Karuk Tribe et al v. Kelley et al

Filing 56

ORDER RESOLVING CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND TEMPORARILY ENJOINING PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION by Judge Alsup granting in part and denying in part 41 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part 43 Motion for Summary Judgment (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/13/2011)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

KARUK TRIBE, KLAMATH-SISKIYOU
WILDLANDS CENTER, ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION INFORMATION CENTER,
and KLAMATH FOREST ALLIANCE,
Plaintiffs,

12
13
14
15
16

No. C 10-02039 WHA

ORDER RESOLVING
CROSS-MOTIONS FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
AND TEMPORARILY
ENJOINING PROJECT
IMPLEMENTATION

v.
TYRONE KELLEY, in his capacity as Forest
Supervisor, Six Rivers National Forest, and
THE UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE,
Defendants.
/

17
INTRODUCTION

18
19

In this environmental action, the parties bring cross-motions for summary judgment based

20

on the administrative record. For the reasons stated below, the federal defendants are entitled to

21

judgment in their favor save and except for one issue, as described below.
STATEMENT

22
23

This action arises from the “preparation, approval, and implementation of the Orleans

24

Community Fuels Reduction and Forest Health Project” in the Six Rivers National Forest

25

(Compl. ¶ 3). Plaintiffs — a federally recognized Indian tribe and three non-profit environmental

26

advocates — claim that the way this project has been conducted violated federal laws. Plaintiffs

27

fault the United States Forest Service and the Supervisor of the Six Rivers National Forest for the

28

alleged violations.

1

1.

SCOPE OF THE PROJECT.

2

The Orleans Community Fuels Reduction and Forest Health Project was undertaken

3

pursuant to the Healthy Forest Restoration Act (AR 656). The community of Orleans in

4

Humboldt County had been designated a “Community at Risk” from wildfire in the nearby Six

5

Rivers National Forest (AR 663). The purposes of the HFRA included “reduc[ing] wildfire risk

6

to communities . . . through a collaborative process of planning, prioritizing, and implementing

7

hazardous fuel reduction projects,” as well as promoting various aspects of forest health.

8

16 U.S.C. § 6501. Authority for the Orleans project thus derived from the HFRA, but other

9

federal statutes and regulations also imposed various requirements on the management of

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

the project.
The Orleans project was “designed to treat approximately 2,698 acres of forest lands by

12

thinning and/or pruning, hand piling and burning, jackpot burning, yarding tops, and/or

13

understory burning to increase wildfire suppression effectiveness in and around the community of

14

Orleans” (AR 943). Implementation was projected to take five to ten years (AR 679). Over two

15

hundred individual treatment “units” were defined within the project area in the Six Rivers

16

National Forest. The threat of severe wildfire was to be reduced by removing some of the natural

17

materials in these units that could serve as “surface and understory ladder fuels.” Additionally,

18

“vegetation treatments” were to “reduce the density of understory, low- to mid-canopy-level and

19

codominant trees, while promoting the development of large trees.” “Some canopy-level

20

thinning” would be done “to promote the growth of mast-producing hardwoods and diverse forest

21

structures.” These measures were intended to “reduce the probability of crown fires” and reduce

22

“hazardous fuel accumulations.” On the whole, the Orleans project aimed to create fire-resistant

23

forests that would “support the reintroduction of fire-adapted ecosystem functions, including

24

natural, cultural, and prescribed fire” (AR 944).

25

Portions of the project area overlap with portions of the Panamnik World Renewal

26

Ceremonial District, which has cultural and spiritual significance to the Karuk Tribe

27

(AR 822–23). The Panamnik district was nominated for listing in the National Register of

28

Historic Places in 1987 and has been determined eligible for listing in the Register (AR 4049). A
2

1

Karuk spiritual trail called the Medicine Man Trail, which is regularly used by the Karuk Tribe,

2

runs through the Panamnik district. The Panamnik district and the Orleans project area are

3

roughly the same size, and they have substantial overlap in the vicinity of the community of

4

Orleans. About half of the Medicine Man Trail runs through or along treatment units of the

5

Orleans project.

6

During the planning phases of the project, Karuk spiritual practitioners were consulted by

7

the Forest Service, and it was determined that the Medicine Man Trail would not be impacted by

8

the project (AR 2072). According to plaintiffs, however, the project has negatively impacted the

9

Medicine Man Trail, as well as other Karuk cultural resources and various aspects of the natural
environment in the Six Rivers National Forest, as set forth below.
HISTORY OF THE PROJECT.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

2.

12

The Forest Service proposed the Orleans Community Fuels Reduction and Forest Health

13

project in January 2006 and again in October 2006 (AR 671). From 2006 to 2008, the Forest

14

Service conducted a “scoping” process with public involvement to determine the scope of issues

15

to be addressed. Letters were mailed to approximately 125 individuals and groups seeking public

16

comment on the proposal. A notice of intent was published in the Federal Register, also seeking

17

public comment. A round-table public meeting and seven public field trips were held. The Forest

18

Service met with government, industry, and environmental-group representatives during this time.

19

The Forest Service also met with community members, including representatives of the Karuk

20

Tribe (AR 671–72).

21

After the scoping process was complete, the Forest Service began completing the steps of

22

“the NEPA process,” which is based on requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act.

