SPRAWLDEF et al v. Federal Emergency Management Agency et al

Filing 108

ORDER by Judge Laurel Beeler granting 96 Motion to Dismiss; finding as moot 97 Motion to Dismiss and/or Intervene.The court grants the defendants' motion to dismiss and dismisses the plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice. Becaus e the court dismisses the allegations against FEMA, the court also dismisses the claims asserted against the Park District, Oakland, and the University. The court denies the University's motion to intervene as moot. (lblc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/15/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

San Francisco Division

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

SPRAWLDEF, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

13
v.

14
15

FEDERAL EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT AGENCY, et al.,

16

Case No. 15-cv-02331-LB
ORDER GRANTING THE
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
Re: ECF No. 96

Defendants.
17
18

INTRODUCTION

19

In this National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) case, SPRAWLDEF and Sierra Club

20

sued over the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (“FEMA”) funding of a fire-prevention

21

project in the East Bay Hills of Alameda County, California.1 The plaintiffs allege that FEMA

22

violated NEPA’s public disclosure mandate by adopting a fire-prevention method — the “unified

23

methodology” — that was not adequately described or analyzed.2 The two plaintiffs therefore sued

24
25
26
27
28

First Amended Compl. (“FAC”) — ECF No. 29, ¶ 1. Record citations refer to material in the
Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint citations are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of
documents.
1

2

Id. ¶¶ 1–2.

ORDER — No. 15-cv-02331-LB

1

to “require forthright environmental review of FEMA’s plans to fund fire protection at the East

2

Bay lands.”3
In the related case Hills Conservation Network v. FEMA, et al., No. 3:15-cv-01057, the

3
4

plaintiff and FEMA settled a similar dispute.4 Under the settlement agreement, FEMA withdrew

5

its authorization of the unified methodology and the grants funding the projects implementing it.5

6

FEMA now argues — in this case — that the withdrawal of the unified methodology moots

7

SPRAWLDEF and Sierra Club’s claims.6 The court agrees.

8
STATEMENT

9

“Residential development in the ‘East Bay Hills’ along the east side of the San Francisco Bay

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

is subject to grave and unique fire threats.”7 The threats are caused by “[a] long urban-wildland

12

interface, steep topography, accumulation of very low-moisture fuels . . . , and periodic, recurring

13

conditions of extremely hot, dry ‘Diablo’ winds.”8 Nonnative tree species — including eucalyptus

14

and Monterey pine — also contribute to the hazardous conditions.9 Eucalyptus, with highly

15

flammable tops “subject to torching” and “constantly shed[ding] bark [that] provides a ubiquitous

16

fire tinder,” “has increased in density and spread prolifically” in the area.10 “Thousands of homes

17

adjoin undeveloped natural areas which have repeatedly and disastrously been engulfed in fires.”11
In response to these threats, defendants East Bay Regional Park District, City of Oakland, and

18
19

the Regents of the University of California — each an owner of undeveloped land next to the at-

20
21
3

22
23

Id. ¶ 3.

See Compl., Case No. 3:15-cv-01057 — ECF No. 1; Notice of Settlement, Case No. 3:15-cv-01057
— ECF No. 107.
4

5

Amended Record of Decision — ECF No. 96-3; Notices of Termination — ECF No. 96-2.

24

6

Motion to Dismiss — ECF No. 96.

25

7

FAC ¶¶ 23.

8

Id.

9

Id. ¶ 30.

26
27

10

Id.

28

11

Id. ¶ 23.

ORDER — No. 15-cv-02331-LB

2

1

risk residential developments — “sought federal disaster money for activities to mitigate wildland

2

fire hazards on public lands.”12 Before funding the projects, though, “FEMA was required to

3

conduct [an] environmental review of the [proposed] project.”13

4

FEMA issued a draft Environmental Impact Statement under NEPA.14 “A key fire prevention

5

goal of the draft [Impact Statement] involved replacing the highly flammable eucalyptus and pine

6

‘overstory’ with natural plant community restoration.”15 There was a “highly charged period of

7

public comment on the draft [Impact Statement].”16 Environmental groups like the plaintiffs here

8

urged “place-by-place restoration of native plant communities” and protection of threatened

9

animal species, such as the California red-legged frog, the Alameda whipsnake, and the pallid
manzanita.17 FEMA also consulted with the United States Fish & Wildlife Service; Fish &

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Wildlife issued a Biological Opinion (after completion of the draft Impact Statement), which

12

analyzed the biological effects of the project.18

13

Following this period of public comment, and after Fish & Wildlife’s Opinion, FEMA issued

14

the final Environmental Impact Statement.19 The final Impact Statement “adopt[ed] an undefined

15

‘unified methodology’” that “was not analyzed in the draft [Impact Statement],” “not addressed in

16

the [Fish & Wildlife] Biological Opinion, and not subjected to the public review NEPA

17

requires.”20 The new methodology would “focus[] on temporary thinning rather than natural

18

restoration, and by the end of 10 years complete removal to achieve both fire risk reduction and

19

whipsnake mitigation goals.”21 The unified methodology “would be applied to portions of four

20
21

12

Id. ¶¶ 16–18, 23, 27.

22

13

Id. ¶ 4.

14

Id. ¶¶ 2, 5, 7.

