ÿWPC$" vJS#zQ:ý`{``¿%JM9Ï{Ç©Íëî­Ø¢óFÄ2ÅÙ ‚Ý ôøÒ–RÍ£%X|Oñ=ÊØèD…Ÿºe ñí„Äêy¿|“ŸFnQ\µnD}ËËâ®+0Þ?F]¿e£õ4½îÀÆìÿ”j`DXµÒŠ­få_ôÌΚ¼âyrn#ykKæ h,ÞqKCÅŒC4™Ä]Òô]†+äÏÝîýÎÁ=5`€ÝÆú-[µ.wïv JáÏÆ 0÷8 0ô/ 0ñ# 0î 0ë 0èí 0îÕ 0ëà 0è® 0å– 0â{ 0ß] 0Ü< 0Ù 0Öñ 0íÇ 0ê´ 0çž 0ä… 0ái 0ÞJ 0Û( 0Ø 0ÕÛư 0Uv 0(Ë D+ó AM Nk  m w! 0V|!^ Ò!w Þ!4è!ü! " m "˜Jeff's printer,ä,,,,,ä0(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX(üœ$¡¡ÔUSUS.,Ô2P+S ÿÿ0_level1Ó ¨ý ÓÓ X ÓÓ8.°°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#8ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ;1XX°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#;ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2M+S ÿÿ0_level2Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ5+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#5ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ;1XX°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#;ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2J+S ÿÿ0_level3Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ2(` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#2ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ;1XX°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#;ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2G+S ÿÿ0_level4Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ/%¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#/ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ;1XX°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#;ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2D+S ÿÿ0_level5Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ," hÀpÈ xÐ (#,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ;1XX°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#;ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2A+S ÿÿ0_level6Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ)h hÀpÈ xÐ (#)ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ;1XX°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#;ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2>+S ÿÿ0_level7Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓ&ÀÀpÈ xÐ (#&ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ;1XX°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#;ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2;+S ÿÿ0_level8Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓ#pÈ xÐ (##ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ;1XX°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#;ÓÓ ¨ý Ó28+S ÿÿ0_level9Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ ppÈ xÐ (# ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ;1XX°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#;ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2PS ÿÿ0_levsl1Ó ¨ý ÓÓ X ÓÓ8.°°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#8ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ;1XX°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#;ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2MS ÿÿ0_levsl2Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ5+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#5ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ;1XX°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#;ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2JS ÿÿ0_levsl3Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ2(` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#2ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ;1XX°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#;ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2GS ÿÿ0_levsl4Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ/%¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#/ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ;1XX°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#;ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2DS ÿÿ0_levsl5Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ," hÀpÈ xÐ (#,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ;1XX°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#;ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2AS ÿÿ0_levsl6Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ)h hÀpÈ xÐ (#)ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ;1XX°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#;ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2>S ÿÿ0_levsl7Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓ&ÀÀpÈ xÐ (#&ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ;1XX°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#;ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2;S ÿÿ0_levsl8Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓ#pÈ xÐ (##ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ;1XX°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#;ÓÓ ¨ý Ó28S ÿÿ0_levsl9Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ ppÈ xÐ (# ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ;1XX°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#;ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2PS ÿÿ0_levnl1Ó ¨ý ÓÓ X ÓÓ8.°°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#8ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ;1XX°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#;ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2MS ÿÿ0_levnl2Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ5+ ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#5ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ;1XX°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#;ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2JS ÿÿ0_levnl3Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ2(` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#2ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ;1XX°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#;ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2GS ÿÿ0_levnl4Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ/%¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#/ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ;1XX°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#;ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2DS ÿÿ0_levnl5Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ," hÀpÈ xÐ (#,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ;1XX°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#;ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2AS ÿÿ0_levnl6Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ)h hÀpÈ xÐ (#)ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ;1XX°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#;ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2>S ÿÿ0_levnl7Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓ&ÀÀpÈ xÐ (#&ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ;1XX°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#;ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2;S ÿÿ0_levnl8Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓ#pÈ xÐ (##ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ;1XX°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#;ÓÓ ¨ý Ó28S ÿÿ0_levnl9Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ ppÈ xÐ (# ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ;1XX°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#;ÓÓ ¨ý Ó Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(-2†æ$££Ý ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  Ý(ÿÿ$’’'dxd !"#A<< cÿÿ Ý ƒ(½Þ&ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòHeartwood€Ô_Ôv.Ô_Ô€United€States€Forest€Serviceóó,€No.€98„CV„4289„JPG€Ô_Ô(Ô_ÔS.D.€Ill.€September€29,€1999Ô_Ô)Ô_Ô.&(.3½Þ$¦¦Ý ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  Ýx£F'á€Ãi[&­3|x!ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀÝ ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ„°ÑÑ„°ÑÒ„°ÒÒ„°ÒÓ  ÓÔ€'ì¶l <Ôò òÑ8€dXXdìdÈ8ÑÔ_Ôà@Ù Ù ìàIN€THE€UNITED€STATES€DISTRICT€COURTˆÐ „< Ðà@` ` ìàFOR€THE€SOUTHERN€DISTRICT€OF€ILLINOISˆÌÌHEARTWOOD,€INC.;€JIMà0 < àà0”<T$<T$à)ÐH”T$”T$ ÐÔ_ÔBENSMANÔ_Ô;€and€MARK€Ô_ÔDONHAMÔ_Ô,à0 ” à)Ð4ì”T$”T$ Ðà Ü àà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” à)Ìòòóóà0 Ü àà04ÜT$ÜT$àPlaintiffs,à0ä 4T$4T$àà0<ä T$ä T$àà0”<T$<T$à)Ð Ä ”T$”T$ Ðà Ü àà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” à)Ìà Ü àv.à 4 àà0 Œ àà0ä Œ T$Œ T$àà0<ä T$ä T$àà0”<T$<T$à)à0ì”T$”T$àNo.€98-CV-4289-GÐä œ ìT$ìT$ Ðà Ü àà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” à)ÌUNITED€STATES€FORESTà0 < àà0”<T$<T$à)м t ”T$”T$ ÐSERVICE;€and€MICHAELà0 < àà0”<T$<T$à)Ш ` ”T$”T$ ÐÔ_ÔDOMBECKÔ_Ô,€Chief,€United€Statesà0 < àà0”<T$<T$à)ДL ”T$”T$ ÐForest€Service,à0 Œ àà0ä Œ T$Œ T$àà0<ä T$ä T$àà0”<T$<T$à)Ѐ8”T$”T$ Ðà Ü àà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” à)Ìà Ü àà 4 àDefendants.à0 ä àà0<ä T$ä T$àà0”<T$<T$à)ó óÐX”T$”T$ ÐÌò òòòà@jj'ìàORDER€ó óóóˆÐ 0è ÐÌGILBERT,€Chief€Judge:ÌÌÓÓà Ü àPending€before€the€Court€are€the€partiesðð€cross-motions€for€summary€judgment€(docs.€20€&€21).€BothÏparties€responded€(docs.€27€&€29)€and€replied€(docs.€29€&€30).Ìà Ü àThis€complaint€is€a€three-count€facial€challenge€to€certain€Categorical€Exclusions€(ð ðCEððsðð)Ïpromulgated€by€the€Forest€Service€(ð ðFSðð),€pursuant€to€the€National€Environmental€Policy€Act€ð ðNEPAðð),€42ÏU.S.C.€ðð4321€òòet€seq.€óóAt€issue€are€new€policies€and€procedures€to€replace€those€originally€published€in€theÐ @ø  ÐFederal€Register€in€June,€1985,€(50€FR€26078),€as€well€as€a€particular€CE€regarding€timber€harvests€on€FSÏland.€The€new€policies€and€procedures€were€issued€as€Chapter€1950€of€the€Forest€Service€Manual€(ð ðÔ_ÔFSMÔ_Ôðð)Ïand€as€Forest€Service€Handbook€(ð ðFSHðð)€ðð1909.15,€Environmental€Policy€and€Procedures€Handbook.