Lands Council v. Vaught

• Decision Date: 29 March 2002
• Docket Number: No. CS-00-0185-EFS.,CS-00-0185-EFS.
• Citation: 198 F.Supp.2d 1211
• Parties: The LANDS COUNCIL, Idaho Sporting Congress, Inc., the Ecology Center, and the Kootenai Environmental Alliance, Plaintiffs, v. Robert VAUGHT and/or Rolando Ortegon, in his official capacity as Forest Supervisor of the Colville National Forest; David Wright, in his official capacity as Forest Supervisor of the Idaho Panhandle National Forests; and Mike Dombeck, Chief of the U.S. Forest Service, and agency of the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Defendants, v. Intermountain Forest Association; Idaho Forest Owners Association; and Vaagen Brothers Lumber, Inc., Defendant-Intervenors.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Washington

Page 1211

198 F.Supp.2d 1211

The LANDS COUNCIL, Idaho Sporting Congress, Inc., the Ecology Center, and the Kootenai Environmental Alliance, Plaintiffs, v. Robert VAUGHT and/or Rolando Ortegon, in his official capacity as Forest Supervisor of the Colville National Forest; David Wright, in his official capacity as Forest Supervisor of the Idaho Panhandle National Forests; and Mike Dombeck, Chief of the U.S. Forest Service, and agency of the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Defendants, v. Intermountain Forest Association; Idaho Forest Owners Association; and Vaagen Brothers Lumber, Inc., Defendant-Intervenors.

No. CS-00-0185-EFS.

United States District Court, E.D. Washington.

March 29, 2002.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Terrence V Sawyer, Spokane, WA, D Bernard Zaleha, Wild Fund Inc, Thomas J Woodbury, Attorney at Law, Boise, ID, for plaintiffs.

William Herbert Beatty, U S Attorney's Office, Spokane, WA, Robert A Maynard, Perkins Coie LLP, Boise, ID, for defendants.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION

SHEA, District Judge.

On March 9, 2001, the Court heard oral argument on the summary judgment motion filed by Plaintiffs, (Ct.Rec.103), and by Defendants Robert Vaught, David Wright and Mike Dombeck ("the Federal Defendants"), (Ct.Rec.109). Defendants Intermountain Forest Association, Idaho Forest Owners Association, and Vaagen Brothers Lumber, Inc. ("the Intervenor Defendants") have joined the Federal Defendants' summary judgment motion. (Ct. Rec.115.)

At the hearing, Plaintiffs were represented by Tom Woodbury and Terrence Sawyer. Alan Campbell represented the Federal Defendants. The Intervenor Defendants were represented telephonically by Robert A. Maynard. The Court has reviewed the motions, the file and those parts of the administrative record cited by the parties.

                I. ........................ OUTLINE OF DECISION .............................. 1218
                     
                 II. BACKGROUND ................................................................ 1219
                III. CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ........................................ 1220
                     A. Summary Judgment Standard .............................................. 1221
                     B. Old Growth Habitat, Old Growth Species and Sensitive Species ........... 1221
                        1. NEPA Requirements for Meaningful Old Growth Data .................... 1221
                           a. CNF Old Growth Data .............................................. 1222
                           b. IPNF Old Growth Data ............................................. 1222
                        2. NFMA Requirement for Consistency with LRMP Old Growth Standards ..... 1223
                        3. NFMA Requirement to Maintain Old Growth Species Viability ........... 1225
                        4. LRMP Requirement to Monitor Species Populations ..................... 1225
                        5. NFMA Requirement for Consistency with LRMP Habitat Distribution
                            Standards .......................................................... 1227
                     C. Water Quality .......................................................... 1229
                        1. CWA Requirements and the Idaho Portion of the Project ............... 1229
                           a. Violation of the CWA ............................................. 1229
                               i. Addition of Sediment Load to Degraded Streams ................ 1229
                              ii. Reliance on State-Approved BMPs .............................. 1230
                           b. Violation of the Arbitrary and Capricious Standard ............... 1231
                        2. NFMA Requirement for Consistency with the IPNF LRMP Water
                            Quality Monitoring Program ......................................... 1232
                        3. LRMP Requirement to Conduct BMP Effectiveness and Validation
                            Monitoring ......................................................... 1232
                        4. LRMP Requirement Regarding WATSED Model Calibration ................. 1233
                        5. NEPA Requirements ................................................... 1234
                           a. Assumption Regarding Dead and Dying Trees ........................ 1234
                           b. WATSED's Validated/Recalibrated Status and the IPNF LRMP
                                Standard ....................................................... 1238
                           c. Disclosure of WATSED's Failure to Evaluate In-Channel and
                                Stream-Bank Erosion and Effect of Rain-on-Snow and Large
                                Destructive Events ............................................. 1238
                           d. Use of WATSED to Predict Sediment and Water Yield Increases ...... 1239
                           e. Disclosure of Water and Sediment Yield for Project's First Six
                                Years .......................................................... 1240
                           f. Disclosure of Impacts from Rain-on-Snow Discharge Events and
                                from Instream Sediment Discharges .............................. 1241
                               i. Rain-on-Snow Sediment/Water Discharge Events ................. 1242
                              ii. Instream and Streambank Sediment Discharges .................. 1243
                     D. Fisheries .............................................................. 1244
                     E. Cumulative Impact Analysis under NEPA .................................. 1245
                        1. Effects of Old Growth Harvest on Old Growth Species ................. 1245
                        2. Effects on CNF from Timber Harvest on Adjacent Lands ................ 1246
                           a. Cataloging of Past Timber Harvest Activities ..................... 1246
                           b. Consideration of Adjacent Land Timber Harvest Activities ......... 1246
                        3. Effects on IPNF from Logging ........................................ 1248
                           a. Coeur d'Alene Ranger District .................................... 1248
                           b. Priest Lake Ranger District ...................................... 1249
                                i. Lakeface-Lamb Project EIS ................................... 1249
                               ii. Stimson Timber Sale ......................................... 1250
                              iii. Analysis of Future Projects ................................. 1250
                        4. Effects of Water Yield and Sediment Discharge ....................... 1250
                        5. Effects of Grazing in the IPNF Project Area ......................... 1251
                        6. Effects of Off Road Vehicles ........................................ 1251
                     F. Summary ................................................................ 1252
                