15

Id. ¶ 5.

24

16

Id. ¶ 7.

25

17

Id. ¶ 32–33.

18

Id. ¶¶ 33–36, 45–51.

19

See id. ¶¶ 1, 2, 7–10.

27

20

Id. ¶¶ 2, 9.

28

21

Id. ¶ 39 (quoting FEMA’s Record of Decision).

23

26

ORDER — No. 15-cv-02331-LB

3

1

high fire risk treatment areas that are in close proximity to structures: Strawberry Canyon (UCB),

2

Claremont Canyon (UCB), North Hills-Skyline (Oakland), and Caldecott Tunnel (Oakland).”22
“Despite the vagueness of the ‘unified methodology,’ [FEMA’s] Record of Decision

3
4

conclude[d] that it [was] not . . . [a] significant enough [change] to warrant supplementing the

5

[Impact Statement] descriptions and analysis.”23 According to FEMA, the unified methodology

6

did not substantially change the proposed action and did not create new significant circumstances

7

warranting NEPA-review supplementation.24 But SPRAWLDEF and Sierra Club disagree, and so

8

they sued.
The plaintiffs allege that the unified methodology “was not analyzed in the draft [Impact

10

Statement] and therefore fails the primary public disclosure purpose of the [Impact Statement]”

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

under NEPA.25 They assert that the methodology fails “to describe and weigh ‘thinning’ the

12

eucalyptus versus long-term restoration of native East Bay Hills shrubs and plant communities

13

with more manageable fire behavior characteristics.”26 They accordingly claim the defendants

14

violated NEPA, 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq., “by failing to properly describe and evaluate alternatives

15

associated with the invasive, non-native overstory species and the creation of long-term, stable

16

native plant communities.”27 SPRAWLDEF and Sierra Club allege three broad categories of

17

NEPA deficiencies: (1) “The vague and arbitrary ‘unified methodology’ fails to describe and

18

analyze alternatives”; (2) “Failure to consider the full period and area affected by the project”; and

19

(3) “Failure to identify inconsistencies with the Executive Order on Invasive Species.”28
The parties in this case — and in the related Hills Conservation Network case — filed fully

20
21

briefed summary-judgment motions. But before the court ruled on those motions, FEMA settled

22
23
22

Id. (quoting FEMA’s Record of Decision).

24

23

Id. ¶ 43.

25

24

Id. ¶ 44.

25

Id. ¶ 2.

26

Id.

27

27

Id. ¶ 54.

28

28

Id. ¶¶ 57–82 (quoting the headings).

26

ORDER — No. 15-cv-02331-LB

4

1

with the Hills plaintiff.29 Under that agreement, FEMA withdrew the portion of the Record of

2

Decision authorizing the unified methodology and terminated the grants to the University and

3

Oakland implementing it.30 FEMA and the Park District, reading SPRAWLDEF and Sierra Club’s

4

complaint as attacking only the unified methodology, now move to dismiss this case.31 They argue

5

that the case is moot because the unified methodology has been withdrawn and will not be

6

implemented.32 Oakland does not oppose the motion; the University filed its own motion to

7

dismiss or intervene.33

8
GOVERNING LAW

9

A complaint must contain a short and plain statement of the ground for the court’s jurisdiction

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

(unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new jurisdictional support).

12

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1). The plaintiff has the burden of establishing jurisdiction. See Kokkonen v.

13

Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Portage La

14

Prairie Mut. Ins. Co., 907 F.2d 911, 912 (9th Cir. 1990). A defendant’s Rule 12(b)(1)

15

jurisdictional attack can be either facial or factual. White v. Lee, 227 F.3d 1214, 1242 (9th Cir.

16

2000). “A ‘facial’ attack asserts that a complaint’s allegations are themselves insufficient to

17

invoke jurisdiction, while a ‘factual’ attack asserts that the complaint’s allegations, though

18

adequate on their face to invoke jurisdiction, are untrue.” Courthouse News Serv. v. Planet, 750

19

F.3d 776, 780 n.3 (9th Cir. 2014). Under a facial attack, the court “accept[s] all allegations of fact

20

in the complaint as true and construe[s] them in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs.” Warren

21

v. Fox Family Worldwide, Inc., 328 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 2003). In a factual attack, the court

22

“need not presume the truthfulness of the plaintiff’s allegations” and “may review evidence

23
Joint Motion to Vacate Hearing Date — ECF No. 85; Order — ECF No. 90; Notice of Settlement,
Case No. 3:15-cv-01057 — ECF No. 107.

24

29

25

30

Settlement Agreement ¶¶ 1–2; Amended Record of Decision at 4; Notices of Termination.

26

31

See generally Motion to Dismiss.

32

Id.

27

Oakland Statement of Non-Opposition — ECF No. 100; Park District Motion to Dismiss or
Intervene — ECF No. 97.
33

28

ORDER — No. 15-cv-02331-LB

5

1

beyond the complaint without converting the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary

2

judgment.” Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004).

3

If a court dismisses a complaint, it should give leave to amend unless the “the pleading could

4

not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts.” Cook, Perkiss and Liehe, Inc. v. N. Cal.

5

Collection Serv. Inc., 911 F.2d 242, 247 (9th Cir. 1990).

