F OR P UB LIC AT ION



### U N I TED STA TES C O U R T O F A PPEA LS F O R T H E N IN T H C IR C U IT

G R E AT O L D B R OADS F OR W I LD ER N ESS ; THE W I LD ER N ESS S OC I E TY , Plain tif

fs- Ap pe lla nts ,

v.
A BI G A I L K I M BE LL , Chief, United State s F or e st Se rv ic e ; M I KE J OHANNS , Secre tary

of Ag riculture; E DW AR D M ONNI NG , H umb oldtToiy abe N ational For est Supervisor; J A CK T ROYER , Inte rm ounta in Re g ion a l F or e ste r; U NI TED S TA TES F OR E S T S ERV I CE ; U NI TED S TATES OF A M ERI CA , Defendants-A ppellees

. No. 11-16183

D.C. No. 3:07-cv-00170- RL H-RAM

OPI NI ON

Appea l from the United States District Court for the D istrict of Neva da Roge r L . Hunt, Senior District J udg e, Presiding

Argued and Submitted No ve mbe r 6 , 2 01 2— San F ra nc isc o, Ca lif

or nia

Filed Ma rch 4, 2013G R E AT O L D B ROA D S FOR W I LD ER N ESS V

. K I M BE LL

2

T he H o no rable R o b ert D

. Sa ck, Se ni o r C i rcui t Jud ge f o r t he U

. S. Co urt *

o f A p p eal s f

o r t he Se co nd C i rcui t , s i t t i ng by desi gnat i o n.

T hi s s ummary cons t i t ut es no part o f the o pi ni on of

t he cour t

. I t ha s ** b een p repa red b y co urt s t af f f o r t he co nveni ence o f

t he read er. Be fore : Robert D. Sack, Ronald M. Gould, *

and Mil an D . Sm ith , Jr. , Ci rc uit Judg e s. Op ini on by Judg e Go uld

SUMMAR

Y **

Envi ronm ental Law The pa nel re verse d in part and a ffirme d in part the district court’s judg ment in f

avor of the United States F orest Servic e in an action challeng ing the For est Service ’s approval of the restoration

of a f lood-damag ed roa d in the Humboldt-Toiy abe National F orest in Neva da. The pa nel re verse d the district court’ s h olding on exhaustion, and held that eac h of the claims prese nted on appea l were adequately exhausted by plaintiff’s submissions to the For est Service

. The pa nel af firmed the district c ourt’s alternative holding on the me rits, gr anting summ a r y judgme nt in f avo r o f t he F or e st Se rv ic e

. Th e pa ne l he ld that the F or e st Service ’s Record of Dec ision c onformed to th e N ational For est Manag ement Act, Executive Orde r 11988, and the National Environmenta l Poli cy Act.G R E AT O L D B ROA D S FOR W I LD ER N ESS V

. K I M BE LL 3

CO UN SEL

Alison Christi ne F lint (argued) a nd Michae l Fr eema

n, Earthjustice, D enver , Col o ra do; Craig Coleman, Fa eg re B ake r D anie ls L L P, Minne a po lis , Minne so ta ; He nr

y Eg g ha rt , Attor ne y , Re no , N e va da , f

or Ap pe lla nts

. Eliz abeth Ann Pete rson (argued), Envir onment & N atura l Resource s Division, Department of Justice, Washington, D

. C

. ; A n dr e wA

. S m i th , A s s i s t an tU n i t e d S t a t e s A t t o r

n e y, Al bu qu e rq

ue , N e w M e xico , f

or Ap pe lle e s.

OP IN ION

GOUL D, Circuit J udg e:
Th is c a se ari se s o ut o f t

he lon g and c on te nti ou s p ro c e ss t o re p ai r a flood-damag ed roa d in a sensitive ar ea of the Humboldt-Toiy abe National F orest in Elko County , Neva da. A re lated dispute re ache d us twice be fore , wh en we or dere d that App e lla

nts Gr e a t O ld B ro a ds and

the Wild e rn e ss S oc ie ty (c oll e c tiv e ly , “ Gr e a t O ld B ro a ds ” ) b e a llo we d to int e rv e ne in
c ourt -d ir e c te d s e ttl e me nt t a lks to de te rm ine ho w b e st t o r e pa ir
or re place the roa d, reje cting timeliness and standing challeng es. See U

nited States v. Carpen t er ( Car pe nte r I ), 298 F.3d 1122, 1125 (9th Ci r. 2002); United States v. Carpenter

( Carpenter II

), 526 F .3d 1237, 1240 (9th Cir. 2008). G r e a t O ld

B r o a d s n o wa

p p e a ls th e d is tr ic t c o urt’s grant of summa

ry jud g me nt t o th e Un ite d St a te s F or e st Se rv i c e ( “ F o r e s tS e r

v i c e ” ) o nG r e a tO l d

B r o a d s ’ s c l a i ms related to the For est Service ’s re cord of decision (“ ROD”) deter mining the method for restoring the S outh Cany on Road as a pa rt of the J arbidg e Cany on Project (the “Projec t”). TheG R E AT O L D B ROA D S FOR W I LD ER N ESS V

. K I M BE LL

4 Projec t w a s ane f

f o rt t o r e e s ta

b li s hth e So u th

Ca n y o nRo ad afte r flood water s damag ed the road in 1995, el iminating
ve hi c l e a c c e s s t o th e S n o w s l i d e G u l c h W i l d e r n e s s P o rt a l in the Jar bid g e Wild e rn e ss. Gr e a t Ol d B ro a ds so ug ht r e vie w i n fede ral c ourt, contendingthat the For est Service ’s appr oval of th e Pr o je c t v io late d

( 1 ) th e N a ti o n a l F o r e s t M an ag ement Act (“NFMA ”), 16 U.S.C. §§ 1600–1687, beca use the Projec t
o f f e n d e d th e F is h e r ie s an d

Wi ld li f e Re s to r a ti o ns ta

n d ar d F W2 o f t he Inla nd Nativ e F ish S trate g y

(“ I NF I SH” ), wh ic h is inco r p o r a te d into th e H u mb o ld t N a ti o n a l F o r e s t L an d

and Resource Manag emen t Plan (“Humboldt Plan”); (2) Ex ecutiv e Or der 11988, ( “EO 11988” ), 42 F ed. Reg . 26951 (1977); and ( 3) the Na tional Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (“N EPA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321–4370f.

Th e dis tr ic t c ourt

g ave summ ary

jud g me nt t o th e F or e st Se rv ic e , h old ingthat G re a t O ld B ro a ds did no t e xha us t it s a dmi nis tr a tiv e re me die s and , a lte rn a tiv ely , that G re a t O ld Br oads’s claims failed on the merits. We h av e j u risdiction under 28 U .S.C. § 1291. W e re verse the di s t ri ct cour t’s conclusion on exhaustion and aff irm its alternate de cision on the me ri ts.

I. BACKG ROUND

J arbidg e Cany on is in the northeast cor ner of Neva da, b et we en T wi nFa l l s , I d ah o , an d E l k o , Ne v ad a. T h e J ar

b i d ge River flows north fr om the J arb i dg e Wilderness into I daho, wher e it joins the Br

uneau River and eventua lly t h e S nake
and Col umb ia

Riv e rs . T he Jar

bid g e Riv e r i s h ome to the on ly population of bull trout kn o wn t o exis t south of the Snake River. Thi s population has been isolate d from other bull trout for more than 100 y ear s by a combination of huma n and
natur a l ba rr ie rs

.G R E AT O L D B ROA D S FOR W I LD ER N ESS V

. K I M BE LL 5

The South Canyon Road (indexed as For est Road # 064) fo l l o ws th e W es tFo rk

o f t h e J ar b i d ge R i v er

t h ro u ghJ ar

b i d ge Cany on. The roa d dates to 1909, when g old w as discover ed in t he ca ny on, leadingto one of the la st gold rushe s in the Uni ted States and spurr ing de velopment of a cce ss roads t h ro u ghout the canyon. The disputed seg ment of the roa d
was c ompleted betwe en 1911 and 1918. I n 1974, the roa d was closed above Snowsli de Gulch beca use annua l landslides
ma de mai nt e na

nc e imp ra c tic a l. Unti l 19 95 , th e South Cany on Road g ave the only motoriz ed-ve hicle ac cess to the wilderne ss are a at Snowsl ide Gulch. The road c limbs one mile fro m P ine Cree k Campg round to the Urda hl Con c e ntr a te d U se Ar e a

(“ Ur da hl” ) a nd the n ano the r ha lf

mil e to Snowsli de Gulch. I

n 1995, the J arbidg e River f looded,
makin g thi s p art

of the South C anyon

Roa d unp a ssa

ble to passeng er ve hicles for

at least the f

ifth time since 1970.

