WPC! {*3a"SYn-L>wA8ЊgKZ |al)&P7 ~@!ۊ$\)30*"A!^]SG^0̸N:OՉY[=v !`v{~`daD)@wPt4DX`Iwo+3*̤Ȁ{c&HXϡ&fK|ƎVɃN(6՝eE4ԥ?g(eet7/g%-48$v5I-N*A}Ԃ4dIx@bt.~zt́ t|D]Ѐ Y{FH%tr'Bd}79r?)+)^DKRjp&[\OdȂ~W͡3n:{smǾ֜y6|uMU> 0 07< 0Uh6 0( 0r 0 0&C]o  !" 0u%[& 0~k&#!&U-N ( %X(N^(^ `(w@l(4(( m((( 0v) 0J{* 0j+ 0/-U H-U6.U .F.t.924UFS6f68;W=-B3JGL?TUn>U..V\V'[eNhUFoppeuy{}U:}UT>~I>~h.!j.W.UNdU>U>.... 0\\ B D+ 0K>> A2% UNȕU>ܖU6P^UNzU>ȝU>m DDDDDDD*UNۮU>)U6gzWU>nzz&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&3YӼ,,,,,,,Piiiiiiiiiiiiiiiz\  `&Times New Roman<l:Default ParaXXX<:Footnote Ref:8Block Text X X 2( ` hp x 2XXXK<6X9`(Courier NewK   8.` hp x (#8XXXS\  `&Times New RomanS<6X9`(Courier New<e:Body Text In X K<6X9`(Courier NewK  S\  `&Times New RomanS<ll:Footnote TexS\  `&Times New RomanSXXXS\  `&Times New RomanS'    0 .     _b$  XUXXXXAXXXUM$XXA  15    _8x M$8X?X 8xԀPlaintiffscitedothererrorsfoundinthedatasuppliedto  thembyDefendantsthatpotentiallyreduceoldgrowthby35,868acres.DefendantsassertthatthePlaintiffsmisinterpretedsomeoftheinformationbecauseitwasoutofdateandinapplicable.However,becauseresolutionofthisissueisnotnecessarytoresolutionofthiscaseonitsmeritsIdeclinetoaddressit.(q2>$ p thatthe"ClearwaterForestPlancontainstwostandardsforoldgrowthmanagementtoinsurethatthereissufficienthabitattosupportviablepopulationsofallindigenousoldgrowthdependentspecies").̀#XUXXEX?#     _b$  XUXXXXAXXXUM$XXA  18    _XAXM$8X?XXXAԀ_TSMRS_ԀstandsforTimberStandManagementRecordSystem  database.#XAXX8X?##M$XXA#ԅLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5  _b$  XUXXXXAXXXUM$XXA  19    _Ԁ8x M$8X?X 8xDefendantsaccountformarginsoferrorinWATBALmodelsfor  streamsedimentationandknowamodelresultisnotalwaysaccurateandreliable.Defendantsusefieldverificationtoassessthemodel.(ARFishBateVol.11,Doc.26,p.63.)Usingmostsimilarneighborextrapolationsforoldgrowthisnodifferent.However,toinsurespeciesviability,theForestPlanrequiresthata10%minimumbemet.   (2_b$ p$ p30,000acres)ofold  growthstandsfallbetween25and80acres. SurreplyDeadhorse OGAU FEISsuccessionalGreenpeacedecisionmakerpileatedlandbirdCisneros CFRisawlogssawlog T]hemetamorphsEnvt'lKunzman Plfsu]nder"antidegradationIDAPAt]hose I.C. t]heinstreame]xistingNonpointnonpointinclud[ing Lyngsilviculture A]ny BMPsU.S.Ct]heresalmanidundesignatedpool:riffleashcapICAPA i]t nonsignificantBaldridgeGambellPenfoldLujanAss'n L.EdBarcelo MfrsCASWELLINTERMOUNTAINnon-profitLorionHintzPittsAsarcoEnvtlAlvaradoNorthcoast  p10/ACover20feet)anddownedlogs(>20ton/ACandsnagandlongs)(minimum4/AC)thatarelarge(21d.b.h.)and>50feetlong.8.Livetreecomponentofvariousspecieswithwiderangeinsizesandageincludinglonglived_seral_dominates.Morethan10livetrees/ACthatareeitheroldorhavebecomelarge(>21d.b.h.).  B.` hp x (#` ` XB(ARProgrammatic,Vol1,Doc.2,#XAXXEX?#EX?XXXAԀApp.H1#XAXXEX?#.) ) $  XXXXXeXXX+XXe  27    _XeX+8X/XXXeԀInaddition,PlaintiffsaskthisCourttostrikeanumberof  replydeclarationsrelatedtotheFishBateproject.BecausetheCourt'sdecisionisbasedontheAdministrativeRecordanddoesnotrelyonanystatementsinthedeclarationsatissue,Plaintiffs'motionismoot.  pd 4C (I,N-T!?9@~S}SLp}S~S~SO~S_Honorable_Leif_ԀB.Erickson  FederalMagistrateJudgeMissoulaDivisionRussellE.SmithFederalBuilding201EastBroadway,Room370Missoula,MT598023 p x (#X3Q  INTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT  p   Q FORTHEDISTRICTOFMONTANA H   Q"MISSOULADIVISION   p  Q` ` _____________________________________________H.` hp x (#XHTHEWILDERNESSSOCIETY,IDAHO   p      CONSERVATIONLEAGUE,INLANDEMPIREPUBLICLANDSCOUNCIL,ECOLOGYCENTER,FRIENDSOF     p CAUSENO.CV97208M_LBE_ 0  CLEARWATER,IDAHORIVERSUNITED,andCLEARWATER_BIODIVERSITY_PROJECT, `     h    Plaintiffs,  Xvs. `     h    @  X h  DALEBOSWORTH,RegionalForester;   p   ORDER @   $XX$JAMESCASWELL,ForestSupervisor,    ClearwaterNationalForest;andU.S.    ForestService,anagencyofthe   x  -pp x (#X- @U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture, p    P  @ B.` hp x (#ppXB Defendants.   򀀀 ( INTERMOUNTAINFORESTINDUSTRYASSOCIATION,RESOURCEORGANIZATIONONTIMBERSUPPLY,_LTD_.,BENNETTLUMBERPRODUCTS,INC.,andTHREERIVERSTIMBER,INC., ӀIntervenerDefendants. ASSOCIATEDLOGGINGCONTRACTORS,INC.,anonprofitcorporation, ӀIntervenerDefendant. 3 p x (#X3Q$ $ _____________________________________________H.` hp x (#XH X +&. TThisactionseeksjudicialreviewofForestServiceprojectsontheClearwaterNationalForestundertheNationalForest .X)1 O O   O  ManagementAct(_NFMA_),theNationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct(NEPA),acourtapprovedsettlementagreementoutlinedintheStipulationofDismissalofTheWildernessSocietyv.Robertson, ` No.930043S_HLR_Ԁ(D.Idaho1993)(referredtobythepartiesasthe _TWS_ԀSettlement),andtheCleanWaterAct(_CWA_).    .    1      #X?XXEX?#EX?XXX?ԀFurther, p  thePlaintiffsrequestcostsandattorneyfeesundertheEqualAccesstoJusticeActregardingtheseclaims.Thepartieshaveconsentedtothejurisdictionofthemagistratejudgefortheseproceedingspursuantto28U.S.C.636(c).PendingbeforetheCourtareanumberofmotions.#X?XXEX?#Themotionshavebeenfully 0 briefed,deemedsubmitted,andheardatoralargument.TheCourtbeinginformednowentersthefollowingorder:1.Plaintiffs'motionis GRANTED andDefendants'cross @ motionis DENIED forpartialsummaryjudgmentonOldGrowth  Violationsregardingthe10%standard.Plaintiffs'motionis DENIED andDefendants'crossmotionis P  GRANTED forpartialsummaryjudgmentregardingOldGrowth   violationsregardingthe5%standard.8X?XXX? `!" 2.Plaintiffs'MotionforPartialSummaryJudgmentregarding MonitoringViolationsis DENIED . $ & 3.Plaintiffs'SmotionisS SGRANTEDINPARTS SSandDefendants'ScrossSmotionSSfor_partiSis_ԀS SDENIEDIN #@& PARTS SSforpartialsummary  judgmentregardingtheFishBateProjectsS.SSare SSGRANTEDINPARTand ` DENIEDINPART SSasmorefullysetforthherein.SSS SSSS `  4.Plaintiffs'MotionstoStrikeReplyDeclarationsorforLeavetoFileSurreplyonFishBateMotionsis DENIED . p  5.IntervenerAssociatedLoggingContractorsMotionforPartialSummaryJudgmentonthe_TWS_ԀSettlementis GRANTEDIN   FAVOROFPLAINTIFFSANDDEFENDANTS. EX?XX8X?   #X?XXEX?]#8X?XXX?6.Defendants'MotionforSummaryJudgmentonallremaining 0  claimsis DENIED.  0 #X?XX8X?#DONEandDATEDthis20thdayofJuly2000   @ DX?XXX? `  0  0h(#(#____________________________________@h(#h(#  `     h _Leif_ԀB.Erickson `     h UnitedStatesMagistrateJudge #X?XXDX?#  8X?XXX?   P   I.BACKGROUND P  TheClearwaterNationalForestencompassesapproximately1.8   millionacresofmountainousfederallandinnorthcentralIdaho.Thefocusofthisactionisprimarilyontwoforestmanagementprojectdecisionsnamedafterthewatershedsinwhichtheyoccur;theFishBateSalvage(FishBate)#X?XX8X?#EX?XXX?ԀprojectandtheWhitePine p&!( Creek(WhitePine)#X?XXEX?m#EX?XXX?Ԁproject    2      .TheFishBateprojectarealiesto  (p#* thesouthandwestofabendintheNorthForkoftheClearwaterRiverabove_Dworshak_ԀReservoir,andincludesthewatershedsofFishandBatesCreeksamongothers.(AdministrativeRecord(AR)FishBate,Vol.11,Doc.25.)ThisprojectisinalandscapemanagedentirelybytheForestService.TheWhitePineprojectisinalandscapecomposedoffederal,stateandprivatelands.Theprojectareaislocatedwithin_Latah_Ԁand_Benewah_ԀCountiesinIdaho.ProposedactivitieswouldoccurprimarilywithintheWhitePineCreekand_Blakes_ԀForkCreektributariesofMeadowCreek,whichflowsintotheupper_Palouse_ԀRiver.LimitedactivitywouldalsotakeplaceinupperHangmanCreek,whichdrainsintotheSpokaneRiver.(ARWhitePine,Vol.4,Doc.5.)Specificfactsconcerningtheprojectswillbediscussedasrelevanttoeachmotion. X&    X XXEX?)Xy X XX    EX?X X)Xy&!    II.STANDARDOFREVIEW&!G"݌ P Ќ    EX?XXEX?EX?XXEX?   X X  B.` hp x XBX XXEX?)Xy X XX  EX?X X)Xy/#  X X  K1` hp x (#XK XA.ADMINISTRATIVEPROCEDUREACT/#$݌ P Ќ  ! XX!EX?XXEX?EX?XXEX?  PlaintiffsseekreliefundertheAdministrativeProcedure   Act(APA),whichpermitsjudicialreviewoffinalactionsofagenciesoftheUnitedStates.TheAPAimposesanarrowandhighlydeferentialstandardofreview.Pertinenttothisaction,theCourtsreviewislimitedtoadeterminationofwhethertheagencyactedinamannerthatwas"arbitrary,capricious,anabuseofdiscretionorotherwisenotinaccordancewithlaw."5U.S.C.706(2)(A)(1994).Thepartychallengingtheagencyaction +&. hastheburdenofshowingthereisnot arationalconnectionbetweenthefactsfoundandthechoicemadeorthattherewasaclearerrorinjudgmentbasedontherelevantfactors.#X?XXEX?#ԀMotor ` VehicleMfrs.Assnv.StateFarmMut.Auto.Ins.Co.,463U.S.   29,43(1983);CitizenstoPreserve_Overton_ԀParkv._Volpe_,401 p  U.S.402,416(1971).EX?XXX?Anagency'sdecisionisarbitraryand  p  capriciousiftheagency,interalia,has entirelyfailedto   consideranimportantaspectoftheproblem,[or]offeredanexplanationforitsdecisionthatrunscountertotheevidencebeforetheagency....MotorVehicleMfrs.,463U.S.at43. 0 "Althoughthisinquiryintothefactsistobesearchingandcareful,theultimatestandardofreviewisanarrowone.Thecourtisnotempoweredtosubstituteitsjudgmentforthatoftheagency."_Volpe_,401U.S.at416.Inmakingadetermination  underthearbitraryandcapriciousstandardoftheAPA,acourtisto reviewthewholerecordorthosepartsofitcitedbyaparty.5U.S.C.706(1994).Thus,thescopeofsuchareviewisnecessarilylimitedtotheadministrativerecordbeforethedecisionmakerandplacedbeforethereviewingcourt.Florida #`$ Power&LightCo.v.Lorion,470U.S.729,743(1985);Seealso $ & FriendsoftheEarthv.Hintz,800F.2d822,8289(9thCir. p&!( 1986).Inapplyingthisstandard, thefocalpointforjudicial reviewshouldbetheadministrativerecordalreadyinexistence, ) %, notsomenewrecordmadeinitiallyinthereviewingcourt.Camp  v.Pitts,411U.S.138,142(1973). `  Moreover,thefocusofjudicialreviewundertheAPAmustbeupontherecordbeforetheagencyatthetimeitmadeitsdecision,andnotuponsubsequenteventsorrationalesafterthefact._Volpe_,401U.S.at41921;Asarco,Inc.v.UnitedStates  p  Envtl.ProtectionAgency,616F.2d1153,115960(9thCir.1980);   AlvaradoCommunityHosp.v._Shalala_,155F.3d1115,1124(9th   Cir.1998).TheNinthCircuitallowsconsiderationofextrarecordmaterialsinfourcircumstances: X  6"` ` hp xX6(1)ifnecessarytodeterminewhethertheagencyhasconsideredallrelevantfactorsandhasexplaineditsdecision,(2)whentheagencyhasreliedondocumentsnotintherecord,or(3)whensupplementingtherecordisnecessarytoexplaintechnicaltermsorcomplexsubjectmatter,and(4)whentheplaintiffsmakeashowingofagencybadfaith.2%  ' (#` ` X'X XXEX?)Xy X XX  EX?X X)Xy%&4     K.` hp x (# (#KNorthcoastEnvtl.Ctr.v._Glickman_,136F.3d660,665(9thCir. P 1998)(internalquotesomitted).Suchsupplementationoftherecordshouldbealimitedexceptionandthesupplementalinformationviewedforitsnarrowpurpose.Asarco,616F2d.at #`$ 115960(9thCir.1980)( Whenareviewingcourtconsiders $ & evidencethatwasnotbeforetheagency,itinevitablyleadsthereviewingcourttosubstituteitsjudgmentforthatofthe agency.).-  Ԁ%&44݌ ) %, Ќ   ` ` XXEX?XXEX?  ݀Andfinally,"[_w]hen_Ԁspecialistsexpressconflictingviews,   anagency[has]thediscretiontorelyonthereasonableopinionsofitsownqualifiedexpertsevenif,asanoriginalmatter,acourtmightfindcontraryviewsmorepersuasive."Greenpeace   Actionv.Franklin,982F.2d.1342,1350(9thCir.1992)(citing p  Marshv.OregonNaturalResourcesCouncil,490U.S.360,378  p  (1989).#X?XXEX?)#EX?XXX?    X X  B.` hp x ` ` XBX XXEX?)Xy X XX  EX?X X)Xy:  X X  K1` hp x (#XK   B.SUMMARYJUDGMENT:u;݌   Ќ    ! ` ` XX!EX?XXEX?EX?XXEX?  B.` hp x (#` ` XB X Dispositiononthemeritsbywayofsummaryjudgmentis 0  appropriatewherenogenuineissuesofmaterialfactexist,andapartyisentitledtojudgmentasamatteroflaw.Fed.R.Civ.P.56(c).Todefeatamotionforsummaryjudgment,thenonmovingpartymustsetforthspecificfactsthatshowthereisagenuineissuefortrial.Fed.R.Civ.P.56(e);_Celotex_ԀCorp.v.  _Catrett_,477U.S.317,324(1986).TheSupremeCourthasmade P clearthatsummaryjudgmentistheprincipaltoolforeliminatingfactuallyandlegallyinsufficientclaims.Itis"anintegralpartoftheFederalRulesasawhole,whicharedesigned'tosecurethejust,speedyandinexpensivedeterminationofeveryaction.'"_Celotex_,477U.S.at327. $ & SummaryjudgmentisaparticularlyappropriatemeansofresolvingclaimsagainstforestmanagementdecisionsbytheU.S.ForestService.ResourcesLtd.v.Robertson,789F.Supp.1529, ) %, 1534(D.Mont.1991),affirmedinpartandreversedinpart,35 +&. 4    F.3d1300(9thCir.1994).Further,#X?XXEX?_:#EX?XXX?summaryjudgmentis  appropriateincasesraisingtheissueofwhetheranagencysNEPAdocumentationsufficientlyexplainstheenvironmentalconsequencesoftheagencysproposedaction.ResourcesLtd.,   789F.Supp.at1534.TherearenomaterialfactsessentialtotheCourtsresolutionofthisactionbecausethebasisfortheCourtsreviewistheagencysadministrativerecord,andtheCourtneednot,indeed,maynot, findunderlyingfacts.Rather,theissuespresentedhereareissuesoflawand,assuch,areappropriateforresolutionbysummaryjudgment._Celotex_,477 0 U.S.at322(1986);Lujanv._Nat'l_ԀWildlife_Fed'n_,497U.S.871,  883884(1990). X X X  B.` hp x XBX XXEX?)Xy X XX  EX?X X)Xy+F  X X  K1` hp x (#XK III.CROSSMOTIONSFORPARTIALSUMMARYJUDGMENTREGARDINGOLD @ GROWTHVIOLATIONS+F G݌̌  ! XX!EX?XXEX?EX?XXEX?  E1X` hp x (#XE   A.THENATIONALFORESTMANAGEMENTACT  P B.` hp x (#XXB X ` TheNationalForestManagementAct(_NFMA_)istheprincipalstatutegoverningadministrationoftheNationalForests.Itimposesnumeroussubstantivemanagementrequirements,aswellatwostepplanningprocesstodevelopforestspecificmanagementprovisions.See16U.S.C.1600et $ & seq.;OhioForestryAss'n,Inc.v.SierraClub,523U.S.726,728 p&!( (1998);IdahoSportingCongressv.Thomas,137F.3d1146,1153  (p#* (9thCir.1998);InlandEmpirePublicLandsCouncilv._USFS_,88 ) %, F.3d754,757(9thCir.1996)(alldiscussing_NFMA_Ԁanditsforest +&. planningrequirements).ForeachoftheunitsoftheNationalForestSystem,the_NFMA_ԀrequirestheSecretaryofAgricultureto develop,maintain,and,asappropriate,reviselandandresourcemanagementplans....16U.S.C.1604(a)(1994).TheClearwaterLandandResourceManagementPlan(ForestPlan)wasadoptedwiththesigningoftheForestPlanRecordofDecision(ROD)inSeptember1987.(ARProgrammatic,Vol.1,Doc.1&2.)TheForestPlanincludesforestwidestandardsapplicabletothefederallandadministeredbytheClearwaterNationalForest.(Id. 0  atDoc.2,p.2040.)  0  _NFMA_Ԁrequiresthatalltimbercontractsandotherresource  management plansandpermits,contracts,andotherinstrumentsfortheuseandoccupancyofNationalForestSystemlandsshallbeconsistentwiththelandmanagementplans.16U.S.C.1604(i)(1994).  P   0    3      ׀Therefore,sitespecificprojectsmust"be P consistentwiththelandresourcemanagementplanoftheentireforest."NeighborsofCuddyMountainv._USFS_,137F.3d1372,1377   (9thCir.1998);SeealsoFriendsofSoutheast'sFuturev. `!" Morrison,153F.3d1059,1070(9thCir.1998);SierraClubv. #`$ Martin,168F.3d1,4(11thCir.1999)(holdingtimbersales $ & unlawfulforlackofconsistencywithForestPlans).  p&!(  X   Amongitssubstantiverequirements,_NFMA_Ԁprovidesthatthe  ForestServicemust"providefordiversityofplantandanimalcommunities."16U.S.C.1604(g)(3)(B)(1994).Toensuresuchdiversity,theForestServicehasadoptedregulationswhichrequirethat: XE1X` hp x (#XE   Fishandwildlifehabitatshallbemanagedtomaintainviablepopulationsofexistingnativeanddesirednonnativespeciesintheplanningarea.Forplanningpurposes,aviablepopulationshallberegardedasonewhichhastheestimatednumbersanddistributionofreproductiveindividualstoinsureitscontinuedexistenceiswelldistributedintheplanningarea.Inordertoinsurethatviablepopulationswillbemaintained,habitatmustbeprovidedtosupport,atleast,aminimumnumberofreproductiveindividualsandthathabitatmustbewelldistributedsothatthoseindividualscaninteractwithothersintheplanningarea.3U  XE1X` hp x (#XXE36_C.F.R._Ԁ219.19(1999).  X   _1    4      _Ԁ h    B.THECLEARWATERNATIONALFORESTPLANSTANDARDS     ChapterTwooftheClearwaterForestPlanadoptedstandardstoguidefutureprojectdevelopmentandimplementationincompliancewith_NFMA_'srequirements.TheForestPlanemphasizedthatthesestandards"shouldbeconsideredasminimumrequirementsthatmustbemet."(ARProgrammatic,Vol.1,Doc.2,p.20.)Thestandardsaredividedbysubject."WildlifeandFish"isoneofthesubjects.Twoofthetwelvestandardsfor % ' wildlifeandfisharestandardsforoldgrowthhabitatwhichreadasfollows: `  XE1X` hp x (#XXE   (d)Provideforoldgrowthdependentwildlifespeciesby: 8  X XB.` X` hp x XXB P   ` (1)Maintainingatleast10percentoftheForest(including_Selway_ԄBitterrootWilderness)inoldgrowthhabitat. H      ` (2)Selectingatleast5percentofeachapproximate10,000acrewatershed(timbercompartment)orcombinationofsmallerwatersheds(_subcompartments_)withinforested_nonwilderness_areastomanageasoldgrowthhabitat._\e P  XE1X` hp x (#` XXEӀ(ARProgrammatic,Vol.1,Doc.2,p.23.)    5      ׀ 0    TheForestPlandefines"oldgrowth"forpurposesofmeetingthesehabitatstandardsas"astandthatispastfullmaturityandshowingdecay;thelaterstagesofForestsuccession."(ARProgrammatic,Vol.1,Doc.2,App.H1.)TheForestPlanalsocontainsguidelinesfortheidentificationofoldgrowthhabitatthatmeetsthisdefinition,underwhich standsmustmeetmostof[eight]requirementstobeconsideredoldgrowth.  b   _4B    6      _ԀHowever, P standsneednotmeetalltherequirementstobeconsideredoldgrowth.Theguidelinesalsocontaintencriteriaforthemanagementofoldgrowthhabitat.  ~c   6     7      ׀TheClearwaterNationalForest ` hasrecentlyfollowedarefinementoftheForestPlandefinitionofoldgrowthhabitat,knownasthe"NorthIdahoOldGrowth"definition.(ARProgrammatic,Vol.VII,Doc.53.)S7SSPS    8       `   C.THEPARTIES'POSITIONS      Plaintiffs'OldGrowthmotionallegesthattheForest p  Serviceisviolatingthe_NFMA_Ԁ"consistency"requirement,becausetheClearwaterNationalForestisallegedlyfailingtoadheretoForestPlanstandardsforoldgrowthhabitat.Specifically,PlaintiffsallegetheoldgrowthstatusreportswhichareusedtoverifytheForestismeetingthe10%standardfailtoaccountforerrorsfoundduringfieldverificationandotherclassificationerrors.Plaintiffsassertthatrelianceonthesereportsisarbitraryand_capricous_ԀundertheAPAbecauseprojectsapprovedbasedontheresultsofthesestatusreportsarethereforenotconsistentwiththe10%standardintheForestPlan.  DefendantscontendthatPlaintiffsmaynotbring"generalized"challengestotheForestService'sallegedfailuretomeetForestPlanrequirements.DefendantsfurthercontendthattheyareentitledtorelyontheopinionsoftheirexpertsandthatthestatusreportsserveasareasonablebasisuponwhichtodeterminethattheClearwaterForestismeetingthe10%standard. p&!( >d >  TRX3' LetterX3' Letter3' Letter3'TH >  Finally,Defendantsassertthatthestatusreportsshowthe  ClearwaterNationalForestismeetingthe10%standardforoldgrowth.   D.ANALYSIS       1.FINALAGENCYACTION p    TheU.S.SupremeCourtandtheU.S.CourtsofAppealhave  p  madeclearinseveralrecentdecisionsthatchallengestotheForestService'sallegedfailuretomeetforestwidestandardsorrequirementsmaybebroughtwithinthecontextofsitespecificclaims."Anysuch...challengemightalsoincludeachallengetothe_lawfullness_ԀofthepresentPlan(butonlyif)thepresentPlanthenmatters,i.e.,ifthePlanplaysacausalrolewithrespecttothefuture,thenimminent,harm...."OhioForestry @ Ass'n,Inc.v.SierraClub,523U.S.726,73437(1998);  WildernessSocietyv.Thomas,188F.3d1130(9thCir.1999); P SierraClubv.Peterson,185F.3d349(5thCir.1999).In P WildernessSociety,forexample,theNinthCircuitfollowedOhio   Forestryinrejecting,as_nonjusticiable_,ageneralizedclaim `!" thatthePrescottForestPlanwasadoptedinviolationof_NFMA_requirementsconcerninggrazingsuitability;yettheNinthCircuitneverthelessaddressedthesameclaimsbroughtaspartoftheplaintiffs'challengestospecificallotmentgrazingdecisions.See188F.3dat113335. ) %,   Similarly,inEcologyCenterv._USFS_,192F.3d922(9thCir. +&. 1999),theNinthCircuitaffirmedadecisionofthisCourtwhich 0-(0 C ( Ch C  heldthatforestplan"failuretomonitor"claimswerenotjusticiable,whenbroughtonaforestwidebasiswithoutchallenginganyspecificfinalagencyaction.Bycontrast,theNinthCircuitandothercourtshaveresolvedsimilar"failuretomonitor"claimswhenbroughtwithinthecontextofchallengestospecifictimbersaledecisions.SeeInlandEmpirePublicLands  p  Councilv._USFS_,88F.3d754(9thCir.1996);SierraClubv.   Martin,168F.3d1(11thCir.1999);SierraClubv.Peterson,185   F.3d349(5thCir.1999).  Inaccordwiththeforegoing,totheextentPlaintiffs'motionisdirectedgenerallyattheClearwaterNationalForest,itsmotionisdenied.TotheextentPlaintiffs'motionis @ directedatparticularfinalagencyaction,theCourtmayproperlyconsiderforestwidestandardswithinthecontextofPlaintiffs'challengestothoseactions.Here,DefendantsdonotdisputethattheFishBateandWhitePinesalesareproperlybeforetheCourtonthismotion.Therefore,inallegingthattheForestServiceviolatedtheForestPlan'sforestwidestandardsforoldgrowthhabitatwhentheFishBateandWhitePineprojectswereapproved,#X?XXEX?B#8X?XXX?ԀPlaintiffshaveproperlyidentifiedsitespecific $ & finalagencyactionwhichpermitsconsiderationoftheforestwidestandards.#X?XX8X?y#EX?XXX?ԀAccordingly,astotheseprojects,Plaintiffs'  (p#* claimsareripeandjusticiablebytheCourt.    9      #X?XXEX?y#EX?XXX?Ԁ ) %, #?N #H #      2.THE10%STANDARDANDTHEFISHBATEPROJECT     TheFishBateFinalEnvironmentalImpactStatement(FEIS)reliedontheAugust1995OldGrowthReportissuedbytheClearwaterNationalForesttodeterminethattheproposedoldgrowthloggingwouldbeconsistentwiththeClearwaterForestPlan's10%oldgrowthhabitatstandard.(FishBateFEIS,ARFishBate,Vol.11,Doc.25,p.97.)TheFEISstated: X X mB.X` hp x XXB   AcomprehensiveanddetailedassessmentofthecurrentamountanddistributionofoldgrowthhabitatontheClearwaterNationalForestwasconductedinwinter1992andupdatedinAugust1995.ThisanalysiswasperformedtodetermineiftheForestPlanstandardsforoldgrowthmanagementwerebeingmet.The1995updatedoldgrowthstatusreportshowsthatasufficientamountofoldgrowthhabitathasbeenidentifiedforestwidetomeettheForestPlanstandardof10percent.} m  X XE1X` hp x (#XXEId._<Z    10      _ 0 $Oa $ $    Boththe1992OldGrowthStatusReportandtheAugust1995updatedreporthavebeensubmittedwiththeAdministrativeRecordfiledbyDefendants.(ARProgrammatic,Vol.7,Docs.52&46.)Thosereportscontaindistrictbydistrictassessmentsoftheacreageofoldgrowthhabitatbelievedtobepresentoneachdistrict._M    11      _ԀTheoldgrowthacreagereportedforeachdistrictis  p  brokendownintothreecategoriesinthe1995report:"fieldverified"oldgrowth,"tentativelyidentified"oldgrowth,andNEPADesignatedoldgrowth.  TheAugust1995OldGrowthReportlists183,104totalacresofoldgrowthhabitat(includingthe_Selway_ԄBitterrootWilderness),comprising10.3%oftheClearwaterNationalForest.Ofthistotal,7,503acresare"fieldverified"(4.1%),162,159acresare"tentativelyidentified",(88.6%)and13,422are"NEPADesignatedOldGrowth"(7.3%).(ARProgrammatic,Vol.7,Doc.46,p.6.)  