6
ANALYSIS

7
8
9

1. The Plaintiffs’ Challenges to the Unified Methodology Are Moot
The first issue is whether FEMA’s withdrawal of the unified methodology moots any (if not
all) of the plaintiffs’ claims. Because FEMA withdrew that portion of the Record of Decision

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

authorizing the methodology, terminated the grants to the University and Oakland that would have

12

implemented it, and must go through new NEPA processes before any subsequent grants are

13

authorized, the plaintiffs’ unified methodology-based claims are dismissed as moot.

14
15

1.1 The Unified-Methodology Claims Are Moot

16

“[F]ederal courts have no jurisdiction to hear a case that is moot, that is, where no actual or

17

live controversy exists.” Cook Inlet Treaty Tribes v. Shalala, 166 F.3d 986, 989 (9th Cir. 1999).

18

“[A] case is moot when the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally

19

cognizable interest in the outcome.” Cnty. of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625, 631 (1979)

20

(quoting Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496 (1969)). “[T]he question is not whether the

21

precise relief sought at the time the application for an injunction was filed is still available. The

22

question is whether there can be any effective relief.” West v. Sec’y of Dept. of Transp., 206 F.3d

23

920, 925 (9th Cir.2000) (quoting Nw. Envtl. Defense Ctr. v. Gordon, 849 F.2d 1241, 1244–45 (9th

24

Cir. 1988)).

25

The defendant’s “burden of demonstrating mootness ‘is a heavy one.’” Davis, 440 U.S. at 631

26

(quoting United States v. W.T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629, 632–33 (1953)). And “[m]ere voluntary

27

cessation of allegedly illegal conduct does not moot a case; it if did, the courts would be

28

compelled to leave [t]he defendant . . . free to return to his old ways.” United States v.
ORDER — No. 15-cv-02331-LB

6

1

Concentrated Phosphate Export Ass’n, 393 U.S. 199, 203 (1968) (quoting W.T. Grant Co., 345

2

U.S. at 632); see also Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Slater, 528 U.S. 216, 222 (2000). Voluntary

3

cessation of illegal conduct does not render a challenge to that conduct moot unless the defendant

4

can show “(1) there is no reasonable expectation that the wrong will be repeated, and (2) interim

5

relief or events have completely and irrevocably eradicated the effects of the alleged violation.”

6

Barnes v. Healy, 980 F.2d 572, 580 (9th Cir. 1992); see also Lindquist v. Idaho State Bd. of

7

Corrections, 776 F.2d 851, 854 (9th Cir. 1985) (quoting Davis, 440 U.S. at 631); Adarand, 528

8

U.S. at 222 (“Voluntary cessation of challenged conduct moots a case . . . only if it is absolutely

9

clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur.”).

10

Courts have considered at least three factors to determine whether there is a reasonable

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

expectation that the wrong will be repeated. See Envtl. Prot. Info. Ctr. v. U.S. Forest Serv., No. C-

12

02-2708 JCS, 2006 WL 2130905, at *5 (N.D. Cal. July 28, 2006). First, “whether the defendant

13

has shown that a change was the result of serious deliberation and was made for convincing

14

reasons (other than the desire to avoid litigation).” Id.; see also Armster v. United States Dist.

15

Court for the Cent. Dist. of Cal., 806 F.2d 1347, 1359 (9th Cir. 1986) (finding defendant’s

16

concession that conduct was illegal more likely to establish mootness). Second, “the extent to

17

which the defendant has committed not to engage in the challenged practice in the future and the

18

degree to which any promises made are likely to be binding.” Envtl. Prot. Info. Ctr., 2006 WL

19

2130905 at *5; see also Quincy Oil, Inc. v. Dep’t of Energy, 620 F.2d 890, 895 (Temp. Emer. Ct.

20

App. 1980) (concluding possibility of recurrence speculative where defendant promised to

21

“vigorously defend” the new policy); Wilcher v. City of Wilmington, 139 F.3d 366, 370 n.2 (3d

22

Cir. 1998) (finding defendant’s reservation of its right to resume the challenged procedure did not

23

make the case moot). And third, “whether the cessation is based on external circumstances that

24

have made a recurrence of the challenged conduct impossible or impractical.” Envtl. Prot. Info.

25

Ctr., 2006 WL 2130905 at *5; see also Forest Serv. Employees for Envtl. Ethics v. United States

26

Forest Serv., 408 F. Supp. 2d 916, 918–19 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (reasoning that the economic

27

circumstances made the challenged conduct unlikely to recur).

28
ORDER — No. 15-cv-02331-LB

7

Under those factors, in Envtl. Prot. Info. Ctr. v. U.S. Forest Serv., there was a reasonable

2

expectation that the wrong would recur. 2006 WL 2130905 at *10. There, the plaintiff challenged

3

a fire-management plan that the Forest Service issued without preparing an Environmental

4

Evaluation or Environmental Impact Statement. Id. at *1. The court held that the Forest Service’s

5

plan violated NEPA and the Service subsequently withdrew it. Id. at *1–*2. The withdrawal of the

6

plan did not, however, demonstrate that the wrongs were unlikely to be repeated. Id. at *8–10.

