Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01329/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01329-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Center for Biological Diversity
Plaintiff
Earth Island Institute
Plaintiff
Dean Gould
Defendant
Sierra Forest Products
Intervenor 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----

CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL 

DIVERSITY and EARTH ISLAND 

INSTITUTE,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DEAN GOULD, Sierra National 

Forest Supervisor; and UNITED 

STATES FOREST SERVICE,

Defendants.

CIV. NO. 1:15-01329 WBS GSA

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: CROSSMOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

SIERRA FOREST PRODUCTS,

DefendantIntervenor.

----oo0oo----

Plaintiffs Center for Biological Diversity and Earth 

Island Institute brought this action against defendants Dean 

Gould, the Sierra National Forest Supervisor, and the United 

States Forest Service (“Forest Service”), alleging that 

Case 1:15-cv-01329-WBS-EPG Document 47 Filed 12/14/15 Page 1 of 25
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

defendants violated the National Environmental Policy Act 

(“NEPA”) and the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) in 

approving the French Fire Recovery and Reforestation Project

(“French Fire Project”). Sierra Forest Products intervened as a 

defendant. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, 

plaintiffs and defendants both move for summary judgment. 

I. Factual and Procedural Background

Plaintiff Center for Biological Diversity is a nonprofit corporation involved in species and habitat protection 

issues throughout North America. (Compl. ¶ 10.) Plaintiff Earth 

Island Institute is a non-profit organization headquartered in 

Berkeley, California whose purpose is to develop and support 

projects that counteract threats to biological and cultural 

diversity. (Id. ¶ 12.) One of Earth Island Institute’s 

projects, the John Muir Project, was formed to protect all public 

forestlands from commercial exploitation that undermines sciencebased ecological management. (Id.) 

Defendant Forest Service, an agency of the Department 

of Agriculture, is responsible for the administration and 

management of the federal lands at issue in this case. (Id. at 

6.) Defendant Dean Gould is the Forest Supervisor for the Sierra 

National Forest and is being sued in his official capacity. 

(Id.) Defendant-intervenor Sierra Forest Products contracted 

with the Forest Service to purchase thirteen million board feet 

of lumber that will be harvested as part of the French Fire 

Project. (Duysen Decl. ¶ 13 (Docket No. 26).) 

The French Fire Project encompasses 13,832 acres of the 

Bass Lake Ranger District, Sierra National Forest in North Fork, 

Case 1:15-cv-01329-WBS-EPG Document 47 Filed 12/14/15 Page 2 of 25
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

California that were impacted by the July 2014 French Fire. 

(Admin. R. (“AR”) at 11.) According to the Forest Service, the 

objectives of the French Fire Project are to reforest the area, 

manage wildfire fuels, make the area safer from falling dead or 

damaged trees, maintain defensive fuel profile zones for fighting 

future wildfires, provide wildlife habitat, reduce soil erosion, 

protect a powerline from future wildfire, eradicate invasive 

weeds, and provide jobs and valuable raw materials for the 

economy. (AR at 15.) The project authorizes the treatment and 

logging of 5,965 acres--half of the total affected fire area. 

This includes the removal and sale of fire-affected trees on 

3,371 acres. (Id. at 16.) 

In their Complaint, plaintiffs allege the French Fire 

Project will log over 1,000 acres of roadless areas that could 

become designated as wilderness areas under the Wilderness Act of 

1964, 16 U.S.C. § 1131 (“Wilderness Act”), and provide important 

habitat for imperiled species, such as the black-backed 

woodpecker, California spotted owl, and Pacific fisher. (Compl. 

¶¶ 30-31.) Plaintiffs claim defendants violated NEPA and the APA 

by failing to disclose, and invite public comment regarding, the 

French Fire Project’s impacts on roadless areas before issuing a 

final decision; failing to make the Wilderness Resource Impact 

Analysis available for public comment; failing to take a “hard 

look” at the vast impacts on roadless areas in their Wilderness 

Resource Impact Analysis; and failing to prepare an Environmental 

Impact Statement. (Id. ¶¶ 44-62.) 

On October 20, 2015, plaintiffs filed this motion for 

summary judgment on their NEPA and APA claims. (Docket No. 30-

Case 1:15-cv-01329-WBS-EPG Document 47 Filed 12/14/15 Page 3 of 25
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

1.) Plaintiffs request the court to vacate the Environmental 

Assessment (“EA”) and Decision Notice and Finding of No 

Significant Impact (“DN/FONSI”) and remand to the agency for 

consideration of the French Fire Project’s impacts on roadless 

areas. Plaintiffs request the court vacate the DN’s 

authorization of logging within the roadless areas. On October 

30, 2015, defendants Forest Service and Gould filed a crossmotion for summary judgment. (Forest Serv.’s Mem. (Docket No. 

