Conservation Congress v. U.S. Forest Service et al
Filing
90
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 5/16/14 ORDERING that Plaintiff's 52 Motion for Summary Judgment on Claims 1 through 6 of the First Supplemental Complaint 33 is DENIED. Defendants' 68 Motion for Summary Judgment and Defendant Intervenors' 62 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Plaintiff's 81 Motion for Preliminary Injunction is MOOT and the Court does not reach this issue. (Kastilahn, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
CONSERVATION CONGRESS,
Plaintiff,
12
13
14
15
v.
18
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE,
and UNITED STATES FISH AND
WILDLIFE SERVICE
Defendants,
16
17
No. 2:12-cv-02800-TLN-CKD
and
FRANKLIN LOGGING, INC., and
SCOTT TIMBER, CO.,
19
Defendant Intervenors
20
21
22
The matter is before the Court on Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment by Plaintiff
23
Conservation Congress (“Plaintiff”) (ECF No. 52), Defendants U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Fish
24
and Wildlife Service (“Defendants”) (ECF No. 68), and Defendant Intervenors Franklin Logging,
25
Inc. and Scott Timber Co. (“Defendant Intervenors”) (ECF No. 62). At issue is Defendants’
26
planning, consultation, and implementation of the Algoma Vegetation Management Project
27
occurring within the Shasta-Trinity National Forest. The primary concern is the Project’s effect
28
on the Northern Spotted Owl, a species occupying the Algoma Project area and listed as
1
1
“threatened” under the Endangered Species Act. Plaintiff’s First Supplemental Complaint (ECF
2
No. 33), upon which the parties move for summary judgment, contains six causes of action which
3
assert violations under the Endangered Species Act, the National Forest Management Act, and the
4
National Environmental Policy Act. For the reasons discussed below, the Court grants summary
5
judgment in favor of Defendants and Defendant Intervenors, and denies Plaintiff’s Motion for
6
Summary Judgment.
7
I.
Background
8
A.
Statutory Background
9
i.
Endangered Species Act
The purpose of the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) is to “provide a means whereby the
10
11
ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved,
12
[and] to provide a program for the conservation of such endangered and threatened species ….”
13
16 U.S.C. §1531(b). Pursuant to its delegated authority from the Secretary of the Interior, the
14
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”) is required to list as either threatened or endangered any
15
species facing extinction due to any one, or any combination of, the following five factors: (1) the
16
present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the species’ habitat or range; (2)
17
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (3) disease or
18
predation; (4) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (5) other natural or manmade
19
factors effecting the species’ continued existence. 16 U.S.C. § 1533(a)(1)(A)-(E).
In order to encourage recovery of listed species, section 4(f) of the ESA requires the FWS
20
21
to “develop and implement [recovery] plans for the conservation and survival of [all listed]
22
endangered species and threatened species … unless [it] finds that such a plan will not promote
23
the conservation of the species.” 16 U.S.C. § 1533(f). Also to encourage recovery, the ESA
24
requires the Secretary of the Interior to designate “critical habitat” for all listed species.1 16
25
1
26
27
28
The ESA defines “critical habitat” as:
(i)
the specific areas within the geographic area occupied by the species, at
the time it is listed in accordance with the [ESA], on which are found
those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of
the species and (II) which may require special management
2
1
2
U.S.C. § 1533(a)(3).
Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires that each federal agency must “insure that any action
3
authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency … is not likely to jeopardize the continued
4
existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse
5
modification” of the designated critical habitat of the listed species. 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2).
6
Accordingly, Section 7(a)(2) and its implementing regulations set out a consultation process for
7
determining the impacts of the proposed agency action. See 50 C.F.R. § 402.02. First, the
8
agency contemplating the action (in this case the U.S. Forest Service, hereinafter “Forest
9
Service”) must request information from the appropriate federal wildlife service (in this case the
10
FWS) regarding “whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in
11
the area of such proposed action.” 16 U.S.C. § 1536(c)(1). If the FWS determines that listed
12
species may be present in the affected area, the agency preparing to act must produce a
13
“biological assessment” in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act “for the
14
purpose of identifying any endangered species or threatened species which is likely to be affected
15
by such action.” Id. If the biological assessment concludes that listed species are in fact likely to
16
be adversely affected, the agency ordinarily must enter “formal consultation” with the wildlife
17
service. See Thomas v. Peterson, 753 F.2d 754, 763 (9th Cir. 1985). Formal consultation
18
requires the wildlife service to produce a “biological opinion” that evaluates the nature and extent
19
of the proposed action’s effect on the listed species and that, if necessary, posits reasonable and
20
prudent alternatives to the proposed action. 16 U.S.C. § 1536(b)(3)(A).
21
ii.
National Forest Management Act
22
The National Forest Management Act (“NFMA”) requires the U.S. Forest Service to
23
create a comprehensive management plan for each national forest, and prohibits any site-specific
24
activities that are inconsistent with the applicable plan. See 16 U.S.C. §§ 1604(a) and (e); Inland
25
considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the
geographic area occupied by the species at the time it is listed in
accordance with the [ESA], upon a determination by the Secretary that
such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.
26
27
28
16 U.S.C. §1532(5)(A).
3
1
Empire Pub. Lands Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 88 F.3d 754, 757 (9th Cir. 1996). In this case,
2
the project area is almost entirely within the Algoma Late Successional Reserve (hereinafter
3
“LSR”), as designated by the Northwest Forest Plan (hereinafter the “NFP”) and Shasta-Trinity
4
National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (hereinafter the “LRMP”). (AAR 227.)
5
Objectives for the LSR are to protect and enhance conditions of late-successional and old-growth
6
forest ecosystems. (AAR 227.)
7
iii.
National Environmental Policy Act
8
The National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) has twin aims: first, it requires federal
9
agencies “to consider every significant aspect of the environmental impact of a proposed action,”
10
and second, “it ensures that the agency will inform the public that it has indeed considered
11
environmental concerns in its decision making process.” Kern v. BLM, 284 F.3d 1062, 1066 (9th
12
Cir. 2002) (quoting Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 462 U.S. 87, 97
13
(1983)). NEPA requires federal agencies to take a “hard look” at the environmental effects of
14
their proposed action, even after the proposal has received initial approval. Marsh v. Oregon Nat.
15
Res. Council, 490 U.S. 360, 374 (1989). The required “hard look” includes considering all
16
foreseeable direct and indirect impacts, requires the agency to undertake a thorough
17
environmental analysis before concluding that no significant impact exists, and involves a
18
discussion of adverse impacts that does not improperly minimize negative side effects. See Idaho
19
Sporting Congress v. Rittenhouse, 305 F.3d 957, 973 (9th Cir. 2002); Native Ecosystems Council
20
v. U.S. Forest Serv., 428 F.3d 1233, 1239 (9th Cir. 2005); Earth Island Inst. v. U.S. Forest Serv.,
21
442 F.3d 1147, 1159 (9th Cir. 2006).
22
NEPA and its implementing regulations also require federal agencies to prepare an
23
environmental impact statement (“EIS”) for “every recommendation or report on proposals for
24
legislation and other major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human
25
environment.” 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C); see 40 C.F.R. § 1508.11. The primary purpose of an EIS
26
“is to serve as an action-forcing device to insure that the policies and goals defined in [NEPA] are
27
infused into the ongoing programs and actions of the Federal Government.” 40 C.F.R. § 1502.1.
28
4
1
B.
Factual Background
2
i.