7

“First, there [was] no evidence that the withdrawal of the 2005 Fire Management Plan

8

represent[ed] a ‘genuine’ change in policy rather than merely a strategic move in response to the

9

litigation.” Id. at *9. The Service did not demonstrate a shift in thinking, but instead maintained

10

that the plan complied with NEPA requirements. Id. Second, the Forest Service did not offer the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

“sort of assurance that might make ‘absolutely clear’ that there [was] no reasonable possibility of

12

recurrence.” Id. The Service’s promise to conduct the appropriate NEPA process for future fire-

13

management decisions was insufficient, “especially in light of the fact that the Forest Service

14

failed to achieve this objective despite [previous] ‘exhaustive’ efforts.” Id. And third, there were

15

no relevant changes in external circumstances — “there [was] no evidence that [the subject area]

16

no longer need[ed] a fire plan or that issuance of a fire plan [was] no longer possible.” Id. at *10.

17

The Forest Service therefore failed to meet its burden, but the court nonetheless dismissed the

18

case as moot because it could not grant effective relief. Id. at *12. The court reasoned that, “there

19

[was], at most, a possibility that the Forest Service [would] issue another fire plan” requiring a

20

NEPA-compliant evaluation. Id. If that were to happen, “it [would] be the product of a new

21

administrative process and likely [would] raise new issues that [were] not addressed in [that]

22

lawsuit.” Id. “Such a remote and undefined future set of events is not an appropriate subject for an

23

injunction” — any proposed relief would essentially require the Forest Service to comply with the

24

law. Id. The court, in its discretion and because effective relief could not be granted, dismissed the

25

case as moot. Id.

26

Other courts have similarly dismissed plaintiffs’ NEPA claims as moot where (1) the

27

government withdrew the challenged decision and (2) any future decision would necessarily go

28

through NEPA’s evaluation process. For example, in Wildwest Inst. v. Seesholtz, the plaintiff
ORDER — No. 15-cv-02331-LB

8

challenged the Forest Service’s logging projects for “fail[ing] to adequately protect the viability of

2

wildlife species, and provide for their habitat, thereby violating NFMA and NEPA.” No. CV-07-

3

199-S-BLW, 2008 WL 3289486, at *1 (D. Idaho Aug. 8, 2008). But “the Forest Service’s

4

irrevocable withdrawal of both projects, the pending completion of a Revised Forest Plan, and the

5

need to re-initiate the NEPA process if either project is reinitiated” mooted the plaintiff’s claims

6

and satisfied the Service’s burden under the voluntary-cessation doctrine. Id. at *3. Similarly, in

7

City of Berkeley v. United States Postal Service, the plaintiffs challenged the USPS’s contract to

8

sell a post office building, alleging “that the USPS violated NEPA by declaring a categorical

9

exclusion in secret, and in an arbitrary and capricious manner.” Nos. C 14-04916 WHA, C 14-

10

05179 WHA, 2015 WL 1737523, at *1 (N.D. Cal. April 14, 2015). The claims became moot,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

however, when “(1) [the buyer] terminated the sales agreement and (2) the USPS . . . rescinded

12

the 2013 final determination, such that if the USPS later decide[d] to relocate, it [would] go

13

through the process all over again under 39 C.F.R. 241.4.” Id. at *2. Cf. Forrestkeeper v. Benson,

14

No. 1:14-cv-00341-LJO-SKO, 2014 WL 4193840, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2014) (concluding

15

that plaintiff’s claims were not moot where “the Forest Service may have the regulatory authority

16

to reinstate the timber sale without engaging in a public participation process” and while “the

17

NEPA framework for the[] [withdrawn] actions [remained] intact”).

18

Here, like the cases above, and to the extent the complaint is based on the unified

19

methodology, the plaintiffs’ claims are moot. Under the settlement agreement in Hills

20

Conservation Network, FEMA terminated the University and Oakland funding grants for projects

21

utilizing the unified methodology.34 FEMA also withdrew the portion of Record of Decision

22

authorizing those projects and the unified methodology.35 And the Hills settlement agreement and

23

Amended Record of Decision require that future grants to the University and Oakland go through

24

the NEPA evaluation process:
FEMA agrees that any grant application for East Bay Hills fuel risk vegetation
management by UCB or Oakland will be subject to additional NEPA procedures

25
26
27

34

Settlement Agreement — ECF No. 96-1; Notices of Termination — ECF No. 96-2.

28

35

Amended Record of Decision — ECF No. 96-3.

ORDER — No. 15-cv-02331-LB

9

including the preparation of an appropriate environmental review document, public
notice, and an opportunity for public comment.36

1
2

FEMA has determined that before it will authorize funding for East Bay Hills fuel
risk vegetation management by UCB or the City of Oakland, including work
within the scope of the terminated grants[,] that it will undertake additional NEPA
procedures.37

3
4
5

These facts demonstrate that there is no reasonable expectation that the wrong — i.e. the
implementation of the unified methodology without proper public disclosure and discussion —

6
will be repeated. Like the cases above, FEMA has (1) withdrawn the applicable decision (or
7
portion thereof) and the grants adopting and applying the methodology, and (2) obligated itself to
8
undertake additional NEPA procedures before any new grants to the University or Oakland. In
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

contrast to Envtl. Prot. Info. Ctr. and Forrestkeeper — where the district courts were not
convinced by the government’s promises to undertake future NEPA review procedures —
FEMA’s assurances here (written into two legally binding documents) provide the type of
assurance making it “‘absolutely clear’ that there is no reasonable possibility of recurrence.” Envtl.

