’WPC‚  ^µĖtŲ2¢(Æb{G챤³›£ų9Ī[ā2يĀ-bÅėčubЇŲRŗ#‡žSœč9ÄC5öżBš°„“B°ŚK`Ž›Č2éklœM7¢{)j=ķ5Eśæ“¢dɰ’¼ŅĶt3ÅØ:%Ź7ŃĖ€/ŽÄ‘^æĘLøGŒ½D?€’Żwu}-Ł/³³ “¼‡ā#ihOšUhʄ_ūˆ ~:¹©;‘4±šēņž8g:Į'ŠI‰§_’ˆd1Eęö¼‘{NćåhIZ…ēo m“˜z8+ŽÉ-üżåb¶.yŽ• \ 6ćb'“madxąŸōę€a¼FŁY4ZՔǧõ»§ūL’7b޼X­¬TĒįc T‡'Ē“NcübŲ it ‡h&Č>l§×ĮWŻŅ"!Øšn,sYż‚Į…j}CJ@)i7c/Č<’Āə¢¾ö·ōę“iŻ~+S ’’0_level7Ó Øż ÓÓ h ÓÓ&ĄĄpČ xŠ (#&ÓŌ2ŌŌ3  Ōą..ąÓ  ÓÓ;1XX°` ø hĄpČ xŠ (#;ÓÓ Øż Ó2;+S ’’0_level8Ó Øż ÓÓ Ą ÓÓ#pČ xŠ (##ÓŌ2ŌŌ3  Ōą..ąÓ  ÓÓ;1XX°` ø hĄpČ xŠ (#;ÓÓ Øż Ó28+S ’’0_level9Ó Øż ÓÓ  ÓÓ ppČ xŠ (# ÓŌ2ŌŌ3  Ōą..ąÓ  ÓÓ;1XX°` ø hĄpČ xŠ (#;ÓÓ Øż Ó2PS ’’0_levsl1Ó Øż ÓÓ X ÓÓ8.°°` ø hĄpČ xŠ (#8ÓŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō€Ó  ÓÓ;1XX°` ø hĄpČ xŠ (#;ÓÓ Øż Ó2MS ’’0_levsl2Ó Øż ÓÓ ° ÓÓ5+ ` ø hĄpČ xŠ (#5ÓŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō€Ó  ÓÓ;1XX°` ø hĄpČ xŠ (#;ÓÓ Øż Ó2JS ’’0_levsl3Ó Øż ÓÓ  ÓÓ2(` ` ø hĄpČ xŠ (#2ÓŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō€Ó  ÓÓ;1XX°` ø hĄpČ xŠ (#;ÓÓ Øż Ó2GS ’’0_levsl4Ó Øż ÓÓ ` ÓÓ/%ø ø hĄpČ xŠ (#/ÓŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō€Ó  ÓÓ;1XX°` ø hĄpČ xŠ (#;ÓÓ Øż Ó2DS ’’0_levsl5Ó Øż ÓÓ ø ÓÓ," hĄpČ xŠ (#,ÓŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō€Ó  ÓÓ;1XX°` ø hĄpČ xŠ (#;ÓÓ Øż Ó2AS ’’0_levsl6Ó Øż ÓÓ  ÓÓ)h hĄpČ xŠ (#)ÓŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō€Ó  ÓÓ;1XX°` ø hĄpČ xŠ (#;ÓÓ Øż Ó2>S ’’0_levsl7Ó Øż ÓÓ h ÓÓ&ĄĄpČ xŠ (#&ÓŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō€Ó  ÓÓ;1XX°` ø hĄpČ xŠ (#;ÓÓ Øż Ó2;S ’’0_levsl8Ó Øż ÓÓ Ą ÓÓ#pČ xŠ (##ÓŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō€Ó  ÓÓ;1XX°` ø hĄpČ xŠ (#;ÓÓ Øż Ó28S ’’0_levsl9Ó Øż ÓÓ  ÓÓ ppČ xŠ (# ÓŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō€Ó  ÓÓ;1XX°` ø hĄpČ xŠ (#;ÓÓ Øż Ó2PS ’’0_levnl1Ó Øż ÓÓ X ÓÓ8.°°` ø hĄpČ xŠ (#8ÓŌ2ŌŌ3  ŌÓ  ÓÓ;1XX°` ø hĄpČ xŠ (#;ÓÓ Øż Ó2MS ’’0_levnl2Ó Øż ÓÓ ° ÓÓ5+ ` ø hĄpČ xŠ (#5ÓŌ2ŌŌ3  ŌÓ  ÓÓ;1XX°` ø hĄpČ xŠ (#;ÓÓ Øż Ó2JS ’’0_levnl3Ó Øż ÓÓ  ÓÓ2(` ` ø hĄpČ xŠ (#2ÓŌ2ŌŌ3  ŌÓ  ÓÓ;1XX°` ø hĄpČ xŠ (#;ÓÓ Øż Ó2GS ’’0_levnl4Ó Øż ÓÓ ` ÓÓ/%ø ø hĄpČ xŠ (#/ÓŌ2ŌŌ3  ŌÓ  ÓÓ;1XX°` ø hĄpČ xŠ (#;ÓÓ Øż Ó2DS ’’0_levnl5Ó Øż ÓÓ ø ÓÓ," hĄpČ xŠ (#,ÓŌ2ŌŌ3  ŌÓ  ÓÓ;1XX°` ø hĄpČ xŠ (#;ÓÓ Øż Ó2AS ’’0_levnl6Ó Øż ÓÓ  ÓÓ)h hĄpČ xŠ (#)ÓŌ2ŌŌ3  ŌÓ  ÓÓ;1XX°` ø hĄpČ xŠ (#;ÓÓ Øż Ó2>S ’’0_levnl7Ó Øż ÓÓ h ÓÓ&ĄĄpČ xŠ (#&ÓŌ2ŌŌ3  ŌÓ  ÓÓ;1XX°` ø hĄpČ xŠ (#;ÓÓ Øż Ó2;S ’’0_levnl8Ó Øż ÓÓ Ą ÓÓ#pČ xŠ (##ÓŌ2ŌŌ3  ŌÓ  ÓÓ;1XX°` ø hĄpČ xŠ (#;ÓÓ Øż Ó28S ’’0_levnl9Ó Øż ÓÓ  ÓÓ ppČ xŠ (# ÓŌ2ŌŌ3  ŌÓ  ÓÓ;1XX°` ø hĄpČ xŠ (#;ÓÓ Øż ÓĆi[&A`ƊF'į3|x.’U‹’ĄĄĄ  ERP BSSGreenpeace WQPGlisson żŻ ƒ*½Ž&ŻŌUSUS.,ŌŻ  ŻŌ_ŌņņŌ_ŌGraberŌ_Ō€v.€United€States€Forest€Serviceóó,€No.€98-CV-4247-JPG€Ō_Ō(Ō_ŌS.D.€Ill.€September€27,€1999Ō_Ō)Ō_Ō.((.3½Ž$¦¦Ż ƒüœ!ŻŌUSUS.,ŌŻ  ŻŻ ƒüœ!ŻŌUSUS.,ŌŻ  ŻŌ_ŌÓ  ÓÓ  Óņ ņŃ8€dXdģdČ8ŃŌ_Ōó óņņóóŌ_ŌŌ_ŌŌ_ŌŌ€)ģā<ŌŌ_ŌŌ_ŌŌ_Ōą@Ł Ł ģąņ ņIN€THE€UNITED€STATES€DISTRICT€COURTˆŠ °< Šą@` ` ģąFOR€THE€SOUTHERN€DISTRICT€OF€ILLINOISˆĢĢJEAN€Ō_ŌGRABERŌ_Ō;€Ō_ŌGENEILŌ_Ō€STEARNS;€ą0 Ą ąą0Ą(#Ą(#ą)Št(#(# ŠTHE€REGIONAL€ASSOCIATION€OFą0 Ą ąą0Ą(#Ą(#ą)Š`ģ(#(# ŠCONCERNED€ENVIRONMENTALISTS;€ą0  ą)ŠL Ų(#(# ŠTHE€SIERRA€CLUB,€THE€ą0 h ąą0Ąh(#h(#ąą0Ą(#Ą(#ą)Š8 Ä (#(# ŠENVIRONMENTAL€LAW€AND€POLICYą0  ą)Š$ ° (#(# ŠCENTER€OF€THE€MIDWEST;€and€ą0 Ą ąą0Ą(#Ą(#ą)Š œ (#(# ŠHEARTWOOD,€INC.,ą0  ąą0h(#(#ąą0Ąh(#h(#ąą0Ą(#Ą(#ą)Šü ˆ (#(# Šą0  ąą0` (#(#ąą0ø ` (#` (#ąą0ø (#ø (#ąą0h(#(#ąą0Ąh(#h(#ąą0Ą(#Ą(#ą)Š (#(# Šą  ąPlaintiffs,ą0 ø ąą0ø (#ø (#ąą0h(#(#ąą0Ąh(#h(#ąą0Ą(#Ą(#ą)ņņŠŌ` (#(# Šóóą0  ąą0` (#(#ąą0ø ` (#` (#ąą0ø (#ø (#ąą0h(#(#ąą0Ąh(#h(#ąą0Ą(#Ą(#ą)ŠĄL (#(# Šą0  ąv.ą ` ąą ø ąą  ąą0h(#(#ąą0Ąh(#h(#ąą0Ą(#Ą(#ą)ą0p(#(#ąą0Čp(#p(#ąNo.€98-CV-4247-JPGЬ8Č(#Č(# Šą  ąą ` ąą ø ąą  ąą h ąą Ą ąą  ą)ĢTHE€UNITED€STATES€FOREST€SERVICE€ą0  ą)Š„(#(# ŠNICHOLAS€J.€Ō_ŌGIANNETTINOŌ_Ō€ą0 h ąą0Ąh(#h(#ąą0Ą(#Ą(#ą)Špü(#(# Šin€his€official€capacity€as€District€Ranger€ą0 Ą ąą0Ą(#Ą(#ą)Š\č(#(# Šfor€the€Vienna€Ranger€District€of€the€ą0 Ą ąą0Ą(#Ą(#ą)ŠHŌ(#(# ŠShawnee€National€Forest;€and€THE€ą0 Ą ąą0Ą(#Ą(#ą)Š4Ą(#(# ŠUNITED€STATES€FISH€AND€WILDLIFE€ą0  ą)Š ¬(#(# ŠSERVICE,ą0 ` ąą0ø ` (#` (#ąą0ø (#ø (#ąą0h(#(#ąą0Ąh(#h(#ąą0Ą(#Ą(#ą)Š ˜(#(# Šą0  ąą0` (#(#ąą0ø ` (#` (#ąą0ø (#ø (#ąą0h(#(#ąą0Ąh(#h(#ąą0Ą(#Ą(#ą)Š (#(# Šą  ąą ` ąDefendants.ą0  ąą0h(#(#ąą0Ąh(#h(#ąą0Ą(#Ą(#ą)ó óŠäp(#(# ŠĢņ ņņņą@ff ģąMEMORANDUM€AND€ORDERˆŠ ¼H Šó óóóĢņ ņGILBERT,€Chief€Judge:Š ”  Šó óĢą  ąPending€before€the€Court€are€the€partiesšš€cross€motions€for€summary€judgment€(docs.€31€&Ļ38).€The€parties€responded€(docs.€59€&€61).€Also€pending€is€plaintiffsšš€motion€to€strike€post€hocĻinformation€(doc.€34).€The€defendants€responded€(doc.€57),€and€the€plaintiffs€replied€(doc.€66).€InĻaddition,€before€the€Court€is€the€defendantsšš€motion€for€oral€argument€(doc.€69);€the€plaintiffsĻresponded€(doc.€70).ĢĢą  ąPlaintiffs€challenge€the€Forest€Serviceššs€(š šFSšš)€authorization€of€an€ecological€restorationĻproject€(š šERPšš)€in€the€OA6€area€in€the€Shawnee€National€Forest€(š šŌ_ŌSNFŌ_Ōšš).€The€FS€designed€theŠ  ą%l#' Šnative€hardwood€trees€to€the€area,€significantly€reducing€the€numbers€and€acreage€containingĻnonnative€pine€plantations.€A€stated€purpose€of€the€project€is€to€increase€Ō_ŌbiodiversityŌ_Ō€by€replacingĻthe€non-native€pines€with€a€predominately€oak€and€hickory€hardwood€forest.€To€accomplish€this,€theĻERP€authorizes€prescribed€burning€and€cutting€of€the€non-native€pines€trees,€as€well€as€otherĻprojects.€OA6€consists€of€approximately€10,500€acres€in€and€around€an€area€commonly€known€asĻBell€Smith€Springs€(š šBSSšš)€and€which€contains€the€1,260€acre€Bell€Smith€Springs€National€NaturalĻLandmark.€Of€that€10,500€acres€of€land,€the€FSššs€plan€calls€for€even-aged€logging€of€approximatelyĻ3,400€acres,€including€logging€on€ridge€tops€above€the€BSS€National€Landmark€area.ĢĢą  ąPlaintiffs€allege€that€the€ERP€violates€the€National€Environmental€Policy€Act€(š šNEPA!šš),€42ĻU.S.C.€šš4332(C),€the€National€Forest€Management€Act€(š šŌ_ŌNFMAŌ_Ōšš),€16€U.S.C.€šš1604;€and€theĻEndangered€Species€Act,€16€U.S.C.€šš1531-34.€In€their€complaint,€the€plaintiffs€challenge€threeĻseparate€decisions€regarding€the€OA6€project:€(1)€the€May€6,€1996,€Decision€Notice€(š šDNšš)€andĻFinding€of€No€Significant€Impact€(š šŌ_ŌFONSIŌ_Ōšš)€supported€by€the€projectššs€Environmental€AssessmentĻ(š šEAšš);€(2)€the€May€14,€1998,€decision€by€District€Ranger€Nick€Ō_ŌGiannettinoŌ_Ō€to€not€supplement€theĻEA€based€on€new€information€regarding€the€Indiana€bat€(š šŌ_ŌIBŌ_Ōšš);€and€(3)€the€September€17,€1998,Ļdecision€by€Ō_ŌGiannettinoŌ_Ō€again€to€not€supplement€the€EA€with€new€113€information.ĢĢą  ąI€ą ` ąņņBackgroundóóŠ H˜ ŠĢą  ąThe€Ō_ŌSNFŌ_Ō€consists€of€over€265,000€acres€of€land€in€southern€Illinois.€The€Ō_ŌSNFŌ_Ō€resulted€fromĻthe€acquisition€during€the€1930's€of€farmed€out,€overly€cut,€overly€grazed€and€severely€burned€land,Š  \ ŠņņSee€Ō_ŌDonhamŌ_Ō€v.€U.S.€Forest€Service,€óóCase€No.€93-4172-JPG€(S.D.€111.€Jan.€24,€1995)Š  ųH ŠŌ_Ō(citation€omitted),€Initial€efforts€were€to€reforest€open€areas,€stop€soil€erosion,€and€protect€the€Ō_ŌSNFŌ_ŌĻfrom€fire.€Id.€The€initial€acquisition€and€reforestation€have€principally€determined€the€character€ofĻthe€Ō_ŌSNFŌ_Ō,€which€today€consists€of€scattered€blocks€of€tens€and€several€hundred€to€several€thousandĻacres€of€National€Forest€both€surrounding€and€surrounded€by€private€pasture,€farm€and€woodland.ĢĢą  ąOn€November€24,€1986,€the€FS€approved€a€Forest€Plan€(š šFPšš)€for€the€Ō_ŌSNFŌ_Ō.€The€FP€guidesĻnatural€resource€management€activities€for€the€Ō_ŌSNFŌ_Ō€and€describes€resource€management€practices,Ļlevels€of€resource€production€and€management,€and€the€availability€and€suitability€of€lands€forĻresource€management.€The€planššs€purpose€is€to€provide€a€management€framework€for€multiple€usesĻof€the€Ō_ŌSNFŌ_Ō€and€for€a€sustained€yield€of€goods€and€services€from€its€lands.€Concerns€about€theĻoriginal€plan€resulted€in€a€settlement€agreement€in€which€the€FS€agreed€in€1992€to€amend€the€planĻ(š šAmended€Planšš).€The€Amended€Plan€authorizes€the€overall€goal€to€restore€the€Ō_ŌSNFŌ_Ō€to€its€nativeĻstate€and€to€remove€the€non-native€pines.€Each€site-specific€project€implementing€the€Amended€PlanĻrequires€further€environmental€analysis,€however,€and€the€plaintiffs€here€challenge€the€site-specificĻimplementation€of€the€Ō_ŌSNFŌ_Ōššs€first€ecological€restoration€project.ĢĢą  ąOn€May€6,€1996,€the€FS€issued€a€DN€and€Ō_ŌFONSIŌ_Ō,€placing€the€public€on€notice€that€the€FSĻplanned€to€undertake€an€even-aged€logging€project€in€the€area€known€as€OA6.€Plaintiffsšš€ExhibitsĻto€Memorandum€in€Support€of€Motion€For€Preliminary€Injunction,€Ex.€No.€4,€Doc.€No.€8.€The€DNĻalso€placed€the€public€on€notice€that€the€FS€found€no€significant€impact€(š šŌ_ŌFONSIŌ_Ōšš)€from€theĻproposed€OA6€plan.€The€Fish€&€Wildlife€Service€(š šŌ_ŌFWSŌ_Ōšš)€concurred€with€this€finding€in€a€May€8,Ļ1996,€letter.€Doc.€No.€8,€Ex.€No.€13.Š   \ Šą  ąą ` ąA.ą ø ąņņERP€backgroundŠ ° ŠóóĢą  ąOn€August€10,€1998,€the€Forest€Service€began€even-aged€logging€of€pine€plantations€in€OA6Ļas€part€of€the€authorized€ERR€On€August€11,€1998,€the€plaintiffs€sought€and€this€Court€entered€aĻtemporary€restraining€order€halting€logging€in€OA6€for€a€period€of€ten€days€(doc.€4).€On€August€19,Ļ1998,€the€Court€held€a€hearing€where€the€plaintiffs€and€defendants€presented€arguments€regardingĻwhether€a€preliminary€injunction€should€issue.€After€hearing€the€par-ties€in€open€Court€and€reviewingĻthe€record€in€its€entirety€the€Court€granted€the€plaintiffsšš€motion€for€a€preliminary€injunction€(doc.Ļ10)€to€halt€all€commercial€logging€in€OA6€until€the€Court€could€make€a€more€complete€and€finalĻdecision.€Following€that€Order,€the€parties€submitted€cross-motions€for€summary€judgment€(docs.Ļ31€&€38),€which€are€the€subject€of€this€Memorandum€and€Order.ĢĢą  ąIn€essence,€the€plaintiffsšš€complaint€seeks€to€invalidate€the€FSššs€EA€in€which€the€FS€foundĻthat€the€logging€project€in€OA6€will€not€have€a€significant€impact€on€the€human€environment€andĻthat,€therefore,€a€more€comprehensive€Environmental€Impact€Statement€(š šŌ_ŌEISŌ_Ōšš)€is€unnecessary.ņņ1óóŠ ˜č  ŠPlaintiffs€contend€that€the€EA€is€invalid€because€(1)€the€EA€fails€to€adequately€consider€soilĢĢ_________________________ĢĢą  ąņņ1óóą ` ąThe€National€Environmental€Policy€Act€(š šNEPAšš),€42€U.S.C.€šš€43€3€2€(2)(C)€ņņet€seq.,Š 4„ Šóóestablishes€a€complex€system€for€evaluating€environmental€management€decisions.€This€systemŠ  p Šconsists€of€an€Environmental€Impact€Statement€(š šŌ_ŌEISŌ_Ōšš)€and€an€Environmental€Assessment€(š šEAšš).ĻŌ_ŌEISŌ_Ōššs€are€the€most€detailed€form€of€analysis.€An€agency€must€prepare€an€Ō_ŌEISŌ_Ō€for€š šmajor€federalĻactions€significantly€affecting€the€quality€of€the€human€environment.šš€40€C-F.R.€šš€1502.3.€An€EAĻis€a€š šconcise€public€document€that€Ō_Ōprovide[sŌ_Ō]€analysis€for€determining€whether€to€prepare€anĻenvironmental€impact€statement€or€a€finding€of€no€significant€impact€on€the€environment,šš€ņņMahlerŠ ¼  Šv.€U.S.€Forest€Service,€óó927€Ō_ŌF.SuppŌ_Ō.€1559,€1570-71€(S-Ō_ŌD.IndŌ_Ō.€1996)€(citing€40€Ō_ŌC.F.R.Ō_Ō€šš1508.9).€š šAnŠ Øų Šenvironmental€assessment€must€include€discussions€on€the€need€for€the€proposal,€other€alternatives,Ļthe€environmental€impact€of€the€proposal€and€its€alternative,€and€other€information.šš€Id.€If€the€FSĻprepares€an€EA€wherein€they€find€no€significant€impact€from€the€proposed€federal€action,€then€theĻFS€is€not€required€to€prepare€a€more€detailed€Ō_ŌEISŌ_Ō.€40€Ō_ŌC.F.R.Ō_Ō€šš1508.13.€Here,€the€plaintiffs€argue€thatĻthe€FS€should€have€prepared€an€Ō_ŌEISŌ_Ō€and€that€the€finding€of€no€significant€impact€(š šŌ_ŌFONSIŌ_Ōšš)€wasĻarbitrary€and€capricious€at€the€time€it€was€adopted€and€in€light€of€new€information€surrounding€theĻIndiana€bat.€Š  #l! Šerosion;€(2)€the€defendants€failed€to€reinitiate€formal€consultation€and€revise€the€biological€opinionĻbased€upon€new€information€regarding€the€Indiana€bat,€(3)€the€EA€impermissibly€failed€to€considerĻnew€information€regarding€the€Indiana€bat,€and€(4)€the€Ō_ŌFONSIŌ_Ō€is€arbitrary€and€capricious€and,Ļtherefore,€a€detailed€Ō_ŌEISŌ_Ō€should€be€prepared.€The€plaintiffs€have€exhausted€their€administrativeĻremedies.ĢĢą  ąII€ą ` ąņņStandard€of€reviewóóŠ 8 ˆ ŠĢą  ąIn€the€context€of€a€review€of€administrative€agency€action,€the€court€is€limited€to€a€review€ofĻthe€materials€that€were€before€the€agency€at€the€time€of€its€decision,€ņņŌ_ŌCroninŌ_Ō€v.