35-1).) On November 4, 2015, defendant-intervenor Sierra Forest 

Products also filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. (Docket 

No. 36.) 

II. Discussion

A. Standing

Defendants do not argue that plaintiffs lack standing. 

Chad Hanson is the director and staff ecologist of the John Muir 

Project, a project of the Earth Island Institute, and also a 

member of the Center for Biological Diversity. (Hanson Decl. ¶ 3 

(Docket No. 30-3).) He states in his declaration that he 

regularly visits post-fire habitat areas of the Sierra Nevada for 

his research and recreation. (Id. ¶ 5.) He visited areas of the 

Sierra National Forest impacted by the French Fire in the spring 

of 2015 and plans to return around April 12, 2016. (Id. ¶ 7.) 

His ability to do research in large, unlogged areas will be 

diminished by the logging and treatment, as will his ability to 

enjoy the wild character and aesthetics of the area. (Id. ¶ 9.) 

Similarly, Douglas Bevington, a member of the Center for 

Biological Diversity, has visited the Sierra National Forest to 

bird-watch and plans to visit the roadless areas where the French 

Case 1:15-cv-01329-WBS-EPG Document 47 Filed 12/14/15 Page 4 of 25
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

Fire occurred on June 8, 2016. (Bevington Decl. ¶¶ 2-5.) He 

explains that he will be personally affected by the French Fire 

Project logging as it will scar the area aesthetically and reduce 

his ability to see wildlife, such as the black-backed woodpecker,

in the burned roadless areas. (Id. ¶ 7.) These facts are 

sufficient to confer standing on plaintiffs 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 suit under NEPA). 

B. Summary Judgment

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 

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 

Case 1:15-cv-01329-WBS-EPG Document 47 Filed 12/14/15 Page 5 of 25
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

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). Moreover, 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 on motions for summary judgment is not to 

resolve contested fact questions which may exist in the 

underlying administrative record, but “to determine whether or 

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

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

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. Statutory Framework

NEPA is “our basic national charter for protection of 

the environment . . . [i]t 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 

Case 1:15-cv-01329-WBS-EPG Document 47 Filed 12/14/15 Page 6 of 25
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

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

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

2000) (citations omitted). 

Through the Wilderness Act of 1964, Congress created 

the National Wilderness Preservation System to provide protection 

for lands relatively untouched by human activity. See 16 U.S.C. 

§§ 1131-36; Nat’l Audubon Soc’y v. Forest Serv., 46 F.3d 1437, 

1440 (9th Cir. 1993). The Wilderness Act defines wilderness as

“an area where the earth and its community of life are 

untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not 

remain . . . undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval 

character and influence, without permanent improvements or human 

habitation.” 16 U.S.C. § 1331(c). The Act seeks to protect and 

manage land that:

(1) generally appears to have been affected primarily 

by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work 

substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding 

opportunities for solitude or a primitive and 

unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least five 

thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to 

make practicable its preservation and use in an 

unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain 

ecological, geological, or other features of 

scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value. 

Id. The Wilderness Act put in place a process under which the 

Forest Service, in order to aid Congress in designating 

“wilderness,” reviews “primitive” areas of the national forests 

to determine their “suitability or nonsuitability for 

preservation as wilderness.” Id. § 1132(b). 

In 2012, the Forest Service issued the National Forest 

System Planning Rule (“2012 Planning Rule”) to guide “the 

development, amendment, and revision of land management plans for 

Case 1:15-cv-01329-WBS-EPG Document 47 Filed 12/14/15 Page 7 of 25
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

all units of the National Forest System (NFS).” 77 Fed. Reg. § 

21162-01. The 2012 Planning Rule provides that “in developing a 

proposed new plan or proposed plan revision” the Forest Service 

must “[i]dentify and evaluate lands that may be suitable for 

inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System and 

determine whether to recommend any such lands for wilderness 

designation.” 36 C.F.R. § 219.7(c)(2)(v). The Sierra National 

Forest is an early adopter of the 2012 Planning Rule and, as a 

result, is currently revising its Forest Plan and compiling an 

inventory of lands that may be suitable for inclusion in the 

National Wilderness Preservation System. (Burkindine Decl. ¶¶ 1-

3 (Docket No. 34-4).) 

D. Analysis of the French Fire Project’s Impact on Roadless 

Areas

Plaintiffs challenge whether the Forest Service 

conducted a proper analysis of the French Fire Project’s impact 

on roadless areas that could potentially be classified as 

wilderness. Plaintiffs argue that three Ninth Circuit cases,

Lands Council v. Martin, 529 F.3d 1219 (9th Cir. 2008); Smith v. 

