N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
B ARK, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. LISA NOR THR O P, Fore st Supe rvisor of the M t. Hood Na

tiona l Fore s t a

nd UNITED STATES FOR

EST SER VIC E, a fe de ra l a ge nc y , De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s, INTER FOR , U.S., INC
. , Interve nor-De fe nda nt - Appe lle e . No. 14-35398 D.C . No. 3:13-c v-01267-HZ
M EM O R ANDUM *

B ARK, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. LISA NOR THR O P, Fore st Supe rvisor of the M t. Hood Na

tiona l Fore s t a

nd UNITED STATES FOR

EST SER VIC E, a No. 14-35548

D.C . No. 3:13-c v-01267-HZ



# F IL ED
APR 15 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.fe de ra l a ge nc y ,

De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s, INTER FOR , U.S., INC
. , Interve nor-De fe nda nt - Appe lle e . Appe a l from the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ore gon M arc o A
. He rnande z , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M a

rc h 2, 2015 Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : PAEZ a

nd IKUTA, C irc uit Judge s a nd TIGAR , ** Distric t Judge
. Appe lla nt B ark a p pe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s orde r gran ting sum m a ry judgm e nt to the Unite d State s Fore st Se rvic e on B ark’ s c la im s tha t the Fore s t Se rvic e viola te d the Nationa l Environm e nta l Polic y Ac t (NEPA) a

nd the Nationa l Fore st M an a g e m e nt Ac t (NFM A) be c a use it a c te d

arbitra rily and c a

p ric iously whe n it
a pprove d the Ja z z Thinning proje c t in theM t. Hood Na tiona l Fore st. Se e 5 U.S.C
. § 706(2)(A), (D)
. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C
. § 1291.

** The Honora

ble Jon S. Tiga

r, Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de signa t ion. 2The Fore st Se rvic e did not a c t a rbitra rily and c a pric iously in c onside ring only the propose d fore st thinning pla n a nd a no-a c t ion a lte rnative in the Environm e nta l Asse ssm e nt (EA), be c a use those we re the only

propose d
a lte rnative s tha

t “ c ould fe a s ibly

m e e t the proje c t ’ s goa l.” C f. W . W ate rshe d s Proje c t v . Abbe

y , 719 F.3d 1035, 1052–53 (9th C ir. 2013). B e c a u se B ark’ s propose d a lte rnative s (a s sta

te d in its c om

m e nts to theEA) we re not e c onom ic a lly via b le and did not prom

ote the proje c t’ s sta

te d goa ls, the Fore st Se rvic e wa s not
re quire d to c onside r the m . Se e Earth Island Inst. v . U.S. Fore

st Se rv . , 697 F.3d 1010, 1022–23 (9th C ir. 2012); se e also N ativ e Ec osy

ste ms C ounc il v . U.S. Fore

st Se rv . , 428 F.3d 1233, 1247–49 (9th C ir. 2005). The Fore st Se rvic e a de quate ly disc u sse d a

n d c onside re d in the EA the pote ntia l e nvironm e nta l im pa c ts of the proje c t’ s propose d re c onstruc tion a nd subse q ue nt use of te m

pora ry roa ds, a nd its de te rm ination tha

t a ny im pa c t due to the propose d roa d building a

nd use would be m inim a l wa s not a rbitra ry and c a pric ious. Se e Hapne r v . Tidw e l l , 621 F.3d 1239, 1244 (9th C ir. 2010) (c iting 40 C .F.R . § 1508.9(b)). In m aking its de te rm inat ion, the Fore st Se rvic e re a sona bly re lie d on the findings of its soil spec ia l ist, a nd we de fe r to the a ge nc y ’ s e xpe rtise
. Se e The Lands C ounc i l v . Mc

N air , 537 F.3d 981, 993 (9th C i r. 2008). The Fore st Se rvic e
a de quate ly

disc usse d in the EA its findings tha t the proje c t’ s a c t ive 3de c om

m issioning of the

re built roa d s at the e nd of the proje c t would ha v e a be ne fic ia l e ffe c t

in limiting surfa c e runoff a nd e rosion, tha

t the worst-c a se inc re a se in se dim e nt due to the proje c t would be“ short-te rm and unde t e c ta ble at the
wate rshe d sc a le ,” and tha t the m itiga

tion m e a sure s re stric t ing roa d usa ge would
e nsure tha

t a ny input of se dim e nt from

logging truc ks would bem inim a l The Fore st Se rvic e a de quate ly disc u sse d a

n d c onside re d in the EA the pote ntia l e nvironm e nta l im pa c ts of the loss of la

rge woody

de bris a n d the spre a d of inva sive spe c ie s a s a re sult of theproje c t, a n d its de te rm ination tha

t the se im pa c ts would be m inim a l wa s not a rbitra ry and c a p ric ious. Se e Hapne r , 621 F.3d a t 1244. The Fore st Se rvic e ’ s re a s ona ble de te rm i nation tha

t the proje c t would pre se rve 90 pe rc e nt of the re le va

nt la rge woody

de bris through the

e s ta blishm e nt of 50 to 100- foot buffe r are a s a

round stre am s, a

nd tha t suffic i e nt de bris would bere ta ine d at the
e nd of the proje c t, wa s ba s e d upon a ge n c y te c hnic a l e xpe rtise , to whic h this c ourt de fe rs. Se e Mc