€United€States€v.€Ō_ŌDepšštŌ_ŌŠ ü L  Šof€Agricultureóó,€919€U.S.€439,€443-44€(7th€Cir.€1990).€In€general,€a€court€may€not€overturn€theŠ č 8  Šdecision€of€an€administrative€agency€unless€the€court€determines€that€the€decision€was€š šarbitrary,Ļcapricious,€an€abuse€of€discretion,€or€other-wise€not€in€accordance€with€the€law-,€...€[or]€in€excessĻof€statutory€jurisdiction,€authority€or€limitations.€.€.šš€5€U.€S.C.€šš€706(2)(A).ĢĢą  ąTitle€5€U.S.C.€S€706(2)€provides€that€a€reviewing€court€shall€hold€unlawful€and€set€asideĻagency€action,€findings,€and€conclusions€found€to€be€-ĢĢą0  ą(A)€arbitrary,€capricious,€an€abuse€of€discretion,€or€other-wise€not€in€accordance€with€law;€Š (#(# Šą0  ą(B)€contrary€to€constitutional€right,€power,€privilege,€or€immunity;Š (#(# Šą0  ą(C)€in€excess€of€statutory€jurisdiction,€authority,€or€limitations,€or€short€of€statutory€right,€Š (#(# Šą0  ą(D)€without€observance€of€procedure€required€by€law;Š (#(# Šą0  ą(E)€unsupported€by€substantial€evidence€in€a€case€subject€to€sections€556€and€557€of€thisŠ (#(# Šą0  ątitle€or€otherwise€reviewed€on€the€record€of€any€agency€hearing€provided€by€statute;€orŠ (#(# Šą0  ą(F)€unwarranted€by€the€facts€to€the€extent€that€the€facts€are€subject€to€trial€de€novo€by€theĻreviewing€court.Š (#(# Šą0  ąIn€making€the€foregoing€determinations,€the€court€shall€review€the€whole€record€or€thoseĻparts€of€it€cited€by€a€party,€and€due€account€shall€be€taken€of€the€rule€of€prejudicial€error.Š (#(# ŠĢ5€U.S.C.€šš706(2)(A).ĢĢą  ąIn€making€the€factual€inquiry€into€whether€an€agency€decision€was€arbitrary€or€capricious,Ļthe€Court€must€consider€whether€the€disputed€decision€was€(1)€based€on€a€consideration€of€the€Š  0"€  Šrelevant€factors;€or€(2)€whether€there€has€been€a€clear€error€of€judgment.€ņņMarsh€v,€Oregon€NaturalŠ ° ŠResources€Council,€óó490€U.S.€360,€378,€109€Ō_ŌS.CtŌ_Ō.€1851,€1861,€104€Ō_ŌL.EdŌ_Ō.2d€377€(1989).€CourtsŠ œģ Šreview€an€agencyššs€refusal€to€prepare€an€Ō_ŌEISŌ_Ō€under€the€same€arbitrary€and€capricious€standard,ĻņņMarsh,€óó490€U.S.€at€376.€Courts€also€use€the€arbitrary€and€capricious€standard€to€review€š šan€agencyššsŠ tÄ Šdecision€to€go€forward€with€a€projectšš€after€completing€an€EA.€ņņGlisson€v.€United€States€ForestŠ `° ŠService,€óó876€F.€Supp.€1016,€1033€(S.D.€Ill,€1993)Š L œ ŠĢą  ąNEPA€law€does€not€prescribe€a€particular€result,€but€simply€prescribes€the€necessary€processĻagencies€must€follow€in€reaching€decisions-€ņņRobertson€v.€Ō_ŌMethowŌ_Ō€Valley€Citizens€Council,€óó490€U.S.Š  ` Š332,€3€50,€109€Ō_ŌS.CtŌ_Ō.€1835,€1846€(1989).€NEPA€ensures€that€the€agency€will€not€act€on€incompleteĻinformation,€only€to€regret€its€decision€after€it€is€too€late€to€correct.€ņņMarsh,€óó490€U.S.€at€371.€ToŠ č 8  Šensure€that€agencies€analyze€the€environmental€effects€of€their€actions,€NEPA€requires€that€agenciesĻtake€a€š šhard€lookšš€at€the€environmental€effects€of€their€planned€activities.€Id.€At€374.€Therefore,ĻNEPA€merely€prohibits€uninformed,€not€ņņunwise,€óóagency€action.€ņņŌ_ŌMethowŌ_Ō€Valley,€óó490€U.S.€at€351.€IfŠ ¬ü  Šthe€agency€adequately€identifies€and€evaluates€the€adverse€environmental€effects€of€the€proposedĻaction,€then€NEPA€does€not€prevent€the€agency€from€deciding€that€other€values€outweigh€theĻenvironmental€costs.€Id.€At€350ĢĢą  ąš šššThe€role€of€the€courts€[reviewing€agency€decisions€under€NEPA]€is€simply€to€ensure€thatĻthe€agency€has€adequately€considered€and€disclosed€the€environmental€impact€of€its€actions€and€thatĻits€decision€is€not€arbitrary€or€capricious.šššš€Id.€(quoting€Baltimore€Gas€&€Electric€Co.€v.€NaturalĻResources€Defense€Council,€462€U.S.€87,€97-98,€103€Ō_ŌS.CtŌ_Ō.€2246,€2252,€76€Ō_ŌL.EdŌ_Ō.2d€437€(1983)).Ļš šThis€inquiry€must€be€searching€and€careful,€but€the€ultimate€standard€of€review€is€a€narrow€one.ššĻId.€Š  ä4 Šą  ąIn€addition,€a€court€will€consider€an€agency€decision€as€arbitrary€and€capricious€when€basedĻon€entirely€false€premises€or€information.€ņņVan€Ō_ŌAbbemaŌ_Ō€v.€Ō_ŌFornellŌ_Ō,€óó807€F.2d€633,€639€(7th€Cir.€1986).Š œģ ŠFurthermore,€the€failure€of€an€agency€to€comply€with€its€own€regulations€constitutes€arbitrary€andĻcapricious€conduct.€ņņSimmons€v.€Block,€óó782€F.2d€1545,€1550€(11th€Cir.€1986);€ņņŌ_ŌBunyardŌ_Ō€v.€Ō_ŌHodelŌ_Ō,€óó702Š tÄ ŠF.€Supp.€820,€822€(D.€Nev€1988)€Courts€generally€subscribe€a€presumption€of€good€faith€to€federalĻagencies,€but€parties€may€rebut€the€presumption.€ņņSierra€Club€v.€Espyóó,€822€F.€Supp.€356,€361€(E.D.Š L œ ŠTex.€1993).€In€addition,€courts€generally€defer€to€the€š šreasonable€opinionšš€of€agency€experts€inĻmatters€implicating€conflicting€expert€opinions.€ņņSee€Marsh,€óó490€U.S.€at€378.Š $ t ŠĢą  ąTherefore,€when€reviewing€an€administrative€decision€to€not€issue€an€Ō_ŌEISŌ_Ō,€a€federal€courtĻmust€consider€whether€the€agency€took€a€š šhard€lookšš€at€the€possible€effects€of€the€proposed€action.Š č 8  ŠņņMarsh,€óó490€U.S.€at€374;€ņņsee€also€Village€of€Grand€View€v.€Skinner,€óó947€F.2d€651,€657€(2dCir.1991).Š Ō$  ŠCourts€also€must€ask€whether€the€agencyššs€decision€to€not€prepare€an€Ō_ŌEISŌ_Ō€was€arbitrary€or€capricious.ĻņņMarsh,€óó490€U.S.€at€375-76,€ņņNational€Audubon€Society€v.€Hoffman,€óó132€F.3d€7,€14€(2€A€Cir.€1997).Š ¬ü  ŠĢą  ąThe€Court€also€analyzes€claims€made€under€the€Endangered€Species€Act€(š šŌ_ŌESAŌ_Ōšš),€15€U.S.C.Ļšš€1531€et€seq.,€according€to€this€arbitrary€and€capricious€standard.€ņņCitizens€to€Preserve€Ō_ŌOvertonŌ_Ō€ParkŠ pĄ Šv.€Ō_ŌVolpeŌ_Ō,€óó401€U.S.€402,€416€(1971).€In€this€context,€the€Courtššs€role€is€to€review€the€administrativeŠ \¬ Šrecord€to€determine€whether€the€disputed€decision(s)€were€š šbased€on€consideration€of€relevantĻfactors€and€whether€there€has€been€a€clear€error€of€judgment.€Id€In€conducting€this€review,€the€CourtĻdoes€not€seek€to€substitute€its€judgment€for€that€of€the€FS€regarding€š šthe€wisdom€or€prudence€of€theĻproposed€action.šš€ņņThe€Fund€for€Animals€v.€Rice,€óó857Š   \ ŠF.3d€535,€541€(11ņņthóó€Cir.€1996)(quoting€North€Ō_ŌBuckheadŌ_Ō€Civic€Ō_ŌAssššnŌ_Ō.€v.€Skinner,€903€172d€1533,Š ° Š1-53€9€(10ņņthóó€Cir.€1990)).Š œģ ŠĢą  ąIn€making€a€decision€on€all€of€these€issues,€the€Court€must€decide€whether€the€FS€has€actedĻin€an€arbitrary€and€capricious€manner.€It€is€not€the€Courtššs€duty€to€supplement€its€judgment€for€thatĻof€the€Forest€Service€on€matters€within€its€expertise.€See€ņņMarsh,€óó490€U.S.€at€377.€However,€it€isŠ L œ Šimportant€to€note€that€in€deciding€whether€an€agency€decision€was€arbitrary€and€capricious,€the€CourtĻmust€consider€whether€that€agency€based€its€decision€on€a€consideration€of€the€relevant€factors€andĻwhether€the€agency€committed€a€clear€error€of€judgment.€Id.€In€doing€so,€the€Court€may€not€relyĻmerely€on€the€agencyššs€expertise-€To€uphold€the€agencyššs€decision,€the€Court€must€be€convinced€thatĻthe€record€contains€adequate€evidence€supporting€the€agencyššs€expert€opinions€and€decisions€as€wellĻas€evidence€upon€which€the€agency€states€it€relied€in€making€its€decisions.€ņņSee€Van€Ō_ŌAbbemaŌ_Ō,€óó807€F.2Š Ō$  Šat€639-641ĢĢą  ąIIIą ` ąņņAnalysisŠ ˜č  ŠóóĢą  ąThe€Court€will€consider€the€issues€contained€in€the€plaintiffsšš€complaint€in€numerical€orderĢbut€will€consolidate€its€analysis€of€the€issues€regarding€the€Indiana€bat.ĢĢą  ąą ` ąA.€ą ø ąņņCount€I€-€Soil€erosionóóŠ 4„ ŠĢą  ąThe€Court€ņ ņGRANTSó ó€the€plaintiffsšš€motion€and€ņ ņDENIESó ó€the€defendantsšš€motion€forŠ  \ Šsummary€judgment€on€the€issue€of€soil€erosion€(docs.€31€&€38).ĢĢą  ąPlaintiffs€state€that€the€EA€for€the€ERP€failed€to€adequately€consider€sod€erosion€risks€createdĻby€the€proposed€logging€in€OA6,€and€therefore,€the€FS€violated€NEPA€and€the€National€ForestĻManagement€Act€(š šŌ_ŌNFMAŌ_Ōšš).€42€U.S.C.€šš4321;€16€U-S.C.€šš1600.€Ō_ŌPlsŌ_Ōšš€Mem.€in€Supp.€of€Mot.€ForĻPrelim.€Inj.€at€7-9;€Doc.€No.€11.€The€plaintiffsšš€complaint€and€summary€judgment€Š  ˜č Šmotion€contend€that€in€the€FSšš€soil€erosion€analysis€in€the€EA:€(1)€the€record€does€not€includeĻmonitoring€data€from€past€practices€and/or€research€on€the€efficacy€of€the€proposed€mitigationĻmeasures,€(2)€the€FS€refused€to€supply€such€data€or€research€when€requested,€violating€NEPA,€(3)Ļthe€FS€properly€should€have,€but€failed€to,€consult€with€the€Soil€Conservation€Service€or€the€IllinoisĻCooperative€Extension€Service€regarding€the€proposed€mitigation€measures;€and€(4)€the€EA€failedĻto€design€and€provide€specific€construction€techniques€for€the€soils€receiving€a€š šseverešš€rating€forĻsoil€erosion€potential.ĢĢą  ąThe€Court€negates€its€previous€finding€that€the€plaintiffs€did€not€raise€this€issue€previously.ĻThe€Court€finds€after€a€thorough€examination€of€the€record€that€the€plaintiffs€did€raise€the€soilĻerosion€issue.ĢĢą  ąThe€Court€reiterates€its€understanding€that€it€must€defer€to€the€FSšš€expertise€but€also€notesĻthat€it€must€confirm€that€the€record€contains€evidence€underlying€that€expertise€to€support€theĻagencyššs€conclusions.€On€the€issue€of€the€EAššs€soil€mitigation€measures,€the€Court€finds€that€theĻrecord€does€not€contain€adequate€evidence€from€which€the€Court€may€defer€to€the€agencyššs€expertise.ĢĢą  ąą ` ąą ø ąą0  ą1€.€€ņņSupport€for€the€efficacy€of€the€proposed€mitigation€measures€andŠ \¬ Šfailure€to€provide€plaintiffs€with€the€requested€dataŠ (#(# ŠóóĢą  ąThe€plaintiffs€allege€that€the€soil€erosion€discussion€in€the€EA€violates€NEPA€because€the€FSĻdid€not€provide€any€significant€evidence€to€support€the€efficacy€of€the€proposed€soil€erosionĻmitigation€measures.€Plaintiffs€contend,€and€the€defendants€do€not€dispute,€that€agencies€mustĻconduct€a€thorough€analysis€of€the€efficacy€of€any€proposed€mitigation€measures:€of€this€type.€ņņSeeŠ ä4 ŠOregon€Natural€Resources€Council€v.€Marsh,€óó832€F.2d€1489,€1493€(9th€Cir.€1987).€The€plaintiffsŠ  Š  Šcite€to€several€cases€which€state€that€such€an€analysis€must€go€beyond€mere€listing€of€the€proposedĻmeasures.€ņņNorthwest€Indian€Cemetery€Protective€Assn.€v.€Peterson,€óó795€F.2d€688,€697€(9th€Cir.Š œģ Š1985),€ņņŌ_ŌrevdŌ_Ō.€on€First€Amendment€grounds€only,€óó485€U.S.€439€(1986);€ņņŌ_ŌDuBoisŌ_Ō€v.€USDA.,óó€102€F.€3dŠ ˆŲ Š1273€(1st€Cir.€1996).€Courts€may€consider€mitigation€measures€in€determining€whether€a€federalĻaction€will€have€a€significant€environmental€impact.€ņņSee€Ō_ŌC.A.R.EŌ_Ō€Now,€Inc.€v.€F-AA,€óó844€F.2d€1569Š `° Š(11th€Cir.€1988),€ņņSierra€Club€v.€United€States€Dept.€of€Transportation,€óó753€F.2d€120€(D.C.€Cir.Š L œ Š1985).ĢĢą  ąThe€defendants€claim€that€three€things€support€the€efficacy€of€the€proposed€mitigationĻmeasures:€(1)€the€FSšš€prior€experience,€especially€relying€on€the€soil€scientistššs€prior€experience€andĻsite-specific€county€soils€data€information;€(2)€Illinois€Environmental€Protection€Agency€(š šEPAšš)Ļfindings€and€(3)€the€FSšš€alleged€compliance€with€Illinoisšš€Water€Quality€Plan€and€Illinoisšš€BestĻManagement€Practices€(ššBMPššsšš).€The€defendants€assert€that€the€FS€soil€biologist€based€hisĻconclusions€on€his€professional€expertise,€his€analysis€of€past€FS€practices€and€on€the€conformity€ofĻthe€planned€measures€with€Illinoisšš€Water€Quality€Plan€and€Best€Management€Practices.€ĢĢą  ąą ` ąą ø ąa.€ņņPrior€experience€and€soil€data€informationŠ pĄ ŠóóĢą  ąTo€meet€the€standards€under€NEPA,€the€FS€must€provide€analytical€data€or€research€whichĻsubstantially€supports€the€efficacy€of€the€proposed€mitigation€measures€designed€to€minimize€orĻprevent€significant€environmental€damage€to€the€soils€in€the€OA6€area.€40€Ō_ŌC.F.R.Ō_Ō€šš€1502.24;€ņņIdahoŠ  p ŠSporting€Congress€v.€Thomas,€óó137€F.3d€1146,€1149-50€(9th€Cir.1998);€ņņņņHoffmanóó€óó132€F€3dņņ,€óóat€17,€ņņseeŠ  \ ŠŌ_ŌOmpompanoosucŌ_Ō,€óó968€F.2d€at€1556-€57€(2d€Cir.€1992);€ņņŌ_ŌAbenakiŌ_Ō€Nation€of€Ō_ŌMississquoiŌ_Ō€v.€Hughes,Š ųH Šóó805€F.€Supp.€234,245€(Ō_ŌD.VtŌ_Ō.1992),€ņņŌ_ŌaffššdŌ_Ō,€óó990€F.2d€729€(2d€Cir.1993).Š  ä4 Šą  ąTo€support€the€efficacy€of€the€mitigation€measures,€the€FS€may€not€rely€on€prior€experienceĻand€professional€expertise€without€providing€substantial€data€used€to€draw€conclusions€on€theĻmitigation€measuresšš€effectiveness.€ņņIdaho€Sporting,€óó137€F.3d€at€1150.