Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-02250/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-02250-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Citizens for Better Forestry
Plaintiff
Conservation Congress
Plaintiff
Sharon Heywood
Defendant
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

CONSERVATION CONGRESS and 

CITIZENS FOR BETTER FORESTRY,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SHARON HEYWOOD, UNITED 

STATES FOREST SERVICE, and 

UNITED STATES FISH AND 

WILDLIFE SERVICE

Defendants.

No. 2:11-cv-02250-MCE-CMK

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This case arises out of the approval of the Gemmill Thin Project (also referred to 

as the “Project”) in the Shasta-Trinity National Forest (“STNF”) by Defendants United 

States Forest Service, Forest Supervisor Sharon Heywood1 (collectively “USFS”), and 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”) (collectively “Defendants”). According to 

Plaintiffs Conservation Congress and Citizens for Better Forestry (collectively 

“Plaintiffs”), Defendants violated the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), the National 

Forest Management Act (“NFMA”), the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), the 

Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), and the statutes’ implementing regulations. More 

 1 In July 2013, David R. Myers assumed the role of Forest Supervisor and has substituted into this 

litigation for Sharon Heywood pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d). 

Case 2:11-cv-02250-MCE-CMK Document 41 Filed 09/09/15 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

27

28

2

specifically, Plaintiffs contend that the Project will significantly impact the habitat for the 

Northern Spotted Owl (also referred to as “NSO” or the “Owl”),2 a threatened species 

under the ESA.3 Currently before the Court are Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment 

(ECF No. 24), Defendants’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 29), and 

Defendants’ Motion to Strike (ECF No. 28). On April 23, 2015, the Court held a hearing

on these Motions before taking them under submission. This Memorandum and Order 

serves as the Court’s formal ruling on the pending Motions and supersedes anything 

said during the hearing. For the reasons stated below, Defendants’ Cross-Motion for 

Summary Judgment is GRANTED, Defendants’ Motion to Strike is GRANTED, and 

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. 

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

A. Endangered Species Act (ESA)

Once a species is listed as threatened or endangered, the Secretary of the 

Interior (through the FWS) typically designates critical habitat. 16 U.S.C. 

§ 1533(a)(3)(A). As relevant here, critical habitat is the specific areas within the 

geographical areas occupied by the species at the time of listing on which are found the 

physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species and which 

may require special management. Id. § 1532(5)(A)(i). Critical habitat designation does 

not place the land “off-limits” to projects or development; it requires federal agencies to 

ensure that their actions will not destroy or “adversely modify” the value of the critical 

 2 The NSO is a medium-sized owl with dark eyes, dark-to-chestnut brown coloring, with whitish 

spots on the head and neck and white mottling on the abdomen and breast. The NSO inhabits structurally 

complex forests from southwest British Columbia through the Cascade Mountains and coastal ranges in 

Washington, Oregon, and California (as far south as Marin County). First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), 

ECF No. 18, ¶ 94. 

3 An “endangered species” is “any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all of a 

significant portion of its range.” 16 U.S.C. § 1532(6). A “threatened species” is “any species which is 

likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion 

of its range.” Id. § 1532(20). The FWS listed the NSO as a threatened species in 1990. 55 Fed. Reg. 

26114 (June 26, 1990). 

Case 2:11-cv-02250-MCE-CMK Document 41 Filed 09/09/15 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

27

28

3

habitat designation for the conservation of the species. Id. § 1536(a)(2). 

For each listed species, the Secretary of the Interior also typically develops a 

recovery plan that describes site-specific management actions necessary to achieve the 

conservation and survival of the species and includes objective, measurable criteria for 

when the species should be removed from the endangered or threatened list. Id.

§ 1533(f)(1)(B). While useful in evaluating an action’s impact on the species’ recovery, 

“recovery plan objectives are discretionary for federal agencies.” Cascadia Wildlands v. 

U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, No. 6:13-cv-1559-TC, 2014 WL 2872008, at *4 

(D. Or. June 24, 2014). 

Under Section 7(a)(2) of the Act, each federal agency, in consultation with FWS, 

must ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the agency is not likely 

to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species, or result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of the designated critical habitat of the species. 16 U.S.C. 

§ 1536(a)(2). In fulfilling this obligation, each agency is required to “use the best 

scientific and commercial data available.” Id. To assist agencies in complying with this 

provision, the ESA regulations set out a detailed consultation process for determining 

the biological impacts of a proposed activity. 16 U.S.C. § 1536; 50 C.F.R. §§ 402.01-

402.16. The action agency (here USFS) may prepare a biological assessment to 

evaluate the potential effects of a proposed action. 50 C.F.R. § 402.12(a). 

At the conclusion of the formal consultation process, FWS issues a “biological 

opinion” detailing how the proposed action will affect the listed species. 16 U.S.C. 

§ 1536(b)(3)(A). The two key conclusions of a biological opinion are (1) whether the 

proposed action will jeopardize the continued existence of the species and (2) whether 

the proposed action will destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. 16 U.S.C. 

§ 1536(a)(2). If FWS determines that there will be take of individual species members 

that is incidental to the agency action and does not rise to the level of jeopardizing the 

species, FWS issues an incidental take statement that specifies the impact of such 

taking on the species. Id. § 1536(b)(4). It will also set forth the reasonable and prudent 

Case 2:11-cv-02250-MCE-CMK Document 41 Filed 09/09/15 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

27

28

4

measures proscribed to minimize that impact, and terms and conditions to implement 

those measures. Id.

After consultation on an action has been completed, an agency may be required 

to reinitiate formal Section 7 consultation under certain circumstances. Reinitiation of 

formal consultation is required “where discretionary Federal involvement or control over 

the action has been retained or is authorized by law” and one of four conditions is met, 

including: “(b) If new information reveals effects of the action that may affect listed 

species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not previously considered; . . . or 

(d) If a new species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected by the 

identified action.” 50 C.F.R. § 402.16. 

B. National Forest Management Act 

The USFS manages the National Forests pursuant to the NFMA and its 

implementing regulations, which provide for forest planning and management at two 

levels: the forest-wide level and the individual project level. See 16 U.S.C. § 1604. At 

the forest level, the USFS develops a forest plan, which is a broad, long-term planning 

document for an administrative unit of the National Forest System. A forest plan 

establishes planning goals and objectives for management of forest resources. Id.

§ 1604(g)(1)-(3). At the project level, site-specific projects must be consistent with the 

applicable forest plan. Id. § 1604(i); Idaho Sporting Cong., Inc. v. Rittenhouse, 305 F.3d 

957, 962 (9th Cir. 2002). 

C. National Environmental Policy Act

NEPA serves the dual purpose of informing agency decision-makers of the 

environmental effects of proposed Federal actions and ensuring that relevant information 

is made available to the public so that it “may also play a role in both the decisionmaking process and the implementation of that decision.” Robertson v. Methow Valley 

Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 349 (1989). NEPA does not mandate particular results 

or impose substantive environmental obligations on federal agencies. Id. at 351-52. 

Instead, NEPA ensures “that [an] agency will not act on incomplete information, only to 

Case 2:11-cv-02250-MCE-CMK Document 41 Filed 09/09/15 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

27

28

5

regret its decision after it is too late to correct.” Marsh v. Or. Natural Res. Council, 

490 U.S. 360, 371 (1989). NEPA requires the preparation of an environmental impact 

statement (“EIS”) for “major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the 

human environment . . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 4332(C). In reviewing NEPA decisions, courts 

evaluate whether the analysis includes a “reasonably thorough discussion of the 

significant aspects of the probable environmental consequences.” California v. Block, 

690 F.2d 753, 761 (9th Cir. 1982) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Fire Policy Background 

Many years of federal fire suppression policy and prior timber harvests have 

converted mixed conifer forests into overcrowded forest stands comprised of shadetolerant, fire-susceptible tree species. Defs.’ Cross-Mot., ECF No. 29, at 1. The fire 

suppression policy excluded most low and moderate intensity fires from the National 

Forests and greatly increased the average time between fires. While the fire 

suppression efforts themselves were successful, the effect of these efforts was 

unanticipated. Id. at 5. Fuel loadings accumulated above historic levels and the 

characteristics and distribution of the forests changed. Id. Fires that previously burned 

at low to moderate intensities can now use the dense understory to quickly move up into 

the canopy layer. Id. These fires are risky to fight and can result in a substantial loss to 

forest structure. Id. at 5-6. 

B. Gemmill Thin Project 

There are 21 Late-Successional Reserves (“LSR”) within the STNF. Id. at 6. 