NSO Critical Habitat and Recovery Planning
3
The Fish and Wildlife Service listed the Northern Spotted Owl (“NSO”) as a threatened
4
species under the ESA in 1990, “because of widespread loss of spotted owl habitat across the
5
spotted owl’s range and the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms to conserve the spotted
6
owl.” (AR 16089.) Historically, the NSO has ranged in structurally complex forests, commonly
7
referred to as “old growth” forests, including the Late Successional Reserve that encompasses the
8
Algoma Project. (See ECF No. 33 ¶¶ 55, 73.) In 1992, the FWS initially designated critical
9
habitat for the NSO. 57 Fed. Reg. 1796 (1992). In 2008, the FWS revised its critical habitat
10
designation for the NSO, reducing by approximately one-third the amount of land in northern
11
California that it considered critical habitat for the NSO, but continuing the Algoma Project area
12
as Northern Spotted Owl critical habitat. 73 Fed. Reg. 47326 (2008). In December 2012, the
13
FWS revised its critical habitat designation for the NSO, increasing the amount of protected
14
habitat similar to the 1992 levels. 77 Fed. Reg. 71876 (2012). On January 3, 2013, the revised
15
critical habitat designation became effective. (AAR 22916.) In 2008, the FWS issued an ESA
16
Recovery Plan for the NSO, and in 2011 issued a final revised Recovery Plan (the “2011
17
Recovery Plan”). 73 Fed. Reg. 29471 (2008); 76 Fed. Reg. 38575 (2011).
18
ii.
The Algoma Vegetation Management Project
19
The management project at issue in this case, the Algoma Vegetation Management Project
20
(the “Project”), occurs within the Shasta-Trinity National Forest and is subject to the Northwest
21
Forest Plan and the Shasta-Trinity National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. (AAR
22
227.) The Project is almost entirely contained with the Algoma Late Successional Reserve, and
23
the majority of the project area is within critical habitat for the NSO. 2 (AAR 227.) As stated in
24
the Biological Opinion promulgated by the FWS:
25
Primary objectives of the Algoma Project are to reduce the
likelihood of large-scale disturbance and to protect and enhance
conditions of late successional forest ecosystems. Dense conditions
26
27
28
2
As stated in the April 2013 Biological Assessment, under the revised 2012 critical habitat rule, the Project area
includes 11,292 acres of NSO critical habitat. (AAR 23534.)
5
of second-growth forest stands within the portions of the 44,377
acre action area are increasing the risk of widespread tree mortality
and retarding the development of late-successional forest
characteristics. Additionally, the existing fuel profile places stands
at risk to high-severity wildfire, which can result in reduction of
high-quality spotted owl habitat.
The Project proposes a
combination of thinning, sanitation treatments, and fuels reduction
activities on 4,666 acres within the Algoma Late-successional
Reserve (LSR) to reduce the risk of habitat loss and to enhance
conditions that are resilient to wildfire and other disturbances.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
(AAR-22917-18.) Plaintiff contends in addition that a primary purpose of the Project is to
8
provide for commercial timber harvest. (ECF No. 52 at 20-21, 30.) Defendants dispute this
9
characterization. (ECF No. 69 at 2.)
10
iii.
Agency consultation
11
In May, 2009, the Forest Service submitted a biological assessment (the “2009 BA”) to
12
the FWS, requesting formal consultation regarding the proposed Project and its effects on the
13
NSO. (AR 1-30.) In July 2009, the FWS issued a biological opinion (the “2009 BiOp”),
14
determining that the Project was not likely to jeopardize the continued existence or adversely
15
modify designated critical habitat for the NSO. (AR 31.) In November 2011, the Forest Service
16
disclosed information about recent surveys detecting an NSO in the Project area. (AR 1162.) As
17
a result, in March 2012, the Forest Service issued a second biological assessment (the “2012
18
BA”). (AAR 3598.) In January 2013, the 2012 revised critical habitat for the NSO became
19
effective. (AAR 22916.) The Forest Service then issued an additional biological assessment on
20
April 18, 2013 (the “2013 BA”), which determined that the Algoma Project “may affect, and is
21
not likely to adversely affect the [NSO]”, but that the Project “may affect, and is likely to
22
adversely affect [NSO] critical habitat.”3 (AAR 23553.) On July 29, 2013, the FWS issued a
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
The relevant section of the 2013 Biological Assessment states:
[T]he Action ‘May affect, and is not likely to adversely affect’ the [NSO] and …
the action ‘May affect, and is likely to adversely affect’ [NSO] designated critical
habitat … This examination has confirmed the original analysis, but also
acknowledges that there will be some short-term and minor adverse effects to
elements of critical habitat PCE 3 because treatments in the higher equality
foraging habitat within units 32, 38, and 74 may result in: reductions in canopy
closure, basal area and habitat layering (vertical and horizontal structure); a
reductions in snags (DFMZs), coarse wood, shrubs and forest floor vegetation
6
1
new biological opinion (the “2013 BiOp”), determining that the Algoma timber sale “may affect,
2
and is likely to adversely affect 2012 critical habitat.”4 (AAR 22942.)
3
4
C.
Procedural Background
5
i. Procedural History
6
On November 15, 2012, Plaintiff filed its original Complaint against Defendant Forest
7
Service and Defendant FWS, alleging violations under the ESA, NFMA, and NEPA. (ECF No.
8
1.) On January 8, 2013, Defendant Intervenors Franklin Logging, Inc. and Scott Timber Co.,
9
filed an unopposed Motion to Intervene.5 (ECF No. 14.) On September 25, 2013, Plaintiff filed a
10
First Supplemental Complaint (the “Complaint”) against Defendant Forest Service and Defendant
11
FWS.6 (ECF No. 33.)
12
Both Defendants and Defendant Intervenors filed Answers to the Complaint. (See ECF
13
No. 39; ECF No. 44.) On November 22, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment.
14
(ECF No. 51; corrected on the docket as ECF No. 52.) On January 13, 2014, both Defendants
15
and Defendant Intervenors, filed respective Motions for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 68; ECF
16
17
from fuels treatments. The treatment modifications described above further
ameliorate these adverse effects, and, as discussed above, foraging habitat
function will be retained in these units in the short and long term.
18
19
4
20
The relevant section of the 2013 Biological Opinion states:
Because portions of units 32, 38, and 74 are considered high quality foraging
habitat, the reduction of habitat elements such as canopy closure, basal area,
habitat layering, snags, coarse woody debris, shrubs, and forest floor vegetation
by proposed treatments is likely to result in measurable changes to the equality of
PCE 3. It is therefore the determination of the Service that the Project may
affect, and is likely to adversely affect 2012 critical habitat.” (AAR 22942.)
21
22
23
24
5
25
26
Franklin Logging, Inc. was the purchaser of the South Algoma Stewardship sale, and Scott Timber, Co., was the
purchaser of the Algoma East Stewardship and the Algoma West timber sales; these sales are part of the Algoma
Project area. (See ECF No. 14.)
6
27
28
The Court uses “Defendants” to denote the Forest Service and the FWS. The Court uses “Defendant Intervenors” to
denote Franklin Logging, Inc. and Scott Timber Co.
7
1
No. 62.)7
Accordingly, the Court now considers Plaintiff, Defendants, and Defendant Intervenors’
2
3
Cross Motions for Summary Judgment.8 (ECF No. 52; ECF No. 68; ECF No. 62.) Plaintiff’s
4
First Supplemental Complaint (ECF No. 33) upon which the parties move for summary judgment
5
contains six causes of action:
6
1) against both Defendants, for a failure to insure against the destruction or adverse
7
modification of critical habitat, in violation of the ESA, 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2);
8
2) against both Defendants, for a failure to use the best available science, in violation of
9
the ESA, 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2);
10
3) against Defendant Forest Service, for causing “take” of the Northern Spotted Owl, in
11
violation of the ESA, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1538 and 1539;
12
4) against Defendant Forest Service, for a failure to comply with the applicable land
13
management plans, in violation of the NFMA, 16 U.S.C. § 1604 et seq. and 36 C.F.R. §
14
219.10;
15
7
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Defendants and Defendant Intervenors have filed Statements of Undisputed Facts, pursuant to Local Rule 260(a).