€In€ņņIdaho€Sporting€Congress,Š ˆŲ Šóóa€group€of€environmentalists€challenged€the€FSššs€plan€to€sell€timber€in€the€Ō_ŌTarbyheeŌ_Ō€National€Forest.Š tÄ ŠId.€at€1148.€In€that€case,€the€Ninth€Circuit€held€that€š šNEPAššs€implementing€regulations€requireĻagencies€to€ššidentify€any€methodologies€used€and€[]€make€explicit€reference€by€footnote€to€theĻscientific€and€other€sources€relied€upon€for€conclusionsšš€used€in€any€Ō_ŌEISŌ_Ō€statement.šš€Id.€at€1150Ļ(citing€40€Ō_ŌC.F.R.Ō_Ō€šš€1502.24).€Simply€listing€general€mitigation€procedures€is€insufficient€to€complyĻwith€NEPAĢĢą  ąPlaintiffs€argue€that€the€FS€should€have€and€failed€to€provide€such€supportive€analytical€dataĻfor€the€efficacy€of€the€proposed€mitigation€measures€and€that,€without€such€data,€the€proposedĻmeasures€become€a€...€mere€listingšš€of€good€management€practices.šš€Id.€at€1151.€The€Court€agrees.ĢĢą  ąThe€defendants€in€the€instant€case€do€not€argue€that€ņņIdaho€Sporting€Congress€óódoes€not€stateŠ ˜č  Šgood€law,€instead,€they€argue€that€the€FS€did€not€just€list€š šgood€management€practicesšš€but€didĻcarefully€consider€and€explain€in€the€EA€the€specific€mitigation€measures€and€how€they€would€workĻto€prevent€soil€damage€in€light€of€the€specific€soil€and€water€resource€conditions€in€OA6.€TheĻdefendants€point€the€Court€to€pages€328-330€of€the€EA.€Those€pages€describe€and€detail€the€soilĻmapping€units€and€management€interpretations€relied€on€by€the€FS€for€their€proposed€mitigationĻmeasures.€The€problem€the€Court€sees€with€this€reference€is€that€although€this€portion€of€the€EA€doesĻdescribe€and€list€the€soil€limitation€ratings€for€various€uses€such€as€timber€haul€roads€and€skid€trailĻlocations,€log€landing€locations€and€equipment€Ō_ŌoperabilityŌ_Ō€for€logging€areas,€itŠ  ųH Šdoes€not€contain€an€explanation€of€specific€mitigation€measures,€how€they€would€be€used€and€wouldĻwork,€nor€does€it€contain€any€data€supporting€the€efficacy€of€the€proposed€mitigation€measuresĻthemselves,€This€portion€of€the€EA€does€list€site-specific€soil€data€information€developed€from€aĻ1975€Soil€Conservation€Service€survey€and€does€identify€some€of€the€soils€and€their€relevant€soilĻrating,€but€the€Court€does€not€believe€that€this€reference€provides€an€explanation€of€the€specificĻmitigation€measures€to€be€employed,€how€they€would€work€and€be€employed.€For€example,€in€theĻsection€entitled€š šDegree€of€soil€limitation€for€HAUL€ROAD/SKID€TRAIL€LOCATION,šš€the€EAĻcontains€a€table€of€soil€areas€that€are€designated€as€š šseverešš€and€š šmoderate.šš€It€then€continues€toĻprovide€definitions€of€these€soil€limitation€ratings€for€haul€road/skid€trail€locations€in€very€generalĻterms.ĢĢņņą8  ąóóš šņņMODERATE€óó-€There€are€some€limitations€which€can€be€overcome€through€theŠ Ō$  Šapplication€of€routine€construction€techniques.€Initial€location,€construction€and/orĻmaintenance€costs€will€be€higher€than€if€the€rating€is€š šslight.šš€Temporary€facilitiesĻlocations€may€be€more€difficult€to€return€to€desired€condition€than€if€rated€š šslight.ššĻSeason€of€use€may€be€somewhat€limited.šš€Š Š Š  ŠĢą  ąThe€EA€in€this€section€does€not€state€the€basis€for€these€definitions€nor€how€they€would€beĻused€specifically€to€establish€effective€mitigation€measures.€Another€portion€of€the€EA€mentionsĻš špreventative€measures:šš€careful€location€of€logging€facilities,€minimizing€bare€soil€exposure,€timingĻtimber€operations€to€coincide€with€dry€weather€conditions,€and€the€construction€and€maintenance€ofĻwater€control€structures€on€roads,€landings€and€skid€trails.€EA€at€121-22.€The€EA€also€listsĻš šmitigating€actionsšš€as€re-vegetating€disturbed€areas€either€naturally,€under€terms€of€the€salesĻcontract,€or€through€provisions€in€the€standards€and€guidelines.€Id.€Despite€the€defendantsšš€assertionĻother-wise,€the€Court€does€not€believe€that€the€listing€ofŠ  Š  Šthe€soil€limitation€ratings€and€their€very€general€definitions€provides€analytical€data€support€for€theĻeffectiveness€of€the€mitigation€measures€listed€elsewhere€in€the€EA.€For€one€thing,€the€generalĻdefinitions€of€the€various€soil€ratings€do€not€match€the€mitigation€measures€listed€elsewhere€in€theĻEA.€In€addition,€the€FS€does€not€explain,€except€in€very€general€terms,€how€these€proposedĻmitigation€measures€are€to€be€applied€within€these€various€soil€rating€areas.€The€defendants€claimĻthat€the€EA€carefully€explained€the€possible€effects€of€timber€harvests,€as€well€as€the€mitigationĻmeasures€to€be€employed€and€how€they€will€work-€And,€significantly,€while€the€Court€believes€thatĻthe€EA€does€explain€the€possible€effects€of€timber€harvesting€in€general€and€lists€proposed€mitigationĻmeasures€and€what€they€are€designed€to€accomplish,€that€is€a€far€cry€from€providing€š šsubstantialĻsupportšš€for€the€mitigation€measuresšš€effectiveness.ĢĢą  ąThe€FS€asserts€to€the€Court€that€the€site-specific€soil€mapping€units€are€the€requisite€data€andĻresearch€to€support€the€mitigation€measures.€The€Court€disagrees.€The€site-specific€soil€mappingĻunits€cited€by€the€defendants€do€classify€different€soil€areas€as€š šslight,šš€š šmoderate,šš€or€š šsevere,šš€andĻthey€do€generally€describe€what€those€categories€mean€in€the€context€of€soil€erosion.€In€no€way,Ļhowever,€do€they€provide€substantial€support€for€the€efficacy€of€the€proposed€mitigation€measures.ĻThe€Court€does€not€discount€that€these€measures€may€be€very€effective,€but€the€1975€SoilĻConservation€Service€soil€limitations€ratings€do€not€support€the€efficacy€of€unmentioned,€specificĻmitigation€plans.ĢĢą  ąSimilarly,€the€defendantsšš€assertions€miss€the€point€when€they€support€their€position€byĻstating€that€the€EA€(pages€123-126,€13€1)€identifies€the€specific€mitigation€measures€proposed€andĻexplains€how€and€why€each€of€those€measures€will€be€effective.€While€the€Court€would€argue€thatĻthose€citations€to€the€EA€do€not€really€explain€how€and€why€the€proposed€measure€will€ĢbeŠ  Š  Šeffective,€that€is€not€really€the€point.€The€defendants€do€not€provide€substantial€support€for€theĻefficacy€of€these€measures€beyond€the€conclusion€reached€by€their€soil€scientist.€While€the€Court€hasĻno€intention€of€second„guessing€his€decision-making,€it€must€be€able€to€conclude€that€his€decisionĻwas€based€on€data€or€research€that€points€to€the€effectiveness€of€these€measures.€This€is€what€isĻmissing€from€the€documents€submitted€to€the€Court.ĢĢą  ąIn€addition€toņņ€Idaho€Sporting,€óóplaintiffs€also€rely€on€a€Second€Circuit€case€stating€that€supportŠ 8 ˆ Šfor€proposed€mitigation€measures€is€particularly€important€when€the€measuresšš€effectiveness€is€calledĻinto€question.€ņņHoffman,€óó132€F.3d€at€17.€In€ņņHoffman,€óóthe€Second€Circuit€found€that€the€FS€failed€toŠ  ` Šprovide€š šsubstantialšš€evidentiary€support€for€the€proposed€mitigation€measures€to€counter€the€effectsĻof€illegal€all-terrain€vehicle€(š šŌ_ŌATVŌ_Ōšš)€use€an€road€lengthened€as€part€of€a€proposed€logging€projectĻin€Vermontššs€Green€Mountain€National€Forest.€Id.€As€with€the€instant€case,€the€plaintiffs€argued€thatĻthe€efficacy€of€the€proposed€mitigation€measures€were€not€supported€by€substantial€evidence€andĻcould€not€be€sufficient€to€support€a€Finding€of€No€Significant€Impact€(š šŌ_ŌFONSIŌ_Ōšš).ĢĢą  ąTo€be€specific,€substantial€support€for€the€efficacy€of€mitigation€measures€may€be€found€inĻstudies€conducted€by€the€agency€involved€of€the€likely€effects€of€the€mitigation€measures,€evidenceĻthat€the€measuresšš€effectiveness€is€likely€to€be€policed.€Id.€Other€factors€weighing€in€favor€ofĻproposed€mitigation€measures€include€whether€or€not€the€agency€has€proposed€monitoring€methodsĻand€procedures€for€gauging€the€effectiveness€of€the€measures€and€whether€or€not€the€agencyĻestablished€alternative€measures€in€the€event€the€monitoring€showed€that€the€original€measures€wereĻnot€working.€Id.€The€FS€EA€does€not€contain€specific€monitoring€criteria€nor€procedures€to€gaugeĻthe€mitigation€measuresšš€effectiveness€nor€does€it€provide€for€alternativeŠ  ųH ŠŌ_Ōmeasures,ĢĢņņą  ąóóIn€ņņAņņbenaki€of€Mississquoi€v.€Hwhe€óó805€F.€Supp.€óó234,€254€(D.€Vt.€1992),€ņņaffššd.€óó990€f2d€729Š ˆŲ Š(2d€Cir.€1993),€the€court€upheld€the€agencyššs€explanation€of€the€efficacy€of€the€mitigation€measuresĻin€part€because€the€measures€were€included€as€mandatory€conditions€in€the€issued€permits.€InĻaddition,€these€conditions€mandated€that€the€agency€implement€a€detailed€plan€to€monitor€the€effectsĻof€the€proposed€measures€to€ensure€their€effectiveness€and€required€the€agency€to€implement€aĻdetailed€alternative€mitigation€plan€if€the€measures€proved€to€be€ineffectiveņņAbenaki,€óó805€F.€Supp..Š $ t Šat€239€n.€9.€The€contracts€for€this€project€do€not€contain€such€mandatory€monitoring€conditions€orĻdetailed€alternative€plans,ĢĢą  ąIn€the€instant€case,€the€FS€asserts€that€the€mandatory€conditions€under€the€contracts€includeĻ(1)€water€control€structures,€(2)€operations€outside€of€the€normal€season€restricted,€(3)€strictĻadherence€to€contract€provisions€regarding€no€harvesting€when€the€soil€is€saturated,€and€(4)€11Ļextensivešš€mitigation€measures€to€be€performed.€The€Court€notes€problems€with€these€mandatoryĻconditions,€including:€(1)€the€requirement€of€š šstrict€adherencešš€relates€to€only€one€contract€provision,Ļand€the€EA€(page€124)€language€states€merely€that€the€FS€will€š šensure€strict€adherencešš€to€thisĻprovision€and€makes€no€mention€of€FS€monitoring€even€for€this€provision;€and€(2)€there€are€noĻalternative€mitigation€measures€considered€or€proposed€in€the€EA€in€the€event€that€these€do€notĻwork-€The€Court€recognizes€that€without€monitoring€of€the€mitigation€measuresšš€effectiveness,€theĻFS€would€not€know€if€the€measures€were€working;€therefore,€there€would€be€no€need€for€anĻalternative€plan€under€these€conditions.ĢĢą  ąThe€defendants€rely€on€ņņGreenpeace€Action€v.€Franklin,€óó14€F.3d€1324,€1335€(9th€Cir.€1992),Š ä4 Šfor€their€argument€that€proposed€mitigation€measures€must€merely€appear€š šreasonablyŠ  Š  Šdesigned€to€protectšš€the€particular€resource.€The€Court€notes,€however,€that€in€ņņGreenpeace,€óótheŠ ° Šmitigation€measures€ņņwere€óóbased€on€scientific€studies€and€that€in€that€case,€there€had€been€no€negativeŠ œģ Špublic€comments€regarding€the€measuresšš€effectiveness.€ņņId.€Also,€óóin€ņņGreenpeace,€óótile€defendantsŠ ˆŲ Šconceded€that€they€could€not€know€how€effective€the€measures€would€be€because€the€cause€of€theĻStellar€sea€lionššs€decline€itself€was€uncertain.€That€is€not€the€case€here€with€the€causes€of€soilĻerosion.€The€ņņEAššs€óóreferences€to€the€FSšš€prior€experience€or€expertise€and€its€use€of€site-specificŠ L œ Šcounty€soils€data€information€does€not€provide€substantial€support€for€the€efficacy€of€the€proposedĻmitigation€measures.ĢĢą  ąDefendants€also€rely€on€ņņLaguna€Greenbelt,€Inc.€v.€United€States€Dept.€of€Transportation,€óó42Š ü L  ŠF.3d€517,€528€&€n.€11€(9thCir.€1994),€to€argue€that€the€effectiveness€of€mitigation€measures€does€notĻneed€to€be€supported€by€scientific€studies€or€evidence.€That€earlier€Ninth€Circuit€decision€actuallyĻsays€that€š šscientific€uncertainties€in€mitigation€measuresšš€do€not€have€to€be€discussed€and€that€theĻcases€cited€by€the€plaintiffs€in€ņņLaguna€óódid€not€involve€mitigation€measures.€The€Court€finds€ņņLagunaŠ ¬ü  Šóóunhelpful€to€the€defendants.Š ˜č  ŠĢą  ąą ` ąb.ą ø ąņņIllinois€EPA€findingsŠ pĄ ŠóóĢą  ąThe€Court€finds€that€the€Illinois€EPA€findings€provided€by€the€defendants€do€not€provideĻsupport€for€the€efficacy€of€the€mitigation€measures,€but€merely€help€to€show€that€non-forested€privateĻlands€between€BSS€and€other€project€areas€would€have€a€greater€effect€on€the€water€quality€in€thisĻarea.€The€Court€finds€that€irrelevant€to€the€issues€at€hand€and€finds€that€those€findings€do€notĻsubstantially€support€the€soil€erosion€mitigation€measuresšš€effectiveness.ĢĢą  ą2.ą ` ąņņIllinoisšš€Water€Quality€Plan€and€Best€Management€PracticesŠ Š  ŠóóĢThe€defendantsšš€reliance€an€its€alleged€compliance€with€Illinoisšš€Water€Quality€Plan€Š  Øų Šš šWQPšš)€and€Best€Management€Practices€(š šBMPšš)€does€not€provide€support€for€the€efficacy€of€theĻsoil€erosion€mitigation€plans.