Forest Serv., 33 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 1994), and National Audubon 

Society v. Forest Service, 46 F.3d 1437 (9th Cir. 1993), require 

the Forest Service to make a public disclosure in its NEPA 

documents if a project will impact a 5,000 acre roadless area--

even if the area has not been designated as wilderness land and 

does not qualify for future designation under the current 

regulations. Further, the cases require the consideration of the 

unique attributes of roadless areas. 

In Smith, the Ninth Circuit held that the Forest 

Case 1:15-cv-01329-WBS-EPG Document 47 Filed 12/14/15 Page 8 of 25
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

Service’s “obligation to take a ‘hard look’ at the environmental 

consequences of the proposed sale and consider a no-action 

alternative require[d] it, at the very least, to acknowledge the 

existence of the 5,000 acre roadless area.” 33 F.3d at 1079. 

The Forest Service had authorized the harvest and sale of timber 

in the Colville National Forest on 6,000 roadless acres--4,246 of 

which were uninventoried and 2,000 of which were inventoried as 

released for non-wilderness use. Id. at 1074, 1077. This land 

did not qualify for wilderness classification under the 

Wilderness Act because a portion of the land was inventoried and 

the remainder was smaller than 5,000 acres. 

Nevertheless, the Ninth Circuit held that the Forest 

Service had an obligation to acknowledge the existence of the 

5,000 acre roadless area because “‘the decision to harvest timber 

on a previously undeveloped tract of land is an irreversible and 

irretrievable decision which could have serious environmental 

consequences.’” Id. at 1078 (quoting Audubon, 46 F.3d at 1448). 

While the Forest Service argued that roadless character is 

“merely a synonym for specific environmental resources, including 

soil quality, water quality, vegetation, wildlife and fishery 

resources, recreational value, and scenic quality”--all of which 

were addressed in its EA--the Ninth Circuit made clear that 

addressing the impact on these resources in the logging area is 

not sufficient. Id. The NEPA documents failed to consider “the 

remaining thousands of acres of roadless land . . . that will no 

longer be part of a 5,000 acre roadless expanse.” Id. The Ninth 

Circuit explained that while this land did not qualify as 

wilderness under current regulations, it is possible the

Case 1:15-cv-01329-WBS-EPG Document 47 Filed 12/14/15 Page 9 of 25
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

“wilderness option for inventoried lands may be revisited in 

second-generation Forest Plans.” Id. at 1078. The “possibility 

of future wilderness classification triggers, at the very least, 

an obligation on the part of the agency to disclose the fact that 

development will affect a 5,000 acre roadless area,” even if the 

Forest Service is under no obligation to preserve this land. Id.

Similarly, in Martin, the Ninth Circuit found that the 

Forest Service’s EIS did not comply with the requirements of 

Smith because the roadless areas impacted by a post-fire logging 

project were not “discussed in the context of their potential for 

wilderness designation.” 529 F.3d at 1230. Nowhere in the EIS 

did the Forest Service disclose that logging would occur on 1,000 

roadless acres of uninventoried land that were contiguous to an 

inventoried roadless area of 12,000 acres. Id. at 1232. Neither 

did it acknowledge that another logging area was of sufficient 

size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an 

unimpaired condition. Id. This, the court found, failed to 

“meet even the bare minimum requirement discussed in Smith” of 

disclosure and analysis in the broader context of contiguous 

land. Id.

In this case, the Forest Service issued a draft EA on 

May 7, 2015, which contained no overt discussion of roadless or 

wilderness areas. In response, plaintiffs submitted a comment 

letter noting that it had “identified two uninventoried roadless 

areas (both over 5,000 acres--see attached map) in the project 

area, and both have proposed logging units within them.” (AR at 

3199.) Plaintiffs emphasized that the draft EA failed to 

disclose or “analyze the impacts and cumulative effects of 

Case 1:15-cv-01329-WBS-EPG Document 47 Filed 12/14/15 Page 10 of 25
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

logging these areas . . . with regard to future Wilderness 

designation--and the loss of ability to qualify as Wilderness if 

these areas are logged” and an EIS needed to be prepared. (Id.) 

The map submitted by plaintiffs was prepared by the Center for 

Biological Diversity’s Geographic Information Systems (“GIS”) 

specialist, Curtis Bradley, (Bradley Decl. ¶¶ 2-3 (Docket No. 30-

6)), and allegedly demonstrates that over 1,000 acres of the 

French Fire’s logging falls within roadless areas of 5,000 acres 

or more that could someday be designated as wilderness. (AR at 

3816.) Plaintiffs created this map by determining “all Forest 

Service lands that were further than 100 meters from a road in 

order to focus on roadless areas and to avoid roadside hazard 

treatments.” (Bradley Decl. ¶ 5.) 

