estimates of the time and costs required. 16 U.S.C.

§ 1533(f)(2). “While useful in evaluating an action’s impact on 

the species’ recovery, recovery plan objectives are discretionary 

for federal agencies.” Conservation Cong. v. Heywood, Civ. No. 

2:11-2250 MCE CMK, 2015 WL 5255346, at * 1 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 

2015) (citation omitted); Conservation Cong. v. Finley, 774 F.3d 

611, 614 (9th Cir. 2014). 

In this case, the northern spotted owl Recovery Plan 

identifies three main threats to the northern spotted owl--

“competition from barred owls, past habitat loss, and current 

habitat loss”--and outlines a management approach to address 

these threats. (AR at 31341.) Recovery Action 10 directs the 

agency to “[c]onserve spotted owl sites and high value spotted 

owl habitat to provide additional demographic support to the 

spotted owl population.” (Id. at 31342.) However, Recovery 

Action 10 also provides that long-term improvements to northern 

spotted owl habitat should be encouraged, even if there are 

short-term disadvantages: “forest stands could and should be 

enhanced or developed through vegetation management activities to 

improve long-term habitat conditions, or to create improved 

habitat for spotted owls, larger habitat patches, or increased 

connectivity between patches, they should generally be encouraged 

even if they result in short-term impacts to existing spotted 

owls.” (Id. at 31343.) 

The Harris Project aims to increase forest stand 

resilience to stressors such as drought, insects, and fire in 

Case 2:15-cv-00249-WBS-AC Document 49 Filed 02/24/16 Page 19 of 24
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

20

order to maintain existing habitat used by the northern spotted 

owl in the short-term and contribute to resilience of foraging 

and reproductive habitat in the long-term. (Id. at 8563-64.) 

Defendants weighed the short-term impacts against the long-term 

benefits and concluded that the Harris Project would ultimately 

help protect and increase northern spotted owl habitat. While 

plaintiff fundamentally disagrees that forest thinning will 

improve forest stand resilience to fire in the long term, the 

court must “refrain from acting as a type of omnipotent 

scientist.” Tri-Valley CAREs v. U.S. Dep’t of Energy, 671 F.3d 

1113, 1126 (9th Cir. 2012). The court therefore defers to the 

government’s scientific judgments and finds that the Harris 

Project is consistent with the Recovery Plan. See Marsh v. Or. 

Natural Res. Council, 490 U.S. 360, 378 (1989) (“When specialists 

express conflicting views, an agency must have discretion to rely 

on the reasonable opinions of its own qualified experts even if, 

as an original matter, a court might find contrary views more 

persuasive.”). 

Recovery Action 10 also provides that the Forest 

Service should use “the best available site-specific data” to 

protect known northern spotted owl sites or historic sites with 

reproductive pairs, non-reproductive pairs, and resident singles. 

(AR at 5873.) The Forest Service based its conclusion that the 

Harris Project “may affect, but is not likely to adversely 

affect, the northern spotted owl” in part on eleven activity 

surveys that were conducted between 1996 and 2013. (Pl.’s Mem. 

at 11.) The surveys found that no northern spotted owl have been 

detected in the ST-218 home range since 1996 and the last nesting 

Case 2:15-cv-00249-WBS-AC Document 49 Filed 02/24/16 Page 20 of 24
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

in ST-222 was in 2009 and a non-reproductive pair was observed in 

ST-222 in 2013. (AR at 8816.) Plaintiff contends the surveys 

are not reliable scientific evidence because they were not 

conducted in six of the seventeen years between 1996 and 2013 and 

four of the eleven surveys were not conducted in accordance with 

FWS survey protocol. (Pl.’s Mem. at 11.) 

The court must exercise deference in reviewing an 

agency’s determination of what constitutes the best scientific 

data available. San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Auth. v. Jewell, 

747 F.3d 581, 602 (9th Cir. 2014). The “best scientific . . . 

data available, does not mean the best scientific data possible.” 