€The€FS€seems€to€want€to€rely€on€its€partial€compliance€with€the€WQPĻas€support€for€the€mitigation€measuresšš€effectiveness€and€yet,€the€agency€admits€that€it€did€not€followĻthe€planššs€requirement€that€selection€and€utilization€of€any€specific€BMPššs€must€result€from€siteĻspecific€evaluations€and€consultations€with€the€Soil€Conservation€Service€(š šSCSšš)€and€the€IllinoisĻCooperative€Extension€Service.€See€Suppl.€Rec.€B-1,€at€3-5-€Such€consultation€is€for€the€purpose€ofĻdetermining€suitability€of€the€mitigation€measures€and€to€ensure€proper€design€and€implementationĻin€accordance€with€Illinois€and€federal€regulations.€Id.ĢĢą  ąIn€what€the€Court€believes€is€a€very€circular€argument,€the€defendants€state€that€its€soilĻscientist€based€his€decision€in€the€EA€in€part€on€the€mitigation€measuresšš€conformity€with€the€WQPĻand€BMPššs.€And€yet,€to€counter€the€plaintiffsšš€argument€that€the€FS€did€not€fully€comply€with€theĻWQP€or€BMPššs,€the€FS€asserts€that€its€use€of€the€WQP€and€BMPššs€was€voluntary€and€therefore,€itĻdid€not€need€to€fully€comply.€The€FS€may€not€have€it€both€ways-€The€Court€will€not€consider€the€FSššĻpartial€compliance€with€the€WQP€to€provide€substantial€support€for€the€efficacy€of€the€mitigationĻmeasures€when€the€FS€itself€admits€that€it€did€not€fully€comply€with€all€of€the€provisions€of€theĻWQP.ĢĢą  ąIn€addition,€the€Court€finds€suspect€the€defendantsšš€statement€that€the€FS€adopted€in€š šlargeĻpartšš€the€BMPššs€identified€in€the€WQP.€The€FS€states€that€its€proposed€mitigation€measures€includeĻseeding,€mulching€and€water€control€structures.€These€are€included€in€the€long€list€of€BMPššsĻcontained€in€the€WQP,€but€they€are€certainly€not€the€only€ones€that€might€be€pertinent€to€a€projectĻlike€this€one,€and€without€the€required€consultation€with€the€SCS€or€Extension€Service,€theĻappropriateness€of€their€selection€and€utilization€for€this€particular€project€Š  ä4 Šcannot€be€determined,€nor€can€the€Court€determine€whether€the€measures€have€been€properlyĻdesigned€and€will€be€properly€implemented.€The€Court€finds€that€the€FSšš€reliance€on€its€partialĻcompliance€with€Illinoisšš€WQP€and€BMPššs€does€not€substantially€support€the€efficacy€of€theĻProposed€mitigation€measures.ĢĢą  ą3.€ņņMitigation€measures€for€soils€with€š šseverešš€ratings€óóŠ L œ ŠĢą  ąThe€Court€finds€that€the€EA€violates€NEPA€because€it€failed€to€design€and€provide€specificĻconstruction€techniques€for€the€soils€rated€š šseverešš€for€soil€erosion€potential,€Not€only€does€the€EAĻfail€to€address€the€efficacy€of€mitigation€measures€for€these€soils,€it€fails€to€explain€how€these€soilsĻmight€be€avoided€or€to€provide€for€specific€mitigation€techniques€to€be€used€if€the€soils€can€not€beĻavoided.€In€the€1975€Soil€Survey€included€in€the€EA€and€cited€by€the€defendants€to€show€how€theyĻhave€provided€soil€erosion€mitigation€measures,€the€soil€mapping€units€list€several€areas€in€the€haulĻroad/skid€trail€and€log€landing€locations€that€are€rated€at€a€š šseverešš€risk€for€soil€erosion.€See€EA€atĻ329-30.€The€definition€in€the€EA€of€the€š šseverešš€rating€states:ĢĢą8  ąņņSEVEREóó€-€There€are€some€limitations€which€would€require€the€application€ofŠ pĄ Šextraordinary€and/or€expensive€techniques€to€overcome.€Location,€construction,Ļand/or€maintenance€costs€would€be€high,€or€season€of€use€may€be€severely€restricted.ĻThere€may€be€significant€risk€of€environmental€damage€from€constructing€roads€orĻlocating€trails€on€these€areas€unless€special€design€and€construction€techniques€areĻused.€Temporary€road€and€trail€locations€may€be€difficult€or€impossible€to€return€toĻa€desired€condition.€Š Š Š  ŠĢEA€at€329-30.€ĢĢą  ąThe€measures€included€in€the€EA€are€just€standard€practices€and€not€extraordinary€andĻexpensive€measures€necessary€for€š šseverešš€soils.€The€FS€asserts€that€timber€harvest€equipment€willĻbe€operated€only€on€soils€with€š šslightššŠ  €Š Što€š šmoderatešš€soil€ratings€and€in€its€response€to€the€plaintiffsšš€preliminary€injunction€motion,€theĻdefendants€direct€the€Court€to€cross-reference€pages€124€and€330€in€the€EA.€(Doc.€14,€p.€3,€footnoteĻ1).€That€reference€supports€the€defendantsšš€assertion€that€logging€equipment€will€be€operated€onlyĻon€soils€with€š šslightšš€to€š šmoderatešš€ratings.€But€that€cross-reference€does€nothing€to€explain€theĻinformation€in€the€EA€(pages€329-330)€which€refers€to€haul€road/skid€trail€and€log€landing€locations.ĻSeveral€of€the€areas€designated€in€the€EA€for€these€activities€are€rated€as€š šseverešš€soil.ĢĢą  ąThe€EA€does€not€address€the€types€of€soil€upon€which€haul€road/skid€trails€will€be€locatedĻ(page€124),€but€the€defendants€state€in€their€response€to€the€preliminary€injunction€motion€(doc14,Ļp.€3)€that€while€the€exact€location€of€these€activities€has€not€yet€been€determined,€š šskid€trails€couldĻbe€located€on€mapping€units€339E€or€339F€slopes.šš€Using€the€soil€survey€information€provided€inĻthe€EA€(page€329),€both€of€these€areas€are€rated€š šsevere.ššĢĢą  ąThe€EA€does€address€the€log€landing€locations€and€stated€that€they€will€be€only€on€soils€ratedĻslight€to€moderate€(page€125).€That€statement,€however,€directly€contradicts€the€defendantsšš€specificĻlisting€of€soil€mapping€units€in€their€response€to€the€preliminary€injunction€motion,€which€states€thatĻš šlog€landings€could€be€located€on€soil€mapping€unit€301b€...€or€soil€mapping€unit€335b.€.€.šš€(doc,€14).ĻAccording€to€the€soil€survey€in€the€EA,€soil€mapping€unit€335b€is€rated€š šsevere.šš€In€addition,€theĻdefendants€argue€that€the€exact€location€of€any€of€the€timber€activities€can€not€be€preciselyĻdetermined€at€this€point,€as€the€location€will€depend€on€the€contractorsšš€needs€and€weatherĻconditions.€The€Court€understands€that€but€finds€the€lack€of€specific€mitigation€measures€for€š šsevereššĻsoils€that€might€be€(and€according€to€the€defendants€themselves,€will€be)€encountered€to€violateĻNEPA.Š  ųH Šą  ąThe€EA€states€that€ecological€restoration€will€be€done€on€these€sites€but€does€not€specify€whatĻš šextraordinaryšš€or€š šexpensivešš€mitigation€measures€will€be€used€on€these€š šseverešš€soils.€Likewise,Ļthe€contracts€do€not€spell€out€extraordinary€measures€to€be€used€to€mitigate€soil€erosion€in€theseĻareas.ĢĢą  ąThe€FS€argues€that€it€is€š šobviousšš€from€reading€the€soil€and€water€section€of€the€EA€thatĻmitigation€measures€will€be€used€to€š šachieve€maximum€protection€of€soil€and€water€resources.šš€TheĻCourt€does€not€find€it€obvious,€but€even€if€it€did,€the€document€that€the€FS€uses€to€rate€these€soilsĻclearly€states€that€these€soils€require€specific€extraordinary€and/or€expensive€techniques€to€overcomeĻtheir€limitations€and€that€these€soils€present€a€š šsignificant€risk€of€environmental€damage€fromĻconstructing€roads€or€locating€trails€on€these€areas€unless€special€design€and€construction€techniquesĻare€used.ššĢĢą  ąFor€its€further€argument€on€these€motions,€the€defendants€merely€argue€that€just€because€aĻsoil€has€a€š šseverešš€rating€does€not€mean€that€severe€erosion€will€necessarily€occur€or€that€all€areasĻwithin€a€particular€mapping€unit€contains€soils€of€that€rating,€The€defendants€argue€that€the€CourtĻmay€š šuphold€a€decision€of€less€than€ideal€clarity€if€the€agencyššs€path€may€reasonably€be€discerned.ššĻ(citing€Cronin€v.€United€States€Dept.€of€Agriculture,€919€F.2d€439,€442€(71h€Cir.€1990))€(citationsĻomitted).€The€defendants€assert€that€the€particular€mitigation€measures€to€be€employed€will€beĻdetermined€based€on€š šindividual€conditions€at€a€particular€time€at€a€particular€logging€site.šš€(Doc.Ļ59).€While€the€Court€understands€the€need€for€flexibility,€it€believes€this€carries€that€concept€just€aĻbit€too€far€in€the€context€of€an€EA€which€is€supposed€to€set€forth€and€support€the€actual€mitigationĻmeasures€designed€to€prevent€soil€erosion€under€NEPA.ĢĢą  ąIn€summary,€the€Court€finds€that€the€Forest€Service€failed€to€provide€substantialŠ  Š  Šsupporting€data€for€the€effectiveness€of€the€proposed€soil€erosion€mitigation€measures,€failed€toĻprovide€the€public€with€specific€requests€for€such€data,€and€failed€to€provide€at€all€any€specificĻmitigation€techniques€to€be€used€in€soil€areas€with€a€š šseverešš€rating.€The€FS,€therefore,€violatedĻNEPA€and€the€NFMA.ĢĢą  ąAccordingly,€the€Court€ņ ņGRANTSó ó€the€plaintiffsšš€motion€for€summary€judgment€on€Count€IŠ L œ Š(doc.€31)€and€ņ ņORDERSó ó€the€Forest€Service€to€revise€the€EA€to€provide€for€specific€mitigationŠ < Œ Šmeasures€to€be€applied€to€soils€rated€š šsevere,šš€to€include€in€the€record€and€provide€the€public€withĻsubstantial€evidence€of€the€efficacy€of€all€the€proposed€mitigation€measures,€to€provide€forĻmonitoring€of€the€effectiveness€of€the€mitigation€measures;€and€to€provide€alternative€measures€inĻthe€event€the€original€measures€fail.ĢĢą  ąB.ą ` ąņņThe€impact€of€forest€fragmentation€on€forest€interior€birdsóóŠ Č  ŠĢą  ąThe€Court€ņ ņGRANTS€ó óthe€defendantsšš€motion€and€ņ ņDENIESó ó€the€plaintiffsšš€motion€forŠ  š  Šsummary€judgment€on€this€issue€(docs.€31€&€38).€The€Court€finds€that€the€FS€did€not€ignore€theĻconclusion€of€Dr.€Scott€Robinson€that€pine€stands€do€not€fragment€the€forest€for€some€species.ĢĢą  ąThe€thrust€of€the€plaintiffsšš€arguments€in€this€count€is€that,€in€general,€the€FS€impermissiblyĻfailed€to€address€the€issue€of€forest€fragmentation€as€it€impacts€forest€interior€birds€and€that,Ļspecifically,€the€FS€ignored€research€done€on€this€issue€by€Dr.€Scott€Robinson€of€the€Illinois€NaturalĻHistory€Survey€and€Saad€EI-Zanati,€assistant€professor€of€mathematics€at€Illinois€State€University.ĻThe€Court€finds€that€the€FS€more€than€adequately€addressed€the€issue€of€forest€fragmentation,Ļconsidered€the€research€by€Robinson€and€Zanati€and€used€its€agency€expertise€to€conclude€that,Ļoverall,€the€hardwood€forest€envisioned€by€the€project€would€provide€suitable€habitat€for€a€greaterĻdiversity€of€plant€and€animal€wildlife€than€the€currently-existing€pine€stands.€Š  Č Šą  ąThe€Court€finds€that€the€opinions€of€these€experts€does€not€necessarily€disagree€but€that€evenĻif€they€did,€this€is€precisely€the€type€of€agency€derision€to€which€the€Court€must€defer.€ņņSee€Marsh,Š œģ Šóó490€U.S.€at€377.Š ˆŲ ŠĢą  ąA€case€decided€in€the€Southern€District€of€Illinois€a€few€years€ago€on€this€very€same€projectĻdealt€with€the€issue€of€diversity.€ņņGlisson€v.€United€States€Forest€Service,€óó876€F.€Supp€1016,€1029Š L œ Š(S.D.€111.€1993).€Glisson€noted€that€regulations€define€diversity€as€š š[t]he€distribution€and€abundanceĻof€different€plant€and€animal€communities€and€species€within€the€area€covered€by€a€land€and€resourceĻmanagement€plan.šš€36€CYR-€S€219.3€(1988).€ņņGlisson€óóalso€noted€that€...€[a]lthough€the€statement€ofŠ  ` Špolicy€[to€provide€for€diversity]€is€clear,€there€remains€a€great€deal€of€room€for€honest€debate€on€theĻtranslation€of€policy€into€management€planning€requirements€and€into€management€programs.šššš€Id.Ļ(quoting€44€Fed.€Reg-€26608).€Glisson€concluded€that€in€light€of€this€ambiguity€and€the€š šhigh€levelĻof€technical€expertisešš€necessary€to€resolve€differences€of€this€type€and€make€sound€decisions,€theĻCourt€must€give€š šconsiderable€deference€to€the€Forest€Serviceššs€judgment.šš€Id.€(citing€Sierra€ClubĻv.€Robertson,€8€10€F.€Supp.€1021,€1028€(W.D.Ark-€1992)€and€Kleppe€v.€Sierra€Club,€427€U.&€390,Ļ412,€96€S.Ct.€2718,€2731,€49€L.Ed.2d€576€(1976)).€This€Court€fully€agreesĢĢą  ąThe€evidence€in€the€record€shows€that€FS€biologist€Ray€Smith€did€recognize€and€consider€theĻwork€of€Robinson€and€Zanati€and€specifically€addressed€Robinsonššs€opinion€that€some€species€ofĻbirds€use€the€pine€stands€as€habitat.€EA€at€360-61.€Smith€specifically€addressed€Robinsonššs€opinionsĻon€forest€fragmentation€and€far€from€discounting€those€opinions,€included€them€in€the€EA€itselfĻSmith€concluded,€however,€that€while€some€bird€species€do€use€the€pine€plantations€sometimes,€moreĻand€a€greater€variety€of€plant€and€animal€species€will€use€the€hardwood€forests.Š  ųH Šin€other€words,€overall€plant€and€animal€diversity€will€increase€in€the€area€under€the€ecologicalĻrestoration€plan,€and€even€some€of€the€species€currently€using€the€pine€plantations€will€also€use€otherĻhabitat€which€will€still€be€maintained€in€the€BSS€area.€In€addition,€Smith€noted€that€many€thousandsĻof€acres€of€pines€will€remain€in€the€SNF€for€years€to€come.