23

40 C.F.R. 1506.10. In March 2008, the Forest Service issued a draft environmental impact

24

statement analyzing the proposed action and no-action alternatives (AR 966). This publication

25

initiated a formal period for public review and comment during which plaintiffs and others

26

submitted comments on the draft statement. In June 2008, after the NEPA review and comment

27

period closed, the Forest Service issued a final environmental impact statement (AR 564). Like

28

the draft statement, the final statement analyzed the possible action and no-action alternatives
3

1

regarding the proposed project. It explained that “[b]ased upon the effects of the alternatives, the

2

responsible official will decide whether the proposed action will proceed as proposed” (AR 658).

3

In July 2008, plaintiffs and others objected to the final environmental impact statement

4

pursuant to the HFRA objection procedure set forth in 36 C.F.R. 218.7 (AR 622–33). The

5

objectors met with the Forest Service and participated in a site visit to address the issues raised in

6

the objection. In August 2008, the objectors and the Forest Service executed a resolution

7

agreement regarding the objection. Significantly, as part of the agreement, the objectors formally

8

withdrew the objection (AR 644–47).

9

The following week, the Forest Supervisor of the Six Rivers National Forest signed a
Record of Decision announcing “[b]ased upon my review of the alternatives, I have decided to

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

implement Alternative 2 (proposed action) that has been modified through the resolution of the

12

objection process” (AR 944). Implementation of the project was to begin immediately, “through

13

service contracts, timber sale contracts, and/or stewardship contracts” (AR 948).

14

In September 2009, the Forest Service contracted with Timber Products Company to

15

implement the project (AR 4319–63). Commercial logging began on October 30, 2009

16

(AR 5624). Plaintiffs soon developed concerns about the work being done by Timber Products

17

and communicated their concerns to the Forest Service (e.g., AR 5406–10). The Forest Service

18

met with the Karuk Tribe in November and December 2009 to discuss these concerns, and letters

19

were exchanged among the Tribe, the Forest Service, and other agencies during those months

20

(e.g., AR 4892–94). During that period, the Forest Service modified project implementation by

21

Timber Products to accommodate several of the Tribe’s concerns (e.g., AR 4550).

22

In December 2009, the Forest Service implemented a complete shut-down of work under

23

the contract (AR 4576). Following suspension of the project, the parties continued to meet and

24

exchange letters but were unable to reach agreement. The agency’s voluntary suspension remains

25

in place, with work having been done in only four of the 238 treatment units within the project

26

area (Burcell Decl. ¶ 8).

27

*

*

28
4

*

1

This action was filed in May 2010, requesting judicial review of Forest Service and Forest

2

Supervisor actions taken in conjunction with the Orleans project. The complaint alleged seven

3

claims for relief: two counts for violation of the HFRA, four counts for violation of the NEPA,

4

and one count for violation of the National Historic Preservation Act (Compl. 22–34). Plaintiffs,

5

however, have since withdrawn their HFRA claims (Dkt. No. 42 at 1 n.1). Plaintiffs seek

6

declaratory and injunctive relief preventing defendants from proceeding with the Orleans

7

Community project until they have complied with all applicable federal laws (Compl. 34).

8
9

The administrative record was lodged in September 2010 and supplemented two months
later (Dkt. Nos. 25, 36). It contains over six thousand pages of documents, as well as several
collections of maps and photographs filling fourteen four-inch binders. After the administrative

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

record was completed, cross-motions for summary judgment were filed and fully briefed. An

12

extensive independent review of the administrative record was conducted, often with a

13

disappointing lack of guidance from the briefs. In particular, plaintiffs’ briefs largely cited

14

merely to defendants’ answer to the complaint rather than to the administrative record. Worse,

15

the cited pleading often did not admit the point for which it was cited. This order follows a

16

hearing on the motions.

17

ANALYSIS

18

Plaintiffs seek judicial review of the Orleans project under the Administrative Procedure

19

Act (Compl. ¶ 1). Judicial review of administrative agency decisions under the APA is based on

20

the administrative record compiled by the agency — not on independent fact-finding by the

21

district court. Camp v. Pitts, 411 U.S. 138, 142 (1973). Summary judgment shall be granted

22

when “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment

23

as a matter of law.” FRCP 56(a). Accordingly, resolution of this APA action by way of summary

24

judgment is appropriate. See Nw. Motorcycle Ass’n v. United States Dep’t of Agric.,

25

18 F.3d. 1468, 1472 (9th Cir. 1994).

26

The APA “requires that plaintiffs exhaust available administrative remedies before

27

bringing their grievances to federal court.” Idaho Sporting Cong., Inc. v. Rittenhouse,

28

305 F.3d 957, 965 (9th Cir. 2002). The HFRA also provides specific limitations on the judicial
5

1

review of authorized hazardous fuel reduction projects, such as the Orleans project. A party may

2

challenge such a project in a district court action only if that party has exhausted the

3

administrative review or appeal process, and an issue may be considered in the judicial review of

4

the challenged agency action “only if the issue was raised in an administrative review process.”

5

16 U.S.C. 6515(c). The HFRA implementing regulations confirm these requirements.

6

Specifically, “judicial review of hazardous fuel reduction projects that are subject to these

7

procedures is strictly limited to those issues raised by the plaintiff’s submission during the

8

objection process, except in exceptional circumstances such as where significant new information

9

bearing on a specific claim only becomes available after conclusion of the administrative review.”