Id. (citation omitted). Even if four of the eleven surveys did 

not comply with FWS protocol, the surveys for the past seven 

continuous years were all performed using an FWS protocol and 

consistently demonstrated the northern spotted owl was not

occupying ST-218. (AR at 8846.) Moreover, plaintiff fails to 

establish that the Forest Service ignored any superior scientific 

evidence regarding the presence of the northern spotted owl in 

the Harris Project area. See Jewell, 747 F.3d at 602 (“The best 

available data requirement merely prohibits [an agency] from 

disregarding available scientific evidence that is in some way 

better than the evidence [it] relies on.” (citation omitted) 

(alteration in original)). 

Lastly, despite the survey evidence that the northern 

spotted owl has not been present in ST-218 in recent years, no 

treatment will occur in the cores of the two known ST-218 or ST222 home ranges and 97% of the foraging habitat in the ST-218 

home range, 66% of the dispersal habitat in the ST-218 home 

Case 2:15-cv-00249-WBS-AC Document 49 Filed 02/24/16 Page 21 of 24
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

range, all foraging habitat in the ST-222 home range, and 80% of 

dispersal habitat in the ST-222 home range will be left 

untreated. (AR at 8816.) In addition, potential disturbances to 

the northern spotted owl will be minimized by implementing 

Limited Operating Periods for habitat altering, smoke generating, 

and noise generating activities above ambient levels if nesting 

or single northern spotted owls are detected within 0.25 miles of 

treatment activities. (Id. at 8816, 8862.) Thus, the Harris 

Project will protect large portions of the ST-218 and ST-222 home 

ranges in accordance with the Recovery Plan, which requires 

protection of both “currently occupied as well as historically 

occupied” northern spotted owl habitat. (Id. at 31341.) 

The court must therefore find that the Harris Project 

is consistent with the northern spotted owl Recovery Plan’s 

recommendations and the Forest Service relied on the best 

scientific evidence available. Accordingly, the court must deny 

plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on its ESA claims against 

the Forest Service and grant defendants’ motion. 

The court must also find that the FWS did not violate 

the ESA by concurring in the Forest Service’s BA finding of “no 

adverse effect” on the northern spotted owl. The FWS concurred 

in the BA after holding several team meetings that included 

biologists from the Forest Service and the FWS. (Id. at 4055.) 

The FWS also conducted an independent review and analysis of the 

project, including information in the BA, several site visits, 

the Recovery Plan, the Final NSO Critical Habitat Rule, available 

peer-reviewed scientific literature, information in the EIS, and 

additional information and clarification from the Forest Service 

Case 2:15-cv-00249-WBS-AC Document 49 Filed 02/24/16 Page 22 of 24
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

pertaining to the Harris Project. (Id. at 4056.) The FWS 

clearly articulated a reasonable connection between the facts 

found and its concurrence in the Forest Service’s determination 

that the Harris Project is not likely to adversely affect the 

northern spotted owl. The court must therefore deny plaintiff’s 

motion for summary judgment on its ESA claim against the FWS and 

grant defendants’ motion. 

E. National Forest Management Act Claims

Plaintiff concludes by arguing that in failing to

comply with the Recovery Plan defendants also violated NFMA. 

Under NFMA, the Forest Service must develop a forest plan for 

each unit of National Forest System. 16 U.S.C. § 1604(a). After 

a forest plan is developed, all subsequent agency action, 

including site-specific plans such as the Harris Project, must 

comply with NFMA and be consistent with the governing forest 

plan. Id. at § 1604(i); see also The Lands Council v. McNair, 

537 F.3d 981, 988-89 (9th Cir. 2008). In this case, the ShastaTrinity National Forest land and resource management plan 

provides that the Forest Service must “maintain and/or enhance 

habitat for” threatened, endangered, and sensitive “species 

consistent with individual species recovery plans.” (AR at 

11112.) The forest plan therefore incorporates the northern 

spotted owl Recovery Plan. As discussed above, see supra II.D.2, 

the Harris Project is consistent with the northern spotted owl

Recovery Plan and Recovery Action 10. Accordingly, the court 

must find that defendants did not violate NFMA or the forest 

plan. 

For all of the foregoing reasons, IT IS THEREFORE 

Case 2:15-cv-00249-WBS-AC Document 49 Filed 02/24/16 Page 23 of 24
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

ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 

32) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED and defendants’ motion

(Docket No. 41) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.

Dated: February 23, 2016

Case 2:15-cv-00249-WBS-AC Document 49 Filed 02/24/16 Page 24 of 24