Conservation Congress v. United States Forest Service
Filing
37
ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 6/4/19 DENYING 19 Motion for Summary Judgment and GRANTING 33 Motion for Summary Judgment. (Kaminski, H)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
CONSERVATION CONGRESS,
10
2:18-cv-01694-JAM-DMC
Plaintiff,
11
12
No.
v.
UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE,
13
Defendant.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND
GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
14
On June 9, 2018, Plaintiff Conservation Congress filed a
15
16
complaint against Defendant United States Forest Service (“the
17
Forest Service”), alleging that the Service violated the
18
Administrative Procedures Act, National Environmental Policy Act,
19
and the National Forest Management Act.
20
The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment and reply
21
briefs.
22
J., ECF No. 33; Pl.’s Reply, ECF No. 34; Def.’s Reply, ECF No.
23
35.
24
Conservation Congress’s Motion for Summary Judgment and GRANTS
25
the Forest Service’s Motion for Summary Judgment.1
See Compl., ECF No. 1.
See Pl.’s Mot. Summ. J., ECF No. 19; Def.’s Mot. Summ.
For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES
26
27
28
This motion was determined to be suitable for decision
without oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was
scheduled for March 19, 2019.
1
1
1
I.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
2
A. The Lassen 15 Project
3
The Lassen 15 Restoration Project (“the Lassen 15 Project”)
4
is planned for the Lassen Creek area of the Modoc National
5
Forest.
6
treatment areas within the approximately 25,000 acres of analysis
7
area.
8
Management Plan, amended by the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan
9
Amendment, contains the standards and guidelines with which the
10
LC15_000001.
Id.
It is comprised of 8,004 acres of
The Modoc National Forest Land and Resource
Lassen 15 Project must comply.
Id.
11
The primary objective of the Lassen 15 Project is to address
12
forest health concerns, including the risk of insect infestation,
13
disease, and wildfire in the dense, homogeneous conifer forest.
14
LC15_000002.
15
vegetation treatments, including thinning and fuel break
16
treatments; prescribed fire of 6,146 acres to be implemented over
17
10 to 15 years; and several miles of temporary roads, to be
18
decommissioned after use.
19
involves tree planting of 90 acres at the rate of 200 trees per
20
acre and stream restoration to restore aquatic conditions.
21
LC15_000035.
22
scheduled for 2018 to 2024.
23
The Lassen 15 Project calls for 7,002 acres of
LC15_000003.
The Project also
Implementation of the Lassen 15 Project was
LC15_000011.
In the no action alternative, “no harvesting, tree planting,
24
or other restoration actions” would occur; however, “[o]ngoing
25
management practices such as limited road maintenance, fire
26
suppression, and livestock grazing would continue[.]”
27
LC15_000041.
28
After considering ten factors identified in 40 C.F.R.
2
1
§ 1508.27(b), Forest Supervisor Amanda McAdams issued a Finding
2
of No Significant Impact (“FONSI”) for the Lassen 15 Project on
3
May 21, 2018.
4
Environmental Assessment, made available in August 2017,
5
LC15_000005, in which the Forest Service weighed the impacts of
6
implementing the Project against a no action alternative.
7
LC15_000001.
8
the initial final Environmental Assessment.
9
LC15_000001.
The FONSI followed a revised final
Conservation Congress was one of three objectors to
LC15_000005.
B. The Joseph Creek Project
10
The Joseph Creek Forest Health Project (“the Joseph Creek
11
Project”) is planned within the Warner Mountain Ranger District
12
of the Modoc National Forest.
13
approximately 2,800 acres.
14
Joseph Creek Project is governed by the standards and regulations
15
in the Modoc National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan,
16
amended by the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment.
17
Id.
JC_000011.
It is comprised of
Like the Lassen 15 Project, the
Id.
The Joseph Creek Project seeks to remedy the above average
18
stocking levels in the area and the tree mortality attributed to
19
bark beetles, Heterobasidion root disease, and dwarf mistletoe.
20
Id.
21
trees to meet desired stocking levels.
22
The Project will remove dead trees and thin areas of live
JC_000012–13.