€He€concluded€that€pines€are€relatively€lowĻin€diversity,€while€hardwoods€are€rich€and€high€in€the€diversity€of€wildlife€that€will€be€added€to€theĻforest.ĢĢą  ąThe€Court€finds€that,€while€the€balance€the€FS€strikes€may€be€imperfect,€it€is€not€this€CourtššsĻduty€to€assess€or€second-guess€that€balance€but€to€assess€whether€the€FS€used€proper€procedures€andĻconsidered€all€relevant€data€in€using€its€expertise.€Accordingly,€the€Court€GRANTS€summaryĻjudgment€for€the€defendants€and€DENIES€summary€judgment€for€the€plaintiffs€on€Count€11€(does.Ļ31€&€38).ĢĢą  ąą ` ąC.ą ø ąņņThe€Indiana€bat€-€Counts€III,€IV€and€VŠ ¬ü  ŠóóĢą  ąSince€these€Counts€all€concern€the€Indiana€bat,€the€Court€will€consider€them€together,€withĻseparate€analyses€for€each€count.ĢĢą  ąThe€Court€ņ ņGRANTS€ó ósummary€judgment€for€the€defendants€and€ņ ņDENIESó ó€summaryŠ H˜ Šjudgment€for€the€plaintiffs€on€Counts€III,€IV€and€V€(does.€31€&€38).€The€Court€finds€that€the€FSĻecological€restoration€project€for€OA6€does€not€violate€the€ESA€as€it€relates€to€the€Indiana€Bat.ĢĢą  ąUnder€the€ESA,€the€FS€must€š šinsure€that€any€action€authorized,€carried€out€or€fundedšš€by€theĻFS€is€š šnot€likely€to€jeopardize€the€continued€existence€of€any€endangered€species€or€threatenedĻspecies€or€result€in€the€destruction€or€adverse€modification€of€habitat€of€such€species€which€isĻdetermined€...€to€be€critical€...€In€fulfilling€the€requirements€of€this€paragraph€each€agency€shall€useĻthe€best€scientific€and€commercial€data€available.šš€16€U.S.C.€šš1536.€The€Court€finds€that,€in€Š  ¬ü Šthis€case,€the€FS€has€met€its€responsibilities€under€the€ESA_ĢĢą  ąą ` ąą ø ąą  ą1.€ą h ąņņIndiana€batóóŠ ˆŲ ŠĢą  ąThe€Indiana€bat€or€Myotis€sodalis€is€an€insectivorous€nocturnal€mammal€capable€of€trueĻflight.€The€Indiana€bat€(š šIBšš)€was€listed€as€an€endangered€species€on€March€11,€1967.€Between€1960Ļand€1975,€the€IBššs€population€decreased€by€28%.€In€1983,€after€passing€the€Endangered€Species€Act,Ļ16€U.S.C.€šš€1531€ņņel€seq.,€óóthe€Fish€and€Wildlife€Service€(š šFWSšš)€issued€an€extensive€twenty-yearŠ $ t Šrecovery€plan€for€the€113.ĢĢą  ąIndiana€bats€hibernate€in€caves€called€hibernacula.€Imp.€Rec.€B,€#30€at€3€(May€9,€1998,€FWSĻconcurrence).€The€bats€leave€these€caves€in€the€spring,€primarily€to€migrate€to€summer€roosts,Ļalthough€a€few€males€may€remain€near€the€cave-€After€leaving€the€caves,€females€roost€under€theĻloose€bark€of€trees€(where€they€give€birth)€and€remain€there€throughout€the€summer€-€feeding€theirĻbabies€and€foraging€for€insects€within€riparian€woodlands€and€in€the€canopy€of€upland€forests.€Id€TheĻbats€return€to€the€caves€in€late€summer,€swarming€around€the€caves€for€a€few€weeks€prior€toĻhibernation.€IBššs€begin€to€hibernate€in€hibernacula€in€October€and€November€after€a€fall€matingĻperiod.€ņņBensman€v.€United€States€Forest€Service,€óó984€F.€Supp.€1242,€1245€(E.D.Mo.€1997).Š \¬ ŠĢą  ąDuring€this€mating€ritual,€males€and€females€š šswarmšš€around€the€entrance€to€the€cave.Ļ(Citation€ornitted).€The€bats€also€forage€over€forests€and€water,€ingesting€large€numbers€of€insectsĻin€an€effort€to€increase€their€fat€reserves€for€the€hibernation€period.€They€roost€in€large€clusters€withinĻthe€caves.€ņņBensman,€óó984€F.€Supp.€at€1245.€According€to€the€Amended€Planššs€Biological€OpinionŠ ųH Šš šBOšš)€that€the€FS€prepared€in€consultation€with€the€FWS:Š  ä4 Šą8  ąThe€range€of€the€Indiana€bat€includes€the€entire€Shawnee,€and€the€species€is€knownĻto€hibernate,€roost,€and€forage€in€southern€Illinois.€Indiana€bats€have€been€capturedĻon€the€Shawnee€during€research€investigations€conducted€by€the€Illinois€NaturalĻHistory€Survey€(Survey)€and€Illinois€Department€of€Conservation€(Department).ĻResearchers€have€found€summer,€fall,€and€winter€roosts€on€the€Shawnee€(Gardner€etĻal.€199€1)€and€on€private€inholdings€[sic)€within€the€Shawnee€(Gardner€et.€al.€1992).ĻWinter€roosts,€or€hibernacula,€are€in€caves€or€mines,€while€during€the€remainder€ofĻthe€year€Indiana€Bats€roost€in€trees.€Results€of€studies€of€Indiana€Bats€in€IllinoisĻindicate€that€many,€if€not€most,€roost€trees€are€in€upland€settings€and€foraging€areasĻare€not€confined€to€riparian€corridors.€Roost€trees€are€generally€9€inches€(22cm)€dbhĻor€greater,€and€have€substantial€amounts€of€loose€and€pealing€bark€on€their€trunk€andĻmain€limbs.€The€bats€occupy€the€areas€beneath€the€pealing€bark.€Cavities€in€trees€areĻused€as€roosts€to€a€lesser€extent€(Garner€and€Gardner€1992).Š Š Š  ŠĢą8  ąForaging€habitat€used€by€Indiana€bats€can€be€a€mixture€of€a€variety€cover€types.ĻHowever,€the€optimal€summer€habitat€for€both€foraging€and€maternity€coloniesĻappears€to€be€areas€with€deciduous€forest€cover€greater€than€30€percent€withĻpermanent€water,€and€having€suitable€roost€trees€within€one€quarter€mile€(citationsĻomitted).Š Š Š  ŠĢņņSee€óóBiological€Opinion€of€FS€in€Consultation€with€FWS,€šš€7,€issued€April€30,€1992;€Doc,€No.€9,€Ex.Š  p ŠNo.€7.ĢĢą  ąą ` ąą ø ą2.ą0  ąņņCount€III€-€Failure€to€reinitiate€formal€consultation€and€revise€the€SNFŠ ä4 ŠBOóóŠŠ (#(# ŠĢą  ąIn€Count€III€of€their€complaint,€the€plaintiffs€allege€that€the€FS€acted€in€an€arbitrary€andĻcapricious€manner€by€failing€to€reinitiate€formal€consultation€with€the€FWS€and€by€failing€to€reviseĻthe€Biological€Opinion€(š šBOšš)€for€the€Shawnee€Amended€Plan€to€reflect€new€information€aboutĻIndiana€Bat€habitat.€ņņSee€óóMem.€In€Supp.€of€Plsšš€Mot.€For€Prelim.€Inj.€at€10-€14€(doc.€11).€TheŠ l¼ Šplaintiffs€suggest€that€the€new€information€regarding€Indiana€bat€habitat€required€the€FS€to€reinitiateĻformal€consultation€and€to€revise€the€BO.€Id€at€10.€Plaintiffsšš€complaint€asserts€that€the€informalĻconsultations€by€the€FS€and€FWS€in€1998,€regarding€the€OA6€project,€were€inadequate€Š  0"€  Šand€that,€without€an€updated€130,€any€logging€in€the€SNF€violates€the€ESA,€16€U.S.€C.€šš1536€andĻFWSššs€own€consultation€regulations.€Defendants€respond€that€the€Amended€Land€Resource€andĻManagement€Plan€for€the€SNF€has€been€vacated,€so€reinitiation€of€formal€consultations€is€notĻnecessary€and€revision€of€the€130€is€impossible€until€a€new€Plan€is€proposed.€In€addition,€defendantsĻclaim€that€formal€consultation€is€not€required€since€the€FS€and€FWS€concluded€from€informalĻconsultations€that€the€proposed€action€would€not€have€an€adverse€effect€on€the€1B.€This€count€is€anĻEndangered€Species€Act€(š šESAšš)€claim.€The€ESAššs€purpose€is€to€š šprovide€a€means€whereby€theĻecosystems€upon€which€endangered€species€and€threatened€species€depend€may€be€conserved,€[and]Ļto€provide€a€program€for€the€conservation€of€such€endangered€species€and€threatened€species€16ĻU.S.C.€šš€1531€(b).€The€key€term€š šconservationšš€means€that€š šall€methods€and€procedures€which€areĻnecessary€to€bring€any€endangered€species€or€threatened€species€to€the€point€at€which€the€measuresĻ...€are€no€longer€necessaryšš€should€be€used.€16€U-S.C.€šš€1532(3).€The€ESA€mandates€that:ĢĢą8  ą[e]ach€Federal€agency€shall,€in€consultation€with€and€with€the€assistance€of€theĻSecretary,€insure€that€any€action€authorized,€funded,€or€carried€out€by€such€agency€...Ļis€not€likely€to€jeopardize€the€continued€existence€of€any€endangered€species€orĻthreatened€species€or€result€in€the€destruction€or€adverse€modification€of€habitat€ofĻsuch€species€....€In€fulfilling€the€requirements€of€this€paragraph€each€agency€shall€useĻthe€best€scientific€and€commercial€data€available.Š Š Š  ŠĢ16€U.S.C.€šš€1536€(a)(2);€ņņsee€also€Fund€for€Animals,€Inc.€v.€Thomas,€óó127€F.3d.€80,€84€(D.C.€Cir.Š  p Š1997);€ņņHouse€v.€US.€Forest€Service,€óó974€F.€Supp.€1022,€1027€(E.D.Ky.€1997).€š šThe€plain€intent€ofŠ  \ ŠCongress€in€enacting€[the€ESA]€was€to€halt€and€reverse€the€trend€toward€species€extinction,€whateverĻthe€cost,šš€ņņBabbitt€v.€Sweet€Home€Chapter€of€Communities€for€a€Great€Oregon,€óó515€ņņŠ  ä4 ŠóóU.S.€687,€699€(1995).Š ° ŠĢą  ąThe€ESA€prohibits€anyone€from€š štakingšš€an€endangered€species.€16€U.S.C.šš€1538€(a)(1)(B).Ļš šTakingšš€includes€actions€that€harm€or€harass€the€species€at€issue.€16€U.S.C.€šš€1532€(19),€TheĻprohibition€against€taking€is€broadly€construed€to€prohibit€nearly€any€activity€that€might€adverselyĻaffect€protected€species.€16€U.S.C.€šš1536€(a)(2);€ņņsee€also€House,€óó974€F.€Supp.€at€1027.€š šHarmšš€mustŠ L œ Šbe€demonstrated€by€actual€evidence,€which€may€be€in€the€form€of€scientific€studies.€ņņAmerican€BaldŠ 8 ˆ ŠEagle€v.€Bhalfi,€óó9€F.3d€163,€165€(1ņņstóó€Cir.€1993)€(š šthe€proper€standard€for€establishing€a€taking€underŠ $ t Šthe€ESA,,€far€from€being€a€numerical€probability€of€harm,€has€been€unequivocally€defined€as€aĻshowing€of€ššactual€harm.šššš).€š šHarass,šš€another€synonym€for€š štakešš€under€the€ESA,€is€defined€as€š šanĻintentional€or€negligent€act€which€creates€the€likelihood€of€injury€to€wildlife€by€annoying€it€to€suchĻan€extent€as€to€significantly€disrupt€normal€behavioral€patterns€which€include,€but€are€not€limited€to,Ļbreeding,€feeding€or€sheltering.šš€50€C.F.R.€šš17.3.€The€BO€for€this€project€stated€that€incidental€takeĻ(i.e.,€death€and/or€injury)€of€Indiana€bats€may€occur€from€timber€harvest€and€timber€managementĻactivities€as€a€result€of€falling€trees€occupied€by€roosting€bats€or€from€capture€and€handling€duringĻmist€netting€activities€at€selected€streams,€caves,€and€abandoned€mines.€Plsšš€Ex.€No.€7€at€7.ĢĢą  ąAn€agency€proposing€action€must€first€determine€whether€the€action€š šmay€affectšš€listedĻspecies.€16€U.S.C,€šš1536;€50€CFR€šš402.1€and€402.14.€The€method€for€making€this€determinationĻis€left€to€the€discretion€of€the€agency.€In€the€process€of€assessing€whether€a€proposed€action€willĻadversely€affect€a€listed€species,€the€FS€prepares€a€Biological€Evaluation€(š šBEšš).ĢĢą  ąIf,€as€a€result€of€the€BE,€the€FS€determines€that€its€actions€š šmay€affectšš€a€protected€speciesŠ  ųH Šor€its€habitat,€then€that€agency€must€enter€into€informal€consultation€with€the€FWS€to€ensure€that€theĻproposed€action€will€not€jeopardize€the€continued€existence€of€any€listed€species,€50€C.F.R.Ļšš402.14(a),€Consultation€allows€the€FS€to€avail€itself€of€the€š šexpertise€of€Fish€and€Wildlife€inĻassessing€the€impact€of€the€proposed€project€and€the€feasibility€of€adopting€reasonable€alternatives.ššŠ tÄ ŠņņLone€Ruck€Timber€Co.€v.€US-€Depššt€of€Interior,€óó842€F.€Supp.€433,€440€(D.Or.€1994).€The€FS€andŠ `° ŠFWS€do€not€have€to€initiate€formal€consultation€if€they€agree€in€writing€following€informalĻconsultation€that€a€proposed€action€is€š šnot€likely€to€adversely€affectšš€a€protected€species-€In€that€case,Ļthe€consultation€process€ends.€50€C.F.R.€šš402.13€and€402€14(a)€and€(b).€If,€however,€as€a€result€ofĻthis€informal€consultation,€the€two€agencies€conclude€that€an€action€is€š šlikely€to€adversely€affectššĻa€listed€species,€then€the€FS€must€enter€into€formal€consultation€with€FWS.€Id.€If€formal€consultationĻis€required,€then€FWS€must€prepare€a€Biological€Opinion€(š šBOšš)€to€advise€the€agency€(the€FS)Ļwhether€the€proposed€action€will€jeopardize€the€listed€species,€and,€if€so,€whether€reasonable€andĻprudent€alternatives€exist€to€avoid€a€š šjeopardyšš€situation.€If€the€FS€concludes€as€a€result€of€the€BEĻthat€a€proposed€action€will€ņņnot€óóaffect€a€listed€species,€then€the€FS€normally€will€not€consult€withŠ ¬ü  ŠFWS,€unless€the€FWS€director€specifically€requests€such€consultation.ĢĢą  ąThe€federal€regulation€regarding€when€an€agency€must€ņņreinitiate€óóformal€consultation€states:Š pĄ ŠĢą8  ąReinitiation€of€formal€consultation€is€required€and€shall€be€requested€by€the€FederalĻagency€or€by€the€Service,€where€discretionary€Federal€involvement€or€control€overĻthe€action€has€been€retained€or€is€authorized€by€law€and:€Š Š Š  Šą8  ą(a)€If€the€amount€or€extent€of€taking€specified€in€the€incidental€take€statement€isĻexceeded;€Š Š Š  Šą8  ą(b)€If€new€information€reveals€effects€of€the€action€that€may€affect€listed€species€orĻcritical€habitat€in€a€manner€or€to€an€extent€not€previously€considered;Š Š Š Š  Šą8  ą(c)€If€the€identified€action€is€subsequently€modified€in€a€manner€that€causes€an€effectĻto€the€listed€species€or€critical€habitat€that€was€not€considered€in€the€biologicalĻopinion,€or€Š Š Š  Šą8  ą(d)€If€a€new€species€is€listed€or€critical€habitat€designated€that€may€be€affected€by€theĻidentified€action.