(ECF No. 70; ECF No. 64.) Plaintiff has not filed a separate Statement of Undisputed Facts; the Court will construe
the section labeled “Factual Allegations” in Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (see ECF No. 52) as Plaintiff’s
Statement of Undisputed Facts.
8
Plaintiff has attached two exhibits to its Motion for Summary Judgment: a “Declaration of Denise Boggs” (ECF
No. 51-1) and a “Declaration of Monica Bond” (ECF No. 51-2). They make personal observations of Forest Service
management activities in the Project area and determinations regarding detrimental effects of the Project to NSO
recovery. The declaration of Monica Bond also contains photographs purporting to show trees marked for logging
within the Project area. (See ECF No. 51-2) Defendants have moved to strike these exhibits on the grounds that the
Court here is to determine whether agency action is supported by the administrative record already in existence, not a
new record made initially in the reviewing court. See ECF No. 65; Camp v. Pitts, 411 U.S. 138, 142 (1973); Friends
of Clearwater v. Dombeck, 222 F.3d 552, 560 (9th Cir. 2000). The Court has read these declarations in detail and
finds them helpful and informative; however, the factual allegations and/or claims made within are adequately
addressed in Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 52), including those regarding the logging of old
growth trees, the beneficial effects of wildfire to NSO habitat, and the cumulative effects of the Project. Therefore,
the Court does not find that they disturb the Court’s review here of whether Defendants abused their discretion in
planning and implanting the project. With respect to the attached photographs in Ms. Bond’s declaration, the Court
agrees with prior rulings in this District that “[e]ven if … the trees in the photographs appear to be large and therefore
also appear to be old, this evidence does not call into question the complex and technical analyses and judgments of
the Forest Service and the FWS in their assessment of the characteristics of the habitat affected …” Conservation
Cong. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 2012 WL 2339765, at *9 (E.D. Cal. June 19, 2012) aff'd. 720 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2013).
The Court declines to strike the attached exhibits (ECF No. 51-1 and 51-2); however the Court also declines to
further address specific claims contained within them, as the extensive administrative record adequately informs the
Court regarding agency action in this case.
8
1
5) against Defendant Forest Service, for a failure to comply with the 2011 NSO Recovery
2
Plan, in violation of the NFMA, 16 U.S.C. § 1604 et seq. and 36 C.F.R. § 219.10; and
3
6) against Defendant Forest Service, for a failure to take the required “hard look” at the
4
environmental impact of the project, in violation of the NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4332(c); 40
5
C.F.R. § 1508.7; 40 C.F.R. § 1508.25.9
ii.
6
Standard of Review on Summary Judgment
7
Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings and the record demonstrate that
8
“there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a
9
matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). In this case, the Court’s review of Plaintiff’s ESA, NFMA,
10
and NEPA claims is governed by the Administrative Procedure Act. See Nw. Res. Info. Ctr., Inc.
11
v. NMFS, 56 F.3d 1060, 1066 (9th Cir. 1995); Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife
12
Service, 378 F.3d 1059, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004); Arizona Cattle Growers’ Ass’n v. U.S. Fish and
13
Wildlife, Bur. Ld. Management, 273 F.3d 1229, 1235 (9th Cir. 2001). A court conducting APA
14
judicial review does not resolve factual questions, but instead determines “whether or not as a
15
matter of law the evidence in the administrative record permitted the agency to make the decision
16
it did.” Sierra Club v. Mainella, 459 F. Supp. 2d 76, 90 (D.D.C. 2006) (quoting Occidental
17
Eng’g Co. v. INS, 753 F.2d 766, 769 (9th Cir. 1985)). “[I]n a case involving review of a final
18
agency action under the [APA] ... the standard set forth in Rule 56(c) does not apply because of
19
the limited role of a court in reviewing the administrative record.” Id. at 89. In this context,
20
summary judgment becomes the “mechanism for deciding, as a matter of law, whether the agency
21
action is supported by the administrative record and otherwise consistent with the APA standard
22
of review.” Id. at 90. Pursuant to the APA, the reviewing Court “shall … hold unlawful and set
23
aside agency actions, findings, and conclusions found to be … arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse
24
of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law,” or which have been taken “without
25
observance of procedure required by law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)-(D).
26
9
27
28
As the individual claims in the Supplemental Complaint (ECF No. 33) indicate, Plaintiff asserts claims only against
one or both Defendants (the Forest Service and/or the FWS) and not Defendant Intervenors. However, because both
Defendants and Defendant Intervenors have moved for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claims, to the extent the
Court finds in favor of Defendants with respect to each claim, it also finds in favor of Defendant Intervenors.
9
1
2
3
4
II. Discussion
Claim 1: Adverse Modification of Critical Habitat (Forest Service and FWS)
Under the ESA, each federal agency must insure that any action authorized by said agency
5
is “not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened
6
species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species.” 16 U.S.C.
7
§ 1536(a)(2). Destruction or adverse modification is defined as:
8
10
[A] direct or indirect alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical
habitat for both the survival and recovery of a listed species. Such alterations
include, but are not limited to, alterations adversely modifying any of those
physical or biological features that were the basis for determining the habitat to
be critical.
11
50 C.F.R. § 402.02. Pursuant to the Ninth Circuit decision in Gifford, 378 F.3d at 1069-1072, this
12
definition is invalid to the extent that an agency considers adverse modification to occur only if
13
habitat necessary for survival – ignoring habitat necessary for recovery – has been appreciably
14
diminished. However, Plaintiff acknowledges that Defendant FWS has taken into account
15
survival and recovery habitat for the NSO; the habitat modification analysis in the 2013 BiOp is
16
based upon whether “the affected critical habitat would continue to serve its conservation
17
function or purpose of the species” and on “the effects the proposed action is likely to have on the
18
ability of an area to support life-history needs of the [NSO].” (See ECF No. 52 at 25, n. 8; AAR
19
22937.)
9
20
The environmental baseline includes “the past and present impacts of all Federal, State or
21
private actions and other human activities in the action area” and “the anticipated impacts of all
22
proposed Federal projects in the action area that have already undergone formal or early section 7
23
consultation.” 50 C.F.R. § 402.02; see Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n v. Nat’l. Marine Fisheries Serv., 524
24
F.3d 917, 924 (9th Cir. 2008).
25
Plaintiff contends that both Defendants have failed to insure against adverse modification
26
in this case because: 1) the Project’s effects will ensure that minimum thresholds for NSO habitat
27
suitability are not met, as measured in terms of treatment to the core and home range of NSO
28
10
1
activity centers; 2) Defendants considered only long-term impacts on the NSO, at the expense of
2
short term loss to habitat suitability; 3) adverse modification will result due to loss of dispersal
3
habitat; and 4) the Project fails to safeguard against the removal of old-growth trees, thus
4
diminishing the capability of the critical habitat.
5
i.
Thresholds for habitat suitability
6
The thrust of Plaintiff’s argument is based upon a calculus for adverse modification of
7
habitat, as measured in terms of a “core area” and “home range” surrounding an NSO nest or
8
cluster of detections (i.e. NSO activity centers). (See ECF No. 52 at 25-28; AAR 22925-29.)
9
The “core” is the 0.5 mile area surrounding a nest or cluster of detections; the “home range” is the
10
1.3 mile area surrounding a nest or cluster of detections.10 (AAR 22925.) Portions of the
11
estimated core and home ranges for four known owl activity centers (ST-203, ST-204, ST-225,
12
and ST-226) are located within the Project area. (AAR 22923.) Plaintiff therefore directs the
13
Court to changes occurring within the core and home ranges, and argues that these changes
14
equate to an adverse modification of habitat within the meaning of the ESA.