PlaintiffschallengeForestServicerelianceontheAugust1995OldGrowthReportinapprovingtheFishBatesale,arguing `!" thattheForestServiceshouldhavereducedtheestimatedoldgrowthfiguresinthereporttoaccountfortheresultsoffieldinspectionsof"tentativelyidentified"oldgrowthstands.PlaintiffspointtofieldverificationresultsreportedbyClearwaterNationalForestbiologistspriortotheAugust1995report,whichfoundthat"tentativelyidentified"oldgrowthestimatesoverstatedactualoldgrowthhabitatbysignificantamounts.Asstatedinoneanalysis: X X mB.X` hp x XXB   Onaverage,about50%ofwhatistentativelyidentifiedasoldgrowthforestisdeterminedtobeoldgrowthfollowingfieldverification.Itisclearthatnotallofthetentativelyidentifiedoldgrowthintheanalysisareawouldbeconsideredoldgrowthifitwerefieldchecked.Basedonthebestinformationavailabletodate,itisreasonabletoestimatethat50%ofwhathasbeententativelyidentifiedasoldgrowthmaynotmeetthecriteriainAppendixHoftheForestPlanandsupplementedwiththemorerefineddefinitionsfoundinOldGrowthForestTypesoftheNorthernRegion(Greenetal.1992). m  X XE1X` hp x (#XXEDecisionNotice,#X?XXEX?z#8X?XXX?CrookedFork#X?XX8X?Ӌ#EnvironmentalAnalysis,p.65 h  (1993)._e    12      _ԀPlaintiffsallegethatClearwaterNationalForeststaff  generallyrecognizedthatan"oldgrowth_falldown_"factorshouldbeappliedto"tentativelyidentified"oldgrowthstands.  199  _:    13      _Ԁ `    ThePlaintiffsalsoallegethatthepracticeofaccountingfordifferencesbetweenfieldverifiedandtentativelyidentifiedoldgrowthwasgenerallyknownbyotheragencies: X X mB.X` hp x XXB   WeareconcernedastowhetherornottheforestisadequatelymaintainingForestPlanStandardsforoldgrowthof10%forestwideandthatoldgrowthhabitattypesarebecomingincreasinglyfragmentedwithintheClearwater_Refugium_ԀEcosystem.Wedonotagreewithyourassumptionthatthe10%standardisbeingmaintained....Fieldsurveysperformedbyyouragencyhaveshownanaverageofonly50%ofthetentativelyidentifiedoldgrowthactuallymeetingoldgrowthcriteria.Ϗ m  X XE1X` hp x (#XXELetterfromHerbertA.Pollard,RegionalSupervisor,IdahoFish&GameDept.toArthurS.Bourassa,DistrictRanger,ClearwaterNationalForestregardingtheFishBateproject(June12,1995)(ARFishBate,Vol.6,Doc.15,p.5960.)  PlaintiffscontendthatForestServicefailuretoconsiderthesefieldverificationresultsortoapplyan"oldgrowth_falldown_"factortothetentativelyidentifiedoldgrowthestimatesintheAugust1995OldGrowthStatusReportisarbitraryandcapricious.PlaintiffsarguethattheAugust1995reportthusinflatestheactualoldgrowthacreagereportedontheClearwater.Plaintiffsassertthatifthe"tentativelyidentified"oldgrowthestimateswerereducedtoaccountforthispractice,thetotaloldgrowthhabitatintheAugust1995reportwouldfallsignificantlybelowthe10%forestwidestandard.Accordingly,PlaintiffsconcludetheFishBateFEISisarbitrary *%, andcapriciousinrelyingontheAugust1995reporttodeterminethatloggingoffurtheroldgrowthhabitatwillnotviolatetheForestPlan10%standard.  Plaintiffsarguethattheoldgrowthacreageinthestatusreportsshouldbereducedforotherreasonsaswell.Plaintiffsassertthat5903acresareinstandslessthan25acresinsizeandarecountedtowardsoldgrowthinviolationoftheForestPlanmanagementguidelinewhichdesignatesa25acreminimumsizeand80acrepreferredsizeforoldgrowthstands.2    14      ׀Theyassert 0  thatisolatedoldgrowthstandsorstandslacedwithroadsshouldnotbecountedbecausetheedgeeffectscreateunsuitablehabitatforoldgrowthdependantspecies.Plaintiffsalsonotethattheoldgrowthincludes3670acresofstandsthathaveexperiencedcompletepastharvestand6170acresthathaveexperiencedpartialpastharvest.Plaintiffsassertthatpastharvestactivitiesshoulddisqualifyastandfromconsiderationasold growth.     15      ׀     TheDefendantscontendthattheyareentitledtorelyonthe opinionsoftheiragencyexperts,thatthe1995OldGrowthStatusReportwascompiledusingtheirbestinformation,thattentativelyidentifiedacrescanresultinanincreaseofoldgrowthwhenfieldverified(ashappenedwhentheFishBateprojectwasfieldverified),_H    16      _Ԁandthatthereismorethan10%old  p  growthontheClearwaterNationalForest.Defendantsalsoarguethatthe25acreminimumstandsizeisdiscretionarybecauseitisaguidelineratherthanastandardandthatthedecisiontoincludestandsthathaveexperiencedpastharvestasoldgrowthisalsodiscretionary.Defendants'briefingsontheOldGrowthmotionsassertthatasubsequentoldgrowthstatusreport,issuedbytheClearwaterNationalForestinOctober1998,(ARProgrammatic,Vol.7,Doc.54),revealsthattheForestServiceisnotviolatingthe10%oldgrowthhabitatstandardbecauseitnowestimatesthatatleast11%oftheClearwaterNationalForestisoldgrowthhabitat.     3.CONCLUSIONREGARDINGTHE10%STANDARD  `!" Ѐ  Tentativeisdefinedas"ofthenatureofanexperimentor   hypothesis...provisional"oras"uncertain."Webster's3rdNew_Int'l_ԀDictionary2357(1986).Asnotedabove,anagencyactsinanarbitraryandcapriciousmannerwhenitfailstoconsiderarelevantfactorormakesa"clearerrorinjudgment."Idaho p  SportingCongress,137F.3dat1149(quotingMarsh,490U.S.at  p  378).Anactionis_arbitary_Ԁorcapriciouswhenanagencyhas"entirelyfailedtoconsideranimportantaspectoftheproblem,[or]offeredanexplanationforitsdecisionthatrunscountertotheevidencebeforetheagency...."MotorVehicleMfrs.,463 0 U.S.at43.Finally,thefocusofjudicialreviewundertheAPAmustbeupontherecordbeforetheagencyatthetimeitmadeitsdecision,andnotuponsubsequenteventsorrationalesafterthefact.    Afterconsideringtheargumentsabove,theCourtconcludestheoldgrowthstatusreportsdonotprovidesufficientfoundationforthe"tentativelyidentified"acresbecauseofthevariationfoundwhenstandsarefieldverified.Usingthetentativelyidentifiedacresasahardnumbertomeetthe10%standardrunscountertotheevidencebeforetheagencyfromthepreviouslycitedreportsofForestServicestaffsettingforthboththeupwardanddownwarddeparturewhichoccurswhententativelyidentifiedacresaresubjecttofieldverification.Infact,theevidencethatactualacreagevariesfromtentatively +&. identifiedacreageisundisputedbythepartiesandbothpartiescitevariationsfindinglessormorefieldverifiedoldgrowth.Defendantsthemselvesarguethattheoldgrowthdatabase"isnotastaticdocument"butis"dynamic."However,thisCourtcannotassumethesevariationsupanddowncitedbythepartiesbalanceouteachother.Rather,thisCourt'sonlyroleistoreviewwhethertheagencyproperlyconsideredarelevantfactor.The10%standardintheForestPlanisaminimum,notanaverage.Therefore,theDefendants'oldgrowthstatusreportsmustaccountforthevariationintentativelyidentifiedacresindeterminingwhetherthe10%minimumstandardismet._    17      _Ԁ    Defendantsarguethatthe1998OldGrowthStatusReportaccountsforthevariationintentativelyidentifiedacresandshowsthattheClearwaterForestismeetingis10%standard.8X?XXX?However,theCourtmustconsidertheevidencebeforetheagency P atthetimeitmadeitsdecisionandsubsequenteventsorrationalesafterthefactshouldnotbeconsidered.First,the1998report,completedafterthissuitwasfiled,addsanewcategoryofestimatedoldgrowthacreageentitled"_TSMRS_ #`$ Stands,"_    18      _Ԁwhicharenotallocatedtoanydistrict.Thereisno  clearexplanationwhythese26,022acres,derivedfromanexistingdatabase,werenotpreviouslyincludedinthetentativelyidentifiedacres.ThisCourtcannotconsiderafterthefactrationalizationsinreviewingagencyaction.#X?XX8X?#8X?XXX?Ԁ_Volpe_,401 p  U.S.at1921.Moreimportantly,whileincreasingtheamountofpotentialoldgrowth,thenew_catagory_Ԁagaindoesnotaddressthelikelyvariationfoundiffieldverified.  Defendantsalsopointtothefactthatotherpossibleoldgrowthstandsarementionedinthe1998reportbutarenotincludedinthetentativelyidentifiedstandsbecausetheyrequirefurtherevaluation.Defendantsarguethatthiscategoryof90,118acresaccountsforvariationinthetentativelyidentifiedacresbecausethestandsmeetinitialscreeningcriteria.However,again,Defendantsdonotdisputethatthe10%standardisaminimum.AskingthisCourttoaccepttheuseofadditionalnewlyidentifiedstandsthatDefendantsdonotyetthemselvesconsideroldgrowthtoaccountforthevariationbetweenfieldverifiedandtentativelyidentifiedoldgrowthisaposthocrationalizationthatthisCourtisnotallowedtoconsiderundertheAPAstandardofreview.Also,Defendantsfail p&!( toaddressthepossiblevariationinthisclassofstandsaswell,indeterminingwhetherornotthe10%minimumismet.#X?XX8X? #Ԁ "  ` Usingdatabasestoderivethetentativelyidentifiedacresforthestatusreportsisnothingmorethancreatingamodel,whichisatypeoftoolDefendantsroutinelyuseintheirwork.    19      ׀Here, p  fieldverificationdemonstratestheunreliabilityofthemodel.Becausethe10%standardisaminimum,theForestServicemustaccountforthevariation,themarginoferror,intentativelyidentifiedstands.Giventheprevailingevidencethatfieldtestsmoreoftenthannotresultinadiscountingoftentativelyidentifiedacres,PlaintiffshavemettheirburdenofshowingarelevantfactorwhichDefendantsfailedtoadequatelyconsiderindecidingthatthe10%standardismetforestwide.  RegardingtheotherargumentsputforthbyPlaintiffsconcerningtheamountofoldgrowthinthestatusreports,8X?XXX?Ԁthe25 P acreminimumsizerequirementintheForestPlanisaguidelineandisthereforediscretionaryratherthanmandatory.Millerv.   UnitedStates,163F.3d591,594n.1(9thCir.1998).The `!" decisiontoincludeacresthathaveexperiencedpastharvestis #`$ alsodiscretionarybecausethisissueisnotaddressedanywhereintheForestPlan.Defendantsasserttheyonlyincludestandsunder25acresthatadjoinotherstandsandare,therefore,notisolatedandthatstandsthathaveexperiencedpastharvestareincludedonlyifthestandstillmeetsoldgrowthcriteria.#X?XX8X?#  p  Therefore,8X?XXX?Defendantshavenotabusedtheirdiscretiononthese  p  issues.#X?XX8X?#However,Defendantsconcedethatthe1998OldGrowth   Reportwronglyincludedatleast5,481acresofnonoldgrowthstandsduetovariouserrors.Assumingtheseapparentlylongstandingerrorsexistedin1995,the10.3%ofoldgrowthfoundinthe1995reportwouldbereducedbelowtherequired10%minimum.  @   Accordingly,theCourtfindsthattheForestServicerelianceontheAugust1995OldGrowthReportfindingof10.3%totaloldgrowthtodeterminethattheFishBateprojectwouldnotviolatetheClearwaterForestPlan's10%oldgrowthhabitatstandardwasarbitraryandcapricious,andmustbesetaside.Therefore,theFishBateFEISandRecordofDecisionarereversedandremanded.   E.THE5%STANDARD  $ &   Plaintiffs'OldGrowthmotionfurtherchallengestheallegedfailureoftheForestServicetomeettheseparateForestPlanstandardrequiringthat5%ofeachapproximately10,000acrecompartmentbemanagedasoldgrowthhabitat.Unlikethe10% +&. standard,thisstandarddoesnotrequireaninventoryguaranteeof5%existingoldgrowthineveryOldGrowthAnalysisUnit(OGAU)_A    20      _EX?XXX?.Rather,thestandardrequiresonlythattheClearwater ` NationalForestselect5%tomanageasoldgrowthhabitat.The   purposeofthisstandardistoensurethatoldgrowthwillbedistributedacrosstheClearwaterNationalForest.(ARProgrammatic,Vol.1,Doc.2,App.H2.)  Therearenocriteriafortheselectionofreplacementoldgrowth,however,asstatedintheAdministrativeRecord,eC_8  [_I]ntuitively_,standsthatwouldbedesignatedasreplacementwouldbeonesthatare:1)theclosesttomeetingoldgrowthdefinitions,2)havenotbeennorwillbesignificantlyalteredbymanagementactivitiesunlesssufficientrationaleandjustificationaredocumentedtosupportthedesignation,and3)withinthescopeandboundsofNEPAanalysis. @   (ARProgrammaticVol.7,Doc.46,p.3.)#X?XXEX?#8X?XXX?Therefore,underthis  standard,areaschosenformanagementasoldgrowthhabitattomeetthe5%standardmayincludeareascurrentlynotoldgrowthbutwhichhavebeensetasideandwillnotbeharvestedinordertobemanagedasoldgrowth.Defendantscalltheseareas"replacementoldgrowth."#X?XX8X?#EX?XXX? #`$   TheClearwaterNationalForesthasestablished152OGAUwhicharebeingmanagedsothat5%ofeachareaismanagedasoldgrowthhabitat.(ARProgrammatic,Vol.4,Doc.12.) TheForest ` hasidentified63ofthe152OGAUthat,asofMarch1992,containedlessthan5%oldgrowthhabitat.B    21      ׀Consequently,the p  5%standardanditspurposeofensuringthatoldgrowthisdistributedacrosstheClearwaterisnotbeingmetforestwide.#X?XXEX?