€TheÏchallenged€CEððs€were€adopted€purportedly€pursuant€to€NEPA€and€the€Administrative€Procedures€ActÏ(ð ðAPAðð)€and€are€described€and€contained€in€Forest€Service€Handbook€(ð ðFSHðð)€1909.15,€Chapter€30,€ðððð3Ï1.1€b(2),€(4)€through€(8),€and€ðððð31.2(l)€through€(9).€The€final€rule€adopting€the€challenged€CEððs,€entitledÏð ðNationalÐ  (+à). ÐEnvironmental€Policy€Act:€Revised€Policy€and€Procedures,€AGENCY:€Forest€Service,€USDAðð€wasÏpublished€in€the€Federal€Register,€Vol.€57,€No.€182,€on€September€18,€1992.Ìà Ü àThe€plaintiffs€assert€that€the€defendants€acted€contrary€to€law€when€they€promulgated€and€adoptedÏthe€challenged€CEððs€by€failing€to€follow€all€procedural€requirements€and€mandates.€The€plaintiffs€assert,Ïtherefore,€that€the€challenged€CEððs€are€invalid€on€their€face€and€should€be€declared€null€and€void.€TheÏplaintiffs€also€ask€the€Court€to€grant€specific€injunctive€relief€and€enjoin€the€defendants€from€utilizing€theÏchallenged€CEððs.€The€plaintiffs€allege€that€the€actions€authorized€under€these€challenged€CEððs€may€have€aÏsignificant€effect€on€the€environment€but€have€not€been€given€the€requisite€hard€look€under€NEPA.Ìà Ü àThe€Court€notes€that€this€complaint€does€not€challenge€the€FSðð€application€of€a€CE.€This€complaintÏactually€challenges€the€FSðð€adoption€of€the€CE€itself€and€the€process€by€which€the€adoption€took€place.€ForÏall€three€counts,€the€plaintiffs€ask€the€Court€to€(1)€declare€the€relevant€CEððs€null€and€void€and€as€Ô_ÔviolativeÔ_ÔÏof€the€APA€and€NEPA,€(2)€declare€null€and€void€all€FS€project€decisions€regarding€these€challenged€CEððs;Ïand€(3)€issue€a€nationwide€injunction€against€the€FS€undertaking€or€allowing€any€of€the€activities€pursuantÏto€the€challenged€CEððs.Ìà Ü àI€à 4 àòòBackgroundóóÐ TÐ Ðà Ü àà 4 àA.à Œ àòòNEPAÐ ,¨ Ðóóà Ü àNEPA€is€the€ð ðbasic€national€charter€for€protection€of€the€environment.ðð€40€Ô_ÔC.F.R.Ô_Ô€ðð€1500.€1.€ItsÐ !€  Ðpurpose€is€to€ð ðhelp€public€officials€make€decisions€that€are€based€on€[an]€understanding€of€environmentalÏconsequences,€and€take€actions€that€protect,€restore,€and€enhance€the€environment.ðð€Id.€at€1500.€1€(c);€òòFundÐ ´$0!$ Ðfor€Animals€v.€Babbitt,€óó89€F.3d€128,€130€(2òòndóó€Cir.€1996).€NEPA€established€a€national€policy€of€protectingÐ Œ&#& Ðthe€environment€as€a€way€of€promoting€human€health.€42€U.S.C.€ðð4321.Ð  d(à$( Ðà Ü àà 4 àB.€à Œ àòòÔ_ÔCEQÔ_Ô€óóÐ „ Ðà Ü àNEPA€also€created€the€Council€on€Environmental€Quality€(ð ðÔ_ÔCEQÔ_Ôðð),€which€is€the€agency€thatÏadministers€NEPA€and€promulgates€regulations€related€to€NEPA€that€are€binding€on€federal€agencies.€42ÏU.S.C.€ðð4342;€42€U.S.C.€ðð4344(3);€40€Ô_ÔC.F.R.Ô_Ô€ðððð1501-08,€One€of€those€regulations€requires€all€federalÏagencies€like€the€FS€to€adopt€procedures€implementing€Ô_ÔCEQÔ_Ôððs€regulations€and€provides€that:ÌÓÓà8 Ü àð ð[Ô_Ôw]henÔ_Ô€the€agency€is€a€department,€major€subunits€are€encouraged€(with€the€consent€of€theÏdepartment)€to€adopt€their€own€procedures.€Such€procedures€shall€not€paraphrase€these€pÏregulations.€They€shall€confine€themselves€to€implementing€procedures.€Each€agency€shallÏconsult€with€the€[Ô_ÔCEQÔ_Ô]€while€developing€its€procedures€and€before€publishing€them€in€theÏFederal€Register€for€comment....€The€procedures€shall€be€adopted€only€after€an€opportunityÏfor€public€review€and€after€review€by€the€[Ô_ÔCEQÔ_Ô]€for€conformity€with€the€Act€and€theseÏregulations.€.€.Ð Üü!Üü! ÐÌÓ Ó40€Ô_ÔC.F.R.Ô_Ô€ðð€1507.3.€Ìà Ü àReviewing€courts€give€these€Ô_ÔCEQÔ_Ô€regulations€ð ðsubstantial€deference.ðð€òòRobertson€v.€Ô_ÔMethowÔ_Ô€ValleyÐ ôp ÐCitizens€Council,€490€U.S.€óó332,€òò109€óóÔ_ÔS.CtÔ_Ô.€1835,€1848-49,€104€Ô_ÔL.EdÔ_Ô.2d€351€(1989);€òòAndrus€v.€Sierra€Club,Ð ÌH Ðóó442€U.S.€347,358,€99€Ô_ÔS.CtÔ_Ô.€2335,€2341,€60LEd.2d€943€(1979).€These€regulations€require€every€federalÐ ¤  Ðagency€to€draft€its€own€administrative€regulations€to€implement€and€supplement€the€regulations€promulgatedÏby€Ô_ÔCEQÔ_Ô.€40€Ô_ÔC.F.R.Ô_Ô€ðð€1507.3.€Ìà Ü àTogether,€Ô_ÔCEQÔ_Ô€and€NEPA,€have€established€a€complex€system€for€evaluating€environmentalÏmanagement€decisions€and€the€environmental€effects€of€proposed€federal€agency€actions.€òòSee€óó40€Ô_ÔC.F.R.Ô_Ô€PartsÐ !€  Ð1500-08.€This€system€consists€of€environmental€impact€statements,€environmental€assessments€andÏcategorical€exclusions.€The€Department€of€Agriculture€adopted€environmental€regulations€to€fulfill€its€NEPAÏobligations,€òòsee€óó7€Ô_ÔC.F.R.Ô_Ô€ðð3100.41€(e),€and€the€FS€Environmental€Handbook€is€meant€to€be€a€layer€of€agencyÐ Œ&#& Ðrules€one€level€below€these.€òòSee€óó7€Ð  d(à$( ÐÔ_ÔC.F.R.€ðð3100.41(e);€Environmental€Handbook,€section€013,€òòRhodes€v.€Johnson,€óó153€F.3d€785,€788€(7th€Cir.Ð „ Ð1998).€CEQ€directs€agencies€to€establish€implementing€procedures€to€determine€which€actions€ð ðnormallyÏrequire[]€€an€environmental€impact€statement.ðð€40€C.F.R.€ðð€I€501.4(a)(1).€Environmental€impact€statementsÏare€detailed€reports€completed€after€a€thorough€analysis€and€study€The€CEQ€regulations€also€direct€agenciesÏto€adopt€implementing€procedures€to€determine€which€actions€normally€òòdo€not€óóhave€any€significant€impactÐ ä ` Ðon€the€environment€and€so€need€not€be€the€subject€of€any€study€or€report;€these€actions€are€referred€to€asÏð ðcategorical€exclusions,ðð€40€C.F.R€ðð€1501.4(a)(2);€òòJohnson,€óó153€F.3d€at€788.Ð ”  Ðà Ü àEnvironmental€impact€statements€(ð ðEISðð)€are€the€most€detailed€form€of€analysis.€Federal€agenciesÏlike€the€FS€must€prepare€an€EIS€for€ð ðmajor€federal€actions€significantly€affecting€the€quality€of€the€humanÏenvironment.ðð€42€U.S.C.€ðð4332(C);€40€C.F.R.€ðð€1502.3.€Environmental€assessments€are€concise€publicÏdocuments€ð ðthat€provide€analysis€for€determining€whether€to€prepare€an€environmental€impact€statement€orÏa€finding€of€no€significant€impact€on€the€environment,ðð€òòMahler€v.€U.S.€Forest€Service,€óó927€F.Supp.€1559,Ð ÌH Ð157071€(S.D.Ind.€1996),€òòciting€óó40€C.F.R.€ðð€1508.9.€ð ðAn€environmental€assessment€must€include€discussionsÐ ¤  Ðon€the€need€for€the€proposal,€other€alternatives,€the€environmental€impact€of€the€proposal€and€its€alternatives,Ïand€other€information.ðð€òòMahler,€óó927€F.Supp.€1570-71.€Agencies€prepare€EAððs€for€several€reasons,Ð TÐ Ðincluding.-€(1)€to€provide€evidence€and€analysis€that€determine€whether€or€not€to€prepare€an€EIS€or€a€FindingÏof€No€Significant€Impact€(ð ðFONSIðð)-,€(2)€to€help€the€agency€comply€with€NEPA€when€no€EIS€is€necessary;Ïand€(3)€to€ð ð[f]acilitate€preparation€of€an€[EIS]€when€one€is€necessary.ðð€40€C.F.R.€ðð€1508.9(a).Ìà Ü àCEQ€and€NEPA€regulations€allow€agencies€to€avoid€the€preparing€either€an€EIS€or€an€EA€if€aÏproposed€action€properly€comes€within€a€ð ðcategorical€exclusion.ðð€NEPA€regulations€provide€in€Ð  Œ&#& Ðpertinent€part:ÌÓÓà8 Ü àð ðcategorical€exclusionðð€means€a€category€of€actions€which€do€not€individually€orÏcumulatively€have€a€significant€effect€on€the€human€environment€and€which€have€been€foundÏto€have€no€such€effect€in€procedures€adopted€by€a€Federal€agency€in€implementation€of€theseÏregulations€(ðð€1507.3)€and€for€which,€therefore,€neither€an€environmental€assessment€nor€anÏenvironmental€impact€statement€is€required.€An€agency€may€decide€to€prepare€environmentalÏassessments€for€the€reasons€stated€in€ðð€1508.9€even€though€it€is€not€required€to€do€so.€AnyÏprocedures€tinder€this€section€shall€provide€for€extraordinary€circumstances€in€which€aÏnormally€excluded€action€may€have€a€significant€environmental€effect.€Ð Üü!Üü! ÐÓ )ÓÌ40€C.F.R.€ðð€1508.4.€Ìà Ü àFederal€agencies€must€adopt€procedures€for€establishing€CEððs€and€must€provide€for€ð ðextraordinaryÏcircumstancesðð€in€which€otherwise€categorically€excluded€actions€would€require€an€EA€or€EIS;€theseÏextraordinary€circumstances€exceptions€are€for€actions€which€may€have€a€significant€environmental€effectÏdespite€their€inclusion€as€a€CE€activity.€The€CEððs€at€issue€here€are€contained€and€described€in€1909.15€ofÏthe€FS€Handbook€(ð ðFSHðð),€Chapter€30,€ðððð3€1.€lb(2),€(4)€through€(8),€and€ðððð31.2(a)€through€(9)Ìà Ü àA.à 4 àòòThe€complaint€óóÐ ¤  Ðà Ü àCount€I€asserts€that€the€defendants€violated€C.F.R.€ðð€1507.3,€by€failing€to€obtain€the€necessary€reviewÏby€CEQ€of€the€challenged€CEððs€prior€to€adopting€them.€In€the€process€of€promulgating€FS€NEPA€proceduresÏsuch€as€these,€CEQ€must€review€all€CEððs€before€the€FS€adopts€them€to€assure€the€CEððs€compliance€withÏCEQ€and€NEPA€regulations.€òòSee€óó40€C.F.R-€ðð€I€507.3(a);€48€Fed.€Reg.€at€34,265,€The€plaintiffs€assert€inÐ !€  ÐCount€I€that€the€defendants€failed€to€obtain€this€required€CEQ€review.€Ìà Ü àCount€II€asserts€that€the€defendants€violated€NEPA€and€the€APA,€5€U.S.C.€ðð706,€as€well€as€CEQ€andÏDepartment€of€Agriculture€(ð ðDOAðð)€regulations€when€adopting€the€challenged€CEððs.€€The€plaintiffs€allegeÏthat€these€violation€occurred€by€the€following€actions€of€the€defendants:€(1)€Ð  d(à$( Ðfailing€to€conduct€an€environmental€assessment€(ð ðEX)€and€subsequently€issuing€a€Finding€of€No€SignificantÏImpact€(ð ðFONSIðð),€or€if€a€FONSI€was€not€appropriate,€by€failing€to€conduct€a€More€extensive€environmentalÏimpact€statement€(ð ðEISðð),€(2)€by€failing€to€address€or€consider€ð ðextraordinary€circumstancesðð€before€issuingÏthe€CEððs,€and€(3)€by€utilizing€a€ð ðcase-by-caseðð€CE€procedure€in€part€in€an€attempt€to€avoid€NEPAÏrequirements€to€give€these€actions€the€requisite€hard€look.Ìà Ü àCount€III€challenges€specifically€the€timber€harvest€CE.€FSH€1909.15,€Chapter€30,€Section€31.2(4);Ï57€Fed.€Reg.€at€43,209.€The€plaintiffs€assert€that€the€defendants€violated€NEPA€and€CEQ€regulations,€inÏparticular,€which€state€that€categorically€excluded€actions€must€not€ð ðindividually€or€cumulatively€have€aÏsignificant€effect€on€the€human€environmentðð€by€failing€to€take€a€hard€look€at€the€environmentalÏconsequences€and€adequately€consider€and€respond€to€public€comments€prior€to€the€CEððs€adoption.