The Joseph Creek Project was approved pursuant to a decision
23
memorandum signed by Forest Supervisor Amanda McAdams on March
24
16, 2018.
25
Joseph Creek Project pursuant to the authority granted in Section
26
8204 of the Agricultural Act of 2014, Pub. L. No. 113-79.
27
JC_002512.
28
///
JC_000019.
The Forest Service seeks to carry out the
3
1
2
3
4
II.
OPINION
A. Legal Standard
1.
The National Environmental Policy Act
The National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) “is a
5
procedural statute that requires the federal government to
6
carefully consider the impacts of and alternatives to major
7
environmental decisions.”
8
697 F.3d 1043, 1051–52 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing 42 U.S.C.
9
§§ 4321, 4331).
Native Ecosystems Council v. Weldon,
NEPA does not mandate specific results, but
10
instead requires agencies take a “hard look” at the
11
environmental consequences of their actions and disseminate
12
relevant environmental information to the public.
13
Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 350 (1989).
14
is concerned with process alone and merely prohibits uninformed—
15
rather than unwise—agency action.”
16
Network v. United States Dep’t of Commerce, 878 F.3d 725, 730
17
(9th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted).
18
review of agency decision-making is “at its most deferential”
19
when reviewing scientific judgments and technical analyses
20
within the agency’s expertise.
21
Surface Transp. Bd., 668 F.3d 1067, 1075 (9th Cir. 2011)
22
(quoting Balt. Gas & Elec. Co. v. Natural Res. Def. Council,
23
Inc., 462 U.S. 87, 103 (1983)).
24
25
Robertson v.
“NEPA
Turtle Island Restoration
Judicial
N. Plains Res. Council, Inc. v.
2. Administrative Procedure Act
The Court reviews an agency’s NEPA compliance under the
26
Administrative Procedure Act (“the APA”).
27
Norton, 276 F.3d 1060, 1071 (9th Cir. 2001), opinion amended on
28
denial of reh’g, 282 F.3d 1055 (9th Cir. 2002).
4
Churchill Cty. v.
The APA
1
“empowers federal courts to ‘hold unlawful and set aside agency
2
action, findings, and conclusions’ if they fail to conform with
3
any of six specified standards.”
4
Council, 490 U.S. 360, 375 (1989) (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 706).
5
Courts set aside agency actions that are “arbitrary, capricious,
6
an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with
7
law.”
8
9
Marsh v. Oregon Nat. Res.
5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).
“Judicial review of an agency decision typically focuses on
the administrative record in existence at the time of the
10
decision and does not encompass any part of the record that is
11
made initially in the reviewing court.”
12
Diversity v. U.S. Forest Serv., 100 F.3d 1443, 1450 (9th Cir.
13
1996).
14
record affirms an agency action if there is a rational basis for
15
the decision.
16
475 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2007).
17
substitute its judgment for that of the agency.
18
19
Sw. Ctr. for Biological
This “highly deferential” review of the administrative
3.
Nw. Ecosystem All. v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv.,
The Court may not
Id.
The National Forest Management Act
The National Forest Management Act (“the NFMA”) “directs
20
the Forest Service to develop a comprehensive land and resource
21
management plan (‘Forest Plan’) for each unit in the national
22
forest system.”
23
F.3d 836, 849–50 (9th Cir. 2013) (citing 16 U.S.C. § 1604(a)).
24
Forest Plans “manage forest resources by balancing the
25
consideration of environmental and economic factors,” furthering
26
the NFMA’s purpose of “provid[ing] for diversity of plant and
27
animal communities” in forest management.
28
Council v. Weldon, 697 F.3d 1043, 1056 (9th Cir. 2012); 16
Great Old Broads for Wilderness v. Kimbell, 709
5
Native Ecosystems
1
U.S.C. § 1604(g)(3)(B).
2
Forest Plan, the “NFMA prohibits any site-specific activities
3
that are inconsistent with the Forest Plan.”
Lands Council v.
4
Powell, 395 F.3d 1019, 1033 (9th Cir. 2005).
Courts accord
5
substantial deference to the Forest Service’s interpretation and
6
implementation of its Forest Plan.