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

36 C.F.R. 218.14.
Under the APA, a reviewing court shall set aside agency actions, findings, or conclusions

12

found to be “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with

13

law” or “without observance of procedure required by law.” 5 U.S.C. 706(2). In reviewing an

14

agency’s decision, a court “must consider whether the decision was based on a consideration of

15

the relevant factors and whether there has been a clear error of judgment.” Marsh v. Oregon

16

Natural Res. Council, 490 U.S. 360, 1378 (1989). An agency decision will be upheld under the

17

arbitrary-and-capricious standard if the evidence before the agency “provided a rational and

18

ample basis” for its decision. Systech Envtl. Corp. v. United States Envtl. Prot. Agency,

19

55 F.3d 1466, 1469 (9th Cir. 1995).

20

The reviewing court may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency. Motor Vehicle

21

Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983). Yet, the reviewing court

22

also may not merely rubber-stamp administrative decisions. Wilderness Watch, Inc. v. United

23

States Fish and Wildlife Serv., 629 F.3d 1024, 1032 (9th Cir. 2010). The reviewing court must

24

conduct a “searching and careful” inquiry into the facts. Marsh, 490 U.S. at 378. Each of

25

plaintiffs’ four remaining claims for relief will be considered in turn.
CLAIM FOR FAILURE TO MEET STATED PURPOSE AND NEED (NEPA).

26

1.

27

The environmental impact statement for a proposed undertaking must “briefly specify the

28

underlying purpose and need to which the agency is responding in proposing the alternatives
6

1

including the proposed action.” 40 C.F.R. 1502.13. The environmental impact statement for the

2

Orleans project stated that its purpose was “to manage forest stands to reduce hazardous fuel

3

accumulations and improve forest health around the community of Orleans, while enhancing

4

cultural values associated with the Panamnik World Renewal Ceremonial District” (AR 667).

5

Plaintiffs assert that although the Orleans project was planned to achieve this goal, the project as

6

implemented “is not within the scope of the stated purpose and need for the project.” According

7

to plaintiffs, the failure of the project to meet its stated purpose and need constitutes a NEPA

8

violation (Dkt. No. 42 at 22).

9

Plaintiffs, however, cite no authority for their proposition that the failure of a project to
meet its stated purpose and need constitutes a NEPA violation. The NEPA “is a purely

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

procedural statute.” It “does not mandate particular results, but simply provides the necessary

12

process to ensure that federal agencies take a hard look at the environmental consequences of

13

their actions.” Neighbors of Cuddy Mountain v. Alexander, 303 F.3d 1059, 1070 (9th Cir. 2002)

14

(emphasis added). Thus, an agency action will comply with the NEPA if it was adopted through

15

the proper review and evaluation procedures, regardless of its ultimate impact or outcome. Even

16

if plaintiffs could prove that initial implementation of the Orleans project failed to achieve the

17

project’s stated purpose and need, this theory would not establish a NEPA violation.

18

As to the NEPA claim for the alleged failure of the Orleans project to meet its stated

19

purpose and need (count 3), plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is DENIED and defendants’

20

motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

21

2.

CLAIM FOR FAILURE TO PREPARE A NEW ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT (NEPA).

22
The environmental impact statement for a project must be supplemented if “[t]here are
23
significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on
24
the proposed action or its impacts.” 40 C.F.R. 1502.9(c)(1)(ii). Plaintiffs claim that the Orleans
25
project as implemented “is different from how it was described” in the final environmental impact
26
statement, and that this alleged deviation from the plan is a circumstance that requires defendants
27
to supplement the environmental impact statement (Dkt. No. 42 at 18). Plaintiffs identify a
28
7

1

variety of ways in which project implementation allegedly exceeded the scope of the

2

environmental impact statement, but plaintiffs’ characterization is not supported by the record.

3

First, plaintiffs claim that skyline corridors were cut to an average width of twenty to

(Dkt. No. 42 at 19). The parties agree that the impact statement contemplated a ten-foot width,

6

but they dispute the actual width of the corridors — defendants state that “the skyline corridors

7

are 8 feet wide” (Dkt. No. 43-1 at 25). Defendants cite evidence that the Forest Service “marked

8

an 8-foot wide corridor,” but they do not cite any evidence regarding the width of the corridors

9

actually cut by Timber Products (AR 4866) (emphasis added). Plaintiffs’ competing figure is an

10

“estimate[]” that was made by a member of the Karuk Tribe and included in a letter written by the

11
For the Northern District of California

thirty feet, whereas the environmental impact statement limited skyline corridor width to ten feet

5

United States District Court

4

tribe and others (AR 5406). Plaintiffs attempt to bolster this estimate with a declaration and

12

photographic evidence, but the cited photographs are not part of the administrative record and are

13

not visually instructive as to average corridor width (Baker Exh. 1). The record does not support

14

a finding that the width of the skyline corridors is significantly greater than ten feet.

15

Second, plaintiffs claim that the clearings and landings created for equipment were larger

16

than the size evaluated and approved for the project (Dkt. No. 42 at 19). The environmental

17

impact statement anticipated that clearings for helicopter landings would be one or two acres, and

18

all other landings and disposal sites would be a half acre or smaller (AR 678). Plaintiffs cite

19

minutes from a 2007 meeting stating that “most of the landings will be [one quarter of an] acre

20

with a few larger ones” (AR 488). Plaintiffs also cite a contract interpretation document stating

21

that “landing size will need to be anywhere from [one half of an] acre to an acre” (AR 4316).

22

This evidence does not show that the “clearings which have been and will be created” exceed the

23

scope of the analysis in the environmental impact statement, as plaintiffs claim

24

(Dkt. No. 42 at 19). Moreover, the contract with Timber Products was modified in

25

September 2010 “to establish that landings size will not exceed [one half of an] acre for this

26

project” [sic] (AR 5634).