I n 1997 , th e F o r e s t S e r

v ic e p r e p ar e d

an e n v ir onmental assessment and made a finding of no signific ant i m pact (“ F ON SI ” ) f

or the re c omm e nd e d r e pa ir of th e e nti re South Cany on Road. Trout Unlimited mounted an administrati ve challeng e to this FONSI , arguing t h at t he propose d
rec onst ru ct i on would harm the bull trout population and habitat, and sug g esting that h arm would lead to the trout’s listi ng under the Endang ere d Species Act (“ ESA”). The Re g ion a l F or e ste r re mand e d the e nv ir onme nta l ass e ssm e nt t o the F or e st Se rv ic e to c on sid e r T ro ut Unli mit e d’ s c la ims

.
In J une 1998, the Unit ed S tates Fish and W ildlife Service (“ F WS” ) p ro po se d li sti ngthe Jar bid g e Riv e r b ull tr out a s a threatened spe cies unde r th e ES A. At the same time, after
rec e iv in g c o mm e n ts o nit s 1 9 9 7 e n v ir o n me n ta l a s s e s s ment and conduc ting more analy sis in response to Tro ut Unlimit ed’s suit, the F orest Servic e published a se condG R E AT O L D B ROA D S FOR W I LD ER N ESS V

. K I M BE LL

6

environmenta l ass es s ment. This 1998 environmental
assessme n t identified a hikingtrail as the pr efe rre d alt e r n a ti v e , e li mi n a ti n g mo to r iz e d a c c e s s a lo n g th e e n tire rele vant stretch of

the South Cany on Road.

In response to t h i s p roposed ESA listing a nd the
rec ommendation of the 1998 environmenta l assessment, Elko County un ilate ra lly

dir e c te d it s r oa d d e pa

rtme nt t o b e g in repa ir of the Sout h Cany on Road, citing its need to ac cess the South C anyon to f

ight fore st f

ires. Whil e re building the r oad, El ko County

div e rt e d th e ri ve r i nto a

str a ig ht c ha

nn e l. T his channe liz ation lifted a plume of se diment that stretched 3.5 miles down the river

and dama g ed the r iver ba nk. Elko County ’s re pair wor

k was blocked by

the Neva da Division of Environmental Protec tion, but the r epair s had so damag ed the river ha bitat that FWS is sued an e m erg ency listi ng of the J arbidg e bull trout as endang ere d in Aug ust 1998. Emerg ency L isting of the J arbidg e River Population Segment of B ull Trout as Endang ere d, 63 Fe d. Reg . 42757, August 11, 1998. Predicting that “impacts from the r oad re construction to b u ll tr o u t h a

b it a t w il l l ik e ly

r e ma in for y ear s , ” F WS perma nently listed the bull trout as t hreatened on Apr il 8, 19 99 . E nd ang e re d a

nd Thre a te ne d Wil dli fe and Plants ; Deter mination of Threatened Status for the J arbidge River Pop ulatio n Se g me nt o f B ull Tr out, 6 4 F e d. Re g

. 17 11 0, Ap ri l 8, 1999.

The F orest Servic e and E lko County tried to neg otiate a pla n to re op e n th e ro a d o ve r t he n e xt fe w m on ths , b ut t his eff ort failed. F rustrate d by

lack of p ro g ress a

nd deter mined to enable ve hicle acc es s to the wilderne ss are a, a loc al
c iti zen s’ g ro up c a lli ngits e lf the “ Sho ve l B ri g a de ” de c ide d to
re o p en th e ro ad b y h an d

. I nOc t o b er o f 1 9 9 9 , Di s tri ct J u d ge Hag en bl ocked the Br iga de’s plan to r eopen the road a ndG R E AT O L D B ROA D S FOR W I LD ER N ESS V

. K I M BE LL 7

RS 2477 f

or mer l y prov i ded t h at “ t h e r i g h t of way f or t h e con s t r u ct i on 1 of h i g h wa y s ov er pu bl i c l an ds , n ot r es er v ed f or pu bl i c u s es , i s h er eby grant ed

. ” 4 3 U

. S.C

. § 9 3 2 (1 9 7 0 ), r epe al ed by Feder al Lan d P ol i cy M a nagem ent A ct (“ FL P M A ”), P ub

. L. N o

. 94

- 5 7 9 , § 7 0 6 (a), 90 Sta t. 27 43 , 279 3 (197 6 )

. T he FLP M A pre s er ved r i gh t s
- of

- way t hat ex i s t ed b e fo re 1 9 7 6 . 4 3 U .S .C . § 1 7 6 9 (a ). P a rtie s c la im ing R S 2 4 7 7 e a se m e n ts
m ust s ho w t he road on w hi ch t hei r cl ai m i s b ased was b ui l t be f o re t he l and it c ro sse s lo st it s p u b lic c h a ra c te r. H um bo l dt Co un t y v

. Uni t ed St at es , 6 8 4 F.2d 12 7 6 , 12 8 1 (9t h C i r. 19 8 2 ). re qu ir e d th e B ri g a de , El ko County , and the F or e st Se rv ic e to enter confide ntial me diation. O ff- road ve hicle (O RV) rider s continued to enter t he South Cany on, undeter red by road
c on dit ion s and the F or e st Se rv ic e ’s a tte mpt s to b loc k a c c e ss. These O RVs established trails along t h e leng th of the
wa sh e d- out r oa d a

nd fu rt he r d ama g e d th e ri ve r h a

bit a t.

After months of unsucce ssful talks, the Shovel Brig ade ag ain made pla n s to reope n the roa d by hand. This time the Br iga de st y l ed its effort a s a protest sche duled on J uly 4, 20 00 . T he dis tr ic t c ourt

did no t e njo in t

he B ri gade fro m its p l an , an d th e B r i g a d e s u c c e s s f

u l l y o p e n e d

a r u d i m e n t ar

y, quarte r-mile road. I n response , the United S t at es char g ed members of the S hovel Brig ade with trespassing and re newe d a suit ag ainst Elko Co u nty for damag e ca

used by the County ’s e arl ie r r oa d w or k. El ko Co un ty

e nte re d a

c ro ssclaim to quiet title to a rig ht of way in the South Cany on Road under Re vised Statute 2477 (RS 2477). 1

J u d ge Hag en ag ain orde red the For est Service , Elko County , and the Shovel B rig ade ( re p re s ented by named de fe nd ant John C arp e nte r) int o c on fi de nti a l se ttl e me nt t a lks

. On Marc h 2, 2001, the par ties told t h e co u rt that they had
rea ched an ag ree ment. Car pe nte r I , 298 F.3d at 1124. I n the proposed se ttlement a g ree ment (“Propose d Settlement”), (1)G R E AT O L D B ROA D S FOR W I LD ER N ESS V

. K I M BE LL

8 the par ties relea sed all cla ims ag ains t eac h other; (2) the For est Service rec og nized Elko Count y ’s RS 2 4 7 7 rig ht of
wa y and a g re e d to a llo w the County to r e sto re the South Cany on Road; and (3) Elko County and Carpe nter a g ree d that the United States had a

uthority to manag e the land in a ccor d wi th f e de ral envir onme nta l la

ws and pr omi se d to ob ta in For est Service authorization befor e per formingany work on the South Cany on Road. At this point, the details of the Proposed Settlement wer e pu bli c ize d, and Great Ol d B ro a ds mov e d to int e rv e ne a s a defe ndant in Elko County ’s Quiet Title Act cla im. Id . Gre at O l d B r o a d s c la ime d th a t th e Pr op os e d Se ttl e me nt “ imp ro pe rl y cede d a prope rt y i n t erest in the road to the County of Elko, there by substantially

d i m i n i s h i n g t h e e n v i ro n mental protec tions for the adja cent wilder ness ar eas.” Id . The dis tr ic t c ourt re

je c te d Gr e a t O ld B ro a ds ’s mot ion a s unti me ly and ac cepte d the Proposed Settlement. Id . Gre at Old B roads appea led. We vaca

ted the appr oval of the Proposed Se ttl e me nt a

nd or de re d th a t G re a t O ld B ro a ds be a llo we d to intervene

. Id . at 1125.

Gre at Old Br oads re newe d its mot ion to intervene in the district c ourt on the Quiet Title Act claim and fi l ed Ad min istrativ e Pr oc e dure Ac t (“ APA ” ) c ro ss- c la ims a g a ins t the United States, cha lleng ing the settlement under N EPA, the F e de ra l L and

Polic y and Mana g e me nt A c t, 4 3 U .S. C. § 1 70 1 e t se q. , a

nd F or e st Se rv ic e re g ulatio ns , 36 C.F .R. § 251. Carpenter II

, 526 F.3d at 1239. The district court held that Gre at Old B roads lac ked standing to challeng e Elko County ’s Quiet Title Act cla im. Id . And althoug h the district court a llowed Gre at Old Br o ad s to intervene on its other claims, it dismi ssed them on the g round that the Atto rney Gene ral’s decision to se ttle w as not r eviewa ble under theG R E AT O L D B ROA D S FOR W I LD ER N ESS V

. K I M BE LL 9

APA. Id. Neve rtheless, the district court re cog nized that “the g overnm ent circumvented c erta in proce dural mandates imp os e d b y

Con g re ss, ” so the dis tr ic t c ourt staye d it s a p p r o v a l un ti l th e U n it e d St a te s d e mo n s tr a te d th a t the Proposed Settlement complied with the environmental statut e s and

re g ulatio ns ra ise d in

Gr e a t O ld B ro a ds ’s cr os sclaims. Id . at 1239–40.

Af t er en t er i n g th i s o rd er , J u d ge H age nre t i re d , an d J u d ge Hunt succe eded to jud i cial re sponsibili ty on the ca se. Id . at 12 40 ; see W

ilde r ness Soc’

y v. U .S. Forest Serv. , 3:07-CV-00170-RL H, 2011 W L 1042612 (D. Ne v. Mar. 17, 2011). Judge Hunt l i ft ed the stay , relievingthe g overnme nt of its obligation to demonstrate that the P roposed Settlement did not violate the environmenta l laws ident ified by Gre at Old Br oads. Carpenter II , 526 F.3d at 1240. After liftingthe stay , J udg e Hunt held hearing s on the merits of the Propose d Settlement. Id. Gr e a t O ld B ro a ds was no t pe rm itt e d to prese nt evidence or par

ticipate as a

party

. Id

. Af

ter the se he ari ng s, the dis tr ic t c ourt a pp ro ve d the Pr op os e d Se ttl e me nt, and Gr eat Old B roads a

ppeale d. Id.