They were established by the Northwest Forest Plan to protect and enhance latesuccessional and old-growth forest ecosystems that serve as habitats for, among other 

species, the NSO. Id. The Chanchellula LSR in the STNF covers 26,389 acres. Id.

///

Case 2:11-cv-02250-MCE-CMK Document 41 Filed 09/09/15 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

27

28

6

The USFS conducted an LSR Assessment (“LSRA”) and determined that the 

Chanchellula LSR was at risk for a “catastrophic stand-replacing fire” due to the effects 

of previous fire suppression efforts. Id. Overcrowded stands were also suppressing 

additional growth of large trees and causing delay in the development of old-growth 

habitat. Id. The vigor of old trees was reduced as they competed with smaller trees for 

limited resources. Id. The conditions left the ecosystem more prone to disease and less 

resistant to fire. Id. 

In an attempt to remedy these issues, the USFS approved the Gemmill Thin 

Project in April 2011. The purposes of the project are to “reduce the risk of losing 

existing and developing late-successional habitat due to wildfire,” to “restore the use of 

fire as a tool to maintain lower fuel loading,” and to “encourage or accelerate the 

development of continuous late-successional and old growth habitat.” GAR 143.4

 

“Although the Project Area is rated as low to moderate for fire risk and fire hazard under 

the STNF Fire Management Plan, . . . the ‘[s]ystem [is] predisposed to high risk of losing 

key ecosystem components’ due to its high departure from historic fire return interval 

and severity.” Defs.’ Cross-Mot. at 6-7 (quoting GAR 1365, 178-79). Moreover, the 

Project Area has a “high value” in terms of “monetary worth and non-monetary values 

such as wildlife habitat and scenery.” GAR 1365. 

The Project is not intended to prevent wildfires. Defs.’ Cross-Mot. at 7. To the 

contrary, the USFS recognizes that wildfire is an important component of latesuccessional forests. GAR 194. Instead, the Project strategically places treatments to 

protect the highest quality and best habitat, with the goal of changing fire behavior from 

a destructive, severe, hard-to-control fire, to a fire that it safer to fight with a lower flame 

length and a slower rate of spread. GAR 183, 186, 188. Modeling indicates that the 

treatments employed by the Project will provide risk reduction benefits extending up to 

50 years. GAR 210-13. In its final iteration, “[t]he Project proposes silvicultural 

 4 All citations to “GAR” refer to Gemmill Thin Project Administrative Record, which was lodged with 

this Court on October 28, 2014. ECF No. 20. 

Case 2:11-cv-02250-MCE-CMK Document 41 Filed 09/09/15 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

27

28

7

treatments designed to move the forest toward one that is more resilient against wildfire 

and other potentially large-scale disturbances, such as insect infestation and disease.” 

Defs.’ Cross-Mot. at 1. “The Project is also designed to encourage development of oldgrowth habitat – the most valuable type of habitat for the owl – in mature forests whose 

growth has stagnated due to the competition for resources among many small trees.” Id. 

C. Project Analysis, the Consultation Process, and Project Approval 

It took a number of years and multiple rounds of consultation before the Gemmill 

Thin Project was finally approved. The STNF first published its intent to pursue the 

project in 2005. In December 2007, the USFS prepared its initial biological assessment, 

and the FWS issued its original biological opinion the following March. In April 2009, a 

final environmental impact statement was issued, as was a Record of Decision (“ROD”) 

approving “Alternative One” of the project. This original ROD was reversed on 

administrative appeal due to an inadequate range of alternatives analyzed. 

On remand, additional alternatives were analyzed and a Final Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement (“FSEIS”) was issued in April 2011. The USFS and the 

FWS engaged in formal consultation, after which the FWS concluded that the Gemmill 

Thin Project was not likely to jeopardize the NSO or adversely modify its designated 

critical habitat. A new ROD was signed in April 2011 based on the amendments to the 

FSEIS. GAR 110. In that ROD, the USFS selected Alternative Four over Alternative 

One, but the effects to the Northern Spotted Owl remained the same. 

In June 2011, however, the FWS issued a Revised Recovery Plan (“RRP”) for the 

NSO. The RRP described additional management concerns and threats (specifically,

barred owls and wildfire) that were not emphasized to the same extent in previous 

recovery plans. GAR 22356. The RPP also recommended “conserving occupied 

spotted owl sites throughout the range, especially those containing the habitat conditions 

to support successful reproduction.” GAR 11436. On August 24, 2011, Plaintiffs filed 

this action, seeking a declaration from the Court that Defendants’ approval of the Project 

violates the noted environmental laws and asking the Court to enjoin Defendants from 

Case 2:11-cv-02250-MCE-CMK Document 41 Filed 09/09/15 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

27

28

8

proceeding with the Project until they comply with those laws. Compl., ECF No. 1, 

¶ 114. 

In approximately December 2012, however, a Final Rule was issued revising the 

NSO’s critical habitat. Given these changes, the USFS requested reinitiation of 

consultation with the FWS in March 2012.5 In August of that year, USFS and FWS met 

to identify potential modification to the Gemmill Thin Project design that would further 

reduce effects to NSOs and their habitat and incorporate the goals of the RRP and the 

2012 revised critical habitat rule. The USFS subsequently modified the Project.6 

As modified, the project proposes the thinning of 829 acres of dense latesuccessional forest stands, 225 acres of mixed conifer forest to reconstruct a 30-year-old 

ridgetop fuelbreak, and 39 acres of 20-year old plantations. GAR 10549. It now omits 

221 acres of planned treatments in nesting/roosting habitat in both the “new” and historic 

Halls City Creek Owl core areas.7

 Id. Diameter limitations have been placed on trees 

that may be removed in another 127 acres in these areas.8 Road reconstruction was 

reduced by 5.6 miles, and additional protection measures were imposed on all Project 

units. Id.; GAR 10662-664.

The USFS then prepared a new 2013 Biological Assessment (“Biological 

Assessment”) to analyze the Project as modified. GAR 10649. That document provides 

a comprehensive look at NSO “use and status in each activity center and Owl habitat in 

 5 This action was stayed by stipulation of the parties and order of the Court during the reinitiation 

of consultation. See ECF No. 16. 

6 Defendants opted to modify the Project based on the recommendations in the RRP, but the 

Court notes that throughout the RRP there are multiple statements indicating those recommendations are

not mandatory. See, e.g., GAR 11375-76 (“Recovery plans are not regulatory documents; rather, they are 

created by the Service as guidance to bring about recovery and establish criteria to be used in evaluating 

when recovery has been achieved.”). 

7 “Core areas” are areas of concentrated owl use in a home range and commonly includes nest 

and roost sites. GAR 10665. For the purposes of this project, a core area is determined by creating a .5 

mile radius around an owl activity center. Id. 

8 These limits require retaining all trees greater than 18 inches in diameter at breast height (“dbh”) 

in nesting/roosting habitat and all trees greater than 24 inches dbh in foraging habitat. Id. 

Case 2:11-cv-02250-MCE-CMK Document 41 Filed 09/09/15 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

27

28

9

the area, competition from barred owls, and the fire modeling results used to compare 

the impacts to owl habitat from no treatment and the proposed treatments.” Defs.’ 

Cross-Mot. at 8. The USFS also performed individual analyses of Project impacts to 

each owl activity center, including impacts on prey and competitors like the barred owl. 

The Biological Assessment ultimately “concluded that the Project would likely adversely 

affect the owl because it would degrade 619 acres of nesting/roosting habitat and 316 

acres of foraging habitat.” Id. (citing GAR 10717). “However, the probability of losing 

owl habitat to fire would be reduced and direct harm or disturbance to breeding activities 

would be avoided with a limited operating period [(“LOP”)].”9 Id. “Similarly, while the 

Project would adversely affect designated critical habitat in the area, it would not impede 

the functionality of the designation or the critical habitat’s ability to support owl recovery.” 

Id. 

In response, the FWS prepared a new 2014 Biological Opinion (“BiOp”), 

concluding again that “the Project is not likely to jeopardize the owl or result in adverse 

modification of designated critical habitat.” Defs.’ Cross-Mot. at 9 (citing GAR 10623). 