27
28

Third, plaintiffs claim that project implementation has impacted hardwood trees to an
extent unanticipated by the environmental impact statement (Dkt. No. 42 at 19). The statement
8

1

described the “desired future condition” to include maintaining “a healthy hardwood component

2

well into the future” (AR 668). The statement, however, anticipated the removal of some

3

hardwoods as part of the project:

4
5
6
7
8
9

For FVS modeling, we assume that commercial thinning by ground
or skyline logging systems in early mature and older stands would
result in 25 percent loss of hardwood trees between 6 and 20
inches DBH. In the helicopter harvest units we assume 40 percent
damage to the hardwoods between 6 and 20 inches DBH and 10
percent damage to those over 20 inches DBH. Although these are
some of the very trees we are trying to save and promote, if we do
not remove a portion of the overtopping conifers soon, hardwood
losses would be even greater in the future.
(AR 717–18). Plaintiffs have not shown that the impact to hardwood trees has exceeded the
percentages assumed in this analysis. Plaintiffs argue that contractual provisions allowing Timber

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Products to profit from felled hardwoods could encourage the unnecessary removal of hardwoods.

12

Such a financial incentive may be worrisome, but it does not establish that the actual project

13

implementation has or will exceed the hardwood loss analyzed in the environmental impact

14

statement. Plaintiffs also argue that directional felling techniques should have been used to avoid

15

the loss of certain hardwood trees. Plaintiffs, however, do not cite any analysis in the

16

environmental impact statement that would be rendered inapplicable by the loss of those trees

17

(Dkt. No. 42 at 19).

18

Fourth, plaintiffs claim that “the road has been used for logging activity in wet weather

19

conditions, causing impacts which were not within the scope of analysis” (Dkt. No. 42 at 20).

20

Defendants “admit that the contractor used a road for operations in wet weather conditions”

21

(Ans. ¶ 79(g)). Plaintiffs, however, do not identify any aspect of the analysis in the

22

environmental impact statement that would be incompatible with wet-weather road use. Indeed,

23

the statement anticipates “wet weather operations” taking place “with appropriate preventive

24

measures” (AR 867).

25

Fifth, plaintiffs note that the contractor left unmerchantable material on the ground, which

26

increases fuel loading, contrary to the project goal of reducing hazardous wildfire fuels

27

(Dkt. No. 42 at 20). As defendants explained at the time, the contractor was authorized to leave

28

this material on the ground because the equipment needed to remove it posed a risk to Karuk
9

1

cultural resources. Specifically, the removal equipment required the use of “guy trees” for

2

support, and this technique was curtailed in that location after it was found to be damaging trees

3

along the Medicine Man Trail (AR 4542). The environmental impact statement recognized that

4

“[r]emoval of fuels material would have both a positive direct effect and a negative indirect

5

effect,” and that “[s]ome site-specific decisions would be made regarding site protection during

6

and after fuel removal” (AR 703). This was one such decision. Plaintiffs have not shown that the

7

amount of material left on the ground exceeded the scope of the analysis in the environmental

8

impact statement.

9

Sixth, plaintiffs state that “heavy equipment was used in hand units and was parked on a
Spiritual Trail,” and that “[t]rees were cut in hand units near the Spiritual Trail.” To support this

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

point, plaintiffs cite only defendants’ answer to the complaint (Dkt. No. 42 at 20). Defendants

12

“admit that trees were cut in hand units near the Spiritual Trail” and “admit that heavy equipment

13

was operated in hand units, but deny that those actions were inconsistent with the designations as

14

‘hand units’” (Ans. ¶¶ 60–61). Plaintiffs do not explain how the use of heavy equipment or the

15

cutting of particular trees allegedly exceeded the scope of the project as contemplated by the

16

environmental impact statement. In their reply brief, plaintiffs cite a portion of the impact

17

statement providing that “[i]n specific locations where spiritual values or natural resource

18

considerations warrant, unconventional logging techniques would be used” (AR 864). Plaintiffs,

19

however, do not explain how this provision might be interpreted to exclude heavy equipment

20

from the treatment units in question.

21

Seventh, plaintiffs state that “[t]he contractor used heavy equipment to create log decks of

22

hardwood trees generated in the course of harvesting,” and that the log decks were located

23

“directly along the Spiritual Trail.” Again, however, plaintiffs fail to explain how those log decks

24

allegedly exceeded the scope of the analysis in the environmental impact statement

25

(Dkt. No. 42 at 20).

26

Eighth, plaintiffs state that guy-line trees have been cut along the spiritual trail, “directly

27

impacting the Tribe’s spiritual and cultural use of the Trail” (Dkt. No. 42 at 20). Defendants

28

admit they allowed Timber Products to cut guy trees along the spiritual trail and explain how the
10

1

permitted use of guy trees was narrowed over time (Dkt. No. 43-1 at 7–8). Neither party,

2

however, identifies any aspect of the environmental impact statement relating to the use of guy

3

trees along the spiritual trail.

4

Ninth, plaintiffs state that no archaeologist was on site during project implementation

5

(Dkt. No. 42 at 20). Plaintiffs’ only proof of this fact is an unsupported assertion in a letter

6

written by the Karuk Tribe (AR 5423). Plaintiffs cite a response to one of their comments on the

7

draft environmental impact statement as showing that the final environmental impact statement

8

“promised that an archaeologist would be on site during project implementation”

9

(Dkt. No. 42 at 20, AR 925). Even if the analysis in the environmental impact statement assumed
that an archaeologist would be on site, the mere absence of an archaeologist does not show that

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

environmental impacts significantly exceeding those anticipated in the statement

12

actually occurred.