[#However,EX?XXX?thestandarddoesensurethataminimumof5%ofeach   OGAUwillbesetasideforoldgrowthmanagement#X?XXEX?#duringproject 0  planningandnotharvested.  Theonlyquestiontheniswhetherthe8X?XXX?WhitePineandFish  Bate#X?XX8X?%#projectswereapprovedinviolationofthisstandard.The @ Courtconcludestheywerenot.   ` 1.WHITEPINE     PlaintiffschallengetoForestServicecompliancewiththe5%standardintheWhitePineprojectfocusesonthemeritsofthestandsselectedformanagementasreplacementoldgrowth.Inthisproject,theForestServicedesignatedtwoOGAU.AccordingtotheWhitePineFEIS,OGAUNo.22hasonly0.7%oldgrowthhabitat,andOGAUNo.24has4.5%oldgrowthhabitat.(ARWhitePine,Vol.4,p.III37.)The_EIS_Ԁthusconcedesthat"neither p&!( oldgrowthcompartmenthassufficientoldgrowthtomeettheminimumfivepercentrequirement."Id.Toaddressthis ` deficiencyinoldgrowthhabitat,theWhitePineprojectRecordofDecisiondesignatesapproximately1,080acresofmature/latesuccessionalforestasreplacementoldgrowthinCompartment2-2resultingin14.4%ofthecompartmentbeingmanagedforoldgrowthhabitat.Likewise,theprojectdesignatesapproximately1,115acresinCompartment2-4asreplacementoldgrowthresultinginapproximately8.8%ofthecompartmentbeingmanagedforoldgrowth.(Id.,RODp.2728.)ThisdesignationexceedstheForestPlanstandardforreplacementoldgrowth.  PlaintiffschallengeForestServicerelianceonreplacementoldgrowthintheWhitePineprojectasbeingcontrarytotheForestPlan.TheForestPlanguidelinesstatethat:8  7.Forthose10,000acreunitswithoutanyoldgrowth P becauseofpastfiresortimberharvesting,selectreplacementstands.    (ARProgrammatic,Vol.1Doc.2,App.H2.)(emphasisadded).PlaintiffsassertthattheForestServicedoesnothavediscretionunderthisguidelinetoselectreplacementoldgrowthunlessnooldgrowthexistsinagivenOGAU.However,thiscriteriaisaguideline,ratherthanastandardintheForestPlan.Guidelines,unlikestandards,arediscretionaryratherthanmandatory.Millerv.UnitedStates,163F.3d591,594n.1 ) %, (9thCir.1998).Therefore,theForestServicehasdiscretionto +&. _interpretthisguidelineinanappropriatemannerwhichincludesdesignatingreplacementoldgrowthinthoseOGAUthathavesome,butless_Ԁthan_5%,_________Ԁoldgrowth.Accordingly,thedesignationofreplacementoldgrowthhereisnotarbitraryandcapricious.  PlaintiffsfurtherassertthattheareasdesignatedasreplacementoldgrowthareinferiortootherpossibleareaswhichwillbeharvestedintheWhitePineproject.Plaintiffsarguethatthereplacementstandscontainyoungerstandsthantheareastobeharvestedandthatthereplacementstandswilladjoinharvestedareas.Plaintiffsalsobelievetheareastobeharvestedprovidesuperiorgoshawknestingterritorytotheareasselected.Basedonthesearguments,Plaintiffsbelievethatthereplacementstandswillnotmeettheneedsofoldgrowthdependentwildlife.However8X/XXX/,"[_w]hen_Ԁspecialistsexpress ($. conflictingviews,anagency[has]thediscretiontorelyonthereasonableopinionsofitsownqualifiedexpertsevenif,asan +8'2 originalmatter,acourtmightfindcontraryviewsmorepersuasive."GreenpeaceActionv.Franklin,982F.2d.1342,1350 @ (9thCir.1992)(citingMarshv.OregonNaturalResourcesCouncil,   490U.S.360,378(1989)).#X/XX8X/ #ԀTherefore,becausetheForestService `  hasdesignatedreplacementstandsthatcontainmature/latesuccessionalforestwhichitbelievesare_equalorsuperior_Ԁtootherpossiblestands,theCourtfindsthattheWhitePineprojectisnotinviolationofthe5%ForestPlanstandardandthattheForestServiceactionsinthisregardwerenotarbitraryundertheAPA.___BecausenoneoftheremainingmotionsaffecttheWhitePinesale,theprojectmayproceed._8X/XXX/   ` 2.FISHBATE  0   FortheFishBateproject,theForestServiceevaluatedfourOGAU,twowithintheprojectareaandtwooutsidetheprojectarea.(ARFishBate,Vol.11,Doc.26,p.98.)Ofthese,theDeadhorseOGAU(OGAU_No._Ԁ10)lackssufficientoldgrowthtomeetthe5%standard.(Id.at98.)ThisOGAUisoutsidetheproject P  areabutbordersonit.#X/XX8X/#8X/XXX/ԀTheForestServiceacknowledgedthe " relevanceoftheDeadhorseOGAUtotheproposedFishBateprojectbyincludingitwithintheanalysisoftheFishBateproject'slikelyimpactonoldgrowthdependentspecies.(Id.at8692, @$( 98.)PlaintiffsassertthatbecausetheDeadhorseOGAUfailstomeetthe5%standard,theFishBateprojectisinviolationoftheForestPlan.However,becausethisOGAUisnotactuallywithintheproject,theprojectdoesnotviolatethe5%standard. *%0 DefendantsincludedthisOGAUforpurposesofanalysisofeffectsonspecies,suchasthefisher,whosehomerangesarelargerthantheprojectarea.ToholdtheFishBateprojectinviolationoftheForestPlan5%standardbecauseofthisinclusionwouldeliminatetheDefendants'abilitytoanalyzeeffectsforspecieswhosehomerangesarelarge,suchaswolf,lynx,andwolverine.__This,_Ԁ_again,_ԀiswellwithinthediscretionoftheDefendants.__Accordingly,____________________________________Plaintiffs_Ԁmotiononthisissueisdenied.#X/XX8X/#EX/XXX/ IV.PLAINTIFFS'MOTIONFORPARTIALSUMMARYJUDGMENTREGARDING 0  MONITORING `   A.MANAGEMENTINDICATORSPECIESINNFMAANDTHEFORESTPLAN @ B.` hp x (#XXB X Toachieveitspopulationviabilityrequirement,NFMA   providesfordesignationof"ManagementIndicatorSpecies"intheforestplans,"becausetheirpopulationchangesarebelievedtoindicatetheeffectsofmanagementactivities."36C.F.R.219.19(a)(1)(1999).SectionIVoftheClearwaterForestPlanadopted"MonitoringandEvaluation"requirementsinorderto"providetheinformationontheprogressandresultsofimplementingtheForestPlantothedecisionmakerandpublic."(ARProgrammaticVol.1,Doc.2,p.IV8.)TheForestPlanstatesthatthe"monitoringrequirementsforthisForestPlanareoutlinedinTableIV1."TableIV1isentitled"ForestPlanMonitoringRequirementsActionPlan."Itestablishesthat"PopulationsTrendsofIndicatorSpecies"aretobemonitored,includingforthedesignatedoldgrowthManagementIndicator  +p&0 Speciesofpileatedwoodpecker,goshawk,andpinemarten;andthatthesemonitoringresultsaretobereportedeveryfiveyears.(Id.,p.IV13toIV14.)#X/XXEX/#EX/XXX/    B.THEPARTIES'POSITIONS  `  ThePlaintiffsallegethattheDefendantsfailedtoconducttheaboverequiredmonitoring_and,_Ԁtherefore,theFishBateandWhitePineprojectswereapprovedinviolationofandinconsistentwiththeabovecriteriafromtheForestPlan.DefendantscontendthatPlaintiffsfailedtoexhaustadministrativeremediesregardingeitherprojectonthisissue,thatmaintenanceoftheoldgrowthstandardsdiscussedabovecanserveasaproxyformonitoring,thateffectsonmanagementindicatorspecieswerestudiedfortheseprojects,andthattheyalsoconductvariousmonitoringactivities,includingacontractwithauniversitystudy. C.ANALYSIS  p Inadditiontothestandardsofreviewdiscussedattheoutset,thescopeofthisCourtsreviewisfurtherlimitedbythescopeofissuesthatPlaintiffsraisedintheiradministrativeappealsofthechallengeddecisions.Section10(c)oftheAPArequiresexhaustionofallintraagencyappealsmandatedeitherbystatuteoragencyrule.5U.S.C.704(1994).  &p!* SeeDarbyv.Cisneros,509U.S.137,14647(1993).TheUSDA '#, ReorganizationActof1994,212(e),providesthat"apersonshallexhaustalladministrativeappealproceduresestablishedby * &0 theSecretaryorrequiredbylawbeforethepersonmaybringanactioninacourtofcompetentjurisdictionagainst(1)theSecretary;(2)theDepartment;or(3)anagency,office,officer,oremployeeoftheDepartment."7U.S.C.6912(e)(1994).Finally,theregulationsimplementing16U.S.C.1612(1994)providethat"itisthepositionoftheDepartmentofAgriculturethatanyfilingforFederaljudicialreviewofadecisionsubjecttoreviewunderthispartisprematureandinappropriateunlesstheplaintiffhasfirstsoughttoinvokeandexhausttheproceduresavailableunderthispart."36C.F.R.215.20(1999).Thus,theForestServiceappealregulationsat36C.F.R.215provideforappealofdecisionnoticesandrequireexhaustionofadministrativeappeals.36C.F.R.215.7(1999).Undertheseregulations,anappellantmustfileawrittenappealwhichprovidessufficientwrittenevidenceandrationaletoshowwhythedecisionshouldberemandedorreversed.36C.F.R.215.14(a)(1999).Theappealmustidentifythespecificchangesinthedecisionthattheappellantseeksorportionofthedecisiontowhichtheappellantobjects.36C.F.R.215.14(b)(4)(1999).Itmustalsostatehowthedecisionfailstoconsidercommentspreviouslyprovidedandhowtheappellantbelievesthedecisionviolateslaw,regulationorpolicy.36 C.F.R.215.14(b)(5)(1999). (#. TheThirdCircuithasrecentlyinterpretedtheseregulationstorequirethatacomplaint'sadministrativeappealandfederalclaim: 8 ` [_M]ust_Ԁbesosimilarthatthedistrictcourtcanascertainthattheagencywasonnoticeof,andhadanopportunitytoconsideranddecide,thesameclaimsnowraisedinfederalcourt. ` x` x K H     _Kleissler_Ԁv._USFS_,183F.3d196,202(1999).SeealsoOregon (  NaturalResourceCouncilv.UnitedStatesForestService,834 h  F.2d842,847(9thCir.1987). H  E1X` hp x (#XEInthiscase,the_#X/XXEX/[#8X/XXX/September_Ԁ1997#X/XX8X/S#administrativeappealby  PlaintiffsFriendsoftheClearwateretal.oftheWhitePineprojectdecisionraisedfourissuesasfollows:1)NEPA40CFR01502.14(Alternatives);2)WaterQualityandStipulatedAgreement;3)ForestHealth/PurposeandNeed;and4)OldGrowth.  (ARWhitePine,Vol.12,Doc.418.)PlaintiffsdidincorporatepastcommentsontheWhitePineprojectwhichincludedthefollowingcomment:8 ` [T]heForestServicemustdemonstratethatitcanmaintainoldgrowthassociatedMISdistributedinviablepopulationsacross,ataminimum,theForestServicelandsunderitsmanagementauthority. ` x` x   (ARWhitePine,Vol.5,Doc.22,p.2.)However,unliketheirspecificreferencetotheoldgrowthstandardsintheForestPlan,Plaintiffsdidnotciteasanissuethefailuretomonitor oldgrowthdependentmanagementindicatorspecies(MIS)in h)$/ violationof36C.F.R.219.19(a)(6)orinviolationofClearwaterForestPlanrequirements. Similarly,intheiradministrativeappealoftheFishBateRecordofDecision,Plaintiffsdidnotraisetheissueofpopulationdataasarequirementof36CFR219.19(a)(6).(ARFishBate,Vol.10,Doc.24p.141.)Instead,thePlaintiffsappealrepeatedtheEcologyCentersMarch,1996comments.ThesecommentscomplainedthattheForestServiceignoredreferencestoscientificstudiesconcerning theamountandqualityofnestingandforaginghabitatneeded[to]maintainpopulations"ofgoshawks,thattheEIS saysnothingabouthabitat_quality,_Ԁandthatthe_EIS_Ԁhad"nothing...uponwhichtobaseasoundunderstandingofthelikelihoodofmaintenanceofgoshawkpopulationswithintheanalysisarea...."(Id.at1820;AR P FishBate,Doc.17,p.112.)Also,liketheWhitePineappeal,PlaintiffscitedtheoldgrowthForestPlanstandards,butdidnotcitethemonitoringsectionoftheForestPlan._-    22      _ԀThis   failuretoraiseparticularclaimsduringtheadministrativeprocessbarsjudicialreviewofthoseclaims.  $ Plaintiffsassertthattheirreferencesto populationconcernssatisfiestheregulationrequiringexhaustionofadministrativeremedies._Thatbecause_Ԁtheoldgrowthstandards % * _exist_Ԁforthepurposeofprovidingfortheviabilityofspecies,Plaintiffs'extensiveconcernsregardingoldgrowthhabitatimplicitlyincludeconcernsregardingpopulationviability.ThisinturnimpliesaconcernregardingthepopulationmonitoringrequirementsintheForestPlan.Further,theForestPlanindicatesmonitoringisthemethodbywhichtheeffectivenessoftheoldgrowthhabitatstandardsistobemeasured.However,undertheappealregulations,theappellantmustidentifythespecificchangesinthedecisionthattheappellantseeksandmustalsostatehowtheappellantbelievesthedecisionviolateslaw,regulationorpolicy.36C.F.R.215.14(b)(4)&(5)EX/XXX/ P (1999).Fortheoldgrowthissues,thePlaintiffsconsistentlycitedthespecificsectionsoftheForestPlantheybelievedwereviolated(the10%and5%standards).TheydidnotcitethespecificmonitoringprovisionsintheregulationsorinthePlanthatarenowatissue.Further,Plaintiffsneverspecificallyrequestedachangeineitherprojectdecisiontomonitorpopulations.Rather,PlaintiffsassertedthattheDefendantshavethedutytoensurespeciesviabilityundertheirgeneral_NFMA_duties.BecausePlaintiffs'monitoringmotionisnot"sosimilar"toitsadministrativeappealastoputtheDefendants"onnoticeof,"andgivethem"anopportunitytoconsideranddecide"themonitoringissue,Plaintiffs'monitoringmotionis dismissedwithoutprejudice. (#.   