7
B. Evidentiary Objections
8
“In general, a court reviewing agency action under the APA
9
After the Forest Service adopts a
Weldon, 697 F.3d at 1056.
must limit its review to the administrative record.”
San Luis &
10
Delta-Mendota Water Auth. v. Locke, 776 F.3d 971, 992 (9th Cir.
11
2014).
12
Reviewing courts “may consider extra-record evidence where
13
admission of that evidence (1) is necessary to determine whether
14
the agency has considered all relevant factors and has explained
15
its decision, (2) is necessary to determine whether the agency
16
has relied on documents not in the record, (3) when
17
supplementing the record is necessary to explain technical terms
18
or complex subject matter, or (4) when plaintiffs make a showing
19
of agency bad faith.”
20
omitted).
21
There are three narrow exceptions to this rule.
Id.
Id. at 992–93 (internal quotation marks
Conservation Congress has objected to the Forest Service’s
22
inclusion of a declaration from Forestry Technician Traci Silva.
23
See Silva Decl., ECF No. 33-1.
24
this declaration to explain the difference and distinction
25
between the Lassen 15 Project and the Joseph Creek Project.
26
Def.’s Mem. at 13 n.2.
27
Conservation Congress’s claims renders this declaration
28
unnecessary.
The Forest Service submitted
Clarification regarding the nature of
See Def.’s Reply at 3–4.
6
The Court will not
See
1
consider the Silva Declaration or other materials outside of the
2
administrative record.
3
C. Analysis
4
5
1.
Conservation Congress Has Abandoned Three Claims
Conservation Congress’s Complaint lists seven claims.
The
6
Forest Service argues in its Motion for Summary Judgment that
7
Conservation Congress has abandoned its second, third, and
8
fourth claims.
9
violated NEPA, the NFMA, and the APA by failing to take a hard
10
look at the environmental impacts of the Lassen 15 Restoration
11
Project (second claim); failing to adequately analyze and
12
disclose the mitigation measures for the Lassen 15 Restoration
13
Project (third claim); and failing to comply with the Sierra
14
Nevada National Forest Plan Amendment for American (Pine) Marten
15
(fourth claim).
16
arguments on or acknowledgements of these claims in its summary
17
judgment briefing.
18
Service’s argument that it has abandoned the three claims.
19
Court finds that Conservation Congress’s second, third, and
20
fourth claims have been abandoned and summary judgment on these
21
claims in favor of the Forest Service is granted.
22
Ecosystems Council v. Weldon, 697 F.3d 1043, 1050 (9th Cir.
23
2012).
24
Those claims alleged that the Forest Service
Conservation Congress does not present any
It also fails to address the Forest
The
See Native
Conservation Congress’s four remaining claims allege that
25
the Forest Service violated NEPA and the APA: (1) by failing to
26
adequately analyze and disclose the cumulative effects of the
27
Lassen 15 Restoration Project (first claim); (2) by using a
28
Categorical Exclusion where extraordinary circumstances required
7
1
preparation of an Environmental Assessment (fifth claim); (3) by
2
failing to adequately or accurately evaluate and disclose the
3
cumulative effects of the Joseph Creek Project in relation to
4
other projects, including the adjacent Lassen 15 Project (sixth
5
claim); and (4) by violating the NFMA Standards and Guidelines
6
for Minimum Proportions of Seral Stages and for Average Snag
7
Densities (seventh claim).
8
2.
9
10
Compl. at 10–20.
First Claim: Cumulative Effects of Grazing on the
Lassen 15 Project
Conservation Congress’s first claim asserts that the Forest
11
Service violated NEPA by failing to take a hard look at the
12
baseline and cumulative impacts of grazing on the Lassen 15
13
Project.
14
the Forest Service did not “provide a meaningful description of
15
the baseline through past and ongoing impacts of cattle grazing
16
in the project area.”
17
Compl. at 10–12.
Conservation Congress argues that
Opp’n Mem. at 13.
This argument lacks merit.
The Forest Service adequately
18
evaluated the cumulative effects of grazing in the Lassen 15
19
Project area.
20
discusses how free-range cattle and sheep began grazing in the
21
area in the late 1800s.