13

Tenth, plaintiffs claim that species surveys were not completed as specified in the

14

environmental impact statement. Plaintiffs identify references in the impact statement to surveys

15

of goshawk, northern spotted owl, and bald eagle, and plaintiffs assert that “[t]hese surveys were

16

not done” (Dkt. No. 42 at 21). After defendants identified goshawk and spotted-owl surveys in

17

the record, plaintiffs shifted position, claiming instead that the wildlife surveys were “inadequate”

18

(Dkt. No. 45 at 5). The fundamental question at hand, however, is whether implementation of the

19

Orleans project caused significant environmental impacts beyond the scope of those analyzed in

20

the environmental impact statement. Even if true, the fact that wildlife surveys were not

21

completed or were somehow inadequate would not show that such an impact occurred.

22

Eleventh, plaintiffs argue that “because the project does not meet the stated purpose and

23

need regarding fire danger, the [final environmental impact statement] also failed to adequately

24

disclose impacts from increased fire danger” (Dkt. No. 42 at 21). Plaintiffs, however, have not

25

shown that initial implementation of the Orleans project failed to meet its goals with respect to

26

reducing the risk of wildfire. Plaintiffs protest the harvesting of large trees with trunk diameters

27

over 24 inches at breast height, but plaintiffs cite no evidence that trees this large actually were

28

harvested (Dkt. No. 42 at 9). Plaintiffs also protest the unmerchantable material left on the
11

1

ground, but as explained above, the decision to leave this material was based on informed

2

consideration of conflicting project goals, including the protection of Karuk spiritual resources.

3

Moreover, the environmental impact of this single action, taken in isolation, does not show that

4

the project work as a whole failed (or will fail when completed) to achieve a net effect of

5

reducing the risk of wildfire.

6

At the hearing, plaintiffs emphasized a February 2010 e-mail containing a reference

7

to “40–50% additional volume” (AR 5224). According to plaintiffs, this email shows that

8

implementation of the Orleans project exceeded its planned scope by 40–50 percent with respect

9

to hardwood trees. It does not. The e-mail, written by a member of the Forest Service staff,
responds to a colleague’s question regarding an “allegation . . . of intentional damage to claim

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

more hardwood volume by sub contractor.” The colleague asks, “Any substance to those

12

charges?” and the author of the email responds, “No substance.” After further addressing that

13

question, the e-mail states: “On a side note I have added on 40–50% additional volume from

14

corridors. Unit 1 and Unit 2 have large trees in them. If I moved the corridor over to avoid large

15

trees then I would hit some more” (ibid.). The most reasonable interpretation of this statement is

16

that the volume addition relates only to the specific corridors in the specific units being discussed.

17

The e-mail does not establish that the scope of the Orleans project as a whole was increased

18

by 40–50%.

19

Plaintiffs have not carried their burden of showing that implementation of the Orleans

20

project exceeded the scope of the analysis in the environmental impact statement. It is true that

21

initial project implementation deviated from the ideal contemplated in the planning stages of the

22

project. That initial work, however, has not been shown to have impacted the environment to a

23

degree unanticipated by the final environmental impact statement. Because project

24

implementation did not exceed the scope of the environmental impact statement in any

25

meaningful way, there was no need for plaintiffs to supplement the final environmental impact

26

statement. This order finds that defendants’ decision not to issue a supplemental environmental

27

impact statement was not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise unlawful.

28
12

1

As to the NEPA claim for defendants’ alleged failure to prepare a new environmental

2

impact statement (count 4), plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is DENIED and defendants’

3

motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

4

3.

CLAIM FOR FAILURE TO ADEQUATELY DISCLOSE AND ANALYZE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (NEPA).

5
Because the Orleans project was a “major Federal action[] significantly affecting the
6
quality of the human environment,” defendants were required to issue a statement on “the
7
environmental impact of the proposed action.” 42 U.S.C. 4332(C)(i). Plaintiffs argue that the
8
final environmental impact statement regarding the Orleans project failed to adequately analyze
9
the environmental impacts of the project. According to plaintiffs, the project as implemented has
10
was not acknowledged” in the environmental impact statement (Dkt. No. 42 at 21–22). As
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

impacted the spiritual, cultural, and historical values of the Panamnik district “to an extent that
11
12
explained above, however, plaintiffs have not carried their burden of showing that
13
implementation of the Orleans project caused significant environmental impacts beyond the scope
14
of what the environmental impact statement described. Accordingly, there is no basis for a
15
finding that defendants failed to adequately disclose and analyze the environmental impacts of the
16
Orleans project.
17
As to the NEPA claim for defendants’ alleged failure to adequately disclose and analyze
18
the environmental impacts of the Orleans project (count 2), plaintiffs’ motion for summary
19
judgment is DENIED and defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.
20
4.

CLAIM FOR FAILURE TO CONSULT (NHPA).

21
As noted, the Panamnik World Renewal Ceremonial District of the Karuk Tribe is eligible
22
for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. The parties agree that the Orleans
23
project is a federal undertaking subject to the requirements of National Historic Preservation Act
24
(Ans. ¶ 111). Section 106 of the NHPA provides that the agency conducting such a project must
25
“take into account the effect of the undertaking on any district, site, building, structure, or object
26
that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register.” 16 U.S.C. 470f. The NHPA
27
implementing regulations parley this provision into specific review and consultation
28
13

1

requirements. Plaintiffs assert that defendants failed to execute their NHPA duties with respect to

2

the Panamnik district in several respects, each of which will be addressed in turn.