15
With respect to activity center ST-203, Defendant FWS found that the 500 acre core area
16
contains 496 acres of suitable habitat, of which 118 acres is nesting and roosting habitat, and 378
17
acres is foraging habitat. (AAR 22932.) 48 acres of thinning is proposed within the core, and no
18
nesting and roosting habitat is proposed for treatment. (AAR 22932.) The home range of ST-203
19
contains 2,396 acres of suitable habitat; approximately 472 acres of foraging habitat and 217
20
acres of dispersal habitat are proposed for treatment. (AAR 22932.) Defendant FWS ultimately
21
concluded:
22
Given that 1) the amounts of habitat within this activity center [ST203] are well above general habitat thresholds for incidental take
…; 2) a large proportion of suitable habitat in the core and home
23
24
25
26
27
28
10
The 2009 BA used a 0.7 mile radius for its analysis of the core area. (See AR 17, 82.) Subsequent consultation
documents, including the 2013 BiOp, use a 0.5 mile radius. (See AAR 22925.) To the extent that this modification
violates the ESA, Plaintiff directs the Court to this issue but does not otherwise pursue this argument. (ECF No. 52
at 26, n. 10.) The Court in this case has relied upon the 0.5 mile radius contained in the most recent consultation
documents. The Court also notes that the core analysis, as measured in terms of a 0.5 mile radius, is contained in the
2009 Regulatory and Scientific Basis for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Guidance for Evaluation of Take for
Northern Spotted Owls on Private Timberlands in California’s Northern Interior Region. (See AR 15468-544.)
11
range will remain unaffected; and 3) important structural and
vegetation elements for foraging owls will be retained in the treated
area due to modification of the treatment prescriptions; it is not
expected that treatments would have an adverse effect to NSO
occupying this activity center.
1
2
3
4
(AAR 22933.)
5
6
With respect to activity center ST-204, treatments are not proposed within the core area.
7
(AAR 22933.) The Project is not expected to affect nesting/roosting or foraging habitat within
8
the home range. (AAR 22933.) The Project is expected to affect 25 acres of dispersal treatment.
9
(AAR 22933.)
10
With respect to ST-225, Defendant FWS concluded that this activity center was not
11
within 1.3 miles of a treatment unit and therefore silvicultural activities would not affect NSOs in
12
the area. (AAR 22933.) Several road systems would be closed or decommissioned within the
13
activity center. (AAR 22933.) Outside of potential disturbance from machinery during the
14
process, road closure was expected to be beneficial. (AAR 22933.)
15
With respect to ST-226, Defendant FWS acknowledges that the home range measurement
16
was uncertain, given that detections of the NSO were made at nighttime; however, it concluded
17
that suitable habitat (nesting/roosting and foraging) within the home range would not be treated.
18
Approximately 1,013 of the 1,646 acres of forest classified as dispersal habitat within the outer
19
home range analysis will receive treatment. (AAR 22934.)
20
Contrary to Plaintiff’s claims, the Court does not find that the changes in the number of
21
acres surrounding the activity centers violate thresholds for habitat suitability. Plaintiff directs
22
the Court to the following statements within the 2009 BiOp: 1) maintaining minimum thresholds
23
“provide a functional home range in relation to reproductive success and survival of the pair” (AR
24
82); 2) some research “has demonstrated that [NSO] abundance and productivity decrease when
25
the proportion of suitable habitat within 0.7 miles of an activity center falls below 500 acres” (AR
26
91); 3) an “adequate amount and distribution of foraging habitat within the home range is
27
essential to the survival [of the NSO]”. (ECF No. 52 at 37.)
28
12
1
However, as an initial matter, the Court does not find that these cited statements from an
2
outdated (2009) consultation document establish a framework for the Court’s analysis here. As
3
discussed, since the 2009 BiOp was issued, Defendant Forest Service issued the 2012 Biological
4
Assessment and the 2013 Biological Assessment, and Defendant FWS issued its current 2013
5
BiOp. The 2009 BiOp was prepared before the 2012 critical habitat rule became effective, which
6
decreased the amount of critical habitat designated for the NSO within the Project area.11 (See
7
AAR 23534.) Second, the most recent 2013 BiOp uses a core analysis area of 0.5 miles rather
8
than 0.7 miles. (AAR 22925.) Plaintiff notes this discrepancy, but the Court is not otherwise
9
directed to find that this change in measurement for the core area must lead to a conclusion that
10
Defendants were arbitrary and capricious. (ECF No. 52 at 26, n. 10.) Finally, the Court does not
11
have before it an authority holding that the specific volume of modification to critical habitat in
12
this case must result in “adverse modification” within the meaning of the ESA. For the number
13
of acres proposed for treatment in the varying habitat types (nesting, roosting, foraging,
14
dispersal), the Court cites here to the 2013 BiOp. (See AAR 22923-42.) The Court also has
15
reviewed tables 13 – 16 from the 2012 BA, displaying the effects on nesting/roosting, foraging,
16
and dispersal habitat in the four activity centers (AAR 3635-36), and Attachment 1 to the 2013
17
BA, which compares the 2008 versus 2012 revised NSO critical habitat within the Project area,
18
and also displays the effects in the four activity centers (AAR 23555-56). The exact number of
19
acreage modifications that the Project is expected to cause appears to vary among these
20
consultation documents. However, Plaintiff does not argue that the acreage changes cited in these
21
documents are incorrect. The Court is not inclined, absent clear guidance from the parties hereto,
22
to make an exact determination regarding the numbers of acreage changes to be implemented
23
here, specific to each habitat type. The Court’s role is to review the administrative record and to
24
ensure that agency action is not the result of arbitrary or capricious conclusions. See 5 U.S.C. §
25
706(2)(A)-(D).
26
11
27
28
As explained in the 2013 Biological Assessment, though the 2012 critical habitat rule overall increased the amount
of critical habitat designated for the NSO, it decreased the amount of critical habitat in the Project area by
approximately 3,143 acres. (AAR 23534.)
13
1
Accordingly, the Court does not find that Defendants acted arbitrarily or capriciously in
2
their consultation and implementation of the Project, on the grounds proffered here by Plaintiff.
3
ii.
4
Plaintiff argues additionally that logging will result in impermissible short term impacts to
5
foraging habitat. (ECF No. 52 at 37.) As stated in the 2013 BA, there are 7,282 acres of foraging
6
habitat within the Project area, of which 1,090 will be treated. (AAR 23534, 23544.) Defendant
7
FWS concludes that logging will likely “result in variable degrees of reduction of canopy closure,
8
basal area, habitat layering (vertical structure), snags … understory trees, coarse wood, shrubs
9
and forest floor vegetation to a degree where its structure will be simplified and its quality will be
10
degraded.” (AAR 22939.) However, Defendant FWS also concluded that such changes were not
11
sufficient to downgrade the foraging function that the treated areas currently provide. Instead,
12
Defendant FWS concluded that proposed treatments are “expected to maintain habitat function
13
for foraging, and are expected to benefit NSO over the long term by reducing inter-tree
14
competition and mortality rates of large trees, increasing tree growth rates, favoring retention of
15
sugar pine and Douglas fir, and fostering desirable species such as black oak through release and
16
re-planting.” (AAR 22939.)
17
Short term impacts on foraging habitat
Plaintiff relies upon Pacific Coast Federation of Fisherman’s Associations v. U.S. Nat’l
18
Marine Fisheries Serv., 265 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2011) for the proposition that the Defendants
19
must not minimize the importance of short-term (ten year) impacts to endangered species. See
20
Pacific Coast Federation, 265 F.3d at 1037 (“We find nothing in the record to authorize [the
21
National Marine Fisheries Service] to assume away significant habitat degradation … In ten years
22
a badly degraded habitat will likely result in the total extinction of the subspecies that formerly
23
returned to a particular creek for spawning.”) However, the Pacific Coast decision was made in
24
the context of an anadromous fish whose breeding and migration cycles depend upon the short
25
term availability of a particular water environment. Id. Plaintiff does not provide this Court with
26
sufficient information about NSO breeding and/or life cycles that would permit the Court to draw
27
an analogy here to Pacific Coast.