We a g a in r e ve rs e d th e distr ic t c ourt , h old ingthat it s ru lin g that G re a t O ld B ro a ds did no t ha ve sta nd in g to intervene in the Quiet Title Act c laim was forec losed by our ear lier dec ision. Id. (c i t i n g Car pe nte r I , 298 F.3d at 11 25 –2 6) . We fu

rt he r h e ld t hat G re a t O ld B ro a ds ’s c ro ssclaims wer e re viewable under the APA. Id. a t 1 2 4 1

– 4 2

. We
vacated the appr oval of the Qu i et Ti tle Act settlement a nd
re ve rs e d th e dis mis sa l of Great Ol d B ro a ds ’s c ro ss- c la ims

. Id . at 1243.

Whil e Gr eat Old B roads lit i gated its rig ht to intervene, Elko County

and the Fore st Service wor ked to put theG R E AT O L D B ROA D S FOR W I LD ER N ESS V

. K I M BE LL

10 Proposed Settlement into effe ct. Elko Co u n t y proposed a plan to r eesta

blish the road on Aug ust 16, 2002, as called f or by the Proposed Settlement. In April 2003, the For est Service published a dra ft Enviro n mental Impact Statement (“ EI S”), that analy

zed the Elko County

proposal, and six other manag ement alter

natives for

the Project. Gr eat Old B roads
c omm e nte d o n th e dr a ft

EI S.

In April 2005, the F orest Servic e issued a dr aft Rec ord of Dec ision (“ROD”) . The dra ft ROD did not adopt any of the alternatives analy

zed in the draf

t EI S to form the manag ement alternative selec ted for the Project (the “ Selected Al te rn a tiv e ”). I ns te a d, the Se le c te d A lte rn a tiv e wa s a c o mb i n a t i o no f

e l e m e n t s f

r o mth e f

o l l o w i n g dr a f

tE IS
a lte rn a tiv e s:
Alter native 1 (The N o-Ac t ion Alternative) left the roa d in its condition a s of ea rly 2005, including the primitive rest oration work perf ormed by the Shovel B rig ade and the
ro ute s d e fi ne d b y

un a uth or ize d u se rs

. Alter na ti v e 3 restore d the roa d up to Urdahl but replac ed it with a hik i n g t rail from there, providing non-motorized a cce ss to Snowsl ide Gulch. Al t er n at i ve 3 re quired the construction of two new bridg es and several
ne w r oa d s e g me nts

. Alter native 4 (T he El ko County P ro po sa l) reloc ated the r iver a

nd road to their 1995 prefl oo d lo c a tio ns , p ro vid ingpa sse ng e r- ve hic le
acc ess to Snowslide Gulch.G R E AT O L D B ROA D S FOR W I LD ER N ESS V

. K I M BE LL 11

The Selec ted Alternative larg ely followed Alter

native 4, restoringthe roa d for the mile f rom Pine Creek Campgr ound to Urd ahl, but it

inc or po rate d t he hiki ngtr a il a na ly zed in Alternative 3 from Ur dahl to Snowslide Gulch. Alternative 3 rec laimed the roa d above Urdahl, so the Selec ted Al te rn a tiv e a llo we d o nly no n-moto ri zed a c c e ss i n th e la st half-mile to the wil d erne ss are a. The Selected A lternative also avoided r iver and road relocation and bridg e construc tion in Alternatives 3 and 4 by repla cingthose features with lowwater crossing s from the user- define d routes in A lternative 1. The Selec ted Alt ernative did not recognize Elko Count y ’s claim to title in a rig ht of way throug h the South Cany on.
The Selec ted Alternative incorporated no par t of Gre at Old Br oads’s pre fer

red a lternative, A lternative 2, which would have r eplac ed the r oad with a hiking t ra i l from Pine Cr e e k Ca mpgro un d to Sno ws lid e Gu lch , or A lte rn a tiv e s 5
an d 6 , wh i ch wo u l d

h av e r ai s edth e r o ad ab o v e t h e J ar b i d ge R i v erfloodplain. Alternative 7, like Alternative 1,
co n t em p lated no re pairs to the roa d. I t differ ed fr om Alternative 1 in that it included a Road Manag ement Plan and Wat e r P ro je c ts. On April 1 3, 2005, Gre at Old B roads submitted a comment letter on the R OD. Great Old B roads wr ote that the Se le c te d A lt e r

n a t i v e r e p r e se nte d a

“ su bs tanti a l im

pr ov e me nt” over Elko County ’s proposal, but Gre at Old Broads c ontinued to obje ct to a

ny decision to r econstruc t the So u t h C an y on Road above Pine Creek Campg round. Gre at Old B roads
ur g e d th a t th e F o r e s t Se r

v ic e a d o p t A lt e r

n a ti v e 2 , which the For est Service found would result in t he lowest impac ts from
e ro si o nan d

m a s s w a s t i n g e v e n t s

. G r e a tO l d B r o a d s a lso argued that the Selec ted Alternative, unlike A lt ernative 2, was leg ally infirm for thre e re asons: (1) the Sele cted Al t er n ati veG R E AT O L D B ROA D S FOR W I LD ER N ESS V

. K I M BE LL

12

“would not me et the I

NFI SH sta

ndards that are incorporated int o th e [Humbo ldt

Plan]” ; ( 2) by

rebuildi ngthe South Cany on Road, the Selec ted Alternative “contr avene s [EO 11988] because it does not avoid the J arbidg e River fl oo dp la in” ; and

(3 ) t he S elec te d A lte rn a tiv e “ re pr e se nts a signific ant cha

ng e that mer its further e nvironmental analy sis.”

The F orest Servic e is sued t he final ROD and fina l EI S at the end of April, adopting the Selecte d Alternative in a form
e s s e n t i a l l y

un c h an g e d

f r o mth e dr a f

tR O D

. T h e f

i n a l E IS analy zed the same seven al t ernatives considere d in the draf t EI S and did n o t add additional ana ly sis of the Selecte d Alternat i v e. The final ROD included a more de tailed
e xplanatio n o f t

he Se lecte d A lte rn a tiv e , a nd the F or e st Supervisor explained that he “considere d all views that have be e n e xpre sse d” and

that “ [t]he se c omm e nts have he lpe d me make a better informed decision.” Neither the R OD nor the fi nal EI S attached or

responde d to Great Old Broa ds’s comments in its April 13 letter.

On J une 14, 2005, Gr eat Old B roads f iled an administrative appe al of the decision to approve the ROD and the final EI S “to protect [its] rig hts to challeng e the de cision” if El ko County

we re to a pp e a l. I n it s a pp e a l le tte r, Gr e a t O ld B ro a ds on c e a g a in a dv oc a te d th e no n- mot or ize d tr a il
c on sid e re d a s A lte rn a tiv e 2. Gr e a t O ld B ro a ds a lso
c o n t e n d e d

th a tt h e S e l e c t e d

A l t e r n a t i v e w a s ar

b i tr ar y, capr icious, and did not comply with applicable law “[ f]or the
rea sons stated in the attac h ed comment letters.” Of seve n a tta c he d le tte rs , la

be le d E xhibi ts 1 –7 , the fi rs t f ive re late d to the dra ft E I S. Ex hibit 6 was the April 13 letter on the draf t ROD. Exhi bit 7 commented on the dra ft biologic al opi n ion that coincided w ith the draft ROD.G R E AT O L D B ROA D S FOR W I LD ER N ESS V

. K I M BE LL 13

On J uly 5, Gre at Old B roads told the Fore st Service that it woul d n o t w it h dr awit s a

p p e a l “ [i ]nli g h t o f

th e Sh o vel Br iga de’s administrative appea l, a nd Elko County ’s dec ision to re- commence litigation.” See United States v. Carpenter , 3:99-CV-00547-RL H, 2012 WL3686872 (D. Nev. Aug . 27, 2012). The J uly 5 letter set out f uller descr iption s o f t he issues on which Gre at Old B roads c ont es t ed the Selecte d Alternative and re sponded to argu m ents made by Elko County and the Sho ve l B ri g a de in the ir re sp e c tiv e app e a ls. Gre at Old Br oads char acte rized the decision to le ave the road op e n f ro m Pin e Cr e e k Ca

mpgro un d to Ur da

hl a s “ an e ff

or t to
c omp ro mis e wi th El ko County , and thu s r e so lve thi s d isp ute without further l i tigation.” “In light of the intransig ence of Elko Coun t y

and the Shovel B rig ade,” Gre at Old B roads ag ain urg ed the F orest Servic e to a d o p t a hiking trail as analy zed in Alternative 2. T h e Forest Service ’s Appea l D e c i d i n g O f

f i c e r n o t i f i e d G r e a tO l d

B r o a d s th a tth e J u l y 5 le tt e r w a s un ti me ly an d w o u ld n o t b e c o n s id e red. See 36 C.F .R. § 2 15 .1 5 ( a

pp e a l ti me pe ri od s f

or Natio na l F or e st Sy stem Projects).