13
Prot. Info. Ctr., 2006 WL 2130905 at *9; Forrestkeeper, 2014 WL 4193840 at *6.
14
And, because FEMA withdrew the relevant part of the Record of Decision and terminated the
15
grants, the court cannot provide effective relief. It would serve no purpose to require FEMA to go
16
back and analyze site-by-site overstory thinning versus removal (instead of the unified
17
methodology) at sites for which it has revoked the funding. And it is premature to order FEMA do
18
19
20

so in any future grant — such an order could have no effect other than requiring FEMA to comply
with NEPA, and such potential harm (i.e. caused by FEMA’s failure to do so) is too remote. The
court therefore could not grant effective relief based on SPRAWLDEF and Sierra Club’s unified

21
methodology attacks.
22
The court notes that the other factors often considered in these cases are not met here. For
23
24

example, as in Envtl. Prot. Info. Ctr., there is no evidence that FEMA’s change in course
represents a “genuine” change in policy, rather than a strategic response to litigation. The change

25
is in fact a direct response to the Hills litigation and settlement, and FEMA actually denies any
26
27

36

Settlement Agreement ¶ 5.

28

37

Amended Record of Decision at 4.

ORDER — No. 15-cv-02331-LB

10

1

NEPA violation.38 And like Envtl. Prot. Info. Ctr., there has been no change in circumstances

2

making the challenged conduct impossible or unnecessary. But on this record, for the reasons

3

above, the plaintiffs’ unified methodology-based challenges are moot.
The plaintiffs argue that the cases discussed above are inapplicable because they involved

4
5

projects that were terminated completely, rather than partially, and relatedly emphasize that the

6

Park District’s funding grant remains in place.39 But mootness is analyzed claim by claim: if the

7

plaintiffs can no longer obtain relief on a claim, that claim must be dismissed for lack of

8

jurisdiction. See Foster v. Carson, 347 F.3d 742, 745 (9th Cir. 2003). So even if there were claims

9

related to the Park District project (which does not apply the unified methodology), those would
be analyzed separately from the claims challenging the unified methodology. Thus, the Park

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

District’s continuing project is irrelevant to the extent that the plaintiff’s claims challenge the

12

unified methodology.

13
14

1.2 The Capable-of-Repetition Exception Does Not Apply

15

Certain “extraordinary” cases are excepted from the mootness doctrine where the challenged

16

conduct “is capable of repetition but evades review.” Alaska Ctr. For Env't v United States Forest

17

Serv., 189 F.3d 851, 854 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 148–49

18

(1975)). The exception is limited to cases where “(1) the duration of the challenged action is too

19

short to allow full litigation before it ceases, and (2) there is a reasonable expectation that the

20

plaintiffs will be subjected to it again.” Id. (quoting Greenpeace Action v. Franklin, 14 F.3d 1324,

21

1329 (9th Cir.1992)).

22

In Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Center v. United States Bureau of Land Management, the

23

BLM’s alleged NEPA violations — subsequently withdrawn — were not the type of conduct

24

capable of repetition but evading review. No. 05-3094-CO, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20714, at *18–

25

*19 (D. Or. Aug. 6, 2007). There, the challenged action was not too short to allow full litigation:

26
27

Settlement Agreement, Recitals (“[D]efendants deny the allegations in the complaint and deny that
any violations of NEPA or any other law occurred.”)

28

39

38

Opposition at 6, 8.

ORDER — No. 15-cv-02331-LB

11

1

the “case was fully briefed on the merits and a Findings and Recommendation was issued before

2

the mootness became an issue.” Id. at *19. And there was no reasonable expectation that the

3

plaintiffs would again be subject to the action: “it would be premature and unreasonable to assume

4

that the BLM would repeat the alleged defects in the development of a new project,” and the BLM

5

could not apply the challenged decisions to any new projects because the Ninth Circuit had found

6

them invalid. Id. The exception therefore did not apply. Id.

7

Here, like Klamath Siskiyou, FEMA’s alleged misconduct is not capable of repetition but

8

evading review. First, FEMA’s conduct is not too short to allow litigation on the merits: the case

9

was fully briefed for summary judgment before the mootness became an issue. Second, there is no
reasonable expectation that the plaintiffs will be subject to the same alleged misconduct: FEMA

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

has obligated itself to undergo NEPA processes for future grants and it would be premature to

12

assume that it will engage in the same alleged misconduct in doing so. The exception therefore

13

does not apply.

14
15

1.3 The Impact Statement’s Discussion of the Unified Methodology

16

SPRAWLDEF and Sierra Club argue that their claim is not moot because the final Impact

17

Statement references the unified methodology.40 The issue is whether the Impact Statement’s

18

discussion of the methodology — despite the amendment to the Record of Decision and the

19

termination of the relevant grants — saves the plaintiffs’ claims.

20

The plaintiffs brought this case under the Administrative Procedure Act, which authorizes

21

courts to “set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be . . . arbitrary, capricious,

22

an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). Under the

23

Act, courts may review a “final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in a

24

court.” Id. § 704. “An agency action is ‘final’ when (1) the agency reaches the ‘consummation’ of

25

its decisionmaking process and (2) the action determines the ‘rights and obligations’ of the parties

26

or is one from which ‘legal consequences will flow.’” Rattlesnake Coal. v. United States Envtl.