€40ÏC.F.R.€ðð€1508.4.Ìà Ü àThe€plaintiff€Heartwood,€Inc.,€is€a€not-for-profit€corporation€that€operates€as€a€coalition€ofÏenvironmental€organizations,€plaintiff€Mark€Donham€owns€land€and€lives€adjacent€to€the€Shawnee€NationalÏForest€(ð ðSNFðð);€and€plaintiff€Bensman€is€a€user€of€national€forests.€Ìà Ü àà 4 àB.€à Œ àòòProcedural€historyÐ TÐ Ðóóà Ü àThe€FS€adopted€the€disputed€revised€policies€and€procedures€for€implementing€NEPA€and€CEQÐ ,¨ Ðregulations€on€September€18,€1992,€with€the€revisions€effective€September€21,€1992.€òòSee€57€óóFed.€Reg.Ð !€  Ð43,180€(AR€Vol.€1,€Tab€13),€These€revised€procedures€included€a€set€of€CEððs€and€examples€of€extraordinaryÏcircumstances€which€would€preclude€the€application€of€a€CE.€Id.€at€43,183,€43,208.Ìà Ü àIn€its€notice€adopting€the€new€policy€and€procedures,€the€FS€stated:Ìà8 Ü àBased€on€experience€and€environmental€analysis,€the€implementation€of€the€revised€ForestÐ d(à$(Üü!Üü! ÐÓÓà8 Ü àService€environmental€policy€and€procedures€will€not€significantly€affect€the€quality€of€theÏhuman€environment,€individually€or€cumulatively.€Therefore,€this€action€is€categoricallyÏexcluded€from€documentation€in€an€environmental€impact€statement€or€an€environmentalÏassessment.€Ð Üü!Üü! ÐÌÓ:ÓFSH€1909.15€and€40€C.F.R.€ðð€1508.4.€Ìà Ü àThe€FS€did€not€produce€a€formal€document€entitled€Environmental€Analysis€(ð ðEAðð)€orÏEnvironmental€Impact€Statement€(ð ðEISðð)€for€the€new€CE€procedures.€The€timber€harvest€CE€is€at€the€heartÏof€this€dispute.€As€adopted,€the€new€CE€in€the€FSH€categorically€excludes€the€following€activitiesÌÓÓà8 Ü àTimber€harvest€which€removes€250,000€board€feet€or€less€of€merchantable€wood€productsÏor€salvage€which€removes€1,000,000€board€feet€or€less€of€merchantable€wood€products;Ïwhich€requires€one€Mile€Or€less€of€low€standard€road€construction€(Service€level€D,€FSHÏ7709.56);€and€assures€regeneration€of€harvested€or€salvaged€areas€where€required.€Ð Üü!Üü! ÐÌÓÓ<ÓFSH€1909.15€Chapter€30,€Section€31.2€subsection€4.€Ìà Ü àThe€FS€gave€notice€on€April€29,€1991,€of€its€adoption€of€the€revised€policy€and€procedures€forÏimplementing€NEPA€and€CEQ€regulations.€56€Fed.€Reg.€19,718€(Apr.€29,€1991).€The€FS€proposed€the€newÏpolicy€and€procedures€to€replace€those€published€in€the€Federal€Register€on€June€24,€1985,€(50€Fed.€Reg.Ï26,078).€Ìà Ü àAfter€the€FS€made€the€proposed€new€policies€and€procedures€available€for€public€comment,€plaintiffÏBensman€submitted€his€comments€on€June€25,€199€1,€raising€concerns€about€the€proposed€CEððs,€withÏplaintiff€Donham€submitting€his€comments€on€June€26,€1991.€In€a€notice€dated€September€18,€1992,€andÏpublished€in€the€Federal€Register,€the€FS€announced€that€they€had€adopted€the€new€NEPA/CE€policies€andÏprocedures€and€that€they€would€become€effective€September€21,€1992.€Ìà Ü àOn€December€17,€1997,€Donham€made€a€Freedom€of€Information€Act€(ð ðFOIAðð)€request€to€the€FSÏfor€any€correspondence€between€the€FS€and€the€CEQ€about€the€process€that€culminated€in,€Ð  d(à$( Ðthe€final€new€policies€and€procedures€which€the€plaintiffs€challenge€in€this€complaint.€The€FS€responded€onÏJuly€9,€1998,€that€they€could€not€locate€any€CEQ-related€correspondence€on€this€subject.€Pursuant€to€FOIA,Ïin€a€January€17,€1998,€letter€to€the€CEQ,€Donham€also€requested€records€regarding€the€FS€promulgation€ofÏthese€challenged€NEPA€rules,€On€January€26,€1998,€the€CEQ€sent€Denham€nine€documents€related€to€theseÏnew€rules,€none€of€which€were€correspondence€between€the€CEQ€and€the€FS€related€to€the€challengedÏrulemaking€process.€Ìà Ü àC.€à 4 àòòPlaintiffsðð€assertionsÐ ”  Ðóóà Ü àPlaintiffs€assert€in€their€complaint€and€motion€for€summary€judgment€that,€in€implementing€the€newÐ lè  Ðpolicy€and€procedures,€the€FS€violated€NEPA€and€the€APA,€in€three€ways:€(1)€adopting€the€CEððs€in€generalÏwithout€the€required€review€by€the€Council€on€Environmental€Quality€(ð ðCEQðð);€(2)€adopting€the€new€NEPAÏprocedures€without€first€preparing€an€Environmental€Assessment€(ð ðEAðð)€of€Environmental€Impact€StatementÏ(ð ðEISðð);€and€(3)€the€issuance€of€a€specific€CE€(FSH€1909.15,€Chapter€31.2(4),€for€timber€sales€under€twoÏhundred€and€fifty€thousand€(250,000)€board€feet€and€for€salvage€timber€sales€under€one€million€(1,000,000)Ïboard€feet),€which€the€plaintiffs€claim€has€significant€cumulative€effects€on€the€human€environment€whichÏexclude€the€timber€harvesting€as€a€CE.€The€complaint€asks€the€Court€to€declare€the€disputed€CEððs€null€andÏvoid,€enjoin€their€future€use€by€the€FS€in€approving€agency€actions,€as€well€as€enjoin€any€FS€actionsÏapproved€pursuant€to€the€challenged€CEððs.€Ìà Ü àà 4 àC.€à Œ àòòDefendantsðð€assertionsÐ Ü"X" Ðóóà Ü àIn€their€motion€for€summary€judgment,€the€defendants€assert€that€(1)€the€FS€complied€with€CEQððsÐ ´$0!$ ÐNEPA€regulations€by€consulting€with€CEQ€during€development€of€the€CEððs€and€by€obtaining€proper€CEQÏreview;€(2)€the€FS€properly€concluded€that€preparation€of€an€EA€or€EIS€was€not€required€in€adopting€the€newÏCEððs;€(3)€the€referenced€timber€harvest€CE€does€not€violate€CEQ€Ð  <*¸&* Ðregulations,€as€that€CEððs€development€reflects€the€FSððs€experience€with€the€effects€of€timber€harvests€ofÏvarious€sizes€and€FS€experience€analyzing€those€effects;€(4)€the€plaintiffs€lack€standing€to€bring€their€claims;Ïand€(5)€their€claims€should€be€barred€by€the€doctrine€of€laches€due€to€unreasonable€delay.Ìà Ü àII€à 4 àòòAnalysisóóÐ  ˆ Ðà Ü àà 4 àA.à Œ à€òòStandard€Ð ä ` Ðóóà Ü àWhen€reviewing€administrative€agency€action,€the€court€must€limit€its€review€to€the€materials€thatÐ ¼ 8  Ðwere€before€the€agency€at€the€time€of€its€decision.€òòCronin€v.€United€States€Depððt.€Of€Agriculture,óó€919€U.S.Ð ”  Ð439,€443-44€(7th€Cir-€1990).€In€general,€a€court€may€not€overturn€the€decision€of€an€administrative€agencyÏunless€the€court€determines€that€the€decision€was€ð ðarbitrary,€capricious,€an€abuse€of€discretion,€or€otherwiseÏnot€in€accordance€with€the€law,€.€.€.€[or]€in€excess€of€statutory€jurisdiction,€authority€or€limitations.€.€.ðð€5ÏU.S.C.€ðð706(2)(A).€Ìà Ü àTitle€5€U.S.C.€ðð706(2)€provides€that€a€reviewing€court€shall€ÌÓÓà8 Ü àhold€unlawful€and€set€aside€agency€action,€findings,€and€conclusions€found€to€be€-„Ð Üü!Üü! Ðà8 Ü à(A)€arbitrary,€capricious,€an€abuse€of€discretion,€or€other-wise€not€in€accordance€with€law,€Ð Üü!Üü! Ðà8 Ü à(B)€contrary€to€constitutional€right,€power,€privilege,€or€immunity;€Ð Üü!Üü! Ðà8 Ü à(C)€in€excess€of€statutory€jurisdiction,€authority,€or€limitations,€or€short€of€statutory€right;€Ð Üü!Üü! Ðà8 Ü à(D)€without€observance€of€procedure€required€by€law;€Ð Üü!Üü! Ðà8 Ü à(E)€unsupported€by€substantial€evidence€in€a€case€subject€to€sections€556€and€557€of€this€titleÏor€otherwise€reviewed€on€the€record€of€any€agency€hearing€provided€by€statute;€or€Ð Üü!Üü! Ðà8 Ü à(F)€unwarranted€by€the€facts€to€the€extent€that€the€facts€are€subject€to€trial€de€novo€by€theÏreviewing€court.Ð Üü!Üü! Ðà8 Ü àIn€making€the€òòforegoing€determinations,€óóthe€court€shall€review€the€whole€record€or€thoseÐ ð!l! Ðparts€of€it€cited€by€a€party,€and€due€account€shall€be€taken€of€the€rule€of€prejudicial€error.€Ð Üü!Üü! ÐÓ°OÓ5€U.S.C.€ðð706(2)(A).€Ìà Ü àIn€making€the€factual€inquiry€into€whether€an€agency€decision€was€arbitrary€or€capricious,€the€CourtÏmust€consider€whether€the€disputed€decision€was€(1)€based€on€a€consideration€of€the€relevant€factors,€or€(2)Ïwhether€there€has€been€a€clear€error€of€judgment.€òòMarsh€v.€Oregon€Natural€Ð  P)Ì%) ÐResources€Council,€óó490€U.S.€360,€378,€109€S-Ct.€1851,€1861,€104€L.Ed.2d€377€(1989).Ð „ Ðà Ü àThe€role€of€the€courts€[reviewing€agency€decisions€under€NEPA]€is€simply€to€ensure€that€the€agencyÏhas€adequately€considered€and€disclosed€the€environmental€impact€of€its€actions€and€that€its€decision€is€notÏarbitrary€or€capricious.ðððð€Id.€(quoting€Baltimore€Gas€&€Electric€Co.€v.€Natural€Resources€Defense€Council,Ï462€U.S.€87,€97-98,€103€S.Ct.€2246,€2252,€76€L.Ed.2d€437€(1983)).€ð ðThis€inquiry€must€be€searching€andÏcareful,€but€the€ultimate€standard€of€review€is€a€narrow€one.ðð€Id.Ìà Ü àIn€addition,€a€court€will€consider€an€agency€decision€as€arbitrary€and€capricious€when€based€onÏentirely€false€premises€or€information.€òòVan€Abbema€v.€Fornell,€óó807€F.2d€633,€639€(7th€Cir.€1986).Ð lè  ÐFurthermore,€the€failure€of€an€agency€to€comply€with€its€own€regulations€constitutes€arbitrary€and€capriciousÏconduct.€òòSimmons€v.€Block,€óó782€F.2d€1545,€1550€(1€Ith€Cir€1986);€òòBunyard€v.€Hodel,€óó702€F.€Supp.€820,€822Ð ˜ Ð(D.€Nev.€1988).€Courts€generally€subscribe€a€presumption€of€good€faith€to€federal€agencies,€but€parties€mayÏrebut€the€presumption.€òòSierra€Club€v.€Espyóó,€822€F.€Supp-€356,€361€(E-D.€Tex.€1993).€In€addition,€courtsÐ ÌH Ðgenerally€defer€to€the€ð ðreasonable€opinionðð€of€agency€experts€in€matters€implicating€conflicting€expertÏopinions.€òòSee€Marsh,€óó490€U.S.€at€378.Ð |ø Ðà Ü àIn€making€a€decision€on€all€of€these€issues,€the€Court€must€decide€whether€the€FS€has€acted€in€anÏarbitrary€and€capricious€manner.€It€is€not€the€Courtððs€duty€to€supplement€its€judgment€for€that€of€the€ForestÏService€on€matters€within€its€expertise.€òòSee€Marsh,€óó490€U-S.€at€377.€However,€it€is€important€to€note€thatÐ !€  Ðin€deciding€whether€an€agency€decision€was€arbitrary€and€capricious,€the€Court€must€consider€whether€thatÏagency€based€its€decision€on€a€consideration€of€the€relevant€factors€and€whether€the€agency€committed€aÏclear€error€of€judgment.€Id.€In€doing€so,€the€Court€may€not€rely€merely€on€the€agencyððs€expertise.