V.CROSSMOTIONSFORPARTIALSUMMARYJUDGMENTREGARDINGFISH   BATE:NEPACLAIMS   Plaintiffs'#X/XXEX/#motionforpartialsummaryjudgmentontheFish p BateprojectarguesthattheFishBatedecisionviolatestheNationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct(NEPA),theTWSSettlementagreementandtheCleanWaterAct(CWA).PlaintiffsNEPAclaimswillbeconsideredfirst,followedbytheTWSSettlementclaimsandthentheCWAclaims.PlaintiffsbringfourNEPAclaims,thefirstofwhichisaproceduralargument.TheremainingNEPAclaimscontesttheadequacyoftheFishBateFEIS.EX/XXX/ x  `  A.NEPA:SUPPLEMENTALEIS  @   ` 1.BACKGROUND    #X/XXEX/(#8X/XXX/TheFishBateprojecthasanunusualhistoryinthatafter  theprojectDEISwasissuedinApril1995asanormalNEPAproject,theDefendantschangedittocomeundertheRecissionsActpassedbyCongressinJuly1995.#X/XX8X/#Pub.L.No.10419,2001 ` 2002,109Stat.194,24047(1995).ThischangefromanormalNEPAprojecttoaprojectunderPub.L.10419allowedforincreaseddiscretionregardingsalepreparationandallowedtheprojecttoproceedinanexpeditedmannerwithoutanadministrativeappeal.    23      ׀DuringthistimetheDefendantsadded 0% ( Alternative7whichexpandedthetimbervolumeofthesale.In &"* _January_Ԁ1996,theFEISwasissuedandinMarch1996,theRecordofDecision(ROD)choseAlternative7.InJuly1996,theSecretaryofAgricultureissuedadirectivethatPub.L.10419couldnotapplyretroactivelytocertaintypesofpendingprojectswhichincludedtheFishBateproject.Therefore,theFishBateprojectRODwaswithdrawnandreissuedin_January_Ԁ1997.ThenewRODagainselectedAlternative7.Throughoutthisprocess,PlaintiffssubmittedcommentsregardingtheprojecttotheDefendants.AttheendoftheirappealoftheFEIS,Plaintiffsstated:8 ` [T]heAppellantshaveidentifiednumerousdeficienciesoftheFEIS,andviolationsoflaw,regulationandForestServicePolicy.WerequestafullremandoftheFishBateSalvageRecordofDecision....IftheClearwatercontemplatesfurtheractioninthisarea,...werequestthattheywriteanew_EIS_Ԁthatcorrectstheidentifieddeficienciesandviolationsoflaw,regulationandForestServicepolicy._ ` x` x   p __(AR_ԀFishBate,Vol.10,Doc.24,p._24.)_Ԁ8X/XXX/ԀOthercommentsby 8 Plaintiffsinclude:"[_B]etween_ԀthedraftandFEIS,thesalvageriderwaspassedandanewalternativewasinsertedintoFishBate.Thenewproposaljumpedtheharvestleveluptoanunbelievable27.6_mmbf_Ԁ....Wehaveseveralseriousconcernsaboutthissale....[T]hepublictrustisbeingeroded."(ARFishBate,Vol.6,Doc.16,p.43.)#X/XX8X/o#Ԁ H&!+  ` 2.APPLICABLELAWEX/XXX/  '(#- #X/XXEX/ #8X/XXX/Procedurally,PlaintiffscontendthattheForestService )%/ violated40C.F.R.1502.9(c)(1)(i)whichstatesthatanagency H+&1 mustissueasupplementtoadraftorfinalEISifthe"agencymakessubstantialchangesintheproposedactionthatarerelevanttoenvironmentalconcerns."ThisregulationisintendedtofurthertheNEPA#X/XX8X/!#8X/XXX/Ԁgoalofinformedagencyactionand,assuch, `  insuresboththatsubstantialchangeswillreceiveadequateassessmentofenvironmentalimpactsandthatthepublicwillreceiveadequatenoticetocommentonthesesubstantialchanges.See40C.F.R.1501.1,1502.1,1503.1(1999);#X/XX8X/"#OregonEnvtl.   Councilv.Kunzman,817F.2d484,492(9thCir.1987)8X/XXX/. 0   ` 3.#X/XX8X/$#THEPARTIES'POSITIONS 8X/XXX/  PlaintiffsassertherethatasupplementalEISwasrequiredfortheFishBateFEIS,afteritrevertedbacktonormalNEPAprocedures,inordertoprovideadequatenoticeandcommentprocedurestothepublicontheexpandedalternative.Plaintiffsbasetheirargumentonthefactthattheprojectexpandedfrom5.8millionboardfeet(MMBF)#X/XX8X/%#8X/XXX/to27.6MMBFwhiletheprojectwas p exemptfromnormalprocedures.#X/XX8X/&#8X/XXX/ԀDefendantscontendthatthe P  increaseintimbervolumeismisleadingbecauseoverhalfoftheincreaseisduetosalvagetimberratherthansawlogs.J    24      _#X/XX8X/Z'#8X/XXX/  !p$ Defendants_ԀalsoarguethatPlaintiffsandthepublicreceivedan "& adequatenoticeandcommentperiodonAlternative7becausetheytoldPlaintiffstheprojectwouldbeexpandedinMay1995#X/XX8X/(#8X/XXX/Ԁand @ becausetheyextendedthecommentperiodontheFEISin_January_1996afterAlternative7wasadded.#X/XX8X/)#Defendantsalsoarguethat `  theydeterminedanew_EIS_ԀwasnotnecessarybecausetheybelievedthattheFEISadequatelyaddressedallofthesubstantivecommentsfromthePlaintiffsandotherparties.8X/XXX/ԀFinally, `  Defendantsassertthatlikethemonitoringissue,Plaintiffsfailedtoexhaustadministrativeremedies.#X/XX8X/+#EX/XXX/ 0  #X/XXEX/,#8X/XXX/ ` 4.EXHAUSTIONOFADMINISTRATIVEREMEDIES #X/XX8X/,#  Thestandardhereisthesameasthatdiscussedaboveforthemonitoringissue.ThisCourtmustdetermineifthisclaimforasupplemental_EIS_Ԁwasproperlyadministrativelyappealed,suchthatitis"sosimilar"totheadministrativeappealthatDefendantswere"onnoticeof,"andhad"anopportunitytoconsideranddecide"whethertoissueasupplemental_EIS_. Here, p likethemonitoringissue,Plaintiffsdidnotspecificallycitetotheregulationrequiringasupplemental_EIS_.However,unlikethemonitoringissue,Plaintiffsclearlyidentifiedthechangetheysoughtwhentheyspecificallyaskedforanew_EIS_Ԁtobeprepared.PlaintiffsalsodirectlycitedproblemswithAlternative7atleast16timesintheiradministrativeappeal.Therefore,becausetheDefendantswereonnoticeof_Plaintiffs'_ requestforanew_EIS_Ԁandhadanopportunitytodecidewhetherto (@$. issueone,Plaintiffsproperlyexhaustedtheadministrativeappealsprocessonthisissue.  ` 5.SUPPLEMENTALEIS    TheremainingquestiontheniswhetherDefendants'decisionnottoissueasupplementalEISinordertoprovideforfurtherpublicnoticewasarbitraryandcapriciousundertheAPA.Marsh    v.OregonNaturalResourcesCouncil,490U.S.360,37385(1989). `  TheextendedcommentperiodontheFEISthatDefendantsbelievegaveadequatenoticetoPlaintiffswasduringtheperiodoftimethatPlaintiffsbelievedtheprojectfellunderPub.L.10419_(January_Ԁ1996toMarch1996).Therefore,inmakingtheircommentsthePlaintiffsbelievedtheprojectwouldnotbesubjecttoadministrativeappealandcouldonlyreceivelimitedjudicialreview.AftertheprojectwasremovedfromPub.L.10419statusandthefirstRODwaswithdrawninJuly1996,thereisnoclearexplanationintherecordastotheactualstatusoftheprojectuntilthenewRODwasissuedin_January_Ԁ1997.Further,nopubliccommentwastakenbetweenJuly1996and_January_Ԁ1997.Finally,theMarch1996RODandthe_Jan.1997_ԀRODarealmostidentical.ItisplausibleandreasonableforPlaintiffstobelievethattheprojectwouldbereassessedafteritwasremovedfrom10419statussinceithadexpandedinsizeandthattheywouldhaveanotheropportunitytocomment.ItalsoplausiblethatDefendantsbelievedthattheprocesstheyhadfollowedunderPub.L.10419wasadequateundernormalprocedures.Thehistoryof *%0 theprocessbehindthisprojectiscertainlynotthepictureofclarity.However,undertheAPAstandardofreview,Defendants'decisionmustbearbitraryorcapricious.BecausethePlaintiffsclearlywereawareoftheexpandedsizeoftheprojectandhadanopportunitytocommentonitbeforethefirstROD,Defendantswerenotarbitraryorcapriciousintheirdecisionnottoissueasupplemental_EIS_Ԁasfarasthenoticeandcommentpurposesof40C.F.R.1502.9(c). B.NEPA:APPLICABLELAWFORSUBSTANTIVECLAIMS  0  TheNinthCircuithasestablishedapracticalstandardforreviewingenvironmentaldocumentspreparedpursuanttoNEPA.Thisstandard,describedasa"ruleofreason,"requiresagenciestodemonstrate"areasonablythoroughdiscussionofthesignificantaspectsoftheprobableenvironmental_consequences,"_ԀSwansonv.USFS,87F.3d339,343(9thCir.1996)(quotingOregon 0 Envtl.Councilv.Kunzman,817F.2d484,492(9thCir.1987)). p Underthisstandard,judicialreviewconsistsofinsuringthattheagencytooka"hardlook"atenvironmentalconsequences.NeighborsofCuddyMountainv.USFS,137F.3d1372,1376(9th  !p$ Cir.1998).However,"[_t]his_Ԁcourtneednot'flyspeck'the[NEPA]documentand'holditinsufficientonthebasisofinconsequential,technicaldeficiencies,'Swanson,87F.3dat % !* 343.Thisstandard"guidesboththechoiceofalternativesaswellastheextenttowhichtheEnvironmentalImpactStatementmustdiscusseachalternative."CityofCarmelbytheSeav.US *%0 Dep'tofTransp.,123F.3d1142,1155(9thCir.1997).Finally,  thisstandardisessentiallyapracticalwayofapproachingthearbitraryandcapriciousstandarddiscussedabove.Marshv.   OregonNaturalResourcesCouncil,490U.S.360,377n.23(1989). `     C.NEPA:BACKGROUNDFORSUBSTANTIVECLAIMS  @  UndertheTWSSettlementagreement,theClearwaterNational    Forestagreedto"8X/XXX/proceedonlywiththoseprojectsthatwould `  resultinnomeasurableincreaseinsedimentproductionindrainagescurrentlynotmeetingForestPlanStandards.#X/XX8X/A#"(AR   ProgrammaticVol.6,Doc.24,p.3.)    25      ׀TheDefendantsdonot ` disputethatthisconstraintappliestoClearwaterNationalForestprojectdecisions,includingtheFishBateproject.(ARFishBateVol.11,Doc.25,p.2122.)     26      ׀Thephysicalattributes  andprojectdesignoftheFishBateproject,consideredwithinthecontextoftheaboveconstraint,giverisetotheclaimsatissuehere.TherelevantfeaturesoftheFishBateprojectareasfollows:First,theareacontainsalargevolumeofdeadanddyingwesternwhitepineinfectedwithanexoticpathogenknownaswhitepineblisterrust.(ARFishBateVol.11,Doc.26,p.8586.)Second,thispathogenandotherscombinedwithsixty @$( yearsoffiresuppressionhavealteredspeciescompositionandforeststructuralcharacteristics.(Id.at8283,85,107.) @ Third,theFishBateareaischaracterizedbysteepslopesthatnaturallyexhibitahighpotentialformasswastinglandslidesanderosion.(Id.at53.)Morethan70percentoftheareahasa  @ highorveryhighpotentialformasswastinglandslides.(Id.at    54.)8X/XXX/Duetothesteepslopesofthearea,morethan_85%___Ԁofthe `  areamaydeliversedimenttostreamswithhighorveryhighefficiency.(Id.at55.)#X/XX8X/H#Timberharvest,roadconstruction,high 0  soilsaturationandfireallhavethepotentialtoacceleratethismassmovementandsedimentdelivery.(Id.at54,57.) P Fourth,theprojectareacontainsseveralstreamswhichhavebeenimpactedbypastharvestandroadconstruction.CurrentlymanystreamsdonotmeetForestPlanstandards.(Id.at6366,78.) P Fifth,approximately_44%___Ԁoftheanalysisareahasalreadyreceivedsometypeofharvest.(Id.at84.)About_24%___Ԁofthearea  p was_clearcut_Ԁandtheremainingportionwasharvestedwithothertechniques.(Id.)_Theareahasaroaddensityofaboutfour @" milespersquaremileduetothesepastactivities.(Id.at63  $ 66.)And_Ԁfinally,in_November_Ԁ1995and_February_Ԁ1996theareasufferedheavyrainsandflooding.Duetotheweatherduringthatwinter,over_900_ԀmasswastingeventsoccurredintheClearwaterNationalForest.(ARFloodVol._2,_ԀDoc._157,_Ԁp._12.)_Intheprojectarea,manyofthestreamchannelswerescoured,roadsreceiveddamageandadebristorrentoccurredinMartinCreek.(ARFishBateVol.11,Doc.25,p.2.) +'2 ThisbackgroundprovidesthebasisforPlaintiffs'NEPAclaims.PlaintiffsarguethattheFEISexaggeratesthepotentialforincreasedsedimentduetocatastrophicfirerisk,thattheFEISfailstoassesswhethertheprojectwillresultinincreasedsedimenttoareastreamsduetolandslides,andthattheFEISfailstoadequatelyassesscumulativeimpacts.Defendantsassertthattheprojectwasdesignedwiththisbackgroundinmindandthatitwillresultinnonetincreaseinsediment.Defendantsrelyonthe"noincreaseinsediment"positioninfindingthatthenoactionalternativeposesagreaterrisktostreamsduetocatastrophicfire,thattheprojectmeetstheTWSSettlementconstraint,thattheprojectcomplieswiththeCleanWaterAct,thatasupplementalEISduetotherecentfloodingisnotnecessary,andthattheprojectwillhavenocumulativewaterqualityimpactswithothermanagementactivities._Plaintiffs'_claimsregardingfireriskareaddressedfirst,followedbythelandslideissueandthecumulativeeffectsissue. D.FEISASSESSMENTOFFIRERISK @"  OneofthemainpurposesoftheFishBateprojectoutlined  !p$ inthe_EIS_Ԁistoreducethepossibilityofastandreplacingfire.