27
28

40

Opposition at 4, 7. The plaintiffs reiterated this argument at the October 27 hearing.

ORDER — No. 15-cv-02331-LB

12

1

Prot. Agency, 509 F.3d 1095, 1103 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 177–

2

78 (1997)). In NEPA actions, “the [government] does not take a final agency action until it

3

completes its review of the grant application and decides to disburse the appropriated funds.”

4

Rattlesnake Coal., 509 F.3d at 1104. And “[a]bsent final agency action, there [is] no jurisdiction in

5

the district court to review [a] NEPA claim.” Id.
Here, on this record, the appropriate measure of the “consummation” of FEMA’s decision-

6
7

making process is the Amended Record of Decision, not the final Impact Statement. The Impact

8

Statement discussed the unified methodology in the context of its application to the University and

9

Oakland grants.41 But the withdrawal of those grants renders the Impact Statement’s discussion of
the methodology an “action” that (1) does not affect the parties’ rights and (2) from which legal

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

consequences will not flow. FEMA’s final determination — reflected in the Amended Record of

12

Decision and surviving portions of the Impact Statement — does not fund the methodology. And

13

FEMA cannot simply rely on the Impact Statement to implement the methodology in the future:

14

both the Hills settlement agreement and the amended Record of Decision obligate FEMA to

15

undertake appropriate NEPA review before awarding future grants.42
It is thus too late to challenge the previously contemplated use of the methodology — FEMA’s

16
17

final decision terminated the relevant grants. It is also too early to challenge any future use —

18

FEMA must review and take (new) final action regarding future applications before they can be

19

contested. The final Impact Statement’s discussion of the unified methodology accordingly has no

20

effect on the plaintiffs’ claims; that agency action is not “final” and not reviewable under the

21

Administrative Procedure Act.

22
*

23

*

In sum, to the extent that the plaintiffs’ claims challenge the unified methodology, they are

24
25

*

moot. The court next considers which of the plaintiffs’ claims attack the methodology.

26
27

41

FAC ¶ 39.

28

42

Settlement Agreement ¶ 5; Amended Record of Decision at 4.

ORDER — No. 15-cv-02331-LB

13

1

2. All of the Plaintiffs’ Claims Are Moot
The plaintiffs make two general arguments: (1) the complaint does not simply challenge the

2
3

unified methodology, but more broadly insufficient comparison between “thinning and overstory

4

removal” alternatives in FEMA’s Impact Statement; and (2) with the termination of the University

5

and Oakland grants, the Impact Statement is now more deficient than before.43 These arguments

6

raise two legal issues: first, whether the FAC includes claims distinct from the challenges to the

7

unified methodology; and second, whether the plaintiffs should be allowed to amend or

8

supplement their FAC.

9
2.1 The Plaintiffs’ Claims Attack Only the Unified Methodology

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

In the FAC, the plaintiffs allege that FEMA violated NEPA “by failing to properly describe

12

and evaluate alternatives associated with the invasive, non-native overstory species and the

13

creation of long-term, stable native plant communities.”44 By failing to do so, they allege, FEMA

14

“failed to provide a ‘full and fair discussion’ of the environmental implications of its federal grant

15

funding.”45 The alleged failures fall into three broad groups of allegations.
In the first group, the plaintiffs allege that the “vague and arbitrary ‘unified methodology’ fails

16
17

to describe and analyze alternatives.”46 They assert that “[b]ecause of the [final Impact

18

Statement’s] sudden adoption of the vague ‘unified methodology,’ i[t] fails to directly evaluate —

19

head-to-head — the alternative benefits and consequences between merely thinning eucalyptus

20

versus complete removal followed by long-term re-establishment of native plant communities with

21

less extreme fire behavior.”47 The plaintiffs also allege that the final Impact Statement failed to

22

take into account Fish & Wildlife’s Biological Opinion.48 According to them, FEMA should have

23
24

43

Opposition at 4, 6, 7, 10.

25

44

FAC ¶ 54.

45

Id. ¶ 56.

46

Id. at 10 (heading).

27

47

Id. ¶ 57.

28

48

Id. ¶¶ 58–64.

26

ORDER — No. 15-cv-02331-LB

14

1

supplemented the final Impact Statement to incorporate the Biological Opinion’s findings, but that

2

it failed to do so when it did not “discuss the differences between overstory ‘thinning’ versus

3

complete removal and native restoration and the clearly different and significant potential impacts

4

of these alternatives, which the Biological Opinion identified.”49 The final Impact Statement

5

“lack[ed] description of the ‘unified methodology,’ [and] omit[ted] analysis of [the] vaguely-

6

described thinning alternative.”50 Read as a whole, these allegations challenge only the analysis

7

and application of the unified methodology and are moot.
In the second group of allegations, the plaintiffs assert that FEMA failed “to consider the full

8
9

period and area affected by the project.”51 These allegations attack the FEMA grants’ time and
acreage limits (i.e. the project duration and the covered land areas), and how these measurements

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

differ from Fish & Wildlife’s and the Park District’s 2010 Plan.52 The plaintiffs explain the

12

importance of the time and acreage limits:
69. Time and acreage limits resulted in an incomplete analysis for fire hazard
reduction, long-term vegetation management to create habitat for three federally
protected species, and for undeveloped lands that are dedicated in perpetuity as
parkland. While called a “unified” approach, it is not. Whatever it might be called,
the final EIS is a significant, unanalyzed departure from the project analyzed by
the Park District in its 2010 EIR for its activities, and from the earlier draft EIS.