On July 21 , 2 00 5, the F or e st Se rv ic e de nie d G re a t O ld Br oads’s appea l and af

firmed the de cision approvingthe ROD and final E I S

. The Appe al Dec iding Of fice r did not
c on sid e r i ssu e s r a ise d in th e atta c hme nts be c a us e Gr e a t O ld Br oads’s a

ppeal letter

did not ex plain how the initial decision had fa iled to consider substantive c omments and did not ide nti fy the un c on sid e re d a sp ect s o f t he a tta c he d le tte rs

. Ba sed on this limited revie w, the Appea l D eciding O ff icer held that the dec ision was “re asonable , b ased on documentation in the re cord and consistent with t he [Humbol dt] Plan.”G R E AT O L D B ROA D S FOR W I LD ER N ESS V

. K I M BE LL

14

Gr e a t Ol d B ro a ds tim e ly fi le d an a c tio n in th e U. S. District Court f

or the District of Ne vada se ekingrevie w of the F or e st Se rv ic e ’s a c tio ns . The dis tr ic t court g ra nte d th e F or e st Service ’s motion for summary judgme nt, holding that Gr eat Old Br oads did not exhau s t i t s administrative re medies on any claim and that, in the a lternative, G reat Old Bro ad s ’s claims failed on the merits. This appea l followed.

II. STA ND AR

D O F RE VI EW

We reviewthe district court’s gr ant of summ ary judgme nt de novo

. Gardner v

. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt ., 638 F.3d 1217, 1220 (9th Cir. 2011)

. Section 706 of the APA g overns judicial revie w of a g ency decisions under the NFMA, NEPA,
and EO 11 98 8. 5 U .S .C. § 7 06 ; see Native E cosystem s Council v. Dombe ck, 304 F.3d 8 8 6 , 891 (9th Cir. 2002) (applying a

rbitrar y and ca priciou s s tandar d to NEPA and NFMAclaims); City of Carmel-By- The-Sea v . U.S. Dep’ t of Transp. , 123 F.3d 1142, 1166 ( 9th Cir. 1997) (apply ing
ar b it r ar y an d c a p r ic io u s s ta

n d ar d to EO 11988 c la im s )

. We
w i l l n o t o v e rtur

n a g e n c y a c t i o n un l e s s i t i s “ ar b i tr ar y, c apr ic iou s, an a

bu se of dis c re tio n, or

oth e rw ise no t in
acc ordanc e with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)

. Agency action is arbitra

ry and ca pricious if “the ag ency ha s r e lie d o n f

a c tor s whi c h Co ng re ss h a s n ot i nte nd e d it to consider, e ntirely failed to consider an important a spect of the problem, off

ere d an explanation for its dec ision that runs
cou nt er to th e e vid e nc e be fo re the a g e nc y , o r i s so i mp l a u s i b l e th a t i t c o u l d n o t b e a s c r i b e d t o a d i f f e re nc e in view or the product of ag ency expertise.” City of Sausali to v. O’ Ne ill , 386 F.3d 1186, 1206 ( 9th Cir. 2004) (citations omi tte d) . Are vie wi ngc ourt “ g e ne ra ll y mu st b e ‘at it s mo st defe rential’ when reviewingscientific judg ments andG R E AT O L D B ROA D S FOR W I LD ER N ESS V

. K I M BE LL 15

technica l a

naly ses within the ag ency ’s expertise.” N. Plains Res. Council, Inc. v

. S

u r face Transp. Bd ., 668 F.3d 1067, 1 0 7 5 (9 thC i r. 2 0 1 1 ) ( qu o t i n g Balt. Gas & E l ec

. Co. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. , 462 U.S. 87, 103 (1983)).

III . D ISC USS ION

A. Exhau stion of

Adm inis trat ive Rem edies

The F orest Servic e conte nds, an d the district court he ld, that Gre at Old B roads f

ailed to exhaust its challeng e to the ROD. We disag ree

. The e x haustion doctrine serves “to permit administrative ag encie s to util ize their expertise, corr ect a ny mistakes, and avoid unnec essar

y judicial int erve ntion in the process.” Lan ds Cou nc il v . M

c Nai r , 629 F.3d 1 0 70, 1076 (9th Cir. 2 0 1 0 ) ( en b an c) (c i t i n g Buck ingham v. U.S. Dep ’t

o f Agric. , 603 F.3d 1073, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010)). The APA re quires that plaintiffs exhaust available a dminist rat ive re medies bef ore bring ing grieva

nces t o fede ral c ourt, 5 U.S.C. § 704, including the specific appea l proce dures e stablished by the Secre tary befor e bring ing an action in c ourt ag ains t the Se c re tary of Agri c ult ur e . 7 U. S.C. § 6 91 2( e ); 36 C.F .R. § 215. Plaintiffs need not fr ame i s sues in “pre cise leg al formu l ations,” so long as “the appea l, taken as a whole, pr ov ide [s] su ff

ic ie nt n oti c e to t

he F or e st Se rv ice to affo rd it the opportunity

to rec tify

the violations that the p laintiffs alleg ed.” Nat iv e Ec os

y ste ms Cou nc il , 304 F.3d at 899–900. Whe n a pp e lla nts ob je c t to a F or e st Ser

vic e de c isi on , “ c la ims raised at the administr at i ve appe al and in the f eder al complaint must be so s imilar that the district court ca n asce rtain that the a g ency was on noti ce o f, and had a nG R E AT O L D B ROA D S FOR W I LD ER N ESS V

. K I M BE LL

16
opportu n i ty

to consider a

nd decide , the same c laims now raised in f

eder al cour

t.” Id . (quotation remove d).

The F orest Service and the district cour t, when re viewing Gre at Old Broads’s claims, considere d only the appe al letter itself and not the attachme nts. The Appea l DecidingOffic er did not consider the attach ed comment letters beca use the
a pp e a l le tte r d id n ot e xpla in wh ic h p art s o f whic h c omm e nts in the attache d letters we re r eleva nt t o ea ch element of

the appea l. But F orest Servic e re g ulations provide that attachme nts are a par

t of an a ppeal, see36 C.F.R. § 215.15(a) (“ Writ te n appea ls, including a

ny attachme nts, must be filed”),
and we have pr e vio us ly all ow e d ju dic ia l r e vie w o f c la ims made in comment letters on a dra ft EI S when those comment letters we re not even a

ttached to f

ormal appe als. See G reat Basin Mine W

atch v. Hank

ins , 4 5 6 F. 3 d955, 965 (9th Cir. 2006).

The d is tr ic t c o urt m is ta k e n ly s e e ms n o t t o have
rec og nized that Great Old Broa ds commented on the ROD at
a ll. In r uli ngthat G re a t O ld B ro a ds did no t e xha us t it s administrative re medies, the dist ri ct cour t found that “the attache d comment letters addre ss the draf t EI S rather tha

n the actua l 2005 Decision.” W ilderness Soc’y , 2011 WL 1042612, at *4. B ut one of the at t ac h ments, the letter of April 13, 2005, did address the ROD. That letter c lear ly asser ted the three issues that were raised in the appe llate brief ing: ( 1) that the selec ted decision did not mee t I NFI SH standards; (2) that keepingthe roa d o p en offe nded Executive Orde r 11988 beca use it did not avoid the J arbidg e River f loodplain; and (3) that th e se le c te d a lte rn a tiv e , w hil e an impr ov e me nt, repr esente d a “sig nificant c hang e that mer its further environmental analy sis,” and that the de cision “did notG R E AT O L D B ROA D S FOR W I LD ER N ESS V

. K I M BE LL 17

provide a full analy sis of the environmenta l impacts now beingconsidere d over time.”

This was not a case where the ag ency was asked t o piece toget h eran appe al from a mountain of undiffe rentiate d comment letters. Gr eat Old B road s attache d its comment letters as distinct exhibi ts. Any car eful reviewe r should have
rec og nized that one of t h e s ev en addr essed the ROD and should a lso ha

ve bee n able to see that the others g ave a dded context for the appe al. I n the one letter addre ssing the ROD , Gr e a t Ol d B ro a ds su c c inc tly state d thr e e le g a l obj e c tio ns

. The a ppeal, take n as a whole, includes the attached c omment le tte rs

. The For est Service argues that even if Gre at Old B roads’ s Ap ri l 13 le tte r we re pr op e rl y c on sid e re d a s pa rt of its a pp e a l, the attachme nt w as insufficient to e x haust Gre at Old Br oads’s claims under our

rec ent decision in Native Village of Kivalina IRA Council v. U.S. Environme ntal Protection Agency , 68 7 F .3 d 12 16 (9 th Cir

. 20 12 ), be c a us e Gr e a t Ol d B ro a ds did not expl ain why

it believed the ROD did not co n s i der the claims made in its April 13 comment l et t er. See 36 C.F .R. § 2 15 .1 4( b) (8 ). Th is a

rgume nt c on tr a dic ts Great Basin Mine W atch and mis re a ds Kivalina

.
In Kivalina , the Vil lag e of K ivalina petitioned for r eview of a Natio na l Pollutant Dis c ha rg e El imi natio n Sy ste m pe rm it that allowed the discharg e of wastew ater from a mine into the Wuli k River, which enter s the C hukchi S ea ne ar K ivalina. Id. at 1218. The Envir onmental Appea ls Boar d (“EA B” ) of the Envir onme nta l Pr ote c tio n A g e nc y (“ EPA ” ) d e c lin e d to revie w the per

mit, concluding that Kivalina “had not satisfied the pr oc e dura l re qu ir e me nts to o bta in r e vie w u nd e r 4 0 C. F .R. § 1 24 .1 9( a ) b e c a

us e it did no t de mon str a te why the [EPA ’s ]G R E AT O L D B ROA D S FOR W I LD ER N ESS V