                 IV. PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION ............................... 1254
                

II. BACKGROUND

In late 1998 and early 1999, the United States Forest Service ("Forest Service") began addressing a Douglas-fir bark beetle outbreak and various ecosystem imbalances in the Colville and Idaho Panhandle National Forests ("CNF" and "IPNF," respectively). Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"), the Forest Service prepared an environmental impact statement identifying various alternatives for addressing the outbreak and imbalances. The final form of this statement, known as the Final Environmental Impact Statement ("FEIS"), was released to the public on June 14, 1999. On June 11, 1999, the Forest Service issued two records of decision ("RODs") that adopted, with modifications, several of the alternatives identified in the FEIS.

The alternatives adopted by the RODs are known as the Douglas Fir Bark Beetle Project ("the Project"). The Project is to respond to the bark beetle outbreak, restore vegetation, restore aquatic ecosystems, and reduce forest fire fuels — largely by logging 145 million board-feet of trees. Project restoration work is to be implemented either as part of timber sale contracts or with funds generated by those sales. Overall, Project work is expected to affect more than 19,000 acres of forested land in the IPNF and 4,300 acres of forested land in the CNF.

Pursuant to 36 C.F.R. §§ 215.9 and 215.13, The Lands Council, Ecology Center, Idaho Conservation League, and Kootenai Environmental Alliance ("the Montana plaintiffs") administratively appealed the Forest Service's decisions to adopt and implement the Project. The appeals were denied in September 1999.

On February 1, 2000, the Kettle Range Conservation Group and Leavenworth Audubon, Adopt-A-Forest ("the Kettle Range plaintiffs") filed suit in this district challenging the implementation of the CNF portion of the Project on NEPA and NFMA grounds. The judge in that case found that the Kettle Range plaintiffs lacked standing and dismissed the case on July 12, 2000, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Kettle Range plaintiffs filed an appeal on September 8, 2000. The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded, concluding that the district court should have considered the additional documents filed by the Kettle Range plaintiffs to support standing. On July 10, 2001, the judge in that case granted the Kettle Range plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and enjoined the CNF portion of the Project.

Plaintiffs filed the instant suit on May 25, 2000, asserting that the Federal Defendants, in approving and proceeding with the Project, violated the Administrative Procedures Act ("APA"), NEPA, NFMA, the Clean Water Act ("CWA"), and the regulations implementing these acts. (Compl., Ct.Rec.1.) At the same time, Plaintiffs filed their First Injunction Motion. The Court denied the motion by letter ruling on July 25, 2000. On October 23, 2000, Plaintiffs filed a Second Injunction Motion consisting of a motion to reconsider the letter ruling and a renewed motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. The Court denied the second motion and set forth its rationale for both rulings in its December 6, 2000, Order Denying Plaintiffs' Motion and Renewed Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, (Ct.Rec.92). Plaintiffs appealed. On ...