€Š Š Š  ŠĢ50€C.F.R.€šš€40216.€ĢĢą  ąIn€1992,€the€FS€and€FWS€formally€consulted€on€the€development€of€the€Amended€Plan€forĻthe€SNF,€pursuant€to€50€C.F.R.€402.€ņņSee€Plsšš€óóEx.€7,€Doc-€8€(April€30,€1992,€Consultation€History).Š ü L  ŠThe€consultation€was€designed€to€determine€whether€activities€authorized€by€the€Amended€PlanĻwould€adversely€affect€the€existence€of€or€modify€the€habitat€for€the€Indiana€bat.€The€BO€resultingĻfrom€that€formal€consultation€concluded€that€the€IB€would€not€suffer€adverse€effects€from€theseĻactivities€and€provided€for€limited€taking€of€IBššs€incidental€to€hardwood€togging€in€riparian€lowlandsĻand€mist€netting.€ĢĢą  ąIn€1996,€the€FS€biologist€wrote€a€BE€evaluating€the€effects€of€the€ERP€on€listed€species.€ThatĻBE€stated€that€live€or€dead€pines€had€not€been€identified€as€roost€trees€for€the€IB.€EA€at€224€The€BEĻconcluded€that€the€ERP€would€not€have€either€short-€or€long-term€adverse€effects€on€the€113€andĻthat,€instead,€the€conversion€to€a€largely€hardwood€environment€would€provide€improved€potentialĻhabitat€for€IBššs.€Id.€at€225.€In€a€written€concurrence€dated€March€21,€1996,€the€FWS€concluded€thatĻthe€ERP€would€not€likely€adversely€affect€the€IB€and€would€instead€š šprovide€a€long-term€source€ofĻpotential€Indiana€bat€(Myotis€sodalis)€habitat.šš€AR-D,€48€(March€21,€1996,€letter€from€the€FWS).ĻThe€FWS€further€stated€that€š šsuch€actions€are€consistent€with€the€recovery€of€this€endangeredĻspecies.šš€Id.€In€this€case,€the€Court€vacated€the€SNF€Amended€Plan€and€remanded€it€to€the€FS€inĻSierra€Club€v.€USDA,€94-CV-4061-JPG€(S.D.€Ill.€Sept.€24,€1996).€The€Court€agrees€with€theŠ  ¼  Šdefendants€that€the€FS€and€FWS€cannot€be€held€to€the€formal€consultation€requirements€on€a€vacatedĻPlan€whose€direction€and€implications€for€adverse€effects€on€endangered€species€are€unknown€at€thisĻtime.€In€addition,€the€federal€regulations€for€initiating€and€reinitiating€formal€consultations€clearlyĻspell€out€that€if€the€FS€does€not€have€to€formally€consult€if€it€finds€that€an€action€will€not€adverselyĻaffect€a€listed€species€or€if€the€two€agencies€conclude€following€informal€consultation€that€an€actionĻis€not€likely€to€adversely€affect€the€species.€ņņSee€óó50€C.F.R.€šš402.13,€402.14(a)€and€(b)€and€402.16.Š L œ ŠĢą  ąIn€their€summary€judgment€motion,€the€plaintiffs€concede€that€the€defendants€did€correctlyĻreinitiate€consultation€on€the€OA6€project.€(doc.€50).€Plaintiffs€urge€the€Court€to€accept,€however,Ļthat€similarly,€the€defendants€should€reinitiate€consultation€on€the€BO€for€the€now„vacated€AmendedĻPlan.€The€Court€does€not€agree.€As€for€the€alternative€interpretation€of€the€plaintiffsšš€argument€thatĻformal€consultation€was€required€for€the€ecological€restoration€project€in€the€SNF€as€a€whole,€theĻCourt€finds€that€argument€unpersuasive.ĢĢą  ąą ` ą3.ą ø ąņņCount€IV€-€Conclusions€reached€after€FS€and€FWS€informal€consultationsŠ ˜č  ŠóóĢą  ąIn€Count€IV,€the€plaintiffs€allege€that€the€defendantsšš€conclusions€following€their€informalĻconsultations€were€arbitrary€and€unsupported€by€the€record.€Specifically,€plaintiffs€urge€the€CourtĻto€vacate€the€FS€decisions€of€May€8,€1998;€May€15,€1998;€and€August€10,€1998,€regarding€the€impactĻof€the€proposed€project€on€the€E3.€Plaintiffs€argue€that€once€the€decisions€are€vacated,€the€FS€andĻFWS€should€reinstate€consultations€on€both€the€site-specific€and€programmatic€levels.ĢĢą  ąThe€Court€disagrees€and€ņ ņGRANTS€ó ósummary€judgment€for€the€defendants€and€ņ ņDENIESó óŠ ųH Šsummary€judgment€for€the€plaintiffs€on€Count€IV€(does.€31€&€38).€The€Court€finds€that€the€decisionsĻchallenged€by€the€plaintiffs€were€not€arbitrary€nor€unsupported€by€the€record€but€were,€Š  Ō$ Šin€the€Courtššs€opinion,€š šbased€on€relevant€factors.šš€ņņVolpe,€óó401€U.S.€at€416€As€noted€earlier€in€thisŠ ° ŠOrder,€the€Courtššs€role€in€this€case€is€not€to€substitute€its€judgment€for€that€of€the€FS€or€the€FWSĻconcerning€the€wisdom€of€the€proposed€action.€ņņSee€The€Fund€for€Animals€v.€Rice,€óó85€F.3d€535,€541Š ˆŲ Š(11ņņthóó€Cir.€1996)(quoting€North€Buckhead€Civic€Assššn.€v.€Skinner,€903€F2d€1533,€1539€(11th€Cir.Š tÄ Š1990)).€Instead,€the€Court€must€look€to€determine€if€the€defendants€have€made€a€š šclear€error€ofĻjudgment.šš€ņņVolpe,€401€óóUS.€at€416.€After€carefully€reviewing€the€administrative€record,€the€CourtŠ L œ Šdoes€not€find€that€the€defendants€made€a€clear€error€in€the€conclusions€they€reached€regarding€the€IB.ĻThe€following€is€a€review€of€the€new€information€the€FS€evaluated€regarding€the€IBĢĢa.ą  ąNew€ņņKentucky€IB€informationó󀄩 ü L  ŠĢą  ąFor€many€years,€experts€believed€that€the€bats€roosted€and€foraged€only€in€live€or€deadĻhardwood€trees€with€sloughing€bark,€especially€shagbark€hickory€and€shellbark€trees,€as€these€treesĻhave€sloughing€bark€whether€dead€or€alive.€In€1996,€however,€two€researchers,€James€Kiser€andĻCharles€Elliot,€turned€that€belief€upside€down€when€they€found€IBššs€using€shortleaf€pines€inĻKentucky€during€the€fall€swarming€period.€ņņSee€óóKiser€Report,€Imp.€Rec.€B,€94(b).€Kiser€and€ElliotŠ „Ō  Šdiscovered€that,€in€pine€and€mixed€pine€stands,€the€IBššs€spent€five€percent€(5%)€of€their€time€in€theseĻshortleaf€pines.ĢĢą  ąIn€August,€1997,€FS€biologist€Raymond€Smith€received€the€written€report€on€these€findingsĻand€reviewed€this€new€information€on€the€IB€Imp.€Rec.€B,€97€at€1-3.€In€reviewing€the€findings,Ļbiologist€Smith€spoke€personally€with€Kiser.€Following€his€review,€Smith€prepared€a€SupplementalĻInformation€Report€(š šSIRšš)€that€applied€this€new€information€to€the€OA6€project.€Smithššs€SIRĻconcluded€that€when€the€bats€were€in€a€known€habitat€type,€they€still€spent€ninety€Š  ä4 Špercent€(90%)€of€their€time€in€hardwood€trees.€When€the€bats€roosted€in€pine€trees,€they€used€deadĻpines.€When€the€bats€used€pine€trees€while€foraging,€they€used€pines€in€open€areas€such€as€canopyĻgas€or€on€the€tops€of€ridges.€Id.ĢĢą  ąAs€a€result,€Smith€concluded€that€the€Kiser€study€was€inapplicable€to€the€OA6€area€forĻseveral€reasons:€(1)€the€Kiser/Eliot€findings€found€that€the€bats€used€pines€in€open€areas,€not€in€pineĻplantations€such€as€those€in€the€project€area;€(2)€the€bats€used€the€pines€during€the€fall€swarmingĻperiod,€but€the€IBššs€do€not€swarm€in€the€OA6€area€due€to€its€distance€(more€than€ten€miles)€from€anĻestablished€hibernaculum.€Even€Kiser€himself€had€concerns€about€applying€his€findings€to€theĻIllinois€summer€maternity€roosts€found€in€OA6.€Kiser€also€stated€that€the€IBššs€were€not€selecting€theĻpines€to€forage€in€and€concluded€that€the€most€important€characteristic€for€bat€roosting€purposes€wasĻthat€the€tree€have€sloughing€bark€(characteristic€of€hickory€and€oak,€but€not€of€live€pines)€and€thatĻthe€canopy€be€relatively€open€to€allow€for€foraging.€Id.€The€FWS€concurred€with€Smithššs€SIRņņSeeŠ Ą  ŠóóImp.€Rec.€B,€#12€(November€24,€1997,€FWS€letter).Š ¬ü  ŠĢą  ąb.ą ` ąņņNew€Daniel€Boone€National€Forest€IB€informationóó€-ņņŠ „Ō  ŠóóĢą  ąIn€February,€1998,€the€FS€received,€and€subsequently€reviewed,€more€new€informationĻregarding€III€habitat.€This€time€the€information€came€from€the€Daniel€Boone€National€ForestĻ(š šDaniel€BoonC)€in€Kentucky.€The€information€alleged€that€IBššs€definitely€favored€shortleaf€pineĻtrees€such€as€those€in€OA6€as€roost€trees.€ņņSee€óóImp.€Rec.€B,€#13.€As€a€result,€the€FS€reinitiatedŠ  p Šinformal€consultations€with€the€FWS.€Id.€at€922.ĢĢą  ąAs€part€of€this€informal€consultation€process,€Smith€and€FWS€personnel€personally€visitedĻthe€Daniel€Boone€to€compare€it€with€OA6.€The€resulting€SIR€made€several€findings,€including€thatĻin€the€Daniel€Boone:€(1)€the€IBššs€used€only€dead€pines€with€sloughing€bark€and€that€these€Š  ¼  Špines€were€found€either€in€or€above€canopy€gaps,€(2)€the€bats€used€the€pines€during€fall€swarming,Ļwith€hibernacula€within€two€miles;€and€(3)€the€bats€continued€to€use€these€trees€following€timberĻššharvesting.€Smithššs€concluded€that€the€IBššs€were€less€concerned€with€a€particular€habitat€thanĻoriginally€thought€and€that€they€will€use€dead€or€live€trees€of€any€species,€as€long€as€it€has€sloughingĻbark€and€is€warmed€by€the€sun.ĢĢą  ąApplying€these€conclusions€to€OA6,€Smith€found€it€š šunlikelyšš€that€IBššs€would€use€OA6€pineĻtrees€for€roosting,€as€they€are€primarily€dense€and€contain€small,€dead€pines€that€are€not€in€the€openĻand€are€not€sun-warmed.€Unlike€the€pines€in€Kentucky,€he€concluded,€the€OA6€pines€are€too€closeĻtogether€to€allow€for€foraging€and€are€not€prime€swarming€habitat,€as€they€are€too€far€fromĻestablished€hibernacula.€ņņSee€óóImp.€Rec.€B,€47€(September€12,€1997,€SIR€at€3-4).€Smith€ultimatelyŠ č 8  Šconcluded,€and€FWS€concurred,€that€the€IB€would€likely€use€the€hardwood€trees€in€OA6,€and€that,Ļtherefore,€the€ERP€would€likely€not€adversely€affect€the€EB.€Imp,€Rec.€B,€#12.ĢĢą  ąFor€further€assurance,€the€two€agencies€agreed€to€conduct€mist-netting€according€to€theĻprotocol€and€found€no€Indiana€bats.€Imp.€Rec.€A,€927.€As€a€result€of€these€findings€and€conclusions,ĻGiannettino€decided€on€May€14,€1998,€to€not€supplement€the€EA€and€invited€public€comment€onĻSmithššs€SIRššs.ĢĢą  ąc.ą ` ąņņNew€Hoosier€National€Forest€IB€informationŠ 4„ ŠóóĢą  ąFollowing€Giannettinoššs€May,€1998,€decision,€biologist€Smith€prepared€a€third€SIR€datedĻSeptember€1,€1998,€regarding€new€EB€information€from€Steve€Olson€Natural€Resource€SpecialistĻfrom€the€Hoosier€National€Forest€(ššHoosieršš)€in€Indiana-€ņņSee€Supp.€óóAdm.€Rec.€A,€#30,€The€newŠ ä4 Šinformation€from€the€Hoosier€indicated€the€bats€were€utilizing€dead€shortleaf€pines€(in€addition€toĻother€types€of€trees)€for€roosting.€The€Olson€report€indicated€that€the€IBššs€incidentally€used€deadŠ  ¼  Šshortleaf€pines€with€sloughing€bark€and€seemed€to€prefer€trees€greater€than€nine€(9)€inches€dbh.ĻBecause€of€this€new€information,€the€FS€and€FWS€informally€consulted€again€on€the€potential€effectsĻof€the€OA6€project€on€the€IB.€Smith€concluded,€and€the€FWS€agreed,€that€the€new€information€fromĻthe€Hoosier€did€not€change€his€conclusion€that€there€were€no€IBššs€in€the€OA6€area,€and€that,€in€fact,Ļthe€IBššs€use€of€dead€shortleaf€pines€fit€well€with€the€OA6€project,€as€the€project€would€retain€all€deadĻtrees,€stimulate€the€growth€of€hardwood€trees€and€result€in€large€dead€pines€that€might€be€suitableĻfor€the€IB.€Following€consideration€of€Smithššs€third€SIR€on€the€new€Hoosier€IB€information,€DistrictĻRanger€Giannettino€decided€on€September€17,€1998,€to€not€supplement€the€EA.€See€Supp,€Imp.€Rec.Ļ!,€#3€1.ĢĢą  ąUltimately,€following€its€consideration€and€analysis€of€the€new€IB€information,€the€FSĻconcluded:€(1)€the€IB€was€not€likely€to€use€OA6,€and€(2)€even€if€it€did,€the€OA6€projectsšš€effectsĻwould€likely€be€positive,€not€negative,€for€the€species.€The€FS€concluded€that€OA6€was€differentĻfrom€the€Daniel€Boone€and€Hoosier€forests€in€several€ways.€First,€there€was€a€greater€distance€fromĻhibernacula€and€fewer€bats€in€OA6,€so€it€was€likely€that€they€would€use€the€more€favored€hardwoodĻhabitat,€not€pine€plantations.€Second,€the€trees€used€in€Daniel€Boone€and€Hoosier€were€relativelyĻlarge€dead€trees€with€open€canopy€areas€(or€above€the€canopy),€while€in€OA6,€there€are€few€largeĻdead€trees€suitable€for€the€IB.€Third,€the€proposed€hardwood€forest€that€would€result€from€the€projectĻwould€provide€improved€habitat€for€the€Indiana€bat:€(a)€by€opening€up€the€canopy€(60-80%€canopyĻclosure€is€optimal€for€the€IB);€(b)€by€leaving€standing€larger€dead€pines€(š šsnagsšš),€which€currentlyĻdie€small€and€fall;€and€(c)€because€the€IB€prefers€the€native€hardwood€trees€like€oak€and€hickoryĻstands€(given€a€choice,€the€Mššs€use€hardwoods€90%€of€the€time).ĢĢą  ąThe€Court€finds€that€these€conclusions€are€supported€by€the€administrative€record,€andŠ  ä4 Šthat€for€the€issues€upon€which€expertsšš€opinions€conflict,€the€Court€must€defer€to€the€š šreasonableĻopinionšš€of€FS€experts.€ņņSee€Marsh,€óó490€U.S.€at€378Š œģ ŠĢą  ąAccordingly,€the€Court€ņ ņGRANTSó ó€summary€judgment€on€Count€IV€to€the€defendants€andŠ tÄ Šņ ņDENIESó ó€summary€judgment€for€the€plaintiffs€(docs.€31€&€38).