In response to plaintiffs’ comment letter and map, the 

Forest Service prepared a Wilderness Resource Impact Analysis 

(“Wilderness Analysis”) that analyzed the effects of the Project 

on future potential wilderness areas. (AR at 2206.) In 

assessing the potential wilderness impact, the Forest Service 

relied on final inventory maps that had been prepared as part of 

the separate inventory revision process under the 2012 Planning 

Rule. (Id.) As discussed above, in implementing the 2012 

Planning Rule, the Forest Service is required to “identify all 

lands in the plan area that may have wilderness characteristics 

as defined in the Wilderness Act.” (Id.) While plaintiffs are 

correct that these maps are not yet final since the public 

comment process is ongoing, the court disagrees that it was 

“premature” for the Forest Service to rely on these maps. (Pls.’ 

Mem. at 14.) The inventory maps are the Forest Service’s current 

Case 1:15-cv-01329-WBS-EPG Document 47 Filed 12/14/15 Page 11 of 25
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

best assessment of which land may qualify for wilderness 

classification and they have been made available to the public 

for review and comment as part of the 2012 Planning Rule process. 

(Burkindine Decl. ¶¶ 9-11.) 

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ findings, the Forest 

Service’s inventory maps suggest that only “142 acres of 

inventoried potential wilderness acres overlap Project treatment 

units.” (AR at 2210.) To conduct its inventory, the Forest 

Service excluded all lands “less than half a mile across between 

roads, because they are not of sufficient size as to make 

practicable their preservation and use in unimpaired condition.” 

(Id. at 2218.) The Forest Service used these road buffers to 

bound areas into polygons that could be considered for potential 

wilderness values. (Burkindine Decl. ¶ 3.) The Forest Service 

also removed transmission and powerline corridors from the 

inventory since the areas do not have wilderness characteristics 

and it was likely that utility companies would need to develop an 

access road to the areas in the future. (Id. ¶ 4.) The Forest 

Service created a one-half mile buffer around these areas because 

it “concluded that people within one-half mile could likely see 

and hear signs of human mechanized activities, and those sights 

and sounds would degrade the wilderness experience.” (Id. ¶ 5.) 

Lastly, the Forest Service excluded narrow strips of land between 

roads that would not exhibit wilderness character. (Id. ¶ 6.) 

Plaintiffs argue that the Forest Service’s half-mile 

buffer is arbitrary as it is not found anywhere in Chapter 70 of 

the Forest Service Land Management Planning Handbook. See FSH 

1909.12, Chapter 70. However, plaintiffs’ 100-yard buffer is 

Case 1:15-cv-01329-WBS-EPG Document 47 Filed 12/14/15 Page 12 of 25
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

also not dictated by the handbook. Given the highly deferential 

standard of review under the APA, the court must find that the 

Forest Service’s calculation of 142 acres, rather than 

plaintiffs’ 1,000 acres, is reasonable. The Forest Service 

explains its rationale for the inventorying method and there 

appears to be a rational connection between the facts found while 

inventorying the French Fire Project area and the conclusions 

regarding wilderness designation. 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).

The Forest Service’s Wilderness Analysis explains that 

it is not likely to consider for wilderness inclusion in the

Forest Plan Revision under the 2012 Planning Rule the 142 acre 

portion of the polygons that overlap with French Fire Project 

treatment units, “because the two polygons either lack of 

wilderness character, are not manageable, or both.” (AR at

2210.) The Forest Service concluded that the wilderness 

character of this land has been compromised by human manipulation 

from defensive fuel profile zones, regular plantation planting 

patterns, and proximity to roads associated with motorized use. 

(Id. at 2215-16.) Moreover, the Forest Service found that “even 

if the larger areas were subsequently found to have the requisite 

wilderness characteristics in the future, any resulting 

wilderness recommendation could redraw the proposed wilderness 

boundaries to excise the 142 acres treated with no loss to the 

Case 1:15-cv-01329-WBS-EPG Document 47 Filed 12/14/15 Page 13 of 25
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

remaining area’s wilderness potential.” (Id. at 2216-17.) 

The Ninth Circuit cases, therefore, are distinguishable 

from this case because the French Fire Project does not involve 

an “irreversible and irretrievable decision which could have 

serious environmental impacts.” Audubon, 46 F.3d 1437, 1448 (9th 

Cir. 1993) (citation omitted). A disclosure of the roadless 

character was not necessary because, unlike in Smith and Martin, 

the treatment of the 142 acre area will not disqualify the 

surrounding land from designation as wilderness in the future. 