The FWS’s “no jeopardy” conclusion turned on the facts that: (1) the proposed 

treatments avoid direct impacts during the breeding season; (2) the adverse effects of 

habitat degradation are short-term and impact less than 10% of the total suitable habitat 

in the action area; and (3) the Project will result in long-term benefits to the owl, including 

retention of late-successional features and a lowered likelihood of habitat loss due to 

stand replacing fire. Id. It reached its “no adverse modification” conclusion because: 

(1) “the Project will not result in a change to habitat function at the localized level”; and 

(2) “the adverse effects to habitat function are not significant at the broader provincial 

and range-wide levels.” Id. The FWS nonetheless authorized an incidental take in the 

 9 As relevant here, LOPs are intended to “minimize or avoid adverse effects to the spotted owl.” 

GAR 10572. “From February 1 to July 10, [LOPs] prohibit all loud and continuous noise (i.e., chainsaws, 

yarders, and loaders) and heavy smoke-generating activities within 0.25 mile of known occupied or unsurveyed suitable habitat.” Id. “In addition, [LOPs] prohibit all vegetation removal/cutting/burning from 

February 1 – September 15 within known occupied or unsurveyed suitable habitat.” Id. 

Case 2:11-cv-02250-MCE-CMK Document 41 Filed 09/09/15 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

27

28

10

form of harassment of one pair of adult owls in the “new” Halls City Creek area because 

Project effects may alter the owls’ behavioral patterns (for example, by shifting foraging 

activity or by potentially reducing the individuals’ fitness). GAR 10625. 

In May 2014, the USFS issued a Supplemental Information Report (“SIR”) 

recommending that the Project go forward as modified. GAR 10545. The SIR stated: 

[T]he conclusions drawn pertaining to the selected alternative 

in the Record of Decision (2011) are still valid and fully 

supported by the reinitiation of consultation with FWS . . . 

[T]he Gemmill Thin Project, as modified, will meet the project 

objectives and remain within the range of environmental 

effects analyzed and documented in the FSEIS. The project 

modifications described . . . are not substantial, the effects of 

project treatments to northern spotted owl and its critical 

habitat have been analyzed in the FSEIS and Biological 

Assessment and confirmed by subsequent analysis, and the 

project’s effects (as modified) remains well within the range of 

actions considered in the FSEIS . . . [A]lthough there is new 

information regarding barred owls in the project area and the 

relocation of a northern spotted owl pair, that new information 

does not suggest the project will affect the environment in a 

significant manner or to a significant extent not already 

considered. The effects to northern spotted owls are 

expected to be similar to or less than what was originally 

analyzed, in part because of the additional protections 

developed through consultation with FWS. 

Based upon revising the interdisciplinary team input there are 

no significant new circumstances or information relevant to 

environmental concern and impacts associated with the 

project. Implementation of the Record of Decision (2011) as 

now modified should continue. The analysis above shows 

that the project, as modified, will not affect the environment in 

a significant manner or to a significant extent not already 

considered in the FSEIS. The project, as modified will move 

the area toward the desired condition, meet the purpose and 

need, and provide both short and long term benefits to 

northern spotted owl. No additional review or analysis is 

necessary at this point in time. Supplemental NEPA analysis 

of the project modifications is not warranted. The project 

should proceed as planned. 

GAR 10561-62. This action resumed in July 2014 and these motions followed. 

///

///

///

///

Case 2:11-cv-02250-MCE-CMK Document 41 Filed 09/09/15 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

27

28

11

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Review of Plaintiffs’ ESA, NEPA, and NFMA claims is governed by the APA. 

5 U.S.C. §§ 701-06; San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Auth. v. Jewell, 747 F.3d 581, 601 

(9th Cir. 2014) (ESA); Inland Empire Pub. Lands Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 88 F.3d 

754, 760 n.5 (9th Cir. 2005) (NEPA and NFMA). Pursuant to the APA, “[a] person 

suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by 

agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute, is entitled to judicial review 

thereof.” 5 U.S.C. § 702. “[T]he reviewing court shall . . . hold unlawful and set aside 

agency actions, findings, and conclusions found to be . . . arbitrary, capricious, or an 

abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law,” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), or 

that are “without observance or procedure required by law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(D). 

The Court’s task “is to determine whether the [agency] has considered the 

relevant factors and articulated a rational connection between the facts found and the 

choice made.” Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 462 U.S. 87, 105 

(1983). A reviewing court is required to review “the whole record or those parts of it cited 

by a party.” 5 U.S.C. § 706. An agency’s review is arbitrary and capricious if it fails to 

consider important aspects of the issues before it, if it supports its decisions with 

explanations contrary to the evidence, or if its decision is either inherently implausible or 

contrary to governing law. Lands Council v. Powell, 395 F.3d 1019, 1026 (9th Cir. 

2005). Review under the APA is “searching and careful.” Ocean Advocates v. U.S. 

Army Corps of Eng’rs, 402 F.3d 846, 858 (9th Cir. 2004). However, a court may not 

substitute its own judgment for that of the agency. Id. In reviewing an agency’s actions, 

the standard to be employed is decidedly deferential to the agency’s expertise. Salmon 

River Concerned Citizens v. Robertson, 32 F.3d 1346, 1356 (9th Cir. 1994).

///

///

///

Case 2:11-cv-02250-MCE-CMK Document 41 Filed 09/09/15 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

27

28

12

ANALYSIS

Plaintiffs contend that, despite the Project modifications USFS implemented after 

reinitiation of consultation with the FWS, Defendants’ project as approved still violates 

the ESA, NFMA, and NEPA. Based on review of the administrative record, the Court 

rejects each of Plaintiffs’ arguments.

10 

A. The Court Will Only Consider Evidence Contained in the 

Administrative Record.

Before turning to the merits, the Court must address Plaintiffs’ reliance on two 

extra-record declarations: the declaration of Monica Bond (ECF No. 24-5) and the 

declaration of Denise Boggs (ECF No. 24-4). Monica Bond is a wildlife biologist who has 

“been involved in spotted owl research and conservation for the past 15 years.” Bond 

Decl., ECF No. 24-5, ¶ 4. In her 30-page declaration, Ms. Bond presents arguments, 

based on her reading of the FSEIS and the BiOp, regarding what the Court should 

consider in deciding whether to grant or deny Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment. 

Defendants have filed a Motion to Strike the Bond Declaration in its entirety. ECF 

No. 28. Ms. Boggs is the Executive Director of Plaintiff Conservation Congress and her

declaration primarily concerns Plaintiffs’ standing to bring this action. However, in two 

paragraphs, Ms. Boggs opines on the potential danger to the NSO if the Project goes 

forward. See Boggs Decl., ECF No. 24-4, ¶¶ 5, 8. Defendants object to the inclusion of 

these paragraphs. 

Generally, “[p]arties may not use ‘post-decision information as a new 

rationalization either for sustaining or attacking the Agency's decision.’” Ctr. for 

Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 450 F.3d 930, 943 (9th Cir. 2006) 

 10 Plaintiffs argue they have standing to pursue the instant claims. See Pls.’ Mot. at 17. “An 

association has standing to bring suit on behalf of its members when its members would otherwise have 

standing to sue in their own right, the interests at stake are germane to the organization’s purpose, and 

neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires individual members’ participation in the 

lawsuit.” Friends of Earth v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., 528 U.S. 167, 180-181 (2000). Defendants do not 

contest standing, which is also supported by the record. 

Case 2:11-cv-02250-MCE-CMK Document 41 Filed 09/09/15 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

27

28

13

(quoting Ass'n of Pac. Fisheries v. EPA, 615 F.2d 794, 811–12 (9th Cir. 1980)). Review 

under the APA “is to be based on the full administrative record that was before the 

[agency] at the time [it] made [its] decision.” Citizens to Pres. Overton Park v. Volpe, 

401 U.S. 402, 420 (1971). Plaintiffs nonetheless argue that the Bond and Boggs 

Declarations should be considered under APA exceptions, a NEPA exception, and an 

ESA citizen suit exception, and to show irreparable harm. None of these arguments are

well taken. 

1. APA Exceptions

There are four narrowly-construed exceptions to the APA’s administrative record

requirement: (1) if the extra-record information is necessary to determine whether the 

agency has considered all relevant factors and has explained its decision; (2) when the 

agency has relied on documents not in the record; (3) when supplementing the record is 

necessary to explain technical terms or complex subject matter; and (4) when plaintiffs 

make a showing of agency bad faith. Id. Plaintiffs have the burden of showing that an 

exception applies. When the documents were filed, Plaintiffs did not claim that the 

declarations fell under an APA exception.11 They now claim in their Opposition to the 

Motion to Strike that exceptions one and three apply.

12

The Court finds that the challenged extra-record statements do not fall under 

these exceptions because they are not “necessary to determine whether the agency 

considered all of the relevant factors,” or “to explain technical or complex subject matter.” 