22
grazing in the area is on a rotation system from May to
23
September and notes that most of the area is subject to light
24
livestock use and is in satisfactory condition.
25
While some of the existing grazing is moderate or heavy in key
26
riparian areas, the Forest Service found that the Lassen 15
27
Project would not contribute to the problem.
28
Environmental Assessment anticipates that the Project may reduce
For example, the Environmental Assessment
LC15_000080.
8
It discusses how seasonal
LC15_000124.
Id.
Rather, the
1
the number of cattle in riparian areas by improving grazing
2
distribution patterns in the uplands.
3
the present grazing activities could have adverse effects on the
4
Lassen 15 Project’s newly planted conifer seedlings, the
5
Environmental Assessment finds these impacts will be mitigated
6
by the planting in areas that have low forage use for cattle.
7
LC15_000066.
8
9
LC15_000163–64.
Although
Outside of the Environmental Assessment itself, the Forest
Service reviewed the impact of grazing in the Revised Range
10
Resource Specialist Report for Lassen 15 Restoration Project,
11
LC15_001316–41, and in the reports considering the impact of the
12
Project on aquatic species, LC15_000872; fuels, LC15_000988,
13
LC15_001017–18; heritage, LC15_001132; hydrology, LC15_001193,
14
LC15_001196; roads, LC15_001430; soils, LC15_001553; and
15
wildlife, LC15_001595–001603.
16
similar grazing analysis to be sufficient for an Environmental
17
Impact Statement, which requires more stringent analysis.
18
League of Wilderness Defs.-Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project
19
v. U.S. Forest Serv., 549 F.3d 1211, 1220 (9th Cir. 2008).
20
Forest Service’s assessment of the cumulative effects of grazing
21
on the Lassen 15 Project fully satisfies NEPA’s “hard look”
22
requirement.
23
(9th Cir. 2019) (“[A]lthough Plaintiffs disagree with the EAs’
24
factual conclusions, the Forest Service nonetheless considered
25
the issues, gave them the requisite ‘hard look,’ and thus
26
fulfilled their NEPA obligations.”).
27
28
The Ninth Circuit has found
See
The
Cf. WildEarth Guardians v. Provencio, 923 F.3d 655
Many of Conservation Congress’s arguments focus on the
negative impacts of preexisting grazing activity on riparian
9
1
areas, and what it views to be insufficient baseline
2
information.
3
identifies creeks that have been impacted by grazing as part of
4
the existing conditions baseline.
5
Conservation Congress seeks a level of specificity and detail
6
that statute and regulations do not require.
7
See Opp’n Mem. at 14–15.
The Forest Service
LC15_001185, LC15_001193.
Some of the detail Conservation Congress seeks pertains to
8
future conditions and grazing patterns.
It takes issue with the
9
Forest Service’s assessment that improving grazing distribution
10
patterns in the uplands would potentially decrease grazing in
11
riparian areas, LC15_000163–64, while simultaneously noting that
12
livestock have an affinity for meadows and streams, LC15_000097.
13
These statements are not inherently contradictory.
14
Forest Service has provided information about the possible
15
consequences of future actions, without wading into the murky
16
waters of speculation.
17
become an oracle, predicting exactly which variable outcome will
18
flow from its proposed action.
19
Rather, the
NEPA does not require the Forest Service
The Forest Service has elucidated the possible impacts of
20
the Lassen 15 Project, in conjunction with the cumulative
21
effects of grazing, with a sufficient degree of detail.
22
Lassen 15 Project Environmental Assessment is not arbitrary,
23
capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in
24
accordance with the law.
25
summary judgment in favor of the Forest Service and against
26
Conservation Congress on Conservation Congress’s first claim.
27
///
28
///
5 U.S.C. § 706(2).
10
The
The Court grants
1
2
3
3.
Fifth Claim: Extraordinary Circumstances and the
Joseph Creek Project’s Categorical Exclusion
Conservation Congress’s fifth claim asserts that the Forest
4
Service violated NEPA by failing to consider extraordinary
5
circumstances that preclude the use of categorical exclusion for
6
the Joseph Creek project.