Š d“ ŠĢą  ąą ` ą2.ą ø ąņņCount€V€-€Failure€to€revise€the€EA€based€on€Indiana€bat€informationŠ @  ŠóóĢą  ąThe€Court€finds€that€the€FS€did€not€violate€NEPA€when€it€decided€to€not€supplement€the€EAĻbased€on€new€IB€information.€Accordingly,€the€Court€ņ ņGRANTS€ó ósummary€judgment€to€theŠ  T  Šdefendants€on€Count€V€and€ņ ņDENIESó ó€summary€judgment€to€the€plaintiffs€(docs.€31€&3€8).Š ō D  ŠĢą  ąIn€Count€V,€the€plaintiffs€assert€that€the€FS€violated€NEPA€by€failing€to€take€a€hard€look€atĻthe€new€IB€information€and€by€not€submitting€the€FSšš€analysis€of€this€new€information€to€publicĻcomment.€The€Court€finds€that€there€is€no€appreciable€difference€in€the€standard€articulated€by€bothĻthe€plaintiffs€and€the€defendants€for€determining€when€the€FS€must€supplement€an€EA,€despite€theĻplaintiffsšš€attempt€to€argue€that€the€defendants€are€not€applying€the€correct€standard.ĢĢą  ąThe€FS€must€supplement€an€EA€when€the€FS€š šmakes€substantial€changes€in€the€proposedĻaction€that€are€relevant€to€environmental€concerns,€or€if€š šthere€are€significant€new€circumstances€orĻinformation€relevant€to€environmental€concerns€and€bearing€on€the€proposed€action€or€its€impacts.ššĻ40€C.F.R.€šš€1502.9(c)(1)(i),€(ii),€ņņsee€also€Idaho€Sporting€Congress,€óó137€F.3d€at€1152€(quoting€PriceŠ l ŠRd.€Neighborhood€Assššn€v.€United€States€Depššt€of€Transp.,€113€F.3d€1505,1509€(9th€Cir.Ļ1997)(holding€that€the€standard€is€same€as€for€supplementing€an€EIS)).€Section€18.4€of€the€FS€NEPAĻHandbook€states€essentially€the€same€standard:€agencies€must€revise€an€EA€if€the€interdisciplinaryĻreview€of€new€information€or€changed€circumstances€indicates€that€changes€in€the€Š  Ģ Šą  ąEA€are€needed€to€address€environmental€concerns€that€have€a€bearing€on€the€action€or€itsĻimpacts.€57€FR€43180,€43200.ĢĢą  ąIn€general,€courts€recognize€that€the€analysis€of€new€information€š šššrequires€a€high€level€ofĻtechnical€expertisešššš€and€typically€defer€...€to€the€informed€discretion€of€the€responsible€federalĻagencies.šššš€ņņMarsh,€óó390€U.S.€at€377€(quoting€Kleppe€v.€Sierra€Club,€427€U.S.€390,€412,€96€S.Ct.Š L œ Š2718,€2731,€49€L.Ed.2d€576€(1976)),€ņņFriends€of€the€Bow€v.€Thompson,€óó124€F.3d€1210,€1218€t€0"ššŠ 8 ˆ ŠCir.€1997).ĢĢą  ąCourts€generally€agree€that€the€standard€for€supplementing€an€EA€is€the€same€as€forĻsupplementing€an€EIS.€ņņFriends€of€the€Bow,€óó124€F.3d€at€1218€n.3;€ņņIdaho€Sporting€Congress,€óó137€F.3dŠ č 8  Šat€1152.€Similarly,€courts€generally€apply€the€same€analysis€for€when€not€to€supplement€an€EA.€InŠ Ō$  ŠņņMarsh,€óóthe€Supreme€Court€ruled€that€š šan€agency€need€not€supplement€an€EIS€every€time€newŠ Ą  Šinformation€comes€to€light€after€the€EIS€is€finalized.šš€490€U.S.€at€373.€The€Court€will€not€reverseĻthe€FS€decision€not€to€supplement€unless€the€Court€finds€that€decision€was€arbitrary€and€capricious.ĻId;€ņņWisconsin€v.€Weinberger,€óó745€F.2d.€412,€417€(71,€Cir.€1984)€(adopting€the€š šarbitrary€andŠ „Ō  Šcapriciousšš€standard).ĢĢą  ąGenerally,€agency€decisions€are€not€arbitrary€or€capricious€unless€based€on€entirely€falseĻpremises€or€information,€or€where€the€agency€failed€to€comply€with€its€own€regulations.€ņņVanŠ 4„ ŠAbbema,€óó807€F.2d€639;€ņņBlock,€óó782€F.2d€at€1550.€In€this€case,€the€Court€finds€that€the€FSšš€decisionŠ  p Što€not€supplement€the€EA€was€not€arbitrary€or€capricious.ĢĢą  ąThe€defendants€in€this€case€assert€that€they€carefully€reviewed€all€of€the€relevant€newĻinformation€provided€to€them€concerning€the€Indiana€bat.€Following€that€review,€the€FS€concludedĻthat€the€new€information€did€not€present€a€significant€change€in€the€project€or€itsŠ  ¼  Špotential€effects€on€the€IB€and€that€the€new€information€was€not€significant€because€it€involved€areasĻand€circumstances€sufficiently€dissimilar€to€those€in€the€OA6€area.€The€FS€concluded€that€thereĻwould€be€no€additional€negative€effects€other€than€those€already€identified€in€the€original€EA€andĻdecided€to€not€supplement€the€EA.ĢĢą  ąThe€plaintiffs€argue€that€the€process€the€FS€went€through€was€not€sufficient€to€precludeĻrevising€the€EA€because€the€defendants€altered€their€original€analysis,€ignored€significant€informationĻand€reached€arbitrary€conclusions.€The€Court€does€not€agree€that€just€because€the€FS€prepared€moreĻthan€twenty€(20)€pages€of€new€analysis€on€the€Indiana€bat€information€that€that€necessarily€meansĻthat€the€FS€altered€š šits€original€analysis€in€a€significant€way.šš€Cronin€v.€USES,€No.€95-4171€JPG,Ļslip€op,€at€9€(Sept.€13,€1995).€Preparing€a€new€written€analysis€is€only€a€reasoned€and€prudentĻresponse€to€the€necessity€of€documenting€how€the€FS€considered€the€new€information.€I-lad€the€FSĻnot€prepared€new€written€analysis,€the€plaintiffs€would€have€an€even€better€argument€that€the€agencyĻhad€not€adequately€considered€the€new€IB€information.€But€the€number€of€pages€of€new€analysis€hasĻno€bearing€on€whether€or€not€the€information€was€significant.€To€state€otherwise,€would€lead€to€theĻconclusion€that€any€time€an€agency€reviews€new€information€and€prepares€new€written€analysis,€thenĻthe€information€must€be€considered€š šSignificant.šš€As€for€the€remainder€of€the€plaintiffsšš€arguments,Ļthe€Court€has€extensively€reviewed€the€record€provided€in€this€case€and€does€not€believe€that€theĻdefendants€ignored€significant€information€or€reached€arbitrary€conclusions-€In€fact,€the€Court€findsĻthat€the€defendants€did€carefully€consider€the€new€information€regarding€the€Indiana€bat€andĻrecognizing€the€š šhigh€level€of€technical€expertisešš€necessary€to€decisions€of€this€type,€defers€to€š štheĻinformed€discretionšš€of€the€FS€in€this€matter.€ņņMarsh,€óó390€U.S.€at€377;€ņņFriends€of€the€Bow,óó€124€F.3dŠ  \ Šat€1218.€Therefore,€this€Court€will€not€Š  ųH Šsecond€guess€that€expertise€where€it€represents€a€rational€application€of€relevant€factors.ĢĢą  ąD.€ņņCount€VI€-€Failure€to€consider€a€range€of€alternativesŠ ˆŲ ŠóóĢą  ąFor€an€agency€to€go€forward€with€a€project€like€the€one€at€issue€in€this€case,€that€agency€mustĻevaluate€a€reasonable€range€of€appropriate€alternatives€to€the€recommended€course€of€action.€ņņSee€óó42Š L œ ŠU,S.C.€šš€4332(E);€40€C.F.R.€šš1508.9.€Plaintiffs€assert€that€the€FS€violated€NFMA€by€failing€toĻconsider€alternatives€that€would€meet€the€projectššs€goals€without€widespread€evenaged€pine€logging.Ļ42€U.S-C.€šš4332(E).ĢĢą  ąThe€Court€finds€that€the€doctrine€of€stare€decisis€bars€the€plaintiffsšš€claims€on€this€issue.€EvenĻif€the€Court€did€not€consider€that€doctrine,€however,€the€claim€would€fail,€as€the€Court€finds€that€theĻdefendants€did€consider€a€reasonable€range€of€alternatives.€The€Court€does€not€need€to€reach€theĻissue€of€exhaustion€of€administrative€appeals€and€res€judicata,€although€the€Court€does€believe€thoseĻarguments€have€some€merit.ĢĢą  ąą ` ą1€.€ņņStare€decisisŠ pĄ ŠóóĢą  ąIn€ņņDonham€v,€U.S.€Forest€Service,€óóthis€Court€ruled€that€the€OA6€hardwood€restoration€projectŠ H˜ ŠEA€did€include€an€acceptable€number€and€range€of€reasonable€alternatives€to€the€recommendedĻaction.€No.€93-4172-JPG,€slip€op.€at€17€(Jan-€24,€1995).€The€doctrine€of€stare€decisis€precludes€thisĻCourt€from€reconsidering€its€earlier€final€ņņDonham€óóruling,€and€the€Court€finds€no€compelling€case€lawŠ  \ Šor€factual€evidence€to€overcome€the€state€decisis€presumption.ĢĢą0  ąą ` ą2.ą ø ąņņFS€did€consider€reasonable€range€of€alternativesŠŠ (#(# ŠóóĢą  ąWhether€or€not€an€agency€has€sufficiently€considered€a€reasonable€range€of€alternative€actionsĻmust€be€analyzed€in€light€of€the€overall€policy€objectives€for€the€underlying€action.€ņņSimmons€v.€U.S.Š ”ä ŠCorps€óóof€ņņEngrs.,€óó120€F.3d€664,€666€(7th€Cir.€1997);€ņņVan€Abbema,€óó807€F.3d€at€Š  €Š Š638.€In€ņņDonham,€óóthis€Court€has€already€found€that€the€goal€of€restoring€native€hardwoods€andŠ ° Šmanaging€vegetation€for€biodiversity€purposes€were€primary€management€goals€for€the€OA6€project.ĻThe€FS€identified€and€evaluated€three€alternatives€to€accomplish€those€goals:€(1)€a€š šno€actionššĻalternative€that€would€allow€the€forest€to€naturally€succeed€into€a€mixed€hardwood€forest;€(2)€aĻš špartial€removalšš€alternative€in€which€only€some€pine€trees€would€be€removed;€and€(3)€the€chosenĻalternative€in€which€all€pines€would€be€removed€to€allow€for€regeneration€of€the€area€into€aĻhardwood€forest,€EA€at€10-€15.€All€three€alternatives€would€eventually€lead€to€a€predominatelyĻhardwood€forest€but€at€vastly€different€rates.ĢĢą  ąThe€FS€determined€that€under€the€š šno€actionšš€alternative,€the€conversion€would€take€twentyĻto€fifty€(20-50)€years.€In€addition,€because€of€the€slow€succession€process€and€rate,€the€forest€wouldĻlikely€succeed€to€predorninately€shade-tolerant€hardwoods€like€maple,€instead€of€the€more-preferredĻnative€oak€and€hickory€stands.€Since€the€Shawnee€Amended€Plan€emphasized€an€š šecosystemĻapproach€to€land€management,šš€allowing€the€area€to€succeed€naturally€to€hardwoods€and€treatingĻonly€the€open€areas€would€do€nothing€towards€changing€the€forest€bark€to€its€original€state.ĻTherefore,€the€FS€concluded€that€this€alternative€would€not€accomplish€the€goals€of€restoring€theĻnative€oak€forest€and€increasing€the€biodiversity€of€the€forested€areas.ĢĢą  ąSimilarly,€the€FS€rejected€the€middle€approach€as€not€likely€to€meet€the€goal€of€restoring€theĻarea€to€a€native€oak€ecosystem.€This€alternative€involves€uneven-aged€management€in€whichĻindividual€trees€and€the€canopy€remains,€or€where€the€FS€would€employ€š šgroup€selection€cuttingššĻof€16/-13€of€each€pine€stand€in€.05-.06€acre€plots,€with€the€canopy€remaining.€With€this€approach,Ļas€with€the€š šno€actionšš€approach,€the€FS€determined€that€the€forest€would€succeed€to€a€moreĻshade-tolerant€forest.Š  ä4 Šą  ąAgain,€the€Court€reminds€the€parties€that€it€is€not€the€Courtššs€duty€to€second-guess€the€FSššĻdecisions€on€matters€involving€substantial€expertise€if€the€record€contains€sufficient€information€andĻevidence€from€which€the€Court€can€determine€that€a€reasoned,€non-arbitrary€decision€was€made,€ForĻthe€most€part,€the€plaintiffs€appear€to€argue€against€the€FSšš€ņņconclusions€óóinstead€of€arguing€that€theŠ tÄ ŠFS€failed€to€consider€alternatives.€In€the€context€of€NEPA,€the€Court€may€not€and€will€not€evaluateĻthe€correctness€of€those€conclusions€but€must€look€merely€to€see€if€the€record€shows€that€the€FSĻemployees€did€adequately€and€actually€consider€a€reasonable€range€of€alternatives€to€the€proposedĻaction.€The€Court€finds€that€they€did.ĢĢą  ąAccordingly,€the€Court€ņ ņGRANTS€ó ósummary€judgment€to€the€defendants€on€Count€V1,€andŠ ü L  Šņ ņDENIES€ó ósummary€judgment€for€the€plaintiffs€(does.€31€&€38).€Š ģ <  ŠĢą  ąE.€ņņCount€VII€-€the€FONSIŠ Č  ŠóóĢą  ąLast,€the€plaintiffs€assert€that€the€FS€violated€NEPA€and€CEQ€regulations€by€failing€toĻprepare€a€complete€site„specific€EIS€for€the€project.€42€U.S.C.€šš4332(2)(C),€40€C.F.R.€šš1502.3.ĻPlaintiffs€challenge€the€FONSI€based€on€information€that€was€before€the€FS€in€1996€and€on€the€newĻinformation€regarding€the€Indiana€bat.ĢĢą  ąIn€evaluating€the€FSšš€FONSI,€the€Courtššs€job€is€a€relatively€narrow€one.€The€Court€mustĻdetermine€if€the€FS€took€the€requisite€š šhard€tookšš€at€the€relevant€information€and€factors€and€reachedĻa€decision€that€was€neither€arbitrary€nor€capricious.€ņņMarsh,€óó490€U.S.€at€368;€ņņVan€Abbema,€óó807€F.2dŠ d Šat€633.€Because€the€decision€involved€a€fairly€high€degree€of€expertise,€the€Court€must€give€the€FSššĻexpert€opinions€due€deference.€ņņMarsh,€óó490€U.S.€at€378.€š šWhen€specialists€express€conflicting€views,Š ģ< Šan€agency€must€have€discretion€to€rely€on€the€reasonable€opinions€of€its€own€qualified€experts€evenĻif,€as€an€original€matter,€a€court€might€find€contraryŠ  Ä Šviews€more€persuasive.šš€ņņIdóó.€Š ° ŠĢą  ąIn€reviewing€the€plaintiffsšš€claim,€the€Court€must€evaluate€the€record€to€determine€if€the€FSĻbased€its€decision€on€a€consideration€of€the€relevant€factors€or€whether€there€has€been€a€clear€errorĻof€judgment.€Id.€As€stated€elsewhere€in€this€Order,€the€Court€does€not€intend€nor€seek€to€decide€ifĻit€would€have€made€the€same€decision.€Instead,€the€Court€must€determine€whether€the€FS€š šexceededĻthe€bounds€of€its€decision-making€authorityšš€in€concluding€that€this€project€would€not€significantlyĻaffect€the€human€environment€and€that,€therefore,€an€EIS€was€necessary.