The information presented by Bond and Boggs “can either be extracted from the record 

or is not necessary to this court's review” of the merits of the BiOp, Biological 

Assessment and FSEIS. Southwest Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Forest Service, 

100 F.3d 1443, 1451 (9th Cir. 1996). Indeed, the material contained within the Bond 

 11 In their Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiffs generally noted that an exception to the extrarecord evidence rule applied because two of Plaintiffs’ claims were brought pursuant to the ESA’s citizen 

suit provision. Pls.’ Mot. at 16-17. That argument is discussed below. 

12 Notably, Plaintiffs were provided an opportunity to object to the contents of the AR at the 

beginning of this case and did not note any deficiencies. See ECF No. 21, ¶¶ 3-5. 

Case 2:11-cv-02250-MCE-CMK Document 41 Filed 09/09/15 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

27

28

14

Declaration is either cumulative of data already present in the RRP (namely, studies on 

the effect of fire on NSO) or is based on post-decision information. See Bond Decl. 

¶¶ 24, 25 (citing studies from 2014 when the BiOp was published in January 2014). As 

a whole, the declarations can accurately be characterized as “extra-record scientific 

opinion and argument submitted to undermine [the agency’s] analyses and conclusions.” 

Nw. Envtl. Def. Ctr. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 817 F. Supp. 2d 1290, 1301 

(D. Or. 2011). Extra-record declarations that challenge the merits of the agency’s 

decision do not fall under any exception. Environmental Def. Fund v. Costle, 657 F.2d 

275, 286 (D.C. Cir. 1981). 

2. NEPA Exception

Plaintiffs go on to argue that since one of the claims was brought under NEPA, an 

additional exception applies. “An allegation that an EIS has failed to mention a serious 

environmental consequence may be sufficient to permit the introduction of new evidence 

outside of the administrative record.” Animal Def. Council v. Hodel, 840 F.2d 1432, 1437 

(9th Cir. 1988). Additionally, the Court may consider extra-record evidence in a NEPA 

case when the EIS “failed adequately to discuss some reasonable alternative, or 

otherwise swept stubborn problems or serious criticism under the rug.” Nat’l Audubon 

Soc’y v. U.S. Forest Serv., 46 F.3d 1437, 1447 (9th Cir. 1993). 

In application, this exception does not differ greatly from exceptions one and three 

of the APA discussed above, as both pertain to whether the declarations can point to a 

matter the agency should have considered but did not. Once again, Plaintiffs argue that 

Defendants did not adequately consider the effect of fires on owl populations. Plaintiffs 

also claim that the declarations discuss: (1) short-term risks to owls from commercial 

logging; (2) the fact that NSO territories in the Project Area are below the FWS’s

thresholds; and (3) the interaction between barred owls and NSO. However, these 

statements are made in passing and are not the main focus of the declaration. The main 

focus of the declaration is that fire does not pose a threat to the spotted owl and 

therefore thinning will not benefit the species and will, in fact, harm it. This information is 

Case 2:11-cv-02250-MCE-CMK Document 41 Filed 09/09/15 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

27

28

15

cumulative of information contained within the record and considered by Defendants in 

the SIR to the FSEIS. GAR 10561. 

3. Citizen Suit Exception 

Plaintiffs next argue that extra-record information can be considered because the 

ESA claims in this case were brought under the citizen suit provision. Plaintiffs rely on a 

Ninth Circuit opinion, Western Watersheds Project v. Kraayenbrink, 632 F.3d 472 

(2010), for the proposition that the “APA applies only where there is ‘no other adequate 

remedy in a court,’ 5 U.S.C. § 704, and—because the ESA provides a citizen suit 

remedy—the APA does not apply in such actions . . . Therefore . . . [the Court] may 

consider evidence outside the administrative record for the limited purposes of reviewing 

Plaintiffs’ ESA claim.” Id. at 497. 

District courts have come out to different conclusions on whether Kraayenbrink

has created a broad exception to the APA extra-record rule for citizen suits. Compare

Or. Natural Desert Ass’n v. Kimbell, 593 F. Supp. 2d 1213, 1216 (D. Or. 2008) and 

Wildearth Guardians v. U.S. Fed. Emergency Managemt. Agency, No. CV 10-863-PHXMHM, 2011 WL 905656, at *3 (D. Ariz. Mar. 15, 2011) (finding that the APA rule no 

longer applies) with Pacific Rivers Council v. Shepard, No. 03:11-cv-422-HU, 2012 WL 

950032, at *3 (D. Or. Mar. 20, 2012) and Nw. Envtl. Def. Ctr. v. U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, 817 F. Supp. 2d 1290, 1300-01 (D. Or. 2011) (not addressing Kraayenbrink

and applying the APA standard and exceptions). It is not necessary for this Court to 

address any possible effect of Kraayenbrink may have on decades of established APA 

case law because even if the Court were to find that the Kraayenbrink decision created a 

new broad exemption for citizen suits from the APA extra-record rule, the documents in 

this case would still be excluded given the nature of the claims brought in the suit and 

the contents of the declaration. 

The citizen suit provision can only be brought to enforce agency obligations and 

cannot be used to question a discretionary action. Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 172 

(1997). Claims of maladministration of the ESA must be brought under the APA; a citizen 

Case 2:11-cv-02250-MCE-CMK Document 41 Filed 09/09/15 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

27

28

16

suit is only appropriate if the ESA regulations are violated in a way that would subject the 

regulated party to criminal or civil enforcement. Id. at 174, 175. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ first 

ESA claim, which challenges the merits of the BiOp, can only be brought under the APA. 

Plaintiffs’ second ESA claim, which alleges that the Forest Service violated the 

ESA in the Biological Assessment, can be brought pursuant to the citizen suit provision. 

However, any extra-record material admitted would have to be related to this claim about 

the Biological Assessment. Ms. Bond’s declaration is based on the BiOp and FSEIS and 

not the Biological Assessment. In fact, Ms. Bond states that she did not even review the 

Biological Assessment. See Bond Decl. ¶ 12. Therefore, this extra-record evidence is 

not related to the one possible ESA citizen suit claim in this action and cannot be 

admitted under a potential “citizen suit exemption.” 

4. Irreparable Harm

Finally, Plaintiffs argue that the declarations should be admitted because they 

show irreparable harm, which the Court must consider because Plaintiffs are requesting 

permanent injunctive relief. The Ninth Circuit case cited by Plaintiffs for this proposition, 

Idaho Watersheds Project v. Hahn, 307 F.3d 815, 833-34 (9th Cir. 2002), concerns 

permanent injunction proceedings that occurred after a violation of NEPA was found. 

Because no violations of NEPA, ESA, and NFMA occurred in this case, the issue of 

injunctive relief need not be reached and no extra-record declarations will be admitted 

for this purpose. 

Accordingly, none of Plaintiffs’ arguments are persuasive, and Defendants’ Motion 

to Strike is GRANTED. The Bond Declaration, the noted passages in the Boggs 

Declaration, and any references to this stricken material in Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary 

Judgment are hereby stricken.

13 Because the Court grants Defendants’ Motion to Strike,

it also will not consider the rebuttal declarations provided by Defendants with their 

Motion to Strike. See ECF Nos. 28-3, 28-4. 

 13 Regardless, even had the Court considered the challenged evidence, the result in this case 

would have been the same. It is clear that Defendants diligently complied with federal requirements 

before approving the Project. 

Case 2:11-cv-02250-MCE-CMK Document 41 Filed 09/09/15 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

27

28

17

B. The FWS Did Not Violate the ESA.

Plaintiffs make three general arguments with respect to their claims against FWS 

under the ESA: (1) the FWS failed to use the best scientific data available in the 

consultation documents; (2) the FWS’s 2014 BiOp is arbitrary and capricious; and (3) the 

FWS failed to ensure that the Project will not result in the “destruction or adverse 

modification” of critical habitat. After reviewing the Administrative Record, the Court 

concludes that while Plaintiffs’ may disagree with the Defendants’ findings, those 

findings are sound. 

1. The FWS relied upon the best scientific and commercial data 

available. 

Under the ESA, agencies are required to base their consultations on “the best 

scientific and commercial data available.” 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2). “The determination of 

what constitutes the ‘best scientific data available’ belongs to the agency's ‘special 

expertise . . . . When examining this kind of scientific determination, as opposed to 

simple findings of fact, a reviewing court must generally be at its most deferential.’” 

San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Auth., 747 F.3d at 602 (quoting Baltimore Gas & Elec. 