Moreover, as directed by the Ninth Circuit, the Forest Service 

considered the French Fire Project in the context of the greater 

“roadless expanse,” Martin, 529 F.3d at 1231, and concluded that 

the impacted acres could easily be excised from the broader areas 

of national forest lands. The French Fire Project will not 

destroy the possibility of future wilderness designation. In 

addition, though the Wilderness Analysis did not explicitly 

discuss the French Fire Project’s impact on a 5,000 acre roadless

area, it thoroughly considered the possibility of future 

wilderness designation. The court therefore finds that the 

Forest Service both considered the area’s potential for future 

wilderness designation and complied with Ninth Circuit 

precedent.1 

 

1 Defendants also argue that “[e]ven if National Audubon, 

Smith, or Martin had recognized some free-floating requirement to 

analyze ‘uninventoried roadless areas,’ which they did not, the 

2012 Planning Rule makes those cases obsolete” because the new 

regulation only requires analysis of areas that may have 

wilderness characteristics, not roadless areas. (Forest Serv.’s 

Mem. at 12.) However, the Ninth Circuit cases require disclosure 

of roadless areas, even if the roadless areas do not qualify for 

wilderness designation under the current regulations. As a 

Case 1:15-cv-01329-WBS-EPG Document 47 Filed 12/14/15 Page 14 of 25
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

E. Opportunity for Public Comment on Potential Impact on 

Wilderness and Roadless Areas

Under NEPA, the agency “must insure that environmental 

information is available to public officials and citizens before 

decisions are made and before actions are taken.” 40 C.F.R. 

§ 1500.1. In preparing an EA, “the agency shall involve 

environmental agencies, applicants, and the public, to the extent 

practicable.” Id. § 1501.4(b). Determining whether the public 

was adequately involved is “a fact-intensive inquiry made on a 

case-by-case basis.” Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. U.S. 

Forest Serv., 634 F. Supp. 2d 1045, 1067 (E.D. Cal. 2007) 

(citation omitted). 

Although the Ninth Circuit has “not established a 

minimum level of public comment and participation required by the 

regulations governing the EA and FONSI process, [it] clearly 

[has] held that the regulations at issue must mean something.” 

Citizens for Better Forestry v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 341 F.3d 

961, 970 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[A] complete failure to involve or 

even inform the public about an agency’s preparation of an EA and 

a FONSI, as was the case here, violates these regulations.”); see 

also Sierra Nev. Forest Prot. Campaign v. Weingardt, 376 F. Supp. 

2d 984, 991 (E.D. Cal. 2005) (Levi, J.) (“The way in which the 

information is provided is less important than that a sufficient 

amount of environmental information--as much as practicable--be 

provided so that a member of the public can weigh in on the 

 

result, this is not a prevailing argument and the court does not 

find that the 2012 Planning Rule rendered National Audubon, 

Smith, or Martin obsolete. 

Case 1:15-cv-01329-WBS-EPG Document 47 Filed 12/14/15 Page 15 of 25
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

significant decisions that the agency will make.”). “An agency, 

when preparing an EA, must provide the public with sufficient 

environmental information, considered in the totality of 

circumstances, to permit members of the public to weigh in with 

their views and thus inform the agency decision-making process.” 

Bering Strait Citizens for Responsible Resource Dev. v. U.S. Army 

Corps of Eng’rs, 524 F3d 938, 953 (9th Cir. 2008). 

In Weingardt, the court found that the Forest Service 

“failed to give the public an adequate pre-decisional opportunity 

for informed comment” where it distributed a scoping letter but 

no draft EA. 376 F. Supp. 2d at 992.2 While the court explained 

that, “depending on the circumstances, the agency could provide 

adequate information through public meetings or by a reasonably 

thorough scoping notice,” it found that the Forest Service had 

not released “sufficient environmental information about the 

various topics” addressed in the EA prior to its finalization. 

Id. For example, the scoping notice provided no environmental 

data concerning impacts to wildlife, cultural resources, 

watersheds, soils, fisheries, or aquatics. Id. Further, it 

provided no discussion of the potential cumulative effects that 

were discussed in the final EA. Id. 

In this case, the Forest Service had two distinct 

comment periods: thirty days following both the scoping notice 

and the draft EA. (AR at 1153, 1118.) The scoping process

included a public meeting and publication of a project 

 

2 This decision was cited with approval by the Ninth 

Circuit in Bering Strait. 524 F.3d at 953 (“The district court in 

Sierra Nevada Forest Protection Campaign [v. Weingardt] evaluated 

this issue soundly, and we commend its approach.”). 