3
4

A.

Reliance on Programmatic Agreement.

Before approving expenditures on the Orleans project, defendants were required to

5

complete the regulatory process for complying with Section 106 of the NHPA.

6

36 C.F.R. 800.1(c). This process includes mandatory consultation with various parties, including

7

the State historic preservation officer. 36 C.F.R. 800.2(a)–(c).

8

Defendants claim to have complied with their Section 106 obligation to consult with the

9

preservation officer by relying on a 2001 Regional Programmatic Agreement among the Forest
Service, the preservation officer, and the Advisory Counsel on Historic Preservation. The

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

programmatic agreement established a “process for compliance with Section 106 of the National

12

Historic Preservation Act for undertakings on the National Forests of the Pacific Southwest

13

Region” and it stated that “these processes will satisfy the Forests’ Section 106 responsibilities

14

for all individual aspects of their undertakings” (AR 5491–92).

15

Plaintiffs assert that defendants’ reliance on the programmatic agreement was not

16

sufficient to discharge their duty to consult with the preservation officer. According to plaintiffs,

17

the programmatic agreement does not cover the Orleans project, because the agreement “covers

18

only archeological resources,” whereas the project area includes “spiritual resources and other

19

uses” (Dkt. No. 42 at 15).

20

Plaintiffs have forfeited this argument. The draft and final environmental impact

21

statements both addressed compliance with the NHPA Section 106 consulting requirements in

22

terms of the programmatic agreement (AR 704, 1009). Thus, plaintiffs were on notice as to

23

defendants’ reliance on the programmatic agreement as early as March 2008. Plaintiffs, however,

24

did not challenge the applicability of the programmatic agreement in their comments on the draft

25

environmental impact statement during the NEPA review and comment period. Nor did they

26

raise this theory in their HFRA objection to the final environmental impact statement. Plaintiffs

27

adopted this position for the first time in December 2009 — after project implementation already

28

was underway (AR 5028). Because plaintiffs did not challenge defendants’ reliance on the
14

1

programmatic agreement during the administrative review process, they may not now challenge it

2

in district court.

3

Plaintiffs do not dispute this timing. In response to defendants’ waiver and exhaustion

4

arguments, plaintiffs instead re-characterize their claims for relief. Plaintiffs’ reply brief states

5

that their claims are based on “new information” and “problems [that] came to light after

6

implementation began,” as opposed to actions taken before the record of decision was signed.

7

Specifically, plaintiffs states that their claims are based on the many ways in which they believe

8

“implementation of the project to date has differed drastically from the project as proposed in the

9

[environmental impact statement]” (Dkt. No. 45 at 1). The alleged implementation problems,
however, have nothing to do with the question of whether defendants’ reliance on the

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

programmatic agreement satisfied their Section 106 consultation obligations. Defendants’

12

reliance on the programmatic statement is not an implementation issue. In shifting focus to

13

implementation, plaintiffs tacitly acknowledge that their reliance theory does not belong in

14

this action.

15

Plaintiffs could have, but did not, challenge defendants’ reliance on the programmatic

16

agreement during the administrative review process. Accordingly, they are not entitled to judicial

17

review of that aspect of the Orleans project. 36 C.F.R. 218.14.

18

B.

Compliance with Programmatic Agreement.

19

The regulatory process for complying with Section 106 of the NHPA includes provisions

20

for the resolution of adverse effects. In particular, if a memorandum of agreement is executed to

21

resolve adverse effects from a project, then the project must be “carried out in accordance with

22

the memorandum of agreement.” 36 C.F.R. 800.6(c).

23

Putting aside the question of whether the programmatic agreement was sufficient for

24

compliance with Section 106, plaintiffs note that the agreement set forth “Standard Resource

25

Protection Measures” (AR 5514–19). According to plaintiffs, these standard resource protection

26

measures were not taken with regard to the Panamnik district. Plaintiffs argue that defendants’

27

alleged failure to implement these measures violated the NHPA, because the Section 106 process

28

for resolution of adverse effects requires fidelity to such agreements (Dkt. No. 42 at 18).
15

1

Defendants made a good faith effort to utilize the standard resource protection measures.

2

Some of the standard measures, such as exclusion of culturally sensitive areas from the project,

3

were included in the contract with Timber Products (AR 4343–44, 5514). More specific

4

measures were outlined as instructions on the treatment unit information cards for units that

5

overlap with the Panamnik district (e.g., AR 4516–17). When defendants learned that the

6

contractor’s operations had adversely impacted Karuk cultural resources despite these

7

precautions, defendants took steps to mitigate the impact and enforce the contractor’s obligation

8

to implement the protection measures (e.g., AR 4547, 4564).

9

Plaintiffs cite a May 2010 e-mail from the Heritage Program Manager of the Six Rivers
National Forest admitting that “our undertaking did result in adverse effects to TCPs/Historic

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Properties, and we failed to implement standard protection measures identified in the NEPA

12

analysis” (AR 5394). This e-mail is plaintiffs’ only evidence of defendants’ alleged failure to

13

comply with the programmatic agreement (Dkt. No. 42 at 18). Plaintiffs do not identify any

14

specific measures they believe should have been implemented, but were not. The standard

15

resource protection measures enumerated in the programmatic agreement are to be implemented

16

“as appropriate,” but plaintiffs do not identify which measures would be appropriate for the

17

Orleans project (AR 5514). Plaintiffs simply point to one sentence in an e-mail.