Co., 462 U.S. at 103). “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.” Kern Cnty. Farm Bureau v. Allen, 450 F.3d 1072, 1080 (9th Cir. 

2006) (internal quotations omitted). “Essentially, [the agencies] cannot ignore available 

biological information.” Id. at 1080-81 (internal quotations omitted). Plaintiffs contend 

that Defendants failed to rely on the best scientific and commercial data available 

because they failed to fully consider RRP recommendations and the Project’s fire risks 

and benefits.

///

///

///

///

Case 2:11-cv-02250-MCE-CMK Document 41 Filed 09/09/15 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

27

28

18

a. The FWS fully considered RRP recommendations.

Plaintiffs’ first argument with respect to the RRP is that the Project will simplify 

stand structure and thus runs contrary to the recommendations in Recovery Action 32.14 

However, while there will be some vertical stand simplification since some understory 

fuels will be removed, the Project is specifically designed to maintain stand complexity 

and the oldest/largest conifers. GAR 10691-92; GAR 10572-73. Indeed, the BiOp 

makes clear that: 

Starting as soon as is safe and practicable after the start of 

project implementation, STNF will coordinate closely with the 

Service, to ensure that anticipated stand conditions are being 

met. This will involve field visits and subsequent close 

coordination with the biologist project contract administrator. 

Of special interest are the treatments within NSO core areas 

and the retention mosaics of shrubs and sub-merchantable 

conifers. This coordination is the best way to ensure the 

desired habitat conditions, as well as the purpose and need, 

would be met. We determined that method is appropriate 

because shrub and small conifer site-specific data is not 

available and the density of these habitat components varies 

greatly within the proposed thinning units, making specific 

marking guidelines challenging to write and implement from 

written direction alone.

GAR 10573. 

Moreover, not only did the FWS consider the RRP recommendations, it modified 

the Project to better conform to those recommendations by focusing on “treating around 

high quality habitat within occupied core areas and to minimize the amount of treatment 

in these critical areas.” GAR 10614. Plaintiffs argue that even after modification, the 

Project treatment still occurs within both NSO activity centers and nesting/roosting 

habitat. See Pls.’ Reply, ECF No. 30, at 3 (citing GAR 10549, 10621). However, 

Plaintiffs ignore the fact that while the treatment may occur in high quality habitat, no 

nesting/roosting habitat will be impacted in any of the “occupied” areas. GAR 10606-11. 

 14 Recovery Action 32 states: “Because spotted owl recovery requires well distributed, older and 

more structurally complex multi-layered conifer forests on Federal and non-federal lands across its range, 

land managers should work with the Service as described . . . to maintain and restore such habitat while 

allowing for other threats, such as fire and insects, to be addressed by restoration management actions. 

These high-quality spotted owl habitat stands are characterized as having large diameter trees, high

amounts of canopy cover, and decadence components such as broken-topped live trees, mistletoe, 

cavities, large snags, and fallen trees.” GAR 11461. 

Case 2:11-cv-02250-MCE-CMK Document 41 Filed 09/09/15 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

27

28

19

Additionally, the FWS uses project design features to maintain habitat function, and 

specifically found that these project design features accord with the RRP 

recommendation to retain high quality habitat. GAR 10614. 

Plaintiffs next argue that the short-term Project effects run contrary to Recovery 

Action 10. Plaintiffs imply that because that action item recommends “[c]onserv[ing] 

spotted owl sites and high value spotted owl habitat to provide additional demographic 

support to the spotted owl population,” GAR 11437, the Project should not have 

authorized the incidental take of one pair of owls in the New Halls City Creek area or the 

degradation of roosting/nesting habitat. Pls.’ Mot., ECF No. 24, at 3-4. However, in 

response to the RRP recommendations, among other things, the Project was modified to 

reduce the impacts to both the currently unoccupied historic and new Halls City Creek 

activity centers. Plaintiffs similarly make much of the statement in the RRP that: 

The [Fish & Wildlife] Service recommends conserving 

occupied spotted owl sites throughout the range, especially 

those containing the habitat conditions to support successful 

reproduction. This recommendation is especially important in 

the short-term, until spotted owl population trends improve 

(Forsman et al. 2011).

GAR011436. However, they ignore additional clarification by the FWS in that same 

section: 

Where the modeling output and/or examination on the ground 

indicate that 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. However, such a process should occur 

where a determination is made that these longer term goals 

outweigh short-term impacts.

GAR011438. The FWS also noted: 

As a general rule, forest management activities that are likely 

to diminish a home range’s capability to support spotted owl 

occupancy, survival and reproduction in the long-term should 

be discouraged. However, we recognize that land managers 

have a variety of forest management obligations and that 

Case 2:11-cv-02250-MCE-CMK Document 41 Filed 09/09/15 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

27

28

20

spotted owls may not be the sole driver in these decisions. 

Here, active forest management may be necessary to 

maintain or improve ecological conditions. We support 

projects whose intent is to provide long-term benefits to forest 

resiliency and restore natural forest dynamic process, when 

this management is implemented in a landscape context and 

with carefully applied prescriptions to promote longterm forest 

health. Examples of active management projects include 

forest stand restoration, fire risk reduction, treatment of insect 

infestations and disease and the restoration of high quality 

early seral habitat as described by Swanson et al. (2010). It 

is recognized that these projects may have both short and/or 

long-term effects to spotted owls and that treatments will be 

designed to minimize impacts as much as possible in keeping 

with project’s intent.

GAR 11439-40.15 Thus, the RRP does not recommend forgoing all land management 

activities to avoid short-term consequences to the NSO, and instead appears to support 

the proper implementation of projects like this.

16 

Plaintiffs also imply that all treatment in core areas should be deferred because 

these “high-value habitat areas” were excluded from other projects. Pls.’ Mot. at 19. 

After reconsultation, however, the Project was modified so that it did defer treatment for 

221 acres of nesting/roosting habitat in the Halls City Creek core areas. GAR 10549. 

Moreover, Project features will ensure effects are minimized and stand complexity 

retained. See GAR 10594-95 (discussing review of the thinning at the time of 

implementation by FWS personnel “to ensure that the assumptions that habitat will be 

degraded or downgraded are correct”). Given the deference afforded the FWS under an 

APA review, the Court rejects this argument as well. 

Finally, Plaintiffs argue that the FWS failed to disclose scientific research 

undermining the theory that logging large trees serves to save the forest from fire. Pls.’ 

 15 These are not the only RPP excerpts indicating project management mandates the 

consideration of multiple factors, not just the short term effects on the NSO. See, e.g., GAR 11381 

(“Vegetation management actions that may have short-term impacts but are potentially beneficial to 

occupied spotted owl sites in the long-term meet the goals of ecosystem conservation. Such actions may 

include silvicultural treatments that promote ecological restoration and are expected to reduce future 

losses of spotted owl habitat and improve overall forest ecosystem resilience to climate change, which 

should result in more habitat retained on the landscape for longer periods of time.”). 

16 Of course, it should not be assumed that all short-term impacts to the NSO are negative. To the 

contrary, the BiOp discusses short-term benefits to the Owl as well. GAR 10599-600. 

Case 2:11-cv-02250-MCE-CMK Document 41 Filed 09/09/15 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

27

28

21

Mot. at 27. The only evidence Plaintiffs point to in support of this argument is the extrarecord Declaration of Monica Bond (ECF No. 24-5). Not only is her declaration 

inadmissible, as discussed above, but the focus of Ms. Bond’s discussion is a study that 

is already contained in the administrative record and cited in the BiOp. See GAR 10576, 

10600 (citing to “Skinner 2005” and “Agee and Skinner 2005”). Given that the FWS

already considered this evidence, this argument is also rejected. 

b. The FWS has considered the Project’s fire risks and 

benefits. 

In arguing that the FWS failed to consider the Project’s fire risks and benefits, 

Plaintiffs essentially just question the need for the Project and whether there will ever 

actually be long-term benefits to the NSO. As a threshold matter, however, Plaintiffs’

arguments are flawed because they ignore any non-fire need for the Project. For 

example, due to past fire suppression policies, trees have not been naturally thinned, 

resulting in overcrowded conditions. This overcrowding has made some of the largest 

and oldest trees more vulnerable to disease due to the competition for resources. 

In addition, contrary to the evidence in the record, Plaintiffs repeatedly assert that 

the fire risk in the Project Area is low to moderate. While that is historically accurate, fire 

suppression efforts have changed the historical fire regime to one of infrequent 

moderate-to-high intensity fires in these stands. GAR 9304; see also GAR 10761-62

(explaining the discrepancy between the Fire Report and the Biological Assessment on 

this issue). The fire rating assessment also contains a qualitative aspect that takes into 

consideration the high monetary and non-monetary values of the land, including wildlife 

values. See GAR 10766. 