Case 1:15-cv-01329-WBS-EPG Document 47 Filed 12/14/15 Page 16 of 25
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

description and two maps of the French Fire Project. Neither 

map, however, identified roadless areas or areas with potential 

for future wilderness designation.3 (Id. at 6124, 6313-14, 

6324.) The draft EA also contained no discussion whatsoever of 

roadless areas or wilderness designation. Further, neither the 

scoping notice nor the draft EA published the inventory maps 

created for the 2012 Planning Rule process or revealed that the 

Forest Service would rely on the inventory maps in assessing 

wilderness potential. 

The Wilderness Analysis, which was published on the 

same day as the final EA and DN/FONSI, was the first Forest 

Service document to explicitly address potential wilderness 

designation. It was in this document that the Forest Service 

revealed that it was relying on the inventory maps, 142 acres of 

potential wilderness area would be impacted by the French Fire 

Project, and the 142 acres were not likely to be designated as 

wilderness. There was no opportunity for public comment on the 

Wilderness Analysis. 

Defendants argue that though the Forest Service did not 

specifically identify roadless areas or potential wilderness 

areas in its scoping notice or draft EA, the Forest Service 

provided the public with the tools necessary to analyze these 

 

3 The first map attached to the scoping notice shows the 

location of the French Fire, the borders of the surrounding 

national parks, wilderness boundaries, and main highways. (AR at 

6314.) The second map is zoomed in on the French Fire area and 

highlights the areas identified for plantation analysis, 

Medusahead analysis, powerline buffer analysis, defensive fuel 

profile zone buffer analysis, hazard tree salvage analysis, and 

potential treatment units. (Id. at 6324.)

Case 1:15-cv-01329-WBS-EPG Document 47 Filed 12/14/15 Page 17 of 25
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

issues during the comment periods. (Forest Serv.’s Mem. at 15.) 

This is made clear, defendants argue, by plaintiffs’ comment 

letter, which relied on the information provided and identified 

that logging might impact possible wilderness areas. (Id.) 

While plaintiffs were able to deduce from the scoping 

notice and draft EA that the French Fire Project may impact 

wilderness areas, other members of the public might have weighed 

in had the issue been explicitly raised in either the scoping 

notice or draft EA. Moreover, plaintiffs would have been able to 

submit a more complete comment if they had access to the 

information in the Wilderness Analysis. Cf. Sierra ForestKeeper 

v. Elliot, 50 F. Supp. 3d 1371, 1388 (E.D. Cal. 2014) (Ishii, J.) 

(“[A] court reviewing an agency decision under NEPA can only 

provide relief to a challenging party if it can be shown that 

information that was not before the agency would, if properly 

considered, present a seriously different picture of the 

environmental landscape.”) (citation omitted). 

Plaintiffs specifically identify several important 

pieces of information they would have presented to the Forest 

Service if they had been given an opportunity to comment on the 

Wilderness Analysis. First, plaintiffs argue that if they had 

known the Forest Service would rely on the inventory maps, they

would have had a GIS expert analyze the inventory maps to verify

or discredit the Forest Service’s assertions. (Pl.’s Reply & 

Opp’n at 7 (Docket No. 38).) It is possible that this analysis 

would have revealed new information or called into question the 

Forest Service’s assessment of the area. While the inventory 

maps were publicly available, it was unreasonable to expect the 

Case 1:15-cv-01329-WBS-EPG Document 47 Filed 12/14/15 Page 18 of 25
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

plaintiffs or other members of the public to predict that the 

inventory maps, created for an entirely separate purpose, would 

be relied upon in analyzing the French Fire Project. Second, 

plaintiffs would have provided pictures and videos of the area to 

challenge the Forest Service’s finding that specific areas lacked

wilderness potential. (Id.) Lastly, plaintiffs argue they would 

have been better able to challenge the Forest Service’s 

wilderness assessment and articulate why it did not comply with 

applicable law. (Id.) Specifically, plaintiffs would have 

attacked the criteria the Forest Service used for creating buffer 

zones, assessing powerline corridors, and assessing areas with 

signs of fire suppression actions. (Pls.’ Mem. at 16.) 

