N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
OREGON W ILD, a

n Ore gon nonprofit c orporation; SIER

R A C LUB , a

C a lifornia nonprofit c orporation; C ENTER FOR B IOLOGIC AL DIVER SITY,

Pla i ntiffs-Appe lla

nts,
v. KENT C ONNAUGHTON, R e giona l Fore ste r, Pa c ific Northwe st R e gion, U.S. Fore st Se rvic e ; UNITED STATES FOR EST SER

VIC E, a fe de ra l a ge nc y , De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s,
and M T. ASHLAND ASSOC IATION,

Inte rve nor-De fe nda

ntAppe lle e . No. 14-35251 D.C . No. 1:12-c v-02244-PA
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ore gon O we n M . Panne r, Se nior Distric t Judge , Pre s iding 

# FIL ED OCT 19 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S

. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.Argue d and Subm i tte d

Oc tobe r 6, 2016 Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , a nd C LIFTON a

nd NGUYEN, C irc uit Judge s. Pla intiffs a

ppe a l the distric t

c o urt’ s orde r granting sum m ary judgm e nt for the U nite d State s Fore s t Se rvic e and R e giona l Fore ste r Ke nt C onna ughton (toge the r, the Fore st Se rvic e ) on Pla intiffs’ Nationa l Environm e nta l Polic y Ac t
c la im s c ha lle nging theFore st Se rvic e ’ s fa ilure to pre p are a supple m e n ta l
e nvironm e nta l im

pa c t sta te m e nt for the M ount Ashla nd ski a re a e xpa nsion proje c t. W e a ffirm
. 1 NEPA re quire s a ge nc ie s to pre pa re e nvironm e nta l im

pa c t sta te m e nts for fe de ra l a c tions “ signific antly a ffe c ting” the e nvironm e nt. 42 U.S.C . § 4332(C ). NEPA furthe r re quire s a ge n c ie s to pre pa re supple m e n ta l e nvironm e nta l im pa c t sta te m e nts whe n “ [t] he re are signific ant ne w c irc um sta nc e s or inform ation re le va nt to e nvironm e nta l c onc e rns” tha t be ar on “ the propose d a c tion or its im pa c ts.” 40 C .F.R . § 1502.9(c )(1). An a ge nc y ’ s re fusa l to pre pa re supple m e n ta l NEPA a

na ly sis is re vie we d unde r the Adm inistra tive Proc e dure Ac t , Or. N at. De se rt Ass’n v

. Bure au of Land Mgmt. , 625 F.3d 1092, 1109 (9th C ir. 2010), a nd will bere ve rse d

1 W e de ny Pla intiffs’ re que sts for judic ia l notic e . Pla i ntiffs ha ve fa ile d to e sta blish tha t the sta te m e nts a sse rte d in thedoc um e nts to be notic e d a re not subje c t to re a sona

ble dispute
. S

e e Fe d . R . Evid. 201(b).

2only

if the a ge n c y ’ s de c i sion wa s “ arbitra ry , c a pric ious, a

n a buse of disc re tion, or othe rwise not in a c c orda

nc e with la

w,” 5 U.S.C
. § 706(2)(A). “ Wh e the r ne w inform at ion re quire s supple m e n ta l a na ly sis is a

c la s sic e xam

ple of a fa c tua l dispute the re solution of which im plic ate s substa

n tia l a ge nc y

e xpe rtise .” Tri-Valle

y C AREs
v . U.S. De p’t of Ene rgy , 671 F.3d 1113, 1130 (9th C ir. 2012) (inte rna l quota tion
m arks om itte d). De fe re nc e towa rds the a g e nc y

“ is highe st whe n re vie wing a n
a ge nc y ’ s te c hnic a l a

na ly se s a n d judgm e nts involving the e v a luation of c om

ple x
sc ie ntific data

within the

a ge nc y ’ s te c hnic a l e xpe rtise .” Le agueof W ilde rne s s De fs. BlueMountains Biodiv

e r sity Proje c t v . Alle n , 615 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th C ir. 2010). On a ppe a l, Pla i ntiffs ide ntify five c ate gorie s of ne winform ation re l ating to the e xpa nsion proje c t

tha t the y c onte nd trigge r supple m e nta l NEPA a na ly sis. As
e xpla ine d be low, the Fore st Se rvic e took a “ ha rd look” at e a c h c ate gory

of inform at ion a

nd re a sona

bly de t e rm ine d tha

t no supple m e nta l NEPA a na ly sis wa s
re quire d. Idaho W

o ol Grow e r

s Ass’n v . Vilsack, 816 F.3d 1095, 1107 (9th C ir. 2016). The Fore s t Se rvic e the re fore wa s not a rbitra ry or c a pric ious in fa iling to pre p are supple m e nta l NEPA a na ly sis he re .