28
14
1
Absent further indication that the short term impacts to NSO foraging habitat must
2
override both expected long term benefits and the continued functionality of the current foraging
3
habitat, the Court cannot find that Defendants failed to insure against the adverse modification of
4
habitat on these grounds.
5
iii.
Logging within dispersal habitat
6
The 2013 BA provides that 2,746 acres of dispersal habitat are within the Project area, of
7
which 1,288 acres will be treated. (AAR 23534, 23544.) The 2013 BiOp concludes that: 1) “the
8
small scale of habitat removal will not influence the stand or landscape-level availability of
9
dispersal habitat and the degree of habitat (forest) connectivity within the Algoma project area
10
and surrounding landscape”; and 2) “plantation treatments are likely to be beneficial by opening
11
up overly dense stands and increasing stand species and spatial composition heterogeneity.”
12
(AAR 22930.)
13
Plaintiff argues that, given uncertainty about the importance of dispersal habitat for the
14
NSO, Defendants should have exercised greater precaution in modifying dispersal habitat. (ECF
15
No. 52 at 30.) Plaintiff directs the Court to a principle under the ESA that “require[s] agencies to
16
afford first priority to the declared national policy of saving endangered species.” Tennessee
17
Valley Authority, 437 U.S. 153, 185 (1978). However, the Court is not advised of a specific
18
cautionary principle regarding dispersal habitat that Defendants did not uphold in this case. The
19
consultation documents in this case show that Defendants considered the Project area to be a high
20
risk of large-scale habitat loss due to insects, disease, and fire, as caused by unnaturally dense
21
stands, and a key purpose of the Project was to reduce that risk. (AAR 227-28; AAR 22917-18.)
22
Plaintiff also argues that logging within dispersal habitat will adversely modify habitat
23
connectivity. Plaintiff raises a concern about critical habitat unit 8, subunit ECS-3, which
24
provides habitat connectivity between units that are otherwise geographically isolated. (See ECF
25
No. 52 at 40.) The 2013 BiOp, which specifically identifies unit 8, subunit ECS-3, as an essential
26
unit for habitat connectivity, notes that “special management considerations or protection are
27
required in this unit,” and concludes that “maintaining connectivity and recruiting additional
28
15
1
high-quality habitat for the NSO is especially important….” (AAR 22936.) That Defendant
2
FWS undertook to specifically highlight the importance of this unit, however, does not compel
3
this Court to find that Defendant FWS failed to insure against adverse habitat modification.
Plaintiff also argues that Defendants should have used the “appreciably diminish”
4
5
standard in evaluating the Project’s effects on dispersal habitat, as provided for in 50 C.F.R. §
6
402.02, as opposed to a “significantly affect” standard. (See ECF No. 52 at 30-32; ECF No. 69 at
7
14). At times in the 2013 BiOp, Defendant FWS concludes that Project effects would not
8
“significantly affect” the NSO’s use of dispersal habitat. (See AAR 22933, 22934, 23941.)12
9
However, the Court’s review of the sections indicated by Plaintiff finds that they do not refer
10
specifically to the modification of critical habitat, but rather to the effect on NSO activity within
11
that habitat. Plaintiff’s inapposite references to the words “significantly affect”, as they appear at
12
times in the consultation documents, does not establish that Defendants applied the wrong
13
standard in evaluating adverse modification of critical habitat.
14
iv.
Diameter limit / old growth trees
15
Plaintiff contends that the Project fails to safeguard against the removal of old-growth
16
trees, thus diminishing the capability of the critical habitat. Specifically, Plaintiff contends that
17
Defendants violated the ESA because they do not use a diameter limit when logging. Plaintiff
18
points to an acknowledgement in the 2013 BiOp of a study finding that the “[Presence] of trees
19
greater than 20-24 inches dbh is considered an important attribute of foraging habitat.” (AAR
20
22927.) Plaintiff also points to the 2011 NSO Recovery Plan, which articulates the need for
21
12
For example, the FWS states in the 2013 BiOp:
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plantation treatments are not expected to significantly change the potential for
use as dispersal habitat in the short term, and are considered beneficial in the long
term. (AAR 22933, emph. added) … The treatments are not expected to
significantly affect the use of these stands or the ability to provide for dispersal to
and from this activity center [ST-226] (AAR 22934, emph. added) … Road
reconstruction and decommissioning do not involve removal of NSO habitat
elements, and construction of temporary roads (1.17 miles in foraging and
dispersal habitat) will result in removal of a small number of trees and is not
expected to significantly affect the function of PCE3 or PCE4 … (AAR 22941,
emph. added).
16
1
large-diameter trees in NSO habitat. (See ECF No. 52 at 37.) However, as discussed in the EIS,
2
Defendant Forest Service declined to adopt a treatment plan that prevented the logging of trees
3
over 20 inches in diameter, because to do so would leave many tree stands overstocked, rendering
4
them, among other effects, more susceptible to beetle infestation. (AAR 267.) The EIS advises
5
managers of late-successional forest systems to move away from approaches based on diameter
6
limits and instead focus on old growth trees. (AAR 267.) The 2013 BA (to cite one consultation
7
document) provides that a main purpose of the Project is to accelerate the development of late-
8
successional and old-growth habitat characteristics, and that treatments are designed to afford the
9
NSO an older and more structurally complex habitat. (See AAR 23539.) The Court is not aware
10
of statutory or case law authority – and Plaintiff does not direct the Court to such authority –
11
holding that the selection of which trees to log in this case must be based on a predetermined
12
diameter limit.
13
For the aforementioned reasons, with respect to Claim 1, the Court does not find that
14
Defendants were arbitrary or capricious in insuring against the adverse modification of critical
15
habitat. Therefore summary judgment is granted in favor of Defendants and Defendant
16
Intervenors.
17
18
19
Claim 2: Failure to Use Best Available Science (Forest Service and FWS)
Under the ESA, Defendants must, in consulting over the nature and extent of jeopardy
20
posed to the NSO, use “the best scientific and commercial data available.” 16 U.S.C. §
21
1536(a)(2). Plaintiff contends that Defendants failed to use the best available science, with
22
respect to 1) the use of diameter limits when logging and 2) the beneficial effects of wildfire on
23
the NSO. (ECF No. 52 at 33-37.)
24
As discussed, supra, the Court finds that Defendant considered and rejected a treatment
25
plan that selected trees to log based on a 20 inch diameter limit. The EIS advises managers of
26
late-successional forests to move away from approaches based on diameter limits, and instead
27
focus on the retention of old-growth trees. (See AAR 267.) Plaintiff does not otherwise show
28
17
1
that the best available science mandates the use of a diameter limit when logging.
With respect to the beneficial effects of wildfire, Plaintiff asserts that selected studies
2
3
were ignored that demonstrate a correlation between NSO recovery and the use of high-severity
4
burned areas for foraging. (See ECF No. 52 at 44.) These studies were referenced in the 2013
5
BiOp, which determined that they were inconclusive as to the current Project, due to their sample
6
size and fire effects peculiar to each area studied.13 (AAR 22928.) Plaintiff makes a valid point
7
in that the 2013 BiOp does not contain an extensive discussion of the particular studies referenced
8
by Plaintiff. However, the 2013 BiOp contains a discussion of relevant scientific literature
9
discussing the effects of wildfire on the NSO, acknowledges some beneficial effects of wildfire,
10
and concludes that fires are a “change agent” with respect to the NSO, for which more research is
11
desirable.14 (See AAR 22972-73.) Defendant Forest Service concluded that “[w]hile spotted
12
owls can make use of some post-fire landscapes, fire also reduces the function of some habitat
13
and likely removes some from immediate usability, particularly in areas of high-severity fire.”