7
raised here is whether “extraordinary circumstances review,”
8
required for categorical exclusion under NEPA regulations,
9
applies to categorical exclusions permitted by the Health Forest
10
11
Compl. at 16–17.
The main issue
Restoration Act, 16 U.S.C. § 6591 et seq.
Five years ago, Congress amended the Healthy Forests
12
Restoration Act of 2003 to add a new type of categorical
13
exclusion for projects that address qualifying insect and
14
disease infestations on National Forest System lands.
16 U.S.C.
15
§ 6591a, et al. (hereinafter, “Farm Bill Amendment”).
This
16
statutory categorical exclusion contains different requirements
17
and limitations from the categorical exclusion contained in
18
NEPA’s implementing regulations.
19
40 C.F.R. § 1508.4.
20
regulations, the agency must “provide for extraordinary
21
circumstances in which a normally excluded action may have a
22
significant environmental effect.”
23
Conservation Congress argues that this requirement similarly
24
applies to categorical exclusion under the Health Forest
25
Restoration Act.
26
Compare 16 U.S.C. § 6591b with
To claim categorical exclusion under NEPA’s
40 C.F.R. § 1508.4.
The parties provided the Court with prior cases on this
27
issue that reached different conclusions.
28
Council v. Marten, No. 17-153-M-DWM, 2018 WL 6046472 (D. Mont.
11
See Native Ecosystem
1
Nov. 19, 2018); Greater Hells Canyon Council v. Stein, No. 2:17-
2
CV-00843-SU, 2018 WL 3966289, at *8 (D. Or. June 11, 2018),
3
report and recommendation adopted, No. 2:17-CV-00843-SU, 2018 WL
4
3964801 (D. Or. Aug. 17, 2018); Ctr. for Biological Diversity v.
5
Ilano, 261 F. Supp. 3d 1063, 1068–69 (E.D. Cal. 2017).
6
reviewing these nonbinding opinions, the Court finds that Stein,
7
and Marten which adopted Stein’s reasoning, provide a more
8
thorough and better reasoned analysis than the assumption in
9
Ilano.
After
See Ilano, 261 F. Supp. 3d at 1069 (“[T]his ruling will
10
assume for purposes of analysis that [extraordinary
11
circumstances] review was indeed required”).
12
Stein reviewed the plain language of the Farm Bill
13
Amendment and NEPA’s implementing regulations.
2018 WL 3966289,
14
at *8 (noting the Supreme Court’s direction to “ordinarily
15
resist reading words or elements into a statute that do not
16
appear on its face.”).
17
extraordinary circumstances review, while NEPA regulations limit
18
extraordinary circumstances review to “procedures under this
19
section” of the Code of Federal Regulations.
20
§ 6591b with 40 C.F.R. § 1508.4.
21
provides conditions for qualifying projects, § 6591b(b);
22
limitations, § 6591b(c); and exclusions, § 6591b(d).
23
subsections do not list extraordinary circumstances review as a
24
necessary condition of or limitation for categorical exclusion.
25
Conversely, other sections of the Healthy Forests Restoration
26
Act expressly state a requirement for “extraordinary
27
circumstances procedures” in order for an agency action to
28
qualify for categorical exclusion.
The Farm Bill Amendment does not mention
Compare 16 U.S.C.
The Farm Bill Amendment
12
These
16 U.S.C. § 6554(d).
Had
1
Congress intended to impose an extraordinary circumstances
2
requirement on statutory categorical exclusion, presumably the
3
requirement would have been expressly stated as it is in other
4
parts of the Health Forests Restoration Act.
5
Amgen Inc., 137 S. Ct. 1664, 1677 (2017).
6
See Sandoz Inc. v.
Accordingly, the Court agrees with the Forest Service’s
7
interpretation of section 6591b statutory categorical exclusion.
8
The Forest Service was not required to perform extraordinary
9
circumstances review for a qualifying project under section
10
6591b.
11
Service and against Conservation Congress on Conservation
12
Congress’s fifth claim.
13
14
15
The Court grants summary judgment in favor of the Forest
4.
Sixth Claim: Cumulative Effects of the Joseph
Creek Project
Conservation Congress’s sixth claim alleges that the Forest
16
Service violated NEPA by failing to evaluate and disclose the
17
cumulative effects of the Joseph Creek Project in relation to
18
the Lassen 15 Project.