€To€upholdÏthe€agencyððs€decision,€the€Court€must€Ð  d(à$( Ðbe€convinced€that€the€record€contains€adequate€evidence€supporting€the€agencyððs€expert€opinions€andÏdecisions€as€well€as€evidence€upon€which€the€agency€states€it€relied€in€making€its€decisions.€òòSee€óóVanÐ \Ø ÐòòAbberna,€807€óóF.2d€at€639-641.€Ð 4° Ðà Ü àThe€Seventh€Circuit€applies€the€arbitrary€and€capricious€standard€when€reviewing€an€agencyððsÏdecision€to€implement€actions€governed€by€NEPA.€òòState€of€Wisconsin€v.€Weinberger,€óó745€F.2d€412,€417€(7thÐ ä ` ÐCir.€1984);€òòRiver€Road€Alliance,€Inc.€v.€Corps€of€Engrs€of€U.S.€Armyóó,€764€F.2d€445,€449€(7th€Cir.€1985),Ð ¼ 8  Ðòòcert.óó€òòdenied€475€óóU.S.€1055€(1986).€The€Supreme€Court€determined€that€an€agencyððs€decision€is€arbitrary€andÐ ”  Ðcapricious€ifÌÓÓà8 Ü àthe€agency€has€relied€on€factors€which€Congress€has€not€intended€it€to€consider,€entirelyÏfailed€to€consider€an€important€aspect€of€the€problem,€offered€an€explanation€for€its€decisionÏthat€runs€counter€to€the€evidence€before€the€agency,€or€is€so€implausible€that€it€could€not€beÏascribed€to€a€difference€in€view€or€the€product€of€agency€expertise.€Ð Üü!Üü! ÐÓºaÓÌòòMotor€Vehicle€Mfrs€Assn€v,€State€Farm€Mut.€Auto.€Ins.€Co.óó,€463€U.€S.€29,€43,€103€S.Ct.€2856,€2867,€77Ð ÌH ÐL.Ed.2d€443€(1983);€òòSouthwest€Center€v.€U.S.€Forest€Service,€óó100€F.3d€1443,€1448€(9th€Cir1996).€Ð ¤  Ðà Ü àSummary€judgment€shall€be€granted€if€ð ðthe€pleadings,€depositions,€answers€to€interrogatories,€andÏadmissions€on€file€together€with€the€affidavits,€if€any,€show€that€there€is€no€genuine€issue€as€to€any€materialÏfact€and€that€the€moving€party€is€entitled€to€a€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law.ððFed.RCiv.P.56(c).€Upon€the€filingÏof€a€motion€for€summary€judgment,€the€burden€shifts€to€the€non-moving€party€to€demonstrate€with€specificÏevidence€that€a€triable€issue€of€fact€remains€on€issues€on€which€the€non-movant€bears€the€burden€of€proofÏat€trial.€òòGracia€v.€Volvo€Europa€Truck€N.€Vóó.,€112€F.3d€291,€294€(7th€Cir.€1997);€òòsee€also€Celotex€Corp.€v.Ð ´$0!$ ÐCatrettóó,€477€U-S.€317,€324,€106€S.Ct.€2548,€91€L.Ed.2d€265€(1986).€The€mere€existence€of€some€allegedÐ Œ&#& Ðfactual€dispute€is€insufficient€to€defeat€an€otherwise€properly€supported€motion€for€summary€judgment.€òòSeeóóÐ  d(à$( ÐòòAnderson€v.€Liberty€Lobby,€Inc.,€óó477€U.S.€242,€247-48,€106€S.Ct.€2505,€91€L.Ed.2d202€(1986).€Where€it€isÐ „ Ðthe€task€of€the€Court€to€review€an€administrative€record€and€apply€legal€standards€to€that€record,€summaryÏjudgment€is€an€appropriate€vehicle€for€deciding€the€case.€òòHunger€v.€Leininger,€óó15€F.3d€664,€669€(7th€Cir.Ð 4° Ð1994).Ìà Ü àB.à 4 àòòStandingÐ ä ` Ðóóà Ü àThe€threshold€issue€of€standing€requires€the€Court€to€consider€three€factors:€(1)€whether€theÐ ¼ 8  Ðplaintiff(s)€in€a€given€case€can€establish€an€injury€in€fact,€i.e-,€a€concrete,€actual€or€imminent€harm,€(2)€theÏharm€must€be€fairly€traceable€to€the€conduct€of€the€defendant-,€and€(3)€the€harm€must€be€capable€of€beingÏredressed€by€the€requested€relief€òòSteel€Co.€v.€Citizens€for€a€Better€Envððt.,€óó118€S.€Ct€1003,€1012-16€(1998).Ð DÀ ÐThe€Court€finds€that€the€plaintiffs€in€this€case€have€standing€to€bring€their€action.Ìà Ü àAs€stated€in€an€earlier€decision€by€this€Court€and€affirmed€by€the€Seventh€Circuit,€the€Court€grantsÏstanding€to€these€plaintiffs€because€they€do€allege€that€they€use€and€enjoy€the€FS€lands€upon€which€theirÏclaims€are€based,€both€in€the€Southern€District€of€Illinois€and€elsewhere€throughout€the€United€States,€andÏFS€decisions€here€ð ðwill€diminish€this€use€and€enjoyment.ðð€òòRhodes€v.€Johnson,€óó153€F.3d€785,€787€(7th€Cir.Ð |ø Ð1998).€This€potential€harm€would€result€directly€from€the€FSðð€lack€of€compliance€with€NEPA€and€federalÏregulations,€so€that€the€harms€would€be€ð ðcausally€connectedðð€to€the€defendantsðð€actions.€Id.€In€addition,€theÏCourt€finds€that€any€remedy€granted€in€this€case€is€capable€of€redressing€the€alleged€injury.€òòSee€Steel€Co.€v.Ð !€  ÐCitizens€for€a€Better€Environment,€óó118€S.€Ct.€1003,€1016-17€(1998).Ð Ü"X" Ðà Ü àà 4 àC.à Œ àòòLachesÐ ´$0!$ Ðóóà Ü àTo€succeed€under€the€laches€doctrine,€the€defendants€must€show:€(1)€the€plaintiffs€unreasonablyÐ Œ&#& Ðdelayed€in€bring€their€action;€and€(2)€the€defendants€suffered€prejudice€as€a€result.€Ð  d(à$( ÐòòUnited€States€v.€Administrative€Enterprises,€Inc.,€óó46€F.3d€670,€672€(7'€Cir.€1995).€The€Court€finds€that€theÐ „ Ðlaches€doctrine€does€not€apply€to€bar€the€plaintiffsðð€claims€in€the€instant€case.Ìà Ü àGenerally,€courts€do€not€bar€NEPA€claims€under€the€laches€doctrine€but€instead€apply€the€appropriateÏstatute€of€limitations.€The€Court€accepts€the€reasoning€that€in€environmental€cases€like€the€instant€one,€theÏpublic€and€the€government€are€better€served€by€applying€the€statute€of€limitations.€Although€all€parties€mightÏhave€been€better€served€by€an€earlier€lawsuit,€the€plaintiffs€here€have€articulated€a€reasonable€excuse€for€theirÏð ðdelayðð€in€bringing€suit,€and€the€defendants€have€not€shown€sufficient€prejudice€to€invoke€the€lachesÏdoctrine,Ìà Ü àSince€NEPA€does€include€a€private€right€of€action,€courts€generally€review€NEPA€claims€under€theÏAPA.€5€U.S.C.€ðð702;€òòCity€of€Evanston€v.€Regional€Transportation€Authority,€óó825€F.2d€1121€1122,€1124€(7'Ð ˜ ÐCir.€1987);€òòVillage€of€Thornton€v.€U.S.€Army€Corps€of€Engrs.€óó31€F.€Supp.2d€1062,€1060€(N.D.€111.€1998).Ð ôp ÐAlthough€the€Seventh€Circuit€has€not€ruled€directly€on€the€issue,€numerous€courts€have€ruled€that€the€six-yearÏtime€limit€in€28€U.S.C.€ðð2401€(a)€applies€to€NEPA€claims€and€that€a€complaint€under€the€APA€for€reviewÏof€an€agency€action€is€a€ð ðcivil€actionðð€within€the€meaning€of€ðð2401€(a).€òòSee€Thornton,€óó31€F.€Supp€at€1062Ð |ø Ð(collecting€cases),-€òòsee€Village€of€Elk€Grove€Village€v.€Evans,€óó997€F.2d€328,€331€(7"€Cir.€1993)€(noting€thatÐ TÐ Ðother€circuits€have€applied€the€six-year€statute€of€limitations€to€APA€suits.);€òòsee€Sierra€Club€v.€Slater,€óó120Ð ,¨ ÐF.3€d€623,€630-31€(6th€Cir.€1997).€These€courts€have€held€that€the€€six-year€statute€of€limitations€in€ðð2401Ï(a),€€therefore,€applies€to€the€APA€òòSee€Daingerfield€Island€Protective€Socððy€v.€Babbitt,€óó40€F.3d€442,Ð Ü"X" Ð445(D.C.Cir.1994).€Section€2401(a)€applies€a€six-year€time€limit€to€ð ðevery€civil€action€commenced€againstÏthe€United€States.ðð€òòSee€Slater,€óó120€F.3d€at€631;€òòSierra€Club€v.€Pena,€óó915€F.€Supp.€13€81,€13€92-93€(N.D.Ð Œ&#& ÐOhio€1996)€(noting€that€laches€generally€applied€to€NEPA,€but€finding€statute€of€limitations€the€ð ðbetterÏreasonedðð€rule).Ð  <*¸&* Ðà Ü àThe€statute€of€limitations€under€28€U.S.C.€ðð2401€(a)€begins€to€run€when€the€right€of€action€firstÏaccrues,€which,€under€the€APA,€is€generally€the€time€of€the€final€agency€action.€5€U.S.C.€òòðð704-1€Slater,€óó120Ð \Ø ÐF-3d€at€63€1;€òòVillage€óóof€òòThornton,€óó31€F.Supp.2d€at€1062-3€1.€In€determining€whether€a€particular€agencyÐ 4° Ðaction€is€final,€ð ððð[t]he€core€question€is€whether€the€agency€has€completed€its€decisionmaking€process,€andÏwhether€the€result€of€that€process€is€one€that€will€directly€affect€the€parties.ðððð€òòSlater,€óó120€F.3d€at€631€(quotingÐ ä ` ÐFranklin€v.€Massachusetts,€505€U.S.€788,€797,€112€S.Ct.€2767,€2773,€120€L.Ed.2d€636€(1992).€The€CourtÏfinds€that€the€adoption€of€the€new€CEððs€effective€September€18,€1992,€was€a€final€agency€action.€57€Fed-ÏReg.€43180€Therefore,€the€statute€of€limitations€does€not€bar€the€action,€and€the€Court€will€not€apply€theÏdoctrine€of€laches.Ìà Ü àà 4 àD.à Œ àòòClaimsÐ ˜ Ðóóà Ü àà 4 àà Œ à1.à ä àòòCount€I€-€CEQ€consultation€and€approval€óóÐ ôp Ðà Ü àFollowing€consultation€with€the€FS,€CEQ€must€review€and€approve€CEððs€before€the€FS€adopts€themÏto€assure€the€CEððs€compliance€with€CEQ€and€NEPA€regulations.€òòSee€óó40€C.F.R.€ðð€1507.3(a);€48€Fed.€Reg.Ð ¤  Ðat€34,265.€The€Court€cannot€locate€nor€does€any€party€direct€the€Courtððs€attention€to€any€requirement€thatÏsuch€approval€be€verified€in€writing.€CEQ€regulations€provide:ÌÓÓà8 Ü à(a)...€[E]ach€agency€shall€as€necessary€adopt€procedures€to€supplement€these€regulations.€ÏWhen€the€agency€is€a€department,€major€subunits€are€encouraged€(with€the€consent€of€theÏdepartment)€to€adopt€their€own€procedures.€Such€procedures€shall€not€paraphrase€theseÏregulations.€They€shall€confine€themselves€to€implementing€procedures.€Each€agency€shallÏconsult€with€the€Council€while€developing€its€procedures€and€before€publishing€them€in€theÏFederal€Register€for€comment...€The€procedures€shall€be€adopted€only€after€an€opportunityÏfor€public€review€and€after€review€by€the€Council€for€conformity€with€the€Act€and€theseÏregulations€...€Agencies€are€encouraged€to€publish€explanatory€guidance€for€these€regulationsÏand€their€own€procedures.€.€.€Ð Üü!Üü! Ðà8 Ü à(1)€Those€procedures€required€by€SS€1501.2(d),€1502.9(c)(3),€1505.1,€1506.6(e),€and€1508.4.€Ð Üü!Üü! Ðà8 Ü à(2)€Specific€criteria€for€and€identification€of€those€typical€classes€of€action:€Ð Üü!Üü! Ðà8 Ü à(i)€Which€normally€do€require€environmental€impact€statements.€Ð P)Ì%)Üü!Üü! ÐÓs€ÓÓÓà8 Ü à(ii)€Which€normally€do€not€require€either€an€environmental€impact€statement€or€anÏenvironmental€assessment€(categorical€exclusions€(S€1508.4)).€Ð Üü!Üü! Ðà8 Ü à(iii)€Which€normally€require€environmental€assessments€but€not€necessarily€environmentalÏimpact€statements.€Ð Üü!Üü! ÐÌÓ…Ó40€C.F.R.€ðð€15073.€Ìà Ü àThe€plaintiffs€asserted€in€their€initial€summary€judgment€memorandum€that€the€FS€failed€to€complyÏwith€CEQ€regulations€because€the€FS€ð ðnever€obtained€written€certification€from€the€CEQðð€that€the€CEððsÏconformed€with€NEPA€and€CEQ€regulations.€òòSee€Plððs€óóMem.,€p.€20€(doc.€24).€The€plaintiffs€also€argued€thatÐ ¨ $  Ðthe€declarations€on€this€issue€from€CEQððs€General€Counsel€Dinah€Bear€and€the€FSððs€Director€forÏEnvironmental€Coordination€David€Ketcham€were€ð ðextra„record€evidenceðð€that€Court€could€and€should€notÏconsider.