18

Plaintiffs have not identified any decision or act by defendants that violated their duty to

19

conduct the Orleans project in accordance with the programmatic agreement. Although the

20

Panamnik district was adversely affected during the first several weeks of project implementation,

21

defendants cannot be said to have ignored the standard resource protection measures set forth in

22

the programmatic agreement. Accordingly, this theory does not entitle plaintiffs to relief on their

23

NHPA claim.

24
25

C.

Eligibility Determination Update.

The NHPA implementing regulations impose identification duties on an agency conducing

26

a project that potentially could impact a historic site. For a property whose eligibility for listing

27

in the National Register of Historic Places has never been evaluated, the agency must determine

28

whether the property is eligible or ineligible. For a property whose eligibility has been
16

1

determined previously, the agency may in some circumstances need to re-evaluate the

2

determination of eligibility or ineligibility. The regulations set forth these requirements

3

as follows:

4
5
6
7
8

In consultation with the SHPO/THPO and any Indian tribe or
Native Hawaiian organization that attaches religious and cultural
significance to identified properties and guided by the Secretary’s
standards and guidelines for evaluation, the agency official shall
apply the National Register criteria (36 CFR part 63) to properties
identified within the area of potential effects that have not been
previously evaluated for National Register eligibility. The passage
of time, changing perceptions of significance, or incomplete prior
evaluations may require the agency official to reevaluate
properties previously determined eligible or ineligible.

9
36 C.F.R. 800.4(c)(1) (emphasis added). The regulations do not specify when “[t]he passage of
10
require reevaluation of a prior eligibility determination.
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

time, changing perceptions of significance, or incomplete prior evaluations” would or would not
11
12
The Panamnik district, which has cultural and spiritual significance to the Karuk Tribe,
13
was determined eligible for listing in the Register in 1978 (AR 4049). Plaintiffs argue that the
14
subsequent identification of “many new sites, uses, information, and/or impacts” within and
15
adjacent to the Orleans project area rendered the original evaluation “incomplete” and triggered
16
an obligation for defendants to revisit and update the eligibility determination. According to
17
plaintiffs, defendants’ failure to reevaluate the Panamnik district and update its eligibility
18
determination violated the NHPA (Dkt. No. 42 at 17).
19
Like the challenge to defendants’ reliance on the programmatic agreement, this theory
20
could have been, but was not, timely raised with the Forest Service. Although plaintiffs
21
participated in the scoping process, submitted comments during the NEPA review period, and
22
filed an HFRA objection, plaintiffs never requested reevaluation of the Panamnik district’s
23
eligibility for listing in the Register during those phases of project planning. Indeed, plaintiffs
24
raised this issue for the first time in January 2010 — after project implementation already had
25
begun and been halted for other reasons. Plaintiffs’ request for reevaluation is not based
26
specifically on information that came to light during implementation, but rather more generally on
27
information identified “since the original determination of eligibility in 1978” (AR 5090). If
28
plaintiffs believed that developments over the last few decades required the Forest Service to
17

1

update the eligibility determination for the Panamnik district before proceeding with the Orleans

2

project, then plaintiffs should have spoken up about this issue before project implementation

3

began. Their failure to do so precludes judicial review of this aspect of the Orleans project.

4

36 C.F.R. 218.14.

5

D.

6

Evaluation and Mitigation of Impacts.

The NHPA implementing regulations also require agencies to evaluate and mitigate any

7

adverse effects a project may have on historic properties. 36 C.F.R. 800.5–800.7. The parties

8

agree that the Orleans project adversely impacted the Medicine Man Trail and other historical

9

aspects of the Panamnik district during the first several weeks of project implementation.
Plaintiffs argue that defendants have “not taken steps to mitigate that harm, thereby violating” the

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

NHPA (Dkt. No. 42 at 16).

12
13

(1)

Remedial Mitigation of Actual Impacts.

Plaintiffs assert that “[i]n general the tribe’s concerns have been dismissed out of hand and

14

to plaintiffs’ knowledge, the contract has not been modified nor other mitigation measures taken

15

to date.” Plaintiffs provide only one example of this supposed problem: “tribal requests to move

16

the log decks impacting the ceremonial trail were ignored” (Dkt. No. 42 at 16). Plaintiffs cite a

17

January 2010 letter from the Karuk Tribe to the state historic preservation officer stating that this

18

request was first made in November 2010 but that the logs were still present (AR 5423). The

19

record, however, does not support a finding that federal defendants ignored plaintiffs’ concerns.

20

On the contrary, once defendants were alerted to the adverse impacts resulting from project

21

implementation, they swiftly put into place a variety of measures to evaluate and mitigate

22

the impacts.

23

In response to the Karuk Tribe’s initial implementation concerns, federal defendants

24

investigated the nature and extent of the impacts. They found that the Medicine Man Trail and

25

some of the surrounding trees had been damaged by logging equipment, and that downed

26

materials had been piled in the vicinity. They consulted with the Tribe, the historic preservation

27

officer, and concerned members of the public on how best to mitigate these impacts

28

(AR 4921, 5623–31). As early as November 2009, they began working with Timber Products to
18

1

alter work methods so that continued work would be done in ways that would not damage the

2

spiritual trail and surrounding trees (e.g., AR 4550, 4564). In December 2009, defendants

3

reviewed the “stand cards” for all the project treatment units and updated them to more clearly

4

indicate culturally sensitive resources (AR 5031–32, 5035). Defendants also sent an

5

archaeologist to consult with Timber Products on-site about protecting the spiritual trail

6

(AR 4547).