Plaintiffs also argue that Defendants failed to employ stand-level modeling to 

determine fire behavior in this specific Project Area. Pls.’ Mot at 8, 29; Pls.’ Reply at 4 

(citing GAR 10767). Contrary to this assertion, stand-level modeling was conducted 

using data from the Project Area. GAR 10682. Based on this modeling and the record 

///

Case 2:11-cv-02250-MCE-CMK Document 41 Filed 09/09/15 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

27

28

22

as a whole, the risk of fire in the Project Area is high and there is an elevated risk of 

future large and destructive fires. GAR 176, 10683. 

Plaintiffs’ biggest complaint is that the FWS failed to consider whether fire actually 

poses a risk of harm to NSOs. Pls.’ Mot. at 7. To the contrary, however, the 

administrative record is replete with data indicating that fire may reduce canopy cover to 

the point where habitat is no longer suitable for nesting and roosting. GAR 10684. A 

large fire could even reduce canopy cover below the threshold for connectivity habitat. 

Id. Moreover, although Plaintiffs point to evidence that NSOs do use burned habitat, at 

least to some extent, the RRP specifically addressed that evidence and considered how 

fire severity and habitat function might be related. GAR 11423-25. While the RRP 

acknowledged that “there are still many unknowns regarding how much fire benefits or 

adversely affects spotted owl habitat,” GAR 11425, the studies tended to show that while 

owls may have continued to roost in areas of low to moderate severity burns, they 

generally avoided high severity burns or used them for foraging. GAR 11424. As the 

purpose of the Project is to reduce high severity burns in favor of low to moderate 

severity burns, the Project should reduce risks to NSO. 

Aside from their substantive disputes, Plaintiffs also take issue with the fact that 

neither the 2013 Biological Assessment nor the BiOp cite to the evidence regarding the 

use of burned habitat by NSOs, though one such study is included in the record for this 

case—Bond et al. (2002), FWS-AR2-10312. This argument overlooks the fact that all of 

this information was analyzed in the FWS’s RPP. GAR 11423-25. Plaintiffs cite to no 

authority requiring the FWS or the USFS to have looked beyond the RRP’s discussion or 

to have included the citations from the RRP in their subsequent documents. Thus, this 

argument fails as well. 

Finally, Plaintiffs’ argument that the long-term fire reduction benefits will be 

minimal is unpersuasive. Plaintiffs point to the fact that in 50 years the fuel build-up in 

the Project Area will be similar in the treatment and non-treatment scenarios. Pls. Mot. 

at 6. Plaintiffs ignore that fact that the record shows that the Project will reduce fuel 

Case 2:11-cv-02250-MCE-CMK Document 41 Filed 09/09/15 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

27

28

23

build-up by approximately 25 tons per acre and that the fuel build-up will gradually grow 

until it approaches pre-Project levels in roughly 50 years. GAR 10686. Without this 

reduction, this habitat “would not likely survive to provide spotted owl habitat after a latesummer fire.” GAR 10685. While Plaintiffs may think this “temporary” risk reduction is 

not worth the impact on the NSOs, this is another instance where the Court defers to the 

expert judgment of the agencies. 

2. Each of Plaintiffs’ specific attacks on the BiOp lack merit.

Plaintiffs also direct a number of specific challenges at the BiOp. Namely, 

according to Plaintiffs: (1) the Project results in unauthorized “take”;17 (2) the FWS failed 

to properly account for the habitat effects of landings; (3) the FWS similarly failed to 

adequately account for competition from barred owls; and (4) the FWS’s cumulative 

effects analysis is flawed. For the following reasons, each of these contentions may be 

rejected. 

As to their first argument, Plaintiffs contend that four of the six activity centers

located within the Project already have less than the recommended acreage for the 

relevant habitat types (nesting/roosting and foraging) and further degradation will thus 

result in unaccounted for take. Pls.’ Mot. at 22-25. This “presumption of take” argument 

has been rejected previously in this district. Conservation Cong. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 

No. 2:12-cv-02800-TLN-CKD, 2014 WL 2092385, at *11 (E.D. Cal. May 16, 2014). 

Regardless, the FWS conducted a qualitative as well as quantitative analysis of whether 

a take would occur and modified the project to add safeguards, such as LOPs. 

Additionally, the recommended acreage to which Plaintiffs refer is just that, a 

recommendation. See GAR 10583 (“these recommended habitat amounts are 

guidelines and do not represent strict thresholds”). Plaintiffs cite no evidence supporting 

the argument that the FWS is required to justify a departure from those recommended 

thresholds. 

 17 “The term ‘take’ means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or 

collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct.” 16 U.S.C. § 1532(19).

Case 2:11-cv-02250-MCE-CMK Document 41 Filed 09/09/15 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

27

28

24

Plaintiffs’ argument that the FWS failed to account for habitat effects of the 

landings is equally unpersuasive. See Pls.’ Mot. at 24-25.18 Plaintiffs’ argument 

appears to stem from the fact that the 2013 Biological Assessment considered these 

landings “removed,” but the BiOp does not. “The term removed pertains to treatments 

that reduce habitat elements to the degree that habitat will no longer function as suitable 

for NSO.” GAR 10592 (emphasis omitted). As the BiOp explains, however: 

The effects of temporary road and landing construction in the 

past have been categorized as “removal” because the 

vegetation is completely removed. However, the scope and 

scale of small (0.25 to 0.5 acre) gaps in otherwise large and 

contiguous blocks of habitat does not significantly alter 

function of the habitat or average condition (or calculated 

mean value for individual habitat parameters) within a stand 

when considering the ability of the NSO to use the area. It is 

much more likely that the creation of these small gaps, 

dispersed throughout the project area and comprising no 

more than 20 acres distributed across the action area, will 

have minimal effect on breeding, feeding, sheltering, or 

persistence of spotted owls. Due to their small size, their 

distribution across the project area, and the overall amount of 

habitat affected within the action area, the effects of landing 

and temporary road construction in the aggregate are 

considered negligible, and therefore effects to NSO are 

expected to be insignificant and discountable.

GAR 10598-99. Given the difference in the post-modification landings from those 

originally contemplated and the FWS’s reasoned and thorough justification for its 

conclusion, Plaintiffs’ argument is without support. 

Further, Plaintiffs’ argument that the FWS did not properly account for competition 

from barred owls is not borne out by the record. The BiOp considers whether the Project 

“could potentially act to exacerbate further competitive interactions” between barred and 

spotted owls, GAR 10606, and concluded that it would not. GAR 10614. Additionally, 

the BiOp incorporates the RRP, which specifically addresses increasing threats from 

barred owls but acknowledges that “substantial information gaps regarding ecological 

 18 The modified Project uses more frequent but smaller landings rather than fewer larger landings 

and provides safeguards to avoid the cutting of trees greater than 24 inches dbh. GAR 10571. While 

these small landings range from .25 to .50 acres, in the interest of being conservative, the Defendants 

estimated all of the landings would be .50 acres. GAR 10569, n.2. 

Case 2:11-cv-02250-MCE-CMK Document 41 Filed 09/09/15 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

27

28

25

interactions between spotted owls and barred owls, and how those interactions may be 

managed to meet the Recovery Criteria.” GAR 11456. Rather than recommending a 

“no treatment approach” until those information gaps could be closed, the FWS 

explained that: 

Protecting these forests should provide spotted owls highquality refugia habitat from the negative competitive 

interactions with barred owls that are likely occurring where 

the two species’ home ranges overlap. Maintaining or 

restoring these forests should allow time to determine both 

the competitive effects of barred owls on spotted owls and 

the effectiveness of barred owl removal measures.

GAR 11461. In sum, the FWS considered the effects of the barred owl and ensured that 

the Project was tailored to minimize that threat to the extent possible. 

Finally, there is no indication in the record that the FWS improperly conducted 

their cumulative effects analysis. “Cumulative effects” under the ESA are defined as 

“effects of future State or private activities, not involving Federal activities, that are 

reasonably certain to occur within the action area of the Federal action subject to 

consultation.” 50 C.F.R § 402.02. The FWS verified that there are no future State or 

private timber harvests planned. GAR 10622, 10716. Plaintiffs offer no evidence that 

anything further was required. 

3. The FWS properly determined that the Project will not 

adversely modify designated critical habitat. 