€Id.€at€20-21€(doc.€24).€€The€Court€finds€both€of€these€assertions€factually€and€legally€incorrect.€TheÏCourt€has€already€addressed€the€plaintiffsðð€ð ðextra-recordðð€argument€regarding€these€declarations€and€willÏnot€repeat€its€self-explanatory€ruling€here.€Ìà Ü àThe€Court€cannot€discover€any€case€law€nor€federal€regulation€that€requires€CEQ€to€put€its€approvalÏin€writing.€The€plaintiffs€request€the€Court€to€vacate€the€challenged€CEððs€on€this€basis€but€do€not€provideÏthe€Court€with€any€statutory€nor€case€law€support€for€their€position.€The€defendants€do,€however,€supportÏtheir€contentions€with€declarations€from€Bear€and€Ketcham€that€the€FS€did€openly€and€frequently€consultÏwith€the€CEQ€on€the€new€procedures€and€that€CEQ€did€find€them€to€be€in€compliance€with€NEPA€and€CEQÏregulations.€òòSee€óóBear€Decl.€12-3;€Ketcham€Decl.€ðð€5-6.€Plaintiffs€argue€that€Bearððs€declaration€that€the€ð ðFSÐ ð!l! Ðcomplied€with€all€applicable€requirements€of€the€CEQ€regulations€in€adopting€its€agency€NEPA€ProceduresððÏis€a€legal€conclusion€that€the€Court€should€disregard.€The€Court€disagrees€and€finds€that€this€portion€ofÏBearððs€declaration€is€a€factual€statement.€The€Court€finds€that€the€record€contains€uncontradictedÐ  x'ô#' Ðevidence€that€the€FS€consulted€with€and€obtained€approval€by€CEQ€in€compliance€with€40€C.F.R..€ðð€1507.3.Ìà Ü àAccordingly,€the€Court€ò òDENIES€ó óthe€plaintiffsðð€summary€judgment€motion€on€Count€I€and€ò òGRANTSó óÐ \Ø Ðsummary€judgment€in€favor€of€the€defendants€(docs.€20€&€21).Ìà Ü àà 4 à2.à Œ àòòCount€II-€Preparation€of€an€EA€or€EISÐ   Ðóóà Ü àThe€Court€ò òGRANTSó ó€summary€judgment€to€the€defendants€and€ò òDENIESó ó€summary€judgment€to€theÐ ì h Ðplaintiffs€on€this€count.€The€Court€finds€that€the€FS€did€not€need€to€prepare€and€EA€or€EIS€before€adoptingÏthe€new€categorical€exclusions.Ìà Ü àNEPA€requires€that€all€agencies€make€a€report€on€the€ð ðenvironmental€impact€of€the€proposed€actionððÏwhenever€the€agency€proposes€action€ð ðsignificantly€affecting€the€quality€of€the€human€environment.ðð€42ÏU.S.C.€S€4332(2)(C).€CEQ€regulations€describe€this€report€as€an€EIS.€40€C.F.R..€ðð€1508.11,€and€directÏagencies€to€establish€implementing€procedures€to€determine€which€actions€ð ðnormally€require[]€anÏenvironmental€impact€statement.ðð€40€C.F.R.€ðð€I€501.4(a)(1).€(Environmental€impact€statements€are€detailedÏreports€completed€after€a€thorough€analysis€and€study.)Ìà Ü àCEQ€regulations€also€direct€agencies€to€adopt€implementing€procedures€to€determine€which€actionsÏnormally€do€not€have€any€significant€impact€on€the€environment€and€so€òòneed€not€óórequire€a€report;€regulationsÐ dà Ðrefer€to€these€as€ð ðcategorical€exclusionsðð(ð ðCEðð).€40€C.F.R.€ðð1501.4(a)(2).€If€a€proposed€action€falls€withinÏa€CE,€the€agency€does€not€need€to€prepare€either€an€EA€or€an€EIS.€If€a€proposed€action€does€not€fall€withinÏa€CE,€the€agency€must€prepare€an€EA,€40€C.F.R.€ðð€I€501.4(b),€which€is€ð ða€rough-cut,€low-budgetÏenvironmental€impact€statement€designed€to€show€whether€a€full-fledged€environmental€impact€statementÏ--€which€is€very€costlyÐ  œ&#& Ðand€time-consuming€to€prepare€and€has€been€the€kiss€of€death€to€many€a€federal€project€--€is€necessary.ððÏòòCronin€v.€United€States€Dept.€of€Agriculture,€óó919€F.2d€439,€443€(7th€Cir.€1990).Ð \Ø Ðà Ü àAn€EA€results€in€either€a€ð ðfinding€of€no€significant€impactðð€(ð ðFONSIððr)€or€a€finding€that€a€projectÏwill€have€a€significant€impact,€in€which€case€an€agency€must€prepare€an€EIS.€40€C.F.Rðð€I€501.4(c)€&€(e),€40ÏC.F.R.€1508.9.€An€EA€seeks€to€determine€whether€there€is€enough€likelihood€of€significant€environmentalÏconsequences€to€justify€the€time€and€expense€of€preparing€an€EIS.€òòSee€also€óó33€C.F.R.€ðð230.€10.€FederalÐ ¼ 8  Ðagencies€like€the€FS€must€prepare€an€EIS€for€ð ðmajor€federal€actions€significantly€affecting€the€quality€of€theÏhuman€environment.ðð€42€U.S.C.€ðð4332(C);€40€C.F.R.€ðð€1502.3.€Only€if€the€EA€indicates€the€likelihood€ofÏthis€significant€environmental€consequences,€however,€does€an€agency€have€to€prepare€an€EIS,€and€theÏdecision€to€not€prepare€an€EIS€will€only€be€set€aside€if€it€was€an€abuse€of€discretion.€òòSee€Wisconsin€v.Ð ˜ ÐWeinberger,€óó745€F.2d€412,€417€(7th€Cir,€1984);€òòRiver€Road€Alliance€v.€U.S.€Army€Corps€of€Engrs,€óó764€F.Ð ôp Ð2d€445€(7òòthóó€Cir.€1985).Ð ÌH Ðà Ü àUnder€NEPA€and€federal€regulations,€agencies€use€CEððs€to€make€the€threshold€determination€throughÏtheir€own€processes€and€procedures€of€which€actions€do€not€need€an€EA€or€an€EIS.€CEQ€determines€whetherÏor€not€an€agencyððs€procedures€for€making€this€threshold€determination€violate€NEPA.€òòSee€óó40€C.F.R€ðð1507.3,Ð TÐ ÐThe€Court€must€describe€as€circular€and€unhelpful€to€the€entire€NEPA€and€CEQ€procedure€an€argument€thatÏseeks€to€impose€an€EA€or€EIS€requirement€on€the€very€process€NEPA€mandates.€The€Court€understands€thatÏ40€C.F.R.€ðð€1508.18,€defines€ð ðmajor€Federal€actionðð€to€include€ð ðrevised€agency€rules,€regulations,€plans,Ïpolicies,€or€proceduresðð€but€also€understands€that€this€definition€refers€to€actions€for€which€an€EIS€isÏnecessary,€not€to€the€CEQ-mandated€implementing€procedures€to€determine€when€an€EIS€is€unnecessary,Ïi.e.,€CEððs.€Ð  d(à$( Ðà Ü àOn€a€practical€note,€the€Supreme€Court€has€stated€that€an€agency€need€not€prepare€an€EIS€unless€thatÏagencyððs€plans€ð ðripenðð€into€a€ð ðspecific€proposal€[€]€for€action,ðð€òòKleppe€v.€Sierra€Club,€óó427€US.€390,€401€n,Ð \Ø Ð12,€96€S-Ct.€2718,€2726€n.€12,€49€L.Ed.2d€576€(1976),€or€into€a€ð ðspecific€action€of€known€dimensions.ðð€Id.Ïat€402€n.€14,€96€S.Ct.€at€2727€n.€14;€òòsee€also€óóWisconsin€v.€òòWeinberger,€óó745€F.2d€412,€416€(7th€Cir.€1984).Ð  ˆ ÐIn€addition,€CEQ€regulations€provide€that€an€EIS€is€unnecessary€unless€the€agencyððs€planning€ripens€into€aÏð ðrecommendation€or€report€on€proposals€for€legislation€[or]€other€major€Federal€actions€significantlyÏaffecting€the€quality€of€the€human€environment.ðð€42U.S.C.€S€4332(2)(C).€Significantly,€courts€generally€holdÏthat€EISððs€(which€normally€result€from€the€preparation€of€an€EA)€must€be€...€written€late€enough€in€theÏdevelopment€process€to€contain€meaningful€information,ðððð€yet€early€enough€so€that€they€can€...€practicallyÏserve€as€an€input€into€the€decision€making€process.ðððð€òòPublic€Citizen,€Inc.€v.€U.S.€Nuclear€RegulatoryÐ ˜ ÐCommððn.,€óó940€F.2d€679,€684,€291€U.S.App.D.C.€248,€253€(D.C.€Cir-€1991)€(quoting€Scientistsðð€Inst.€for€Pub.Ð ôp ÐInfo.,€hic.€v.€Atomic€Energy€Commððn,€481€F,2d€1079,€1094€(D.C.Cir.€1973)).€The€Court€believes€that€thisÏfurther€supports€the€practical€futility€of€requiring€an€EA€or€EIS€at€the€initial€point€when€CEððs€are€beingÏimplemented,€as€those€categorical€exclusions€are€to€guide€agency€decisions€as€to€when€the€FS€must€prepareÏEAððs€and€EISððs€for€particular€actions.Ìà Ü àThe€plaintiffs€contend€that€the€FS€violated€CEQ€regulations€when€the€FS€failed€to€prepare€an€EA€orÏan€EIS€for€the€new€policy€and€procedures€adopted€in€September,€1992.€The€FS€argues€that€the€process€ofÏadopting€the€new€NEPA€procedures€was€categorically€excluded€from€the€need€for€an€EA€or€EIS€because€theÏprocedures€themselves€do€not€authorize€any€activity€or€represent€an€irretrievable€commitment€of€resources.Ð ´$0!$ ÐòòSee€óó57€Fed.€Reg.€at€43,186;€56€Fed-€Reg-€19,718,€19,721€(199€1);€òòse€also€óóDef€ððs€Br-€At€17-23.Ð Œ&#& Ðà Ü àCategorical€exclusions€are€not€actions€themselves,€nor€are€they€proposals€for€actions,€norÐ  d(à$( Ðdo€they€implement€NEPA€policy.€Categorical€exclusions€are€just€that:€ð ðcategoriesðð€of€actions€for€which€EAððsÏor€EISððs€are€not€necessary.€It€stretches€the€Courtððs€credulity€to€imagine€how€a€list€of€categories€couldÏimplicate€an€EA€or€an€EIS.€Analyzing€the€plaintiffsðð€claims€in€a€practical€sense,€the€Court€cannot€imagineÏhow€an€EA€or€an€EIS€could€be€prepared€for€these€various€challenged€CEððs€or€what€practical€purpose€suchÏan€EA€or€EIS€would€have.€The€adoption€of€a€list€of€categories€is€not€implementation€of€a€specific€policy€orÏstatutory€program,€nor€a€plan€for€action€in€any€sense€of€the€phrase.€òòSee€óóð ðForty€Most€Asked€QuestionsÐ ¼ 8  ÐConcerning€CEQððs€National€Environmental€Policy€Act€Regulations,ðð€46€Fed.€Reg.€18,033€(March€23,€198Ï1)€(Answer€to€question€24(a)).€An€EIS€is€the€most€detailed€form€of€environmental€analysis€in€the€NEPAÏprocess.€To€propose€that€such€a€document€be€prepared€for€types€(categories)€of€actions€that€do€not€concernÏa€specific€proposed€action€in€a€specific€location€seems€beyond€the€Courtððs€comprehension.€The€CourtÏbelieves€that€preparation€of€an€EA€or€EIS€prior€to€the€FSðð€adoption€of€these€CEððs€would€be€meaningless€andÏthat€the€FS€would€find€it€impossible€to€accurately€analyze€the€true€potential€environmental€consequences€ofÏð ðcategoriesðð€of€actions.€Any€EA€or€EIS€that€resulted€would€surely€be€subject€to€challenge€for€being€tooÏspeculative,€vague€and€undetailed.Ìà Ü àThe€FS€identifies€twenty€(20)€categories€of€actions€which€may€be€categorically€excluded€fromÏdocumentation€in€an€EIS€or€EA.€See€56€Fed.€Reg.€19,719-20.€The€FS€asserts€(and€the€plaintiffs€do€notÏdispute)€that€the€1992€revisions€at€issue€in€this€lawsuit€were€developed€in€part€to€make€the€categories€moreÏspecific€and€objectively€identifiable,€to€clarify€definitions€of€categories€and€to€expand€examples€in€order€toÏfacilitate€understanding€and€interpretation€of€their€use.€Id.€In€addition,€the€1992€revision€added€newÏcategories€and€expanded€existing€ones.€Id.€in€its€arguments,€the€FS€explains€that€these€new€CEððs€wereÏinterpreted€by€the€FS€as€NEPA€procedures€that€constituted€internal€administrative€policy€and,€as€such,€thatÏwas€excluded€from€EA/EIS€Ð  <*¸&* Ðrequirements€under€7€C.F.R.