14
(AAR 208.) Defendant Forest Service further concluded that:
15
The amount of habitat mortality expected if a wildfire were to occur
under current vegetative conditions is of concern. Implementing the
selected alternative will reduce the risk of high intensity wildfire
and/or wide-scale insect or disease epidemics in forest stands and
help to reduce effects to high quality NSO habitat. Reducing the
surface and ladder fuels will reduce the likelihood of habitat loss
from wildfire whether the threat originates from within or outside
of the LSR boundary [], consistent with the LSRA and with
recovery actions in the 2011 NSO Recovery Plan.
16
17
18
19
20
13
21
As stated in the 2013 BiOp:
Vegetation treatments proposed in the Algoma Project are intended to benefit
[Northern Spotted Owls] by reducing the potential for habitat loss to highseverity wildfire. Scientific opinion regarding the risk posed by wildfire (Hanson
et al. 2010, Spies et al. 2010) and the comparative risks of fuels reduction
treatments varies widely (USFWS 2011). While recent research indicates that
spotted owl continue to occupy and may reproduce in some burned areas (Bond
et al. 2002, 2009; Lee et al. 2012; Clark et al. 2011, 2013), these findings are
strongly influenced by small sample sizes and the extent and spatial pattern of
fire effects particular to each area studied. (AAR 22928.)
22
23
24
25
26
14
27
28
See the 2011 Recovery Plan (AR 16149-151) for an extensive discussion of the effects of wildfire on NSO habitat.
The Recovery Plan concludes that “fires are a change agent for spotted owl habitat, but there are still many unknowns
regarding how much fire benefits or adversely affects spotted owl habitat.” (AR 16151.)
18
1
2
(AAR 208.)
3
As the Court noted in League of Wilderness Defenders Blue Mountains Biodiversity
4
Project v. Allen, 615 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir. 2010), the “highest deference is owed to the Forest
5
Service’s technical analysis and judgments within its area of expertise.” “The court’s role in
6
reviewing agency actions is not to weigh conflicting expert opinions or to consider whether the
7
agency employed the best methods, but instead, when an agency’s particular technical expertise is
8
involved, to guard the agency’s discretion.” Conservation Congress v. U.S. Forest Serv., 2012
9
WL 2339765 at *7 (E.D. Cal. 2012) (referencing Forest Guardians v. U.S. Forest Serv., 329 F.3d
10
1089, 1097, 1099 (9th Cir. 2003); Friends of Endangered Species, Inc. v. Jantzen, 760 F.2d 976,
11
986 (9th Cir. 1985); Marsh v. Or. Natural Res. Council, 490 U.S. 360, 376-77 (1980).) In
12
addition, an agency’s use of the best available science and commercial data “does not explicitly
13
limit the Secretary's analysis to apolitical considerations ... [T]he Secretary must be permitted to
14
choose the one that best suits all of its interests, including political or business interests.” SW
15
Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 143 F.3d 515, 523 n. 5 (9th Cir.
16
1998).
17
Given the complex and technical task of fire risk management, and given the ample
18
consideration by Defendants of the effects of wildfire within the Project area, the Court defers to
19
the judgment of the federal agencies in this case. Summary judgment is therefore granted in favor
20
of Defendants and Defendant Intervenors with respect to Claim 2.
21
22
23
Claim 3: Prohibited “Take” of the NSO (Forest Service)
Plaintiff’s First Supplemental Complaint contends that habitat modification in the Project
24
area constitutes “harm” and “harassment” within the ESA’s “take” definition. (See ECF No. 33 at
25
19.) Section 9(a)(B) of the ESA prohibits the take of listed species within the United States,
26
except as provided for in section 10, which allows for incidental take if certain safeguards are
27
met. See 16 U.S.C. §§ 1538, 1539. The ESA defines “take” as “…to harass, harm, pursue, hunt,
28
19
1
shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct.” 16 U.S.C.
2
§ 1532.19. As advised by Plaintiff, the regulatory definition of “harm” includes “significant
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly
impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering.” 50 C.F.R. §
17.3.
Plaintiff does not further pursue this claim, in either its Memorandum In Support of
Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 52) or its Reply in Support of Motion for Summary
Judgment (ECF No. 74). In its argument regarding Claim 1, Plaintiff points to a description of the
home range of activity center ST-203 in the EIS, which states: “The amount of foraging habitat is
currently well above the 1,085 [acres] incidental take threshold values.” (See AAR 640.)
Plaintiff asks the Court to infer from this statement that take must be presumed if foraging habitat
within any home range drops below 1,085 acres; Plaintiff further argues that ST-204 does not
meet this requirement. (ECF No. 52 at 28.) The home range of ST-204 contains 718 acres of
nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat, and 76 acres of dispersal habitat; 25 acres of dispersal
habitat are proposed for treatment but it is not expected to impact habitat functionality. (AAR
16
637.) Given this minimal proposed treatment, the Court cannot find that the Project’s
17
implementation will be the cause of “take” within the meaning of the ESA.
18
19
20
21
22
23
The Court will infer that Plaintiff’s arguments concerning the adverse modification of
habitat in Claim 1 are to apply equally to its arguments concerning “take” in Claim 3. The Court
finds for Defendants with respect to Claim 1, and this determination encompasses a finding that
“take” has not occurred as a result of this modification.
Therefore summary judgment is granted in favor of Defendants and Defendant Intervenors
with respect to Claim 3.
24
25
26
27
28
Claim 4: Compliance with Land Management Plans under the NFMA (Forest Service)
The NFMA provides that Defendant Forest Service’s activities carried out on the National
Forests “shall be consistent with land management plans.” 16 U.S.C. § 1604(I); 36 C.F.R.
20
1
219.10(e). The relevant land management plan in this case is the Shasta-Trinity National Forest
2
Land and Resource Management Plan (“LRMP”). Plaintiff contends that the Forest Service
3
failed to comply with 1) LRMP provisions regarding snags and down logs, and 2) an NFMA
4
mandate to maintain viable populations of the sensitive species the Northern goshawk (Accipiter
5
gentilis), the Pacific fisher (Martes pennanti), and the American marten (Martes americana).
6
(See ECF No. 52 at 38-40).
7
i.
8
The LMRP directs Defendant Forest Service to “maintain dead/down material,
9
Snags and down logs
hardwoods, and snags at naturally occurring levels.” (AAR 7811.) The LSR Assessment
10
provides further guidance as to the desired number of snags and down logs, including that the
11
average number of snags, which are at least 20 inches in diameter, should equal 2 to 6 snags per
12
acre within mixed Conifer habitat. (AAR 7507-08.)
13
Plaintiff references treatment within the Defensible Fuel Management Zone, which “will
14
result in a small proportion of specific thinning that will be deficit in snags,” but that nonetheless
15
does not prevent snag retention guidelines from being met “at the scale of 100-acre landscape.”
16
(AAR 2101.) Plaintiff argues, pursuant to Oregon Natural Resources Council v. Brong, 492 F.3d
17
1120, 1130 (9th Cir. 2007), that such treatment is an impermissible attempt to “dilute the effects
18
of its proposed activities by averaging the snag retention over [] a wide area.” (ECF No. 52 at
19
38.)