(ARFishBateVol.11,Doc.26,p.Summary2.)Defendantsnotethattheareaisnaturallysubjecttostandreplacingfiresevery150500years,dependingontheforesttype.(Id.at107.) `'", Duetotheaverageageofthetrees(171years),thehistoryoffiresuppressionandthewhitepinemortalityfromblisterrust, *%0 I- I   I  _Defendants_Ԁbelievethatthepossibilityofastandreplacingfireisacceleratedtothepointthatitisimminent.Defendantsassertthatthefuelloadintheanalysisareaissogreatthatactionisneededinordertopreventastandreplacingfire,whattheyterma"catastrophic_event."_ԀTheFEISdescribesthisfireriskasan"80%chanceofalarge,standreplacingeventinthenext50years."(Id.atp.108.) `  Defendantsfurtherassertthatifsuchaneventoccurs,sedimentdepositedintoareastreamswouldincreaseduetolossofvegetativecoverandthecreationofhydrophobicsoilconditions.(Id.at203.)Consequently,Defendantsarguethat P thedangerofdoingnothingposesagreaterthreattowaterqualityfrompossiblelandslidesthanthepotentialforincreasedsedimentfromharvestorothermanagementactivities.Thistheoryisgivenasthelikelyresultinthe"noaction"alternativeintheFEIS.(Id.)  p Plaintiffs'firstsubstantiveNEPAargumentclaimsthatthis"80%chanceof[fire]inthenext50years"statementisunsubstantiatedbytheadministrativerecord.PlaintiffsbelievethestatementisthereforearbitraryandcapriciousandcannotbeusedtojustifythemanagementprescriptionsintheFishBatedecision.5    27      ׀Defendantsarguethestatementisadequately % * supportedbyprofessionaljudgmentandtheAdministrativeRecord. '`", N. N   N  __  Thisdisputeisunusualinthattheenvironmentalassessmentofthenoactionalternativeisatissue,ratherthantheenvironmentalassessmentoftheactionalternatives.Itisalsounusualinthatthenoactionalternativesupposesagreaterenvironmentalimpactthanthemanagementalternatives.Regardlessofthisjuxtaposition,theissueisstillsubjectto"ruleofreason"analysisasoutlinedabove.Afteracarefulreviewoftherecord,theCourtfindsthatthereisadequatesupportintherecordtosupposeanincreasedfirerisk.Thisdocumentationincludesfuelloads,(Id.atVol.  2,Doc.6,p.67),firesuppressionhistory,(Id.atVol.11, P Doc.26,p.107),standage,(Id.),diseasehistory,(Id.)and 0 thenaturalroleoffireaspartoftheforestcycle,(Id.).The p recordnotesthatfuelloadsinunharvestedareasareabovethelevelsatwhichfiresuppressioneffortsareeffective,whichwouldsupposedlyallowlarge,higherintensityfirestooccur.(Id.at108.)However,whileanincreasedfireriskissupported,   thereislittleintherecordtosupporthowthisriskwasquantifiedtosupposean"80%chanceofalarge,standreplacingeventinthenext50years."Therefore,totheextentthisstatementisusedtopresupposeacatastrophiceventwhichwilloccurasamatterofcourseifnoactionistaken,theCourtfindsthestatementunsupported.Theissuehereiswhetherthisstatementisarbitraryandcapricious.Plaintiffsarguethestatementcannotbeusedtojustifythemanagementprescriptionsintheprojectdecision. +'2 However,asfarastheunderlyingpurposeswhichservetojustifyaproject,under40C.F.R.1502.13(1999),Defendantsneedonly"brieflyspecifytheunderlyingpurposeandneedtowhichtheagencyisrespondinginproposingthealternativesincludingtheproposedaction."BecauseDefendantshavemettheirburdento"brieflyspecifytheunderlyingpurpose"oftheprojectbydemonstratingatleastanincreasedfireriskintheprojectarea,Defendantswerenotarbitraryandcapriciousintheirassessmentofthe"noaction"alternative.  0  E.FEISASSESSMENTOFLANDSLIDERISK   PlaintiffsnextcontendthattheFishBateFEISfailstoadequatelyassesstheenvironmentalimpactsoftheprojectregardingpotentiallandslidesorothermasswastingevents.Plaintiffsassertthatfloodlevelrainfalloccursintheareaaboutevery20yearsandthatlandslidesoftenresultfromsuchweather,giventhesteepslopesoftheFishBatearea.PlaintiffsarguethattheFEISdidnot_adequatelyaddress_Ԁhowtheprojectwouldaffectthepossibilityoffuturelandslideswhenheavyprecipitation_occurs._Ԁ_ԀAsaresult,Plaintiffsbelievetheprojectwilllikelydeliveradditionalsedimenttoareastreamsinviolationofthe_TWS_ԀSettlement._Defendantsarguethattheprojectisdesignedtopreventanyincreasesinsedimentduetomanagementactivities.Defendantsnotethattheashcapsoilsintheareahaveahighpotentialtoholdwaterwhenthesoilisrelativelyundisturbed.(ARFishBate *%0 Vol.11,Doc.26at5354.)ThedesignfeaturescitedbyDefendantstakeadvantageofthisattributebyusinghelicoptersasopposedtobuildingroads,usingsuspendedcabletomovelogs,leavingbufferstripsalongsidestreamstocatchanysedimentthatisproducedbytheloggingactivities,leavingcanopycoverinsensitiveareas,andreplantingharvested_areas.^    28      _ԀDefendants    assertthatthesemanagementpractices,knownasBestManagementPractices(BMPs)willpreventanyadditionalsedimentfromtheproject.Defendantsalsoarguethatroadreconstructionandroadremovalactivitiesassociatedwiththeprojectwilldecreasesediment.Defendantsbelievethatanysedimentcausedbynaturaloccurrences,suchasnaturallyoccurringlandslides,donotalterthenoimpactassessmentoftheFishBatedecision.Basedonthisdesign,theFishBateprojectRecordofDecisionconcludes,thattheproject"[_W]ill_Ԁresultinnomeasurableincreaseinsedimentproduction...."(Id.Doc.25,p.22.)  p   ` 1.ANALYSIS    BecausetheDefendantsarguethatthelandslideriskfromtheprojectismitigatedbytheprojectdesignandbecausethereisnodiscussionintheFishBate_EIS_ԀthatindicatesDefendants consideredthefrequencyoffloodlevelrainfall,theCourt's @$( determinationofthisissuerequiresjudicialreviewofthe"nomeasurableincrease"findingintheFEIS. IntheFishBateprojectarea,streamscurrentlydonotmeetForestPlanstandards.(Id.Doc.26at6366.)TheFEISdocuments `  thatcurrentlevelsofsedimentdeliverytoareastreamsaresignificantlyabovenormalratesofsedimentdeliveryduetoexistingconditionsontheslopesfrompastharvestactivities.(Id.)Againstthisbackgroundofcurrentconditions,WATBAL   modelspredictincreasedsedimentproduction,duetotheloggingactivitiesoftheFishBateproject.(Id.at144150;ARFish  BateVol.9,Doc.21.)Further,theFEISpredictsthattheriskofsoilmasswastingishigherunderthechosenalternative.(ARFishBateVol.11,Doc.26,p.122.)Inaddition,prescribedburningwassignificantlyexpandedfrom43acresinthepreferredalternativeintheDEIS(Alternative6)to1,256acresinthepreferredalternativeintheFEIS(Alternative7).G    29      ׀(Id.at  p 202.)Regardingthisincrease,theFEISpointsoutthatprescribedburningalsoincreasestheriskofmasswasting.(Id. @" at142.)Inordertomitigatethepredictedincreasesinsedimentandtheincreasedrisksofmasswasting,theFEISpointstoandreliesontheBMPsforitsfindingthattheprojectwillnotresultinincreasedsediment.Mitigationmeasuresaresubjecttothesamegeneralstandardsofreviewoutlinedabove.Anenvironmentalimpact (#. statementmustpresenta"reasonablycompletediscussionofpossiblemitigationmeasures."Robertsonv.MethowValley @ CitizensCouncil,490U.S.332,351(1989).Inthiscase,   however,thediscussionofmitigationmeasuresmustbeconsideredwithinthecontext_______of_Ԁthe_Defendants'_Ԁ_agreement_Ԁto8X/XXX/proceedonly  @ withthoseprojectsthatwouldresultinnomeasurableincreaseinsedimentproductionindrainagescurrentlynotmeetingForestPlanStandards.#X/XX8X/y#ԀTherefore,theFishBateFEISmustpresenta   reasonablycompletediscussionshowingthattheacknowledgedincreasedrisksoflandslideswillbemitigatedsuchthattheprojectwillresultinnomeasurableincreaseinsediment._After_Ԁacarefulreviewoftherecord,theCourtfindstheFEISfailstomeetthisrequirement._Defendantsconductedaforestwidelandslideassessmentafterthefloodeventsin1995and1996.Thestudyfoundthat"the199596[flood]eventsput10timesthenaturallandslidebackground[sediment]rateintothesystem."`    30      ׀(ARFloodReviewVol.2,Doc.157,lSlSp.24.)Themajorityof   theselandslidesoccurredinactivelymanagedareasoftheClearwater.Id.)Thestudyalsofoundlandslideratestobe  $ significantlyhigherunder5,000feetelevation.(Id.at15)The `"& FishBateprojectelevationrangesfrom1,760to5,751feet.(ARFishBateVol.11,mSmSDoc.26,nS_nSp.pSoSoSpSoS__oS53.)_ԀFinally,thestudynotes Itwasconcludedthattheslopesthatstillpossessanintactashcap '`", werenotsubjecttolandslidesresultingfromvegetationremoval.However,photointerpretationoflandslidesoccurringin199596foundalargenumberoflandslidesinharvestunits_occurr[ing_]onslopesthatnormallyhaveashcapsoils.(ARFloodReviewVol.2,Doc.157,p.23.)GiventhatthisstudyestablishesanincreasedlandsliderateinmanagedareasoftheForest,Defendantsmustshowtheycanmitigatethisincreasedrateoflandslidestoresultinnomeasurableincreaseinsediment.DefendantscitetotheBMPauditstocontendthatthepracticeswilleffectivelymitigatelandsliderisk.Yet,theseauditsgenerallyassesssedimentdeliverytostreamsduetoerosionanddonotlookatlandslidetypeevents.Itappearsfromtheprojectrecordthatnoneofthe298BMPsauditedin1996overlapwiththe900landslidesthatoccurredin199596.Further,asDefendantsthemselvesnote,thelandslidestudydidnotassess  theeffectivenessofBMPsregardinglandslides.(ARFloodReviewVol.2,Doc.157p.vii,24;seealsoDefs.'ReplyBr.inSupp.   ofMot.forSumm.J.Re:FishBatep.28.)Inaddition,theprescribedburnareaexpandedfrom43to1,256acres,butBMPsregardingprescribedburningarenotincludedintheaudits. __  `"& __BecauseBMPshavenotbeenassessedfortheireffectivenessagainstlandslideeventsandbecauseahighriskoflandslidesisacknowledgedintheFishBatepreferredalternative,theCourtfindsitisnotreasonablefortheDefendantstojustsummarilyrelyonBMPstomitigatethisenvironmentalimpact._ԀTherefore,theCourtfindstheFEISconclusionthattheprojectwillhaveno +'2 effectonwaterqualityto_be_Ԁ_arbitraryandcapricious_ԀbasedontheundisputedriskoflandslidesintheFEIS.Accordingly,thedecisionisreversedandremanded. F.FEISASSESSMENTOFCUMULATIVEIMPACTS  `  PlaintiffsnextassertthattheFEISassessmentofthecumulativeimpactsoftheFishBateprojectwithothertimberprojectsintheareaisinadequate.TheFEISdeterminationofacceptablecumulativeimpactswasinpartbasedonfindingcompliancewiththe10%standardforoldgrowthforestwideandthefindingof"nomeasurableeffectonsedimentproduction"fortheproject.Regardingwaterquality,theFEISreasonsthatbecausetheprojectwillhavenoaffectonwaterquality,itwillcausenocumulativeaffectswith_any_Ԁothertimbersaleinthewatershed.(Id.at142.)BecausetheCourthasdeterminedto P remandtheFishBateFEISasdiscussedaboveregardingthe10%oldgrowthstandardandthenomeasurableincreaseinsedimentproductionassessment,theCourtwillnotaddressthisissuefurther. EX/XXX/ " #X/XXEX/׋#8X/XXX/  VI.CROSSMOTIONSFORPARTIALSUMMARYJUDGMENTREGARDINGFISH  !p$ BATE:#X/XX8X/.#EX/XXX/TWSSETTLEMENT #P&  ThreeofthePlaintiffshere(theWildernessSociety,Idaho $0 ( ConservationLeague,andInlandEmpirePublicLandsCouncil)werealsoplaintiffsinasuitbroughtagainsttheForestServiceanditsagentsin1993.ThatsuitallegedtheClearwaterNationalForestPlanwasinviolationofvariousfederallaws.In  +p&0 September1993,thepartiesenteredintoasettlementagreementwhichwasadoptedbytheCourtasaStipulationofDismissal.  X  ,    31      ׀ @ ThisStipulation,referredtobythepartiesasthe _TWS_Settlement,requirestheForestServicetorevisetheForestPlanandadoptsinterimprovisionsuntiltherevisioniscomplete.#X/XXEX/׌#EX/XXX/ Underthe_TWS_Settlement,Plaintiffschallengethe    meritsoftheDefendants'predecisionalmonitoringofsedimentinseveralstreamsintheFishBateprojectanditsjudgmentthattheprojectwillnotcauseameasurableincreaseinsediment.