NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CONSERVATION CONGRESS, a nonprofit organization, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

No. 15-15737 

D.C. No. 

2:14-cv-02228-GEB-AC 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Garland E. Burrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted March 16, 2017

San Francisco, California

Before: TALLMAN and WATFORD, Circuit Judges, and GUIROLA,** Chief 

District Judge.

Conservation Congress appeals the district court’s grant of summary 

judgment in favor of the United States Forest Service (“USFS”) in its action under 

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

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The Honorable Louis Guirola, Jr., Chief United States District Judge 

for the Southern District of Mississippi, sitting by designation.

FILED

MAR 31 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

Policy Act (“NEPA”), and the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). 

Conservation Congress challenges USFS’s authorization of the Porcupine 

Vegetation and Road Management Project (“Project”) in the Shasta-Trinity 

National Forest. Specifically, Conservation Congress alleges that USFS failed to 

comply with the NFMA’s snag requirements, did not take the requisite “hard look” 

at environmental consequences, and should have prepared an Environmental 

Impact Statement (“EIS”) for the Project. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1291, and we affirm.

1. USFS did not arbitrarily conclude that the Project complied with the 

NFMA’s snag standards. See 16 U.S.C. §§ 1604(a), (i); Native Ecosystems 

Council v. Dombeck, 304 F.3d 886, 897 (9th Cir. 2002). As part of its 

environmental review, USFS conducted site visits to proposed treatment units in 

2011. Those field studies determined that each treatment unit had “at least two 

snags per acre greater than 15 inches [in diameter].” This finding is consistent 

with the Shasta-Trinity National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

(“Forest Plan”), which requires all treated areas of the forest to retain an average of 

1.5 snags per acre greater than 15 inches in diameter at breast height and 20 feet 

tall. And because the Project’s proposed treatment methods will retain all existing 

snags greater than 15 inches in diameter, “unless deemed a safety hazard by the 

purchaser, or in the case of a need to meet coarse woody debris (CWD) 
3 

requirements,” USFS has shown both that proposed treatment units meet snag 

standards and that treatment methods will not reduce snag numbers below Forest 

Plan minimums. Lands Council v. McNair, 537 F.3d 981, 989, 994 (9th Cir. 2008) 

(en banc). USFS has therefore satisfied the NFMA.

2. USFS took the required “hard look” at the Project’s anticipated effect

on snag numbers. 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C); Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens 

Council, 490 U.S. 332, 350 (1989); Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co. v. Nat. Res. Def. 

Council, 462 U.S. 87, 89 (1983); 40 C.F.R. § 1502.16. The 2011 field studies 

established a snag baseline in proposed treatment units, Am. Rivers v. FERC, 201 

F.3d 1186, 1195 n.15 (9th Cir. 1999), and USFS compared that baseline to the 

effect treatment methods will have on snag levels. Because the Project only 

removes snags in two limited circumstances, it was reasonable for USFS to 

conclude that treatment methods will not reduce snag numbers below Forest Plan 

standards. USFS has therefore complied with NEPA with respect to the Project’s 

effect on snag numbers.

3. USFS appropriately considered all reasonable Project alternatives. 42 

U.S.C. § 4332(2)(E); Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Salazar, 695 F.3d 893, 915 

(9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Native Ecosystems Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 428 F.3d 

1233, 1246 (9th Cir. 2005)). The Project’s Environmental Analysis (“EA”) 

considered a total of fourteen alternatives, five of which were discussed in detail. 
4 

40 C.F.R. § 1502.14. USFS also considered an alternative involving no treatment 

within owl habitat—Alternative 6—but ultimately decided to reject that 

alternative. See id. In making this decision, USFS did not act arbitrarily. USFS 

reasonably concluded that not treating 17% of the Project area would thwart the 

major purposes of the Project—to improve overall forest health by reducing fuel 

loads and preventing catastrophic wildfires, reduce damage from insect infestation, 

and remove impediments to efficient tree growth—which would benefit the owl 

and its habitat over the long term. USFS further concluded that its decision to 

reject Alternative 6 was not inconsistent with its earlier management decision to 

avoid logging in the Late-Successional Reserve, as that area contains some of the 

highest quality owl habitat in the region. NEPA only requires USFS to consider 

alternatives reasonably related to the purposes of the Project, Westlands Water 

Dist. v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 376 F.3d 853, 868 (9th Cir. 2004), and we hold that 

USFS has satisfied that standard here. 

4. USFS properly analyzed the cumulative impacts of the Porcupine 

Project together with other actions, and the agency used a reasonable scope in that 

analysis. Ctr. for Envtl. Law & Policy v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 655 F.3d 

1000, 1007 (9th Cir. 2011); 40 C.F.R. § 1508.7. In contrast to Conservation 

Congress’s claim, the Council on Environmental Quality (“CEQ”) Handbook does

not require USFS to use the owl’s “natal dispersal” distance in its analysis. The 
5 

Handbook is not afforded the same level of deference as formal CEQ regulations, 

see Andrus v. Sierra Club, 442 U.S. 347, 358 (1979), and it specifically notes that 

it is “not [to] be viewed as formal CEQ guidance [or] intended to be legally 

binding.” Absent a specific regulation curtailing agency deference in this case, we 

will not disturb the application of both USFS and Fish & Wildlife Service expertise

to assess the impact here. Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390, 413–14 (1976). 

5. Finally, USFS was not required to prepare an EIS for the Porcupine 

Project, and its ultimate finding of no significant impact (“FONSI”) is supported 

by the record. 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C); 40 C.F.R. § 1508.13. An EIS is not 

required if there is simply some uncertainty over the Project’s anticipated effects; 

rather, the Project’s effects must be “highly” uncertain. Envtl. Prot. Info. Ctr. v. 

U.S. Forest Serv., 451 F.3d 1005, 1011 (9th Cir. 2006). Conservation Congress 

misses this distinction. While there is some uncertainty regarding the effect fires

have on foraging habitat, USFS has explained that owls are known to avoid high 

and moderate burn areas for use as roosting and nesting habitat, a habitat

considered to be of higher quality than foraging habitat. In other words, while the

uncertain effect of fires in foraging areas may cast doubt on some aspects of the 

Project, the Project’s anticipated effects as a whole are not highly uncertain and do 

not trigger the need for an EIS. Id.; see also 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27(b)(5). 

The same conclusion applies to Conservation Congress’s claim that, because 
6 

a limited amount of logging will occur in areas designated as critical habitat, an 

EIS is required to fully explore the effect logging will have in those areas. See 40 

C.F.R. §§ 1508.27(b)(3), (9). But Conservation Congress has not shown that these

logging practices will significantly affect the environment. See 42 U.S.C. 

§ 4332(2)(C); Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project v. Blackwood, 161 F.3d 1208, 

1212 (9th Cir. 1998). Rather, as USFS has explained, logging in designated 

critical habitat will be limited to areas that support lower-quality owl habitat—and 

no forest treatment will occur in nesting and roosting habitat. We think USFS has 

provided a “‘convincing statement of reasons’ to explain why [the Project’s] 

impacts are insignificant.” Blue Mountains, 161 F.3d at 1212 (citation omitted). 

USFS’s FONSI is well supported, and USFS was therefore not required to prepare 

an EIS.

Each party shall bear its own costs.

AFFIRMED.