13
14
15
16

70. Failure to consider the project impacts beyond the 10-year funded window
ignored reasonably likely natural evolution after the 10 years, during which time
native communities will again by subject to the invasive overstory. Fire risk is
certain to be altered for better or worse depending upon which never-presented
alternatives are chosen for maintaining or not maintaining the project area.53

17
18
19

Like the first group, these assertions challenge the unified methodology: the final EIS’s unified

20

methodology did not address Fish & Wildlife’s or the Park District’s considered time and acreage

21

limits. In doing so, the unified methodology departed from the Park District’s 2010 Plan — the

22

basis for the methodology54 — and the draft Impact Statement. To the extent that these alleged

23
24

49

Id. ¶ 63–64.

25

50

Id. ¶ 62.

51

Id. at 11 (heading).

52

Id. ¶¶ 66–70.

27

53

Id. ¶¶ 69–70.

28

54

Id. ¶ 58.

26

ORDER — No. 15-cv-02331-LB

15

1

deficiencies are about the unified methodology, the claim is moot because the methodology is no

2

longer being applied.
In the third group, the plaintiffs assert that FEMA failed “to identify inconsistencies with the

3
4

Executive Order on Invasive Species.”55 The FAC generally describes the Executive Order and

5

regulations,56 and alleges that FEMA did not comply because it did not “analyze the project

6

implications to the invasive eucalyptus overstory.”57 The FAC goes on to specify what is wrong

7

with FEMA’s final analysis:
80. The “unified methodology” considered in the [final] EIS, promotes the spread
of eucalyptus because it allows its re-growth throughout “unified” project areas
after the 10-year FEMA period. Along with future native habitat degradation, the
dangerous fire conditions arising from eucalyptus will return.

8
9
10

81. A proper area-by-area comparison between thinning versus restoration of the
native understory is necessary to comply with the Executive Order, including in
the fuel break areas where nonnative grasses would proliferate.58

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Again, as above, these allegations challenge the unified methodology. The assertions do not,

13

for example, address any supposed deficiencies in the Park District’s project, or the remaining

14

portion of the Oakland project.59 In their opposition brief, the plaintiffs contest FEMA’s argument

15

that the FAC’s allegations all relate to the unified methodology, and point to paragraph 71, “which

16

says nothing of the unified methodology.”60 Although true — paragraph 71 merely introduces the

17

Executive Order — the remainder of the allegations (specifically, the factual ones61) make clear

18

that the challenge is to the unified methodology’s alleged deficiencies. These allegations, then, are

19

also moot.

20

There are, however, two potential claims that fall outside of these three broad categories. The

21

first relates to the final Impact Statement’s discussion of “fuel break” areas.62 SPRAWLDEF and

22

25
26
27
28

Id. at 12 (heading).
Id. ¶¶ 71–74, 76–78.

57

Id. ¶ 75.

58

Id. ¶¶ 80–81.

59

See Amended Record of Decision at 4 (identifying the remaining grants).

60

24

55
56

23

Opposition at 6 n.1.

61

FAC ¶¶ 75, 80–81.

62

Id. ¶¶ 8, 65, 68.

ORDER — No. 15-cv-02331-LB

16

1

Sierra Club allege that the Impact Statement “consider[ed] residential-edge fuel breaks of

2

sufficient width in combination with homeowner defensible space to provide safe access for

3

firefighters defending ember[-]resistant homes.”63 The fuel break areas included more than 1,500

4

acres and “would be converted to a mosaic of native shrubs and grass along the residential

5

interface.”64 But the final Impact Statement allegedly “failed to analyze alternatives in light of the

6

Biological Opinion where it vaguely sets out ‘fuel break’ areas.”65 And, the Park District’s 2010

7

Plan — on which the unified methodology was based — did not discuss “the vital question of

8

‘fuel breaks,’” but such fuel breaks were included in the final Impact Statement.66 These

9

assertions, read in conjunction with the rest of the complaint, also relate to the unified

10

methodology and the now-terminated University and Oakland grants.
The second relates to the final Impact Statement’s failure “to evaluate omitting the Frowning

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Ridge area.”67 FEMA allegedly arbitrarily removed the University’s “grant funding for work at

13

Frowning Ridge.”68 SPRAWLDEF and Sierra Club assert that a lack of fuel management at the

14

Ridge will increase overall fire risk to residential areas and reduce habitat restoration potential.69

15

And, they say, the final Impact Statement did not evaluate the effects on the overall project of

16

removing fuel management funding at the Ridge.70 But when the court asked the parties about the

17

analysis of Frowning Ridge during the October 27 hearing, the plaintiffs did not identify these

18

allegations as separate from those concerning the unified methodology. The plaintiffs instead

19

maintained that their challenge is to the Impact Statement’s adoption of the methodology and its

20

failure to analyze thinning versus restoration. The court therefore construes the Frowning-Ridge

21

allegations as a part of that challenge, and these assertions are accordingly moot.