#X/XXEX/#EX/XXX/Ԁ    A.PREDECISIONALMONITORING `  #X/XXEX/#8X/XXX/Thepredecisionalmonitoringclauseofthe_TWS_ԀSettlement @ reads:"TheForestServiceagreestoperforminstreamanalyses,usingtechniquessuchastheRiffleArmorStabilityIndex(_RASI_),poolriffleratiosandcobble_embeddedness_.#X/XX8X/#EX/XXX/"#X/XXEX/Q#8X/XXX/    32      #X/XX8X/#Ԁ(ARProgrammatic @ Vol.6,Doc.24,p.3.)EX/XXX/ԀPlaintiffscontendthattheDefendants  failedtoconductthispredecisionalmonitoringontheNorthForkoftheClearwaterandBatesCreek.Defendantsarguethat#X/XXEX/g#8X/XXX/thelanguageoftheTWSSettlement#X/XX8X/c#EX/XXX/providestheForestService `  withdiscretiontochoosethetypeofpredecisionalmonitoringconducted,thattheForestServicequalitativelyassessedtheNorthFork,andthatBatesCreekdidnotrequirepredecisionalmonitoringundertheTWSSettlementbecauseitisnota"streamsegmentofconcern."DefendantsalsoassertthatthePlaintiffsfailedtoexhausttheiradministrativeremediesontheissueofpredecisionalmonitoring.#X/XXEX/Ȗ#Ԁ P IntheircommentstotheFEIS,Plaintiffsstated: 0 8 ` [T]heactionwillobviouslynothave"noeffect"ontheNorthForkanditstributaries....InproceedingwiththeFishBatetimbersale,theClearwaterNationalForestisviolatingthesettlement'sinterimwaterqualityprovisions.0 ` x` x   (ARFishBate,Vol.10,Doc. 24,p.36.)Nofurtherdetail ( x followsthisstatementthatservestoclarifyhowPlaintiffsbelievedthewaterqualityprovisionswereviolated.    33      ׀Plaintiffs    didargue,inaletterincorporatedintotheappeal,thattheFEISviolatedtheTWSSettlementbecauseitdidnotindicatehowtheDefendantswoulddeterminewhethertherewasameasurableincreaseinsediment.(Id.at69.)Plaintiffsstated: ( 8 ` Sincethereisnomethodofsedimentmeasurement[intheFEIS],nodefinitionof"measurable"norclearlydefinedbaselinedatapresentedintheFEISthereisnowaytheFScancomplywiththeStipulationAgreement. ` x` x     (Id.at69.)However,Plaintiffsnevermentioned,norindicated, 0 theybelievedthepredecisionalmonitoringclauseoftheagreementwasviolated.Followingtheaboveanalysisofexhaustionofadministrativeremedies,Plaintiffs'claimhereisnotsosimilartothoseintheiradministrativeappealsuchthattheDefendantswereonnoticeofthechangessoughtbythePlaintiffs.DefendantswerenotonnoticethatthePlaintiffsbelievedadditional,specific % !* predecisionalmonitoringtestsneededtobeperformedontheNorthForkanditstributaries.Therefore,Plaintiffsfailedtoadequatelyexhausttheiradministrativeremediesonthisissue. B.NOMEASURABLEINCREASEINSEDIMENTPRODUCTION `   PlaintiffsfurtherclaimthattheFishBateprojectisin @  violationoftheTWSSettlementprovision:"8X/XXX/TheForestService    agreestoproceedonlywiththoseprojectsthatwouldresultinnomeasurableincreaseinsedimentproductionindrainagescurrentlynotmeetingForestPlanStandards.#X/XX8X/#"Giventheabove   remandregardingthe"nomeasurableincreaseinsedimentproduction"assessment,thisissueismoot.     VII.CROSSMOTIONSFORPARTIALSUMMARYJUDGMENTREGARDINGFISH 0 BATE:CLEANWATERACT `  BasedontheaboveclaimthattheFishBateprojectwill @ resultinincreasedsedimenttoprojectareastreams,PlaintiffsalsoclaimthattheFishBateprojectviolatestheCleanWaterAct.DefendantscontendthattheprojectwillnotviolatetheCWAbasedonthefindingof"noincreaseinsedimentproduction."Giventheaboveremandregardingthe"nomeasurableincreaseinsedimentproduction"assessment,theCourtwillnotaddressthisissueatthistime.  $0 (   VIII.INTERVENERASSOCIATEDLOGGINGCONTRACTORS'MOTIONFOR p&!* PARTIALSUMMARYJUDGMENTONTHE_TWS_Ԁ_SETTLEMENT_ 0*%. A.BACKGROUND   ThisCourtallowedAssociatedLoggingContractors,Inc.(ALC)topermissivelyinterveneasaDefendantregardingtheTWSSettlement.TheCourtlimitedthatinterventiontoALCsassertionthattheTWSSettlementisvoidasamatterofpublicpolicyforviolationofthelaw.ALCthenmovedforsummaryjudgmentinitsfavorbyaskingtheCourttovoidtheTWSSettlement.ALCassertsitisentitledtosummaryjudgmentunder36C.F.R.219.10(f)(1998)whichstatesthatsignificantamendmentstoforestplansmustundergopubliccommentprocedures,pursuanttorequirementsunderNFMAandNEPA.16U.S.C.1604(am)(1994).ALCassertsthattheTWSSettlementmakessignificantamendmentstotheForestPlanandthattheDefendantswerethereforerequiredtoapplytheabovepubliccommentprocedurestotheTWSSettlementprovisions.Asaresult,ALCarguesthatundertheAPA,5U.S.C.706(2)(D),theTWSSettlementmustbedeclaredvoidbecausetheDefendantsfailedtoobservetheproceduresrequiredbylaw.  ֪   ݀PlaintiffsandDefendantsarguethatALC'smotionisbarredbylaches,thattheTWSSettlementdoesnotmakesignificantamendmentstotheForestPlan, thattheabsenceofapublic % !* commentprocessontheprovisionsoftheTWSSettlementisnotcontrarytoNEPAandNFMArequirements,andthattheTWSSettlementshouldnotbevoidasamatterofpublicpolicy.  * &0 PlaintiffsalsoarguethatALC'smotionconstitutesaclaimagainsttheForestServicethatisnotjusticiablebecauseALCdoesnothavestandingtobringsuchaclaimaspartofthis_suit.______ __BecausetheCourtfindsbelowthattheTWSSettlementdoes `  notsignificantlyamendtheForestPlan,_Ԁtheproceduralargumentsregarding_justiciability_Ԁand_lachesaremoot.____ 8X/XXX/_      B.APPLICABLELAW  `  Under36C.F.R.219.10(f): X X X<( ` hp x XX<8X/XX8X/X/XX8X/  EX/XXX/  Ifthechangeresultingfromtheproposedamendmentis   determinedtobesignificant,theForestSupervisorshallfollowthesameprocedureasthatrequiredfordevelopmentandapprovalofaforestplan.Ifthechangeresultingfromtheamendmentisdeterminednottobesignificantforthepurposesoftheplanningprocess,theForestSupervisormayimplementtheamendmentfollowingappropriatepublicnotificationandsatisfactorycompletionofNEPAprocedures.݌̌ X X XXXEX/XXEX/8X/XXEX/  X X X XB.` hp x (#XXBThereareanumberofguidelinesfortheForestServicetousetodeterminewhetherornotanamendmentissignificant.53Fed.Reg.at26,83637,ForestServiceManual1922.52,andForestServiceHandbook1909.12,ch.5.31.However,thedeterminationofwhetherornotanamendmentissignificantisadiscretionarydecision.SierraClubv.Cargill,11F.3d1545,1548(10thCir.  !p$ 1993). XInPrairieWoodProd.v.Glickman,thecourtrevieweda @$( regionalforestersdecisiontoadopttwoscreeningprocessesfortimberharvestsandfishmanagementasnonsignificantamendmentstotheforestplansforanumberofforests.971F.Supp.457,46266(D.Or.1997).Thecourtruledthedecisionwasnot *%0 arbitrary,capriciousoranabuseofdiscretionbecausetheprocesseswereintendedtobeinterimandbecausetheywereconsistentwiththeforestplanobjectives.Extensivegrazingmanagementregulationsthataffected19millionacresofforesthavealsobeenfoundnonsignificantforthesamereasons.ArizonaCattleGrowersAssn.v.Cartwright,29F.Supp.2d1100,    111415(D.Az.1998).Seealso:Cargill,at154850(courtruled `  changingregenerationstandardfromfivetosevenyearswasnonsignificantandwasnotanabuseofdiscretion.)Bycontrast,policiesthatareinconflictwiththedutyunderaforestplanandtheEndangeredSpeciesActtoprioritizeprotectionofaspecificspeciesaresignificantamendmentstoaforestplananditisarbitraryandcapriciousfortheForestServicetoadoptsuchpolicieswithoutproperNEPAprocedures.Housev.U.S. P ForestServ.,974F.Supp.1022,(E.D.Ky.1997).Thesecases  illustratetheprinciplethatForestPlansareconsideredbroad,guidingdocuments,similartoazoningordinance.MichaelJ.Gippert&VincentL.DeWitte,TheNatureofLand&Resource @" ManagementPlanningUndertheNationalForestManagementAct,3  $ Envtl.L.149(1996);SwanViewCoalition,Inc.v.Turner,824F. `"& Supp.923,935(D.Mont.1992).Inthiscase,however,ALCdisputestheDefendantsexerciseofdiscretioninenteringajudiciallyrecognizedsettlementagreement,ratherthanDefendantsexerciseofdiscretioninapurelyadministrativeaction.Unlikeadministrativeprocesses,therearenostatutoryguidelinesorspecificjudicially +'2 articulatedstandardsthatanagencymustfollowinnegotiatingsettlementagreements.ALCcitestoLocalNo.93v.Cityof @ Cleveland,478U.S.501,(1986),fortherulethatanagency   cannotagreetoasettlementtheviolatesthelaw.However,undertheAPA,settlementisfavoredasawaytobringefficientresolutionofclaims.5U.S.C.554(c)(1996).Othersettlementagreementswiththegovernmentdemonstratethatagencieslikelyhavebroaderdiscretioninresolvingcasesthaninfollowingstatutoryandregulatoryprocedures.  xthe  qS;qSqS_qS    34      ׀SeeCitizensforaBetter 0  _Envt_Ԁv._Gorsuch_,718F.2d1117(D.C.Cir.1983)(holdingthata  settlementagreementsettlingupextensiveprocedureswasnotcontrarytolaw.);seealsoCaliforniaTroutv.U.S.Forest 0 Service,StipulationofDismissalNo.940563,1994WL665220 p (N.D.Cal.Nov.9,1994)(incorporatingdetailedinterimprovisions).Inlightoftheaboveprecedentregardingsignificantamendmentsandsettlementagreements,itisclearthattheCourtmustshowdeferencetoanagencysjudgmentinsettlementagreementsundertheAPA.Therefore,thestandardofreviewregardingtheAPAandsummaryjudgmentmotionsdiscussedattheoutsetofthisopinionappliesandthisCourtmayfindthe_TWS_Settlementvoidasamatterofpublicpolicyonlyifthe % * DefendantsdeterminationthattheagreementdidnotsignificantlyamendtheForestPlanisarbitrary,capricious,oranabuseofdiscretion.  the      35          C.THEPROVISIONSOFTHETWSSETTLEMENT `  B.` hp x (#XB ALCarguesthattheprovisionsofSectionIIoftheTWS @  SettlementconstitutesignificantamendmentstotheForestPlan.PlaintiffsandDefendantsarguethattheprovisionsoftheagreementarenotsignificantamendmentstotheForestPlanbecausetheyareconsistentwithandfurtherthegoalsandobjectivesoftheForestPlanandbecausetheyareonlyintendedtobeinplaceuntiltheentirePlanisrevisedpursuanttoSectionIoftheTWSSettlement.  the  _?    36      _ԀTheCourtwillconsidereach 0 interimprovisionoftheTWSSettlement.__ P   ` 1.RECOMMENDEDWILDERNESS   First,inSectionII2(a),theForestServiceagreednotto  approvetimbersalesorroadconstructionprojectsinanyareasincludedintheproposed IdahoWilderness,SustainableForestandCommunitiesActof1993,H.R.1570ornewproposalsbymembersofIdahosdelegation.ALCassertsthisisasignificantamendmentbecauseitchangesthelandallocationandmanagementareadirectionintheForestPlanandbecause,undertheForestPlan,timbersaleswereallowedintheseareas.TheDefendantsarguethatthisisnotasignificantamendmentbecausetheForestPlandoesntdirectlycommitspecificareastodevelopmentandbecausetheForestPlanindicatesthat [theForestService]willbuildasfewroadsaspossibletoimplementForestPlanobjectives(ARProgrammatic,Vol.1,Doc.1at28.)Plaintiffsalsonotethat,accordingtoDefendantsOctober8,1993letterto InterestedCitizen[s],noneofthethreepossibletimbersalesinthoseareasortwosalesinadjacentareascouldproceeduntilafterthePlanrevisionwascomplete,duetofundingrestraints.Inaddition,theForestPlanStandardsincludethefollowingregardingwilderness:8 ` Managerecommendedadditionstothewildernesssystemtopreventchangesincharacter...untilCongressmakesclassificationdecisions. ` x` x  `'",   (Id.Doc.2atII23.)#X/XX8X/I#8X/XXX/Ԁ ((x#- Asmentionedabove,ALChastheburden_of_Ԁ_demonstratingthat_theDefendants_actions_Ԁ_are_Ԁarbitrary,capricious,oranabuseof H+&1 discretion.ItappearsfromtherecordthatDefendantsagreedtothisprovisionbecauseitfurtheredthegeneralpolicyofaccomplishingforestgoalswithasfewroadsaspossible,becauseitaffectedapartoftimberproductionthatwasgoingtobedelayedinanycase,becauseitwastemporary,andbecauseitmetaPlanStandard._ALC_ԀhasthereforefailedtoshowthattheprovisionisinconsistentwiththeForestPlanorthattheDefendantsactedarbitrarilyorcapriciouslyinagreeingtothisprovision.  ` 2.TIMBERPRODUCTION   X XX/XX8X/  EX/XXX/  Second,inSectionII2(b),theDefendantsagreedtooffer  nomorethan80millionboardfeetoftimberperyear.ALCarguesthisisasignificantamendmentbecausetheAllowableSaleQuantity(ASQ)intheForestPlanis170millionboardfeetperyearandthisprovisionlowersthetimberavailableforsale.ALCarguesthattheASQallowstheForestServiceandprivatepartiestoplantheirfutureoperations.ResourcesLtd.v. P  Robertson,35F.3d1300,1305(9thCir.1993).