While there is no established minimum requirement for 

involving the public in the Ninth Circuit, the court finds that

the Forest Service did not provide adequate pre-decisional

opportunity for public comment on its Wilderness Analysis. The

Forest Service did not provide the public with the environmental 

information regarding wilderness designation that it needed to 

weigh in with their views and inform the agency decision-making 

process. See Weingardt, 376 F. Supp. 2d at 992; Bering Strait, 

524 F.3d at 953. Accordingly, the court grants plaintiffs’ 

motion for summary judgment on the issue of public comment and 

denies defendants’ motion. The Forest Service must provide a 

public opportunity to comment on the Wilderness Analysis and 

respond to comments received.4 

 

4 Allowing additional time for public comment will not 

unduly burden defendants. Sierra Forest Products has informed 

the court that it has suspended logging operations due to 

weather. (Joint Status Report at 2 (Docket No. 43).) If the 

Case 1:15-cv-01329-WBS-EPG Document 47 Filed 12/14/15 Page 19 of 25
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

F. Necessity of an EIS

Plaintiffs next challenge the decision of the Forest 

Service not to prepare an EIS for the French Fire Project. The 

relevant provision of NEPA provides that “all agencies of the 

Federal Government shall . . . include in every recommendation or 

report on proposals for legislation and other major Federal 

actions significantly affecting the quality of the human 

environment, a detailed statement by the responsible official on 

(i) the environmental impact of the proposed action.” 42 U.S.C. 

§ 4332(2)(C). “Where an EIS is not categorically required, the 

agency must prepare an Environmental Assessment to determine 

whether the environmental impact is significant enough to warrant 

an EIS.” Ocean Advocates, 402 F.3d at 864. If, after 

preparation of the EA, the agency decides not to prepare an EIS, 

it must put forth a “convincing statement of reasons that explain 

why the project will impact the environment no more than 

insignificantly.” Id. (citation omitted); see also 40 C.F.R. § 

1508.13 (listing requirements for a FONSI). The FONSI is crucial 

to a court’s evaluation of whether the agency took the requisite 

“hard look” at the potential impact of a project. Ocean 

Advocates, 402 F.3d at 864.

To prevail on a claim seeking an EIS, a plaintiff “need 

not demonstrate that significant effects will occur. A showing 

that there are substantial questions whether a project may have a 

 

winter brings dry conditions, Sierra Forest Products may be able 

to resume operations in January or February 2016. However, if 

there are wet conditions, operations will not resume until July 

1, 2016 because the French Fire Project guidelines prohibit 

logging from March 1, 2016 through June 30, 2016. (Id.) 

Case 1:15-cv-01329-WBS-EPG Document 47 Filed 12/14/15 Page 20 of 25
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

significant effect on the environment is sufficient.” Anderson 

v. Evans, 371 F.3d 475, 488 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted). 

The NEPA implementing regulations promulgated by the Council on 

Environmental Quality (“CEQ”) provide that “significantly as used 

in NEPA requires considerations of both context and intensity.” 

40 C.F.R. § 1508.27. Courts evaluate intensity, which “refers to 

the severity of impact,” by considering a number of factors. Id.

§ 1508.27(b). “[O]ne of these factors may be sufficient to 

require preparation of an EIS in appropriate circumstances.”

Ocean Advocates, 402 F.3d at 865. 

Plaintiffs argue that an EIS was required based on the

following four intensity factors: (1) unique characteristics of 

the geographic area; (2) degree to which the effects on the 

quality of the human environment are likely to be highly 

controversial; (3) the degree to which the possible effects 

involve unique risk; and (4) the degree to which the action may 

establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects 

or represents a decision in principle about a future 

consideration. Further, plaintiffs argue defendants failed to 

provide a convincing statement of reasons for failing to conduct 

an EIS. 

a. Unique Characteristics of the Geographic Area

Even if Smith, Martin, and Audubon were not 

distinguishable from this case, the logging of a roadless area 

does not automatically require an EIS analysis. Smith makes 

clear that while logging roadless areas “could have serious 

environmental consequences,” an “EIS may not be per se required 

under such circumstances.” 33 F.3d at 1078-79 (citation 

Case 1:15-cv-01329-WBS-EPG Document 47 Filed 12/14/15 Page 21 of 25
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

omitted). In fact, though the Ninth Circuit held that the Forest 

Service’s NEPA documents were insufficient in Smith, the court

let the agency decide how best to comply with NEPA and its 

implementing regulations. Id. at 1079. 

In this case, the Forest Service found that the impact 

of the French Fire Project on any future potential wilderness 

designation would be negligible. In its final DN/FONSI, the 

Forest Service wrote that:

The Project does occur on approximately 142 acres 

within polygons inventoried for potential wilderness 

designation as part of the Sierra NF plan revision 

process. An analysis was done on these impacts and the 

character of the area, and it was determined that the 

area lacks the requisite wilderness character for 

designation. Therefore the Project will not affect an 

area with unique characteristics (French Fire Recovery 

and Restoration Project Wilderness Resource Impact

Analysis, 8/26/2015). Based on that evidence, it is 

not reasonably foreseeable and it is not likely that 

the SNF will designate as potential wilderness any 

areas that the French Project affects.