For a number of reasons, Plaintiffs disagree with the FWS’s conclusion that the 

Project will not adversely modify designated critical habitat. “For purposes of the 

adverse modification determination, the effects of the proposed Federal action on critical 

habitat are evaluated in the context of the range-wide condition of the critical habitat, 

taking into account any cumulative effects, to determine if the range-wide critical habitat 

would remain functional to serve its intended recovery goal for the NSO.” GAR 10616. 

Plaintiffs first take issue with the FWS’s critical habitat analysis to the extent that it 

compares the impact of the Project Area to the range-wide condition of the critical habit 

designation. Essentially, Plaintiffs contend there can never be a finding that critical 

Case 2:11-cv-02250-MCE-CMK Document 41 Filed 09/09/15 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

27

28

26

habitat was adversely modified because the range is too big, thus distorting the 

numbers. The Ninth Circuit has rejected this argument where there is no “evidence in 

the record that some localized risk was improperly hidden by use of large scale 

analysis.” Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv., 378 F.3d 1059, 

1075 (9th Cir. 2004). Under such circumstances, a court should not “second-guess the 

FWS.” Id. Because Plaintiffs point to no localized risk hidden by the larger scale 

analysis, there is no reason for this Court to second guess the FWS’s decision to use the 

large scale analysis. Regardless, the BiOp evaluated localized risks as well. See GAR 

10619-22. 

Plaintiffs then argue that the adverse modification analysis is flawed because the 

FWS compares the effect of the current Project against the entire range, including those 

lands that may previously have been “degraded.” “Degraded” is a term of art used by 

the federal agencies. See Conservation Cong. v. U.S. Forest Serv., No. CIV S-11-2605 

LKK/EFB, 2012 WL 2339765 (E.D. Cal. June 19, 2012). Here, the term “degraded” 

signifies “when treatments have a negative influence on the quality of habitat by the 

removal or reduction of NSO habitat elements but not to the degree where existing 

habitat function is changed.” GAR 10592. Essentially, Plaintiffs would have the FWS

omit from the range any prior lands that may have been degraded, even though that land 

retained its habitat function. The Court finds no support for this argument in the record 

or the case law, and this argument is thus rejected. Moreover, the Court finds that the 

FWS fully considered the effects of past projects on this Project Area. See GAR 10618-

19; BiOp Appendix A, FWS-AR2-1874-8; BiOp Appendix C, FWS-AR2-1912-13. 

Finally, Plaintiffs contend that there is an adverse modification by default if critical 

habitat of a certain type in the core and home ranges falls below a specified level. As 

already indicated, these threshold levels are recommendations only. See GAR 10583. 

In addition, the FWS extensively analyzed all areas relevant to Plaintiffs’ instant 

argument and exercised its judgment in concluding that no adverse modification of 

critical designated habitat would occur. GAR 10619-22. 

Case 2:11-cv-02250-MCE-CMK Document 41 Filed 09/09/15 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

28

27

Given all of the above, Plaintiffs’ ESA arguments fail and judgment is entered in 

favor of the FWS on the ESA claim against it. 

C. The USFS Did Not Violate the ESA.

Plaintiffs separately argue that the USFS has violated the ESA by: (1) “relying on 

the flawed FWS Biological Opinion to approve the Gemmill Thin Project”; (2) failing to 

use the best evidence in preparing its Biological Assessment; and (3) failing to ensure 

“that the effects of the Gemmill project will not jeopardize the continued existence of the 

northern spotted owl or adversely modify spotted owl critical habitat.” FAC ¶¶ 109-116. 

For the reasons discussed above, these arguments also fail. The BiOp was not flawed, 

Plaintiffs cannot point to “better evidence” that was not considered by Defendants, and 

the no jeopardy determination was not in error. Additionally, the USFS was entitled to 

rely on the BiOp unless Plaintiffs can point to “new” information that USFS did not take 

into consideration and which challenges the BiOp’s conclusions. Pyramid Lake Paiute 

Tribe of Indians v. U.S. Dep’t of Navy, 898 F.2d 1410, 1415 (9th Cir. 1990). Plaintiffs are

unable to point to any new information that was not considered by Defendants and 

effectively challenges the conclusions of the BiOp. Thus, summary judgment in favor of 

USFS as to Plaintiffs’ ESA claim is appropriate.

D. The Project Complies with the NFMA.

Plaintiffs next argue that the USFS violated the NFMA because the Project is 

inconsistent with the STNF Land Resource Management plan (“LRMP”), which 

incorporates the National Forest Plan (“NFP”) and the LSRA. According to Plaintiffs, the 

LSRA’s goal is to “maintain protect and restore conditions of late-successional 

associated species,” and that the LSRA’s objectives are to protect existing latesuccessional habitat from threats, to promote development of late-successional 

characteristics, to protect mid and early successional vegetation from loss, and to 

promote connectivity of late-successional habitats. Pls.’ Mot. at 30 (quoting GAR 8588-

89). Plaintiffs thus contend that because the Project treats late-successional forests at 

all, it violates these plans by default. Plaintiffs’ instant argument is unpersuasive 

Case 2:11-cv-02250-MCE-CMK Document 41 Filed 09/09/15 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

27

28

28

because their purported authority is taken out of context. When the documents are read 

as a whole, it is clear that the Project is in compliance. 

Plaintiffs’ first argument is simply that the Gemmill Project will violate plan 

directives on their face. To support their argument, Plaintiffs quote from various portions 

of the documents as follows:

Thinning to reduce risk is appropriate in adjacent non-late- successional stands and most often is needed prior to using 

other fuel reduction techniques, such as prescribed fire. GAR 

8592 (emphasis added). 

Younger stands should receive priority for treatment over 

older stands . . . . Only stands less than 150 years of age 

should be considered for treatment. Stands older than this 

will not respond much quicker than the no treatment 

alternative. GAR 8602. 

Silvicultural activities aimed at reducing risk shall focus on 

younger stands in [LSRs] . . . [T]reatments should not 

generally result in degeneration of currently suitable owl 

habitat . . . . GAR 7947. 

However, when read in context, it is clear that these excerpts are not absolute 

directives. Rather, these documents set goals and objectives that focus on young 

stands and avoid older ones; they do not prohibit treatments in older stands. For 

example, the LMRP lists a number of management practices permitted in latesuccessional reserves, including “vegetation treatment by mechanical . . . methods to 

protect forest resources from loss to wildfire, pathogens and insects.” GAR 7953. The 

LSRA similarly notes that “[i]n provinces which are in a condition of elevated risk to 

large-scale disturbance, management which goes beyond the guidelines contained in 

the [Northwest Forest Plan Record of Decision] may be considered . . . Consequently, 

management activities designed to reduce risk levels are encouraged in those LSRs 

even if a portion of the activities must take place in currently late-successional habitat.” 

GAR 8588. More specifically, “[w]hile risk reduction efforts should generally be focused 

on young stands, activities in older stands may be appropriate if: (1) the proposed 

management activities will clearly result in greater assurances of long-term maintenance 

Case 2:11-cv-02250-MCE-CMK Document 41 Filed 09/09/15 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

27

28

29

of habitat, (2) the activities are clearly needed to reduce risks, and (3) the activities will 

not prevent the LSR from playing an effective role in the objectives for which they were 

established.” Id. 

While Plaintiffs argue that the benefits here do not “clearly” outweigh the risks, 

given the threat of catastrophic wildfire in the Gemmill Project Area, treatment of latesuccessional forests is consistent with the LMRP, the LSRA, and the NFP. Based on 

analysis and stand modeling of the proposed alternatives, treatment in existing latesuccessional habitat should maintain long-term habit, even if a catastrophic fire were to 

occur. GAR 210-13. Namely, treatments will reduce the loss to canopy cover and, in 

mature stands, these risks should be reduced for at least 50 years. GAR 210. 

Finally, the proposed treatments will not undermine the LSRA’s goal of providing 

habitat for late-successional species, such as the spotted owl. As discussed above, the 

Project is designed to maintain key habitat components and to improve habitat over the 

long run. Indeed, the Regional Ecosystem Office’s interagency Late-Successional 

Reserve Work Group determined the proposed treatments in older stands are 

“appropriate in this situation” and are “consistent with the [Northwest Forest Plan’s] 

Standard[s] and Guidelines for Risk Reduction Projects in LSRs.” GAR 1216.19 

Essentially, Plaintiffs arguments only succeed if certain phrases are viewed in isolation 

as prohibiting all treatment in LSRs. That is simply not the case, as these very complex 

plans themselves recognize.20

Plaintiffs next argue that the USFS inconsistently uses the term “thinning from 

below.” The FSEIS explains: “Trees marked for removal with this ‘thinning from below’

 19 It further concluded that the USFS had “done the analysis and modeling necessary to 

demonstrate that treatment of older stands is appropriate,” and that analysis indicated that “[t]he proposed 

thinning treatments will dramatically reduce the likelihood of loss of overstory conifers (canopy closure) 

due to late summer fire into the future.” GAR 1217. Thus, contrary to Plaintiffs’ arguments, the USFS did 

employ stand modeling and the modeling has been evaluated and determined proper within the agencies. 