€ððlb.3(a)(I).€CEQ€regulations€provideÌÓÓà8 Ü àð ð.€.€.[w]hen€the€agency€is€a€department,€major€subunits€are€encouraged€(with€the€consent€ofÏthe€department)€to€adopt€their€own€procedures.€Such€procedures€shall€not€paraphrase€theseÏregulations.€They€shall€confine€themselves€to€implementing€procedures.€Each€agency€shallÏconsult€with€the€[CEQ]€while€developing€its€procedures€and€before€publishing€them€in€theÏFederal€Register€for€comment....€The€procedures€shall€be€adopted€only€after€an€opportunityÏfor€public€review€and€after€review€by€the€[CEQ]€for€conformity€with€the€Act€and€theseÏregulations.€.€.€.ððÐ Üü!Üü! ÐÌÓǰÓ40€C.F.R.€ðð€1507.3.€Ìà Ü à40€C.F.R€ðð€1508.4€defines€ð ðcategorical€exclusions;€40€C.F.R.€ðð€1507.3€outlines€the€process€agenciesÏmust€go€through€to€establish€implementing€procedures€for€NEPA.€Read€together,€these€two€regulations€doÏnot€state€that€agencies€must€prepare€EAððs€or€EISððs€when€adopting€CEððs,€despite€the€plaintiffsðð€strenuousÏassertions€otherwise.€40€C.F.R.€ðð€1508.4€merely€defines€CEððs€and€references€ðð€15073,€as€the€regulationÏdescribing€how€agencies€establish€procedures€to€implement€ðð€1508.4.€In€other€words,€in€the€overall€NEPAÏimplementation€process,€CEQ€regulations€(like€ðð€1507.3€and€ðð€1508.4)€direct€agencies€like€the€FS€to€adoptÏimplementing€procedures€to€determine€which€actions€normally€do€not€have€any€significant€impact€on€theÏenvironment€and€so€need€not€be€the€subject€of€any€study€or€report.€òòSee€óó40€C.F.R.€ðð€1501.4(a)(2).€Only€if€aÐ |ø Ðproposed€action€does€not€fall€under€an€existing€CE,€does€the€agency€have€to€prepare€an€EA.€òòId.óó€Ð TÐ Ðà Ü àIt€is€interesting€to€note€that€the€plaintiffs€do€not€point€the€Court€to€any€case€law€that€supports€theirÏposition,€and€in€fact,€concede€in€their€response€to€the€defendantsðð€cross€motion€for€summary€judgment,€thatÏthis€maybe€an€issue€of€first€impression.€If€that€is€the€case,€and€the€Court€believes€it€is,€the€Court€cannot€andÏwill€not€twist€the€words€of€these€regulations€nor€plain€common€sense€to€require€an€EA€or€EIS€to€be€preparedÏunder€these€circumstances.€The€defendants€point€out€(and€the€plaintiffs€admit)€that€no€other€agencies€prepareÏEAððs€or€EISððs€when€promulgating€CEððs.Ð  d(à$( ÐThe€Court€believes€that€there€are€sound,€sensible€reasons€for€that€and€disagrees€with€the€plaintiffs€that€thisÏjust€illustrates€the€result€of€the€failure€having€never€been€challenged€in€court.Ìà Ü àThe€Court€must€give€great€deference€to€CEQððs€interpretation€of€NEPA.€€òòAndrus€v.€Sierra€Clubóó,€442Ð 4° ÐU.S.€347,€358,€99€S.Ct.€2335,€2341,€60€L.Ed.2d€943€(1979).€The€Court,€therefore,€agrees€with€the€defendantsÏthat€the€fact€that€CEQ€approved€the€challenged€CEððs€does€suggest€that€an€EA€or€EIS€was€not€required€priorÏto€the€adoption€of€these€revisions.Ìà Ü àTherefore,€the€Court€finds€that€the€plaintiffs€have€not€shown€any€legal€or€regulatory€support€for€theirÏcontention€that€the€FS€should€have€conducted€an€EA€or€EIS€prior€to€implementing€these€CEððs.€The€CourtÏalso€finds€that€any€document€prepared€at€that€point€in€the€FSðð€NEPA€process€would€be€too€speculative€andÏvague€to€include€meaningful€analysis.€Accordingly,€the€Court€ò òGRANTSó ó€the€defendantsðð€motion€forÐ ˜ Ðsummary€judgment€on€Count€II€and€ò òDENIESó ó€the€plaintiffsðð€motion€(docs.€20€&€21).Ð üx Ðà Ü àà 4 à3.à Œ àCount€III€-€òòTimber€harvest€CEÐ ÜX Ðóóà Ü àIn€Count€III,€the€plaintiffs€challenge€an€individual€CE€relating€to€timber€harvests.€FSH€19090.15Ð ´0 ÐChapter€30,€Section€31.2€sub-€4,€57€Fed.€Reg.€43,209,€Plaintiffs€assert€that€this€particular€CE€violates€CEQÏregulations€which€state€that€actions€categorically€excluded€must€not€ð ðindividually€or€cumulatively€have€aÏsignificant€effect€on€the€human€environment.ðð€40€C.F.R.€ðð€1508.4.Ìà Ü àThis€current,€proposed€CE€excludes€timber€harvests€removing€up€to€250,000€board€feet€ofÏmerchantable€wood€products€and€up€to€1,000,000€board€feet€of€salvaged€merchantable€wood€products.€TheÏplaintiffs€assert€that€the€timber€sale€CE€violates€NEPA€and€CEQ€regulations€because€the€FS€decision€runsÏcounter€to€the€evidence€before€the€agency,€the€FS€failed€to€consider€an€important€aspect€of€the€problem€(ofÏtimber€harvesting)€and€the€result€ð ðis€so€implausibleðð€that€it€Ð  t(ð$( Ðcould€not€be€ascribed€to€a€difference€in€view€or€the€product€of€agency€expertise.ðð€òòMotor€Vehicle€Mfrs.€AssnÐ „ Ðv.€Stale€Farm€Mut.€Auto.€Ins.€Co.,€óó463€U.S.€29,€43,€103€S.Ct.€2856,€2867,€77€L.Ed.2d€443€(1983).Ð \Ø Ðà Ü àFrom€1985€until€to€August,€1987,€the€FS€used€a€quite€general€timber€harvest€CE€which€related€toÏð ð[l]ow€impact€silvicultural€activities€that€are€limited€in€size€and€duration€and€that€primarily€used€existingÏroads€and€facilitiesðð€and€which€included€tree€salvage,€thinning€and€small€harvests.€òòSee€óó50€Fed,€Reg.€26,08Ð ä ` Ð1.€In€response€to€a€request€by€the€Wilderness€Society€and€the€Oregon€Natural€Resources€Council€to€stayÏtimber€sales€of€twenty-five€thousand€(25,000)€board€feet€or€less€or€involving€areas€of€more€than€one€acre,Ïthe€FS€issued€an€interim€directive€to€limit€timber€salvage,€thinning€and€harvesting€to€less€than€one€hundredÏthousand€(100,000)€board€feet€or€less€or€to€areas€of€less€than€ten€(10)€acres.€54€Fed-Reg-9073-9075.€The€FSÏintended€this€interim€directive€to€guide€timber€harvests€on€national€forest€land€until€more€comprehensiveÏrevisions€could€be€made€to€the€FSðð€NEPA€procedures.Ìà Ü àWhen€adopting€the€revised€CE€challenged€in€this€lawsuit,€the€FS€stated€that€the€request€to€prohibitÏthe€categorical€exclusion€of€timber€sales€of€more€than€twenty-five€thousand€(25,000)€board€feet€or€involvingÏmore€than€one€acre€was€ð ðunreasonably€conservative.ðð€56€Fed.€Reg.€19719.€In€the€next€sentence,€the€FSÏincreased€the€categorical€exclusion€to€one€million€(1,000,000)€board€feet€limit€for€both€live€trees€and€salvage,Ïwhen€the€proposed€harvest€would€require€one€mile€or€less€of€new€road€construction.€Id.€In€response€toÏnegative€comments€to€that€proposal,€the€FS€reduced€the€live€tree€timber€harvest€limit€to€two€hundred€andÏfifty€thousand€(250,000)€board€feet,€keeping€the€salvage€limit€at€one€million€(1,000,000)€board€feetÌà Ü àThe€Court€finds€that€the€ten-fold€increase€in€the€board€feet€limit€for€salvage€and€the€2ðð€€timesÏincrease€in€the€harvest€limit€for€live€trees€is€a€classic€example€of€an€arbitrary€decision.€The€Ð  Œ&#& ÐCourt€finds€that€the€FS€did€not€provide€any€rationale€for€why€this€magnitude€of€timber€sales€would€not€haveÏa€significant€effect€of€the€environment.€The€Court€cannot€find€and€the€defendants€do€not€direct€the€Court€toÏany€evidence€in€the€record€to€support€the€huge€increase€in€the€board€feet€limit€from€the€prior€100,000€limit,Ïexcept€to€refer€to€the€FSðð€expertise€and€prior€experience€with€timber€sales€having€ð ðthese€characteristics.ðð€56ÏFed.€Reg.€19719.€That€is€not€sufficient€The€FS€does€not€identify€nor€detail€the€characteristics€to€which€itÏrefers€(road€construction€length,€size€of€salvage€or€live€tree€harvests,€etc.)€and€provides€absolutely€no€otherÏrationale€to€the€Court€to€explain€how€and€why€the€agency€arrived€at€these€figures.€In€addition,€the€FS€doesÏnot€provide€any€documentation€nor€evidence€regarding€the€details€of€these€prior€harvests€nor€the€FSðð€analysisÏof€their€environmental€effects€upon€which€they€based€their€opinion.Ìà Ü àIn€reviewing€the€plaintiffsðð€claim,€the€Court€must€evaluate€the€record€to€determine€if€the€FS€basedÏits€decision€on€a€consideration€of€the€relevant€factors€or€whether€there€has€been€a€clear€error€of€judgment.ÏId,€The€Court€must€determine€whether€the€FS€acted€in€an€arbitrary€and€capricious€manner-€As€statedÏelsewhere€in€this€Order,€the€Court€does€not€intend€nor€seek€to€decide€if€it€would€have€made€the€sameÏdecision,€òòSee€Marsh,€óó490€U.S.€at€377.€In€evaluating€the€FSðð€decision,€however,€the€Court€must€carefullyÐ |ø Ðreview€the€record€and€be€satisfied€that€the€FS€made€a€ð ðreasoned€decisionðð€based€on€all€the€relevant€factorsÏand€information.€òòMarsh,€óó490€U.S.€at€378.€Consequently,€the€FS€must€explain€its€decision€adequately€so€thatÐ ,¨ Ðthe€Court€can€determine€that€it€was€not€arbitrary.€In€doing€so,€the€Court€may€not€rely€merely€on€the€agencyððsÏexpertise.€Id.€To€uphold€the€agencyððs€decision,€the€Court€must€be€convinced€that€the€record€containsÏadequate€evidence€supporting€the€agencyððs€expert€opinions€and€decisions,€as€well€as€evidence€upon€whichÏthe€agency€states€it€relied€in€making€those€decisions.€òòSee€Van€Abbema,€óó807€F.2d€at€639-641.€WhenÐ Œ&#& Ðdiscussing€an€agencyððs€fulfillment€of€its€NEPA€obligations,€CEQ€regulations€state€clearly€Ð  d(à$( Ðthat€the€record€must€contain€the€relevant€environmental€documents€supporting€the€agencyððs€decision.€òòSeeÐ „ Ð40€óóC.F.R.€ðð€1505.1.€That€is€what€is€missing€from€this€record.Ð \Ø Ðà Ü àWhat€the€record€does€contain€is€documentation€from€the€FSðð€own€Timber€Salvage€Task€ForceððsÏReport€and€Recommendation,€dated€March€31,€1992,€that€runs€counter€the€FSðð€decision.€That€reportÏrecommended€two€alternative€options€that€would€have€either€(1)€kept€the€100,000€board€feet€limit€for€bothÏlive€tree€and€salvage€sales€but€eliminate€the€acreage€criteria;€or€(2)€expand€the€volume€to€200,000€to€300,000Ïboard€feet€for€salvage€only,€keeping€the€live€tree€harvest€limit€at€100,000.€The€report€noted€that€the€draft€FSHÏpublished€in€the€Federal€Register€in€April,€1991,€increased€the€volume€requirement€to€one€million€board€feet,Ïbut€that€public€comments€were€strongly€opposed€to€this€harvest€level€for€a€categorical€exclusion.