. K I M BE LL

18

re sp on se s to c omm e nts wer e c le arl y e rr on e ou s o r o the rw ise
war rante d revie w.” Id . In denyin g Ki valina’s pe tition, we
no t e d th a t th e E A B h a s c o n s i s t e n t l y a p p l i e d § 1 2 4

. 1 9 ( a ) t o deny revie w “whe re pe titioners merely reiter ate or

attach comments previously

submitt ed re g arding a draf t pe rmit and do not eng ag e the EPA’s responses to those comments.” Id. at 1220. This policy

is simi lar to the F orest Servic e’s a ppeal require ment that appellants demonstrate “[ w]hy the appe llant believes the Responsible Offic ial’s dec ision failed to con sider the substantive comments.” 36 C.F.R. § 215.14(b)( 8). Be cause of this simi larity , t h e F orest Servic e conte nds that
our ana ly sis in Kivalina controls her e. We rejec t t he F orest Servic e’s a rgument for se vera l
rea sons. First, despite the f acial simil arity

of the two standards, Kivalina arose in an en t irely differ ent leg al context. The exhaustion of administrative reme dies was not at issue in Kivalina

. See 68 7 F .3 d at 12 18 –2 2. Thus , Kivalina ’s holding doe s not apply to t h e exhaustion issue here , althoug h its reasoningmay be conside red to the extent persua sive on exhaustion. I nstead of ad d ressingan issue of exhaustion of administrative re medies, Kivalina revie wed the EA B ’s deci si on to d e c lin e to r e vie w the g ra nt o f a n E PA permit. Id . We have c onsistently “d ef i n ed the e x haustion require ment broadly ,” Great Basin Mine W atch , 456 F.3d at 965. Bu t by

contra st we held in Kivalina that the EAB ’s “powe r of r eview shou l dbe only sparing ly

exercised.” 687 F.3d at 1219 (quotation remo v ed). Unlike judicial
re vie w o f a g e nc y

a c tio ns un de r t

he APA , EA B re vie w i s o nly available to petitioners who have : (1) demonstrated t hat the challeng ed per

mit decision was clea

rly err oneous or (2) convince d the EAB to exerci s e i t s discretion to revie w the permit. Id. (quoting 40 C.F.R. § 124.19(a) ). These differ ent standards of

revie w do not aid t he Forest Servic e’s a rgumentG R E AT O L D B ROA D S FOR W I LD ER N ESS V

. K I M BE LL 19

seekingto avoid revie w on the mer its. Because Kivalina addre ssed a more restric tive thresh o l d for r eview tha n that fac ed by Gre at Old B roads, Kivalina does not c o n t ro l the outcome her e.
S e c o n d , a l th o u g hth e tw o s i tu a t i o n s h av e s o m e s i m i l ar i ty, and Kivalina ’s re as o n ing is instructive, this re asoning tends to support Great Old Br oads’s posit ion on exhausti on, not that of the g overnme nt. I

n Kivalina , the EAB ref

used to consider Kivalina’s c halleng e bec ause K i v alina did not “eng ag e the EPA’s response s to public comments.” Id

. a t 1221 . I n i ts decision to issue the per mit, the EPA re p ro duced a nd addre ssed seve ral public comments, including c omments by Kivalina, on the monitori n g provisions at issue. Id. at 12 20 –2 2. Rathe r t

ha n e ng a g ingwi th t

he EPA ’s re sp on se s to comments and e x plaining why those response s d id not answer Kivalina’s e x presse d conce rns or justify the per mitti ng decision, Kivalina raised e ntirely new issues. See, e .g ., id . at 1221. Her e, b y co ntrast, the F orest Servic e did not acknow ledg e or r espond to Gre at Old Br oads’s April 13 letter in the final EI S or the final ROD. Th e fi n al E I S answere d Gre at Old B roads’ s comments on the dra ft EI S, and the Appea l DecidingOffic er c ited those response s when de nying Gr e a t O ld B roa ds ’s a dmi nis tr a tiv e a pp e a l. B ut t

he on ly indication that the For est Service had conside red the April 13 letter at all was the For est Supervisor’s c onclusory statement that he had “ considere d all views that have been e x presse d.”
Where, a s in Kivalina , an ag ency repr oduces a

nd responds to comments, parties see king re v i ew have a c hance to bring their own e x pertise t o bear and explain why

the ag ency ’s
re sp on se s to c omm e nts do no t di sp os e of the ir c omp lain ts. Even in the sparing ly -exercise d EAB revie w, petitioners ar e on ly req uir e d to “ e ng a g e the EPA ’s re sp on se s to [ their]G R E AT O L D B ROA D S FOR W I LD ER N ESS V

. K I M BE LL

20

comments.” Kivalina , 687 F.3d at 1220 (empha sis added). But he re the Fo re st Service did not clea rly respond to Gr eat Ol d B ro a ds ’s c omm e nts in i ts A pril 13 le tte r, so the F or e st Se rv ic e c ann ot r e a so na

bly re qu ir e Gr e a t O ld B ro a ds to explain why

t h e “dec ision failed to consider th[ose] substantive comments.” See 36 C.F.R. § 215 .14(b)( 8). State d a no the r w ay , when a

n a g e nc y c le arl y re sp on ds to comments, it crea

tes a re bu t t ab l e pre sumption t hat it has considere d and answ ere d the commenter ’s conc erns. To
ov e rc ome that pres ump tio n, the c omm e nti ngpa rt y mus t eng ag e with those re sponses and at least say why they are thought to be ina dequate . I f an age n cy does not respond, howeve r, appe llants have nothingwith which to eng ag e. To be pre sented on a

ppeal, e ach of

Gre at Old B roads’ s thr e e c la ims mus t ha

ve be e n e xha

us te d b e fo re the F or e st Service . We first addre ss Great Old Broa ds’s contention that the RO D vio late s the NF MA be c a us e it did no t c omp ly

wi th I NFI SH standard F W-2, which g overns “ fish and wi l d l i fe int e rp re tiv e and

oth e r u se r- e nh anc e me nt f aci litie s. ” In it s April 13 letter, Gr eat Old B roads a rgued that the Selected Al t ernative did “not meet the I NFI SH standards that a

re incorpora ted into the [Humbol dt Plan] .” Gr ea t Old Broa ds cited pa g e s in

th e dr a f t E I S th a t d e s c r ib e d

F W- 2 a s “ one I NFI SH stand ar d an d g uideline . . . that per tains to fish and wi ldl if e fo r t he Jar bid g e Canyon

EI S.” F W-2 is the f

ir st standard listed unde r the fir st heading in the cited pag es, and its pr omi ne nc e put th e F or e st Se rv ic e on no tic e that G re a t O ld Br oads took issue with the ROD’s complianc e with FW-2.
Second, Gr eat Old Broa ds contends that the ROD violate s EO 11988, which limit s ag ency actions in f loodplains. In the same Apr il 13 letter, Gre at Old B roads a rgued that the de c isi on “cont

ra ve ne s E xec uti ve Or de r 1 19 88 , b e c a us e itG R E AT O L D B ROA D S FOR W I LD ER N ESS V

. K I M BE LL 21

do e s n ot avo id the Jar

bid g e Riv e r fl oo dp la in. ” EO 11 98 8 is focuse d exclusively

on preve nting unne cessa

ry development in floodplains and limiti ng the harmful eff ects of a ctions that
mus t be sit e d in flo od

pla ins

. B y c iti ng EO 11 98 8, Gr e a t O ld B ro a ds e xha

us te d th is c la im.

Gre at Old B roads a lso ex hausted its third claim, that the F o r es tS erv i ce v i o l at edNE P A b y n o tp re p ar i n g a s u p p l e m e n t a l E IS ( “ S E IS ” ) f o r th e S e l e c t e d

A l t e r n a t i v e

. In its April 13 letter, Gre at Old B roads e x plained that the Selected Alternative, “while a major improvement over [draf t EI S] Al t ernative 4, repr esent[ed] a signific ant cha ng e that
me ri ts f ur the r e nv ir onme nta l ana ly sis .” On thi s iss ue a s w ith the pre ced i n g two, Gre at Old B roads’ s April 13 letter “allow[ed] the ag ency

to give the issue meaning ful consideration.” Great Basin Mine W atch , 456 F.3d at 971 (q u o t i n g Dep’ t of Transp. v. Pub. Citiz en , 541 U.S. 752, 764 (2004))

.
W e h o l dthat the three claims prese nted on this appea l
eac h wer e ade quately

exhausted by Great Old Br oads’s submissi ons to the For est Service , and we rea ch the mer its of Gr e a t O ld B ro a ds ’s a

pp e a l.