19
Compl. at 17–18.
The scope of an environmental impact assessment requires an
20
agency consider “direct,” “indirect,” and “cumulative” impacts.
21
40 C.F.R. § 1508.25.
22
regulation applies only to environmental impact statements.”
23
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Salazar, 706 F.3d 1085, 1096–97
24
(9th Cir. 2013).
25
proposed action fits within a categorical exclusion, full NEPA
26
analysis is not required.”
27
“application of section 1508.25’s requirements to categorical
28
exclusions is inconsistent with the efficiencies that the
“By its plain language, however, this
The Ninth Circuit has determined that “where a
Id. at 1097 (finding that
13
1
abbreviated categorical exclusion process provides.”).
2
Here, the
Forest Service issued the Joseph Creek Project
3
categorical exclusion pursuant to the Farm Bill Amendment, 16
4
U.S.C. § 6591b, rather than NEPA’s regulatory categorical
5
exclusion, 40 C.F.R. § 1508.4.
6
Forest Service may issue a statutory categorical exclusion does
7
not include a requirement that the documentation include a
8
cumulative effects analysis.
9
provided any sections of the applicable statute that provide
10
The provisions under which the
Conservation Congress has not
otherwise.
11
In the absence of a clear requirement that the Forest
12
Service consider cumulative impacts in statutory categorical
13
exclusion analysis, the Court declines to require such
14
consideration.
15
the Forest Service and against Conservation Congress on
16
Conservation Congress’s sixth claim.
17
5.
18
The Court grants summary judgment in favor of
Seventh Claim: Joseph Creek Project’s Consistency
with the Forest Plan
19
Conservation Congress’s seventh claim asserts that the
20
Forest Service violated NEPA and the Forest Act because the
21
decision memorandum for the Joseph Creek Project does not contain
22
findings of consistency with the Forest Plan.
23
Conservation Congress argues that the lack of express findings of
24
consistency with the Forest Plan standards, see 36 C.F.R.
25
§ 220.6(f)(4), renders the Forest Service’s determination
26
arbitrary, capricious, or not in accordance with law.
27
Summ. J., ECF No. 23, p. 24–25.
28
///
14
Compl. at 18–20.
Def. Mem.
1
Here, the Court does not apply the requirements for
2
regulatory categorical exclusions, 36 C.F.R. § 220.6(f)(4), but
3
rather those for statutory categorical exclusions, 16 U.S.C.
4
§ 6591b.
5
decision memoranda include “[f]indings required by other laws
6
such as, but not limited to findings of consistency with the
7
forest land and resource management plan as required by the
8
National Forest Management Act; or a public interest
9
determination.”
Regulatory categorial exclusions from NEPA require that
36 C.F.R. § 220.6(f)(4).
Statutory categorical
10
exclusions under the Farm Bill Amendment do not contain a similar
11
requirement.
12
activities . . . would be inconsistent with the applicable land
13
and resource management plan,” however, are not covered by the
14
statutory categorical exclusion.
15
See 16 U.S.C. § 6591b.
Projects “in which
16 U.S.C. § 6591b(d)(4).
Conservation Congress’s arguments rely on the requirements
16
for regulatory categorical exclusions.
17
argued that the Joseph Creek Project is excluded from statutory
18
categorical exclusion under subsection 6591b(d)(4), and the Court
19
will not rule upon arguments that were not raised.
20
if that argument had been raised, the administrative record does
21
not support a finding of inconsistency.
22
JC_000169–70, JC_000201–12, JC_000283–90, JC_000317–23,
23
JC_000330—58, JC_000368–407, JC_000416–24, JC_000427–28.
24
///
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
///
15
The organization has not
Indeed, even
See Joseph Creek R. at
1
The Court grants summary judgment in favor of the Forest
2
Service and against Conservation Congress on Conservation
3
Congress’s seventh claim.
4
5
6
III.
ORDER
For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES
7
Conservation Congress’s Motion for Summary Judgment and GRANTS
8
the Forest Service’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
9
10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 4, 2019
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
16
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?