Ìà Ü àThe€defendants€do€not€address€the€discrepancy€between€this€recommendation€by€one€of€its€ownÏinternal€task€forces€nor€do€they€explain€at€all€the€rationale€for€increasing€the€board€feet€limits€so€drastically,Ïespecially€in€light€of€the€overwhelming€opposition€from€both€federal€and€state€sources€as€well€as€the€generalÏpublic€commentary.€AR€Vol€IIb,€Tab€8,€p.€94.€(The€FS€admits€that€75%€of€the€comments€they€received€inÏresponse€to€the€proposed€timber€harvest€CE€were€negative€and€favored€much€lower€volume€limits.).€TheÏCourt€is€unpersuaded€by€the€FSðð€argument€that€the€proposed€timber€harvest€CE€reflects€a€ð ðconsideredÏresponse€to€public€comment.ðð€òòSee€óóDefððs€Response,€p.€26.€Even€though€the€FS€stated€that€it€decreased€theÐ ,¨ Ðboard€feet€limit€for€live€trees€sales€to€250,000€in€response€to€the€negative€public€comment,€a€careful€readingÏof€the€public€comments€as€well€as€the€FSðð€summary€of€those€comments€indicates€that€most€commentatorsÏ(public€and€private)€did€not€limit€their€criticism€to€just€the€live€tree€harvest€portion€of€the€CE.€The€recordÏfails€to€account€for€the€large€number€of€public€comments€that€addressed€concerns€regarding€wildlife€habitatÏusage€and€potential€fragmentation,€as€well€as€other€environmental€impacts€that€Ð  d(à$( Ðcould€occur€from€both€types€of€timber€sales.€Most€respondents€did€not€distinguish€between€theÏenvironmental€effects€of€live€tree€harvests€and€salvage€sales,€and€the€FS€failed€to€adequately€address€thisÏissue€and€in€fact,€failed€to€address€the€issue€of€potential€negative€effects€on€wildlife€at€all.€òòSee€56€óóFed.€Reg.Ð 4° Ð19719-21.Ìà Ü àIn€addition,€the€Court€believes€that€the€FS€failed€to€adequately€address€or€provide€support€for€itsÏposition€that€the€timber€harvests€of€these€magnitude€would€not€have€cumulative€effects€on€the€environment.Ïð ðððCumulative€impactðð€is€the€impact€on€the€environment€which€results€from€the€incremental€impact€of€theÏaction€when€added€to€other€past,€present,€and€reasonably€foreseeable€future€actions€.€.€.ðð€40€C.F.R.€ðð€1508.7.ÏThe€Court€does€not€accept€the€circular€argument€that€the€extraordinary€circumstances€provision€(FSHÏ1909.15€ðð30.3(3))€adequately€addresses€the€issue€of€cumulative€effects.€Significantly,€40€C.F.R.€ðð€1504.8Ïallows€categorical€exclusions€only€for€categories€of€actions€that€have€been€found€to€òònot€have€óóindividual€orÐ ôp Ðcumulative€effects€on€the€environment.€The€extraordinary€circumstances€provision€is€designed€to€be€appliedÏto€òòalready€existing€óócategorical€exclusions,€which€by€definition€must€have€òòalready€been€found€óóto€not€generallyÐ ¤  Ðhave€ð ðcumulative€effects.ðð€The€FS€is€mandated€to€consider€these€cumulative€effects€òòprior€to€óótheÐ |ø Ðimplementation€of€a€CE,€not€afterward.€The€Court€cannot€discover€any€meaningful€analysis€providingÏsupport€for€the€FSðð€conclusion€that€the€categorical€exclusion€of€timber€harvests€of€this€magnitude€would€notÏhave€cumulative€effects€on€the€environment.Ìà Ü àSimilarly,€the€FS€fails€to€persuade€the€Court€that€the€documentation€and€administrative€appealsÏprocess€supports€the€timber€harvest€CE.€These€provisions€are€irrelevant€to€the€FSððs€initial€decision€to€findÏthat€timber€harvests€of€this€size€should€be€categorically€excluded.€And€although€the€mandatory€project€orÏcase€files€may€include€supporting€documentation€for€a€given€project€the€files€are€significantly€different€inÏemphasis€and€purpose€from€an€EA,€which€evaluates€a€projectððsÐ  <*¸&* Ðpotential€environmental€impact.€The€documentation€referred€to€by€the€FS€is€not€used€to€assess€theÏenvironmental€impact€of€an€action€but€used€primarily€to€support€the€agencyððs€decision€to€go€forward€withÏa€project.€Although€the€FS€uses€the€decision€memorandum€requirement€to€support€the€timber€harvest€CE,Ïthe€FS€concedes€that€these€decision€memoranda€were€intended€to€merely€òòð ðmemorialize€óóthe€categoricalÐ  ˆ Ðexclusion€of€a€proposed€action€from€further€NEPA€documentation.ðð€(Emphasis€added)€òò(See€óóDef€s€Response,Ð ä ` Ðp.€6).€The€documentation€requirements€and€administrative€appeals€process€do€not€support€the€FSððs€initialÏdecision€to€implement€the€timber€harvest€CE.Ìà Ü àIn€sum,€the€Court€finds€that€the€FS€failed€to€adequately€consider€an€important€aspect€of€the€issuesÏinvolved,€offered€little€explanation€for€its€decision€and€failed€to€provide€adequate€evidence€and€support€forÏits€decision€to€greatly€increase€the€volume€limit€for€and€implement€the€proposed€timber€harvest€CE.ÏTherefore,€the€Court€finds€the€FSðð€decision€arbitrary€and€capricious€and€DECLARES€the€timber€harvest€CEÐ ôp Ðò òNULL€AND€VOID.€ó óThe€timber€sale€CE€is€invalid€under€NEPA€and€should€be€set€aside€under€the€APA.€5Ð ÌH ÐU.S.C.€ðð701€et€seq.Ìà Ü àAccordingly,€the€Court€ò òGRANTS€ó ósummary€judgment€to€the€plaintiffs€on€Count€II€and€ò òDENIESó óÐ „ Ðsummary€judgment€to€the€defendants€(docs.€20€&€21)Ìà Ü àà 4 àIII€à Œ àòòRemedyóóÐ <¸ Ðà Ü àThe€defendants€assert€that€even€if€the€Court€were€to€grant€the€plaintiffs€relief€on€their€claims,€aÏnationwide€injunction€would€be€inappropriate€and€too€far-reaching.€Defendants€claim€that€such€an€injunctionÏwould€be€ð ðextraordinarily€broad€reliefðð€that€would€be€disproportionately€punitive€to€the€defendants,Ïespecially€considering€the€long€delay€in€bringing€this€suit,€and€that€would€threaten€a€wide€variety€of€FSÏactivities.€The€Court€notes€that€because€the€FS€procedure€atÐ  t(ð$( Ðissue€in€this€suit€implicates€nationwide,€not€just€local,€FS€policy,€any€remedy€ordered€also€must€be€nationalÏin€scope.€ð ðWhen€a€reviewing€court€determines€that€agency€regulations€are€unlawful,€the€ordinary€result€isÏthat€the€rules€are€vacated--not€that€their€application€to€the€individual€petitioners€is€proscribed.ðð€òòNationalÐ 4° ÐMining€Assn.€v.€U.S.€Army€Corps€of€Engrs.,€óó145€F.3d€1399,1409,€330€U.S.App.D.C.€329,339€(D.€D.€Cir.Ð  ˆ Ð1998)€(quoting€Harmon€v.€Thornburgh,€878€F-2d€484,€495€n.€21€(D.C.Cir.€1989)).Ìà Ü àIn€the€context€of€a€permanent€injunction,€the€Court€may€use€its€equity€powers€to€flexibly€provide€anÏappropriate€remedy.€In€exercising€this€ð ðsound€discretion,€courts€of€equity€should€pay€particular€regard€forÏthe€public€consequences€in€employing€the€extraordinary€remedy€of€injunction.ðð€òòWisconsin€v.€WeinbergerÐ lè  Ðóó745€F.2d€412,€425€(7th€Cir.€1984).€Traditional€equity€standards€govern€whether€or€not€to€grant€injunctiveÐ DÀ Ðrelief€in€a€NEPA€case.€òòSee€Conservation€Law€Foundation,€Inc.€v.€Busey,€óó79€F.3d€1250,€1271€(1"€Cir.€1996);Ð ˜ ÐòòSierra€Club€v.€Marsh,€óó872€F.2d€497,€503-04€(1st€Cir.€1989).€To€justify€a€permanent€injunction,€the€plaintiffsÐ ôp Ðmust€prove€that€they€had€no€other€adequate€remedy€at€law.€òòWalgreen€Co.€v.€Sara€Creek€Property€Co.,€óó966Ð ÌH ÐG.2d€273,€274€(7òòthóó€Cir.€1992).€The€Court€is€convinced€that€no€adequate€remedy€at€law€exists€for€theseÐ ¤  Ðplaintiffs,€and€the€defendants€do€not€argue€otherwise.Ìà Ü àIn€deciding€whether€to€issue€an€injunction,€courts€may€apply€their€traditional€equity€principles,€suchÏas€the€nature€of€the€suit,€the€enforceability€of€an€injunction,€the€existence€of€irreparable€harm€if€an€injunctionÏwere€not€granted€and€a€balancing€of€the€harms.€The€Court€is€not€convinced€that€it€must€actually€balance€theÏharms€in€order€to€issue€an€injunction€in€this€case,€but€will€proceed€to€do€so€based€on€the€pleadings€andÏvoluminous€record€already€on€hand,€òòSee€United€States€v.€Bethlehem€Steel,€óó38€F.3d€862,€868€(7th€Cir.Ð ´$0!$ Ð1995)(quoting€Illinois€v.€Milwaukee,€599€F.2d€151,€166€(7th€Cir.€1979,€revððd€on€other€grounds,€451€US.304,Ï101€S.Ct.€1784,€68€L.Ed.2d€114€Ð  d(à$( Ð(1981)€(stating€that€when€the€issues€involve€public€health,€ð ðinjunctive€relief€is€proper,€without€resort€toÏbalancing.)€NEPA€requirements€certainly€implicate€and,€in€fact,€were€implemented€to€protect€the€publicÏhealth.€32€U.S.C.€ðð4321.€Nevertheless,€the€Court€will€attempt€to€balance€the€harms€in€arriving€at€its€decision.ÏThe€Court€ò òDENIES€ó óthe€defendantsðð€request€for€a€hearing€on€balancing€the€harms.Ð  ˆ Ðà Ü àThe€Court€recognizes€that€in€balancing€the€harms€resulting€from€an€injunction€against€the€timberÏharvest€CE€that€many€private€and€public€interests€will€be€affected.€The€Court€further€recognizes€that€it€is€notÏmandated€to€issue€an€injunction€in€NEPA€cases.€The€Seventh€Circuit€has€stated€that€ð ð[a]lthough€the€goal€ofÏNEPA€is€to€force€agencies€to€consider€the€environmental€consequences€of€major€federal€actions,€.€.€.€that€goalÏis€not€to€be€achieved€at€the€expense€of€a€total€disregard€for€countervailing€public€interests.ðð€òòWisconsin€v.Ð LÈ ÐWeinberger,€745€óóF.2d€òò412,€426€(7h€óóCir.€1984).€òòWeinberger€óófurther€stated€that€NEPA€ð ðrecognizes€thatÐ $  Ðagencies€may€decide€to€subordinate€environmental€values€to€other€social€values€with€which€they€sometimesÏcompete.ðð€òòId.€Weinberger,€óóhowever,€involved€a€specific€action€approved€by€the€Department€of€the€Navy€andÐ ÔP Ðchallenged€for€the€Navyððs€failure€to€prepare€an€EIS.€In€the€instant€case,€the€plaintiffs€made€a€facial€challengeÏto€a€NEPA€implementing€regulation,€not€to€a€specific€approved€action€already€underway.€In€addition,€unlikeÏthe€instant€case,€the€Court€of€Appeals€in€òòWeinberger€óófound€the€agencyððs€conduct€was€òònot€óóarbitrary€orÐ \Ø Ðcapricious.€Further,€the€Seventh€Circuit€stated€that€even€if€they€had€found€the€Navy€had€violated,€theÏinjunction€would€not€be€appropriate€in€part€because€of€national€defense€interests.Ìà Ü àòòWeinberger€is€óóhelpful€to€this€Court,€however,€in€that€the€Seventh€Circuit€clearly€stated€that€eachÐ ä"`" Ðð ðcourt€should€tailor€its€relief€to€fit€each€particular€case,€balancing€the€environmental€concerns€of€NEPAÏagainst€the€larger€interests€of€society€that€might€be€adversely€affected€by€an€overly€broad€Ð  ”&#& Ðinjunction.ðð€Id.