B. Consid erat ion of

Claim s on the Mer its

Gre at Old Br oads sug g ests three theories why th e R OD
was a n arbitra ry and capr icious action by the For est Service : (1) that the ROD v iolated the NF MA; (2) that the ROD violated EO 11988; and (3) that the ROD violated N EPA. The district cour

t in its a lternative holding g rante d summary jud g me nt i n fa

vo r of the F or e st Se rv ic e on a ll thr e e the or ie s, and we discuss eac h in turn.G R E AT O L D B ROA D S FOR W I LD ER N ESS V

. K I M BE LL

22

1. The National For est M anagem ent Ac t

The NF M A direc ts the Fore st Service to deve lop a
c omp re he ns ive land and re so ur c e mana g e me nt p lan ( “ F or e st Plan” ) f or e a c h unit in the natio na l fo re st s y ste m. 1 6 U .S. C. § 1604(a) . For est Plans ai m t o balanc e envir onmental and
e c on omi c c on c e rn s, wh ile fu rt he ri ng the NF MA ’s purp os e to

“ pr ov ide fo r d ive rs ity

of pla nt a nd anim a l c omm

un it ie s” in national fore sts. Native Ecosyste ms Council v

. W eldon , 69 7 F .3 d 1 04 3, 10 56 (9 th C ir . 2 01 2) (quoting16 U. S.C. § 1604(g )(3) (B )). Af

ter a For est Plan has bee n develope d and implemented, the NF MA prohibits site- specific activities that
are inconsis tent with the g overningFor est Plan. Lands Cou nc il v . P owe ll , 395 F.3d 1019, 1033 (9th Cir. 2005). The F or e st Se rv ic e ’s “ int e rp re tatio n a nd imp le menta tio n o f i ts own fore st plan is entitled t o s u bstantial defe renc e.” Native Ec os y ste ms Cou nc il , 6 9 7 F

. 3 d a t10 56 ; see also Aue r v. Robbins , 519 U.S. 452, 461 (1997) (A n ag ency ’s int e rp re tatio n o f i ts o wn re g ulatio ns is cont rollingun le ss “plainly err oneous or inconsistent with the re g ulation.”). Gr e a t Old B ro a ds c on te nd s th a t th e RO D d oe s n ot c omp ly wi t h t h e Humboldt Plan beca use it violates FW-2, one of I NF I SH’ s f

ish and wi ldl if e re sto ratio n s tand ard s. The Humboldt Plan g overns the For est Service ’s sitespeci fi c decisions in the J arbidg e Canyon. The Humboldt Plan was ame nded in 1995 b y I NFI SH to give mor e protec tions for habitat and populations of resident native fish, including the bull trout. SeeIn l an d N a t i v e F i s hS tr a t e g y: Dec ision Notice and Finding of No S ignif icant I mpact (1995) (I NF I SH 9 5) ; se e als o I nland Na t ive Fish Strategy , 60 Fe d. Reg . 3 9 9 2 7 , A u g u s t 4 , 1 9 9 5

. F o r w a te r s h e d s o c c u p ie d by inland native fish, I

NFI SH supplies Ri paria

n Manag ement O b j e c t i v e s ( “ R M O s ” ) th a t s e t g o a l s f o r p o o l f r e qu e n c y,G R E AT O L D B ROA D S FOR W I LD ER N ESS V

. K I M BE LL 23

de ns ity of larg e wo od

y de br is, ba

nk sta bil ity , w idt

h- to- de pth ratio, and water temperature. These cate g ori es i dentify char acte ristics of heal t h y fish habitat. I

NFI SH does not require RMOs to be achie ved as soon a s they are announce d; instead, they serve as benchmarks a g ainst which prog ress c an be mea sured a

nd deg radation prevente d.

For individual rivers, the F orest Servic e desig nates buff er zones around Riparian H abi tat Conservation Are as (“RHCAs”) . Parts of the S o u t h Cany on Road are in the Jar bid g e Riv e r RHC A. To pr omo te a tta inm e nt o f RMO s, I NFI SH sets standards a

nd g uidelines for a ctiv i t i es inside th es e b u ff er z o n es , i n cl u d i n g ro ad -b u i l d i n g, m i n i n g, l o ggi n g, and re storin g fi s herie s and wildlife habitat. I NFI SH 95 A-6 to A-13. One standard, F W-2, require s the For est Service to: Desig n, construct, and operate fish and wildl if e in te r p r e ti v e a n d o th e r user
enhanc ement fa cilities i n a manne r that does not r e ta r d o r p r e v e n t a tt a inme n t o f the Rip a ri an M anagem entObj ect iv es o r a dv e rs e ly aff ect inland native fish. For exis ting f ish and wildlife interp re t i v e and otheruserenhanc ement fa cilities i n s id e Riparian Ha bitat Co n s e r v a ti o nA r e a s , a s s ur e th a t R ip arian Mana gement O bje c tiv e s are me t and a dv e rs e eff ects on inl an dnative fish ar e avoide d. Where Riparia

n Manag ement Objec tives cannot be met or adve rse e ffe cts on inland native fish avoide d, reloc ate or clos e such fa c ili tie s.

I NFI SH 95 A-13.G R E AT O L D B ROA D S FOR W I LD ER N ESS V

. K I M BE LL

24

B eca us e we hol d t hat FW

- 2 does not appl y t o r oad r econs t r uct i on, we 2 d o not reach G reat O l d B road s’ s second co nt ent i o n. W e no t e, how ever, t h at t h e RO D f

i n ds t h at t h e combi n ed al t er n at i v es a n d t h e mi t i g at i on st rat egi es i n t he Se l ect ed A lternat i ve wo ul d not ret ard att ai nm ent of t he R M O s un der I N FISH

. T hi s f i ndi ng , whi ch i s d ue s ubs t ant i al d ef er enc e a s th e p ro d u c t o f t h e F o re st S e rv ic e ’s tec h n ic a l ex p e rtise , s ee N at i ve E c o sy ste m s C o u n c il , 697 F. 3d a t 1056, cou l d pos s i bl y pr ev en t FW

- 2 f r om
man dat i n g t h e cl os u r e of t h e r oad ev en i f

i t di d a ppl y t o t h e r oad. Gre at Old B roads c ontends that sever al finding s in the final EI S show that the ROD violates Fisher ies and Wildli fe Restoration standar d FW-2, and theref ore the Humboldt Pl an and the NF MA. In the final EI S, the Fore st Service identifie d FW

- 2 a s “ o n e I

N F I SH s ta

n d ar d

. . . th a t p e rta in s to f is hand wildlife for the J arbidg e Cany on EI S.” When analy zing ea ch alternative in the final EIS, t h e F orest Servic e asse ssed whether it would or wo uld not comply with FW-2 and descr ibed the eff

ect eac h alternative would have o n t he RMOs. The alter

natives that we re c omb i ned to form the Selected A lternative a ll had neg ative ef fec ts on RMOs. Gre at Old Br oads conte nd s t h at t hese r efe renc es to FW-2 in the final EI S show (1) th at t he standa rd applies to the r oad
re c on str uc tio n a nd (2 ) that the RO D vio late s the sta nd ard , s o the roa d must be “re located or closed.” 2
We disag ree . The fina l EI S does indicate that F W-2
a pp lie s in the Pr oje c t. B ut e ve n if F W-2 do e s a

pp ly to “ fi sh and wildlife in the Jarbidg e Canyon EI S,” it requires a ction only for “ fish and wildlife interpr etive and othe r user- enhanc ement fa cilities.” The ter m “user enhanc ement fac iliti es” doe s not a

ppear to a pply to roads but instead, a s the For est Service sug g ests, to tr ailhead fac iliti es such a s parkingG R E AT O L D B ROA D S FOR W I LD ER N ESS V

. K I M BE LL 25

T h e Se l ec t ed A l t ernat i v e r emov ed t oi l et s a t U r dah l a n d Sn ows l i de 3 G ul ch, as FW

- 2 woul d re qui r e. are a s and

toi le ts. By

contra st, I

NFI S H “Roads 3 M an age m en t ” s t an d ar d s ex p l i ci t l y ap p l y t o th e J ar

b i d ge C an y o n R o a d

. IN F IS H 9 5 A

- 7 t o A

- 8

. T h e f i n a l E IS descr ibed these a s the “s t andar ds and guidelines for r oad manag ement that per

tain to the J arbidg e Canyon projec t,” and t he ROD e x plained that the Selec ted Alternative complied with I NFI SH by

ref er ence to Roads Manag ement standa rds RF-2 to RF- 4. L ike FW-2, the Roads Mana g ement standa rds
are c on c e rn e d w itha tta inm e nt o f RMO s. Th e y pr omo te at t ai n m en t of RMOs by requiringvarious design modifications and mitigation strateg ies, many of which we re included in the ROD. Unlike F W-2, the Roads Manag ement standards do not r equire that roads be reloc at ed o r closed unless the roa ds are obsolete.

Th e te xt of

re late d I NF I SH sta

nd ard s a lso g uid e s a g a ins t
rea ding “ user- enhanc ement fa cilities” to include roads. The int ro du c tio n to the c oll e c te d s tand ards an d th e Min e ra ls Manage ment standard MM- 2 include both “r oads” a nd “fa cilities” on lists, showing that I NFI SH considere d “fa cilities” and “ roads” to be distinct cate g ories. I NFI SH 95 A-6, A- 10. There is no evidence i n t h e fi n al EI S that FW-2
a pp lie s b e y on d w hat it s p la in l angua g e ind ic a te s.
We will defer to t h e Forest Service ’s interpre tation of FW-2 unless i t is plainly

err oneous or inconsistent with the standard. Sis k

iy ou Re g’ l E du c . Pro je c t v . U .S . F or est S e rv ., 565 F.3d 545, 557 ( 9th Cir. 2009). I t is ne ither. We hold that the For est Service ’s interpre tation of FW-2 is rea sonable a nd that the ROD does not violate the N FMA.G R E AT O L D B ROA D S FOR W I LD ER N ESS V

. K I M BE LL

26

2. Exe c ut ive Or de r 11 98 8: F loo dpla in M ana ge m e nt

EO 11988 ca lls on “fede ral a g encie s taking action ‘in or aff ecting a floodplain’ to think twice.” Carmel-By- The-Sea , 123 F.3d at 1166. This ex ecutive or der discou ra g es unne c e ssa

ry de ve lop me nt i n f

loo dp la ins . A g e nc ie s mu st avoid siting a ctions in floodplains unless the head of the age n cy fi n d s th er e is n o p ra ct i cab l e al t ern at i v e. 4 2 Fe d

. R eg. 26951 § 2(a) (2) ( 1977). I f there is no practica ble alter native, the a g e nc y

mus t “ (i ) d e sign o r mod if y its a c tio n in

or de r t o minimi ze potential harm to or within the flood p l ai n ,” and “(ii) pr epar e and circ ulate a notice containingan explanation of why the ac tion is p ro p osed to be located in the flood plain.” Id . We will se t as i d e ag ency finding s under EO 11988 o n l y i f t hey

are arbitra

ry , capr icious, or an a

buse of discretion. Carmel-By- The-Sea , 123 F.3d at 1166.