22
63

Id. ¶ 25.

64

Id. ¶ 26.

24

65

Id. ¶ 65.

25

66

Id. ¶ 68.

67

Id. ¶ 67.

68

Id. ¶ 10.

27

69

Id.

28

70

Id.

23

26

ORDER — No. 15-cv-02331-LB

17

1

2.2 Leave to Amend or Supplement the FAC Is Denied

2

The FAC attacked only the disclosure and discussion of overstory removal versus thinning

3

embodied in the unified methodology (see above). But the plaintiffs’ opposition indicates an intent

4

to assert and prosecute new claims that do not find support in the FAC. For example, they appear

5

to challenge the evaluation of the Park District’s project: they assert that because the Park

6

District’s project is moving forward unchanged, so too should their case.71 And they allege that

7

FEMA’s withdrawal of the unified methodology renders the projects “now even more confused”

8

and requires “an EIS re-do.”72 The court construes these arguments as a plea to amend or

9

supplement the FAC.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), leave to amend should be given freely “when

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a); see Sonoma Cnty. Ass’n of Retired Employees v.

12

Sonoma Cnty., 708 F.3d 1109, 1118 (9th Cir. 2013). Because “Rule 15 favors a liberal policy

13

towards amendment, the nonmoving party bears the burden of demonstrating why leave to amend

14

should not be granted.” Genentech, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 127 F.R.D. 529, 530–31 (N.D. Cal.

15

1989). Courts generally consider five factors when assessing the propriety of a motion for leave to

16

amend: undue delay, bad faith, futility of amendment, prejudice to the opposing party, and

17

whether the party has previously amended the pleadings. Ahlmeyer v. Nev. Sys. of Higher Educ.,

18

555 F.3d 1051, 1055 n.3 (9th Cir. 2009).

19

Undue delay by itself is generally an insufficient justification to deny leave to amend. Bowles

20

v. Reade, 198 F.3d 752, 758 (9th Cir. 1999). Thus, even when there is delay, there must also be a

21

showing of “prejudice to the opposing party, bad faith by the moving party, or futility of

22

amendment.” Id. The plaintiff’s knowledge of — but failure to assert — the relevant facts and

23

claims at the time of earlier pleadings may also weigh in favor of denying leave to amend. See

24

Kaplan v. Rose, 49 F.3d 1363, 1370 (9th Cir. 1994). But “[p]rejudice to the opposing party is the

25

most important factor.” Jackson v. Bank of Hawaii, 902 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 1990).

26
27

71

See, e.g., Opposition at 6, 8, 11.

28

72

Id. at 10; see also id. at 8.

ORDER — No. 15-cv-02331-LB

18

Supplemental pleadings are governed by Rule 15(d). Under that rule, and with the court’s

1
2

permission, a party may supplement pleadings to add “[n]ew claims, new parties, and [new]

3

allegations regarding events that occurred after the original complaint was filed.” Lyon v. United

4

States Immigration & Customs Enforcement, 308 F.R.D. 203, 214 (N.D. Cal. 2015). “The legal

5

standard for granting or denying a motion to supplement under Rule 15(d) is the same as for

6

amending one under 15(a).” Id. (quoting Paralyzed Veterans of America v. McPherson, No. C 06-

7

4670 SBA, 2008 WL 4183981, at *26 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2008)).

8

Here, the court denies leave to amend the FAC to add new charges against the Park District’s

9

project. The plaintiffs unduly delayed asserting these claims: despite their awareness of FEMA’s
Park District-project analysis when they filed their complaint over one-and-a-half years ago,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

SPRAWLDEF and Sierra Club waited until now (post-summary judgment) to challenge the Park

12

District’s project. They could have prosecuted any challenge to the project. They instead

13

previously focused their arguments on the disclosure and analysis of the unified methodology. To

14

allow the plaintiffs to add new challenges — at this stage in the litigation — would prejudice the

15

defendants by shifting the focus of the case and forcing them to undertake a new course of

16

defense.
The court also denies leave to supplement the FAC. The plaintiffs’ argue that the withdrawal

17
18

of the unified methodology has rendered the Impact Statement “even more confused on the

19

necessary habitat creation.”73 But, as described above, the plaintiffs’ claims have focused on

20

attacking the unified methodology — including its alleged failure to consider Fish & Wildlife’s

21

Biological Opinion. The court cannot see how withdrawal of the methodology and those grants

22

renders the Impact Statement “more confused” than before. The court therefore denies the

23

plaintiffs leave to assert that “FEMA’s disowning of its own ‘unified methodology’ requires an

24

EIS re-do.”74

25
26
27

73

Id. at 10.

28

74

Id.

ORDER — No. 15-cv-02331-LB

19

CONCLUSION

1
2
3
4

The court grants the defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismisses the plaintiffs’ complaint with
prejudice.
Because the court dismisses the allegations against FEMA, the court also dismisses the claims

5

asserted against the Park District, Oakland, and the University. The court denies the University’s

6

motion to intervene as moot.

7

This disposes of ECF Nos. 96 and 97.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

Dated: November 15, 2016
______________________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER — No. 15-cv-02331-LB

20