^݌ " Ќ X8X/XXEX/   XX/XX8X/  EX/XXX/  TheDefendantsandPlaintiffsarguethattheASQinthe  !p$ ForestPlanisintendedtobeaceiling,notaquota,thattheDefendantshavediscretiontoofferlessthantheceiling,and thattheASQwasnotactuallychangedintheForestPlan.  rest  @    37      ׀ % !* T!@ T   T  _Plaintiffs_Ԁalsoarguethatfundingconstraintsrestrictedsalesto80millionboardfeetabsentthe_TWS_ԀSettlement:݌ X8X/XXEX/   XX/XX8X/  EX/XXX/  X X<( ` hp x X< XThistimberoffer[inthe_TWS_ԀSettlement]wasdeveloped   forthefollowingreasons.W݌̌ 8X/XXEX/   XX/XX8X/  EX/XXX/  <( ` hp x X<a.TheRegionsforecastoftimberoffersthrough `  FY97supportsourpreviousdiscussionswiththetimberindustry,forecastingtheClearwatersshareoftheRegionstotaltobefundedforapproximately6070_MMBF_.Q݌̌ X8X/XXEX/   XX/XX8X/  EX/XXX/6  <( ` hp x X<b.Wearebuildingaworkforceorganizationto H   support70_MMBF_.6݌̌ X8X/XXEX/   XX/XX8X/  EX/XXX/  <( ` hp x X<l݌ (  Ќ X8X/XXEX/   XX/XX8X/  EX/XXX/Q  X X XClearwaterNationalForest,FY1993MonitoringandEvaluation   Report,(ARProgrammatic,Vol.IV,Doc.13,atpp.7778.)Q݌̌ 8X/XXEX/  XInkeepingwiththeguidingnatureofforestplans,the  SupremeCourtrecentlyruledtheydonot giveanyonealegalrighttocuttrees,nordoesitabolishanyoneslegalauthoritytoobjecttotreesbeingcut,butaretoolsforagencyplanningandmanagement.OhioForestryAssnInc.v.SierraClub,118S. P Ct.1665,167072(1998).Further,aGeorgiadistrictcourtstated plainlogicalsomakesclearthatimplementationwhichlowersoutputsisnotasignificantamendment,orindeedanyamendment,totheAllowableSaleQuantitysetforthinthe_LRMP_,whichismerelyaceiling.SouthernTimberPurchasersCouncil  $ v.Alcock,779F.Supp.1353,1362(N.D.Ga.1991).Also,_ALC_ `"& failstonotethatinResourcesLtd.thecourtfoundthe_ASQ_Ԁvoid #@( becauseitwasarbitrarilyhigh.35F.3dat1305.Hereagain,DefendantsagreedtothisprovisionbecauseitwasconsistentwiththeForestPlanandbecauseitwasbasedonprojectedsales._ALC_ԀhasfailedtodemonstratethattheDefendantsagreementtothisprovisionwasanarbitraryexerciseofitsdiscretionorinconsistentwiththeForest_Plan. __ P-(4 __ .0*6 9A 9   9  ___ ` 3.ENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENTSFOROLDGROWTH  _ Third,_ԀSectionII2(c)requiresfieldverificationof  possibleoldgrowthstandsforalltimberharvestandnewroadconstructionprojectsandpreparationofanenvironmentalimpactstatement(_EIS_)whenanoldgrowthstandof100acresormorewillbeaffectedbytheproject._ALC_Ԁarguesthisisasignificantamendmentbecauseit modifiesimportantstandardsandguidelinesusedtocontrolmanagementactivities...whichaffecttheabilityoftheForesttomeetthedesiredfutureconditionsestablishedintheForestPlan.(_ALC_sOpeningBr.at10.)DefendantsarguethisisnotasignificantamendmentbecausetheForestPlanarticulatesagoalofmaintaining sufficientoldgrowthtimbersuitabletomeettheneedsofoldgrowthdependantwildlifeona_Forestwide_Ԁbasis.(ARProgrammaticVol.1,Doc.2atII17.) OldgrowthhabitatisavitalcomponentofthevegetativediversityoftheClearwaterForest,Id.atH1.The P  ForestPlanalsostatesanobjectiveto [_i]mplement_Ԁaroadmanagementprogramthatisresponsivetoresourceprotectionneeds.Id.atII7.AndtheRecordofDecisionstates Locating "& theroadawayfromimportantwildlifehabitat...willbedonetoreduceimpact.Id.Doc.1at28.Defendantsalsonotethat % !* requiringan_EIS_ԀfurtherstheNEPApurposetorequireagenciestoconsiderenvironmentalissues._Cady_Ԁv.Morton,527F.2d786, (@$. 79394(9thCir1975). *%0 Itisimportanttonotethatthisprovisiondoesnotdictatearesultregardingtimbersales,onceanoldgrowthstandisfound.ItmerelyrequirespreparationofanEIS.Accordingly,DefendantsagreementtothisprovisionclearlyfurtheredthegoalsintheForestPlanandthereforewasnotarbitrary.  ` 4.MAINTAININGWATERQUALITY     Fourth,SectionII2(d)prohibitsprojectsthatwouldresult `  inameasurableincreaseinsedimentproductionindrainagesnotmeetingForestPlanStandards,requiresrepairofknownsedimentsourcesasbudgetspermit,requiresinstreamanalysisusingmethodssuchastheRiffleArmorStabilityIndex(RASI)method,andfinallyrequirespreandpostdecisionalmonitoringonthemajorityoftimberharvestandroadconstructionprojectsthatnormallyrequireanEnvironmentalAssessment(EA)orEIS.ALCarguesthesearesignificantamendmentsforthesamereasonasitsargumentregardingtheoldgrowthprovision.DefendantsandPlaintiffsarguethatthesearenotsignificantamendmentsbecausetheForestPlanstates: X X X<( ` hp x X<8X/XX8X/X/XX8X/  EX/XXX/  TheForestwillcontinuetoprovidehighqualitywater  !p$ andfisherieshabitat.Inmostareas,currenthighqualitywaterwillbemaintained.Inotherareaswherepastmanagementhadadverselyaffectedwaterqualityandfishhabitat,improvementsinwaterqualityareanticipated.U݌̌ X X XXEX/XXEX/8X/XXEX/   X X<( ` hp x X<8X/XX8X/X/XX8X/  EX/XXX/O  O݌̌ X X XXEX/XXEX/8X/XXEX/  (ARProgrammatic,Vol.1,Doc.1at4.)TheForestPlanalso &!+ statesthegoalto managewatersheds...tomaintainhighqualitywaterthatmeets...StateandFederalwaterqualitystandards,Id.Doc.2,atII3,andto [s]ecurefavorable H+&1 conditionsofflowbymaintainingtheintegrityandequilibriumofstreamsystems.Id.atII6.DefendantsalsoarguethattheyarefreetoadaptnewmethodsofmonitoringthatareconsistentwiththeForestPlan. XTherecorddemonstratesthisprovisionoftheTWSSettlementisconsistentwithandfurthersthegoalsoftheForestPlanbecauseitprohibitsonlythoseprojectsthatareinareasalreadyinviolationofthePlanstandards.Further,itonlyrequiresrepairofsedimentsourcesasbudgetspermitandonlyrequirespreandpostdecisionalmonitoringonprojectswhereanEAorEISisnormallyalreadyrequired.Finally,likethecasesaboveinwhichnewpoliciesormethodswerefoundnonsignificant,themonitoringmethodsadoptedintheTWSSettlementsimplyfurthertheForestPlangoalsandobjectives.Consequently,ALChasfailedtoshowthattheDefendantsactedarbitrarilyinagreeingtothisprovision. X    ` D.CONCLUSIONREGARDINGALC'SMOTION     XInsum,anysettlementagreementwiththegovernmentinpublicinterestlitigationrequiresthattheexecutiveagencyexerciseitsdiscretionintheinterestofitspublicduties.IftheCourtweretostrikethisagreementasvoidbyfindingtheDefendantshadactedarbitrarily,capriciouslyorinabuseoftheirdiscretion,therewouldbelittleroomleftforthepublicpolicyofencouragingsettlementagreements.Further,tosetupacourtorderedpublicprocessforprovisionsofsettlement *%0 agreementswiththeForestServicewouldsimplyaddanadditionallayerofadministrativeprocessandwoulddenyplaintiffstheirindependentclaimsincourt.Theroleofthecourtsinagencydisputesisnotadministrativebutrathertobringjudicialfinalityandresolutiontoanissue.Inthiscase,theCourtfindsthatALChasnotmetitsburdentoprovetheDefendantsactedarbitrarily,capriciouslyorabusedtheirdiscretioninofferingoragreeingtotheprovisionsoftheSettlement.TheTWSSettlementinterimprovisionsareconsistentwith,support,andfurtherthegoalsandobjectivesoftheForestPlan.Therefore,theTWSSettlementisnotvoidasamatterofpublicpolicyandALC'smotionisgrantedinfavorofthePlaintiffsand_Defendants.vStSFtSvStSftSvS    38      vSwSwSxS_ALC_Ԁisherebydismissedasanintervenersubject,ofcourse,toitsrighttoappealasaparty,butisallowedtocontinueasamicuscuriaeshouldthereberemainingissuesbeforetheCourt.#X/XX8X/#8X/XXX/xS__vSvS__vSvS_  p  X X X<( ` hp x X<8X/XX8X/X/XX8X/  EX/XXX/  X XE1` hp x (#XE IX.DEFENDANTS'MOTIONFORSUMMARYJUDGMENTONALLREMAINING   CLAIMS y݌ " Ќ  ! XX!EX/XXEX/8X/XXEX/    Defendants'motionforsummaryjudgmentintheirfavoron p!$ Plaintiffs'remainingclaims#X/XX8X/#8X/XXX/isthefinalmotionpendingbefore #P& thisCourt.Inresponsetothismotion,Plaintiffsdeclared#X/XX8X/ #8X/XXX/, $( underFed.R.Civ.P.56(f),thatDefendantsareinpossessionofinformationontheirremainingclaims.Plaintiffsnamedoversixtyadditionalforestserviceprojectsthattheybelievemaybeatissue.Plaintiffsclaimthereareotherpossibleviolationsof * &0 lawunderNEPA,_NFMA_,_CWA_,EndangeredSpeciesAct,theWildandScenicRiversAct,andthe_TWS_ԀSettlementagreement.Generally,theseclaimsinvolvewaterquality,offroadvehicleuse,approvalofsalvagetimbersales,andwildlifemonitoring.  Giventheaboveanalysisregardingfinalagencyactionandproperexhaustionofadministrativeappealprocedures,itisnotappropriateatthistimefortheCourttomakeanydeterminationregarding_Plaintiffs'_Ԁadditionalclaims.Further,underFed.R.Civ.P.42,infurtheranceofconvenienceandintheinterestofjudicialeconomyandexpedition,thisCourthasthediscretiontoseparatemattersbeforethecourt.Therefore,Plaintiffs'additionalclaimsaredismissedwithoutprejudice.Plaintiffs_have_Ԁ_discretion_Ԁto_file_Ԁanothercomplaintregardingtheseclaims,buttheymustallegespecificviolationsoflawregardingfinalagencyactionswhichtheyhaveproperlyadministrativelyappealed.__     p  X X<( ` hp x X<8X/XX8X/X/XX8X/  EX/XXX/  X XE1` hp x (#XE X.REMEDIES k݌   Ќ  ! XX!EX/XXEX/8X/XXEX/   X X<( ` hp x X<8X/XX8X/X/XX8X/    X X XE1` hp x (#XE#X/XXX/_ #8X/XXX/Inordertoobtainapreliminaryinjunction,plaintiffshave " toestablishthat:(1)thereisalikelihoodofsuccessonthemerits;(2)thebalanceofirreparableharmstipintheirfavor;and(3)thepublicinterestfavorsissuanceofaninjunction.CaribbeanMarine_Servs_.Co.v.Baldridge,844F.2d668,674(9th % !* Cir._1988).#X/XX8X/#EX/XXX/_ԀThestandardforapermanentinjunctionis `'", essentiallythesameasapreliminaryinjunctionexceptthattheplaintiffmustactuallysucceedonthemeritsratherthan *%0 demonstratealikelihoodofsuccess.SierraClubv.Penfold,857  F.2d1307,1318(9thCir.1988).Regardingenvironmentalinjury,theSupremeCourthasobserved:g݌̌  ! XX!EX/XXEX/8X/XXEX/  8 ` [Such]injury,byitsnature,canseldombe `  adequatelyremediedbymoneydamagesandisoftenpermanentoratleastoflongduration,i.e.,irreparable.Ifsuchinjuryissufficientlylikelytherefore,thebalanceofharmswillusuallyfavortheissuanceofaninjunctiontoprotecttheenvironment. ` x` x  (  \AmocoProd.Co.v.VillageofGambell,480U.S.531,#X/XX8X/#EX/XXX/(1987).   E1` hp x (#XEMorerecentcasesconfirmthisapproach:"[A]bsent'unusualcircumstances,'aninjunctionistheappropriateremedyforaviolationofNEPA'sproceduralrequirements."#X/XXEX/X#EX/XXX/ԀForestConservation P Councilv.USFS,66F.3d1489,1496(9thCir.1995)(citingThomas 0 v.Peterson,753F.2d754,764(9thCir.1985))#X/XXEX/#EX/XXX/.Seealso p NeighborsofCuddyMountainv.USFS,137F.3d1372,1382(9th P Cir.1998);#X/XXEX/#8X/XXX/IdahoSportingCongressv.Thomas,137F.3d1146,  1154#X/XX8X/p#EX/XXX/Ԁ#X/XXEX/#8X/XXX/(9thCir.1998)#X/XX8X/E#EX/XXX/.  p Inthiscase,Plaintiffs'claimregardingoldgrowthisbasedontheForestPlanminimumstandardforoldgrowthhabitat.Becauseitisaminimumstandard,violationofthe10%oldgrowthhabitatrequirementbyloggingremainingoldgrowthclearlyindicatespotentialirreparableinjury.Similarly,_Plaintiffs'_claimsregardingwaterqualityinvolveaprojectareainwhichtheDefendantsadmittheForestPlanstandardsforwaterqualityarealreadybeingviolated.BecausethePlaintiffshavedemonstratedthepotentialforirreparableinjuryregardingbotholdgrowthandwaterqualityfromtheFishBateproject,the +'2 projectdecisionisREVERSEDandREMANDED_andDefendantsareenjoinedfromfurtherproceedingwiththeFishBateproject______________________ԀuntilsuchtimeastheU.S.F____orest_ԀServicesatisfiesitsNEPA,NFMA,andTWSSettlementAgreementobligationsregardingtheFishBateproject#X/XXEX/#consistentwiththis_opinion.____  @ __    __=XXXX/cc:0 ` LandandWaterFundoftheRockies  ` (#` (#  ` RossbachBrennan ` USDeptofJustice ` OfficeofUSAttyySySzS ` zSySySzSOfficeofGeneralCounselzSySyS ` Gough,Shanahan,Johnson&Waterman ` MorrisandWolff ` Rosholt,Robertson&Tucker ` Garlington,Lohn&Robinson#X/XX=XI&#__{S ` Moore,Smith,Buxton&Turcke{S_