to sufficiently assess the environmental impacts of the necessary maintenance for the proposed permanent fuel break network. Although Appendix B to the EIS states that fuel breaks will have to be maintained “every 2-10 years depending how quickly brush returns,” the EIS does not disclose how the fuel breaks will be maintained and does not analyze the environmental impacts of the required maintenance. (See AR 413, 422, 360-368.) Relying on Californians for Alternatives to Toxics v. Dombeck, No. Civ. S-00-605 LKK/PAN (E.D. Cal., June 12, 2001), plaintiffs assert that the EIS violates NEPA by failing to analyze the environmental impacts of maintaining the fuel breaks, as such maintenance is reasonably foreseeable and necessary for the success of the fuel break strategy. See id. at 28 (<HOLDING>). The Forest Service asserts that it was not
holding that the forest service did not act arbitrarily and capriciously by failing to verify its model with ontheground data holding in suit under the administrative procedure act challenging us forest service approval of forest development plan that injury to aesthetic conservational or recreational interests is sufficient to confer standing recognizing that the forest service supervisor had authority to issue orders pursuant to 36 cfr  26150 holding under basic principles of property law that easement rights are subject to regulation by the forest service as the owner of the servient estate holding eis inadequate where forest service failed to consider environmental impact of fuel break maintenance