7

Ultimately, on December 21, 2010 — less than two months into implementation of the

8

five- to ten-year project — defendants suspended all operations. The suspension notice explained

9

that work was stopped so that plaintiff’s concerns could be further resolved before any further

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14

implementation of the project took place:
You are to suspend work for the following reason(s): The
Government requires time to re evaluate [sic] the project and any
potential consequences of a variety of issues recently brought to its
attention. A complete shut-down will allow an indepth [sic]
review of the project and help ensure successful completion. It is
understood that this suspension may have impacts that will be
discussed at a future date.

15

(AR 4576). Defendants took the major step of halting project implementation shortly after the

16

adverse impacts came to light and several months before plaintiffs filed this action.

17

It is true that the Panamnik district was adversely impacted during the first several weeks

18

of implementation of the Orleans project. Plaintiffs may not be satisfied with the speed or extent

19

of the remedial mitigation measures that were taken in response to those impacts, but plaintiffs’

20

satisfaction is not the legal standard by which defendants’ acts are to be reviewed. The

21

administrative record does not support plaintiffs’ claims that their concerns were ignored.

22

Plaintiffs have not identified any acts or omissions by defendants that constitute a failure to

23

evaluate or mitigate known adverse impacts as required by the NHPA.

24
25

(2)

Preventative Mitigation of Potential Impacts.

Plaintiffs also argue that certain preventative mitigation measures should have been but

26

were not put in place. In particular, plaintiffs emphasize that some of the mitigation measures to

27

which the Forest Service agreed during the planning process were not included in the contract

28

with Timber Products (e.g., AR 4819). Plaintiffs also cite evidence that some archaeological
19

1

reports were incomplete at the time the service contract was executed, and that some maps and

2

information cards did not list certain cultural resources (AR 4776, 4810, 5000).

3

As the agency conducting the project, defendants had discretion regarding how best to

4

implement any agreed preventative mitigation measures. The contract with Timber Products

5

described certain widely applicable mitigation measures, and it established general procedures to

6

be followed regarding “areas identified as needing special measures for the protection of cultural

7

resources.” The contract placed upon Timber Products “a general duty to protect all known and

8

identified resources,” and it warned that not all locations and protection measures may be

9

described in the contract or designated on the ground (AR 4343). These provisions serve to alert
signatories to the contract that protection of cultural resources is a sensitive issue. Defendants’

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

decision to avoid a boilerplate, exhaustive list of every theoretical prevention measure was not

12

arbitrary, capricious, or unfounded.

13

There are limits, however, on defendants’ discretion to select methods for communicating

14

the cultural constraints on the Orleans project to those who ultimately perform the project work.

15

At a minimum, the set of adopted methods — such as contract provisions, information cards, and

16

flagging — must be adequate to communicate to the contractor and its employees what

17

precautions are required. The specific agency acts identified by plaintiffs may be justifiable in

18

isolation, but the initial work done by Timber Products shows that, on the whole, the message did

19

not get through. For example, the Forest Service and the Karuk Tribe reached an agreement that

20

guy trees would not be used above the road in treatment units 1 and 2, but Timber Products used

21

guy trees in these areas anyway (AR 2473, 4783, 4562).

22

Without determining whether sloppiness, poor decision-making, or improper motivations

23

might explain the communication failure, this order finds that the set of communication methods

24

adopted by defendants was not adequate to inform Timber Products that certain preventative

25

mitigation measures were imperative. This failure to follow through constitutes a violation of

26

defendants’ NHPA responsibility to evaluate and mitigate potential adverse impacts.

27

*

*

28
20

*

1

As to the NHPA claim (count 1), both motions for summary judgment are GRANTED-IN-

2

PART

3

to adequately implement preventative mitigation measures, plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED and

4

defendants’ motion is DENIED. Regarding all other NHPA violation theories, plaintiffs’ motion is

5

DENIED and defendants’ motion is GRANTED.

and DENIED-IN-PART. Regarding the theory that defendants violated the NHPA by failing

6
7

CONCLUSION
As to all three NEPA claims (counts 2–4 in the complaint), plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED

8

and defendants’ motion is GRANTED. As to the NHPA claim (count 1 in the complaint), both

9

motions are GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART. Regarding the theory that defendants
violated the NHPA by failing to adequately implement preventative mitigation measures,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED and defendants’ motion is DENIED. Regarding all other NHPA

12

violation theories, plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED and defendants’ motion is GRANTED.

13
14

*

*

*

In light of the finding that defendants violated the National Historic Preservation Act,

15

defendants are hereby ENJOINED from conducting further implementation of the Orleans

16

Community Fuels Reduction and Forest Health Project until appropriate remedial measures are

17

established to bring the project into compliance. Defendants shall submit a proposed remedial

18

plan by NOON ON AUGUST 1, 2011. Plaintiffs may file a response to the proposal within

19

TWO WEEKS

20

unless oral argument is found to be necessary, and if the plan is satisfactory the injunction will be

21

lifted. In the meantime, the parties are strongly encouraged to work toward a solution at a June

22

meeting before the July meeting they have planned. A further case management conference is

23

hereby SET for 11:00 A.M. ON SEPTEMBER 1, 2011.

of its submission. The plan then will be evaluated based on those submissions

24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26
27

Dated: June 13, 2011.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28
21