Gre at Old B roads c ontends that the For est Service did not
c omply wi th a

ny of EO 11 98 8’ s thre e re qu ir e me nts , beg inning with the f

act that it made no fo rm al findi ng that there was no pra cticable alternative to siti n g t h e ro ad in the J arbidg e Canyon floodplain. But the South Cany on Road had been sited in the f

loodplain for y ea rs before the a rea was added to the national forest sy stem—long be fore EO 11988
was c ontemplated. Gre at Old Br oads claims that this appeal to th e status quo is a prohibited post-hoc ar g ument. But the f in a l E I S e xp la in e d

th a t th e p r o p o s e d a c ti o n w a s “ to a u th o r iz e th e re est ablishment of the South Cany on Road,” a nd the F or e st Se rv ic e c ha

ra c te ri zed the pr e e xistin g ro a d, sit uate d in th e f l o o d p l a i n , a s t h e n o
- a c t i o na l t e r n a t i v e i nth e f i n a l E IS
and the RO D. Gr e a t O ld B ro a ds ha s n ot c ha lle ng ed th os e char acte rizations and provides no authority showing that EO 11988 require s the reloc ation of exis t i n g roads that r equire
re s t o ra t i o no r i mp ro v em en t

. L o n gs t an d i n g cu s t o m an d u s ageG R E AT O L D B ROA D S FOR W I LD ER N ESS V

. K I M BE LL 27

of a community is not irrele vant to a sensible application of
e nv ir onme nta l la

w. I n c on sid e ri ngop tio ns for the So uth Cany on Road, the Forest S ervic e was not siti ng a new projec t but was cr aftingthe next “pha se in a n essentially

continuous activity .” Se e Sie rra Clu b v . H as se ll , 636 F.2d 1095, 1099 (5 thC i r. 1 9 8 1 ) ( qu o t i n g City & County of San Franci s co v. United States , 615 F .2 d 4 98 , 5 01 (9 th C ir . 1 98 0) ). Th e F or e st Service was entitled to r ely on the established location of the South C anyon Road to c omply with this first ele ment of EO 11988.
EO 11988 sepa

rate ly require s that ag encie s “pre pare and circ ulate a notice containingan explanation of why the ac tion i s proposed to be loc ated in the f loodplain.” 42 Fe d. Re g. 26951 § 2(a) (2). This notice should be include d in the ag ency ’s NEPA statement. Id . § 2( a )( 1) . A s G re a t O ld B ro a ds a dmi ts, thi s no tic e re qu ir e me nt is “ c los e ly re late d” to t he re quirement that the a g ency make a finding of no prac ticable a lternative. Where the latter ha s been f ulfilled, courts have not found the for mer to be insuff

icient. See e .g. , Carmel-by- the-Se a , 1 23 F .3 d at 11 66 ; Ha ss ell , 636 F.3d at 1100. In addition to the indicators discussed a bove that show the For est Service complied with the re quirement that it make a findingof imprac ticability , the For est S er v i ce a dvised
rea ders in the f

inal EI S that it was consider ing the commands of EO 11988, a

nd the final EI S ex plicitly analy zed two out-of-f loodplain alternatives. This was suffic ient notice. Finally , EO 11988 re quires an a g ency t akingaction in a fl oo dp la in t o “ desig n o r m od if y its a c tio n in

or de r t o minimi ze potential harm to or wit hin the floodplain.” 42 F ed. Reg. 2 6 9 5 1 § 2(a) (2). In formingthe Selecte d Alternative, the For est Service took e lements from Alter natives 1, 3, and 4 and modified the c ombination t o minimi ze the road’ sG R E AT O L D B ROA D S FOR W I LD ER N ESS V

. K I M BE LL

28 impact on the floodplain. These modifications included: (1) Re pla c ingthe up pe r p art of the road wi th a

hik ingtr a il t o ameliorate mass wasting , wh i ch provided for “ road
rec la mati o nin

th e mo s t u

n s ta b le p o rti o no f

th e c any on bott o m. ” ( 2 ) Ch o o s in g n o t t o w id e no r r e a li g nth e r oad, which “de cre ase[d] the amount of sediment enter ing the river over time” and avoide d the “incr ease d erosion noted f or other
ro a d a lte rn a tiv e s. ” (3 ) R e pla c ingpr op os e d s tr uc tur e s in Alternatives 3 and 4 with low- water crossing s. The propose d str u c tu r e s w o u ld

h av e “ im

p e d e [d ] f lo wd ur in g h igh

- w ater
ev en t s ” a n d

p re v en t ed th e “p as s -t h ro u gh o f d eb ri s fr o ml ar ge flows.”

Gre at Old B roads contends these modifications were not
e no ug h be c a

us e EO 11 98 8 r e qu ir e s an a g e nc y to “ mod if

y its action in or der to minimize potential harm to or wi t h i n t he floodplain.” Id . § 2(a) (2). Gr eat Ol dBr oads ar g ues that “minimiz e” me ans the F orest Servic e mu st reduce potential harm to “the smallest qua ntity , number, or de g ree possible or permissible.” Webster’ s New Twentieth C entury Dictionary 1145 (2d ed.) . But whe n we have c o n s i d ere d the word “minimiz e” in sim ilar contex ts, we have held any mitigation only needs to be rea sonable. The Department of Transpor tation Act of 1970 mandates that all m easures “tec hn ic a ll y

p o s s ib le

. . . b e im

p le me n te d ” to “ mi n im iz e harm” to public parks. 49 U.S.C. § 1653(f) (2). We held that “implied within the statement ‘all mea sures,’ is the c ondition that such eff

orts to minimize ha

rm be fea sible and prude nt, or
rea sonable.” Ad

le r v . Le wis , 6 7 5 F. 2d 1085, 1094 (9th Cir. 1982). This und er s tanding of “minimiz e” pa rallels the definition of “pr actica

ble” that we have use d when r eviewing actions under

EO 11988. In Ca r mel-by-the- Sea , we understood “pr actica

ble” t o mean: “c apable of beingdone within reasona

ble natura l, social , o r ec onomic constraints.”G R E AT O L D B ROA D S FOR W I LD ER N ESS V

. K I M BE LL 29

1 2 3 F

. 3 d a t1 1 6 6 n

. 2 0 ( q

u o t i n g 2 3 C

. F

. R

. § 6 5 0

. 1 0 5 ( k ) )

. In apply ingE O 1 1 9 8 8 , th e D

. C. Ci r c u it h e ld th a t t h e N a ti o nal Park Se rv ic e fu lf

ill e d it s ob lig a tio n to min imi ze i mpa c ts wh e n it “ a ff

ir mativ e ly re qu ir e d de sign c ha ng e s to a me lio ra te adverse ef

fec ts on the floodplain.” D a ing e r fi e ld I s land Pr ote c tiv e So c . v . B ab bit t , 40 F.3d 442, 447 (D.C. Cir. 1994). Th e D. C. C ir c uit

did no t ana ly

ze t he de g re e to which

tho se modifications would ameliorate any adver se af

fec ts. Id.

The c hang es the F orest Serv ice made in finalizi ng the Se le c te d A lte rn a tiv e po ssi bly do no t li mit the fl oo dp la in impacts of the ROD to the smallest degree possible, but they
we re reasona

ble, af firmatively -re quired de sign c hang es that the F or e st Se rv ic e de te rm ine d w ou ld a me lio ra te a dv e rs e eff ects on the f

loodplain. We wil l n ot second-guess that deter mination. The For est Service ’s ac tions were not arbitra ry or ca pricious under

EO 11988.