(AR at 34.) This portion of the DN/FONSI directly addresses why 

the French Fire Project will not impact an area with unique 

characteristics. The court therefore finds that an EA was

adequate and the agency’s FONSI was not arbitrary and capricious. 

b. Degree to Which the Effects Are Likely to Be Highly 

Controversial

“A federal action is controversial if a substantial 

dispute exists as to its size, nature or effect.” Wetlands 

Action Network v. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 222 F.3d 1105, 1122 (9th 

Cir. 2000), abrogated on other grounds by Wilderness Soc. v. 

Forest Service, 630 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). 

“A substantial dispute exists when evidence, raised prior to the 

preparation of an EIS or FONSI, casts serious doubt upon the 

Case 1:15-cv-01329-WBS-EPG Document 47 Filed 12/14/15 Page 22 of 25
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

reasonableness of an agency’s conclusions.” Nat’l Parks & 

Conservation Ass’n v. Babbitt, 241 F.3d 722, 736 (9th Cir. 2001) 

(citation omitted). Once this evidence is presented to the 

agency, the agency has the burden of demonstrating why this 

evidence does not create a controversy. Id. “The existence of 

opposition to a use, however, does not render an action 

controversial.” Wetlands Action Network, 222 F.3d at 1122. 

Plaintiffs argue that this action is controversial 

because there is a substantial dispute as to the size of the 

roadless areas with potential for wilderness designation that 

will be impacted. (Pls.’ Mem. at 18.) While the court agrees 

that this was a significant dispute earlier in the process, the 

Forest Service specifically addressed these concerns by issuing a 

Wilderness Analysis that explains the government’s findings, the 

maps it relied on, and the manner in which the maps were created. 

(AR at 2206-10, 2211-15, 2218.) NEPA requires only a 

“‘reasonably thorough’ discussion of the environmental 

consequences in question, not unanimity of opinion, expert or 

otherwise.” City of Carmel-by-the-Sea v. U.S. Dep’t of Transp., 

123 F.3d 1142, 1150-51 (9th Cir. 1997). Moreover, “when faced 

with conflicting evidence an agency may rely on its own 

evidence.” Id. at 1151. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ argument that 

an EIS was required because there was a substantial dispute as to 

the size of the federal action fails. 

c. Degree to Which the Possible Effects Involve Unique 

Risk

The French Fire Project does not involve unique risk 

even though certain roadless areas will be logged, see supra Part 

Case 1:15-cv-01329-WBS-EPG Document 47 Filed 12/14/15 Page 23 of 25
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

II.E. 

d. Degree to Which the Action May Establish a Precedent

Plaintiffs argue that the Forest Service was required 

to prepare an EIS because the French Fire Project sets a negative 

precedent for future actions with significant effects as it will 

allow the Forest Service to unilaterally determine, without 

public input, the areas that are roadless and suitable for 

wilderness designation. (Pls.’ Mem. at 19.) The French Fire 

Project will not set a negative precedent because, as is 

explained in the Wilderness Analysis and final EA, there are no 

significant effects from the treatment and logging in this case. 

Moreover, the Forest Service did not act unilaterally but rather 

sought public comment both during the scoping period and after 

issuing a draft EA. Accordingly, the court denies plaintiffs’ 

motion and grant defendants’ on plaintiffs’ NEPA claim that an 

EIS was required.

G. Adequacy of the Forest Service’s DN/FONSI

As discussed above, if any agency decides not to 

prepare an EIS, it must put forth a “convincing statement of 

reasons [in the form of a FONSI] that explain why the project 

will impact the environment no more than insignificantly.” Ocean 

Advocates, 402 F.3d at 864 (citation omitted). The Forest 

Service sufficiently addressed the factors that go toward a 

court’s determination of whether a project may have significant 

effects in its DN/FONSI and Wilderness Analysis. (See AR at 34-

35.) 

For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs’ motion 

for summary judgment is GRANTED to the extent that the Forest 

Case 1:15-cv-01329-WBS-EPG Document 47 Filed 12/14/15 Page 24 of 25
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

Service is hereby ORDERED not to resume the logging of roadless 

areas in the French Fire Project unless and until it complies 

with the requirements of NEPA by providing a public opportunity 

to comment on the Wilderness Analysis and responding to comments 

received. In all other respects, plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED 

and defendants’ motion is GRANTED.

Dated: December 11, 2015

Case 1:15-cv-01329-WBS-EPG Document 47 Filed 12/14/15 Page 25 of 25