N air , 537 F.3d a

t 993. TheFore s t Se rvic e a lso a de quate ly disc usse d the pote ntia l for the spre a d of inva sive spe c ie s in the EA a nd provide d spe c ific proje c t de sign c rite ria dire c te d at

m i tiga ting the se risks. Se e Hapne r , 621 F.3d at 1244. The Fore st Se rvic e ’ s de c ision to issue a Finding of No Signific ant Im pa c t (FONSI) in lie u

of a n Environm e n ta l Im

pa c t Sta t e m e nt (EIS) wa s not a

rbitra ry and 4c a

pric ious be c a

u se the re is not “ a

substa ntia l disputea

bout thesiz e , nature or e ffe c t” of the proje c t. Se e N ativ e Ec osy

ste ms C o unc i l , 428 F.3d a

t 1240 (a lte ra tions a

nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d). Like in N ativ e Ec osy

ste ms , the Fore st Se rvic e he re took a “ ‘ ha rd look’ a t the e nvironm e nta l c onse que nc e s” of its propose d a c tion a nd re a s ona

bly re l ie d on its own e xpe rt re p orts a nd te c hnic a l
e xpe rtise in c onc luding tha t the im pa c t of the proje c t would beinsignific ant. Se e id. at 1240–44. The Fore st Se rvic e a de quate ly a sse sse d a

nd e xpla ine d

why the proje c t wa s c onsiste n t with theAqua

tic C onse rvation Stra

te gy (AC S) in both the short a nd long te rm in the EA, a

nd we a fford “ substa

n tia l de fe re nc e ” to the Fore s t Se rvic e ’ s inte rpre tation a

nd im p l e m e ntation of its own Fore st Pla n. S e eGre at Old Broads for W ilde rne ss v . K imbe ll , 709 F.3d 836, 850 (9th C ir. 2013); se e also Pac . C oast Fe d’n of Fishe rme n’s Ass’n, Inc . v . N at’l Marine

Fishe rie s Se rv . , 265 F.3d 1028, 1031–32, 1034 (9th C ir. 2001). TheFore st Se rvic e e xam ine d the proje c t’ s c om plia nc e with a ll nine AC S obje c tive s in the EA, a nd, a m ong othe r things,
re a s ona bly de te rm ine d

tha t the proje c t would m e e t the AC S’ s ove ra ll purposeof
re storing a

nd m a inta ining “ the e c ologic a l he a lth of wa te rshe ds a nd a quatic
e c osy ste m s” by

e lim i nating ove rc rowding. The Fore st Se rvic e re a sona bly de te rm i ne d tha

t the proje c t m e t AC S obje c tive e ight, “ m a inta ining a nd re storing 5spe c ie s c o m

position a nd struc tura l dive rsity ,” be c a use the thinning will a

llow light to pe ne trate through the c rowde d c anopy , the re b y prom oting the“ natura l
re c ruitm e nt of dive rse pla nt c om m unitie s” in the short te rm

and struc tura l dive rsity through thelong-te rm

c ontribution of la

rge woody de bris to theare a . The Fore st Se rvic e a lso re a s ona

bly de te rm i ne d tha

t the roa d de c om

m issioning a fte r the proje c t’ s c o m

ple tion would c re a te a m ore natura l se dim e nt re gim e , the re by
satisfy ing AC S obje c t i ve five , “ m a inta ining a nd re storing se dim e n t re gim e s .” Ac c ordingly , the Fore st Se rvic e ’ s de t e rm i nation tha t the proje c t wa s c onsiste nt with AC S obje c tive s wa s not a rbitra ry and c a pric ious. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

awarding c osts to the

Fore s t Se rvic e be c a

use its de te rm ination tha

t B ark would not be

burde ne d by

an a ward of $2,148.57 whe n it ha s a

n ope ra ting budge t of $574,421 wa s not “ illogic a l, im pla usible , or without support in infe re nc e s tha t m ay be drawn from

the fa c ts in the re c ord.” Unite d State s v . Hink son , 585 F.3d 1247, 1267 (9th C ir. 2009) (e n ba nc ). AFFIRM E D.

6