3. National En vironm ental P olicy Act

Gre at Old Br oads contends that “combiningAlternatives 1, 3, and 4 dra

matic a lly c ha

ng e d the ir e nv ir onme nta l im pa c ts, [so] the For est Service violat ed NEP A by failing to prepa

re a supplemental EI S ( SEI S).” We reviewthe For est Service ’s decision not to prepa

re a n SEI S und er t h e arbitrary or capr icious standard. R u s sell Country Sportsmen v. U.S. Forest Serv. , 668 F.3d 1037, 1044 ( 9th Cir. 2011), c e rt. d enied , 132 S. Ct . 2439 (2012). We re view de novo the district court’s g rant of summary judgme nt that no SEI S was require d. Friends of the Clearwater v. Dombe ck, 2 2 2 F.3d 55 2, 55 6 ( 9th

Cir . 2 00 0) . We a ff

ir m.
Under NEPA, an a g ency

must prepar e an E I S for any proposed f

eder al ac tion “signific antly aff ectingthe qualit y

ofG R E AT O L D B ROA D S FOR W I LD ER N ESS V

. K I M BE LL

30

th e hu m an e n v i r o n m e n t

. ” 4 2 U

. S

. C

. § 4 3 3 2 ( 2 ) ( C )

. T h e E IS must conside r “the environmenta l impact of the propose d action” a nd “any adver se environmental eff ects whic h cannot be avoide d should the proposal be implemente d.” Id

. § 4 3 3 2 (2)( C)(i)–(ii). The rang e of r eleva nt effe cts is broad,
and the EI S mus t “ [r]ig or ou sly e xplor e and

ob je c tiv e ly evaluate all re asonable alternatives.” 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14(a)

. By requiringthis evaluation befor e a pr oject is finalized,

“ NE PA e nsure s that th e a g e nc y wi ll n ot a c t on

inc omp le te inf or matio n, on ly

to r e g re t it s d e c isi on

a ft e r i t is too late to
corr ect.” Ma rsh v . O re

go n Na tu ra l Res. Co un c il , 4 90 U. S. 360, 371 (1989).
An ag ency

“must have some f

lexi bility to modify
a lte rn a tiv e s c anv a sse d in the dr a ft EI S to re fl e c t pu bli c input.” Calif

ornia v. Block, 690 F. 2 d 7 5 3, 771 (9th Cir. 1982). B ut if after

this process, an “ag ency makes substantial
c ha ng e s in the pr op os e d a c tio n th a t are re le va nt t o e nv ir onme nta l c on c e rn s, ” the a g e nc y must pre pa

re an SE I S. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.9(c)

. I n considering the t erms “substantial chang es” a

nd “envir onmental conc erns,” we have adopte d the Council for Environmental Quality ’s (“CEQ” ) guidance that “supplementation is not requir ed whe n two require ments are satisfied: (1) the new alternative is a ‘ minor variation of one of the a lternatives discusse d in the dra ft EI S,’ and (2) the new
a l t e r n a t i v e i s ‘ q u a l i ta t i ve l

y w i th i n th e s

p ec tr u m o f a l t er n a t ives that wer e discussed in the dr aft [EI S] .’” Ru ssel l C ountr y Sp o r t s men , 668 F.3d at 1045 (emphasis adde d in Ru sse ll Country S portsmen ) (quotingFor

ty Most Asked Questions Co n cerning CEQ’s National Environme ntal Policy Act Reg ulations, 46 Fed. Reg . 18,026, 18,035 (Mar . 23, 1981)).

Gr e a t O ld B ro a ds po int s to no sp e c if ic chang e s th a t it deems not ade quately

analy zed in the final EI S. I nstead,G R E AT O L D B ROA D S FOR W I LD ER N ESS V

. K I M BE LL 31

Gr e a tO l d

B r o a d s r e l i e s o nt h e F i r s tC i r c u i t ’ s d e c i s i o nin Du bo is v . U

.S . D e pa rtmen t of A gr ic ultur e to argue that an SEI S is required whe never a propose d projec t constitutes “a dif fe re nt c on fi g ur a tio n” of p re vio us ly ana ly zed e le me nts

. 102 F.3d 1273, 1291–93 ( 1st C i r. 1996). In Du bo is , the Fo r e s t Se r

v ic e p u b li s h e d an E I S an a ly

zi n g th e e f

f e c ts of a proposed ski re sort. Id. at 1278. The pr efe rre d alternative adapte d an ana ly

zed alternative to a small er p arc el of land, eliminating woodla

nd buffe r zones betwee n ski trails and p ro p o s i n g an un an al y

z ed“2 8 , 5 0 0 -s qu ar e -f

o o tb as e l o d ge fac ility within the exi sting pe rmit area .” Id . at 1 2 9 2 . The First Circuit held that these were “substantial cha ng es fr om the previously -discussed a lternatives, not mer e modifications ‘within the spectr

um’ of those prior

alternatives.” Id

.
He re , b y c on tr a st, the Se le c ted Alte rn a tiv e is p ri mari ly made of elements fr om Alternatives 1 , 3 , and 4 that we re ana ly zed —a s e le me nts —in

the fi na l E I S. F ro m th a t ana ly sis , the For est Service and the public could assess the cumulative effect of the se e le me nts , a

nd the F or e st Se rv ic e c ou ld
rea sonably

deter mine that the combination wa s “within the sp e c tr um” of pr e vio us ly

ana ly zed a lte rn a tiv e s.

In addition to t h es e ele ments, the Selecte d Dec ision incorpora ted sever al mitigatingmodifications. Most, such as (1) minimiz i n g the number of river c rossing s by

heavy equipme nt d

u r in g c o nstruction, (2) c lear ly

markinglow-water crossing s and posting them with 5 MPH speed limits, and (3) removingtoilets at Snowsli de Gulch and Urda hl, were “minor var iation[ s] of one of the alter natives discussed in the draf t EI S.” See Russell Country Sportsmen , 668 F.3d at 1045 (interna l quotation omitted). Another modification cha ng ed the targ eted “ desig n vehicle” from a pa sseng er c ar to afourwhee l-drive ve hicle. The “desig n vehicle” is the ty p e ofG R E AT O L D B ROA D S FOR W I LD ER N ESS V

. K I M BE LL

32

ve hic le that th e ro a d is de signe d to a c c omm od a te , s o th is chang e lower ed the c o nstruction and maintena nce c osts for the ro a d a nd lim ite d the amou

nt of tr a ff ic the ro a d is lik e ly

to bear . Although this cha

ng e is not identified as a n element from one of

the ana ly zed a lternatives, only

a four -whe el-drive vehicle c ould use the road as it was at the time of the final EI S, so the reduction in servic e leve l broug ht the Selected Alternative in line with Alternative 1—the no-ac tion alternative.

Gre at Old B roads alternatively contends that e ven if the For est Service corr ectly decide d that an SEI S was not
re qu ir e d, it v iol a te d NEPA be c a us e it d id n ot a de qu a te ly do c ume nt t

hat de te rm inatio n in the re c or d. An a g e nc y mus t make a rea soned dec ision whether an S EI S is required, see Friends of the Clearwater , 2 22 F .3 d at 55 7, and the F or e st Service often pre sents this thres h o l d deter mination in a supplemental information repor t (“SI R”). See For est Service Ha nd bo ok 19 09 .1 5, c h. 10 §§ 18 .1 -1 8. 2. He re the F or e st Service did not prepar e a se parate SI R, b u t i t did make a
r e a s o n e d d e c i s i o n , d o c u m e n t e d

i nt h e r e c o r d , th a tanS E IS was not wa

rra nted.

An a g e nc y mus t do cumen t it s d e c isi on that no SEI S is require d to ensure that it remains “ale rt to new infor mation that may alter the results of its orig inal environmenta l analy sis, and contin u e[ s ] to take a ‘ hard look at the environmenta l effects of [its] planned a ction, even a fter a proposal has r ece ived initial approval.’” Friend s o f the Clearwater , 2 2 2 F. 3 d

at5 5 7 (q u o t i n g Ma rsh , 490 U.S. at 374). In Friends of the Clearwater , appellants ch all eng ed a timber sale in the Ne z P erc e National Fore st for which the y claimed the e nvironmental analy sis was inadequate. Id . at 55 4

. T h e F o r e s t Se r

v ic e c o mp le te d a p r o g r amm a ti c E I S forG R E AT O L D B ROA D S FOR W I LD ER N ESS V

. K I M BE LL 33

the entire National Forest in 1987 and a site- specific EI S for
sever al timber sales in 1989. Id . at 55 4– 55 . In 1 99 6, the la st two of those sale s we re aw arde d. Id. at 555. When challeng ing those sales, appellants explained that the projec t’s EI S did not consider the de signation of sensitive tree specie s in the ten y ear s since the F orest Servic e complete d the site-spec ific EI S. Id. Th os e de signation s, a pp e lla nts contend ed, “constituted significa nt new information that should be consider ed in an SEI S.” Id . at 555–56.

We faulted the F orest S er v i ce be cause there was “ no evidenc e in the re cord that . .

. t h e Forest Service ever considere d whether

the seve n new s ensi tive [t ree ] species desig nations . . . were sufficie ntly signific ant to require p r e p ar a ti o no f

anSE I S.” Id . at 55 8. B y c on tr a st, Gr e a t O ld Br oads points to no new i nformation that was not consider ed in the f in a l E I S, an d th e F o r e s t Su p e r v is o r e xp la in e d in

the ROD that he “ deter

mined that the Selec t ed Alternative was fully analy zed in Chapter 3 of the [fin al E I S] .” This was adequate documentation of the For est Service ’s re asoned decision that no SEI S was requir ed.

IV . C ON CL USI ON

We h old that G re a t O ld B ro ads ex ha us te d it s c la ims befor e the F orest Servic e but th at t h e ROD confor ms to the NFMA , EO 11988, and N EPA. We r ever se the district court on its a naly sis of exhaustion, but we a ffirm the district c ourt
on its a lte rn a te de c isi on on the me ri ts as to e a c h o f t he c la ims pr e se nte d. Th e pa

rt ie s sh a ll b e ar t

he ir ow n c os ts.

RE VE RS ED ON EX HA US TI ON an d AFF IRM ED ON THE M ERITS

.