31. Inv alidate d Aquatic C onse rv ation Strate

g y ame ndme nts. 2 The Fore st Se rvic e wa s not a

rbitra ry or c a pric ious in fa iling to pre

pa re supple m e nta l NEPA
ana ly sis in re sponse to the W e s te rn Distric t of W a shington’ s 2007 de c ision inva lida t ing c e rta in a

m e ndm e nts to theNorthwe st Fore st Pla n’ s Aqua tic C onse rvation Stra

t e gy . Se e Pac . C

oast Fe d’n of Fishe rme n’s Ass’ns v

. N at’l Maritime Fishe rie s Se rv s. , 482 F. Supp. 2d 1248 (W .D. W a sh. 2007). TheFore st Se rvic e provide d substa

ntia l, unc ontrove rte d e vide nc e e s ta blishing tha

t the Fore st Se rvic e c onside re d a l l nine obje c tive s ide ntifie d in thepre -am e ndm e nt ve rsion of the A quatic C onse rvation Stra te gy whe n pre pa

ring the 2004 e nvironm e nta l im pa c t sta te m e nt. This inc lude d (1) e xc e rpts from a 2003 dra ft e nvironm e n ta l im pa c t sta te m e nt e xpre s sly

ana ly z ing the e xpa

nsion proje c t’ s c om

plia nc e with a ll nine Aquat ic C onse rvation Stra te gy obje c tive s a

n d (2) e x c e rpts from

the 2007 ne w inform at ion re vie w a

nd 2011 supplem e nta l re c ord of de c i sion ide ntify ing spe c ific

2 As a n initia l m atte r, we disa gre e with theFore s t Se rvic e that Pla intiffs’ NEPA c la im s a

re ba rre d on a p pe a l to thee xte nt the y are ba se d on the inva lida te d Aquat ic C onse rvation Stra te gy am e ndm e nts. Pla intiffs’ Nationa l Fore s t M an a g e m e nt Ac t c la im s a nd NEPA c la im s a

re diffe re nt c la im s ra ising diffe re nt the o rie s of lia

bility : the NFM A c la im s a lle ge substa ntive fa ilure to c om

p l y with fe de ra l e nvironm e nta l la

w, a nd the NEPA c la im s a lle ge proc e dura l fa i lure to pre p are c e rta in disc losure s. C onsiste nt with this distinc tion, thedistric t c ourt re solve d the c la im s se pa

ra t e ly , sta y ing the NFM A c la im s pe n d ing a ppe a l a nd e nte ring R

ule 54(b) judgm e nt for the Fore st Se rvic e on the NEPA c la i m s. Pla i ntiffs’ NEPA c la i m s a re the re fore prope rly ra ise d on a ppe a l. 4portions from the 2004 e nvironm e nta l im pa c t sta te m e nt a nd re c ord of de c ision tha

t
e ffe c tive ly , a lthough not e xpre s sly , a na l y z e d the e xpa

nsion proje c t’ s c om

plia nc e with a ll nine Aquatic C onse rvation Stra te g y obje c tive s. 2. N e w Total Max imum Daily

Load limits. In the ir ope ning brie f, Pla i ntiffs fa il to e xpla in how theOre gon De pa rtm e nt of Environm e nta l Qua lity ’ s ne w Tota l M a x im um Da ily Loa d lim its for se dim e n tation pollution in R e e de r R e se rvoir trigge r supple m e nta l NEPA a na ly sis. For e xam

ple , Pla intiffs do not addre ss whe the r or how the e xpa

nsion proje c t would c a

use se dim e n t ation disc h arge to
e xc e e d the da ily

loa d lim its until the i r re ply brie f, whe re the y

a sse rt, with no
e vide ntia ry support, tha

t logging a ssoc iate d with thee xpa nsion proje c t risks inc re a se d se dim e ntation disc h arge . This a rgum e nt is the re fore wa i ve d. Se e W ildEarth Guardians v