20
However, the snag retention at issue in Brong specifically was as follows: of the 1,004
21
acres to be included as harvest areas, 679 acres were to receive harvest of all snags, and the
22
remaining 325 acres were to retain all snags, thus technically accounting for a required 8-12 snags
23
per acre, but in effect meaning that over two-thirds of the affected acreage would be completely
24
stripped of all snags. See Brong, 492 F.3d at 1129-30. There is no indication that the snag
25
removal in this case is analogous to the treatment in Brong. The Design Criteria and Resource
26
Protection Measures of the EIS indicates the Project will “retain [where snags or down logs of
27
this size exist and except for instances where snags must be felled for safety] an average of 2 to 6
28
21
1
snags per acre … meeting the minimum requirements of 20 inches DBH and at least ten feet in
2
height.” (AAR 536.) Moreover, the treatment referenced by Plaintiff is to occur in the
3
Defensible Fuel Management Zone, a 150-foot corridor established around important Forest
4
System operation and public use roads; the removal of snags in this area is done as a safety
5
precaution for public and fire personnel. (AAR 229, 257.)
With respect to the Project’s effects on snags and down logs, the Court does not find that
6
7
Defendant Forest Service acted arbitrarily or capriciously in failing to comply with the NFMA.
8
ii.
9
Pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 1604(g)(3)(B), Defendant Forest Service is required to “provide for
10
diversity of plant and animal communities.” To meet this requirement, Defendant Forest Service
11
must ensure that viable populations of native animals are maintained, a duty that “applies with
12
special force to ‘sensitive’ species.” Ecology Center v. Austin, 430 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2005)
13
(citing Friends of the Clearwater v. Dombeck, 222 F.3d 552, 556 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2000). The
14
Northern goshawk, Pacific Fisher, and American marten are listed as sensitive species in the
15
Project area. (ECF No. 52 at 40.) Plaintiff briefly argues that Defendant Forest Service lacks
16
substantive information about the populations of these species, and therefore contends that
17
Defendant Forest Service cannot ensure that viable populations will be maintained. (ECF No. 52
18
at 40; ECF No. 74 at 7-8.) However, Plaintiff does not otherwise advise the Court as to specific
19
management or population monitoring duties with which Defendant Forest Service failed to
20
comply.
21
Sensitive Species
A prior ruling in this District, Conservation Congress v. U.S. Forest Service, No. 08-2483,
22
at *5-8 (E.D. Cal. June 4, 2009), aff’d No. 09-16182, 371 Fed. Appx. 723 (9th Cir. 2010) found
23
that the use of habitat capability models, as applied to the goshawk and furbearer species under
24
the Shasta-Trinity LRMP, is a permissible form of population documentation. As that Court
25
noted, the Ninth Circuit has “repeatedly approved the Forest Service’s use of the amount of
26
suitable habitat for a particular species as a proxy for the viability of that species, and its use of
27
habitat as a proxy to measure a species’ population.” See id.; Ecology Ctr. v. Castaneda, 574
28
22
1
F.3d 652, 664 (9th Cir. 2009). “When the Forest Service decides, in its expertise, that habitat is a
2
reliable proxy for species’ viability in a particular case, the Forest Service nevertheless must both
3
describe the quantity and quality of habitat that is necessary to sustain the viability of the species
4
in question and explain its methodology for measuring this habitat.” Lands Council v. McNair,
5
537 F.3d 981, 997-98 (9th Cir. 2008).
6
With respect to the goshawk, the EIS states that Defendant Forest Service evaluated
7
population by using a “habitat capability model, research data, vegetation classes in the northern
8
section of the Algoma LSR, stand exam data, and field review.” (AAR 546.) The EIS
9
determined that past projects impacted 158 acres, or 1.4% of suitable habitat within the
10
cumulative impacts analysis area, and that it occurred outside of nest cores. (AAR 313.) The EIS
11
contains an extensive discussion of the Project’s anticipated effects to the goshawk, including that
12
Project activities will not occur within the 200-acre core areas of the four goshawk territories in
13
the Project area. (AAR 311.) The EIS predicts that all treated stands are expected to continue to
14
function as foraging habitat after the Project is implemented, and overall concludes that the
15
Project will not hinder goshawk viability. (See AAR 310-313.) Plaintiff references the EIS for
16
the fact that the Project will impact 27% of suitable habitat and reduce canopy cover from 70% to
17
45% in the short term, with canopy cover expected to return in 20-30 years. (AAR 554-555.)
18
However, absent further guidance from the parties as to the precise relevance of this effect, this
19
Court is not prepared to find that Defendant Forest Service was arbitrary or capricious in its
20
assessment of effects on the goshawk.
21
Defendant Forest Service evaluated Project effects on the American marten and Pacific
22
fisher together because they share similar habitat requirements. (AAR 561.) Based on habitat
23
capability modeling for these species, Defendant Forest Service concluded that there was “little to
24
no” high quality habitat for either species in the Project area. (AAR 563.) Under a different
25
analysis (modeled after NSO habitat), Defendant Forest Service determined that 96% of the high-
26
quality habitat in the Project area would remain unaffected and available for use by these
27
28
23
1
species.15 (AAR 569.) Also under the NSO-habitat analysis, Defendant Forest Service concluded
2
that 42 acres of potential denning/resting habitat and 1,268 acres of foraging habitat would be
3
degraded (AAR 564); 20 acres of foraging habitat would be removed due to road-related actions
4
(AAR 565); and the proposed action was expected to provide higher quality den and nest side
5
structure over the long term, because of larger diameter trees and larger size classes of down
6
wood (AAR 569). Plaintiff asserts that Defendant Forest Service did not conduct surveys of the
7
marten or fisher in the Project area; the EIS indicates that furbearer surveys were conducted in the
8
McCloud Flats and Sacramento River Canyon area north and west of the project area. (See ECF
9
No. 52 at 40; AAR 565.) Plaintiff does not otherwise address the relevance of these surveys.
10
Defendant found the Project would not cause a trend toward federal listing for American marten,
11
increase the current priority listing for Pacific Fisher, or result in a loss of viability for either
12
species. (AAR 569; see AAR 561-70.)
Plaintiff does not specify any management or population monitoring duties under the
13
14
NFMA or Shasta-Trinity LRMP with which Defendant Forest Service failed to comply. Without
15
more, the Court cannot find that Defendant Forest Service’s activities with respect to these
16
species constitutes arbitrary and capricious conduct. The Court therefore grants summary
17
judgment in favor of Defendants and Defendant Intervenors with respect to Claim 4.
18
19
Claim 5: Compliance with the 2011 NSO Recovery Plan under the NFMA (Forest Service)
20
The Complaint contends broadly that the Forest Plan requires the Forest Service to
21
manage threatened species under existing recovery goals, as identified in the species Recovery
22
Plan. (ECF No. 33 at 21.) Plaintiff does not otherwise brief the Court as to the specific provision
23
under the NFMA that has been violated. Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Support of Summary
24
Judgment (ECF No. 52) makes a claim under the Endangered Species Act, as the Court has
25
discussed, to the effect that the Project does not adhere to the 2011 Recovery Plan’s
26
recommendation that large diameter and/or old growth trees be retained in NSO habitat. (ECF
27
15
28
The Forest Service considered NSO nesting/roosting and foraging habitat as a proxy for fisher and marten habitat
because it contains structural components favored by fisher and marten. (AAR 564.)
24
1
No. 52 at 37.) However, Plaintiff does not otherwise address this claim in its briefing. Therefore
2
summary judgment is granted to Defendants and Defendant Intervenors with respect to Claim 5.
3
Claim 6: Failure to Address Opposing Scientific Views and to Address Cumulative Impacts,
4
in violation of NEPA (Forest Service)
Plaintiff contends that Defendant Forest Service violated the NEPA because: 1) it failed to
5
6
disclose opposing scientific views about the relationship between the NSO and wildfire; and 2) it
7
failed to adequately address cumulative effects of the Project to the NSO.
i.