€ņņSee€River€Road€Alliance,Š $ t ŠInc.€v.€Corps€of€Engrs,€óó764€F.2d€445,€450€(7ņņthóó€Cir.€1985).€In€evaluating€the€FSšš€decision,€the€CourtŠ  ` Šmust€carefully€review€the€record€and€be€satisfied€that€the€FS€made€a€š šreasoned€decisionšš€based€onĻall€the€relevant€factors€and€information.€ņņMarsh,€óó490€U,€S.€at€3€78.€Consequently,€the€FS€must€explainŠ č 8  Šits€decision€adequately€so€that€the€Court€can€determine€that€it€was€not€arbitrary.€ĢĢą  ąAgencies€must€prepare€an€EIS€only€when€significant€environmental€impacts€will€occur€as€aĻresult€of€the€proposed€action,€40€C.F,R.€šš1502.3.€The€CEQ€offers€guidelines€and€factors€forĻdetermining€the€significance€of€the€projectššs€environmental€impact.€40€C.F.R.€šš€1508.27,€ņņsee€alsoŠ „Ō  ŠVan€Abbema,€óó807€F.2d€at€637.€The€Court€must€give€these€CEQ€regulations€substantial€deference,Š pĄ ŠņņMethow€Valley,€óó490€U.S.€at€354.€The€CEQ€factors€the€FS€must€have€adequately€considered€includeŠ \¬ ŠĢą8  ąš šSignificantlyšš€as€used€in€NEPA€requires€considerations€of€both€context€andĻintensity:€(a)€ņņContext.€This€óómeans€that€the€significance€of€an€action€must€be€analyzedŠ  p Šin€several€contexts€such€as€society€as€a€whole€(human,€national),€the€affected€region,Ļthe€affected€interests,€and€the€locality.€Significance€varies€with€the€setting€of€theĻproposed€action.€For€instance,€in€the€case€of€a€site-specific€action,€significance€wouldĻusually€depend€upon€the€effects€in€the€locale€rather€than€in€the€world€as€a€whole,€BothĻshort-€and€long-term€effects€are€relevant.Š ¼ Š Š  Šą8  ą(b)€ņņIntensity.€óóThis€refers€to€the€severity€of€impact.€Responsible€officials€must€bear€inŠ ° Šmind€that€more€than€one€agency€may€make€decisions€about€partial€aspects€of€a€majorĻaction.€The€following€should€be€considered€in€evaluating€ņņintensity:€óóŠˆŲŠ Š  Šą8  ą(1)€Impacts€that€may€be€both€beneficial€and€adverse.€A€significant€effect€may€existĻeven€if€the€Federal€agency€believes€that€on€balance€the€effect€will€be€beneficialŠ Š Š  Šą8  ą(2)€The€degree€to€which€the€proposed€action€affects€public€health€or€safety.€Š Š Š  Šą8  ą(3)€Unique€characteristics€of€the€geographic€area€such€as€proximity€to€historic€orĻcultural€resources,€park€lands,€prime€farmlands,€wetlands,€wild€and€scenic€rivers,€orĻecologically€critical€areas.€Š Š Š  Šą8  ą(4)€The€degree€to€which€the€effects€on€the€quality€of€the€human€environment€areĻlikely€to€be€highly€controversial.€Š Š Š  Šą8  ą(5)€The€degree€to€which€the€possible€effects€on€the€human€environment€are€highlyĻuncertain€or€involve€unique€or€unknown€risks.€Š Š Š  Šą8  ą(6)€The€degree€to€which€the€action€may€establish€a€precedent€for€future€actions€withĻsignificant€effects€or€represents€a€decision€in€principle€about€a€future€consideration.Š Š Š  Šą8  ą(7)€Whether€the€action€is€related€to€other€actions€with€individually€insignificant€butĻcumulatively€significant€impacts.€Significance€exists€if€it€is€reasonable€to€anticipateĻa€cumulatively€significant€impact€on€the€environment.€Significance€cannot€beĻavoided€by€terming€an€action€temporary€or€by€breaking€it€down€into€small€componentĻparts.Š Š Š  Šą8  ą(8)€The€degree€to€which€the€action€may€adversely€affect€districts,€sites,€highways,Ļstructures,€or€objects€listed€in€or€eligible€for€listing€in€the€National€Register€ofĻHistoric€Places€or€may€cause€loss€or€destruction€of€significant€scientific,€cultural,€orĻhistorical€resources,€Š Š Š  Šą8  ą(9)€The€degree€to€which€the€action€may€adversely€affect€an€endangered€or€threatenedĻspecies€or€its€habitat€that€has€been€determined€to€be€critical€under€the€EndangeredĻSpecies€Act€of€1973.€Š Š Š  Šą8  ą(10)€Whether€the€action€threatens€a€violation€of€Federal,€State,€or€local€law€orĻrequirements€imposed€for€the€protection€of€the€environment.Š Š Š  Šą  ą(Emphasis€added).ĢĢ40€C.F.R.€1508.27.€ĢĢą  ąPlaintiffs€argue€that€the€FONSI€resulted€from€the€FSšš€failure€to€adequately€consider€six€ofĻthe€above-listed€factors,€including€(1)€both€beneficial€and€adverse€impacts;€(2)€public€health€andĻsafety;€(3)€unique€characteristics€of€the€geographic€area;€(4)€the€highly€controversial€aspect€of€theĻproject;€(5)€uncertain€or€unknown€risks;€and€(6)€the€effect€on€an€endangered€species.€The€Court€doesĻnot€find€it€necessary€to€discuss€those€factors€which€it€finds€the€FS€adequately€considered€but€willĻbriefly€discuss€the€factors€the€Court€finds€the€FS€did€not€adequately€consider€in€its€EA.Š  ø'#& Šą  ąThe€Court€finds€that€the€FS€did€not€adequately€consider€nor€thoroughly€discuss€the€projectššsĻpotential€effects€on€the€unique€character€of€the€Bell€Smith€Springs€National€Natural€Landmark€area.ĻThe€Court€agrees€with€the€plaintiffs€that€CEQ€guidelines€mandate€that€a€project€of€this€magnitudeĻshould€include€a€complete€and€separate€description,€discussion€and€analysis€of€the€projectššs€possibleĻimpact€on€this€nationally-recognized€area.€Federal€regulations€established€the€National€NaturalĻLandmarks€Program€to€focus€attention€on€areas€of€š šexceptional€natural€value€to€the€nation€as€a€wholeĻrather€than€to€one€particular€State€or€locality.šš€36€C.F.R€šš62.€l(a).€š šThe€National€Natural€LandmarksĻProgram€identifies€and€preserves€natural€areas€that€best€illustrate€the€biological€and€geologicalĻcharacter€of€the€United€States,€enhances€the€scientific€and€educational€values€of€preserved€areas,Ļstrengthens€public€appreciation€of€natural€history,€and€fosters€a€greater€concern€for€the€conservationĻof€the€nationššs€natural€heritage.šš€36€C.F.R€šš€62.1(b).€Federal€agencies€must€consider€the€š šuniqueĻpropertiesšš€of€these€areas€in€their€planning€and€impact€analysis€under€NEPA.€36€C.F.R.€šš62.3€andĻšš62.6(f).€CEQ€guidelines€specifically€direct€the€FS€to€consider€the€effects€on€unique€geographicalĻareas€in€its€analysis€of€the€projectššs€impact,€and€the€Court€finds€that€the€FSšš€consideration€andĻanalysis€of€this€particular€area€was€cursory€and€not€thorough€enough€to€determine€the€š šsignificanceĻof€the€environmental€impactšš€on€the€BSS€area.€40€C.F.R.€šš€I€508.7(b)(3);€42€U.S.C.€šš4332(C)(2).ĢĢą  ąIn€addition,€the€Court€finds€that,€due€to€the€FSššs€failure€to€provide€substantial€support€for€theĻefficacy€of€the€proposed€soil€erosion€mitigation€measures,€the€FS€failed€to€adequately€and€thoroughlyĻconsider€the€risk€and€uncertainty€of€potential€erosion€into€Bay€Creek,€Lusk€Creek€and€other€streamsĻand€creeks€in€the€area.€A€court€may€properly€consider€whether€an€agency€has€substantially€supportedĻthe€proposed€mitigation€measures€when€the€court€looks€to€see€if€an€agencyŠ   \ Šhas€carefully€determined€the€significance€of€a€projectššs€environmental€impact€when€making€aĻFONSI.€ņņOmpompanoosuc,€óó968€F.2d€at€1556-67€(collecting€cases).€If€the€agency€record€does€supportŠ œģ Šthe€mitigation€measures,€the€Court€may€find€that€the€agency€has€š šconvincingly€documentedšš€andĻsupported€a€FONSI.€Id.ĢĢą  ąA€courtššs€review€under€NEPA€must€ensure€that€the€agency€followed€NEPAššs€proceduralĻrequirements€and€took€the€requisite€š šhard€lookšš€at€the€environmental€impact€of€the€proposed€action.ĻId.€(š š[O]nce€an€agency€has€made€a€decision€subject€to€NEPAššs€procedural€requirements,€the€only€roleĻfor€a€court€is€to€ensure€that€the€agency€has€considered€the€environmental€consequences.€š š)(quotingĻStrykerššs€Bay€Neighborhood€Council,€Inc.€v.€Carlen,€444€U.S.€223,€227,€100€S.Ct.€497,€500,€62ĻL.Ed.2d€433€(1980)).ĢĢą  ąIn€its€discussion€of€this€issue,€the€FS€argued€that€one€of€the€cases€cited€by€the€plaintiff-,€ņņIdahoŠ Ą  ŠSporting€Congress,€óówas€not€pertinent€to€this€case€because€in€ņņIdaho€Sporting,€óóthe€FS€had€relied€solelyŠ ¬ü  Šon€the€expert€opinion€of€its€hydrologist€in€measuring€the€potential€effects€of€that€project€on€waterĻquality.€The€Court€believes,€however,€that€the€cases€are€not€so€dissimilar,€as€in€both€cases,€theĻexpertsšš€conclusions€were€not€supported€by€hard€data€or€identifiable€studies€on€the€effectiveness€ofĻthe€mitigation€measures.€The€Court€did€a€thorough€and€lengthy€analysis€of€the€soil€erosion€mitigationĻissue€above€and€will€not€reiterate€that€here.€But€the€inevitable€conclusion€is€that€the€FS€did€notĻconsider€all€of€the€necessary€factors.€Without€substantial€evidence€to€support€the€efficacy€of€theĻmitigation€measures,€the€Court€cannot€state€that€the€FS€adequately€considered€the€significance€of€theĻproposed€actionššs€impact€on€the€surrounding€environment,€and€therefore,€failed€to€take€the€requisiteĻš šhard€lookšš€under€NEPA.€Despite€the€defendantsšš€argument€that€the€š šbalancešš€of€factors€in€the€EAĻsupports€the€FONSI,€the€Court€believes€that€the€FS€must€haveŠ  ä4 Šactually€and€adequately€considered€all€of€the€factors€in€order€for€the€Court€to€uphold€the€FONSI.€TheĻCourt€agrees€with€the€plaintiffs€that€the€forest-wide€EIS€may€not€be€used€as€basis€for€theĻcurrently-challenged€FONSI€because€that€EIS€did€not€deal€directly€with€these€site-specific€issuesĻrelevant€to€this€projectĢĢą  ąThe€Court€finds€that€the€FS€failed€to€follow€regulations€in€making€its€FONSI€so€that€theĻevidence€in€the€record€does€not€support€the€FONSI.€ņņSee€Van€Abbema,€óó807€F.2d€at€639-41€.€The€CourtŠ 8 ˆ Šfurther€finds€that€the€FS€did€not€take€a€hard€look€at€the€environmental€effects€of€its€planned€actionĻby€failing€to€adequately€identify,€consider€and€evaluate€the€potential€environmental€impact.€ņņSeeŠ  ` ŠMarsh,€óó490€U.S.€at€378;€ņņalso€Methow€Valley,€óó490€U.S.€at€351.€In€addition,€the€Court€finds€that€theŠ ü L  ŠFS€did€not€consider€all€of€the€relevant€factors€prior€to€its€decision€to€issue€the€FONSI.€For€all€of€theseĻreasons,€the€Court€finds€the€FSšš€decision€to€issue€the€FONSI€was€arbitrary€and€capricious€and,Ļconsequently,€the€FS€violated€NEPAĢĢą  ąIVą ` ąņņRemedyŠ ˜č  ŠóóĢą  ąThe€Court€does€not€believe€that€requiring€the€FS€to€complete€an€EIS€is€the€appropriateĻremedy€for€these€deficiencies.€Since€the€EA€contains€little€description,€discussion€or€analysis€on€theĻERPššs€effects€on€the€BSS€National€Natural€Landmark€area,€the€Court€believes€that€remanding€theĻEA€with€instructions€to€include€this€information€can€correct€this€deficiency.€As€for€the€soil€erosionĻmitigation€measures,€the€FS€must€modify€the€ERP€to€add€the€necessary€specific€mitigation€measuresĻand€to€provide€evidentiary€support€for€the€effectiveness€of€the€measures€already€proposed.€An€EISĻis€not€necessary€to€accomplish€that€task.€Instead,€the€Court€ņ ņREMANDS€ó óthe€EA€to€the€FS€to€allowŠ ųH Šthat€agency€to€correct€the€noted€deficiencies€and€reanalyze€the€potential€effects€the€ERP€may€haveĻon€the€areas€in€question.€The€FS€then€should€reconsider€its€finding€of€Š  Ō$ Šno€significant€impact€(FONSI).ĢĢą  ąV€ą ` ąņņConclusionóóŠ ˆŲ ŠĢą  ąThe€Court€takes€the€following€action€in€this€case:ĢĢą  ą1.ą0 ` ąCounts€I€and€VII€-€ņ ņGRANTSó ó€summary€judgment€to€the€plaintiffs;€ņ ņDENIESó ó€summaryŠ 8 ˆ Šjudgment€to€the€defendants€(does.€3€1€&€3€8);Š ` (#` (# ŠĢą  ą2.ą0 ` ąCount€II,€III,€IV,€V€and€VI€-€ņ ņGRANTSó ó€summary€judgment€to€the€defendants,Š  P  Šņ ņDENIES€ó ósummary€judgment€to€the€plaintiffs€(does€31€&€3€8).Šš @ ` (#` (# ŠĢą  ą3.ą ` ąņ ņDENIESó ó€the€plaintiffsšš€motion€to€strike€post€hoe€information€(doc.€34),€andŠ Ģ  ŠĢą  ą4.ą ` ąņ ņDENIESó ó€the€defendantsšš€motion€for€oral€argument€(doe.€69).Š Øų  ŠĢą  ąThe€Court€ņ ņREMANDS€THE€EA€AND€ORDERS€ó óthe€FS€to€revise€the€EA€to€provide€forŠ „Ō Šspecific€mitigation€measures€to€be€applied€to€soils€rated€š šsevere,šš€to€include€in€the€record€andĻprovide€the€public€with€substantial€evidence€of€the€efficacy€of€all€the€proposed€mitigation€measures,Ļto€provide€for€monitoring€of€the€effectiveness€of€the€mitigation€measures,€and€to€provide€alternativeĻmeasures€in€the€event€the€original€measures€fail.ĢĢą  ąThe€Court€FINDS€the€FONSI€invalid€and€ORDERS€the€FS€to€revise€the€EA€for€this€projectĻto€thoroughly€describe,€discuss€and€analyze€the€potential€detrimental€and€beneficial€impacts€of€theĻproposed€project€on€the€geographically€unique€characteristics€of€the€Bell€Smith€Springs€NationalĻNatural€Landmark€area.€ĢĢņ ņIT€IS€SO€ORDERED.€ó óŠ ¬ü ŠĢDated:€Sept.€27,€1999ĢĢJ.€Phil€GilbertĢChief€JudgeĢÓIÓ