20 In their Reply, Plaintiffs offer almost no argument to rebut Defendants’ positions. Plaintiffs point 

primarily to minutes from a 2005 meeting in which there is a note indicating: “Proposing to treat stands in 

excess of 80 years old, need forest plan amendment.” GAR 7453. This very clearly is not an appropriate 

agency interpretation on which the Court should rely, especially in light of all of the other documents 

indicating that treatment is permitted. 

Case 2:11-cv-02250-MCE-CMK Document 41 Filed 09/09/15 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

27

28

30

would start with the smallest least healthy conifers and progressively involve larger trees 

until the existing 70 to 90 percent canopy cover is reduced to approximately 60 percent 

. . . .” GAR 371. Plaintiffs contend this is the commonly understood meaning of the 

phrase. Pls.’ Mot. at 31. However, Project documents go on to state that, in old growth 

stands,

[t]he largest and oldest predominant or legacy trees within 

each stand would be retained and competing understory 

trees would be removed within a zone about 1 1/2 the width 

of the old tree crowns. A sufficient number of smaller trees 

would be removed to reduce the number of trees per acre to 

a level that provides an improved competitive advantage for 

the larger older trees and removes fuel ladders that may 

threaten the remaining trees and adjacent stands.

GAR 371. 

According to the USFS, although it differentiates the two thinning treatments, 

“they are mixed within the mapped units” and “[t]he two general thinning prescriptions 

. . . will be blended within each unit depending upon site specific conditions.” Id. Plaintiff 

thus contends that the USFS is using the term “thinning from below” when it intends to 

remove trees of up to 24 inches diameter. Pls.’ Mot. at 32. “Instead of starting with the 

smallest trees and working up in diameter classes until the desired density is 

reached . . . some of the largest trees are retained but tall trees within at least 36-feet, 

regardless of their size, are removed.” Id. According to Plaintiffs, this violates the 

LMRP, NFP, and LSRA. 

This argument fails because the phrase “thinning from below” as used in oldgrowth stands is well documented, consistent with the term’s “normal” usage, and does 

not create unexpected results. The point, regardless of modifications in treatment type, 

is to keep the largest and healthiest trees. Even if the manners in treating were different, 

nothing in the record indicates either method is contrary to the mandates of the LMRP, 

NFP, or LSRA. 

Plaintiffs go on to argue that the Project violates old-growth and wildlife standards. 

Namely, the LMRP contains a section called “Desired Future Condition,” in which it 

Case 2:11-cv-02250-MCE-CMK Document 41 Filed 09/09/15 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

27

28

31

states that “[d]ispersion habitat requirements for the northern spotted owl/latesuccessional dependent species are met by a combination of [, among other 

things,] . . . [f]ifteen percent Old-Growth over entire watershed and within units . . . .” 

GAR 8036. Plaintiff contends that because the watershed where Gemmill is located 

“includes approximately 9% old growth habitat,” no further removal is permissible. Pls.’ 

Mot. at 33 (quoting GAR 483). Again, however, the “Desired Future Condition” 

discussion does not impose mandatory requirements on the USFS’s land management 

decisions. Regardless, no old-growth stands or large trees will be removed to construct 

landings. These landings will be placed within mature stands (rather than old-growth), 

and thus no old-growth habitat will be impacted. GAR 10659, 10690. 

Finally, Plaintiffs argue that the LMRP provides that STNF projects should 

“[m]aintain and/or enhance habitat for [threatened, endangered and sensitive] species 

consistent with individual species recovery plans.” Pls.’ Mot. at 33-34. According to 

Plaintiffs, the Project is not consistent with the RRP and thus fails on this point as well. 

For those reasons already addressed above, specifically that RRP recommendations are 

not mandatory and the Project is consistent with the RRP in any event, Plaintiffs’ 

argument must be rejected. 

In sum, Plaintiffs fail to point to any inconsistency between the Gemmill Project 

and any of the above plans such that a violation of the NFMA might be found. 

Accordingly, judgment is entered for the Defendants as to the NFMA claims. 

E. The USFS Did Not Violate NEPA.

In support of their NEPA claim, Plaintiffs argue that: (1) “the USFS failed to 

analyze and disclose scientific research on the benefits of fire to the NSO and other 

wildlife habitat”; (2) “the USFS analyzed the cumulative effects of ‘removed/downgraded’ 

NSO critical habitat, but failed to consider the cumulative effects of projects that have 

‘degraded’ critical habitat in the Chanchellula LSR or other parts of the STNF”; and 

(3) for these cumulative effects, “the FEIS continually refers to a table which lists projects 

and other actions in the vicinity without providing any quantitative analysis of, for 

Case 2:11-cv-02250-MCE-CMK Document 41 Filed 09/09/15 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

27

28

32

example, how remaining NSO habitat is functioning or not functioning.” 21 Pls.’ Mot. at 

34-35. As such, Plaintiffs contend that the USFS “fail[ed] to take a ‘hard look’ at the

Gemmill Thin Project’s impacts, thus violating NEPA. 

As discussed above, the FWS did analyze the relationships between fire and the 

NSO. In fact, the RRP contains a discussion of the very science Plaintiffs contend 

should have been considered. In Reply, Plaintiffs argue that the USFS cannot benefit by 

pointing to the RRP because the FSEIS predates the RRP and references only the 1992 

Recovery Plan, not the 2011 revised version. This argument might be persuasive if the 

USFS had not issued a Supplemental Information Report after re-evaluating the Project 

in light of new information (including issuance of the 2011 RRP). In the Supplemental 

Report, the USFS made clear that it was issuing its new findings after reinitiation of 

consultation based on the issuance of the RRP, among other things. The Report notes: 

While the 2011 RRP was released since the Record of 

Decision for the Gemmill Thin Project (2011), Gemmil Thin 

Project treatments are consistent with the strategy provided 

in the RRP, as confirmed by the FWS. The RRP has been 

addressed through the reinitiated consultation process and 

incorporated into the 2013 [Biological Assessment] and 2014 

Biological Opinion and does not present any new and 

significant information regarding project effects that was not 

previously considered in the Final EIS and Biological 

Assessment prepared for the Gemmill Thin Project. 

GAR 10558. It then goes on to conclude that “[t]he effects to northern spotted owl are 

expected to be similar to or less than what was originally analyzed, in part because of 

the additional protections developed through consultation with FWS.” GAR 10562. 

Since the effects of the modified action “remain[] well within the range of actions 

considered in the FSEIS,” GAR 10561, NEPA has been satisfied. 

///

 21 Procedurally, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs failed to administratively exhaust a claim that the 

USFS failed to disclose scientific evidence pertaining to the effectiveness of logging large trees to reduce 

fire risk. It appears to the Court that this is correct as this argument was not discussed during the 

administrative process. See GAR 59-86 (Plaintiff’s administrative appeal); Native Ecosystems Council v. 

Dombeck, 304 F.3d 886, 899 (9th Cir. 2002) (exhaustion occurs when “the appeal, taken as a whole, 

provided sufficient notice to the Forest Service” of the alleged NEPA violation). 

Case 2:11-cv-02250-MCE-CMK Document 41 Filed 09/09/15 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

27

28

33

 Moreover, as Defendants note, the USFS “chose an appropriate geographic 

range for cumulative impacts analysis, explained the basis for the choice, and provided a 

detailed analysis of the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions on owl 

habitat and its function.” Defs.’ Cross-Mot. at 39. In their Reply, Plaintiffs do not 

address this argument or offer any further reason as to why approval of the Project was 

arbitrary and capricious. As such, the Court finds that Defendants have conducted the 

hard look required by NEPA. 

Accordingly, judgment is entered as to Defendants on Plaintiffs’ NEPA claims. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Strike (ECF No. 28) is 

GRANTED, Defendants’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 29) is 

GRANTED, and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 24) is DENIED. The 

Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendants and close this 

case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 8, 2015 

Case 2:11-cv-02250-MCE-CMK Document 41 Filed 09/09/15 Page 33 of 33