8
Scientific studies regarding wildfire
As a component of the requirement that Defendant Forest Service provide a full and fair
9
10
discussion of environmental impacts of a proposed action (i.e. the requisite “hard look”), the
11
Ninth Circuit has faulted an agency for not addressing uncertainties relating to the action “in any
12
meaningful way.” See Seattle Audobon Soc’y v. Espy, 998 F.2d 699, 704 (9th Cir. 1993). NEPA
13
does not require that Defendant Forest Service affirmatively present every uncertainty in its EIS,
14
but it “must acknowledge and respond to comments by outside parties that raise significant
15
scientific uncertainties and reasonably support that such uncertainties exists.” See Lands Council,
16
537 F.3d at 1001. That said, an agency must be permitted discretion in relying on the reasonable
17
opinion of its own qualified experts, even if the court might find contrary views more persuasive.
18
See Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390, 410 n. 21 (1976). A reviewing court is not to entertain a
19
“battle of the experts” when plaintiffs proffer expert testimony to set against the agency’s
20
professional judgment. See Lands Council, 537 F.3d at 1000.
21
As the Court has discussed, Plaintiff points to studies showing the benefits of wildfire to
22
NSO habitat, and contends that the Forest Service did not adequately address and disclose these
23
studies. (ECF No. 52 at 49.) However, the EIS in this case contains an extensive discussion of
24
fire management treatment plans.16 (AAR 293-95.) A stated aim of the Algoma Project is to
25
reduce the risk of large-scale habitat loss due to environmental stressors such as wildfire, and
26
therefore fire management strategies are a focal part of all proposed treatment plans. (AAR 227-
27
16
28
The studies referenced by Plaintiff are included in the 2013 BiOp. (AAR 22927-28.)
25
1
28.) The “Public Comments” section of the EIS acknowledges that wildfire can benefit aspects of
2
NSO habitat, but re-affirms its conclusion that existing fuel conditions in the Project pose the
3
threat of large-scale wildfire, which in turn could result in the loss of NSO habitat. (AAR 855-
4
56.)
5
The Court’s role in this regard is “simply to ensure that the Forest Service made no clear
6
error of judgment that would render its action arbitrary and capricious.” See Lands Council, 537
7
F.3d at 993 (internal quotations omitted). The Court does not find that Defendant made this
8
error.
9
ii.
Cumulative impacts
A cumulative impact is defined in NEPA’s implementing regulations as “the impact on
10
11
the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other
12
past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions … Cumulative impacts can result from
13
individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time.” 40
14
C.F.R. § 1508.7. “A proper consideration of the cumulative impacts of a project requires some
15
quantified or detailed information; general statements about possible effects and some risk do not
16
constitute a hard look absent a justification regarding why more definitive information could not
17
be provided.” Klamath-Siskyiuou Wildlands Ctr. v. BLM, 387 F.3d 989, 993 (2004) (internal
18
quotations omitted). “[I]n assessing cumulative effects, the Environmental Impact Statement
19
must give a sufficiently detailed catalogue of past, present, and future projects, and provide
20
adequate analysis about how these projects, and difference between the projects, are thought to
21
have impacted the environment.” Lands Council v. Powell, 395 F.3d 1019, 1028 (2004); see also
22
Great Basin Mine Watch v. Hankins, 456 F.3d 955, 971-72 (9th Cir. 2006).
The cumulative effects report within the EIS considered the impacts of the Algoma
23
24
Project with respect to two spatial scales: the “Action Area”, which consists of a 1.3 mile buffer
25
around the Algoma Project Area, and a broader scale, totaling approximately 89,028 acres of
26
mostly federal land.17 (See AAR 896, 902, 906.)
27
17
28
See Table 51 for a list of the projects and acreages affected within the Action area over the past 20 years. (AAR
897-98.) See Table 52 for a list of the projects and acreages affected within the larger landscape over the last ten
26
Notably, the Action Area analysis determined the following: 1) 32 projects were
1
2
completed within the Project area within the prior 20 years, resulting in approximately 9,000
3
acres of commercial thinning, 260 acres of patch or clear cutting, and about 113 acres of
4
sanitation/salvage; 2) future Federal projects to overlap the Project area include the Moosehead,
5
East McCloud, and Toad Mountain Projects; 3) approximately 17,960 acres of timber harvest
6
plans have occurred on private lands within the Project area in the last 20 years. (See AAR 897-
7
98.)
8
With respect to habitat modification, the EIS summarizes the cumulative effects on the
9
Project area to include the following: 1) the degradation of 7,424 acres of foraging habitat over
10
the last 20 years; the Forest Service determined that this habitat remained functional as foraging
11
habitat post-treatment; 2) the Algoma Project would degrade approximately 1,815 acres with
12
thinning treatments; the degraded habitat is expected to remain fully functional as foraging habitat
13
post-treatment;18 3) future Federal actions that are expected to affect suitable NSO habitat are
14
limited to the Moosehead project which would degrade approximately 80 acres of foraging
15
habitat; degraded habitat is expected to remain fully functional as foraging habitat post-treatment;
16
4) where quantifiable, private actions have decreased nesting habitat by 80 acres and foraging
17
habitat by 607 acres. (See AAR 900.)
18
Plaintiff contends that in NSO activity center ST-204, private land comprises the majority
19
of the home range and that the EIS provides no actual analysis of the impacts related private lands
20
logging in ST-204. (ECF No. 52 at 42.) Defendant responds that the Algoma Project does not
21
propose treatment within ST-204, and thus it need not address the cumulative impact of the
22
Project with respect to private logging.19 (ECF No. 69 at 33.) The Court finds that the
23
24
25
26
years. (AAR 903.)
18
The EIS describes its use of the term ‘degrade’ as: “To be distinguished from downgrade, indicates a reduction in
habitat quality, but not habitat function following the effect (i.e., an area that functioned as foraging habitat prior to
the effect, still provides such function after the effect, but perhaps is more limited due to a temporary reduction in
prey base).” (AR 895.)
19
27
28
As discussed, the EIS provides that there are no proposed treatments of nesting/roosting or foraging habitat within
the core or home range of ST-204; 25 acres of dispersal habitat are proposed for treatment, but this treatment is not
expected to remove habitat functionality. (AAR 637.)
27
1
cumulative effects report contains a discussion of the timber harvest plans (THPs) occurring on
2
private lands in the last 20 years, including a review of changes in nesting and roosting habitat,
3
measures taken by THPs to minimize effects to the NSO, and the extent of suitable and non-
4
suitable NSO habitat. (See AAR 898-900.)20
5
Plaintiff also contends that the cumulative effects report does not adequately consider the
6
cumulative effects of the Moosehead Project. (ECF No. 69 at 52.) However, the report discloses
7
that portions of two Moosehead Project units (units 124 and 127) overlap the Project Area and
8
estimates that thinning in these units would degrade 80 acres of foraging habitat. (AAR 898.)
9
Within the second, larger-scale analysis, the report states that the Moosehead Project would
10
degrade 1,400 acres of foraging habitat, and concludes that this habitat would return within
11
roughly 10 years. (AAR 905.)
The cumulative effects report in the EIS provides a sufficiently detailed catalogue of past,
12
13
present, and future projects, including quantified predictions regarding changes to nesting,
14
roosting, and foraging habitat for the NSO. The Court does not otherwise find that Defendant
15
Forest Service acted arbitrarily or capriciously in failing to consider the cumulative effects to the
16
NSO.
Therefore, summary judgment with respect to Claim 6 is granted in favor of Defendants
17
18
and Defendant Intervenors.
19
III.
20
Conclusion
For the reasons discussed herein, Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 52)
21
22
on Claims 1 through 6 of the First Supplemental Complaint (ECF No. 33) is DENIED.
23
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 68) and Defendant Intervenors’ Motion
24
for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 62) is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary
25
Injunction (ECF No. 81) is moot and the Court does not reach this issue.
26
27
28
20
The EIS discloses that the acreages and calculations used in this part of the report are based on the CALFIRE
database.
28
1
2
Dated: May 16, 2014
3
4
5
6
Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?