Bark

MEMORANDUM

Appellant Bark appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the United States Forest Service on Bark’s claims that the Forest Service violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) because it acted arbitrarily and capriciously when it approved the Jazz Thinning project in the Mt. Hood National Forest. See 5 U.S.C. § 706 (2)(A), (D). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 .

The Forest Service did not act arbitrarily and capriciously in considering only the proposed forest thinning plan and a no-action alternative in the Environmental Assessment (EA), because those were the only proposed alternatives that “could feasibly meet the project’s goal.” Cf. W. Watersheds Project v. Abbey, 719 F.3d 1035, 1052-53 (9th Cir.2013). Because Bark’s proposed alternatives (as stated in its comments to the EA) were not economically viable and did not promote the project’s stated goals, the Forest Service was not required to consider them. See Earth Island Inst. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 697 F.3d 1010, 1022-23 (9th Cir.2012); see also Native Ecosystems Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 428 F.3d 1233 , 1247-49 (9th…