€In€tailoring€that€relief,€courts€should€consider€ð ðthe€degree€to€which€the€NEPA€interest€would,Ïin€fact,€be€served€by€an€injunction,€Las€well€as]€the€efficacy€of€other€forms€of€relief.€òòId.€Weinberger€óóalsoÐ \Ø Ðemphasized€that€equity€provides€courts€with€great€flexibility€in€fashioning€remedies€appropriate€to€theÏcircumstances€of€each€case.€Id.;€òòsee€also€United€States€v.€Marine€Shale€Processors€óó81€F.3d€1329,€1359€(5hÐ  ˆ ÐCir.€1997).Ìà Ü àCongress€has€imposed€on€federal€agencies€a€decisionmaking€process€that€is€outlined€in€NEPA.ÏNEPAððs€purpose€is€to€ensure€that€agencies€integrate€environmental€concerns€into€their€decisionmaking.€òòSeeÐ ”  ÐWeinberger€v.€Catholic€Action€of€Hawaii/Peace€Education€Project,€óó454€U.S.€139,€142-43,€102€S.Ct.€197,Ð lè  Ð201,€70€L.Ed.2d€298€(198€1).€When€agenciesðð€actions€and€decisions€violate€this€NEPA€procedure,€the€harmÏhas€already€been€suffered,€and€the€proper€course€for€Courts€is€to€redress€this€harm€through€injunctive€reliefÐ ˜ ÐòòMassachusetts€v.€Waits,€óó716€F.2d€946,€952€(1st€Cir.€1983).€NEPA€prescribes€and€outlines€proceduralÐ ôp Ðmandates€that€agencies€must€follow€to€meet€their€NEPA€obligations.€When€agencies€fail€to€adhere€to€thatÏframework€and€act€arbitrarily€and€capriciously€in€implementing€their€NEPA€obligations,€the€harm€sufferedÏis€not€merely€a€procedural€harm,€but€is€...€the€added€risk€to€the€environment€that€takes€place€whenÏgovernmental€decision€makers€make€up€their€minds€without€having€before€them€an€analysis...€of€the€likelyÏeffects€of€their€decision€upon€the€environment.ðððð€òòBusey,€óó79€F.3d€at€1271-79€(quoting€Sierra€Club€v.€Marsh,Ð ,¨ Ð872€F.2d€497€(1òòstóó€Cir.€1989)).Ð !€  Ðà Ü àIn€òòUnited€States€Envtl.€Protection€Agency€v.€Envtl.€Waste€Control,€Inc.,€óó917€F.2d€327,€332€(7òòthóó€Cir.Ð Ü"X" Ð1990),€the€Seventh€Circuit€recognized€that€ð ðenvironmental€injury,€by€its€nature,€can€seldom€be€adequatelyÏremedied€by€money€damages€and€is€often€permanent€or€at€least€of€long€duration,€i.e.,€irreparable.€If€suchÏinjury€is€sufficiently€likely,€therefore,€the€balance€of€harms€will€usually€favor€the€issuance€of€an€injunctionÏto€protect€the€environment.ðð€Having€found€the€FSðð€Ð  <*¸&* Ðconduct€unlawful,€as€it€was€arbitrary€and€capricious,€the€Court€believes€that€the€continued€application€of€thisÏunlawful€CE€does€pose€a€potential€danger€both€to€the€environment€and€to€public€health.€The€potential€dangerÏto€the€environment€is€possibly€irreparable€if€further€review€of€the€timber€harvest€CE€results€in€lower€volumeÏlimits€for€future€timber€harvests€and€salvage.€The€Court€will€not€presume€to€guess€how€the€FS€will€reviseÏthe€voided€CE€nor€what€the€revised€CE€will€say.€Similarly,€the€Court€is€not€expressing€an€opinion€regardingÏthe€outcome,€except€to€state€the€obvious€requirement€that€any€subsequent€timber€harvest€CE€must€complyÏwith€statutory€and€regulatory€mandates.€The€harms€claimed€by€the€plaintiffs€are€simply€not€redressable€onceÏthe€timber€harvest€CEððs€authorize€harvesting,€thinning€and€salvage€projects.Ìà Ü àThe€harm€to€the€defendants€in€this€case€involves€agency€time,€effort€and€resources€to€fashion€a€lawfulÏtimber€harvest€CE.€The€Court€believes€that€that€time,€effort€and€resources€is€merely€the€price€to€pay€forÏcorrectly€implementing€the€FSðð€NEPA€obligations.€Additionally,€the€Court€recognizes€that€there€will€beÏcosts,€both€in€time€and€finances,€to€reformulate€or€postpone€timber€harvest€contracts€that€have€been€enteredÏinto€since€September,€1998,€when€the€plaintiffs€first€filed€suit.€It€was€partly€this€consideration€-€that€theÏprivate€parties€involved€as€well€as€the€FS€would€not€have€to€re-draft€or€re-frame€contracts€that€are€alreadyÏseveral€years€old€-that€persuaded€the€Court€to€limit€this€injunctive€relief€to€the€most€recent€time€period,€AllÏparties€have€been€on€notice,€however,€since€September€16,€1998,€that€any€timber€harvest€contracts€issuedÏunder€this€particular€CE€potentially€could€be€declared€void,€The€Court€considers€any€resulting€prejudice€toÏbe€a€natural€and€unavoidable€outcome€and€finds€that€it€does€not€weigh€against€granting€the€injunction.Ìà Ü àDefendants€argue€that€NEPA€does€not€mandate€that€its€procedural€requirements€be€elevated€aboveÏall€other€national€considerations€(See€Def.ððs€Response,€p.€30€(quoting€but€not€citing€Ð  Œ&#& Ðto€òòWisconsin€v.€Weinberger,€óó745€F.2d€412€(7h€Cir.€1984))).€The€Court€finds,€however,€that€the€proceduralÐ „ Ðrequirements€violated€here€are€substantive€mandates€that€prescribe€how€federal€agencies€must€implementÏNEPAððs€basis€purposes.€Therefore,€to€enjoin€further€action€under€a€voided€procedure€does€not€elevateÏNEPAððs€procedural€requirements€above€all€other€national€considerations€but€instead€seeks€to€require€the€FSÏto€correctly€implement€its€NEPA€mandate.Ìà Ü àNEPA€established€a€national€policy€of€protecting€the€environment€as€a€way€of€promoting€humanÏhealth-€42€U.S.C.€ðð4321.€In€any€balancing€of€harms,€the€publicððs€interest€must€be€considered€as€theÏunderlying€purpose€for€these€regulations.€The€Court€believes€that€the€public€interest€is€naturally€harmedÏwhen€agencies€act€arbitrarily€to€implement€NEPA€policy.€In€this€case,€the€harm€to€public€interests€mergesÏwith€both€the€plaintiffsðð€and€the€defendantsðð€positions€somewhat€but€weigh€more€toward€granting€theÏinjunction.€NEPA€protects€the€public€interest,€and€in€fact,€was€promulgated€to€do€just€that.€The€Court€findsÏthat€it€is€not€even€arguable€that€violations€by€federal€agencies€of€NEPAððs€provisions€as€established€byÏCongress€harm€the€public€as€well€as€the€environment.€In€a€case€involving€hundreds€and€possibly€thousandsÏof€acres€of€national€forest€land,€the€potential€harm€may€be€irreparable€to€societyððs€use,€enjoyment€and€healthÏbenefits€of€these€lands.€Of€course,€the€public€also€has€an€interest€in€efficiency€and€proper€administration€ofÏfederal€agencies,€and€the€Court€does€not€take€lightly€that€interest€in€avoiding€unnecessary€paperwork€andÏagency€man-hours.€The€public€also€has€an€economic€interest€in€the€products€and€services€offered€by€andÏthrough€the€timber€harvesting€itself€as€well€as€the€contracts€with€the€FS.€Again,€in€recognition€of€the€burdenÏan€overly€comprehensive€injunction€could€cause,€the€Court€will€seek€to€tailor€any€injunctive€relief€to€theÏnarrowest€time€frame€possible.€The€Court€does€not€find€any€significant€countervailing€public€interest€thatÏsufficiently€weighs€against€an€injunction€in€this€case.€While€the€publicððs€interests€overlap€both€for€andÏagainst€the€injunction,€the€Court€finds€that€it€can€Ô_ÔÐ  <*¸&* Ðbest€protect€and€preserve€the€publicððs€interest€by€issuance€of€the€injunction.€Contracts€can€be€rewritten,Ïagencies€can€find€cost-effective€methods€of€conducting€their€business€and€all€can€continue€to€operate€onceÏthe€FS€issues€an€Ô_ÔunarbitraryÔ_Ô€and€well-supported€timber€harvest€CE.€But€the€Court€believes€that€the€potentialÏirreparable€injury€to€the€public€from€applications€of€an€arbitrarily-issued€CE€is€far€greater.Ìà Ü àFinally,€the€defendants€claim€that€a€nationwide€injunction€is€geographically€overly€broad€in€scope,Ïarguing€that€the€plaintiffs€ð ðhave€not€demonstrated€a€ððpersonal€stakeðð€in€all€circumstances€in€which€CEððs€areÏapplied€or€may€be€applied€in€the€future.ðð€Simply€put,€the€defendants€assert€that€these€plaintiffs€lack€standingÏto€seek€and€receive€a€nationwide€injunction€as€a€consequence€of€their€claims.€Having€already€addressed€theÏstanding€issue€above,€the€Court€will€not€reiterate€it€here,€except€to€state€that€the€Court€finds€that€a€nationwideÏinjunction€against€this€individual€CE€is€not€geographically€overly€broad€in€scope.€Because€the€Court€findsÏthe€timber€harvest€CE€unlawful€under€NEP&€the€Court€may€not€enjoin€its€application€in€just€a€narrow,Ïgeographic€area.€The€FS€intended€the€challenged€CE€to€be€applied€nationwide€on€all€FS€lands,€so€in€findingÏthe€CE€unlawful,€the€Court€sees€no€option€but€to€enjoin€its€application€nationwide.€To€do€otherwise€wouldÏinvite€further€needless€litigation€on€this€particular€CE,€and€the€Court€chooses€to€avoid€that€consequence.€TheÏCourt€does€recognize,€however,€that€the€challenged€CE€was€promulgated€in€1992,€and€that€many€individualÏprojects€may€have€been€approved€already€and€perhaps€are€already€in€operational€stages,€For€that€reason,€theÏCourt€will€limit€its€injunction€to€those€projects€for€which€the€FS€did€not€issue€approval€prior€to€theÏinstigation€of€this€lawsuit€in€September,€1998.Ìà Ü àThe€Court€finds€that€the€plaintiffs€have€met€their€burden.€The€Court€finds€that€in€considering€theÏvarious€harms€to€result€from€an€injunction,€the€balance€of€factors€weighs€in€favor€of€a€nationwide€injunctionÏagainst€the€timber€harvest€CE.€Enjoining€further€action€under€the€Ð  d(à$( Ðvoided€CE€is€the€only€method€by€which€the€Court€can€redress€the€irretrievable€potential€harms€andÏimplement€its€Order.Ìà Ü àAccordingly,€the€Court€ò òDECLARES€NULL€AND€VOIDó ó€FS€project€decisions€approved€relative€toÐ 4° Ðthe€timber€harvest€CE€(FSH€1909.15,€Chapter€30,€ðð31.2(4))€since€September€16,€1998,€and€ò òENJOINSó óÐ   Ðfurther€actions€through€the€application€of€the€timber€harvest€CE.Ìà Ü àIV€à 4 àòòConclusionóóÐ Ì H  Ðà Ü àThe€Court€makes€the€following€rulings€on€the€plaintiffsðð€and€defendantsðð€motions:Ìà Ü à1.à0 4 àCounts€I€and€II€-ò ò€GRANTSó ó€summary€judgment€to€the€defendants€and€ò òDENIESó ó€summaryÐ |ø  Ðjudgment€to€the€plaintiffs€(does.€20€&€21);Ð 4T$4T$ Ðà Ü à2.€à0 4 àCount€III€-€GRANTS€summary€judgment€to€the€plaintiffs€and€DENIES€summary€judgmentÐ 4° Ðto€the€defendants€(does.€20€&€21).Ð 4T$4T$ Ðò òIT€IS€SO€ORDERED.ó óÐ ä` ÐDated:€Sept€28,€1999.ÌÓÓJ.€Phil€GilbertÌChief€JudgeÌÓuÓññÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà Ü àà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àà œ àà ô àà L àà ¤ àññ