. EPA , 759 F.3d 1064, 1072 (9th C i r. 2014). M ore ove r,
e ve n if Pla intiffs did not wa i ve the ir a rgum e nt with re g ard to the Tota l M ax im um Da ily Loa d lim it, the ir c l a im

would fa il on them e rits be c a use the Ore gon De pa rtm e nt of Environm e nta l Qua lity , whic h prom ulga te d the Tota l M a xim

um Da ily Loa d lim it, did not indic ate tha t the e xpa nsion proje c t would beinc om patible with thelim it. 3. Ge ologic a l mapping projec t. The Fore st Se rvic e wa s not a rbitra ry or
c a pric ious in fa iling to pre

pa re supple m e n ta l NEPA a

n a ly sis in re sponse to the
5Ore gon De pa rtm e nt of Ge ologic a l a

nd M ine ra l Industrie s’ s (DOGAM I) ge ologic a l
m a pping proje c t, for two re a sons. First, to the e xte nt tha t Pla intiffs c ha lle nge the te c hnology

use d by the Fore st Se rvic e in the first ge o logic a l m a pping proje c t, this
argum e nt c onc e rns sc ie ntific m e thodology for whic h gre at de fe re nc e is give n to the Fore st Se rvic e . Alle n , 615 F.3d a t 1130. Se c ond, the Fore st Se rvic e c onduc te d de ta ile d, site -spe c ific ge o l ogic a l m a pping a na ly sis in c onne c tion with the 2004
e nvironm e nta l im

pa c t sta te m e nt a nd found no inc re a se d la

ndsliderisks re late d to the e xpa nsion proje c t . The Fore st Se rvic e the re fore wa s not re quire d to c onduc t
a dditiona l ge ologic a l m a

pping a na ly sis in re sponse to the inc onc lusive re sults from the D OGAM I ge ologic a l m a p ping proje c t, whic h ultim ate l y found only tha t c e rta in
are a s in northe rn M ount Ashla nd c onta ine d gla c ia l de posits tha t pose d no inc re a se d la ndsliderisks. 4. Ex piration of the

w e tlands de line ation. The Fore st Se rvic e wa s not
arbitra ry or c a pric ious in fa iling to pre

pa re supple m e nta l NEPA a

n a ly sis in
re sponse to the Arm

y C orps of Engine e rs’ e xpire d we tla nds de line ation. The
e xpire d we tla

nds de line ation would trigge r supple m e nta l NEPA a

n a l y s is only

if the n e w we tla

nds de line at ion diffe re d “ signific a n t[ly ] ” from

the e xpire d we t la

nds de line ation. 40 C .F.R . § 1502.9(c )(1). He re , howe ve r, the re c ord e vide nc e sugge sts

6that , give n the a lpine e nvironm e nt of the e xpa nsion a re a , the ne w we tla

nds de line ation like l y

will not differ from

the e xpire d we tla

n ds de l ine ation. 3 5. N e w c limate c hange doc ume n ts. Pla intiffs ide ntify te n doc um e nts publishe d a fte r the 2004 e nvironm e nta l im pa c t sta t e m e nt tha

t purporte d ly

pre se nt signific ant ne w inform ation re ga rding c lim ate c h ange in the e xpa nsion a re a . The se doc um e nts inc lude e ight c lim ate c ha nge studie s a

nd two interna l c l im ate c ha nge guida n c e m e m oranda from

the Fore st Se rvic e and C ounc il on Environme nta l Qua lity . For e a c h doc um e nt, the Fore st Se rvic e provide d a re a sona ble e xpla nation
e sta blishing why

the doc um e n t

wa s e ithe r irre le va

n t or othe rwise provide d no signific ant ne w inform ation re ga rding the pote ntia l im

pa c t of c lim ate c ha

nge on M ount Ashla

n d ski a re a ope ra tions. Pla intiffs do not ch a lle n ge the re a sona ble ne ss of the se e xpla

nat ions, a nd, give n the Fore s t Se rvic e ’ s te c hnic a l e xpe rtise re ga rding the e ffe c t of c lim ate c ha

nge on na tiona l fore sts, we m

u st give the se e xpla

nations our “ highe st” de fe re nc e . Alle n , 615 F.3d a t 1130. Ac c ordingly , we c a nnot sa y tha t

3 B e c a u se Pla i ntiffs fa il to e sta

blish tha t the e xpire d we tla

nds de line ation pre s e nts signific ant ne winform ation re ga rding the e nvironm e nta l c onse que nc e s of the e xpa nsion proje c t , we ne e d not a ddre ss Pla intiffs’ argum e nt tha t, unde r South Fork Band C ounc il of W

. Shoshone

of N e v . v . U.S. De

p’t of Inte r ior , 588 F.3d 718 (9th C ir. 2009), pa

rtic ipation in the

Arm y C orps of Engine e rs’ pe rm itting proc e ss doe s not disc ha

rge the Fore st Se rvic e ’ s disc losure obliga tions unde r NEPA. 7the Fore st Se rvic e wa s a rbitra ry or c a pric ious in fa iling to pre

pa re supple m e nta l NEPA a na ly sis in re sponse to the se c lim ate c ha nge doc um e nts. AFFIRM E D.

8