Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/988/989/142159/
Timestamp: 2019-09-23 07:08:40
Document Index: 778709614

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 320', '§ 230', '§ 230', '§ 1508', '§ 4332', '§ 404', '§ 328']

Friends of the Payette, and Idaho Rivers United, Inc.,plaintiffs-appellants, v. Horseshoe Bend Hydroelectric Co.; United States Army Corpsof Engineers; Robert Volz, District Engineer Ofunited States Army Corps of Engineers,defendants-appellees, 988 F.2d 989 (9th Cir. 1993) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Ninth Circuit › 1993 › Friends of the Payette, and Idaho Rivers United, Inc.,plaintiffs-appellants, v. Horseshoe Bend Hydro...
Friends of the Payette, and Idaho Rivers United, Inc.,plaintiffs-appellants, v. Horseshoe Bend Hydroelectric Co.; United States Army Corpsof Engineers; Robert Volz, District Engineer Ofunited States Army Corps of Engineers,defendants-appellees, 988 F.2d 989 (9th Cir. 1993)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 988 F.2d 989 (9th Cir. 1993) Argued and Submitted Jan. 5, 1993. Decided March 19, 1993
After the district court's June 1992 order dismissing the action, we adopted a new standard for reviewing an agency's decision not to prepare an EIS. We no longer employ a "reasonableness" standard. In Greenpeace Action v. Franklin, 982 F.2d 1342, 1350 (9th Cir. 1992), we held that "when a litigant challenges an agency determination on grounds that, in essence, allege that the agency's 'expert review ... was incomplete, inconclusive, or inaccurate,' ... the arbitrary and capricious standard is appropriate." (quoting Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council, 490 U.S. 360, 376-77, 109 S. Ct. 1851, 1860-61, 104 L. Ed. 2d 377 (1989)). We still must ensure that an agency has taken a "hard look" at the environmental consequences of its action and that its decision is "founded on a reasoned evaluation 'of the relevant factors.' " Id. at 1350 (quoting Marsh, 490 U.S. at 378, 109 S. Ct. at 1861). If we are convinced that its discretion is truly informed, however, we must defer to that discretion. Id.
We can consider the effect of mitigation measures in determining whether preparation of an EIS is necessary. Friends of Endangered Species, Inc. v. Jantzen, 760 F.2d 976, 987 (9th Cir. 1985). If significant measures are taken to " 'mitigate the project's effects,' they need not completely compensate for adverse environmental impacts." Id. (quoting Preservation Coalition, Inc. v. Pierce, 667 F.2d 851, 860 (9th Cir. 1982)).
Corps regulations require it to evaluate a project's cumulative impacts. 33 C.F.R. § 320.4(a) (1) (1992). The Corps concluded that the project would not have a substantial cumulative impact on the aquatic environment. In doing so, the Corps relied primarily on FERC's analysis of the impact of past and future hydroelectric projects within the Payette River Basin. That analysis, the sole subject of FERC's supplemental EA, concluded that the project would not contribute to cumulative adverse impacts on important resources. We agree with the district court that the Corps sufficiently considered the project's cumulative impacts.
Payette also asserts that the Corps' alternatives analysis was inadequate. Section 404(b) (1) guidelines provide that no dredge-and-fill permit shall be issued "if there is a practicable alternative to the proposed discharge which would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem." 40 C.F.R. § 230.10(a). "An alternative is practicable if it is available and capable of being done after taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project purposes." Id. § 230.10(a) (2). NEPA guidelines require an EA to include brief discussions of alternatives. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.9(b). Agencies must "study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action in any proposal which involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources." 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2) (E) (1988).
The Corps' "burden of demonstrating mootness 'is a heavy one.' " County of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625, 631, 99 S. Ct. 1379, 1383, 59 L. Ed. 2d 642 (1979) (quoting United States v. W.T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629, 633, 73 S. Ct. 894, 897, 97 L. Ed. 1303 (1953)). A controversy is moot when "the issues presented are no longer 'live' or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome." Headwaters, Inc. v. Bureau of Land Management, 893 F.2d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting Northwest Envtl. Defense Ctr. v. Gordon, 849 F.2d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir. 1988)). We review de novo questions of mootness. Williams v. United States General Servs. Admin., 905 F.2d 308, 310 (9th Cir. 1990).
The Corps determined that because the canal wetlands were maintained by irrigation water, they were not subject to its jurisdiction.2 Generally, the Corps does not consider " [a]rtificially irrigated areas which would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased" as subject to § 404 permit requirements. See 51 Fed.Reg. 41,217, § 328.3 (1986) (discussion of public comments and changes accompanying final regulations for Corps regulatory programs). The Corps may, in its discretion and on a case-by-case basis, determine that a body of water within this category is within its jurisdiction. Id.
Payette has presented no evidence showing that the canal wetlands would remain wetlands if irrigation stopped.3 The Corps' classification of the wetlands as "non-jurisdictional" was not arbitrary and capricious. See Citizens for Clean Air v. EPA, 959 F.2d 839, 844 (9th Cir. 1992). We also find it significant that the FERC license requires mitigation for destruction of these wetlands.
Finally, Payette argues that the district court erred by refusing to admit its experts' testimony and affidavits regarding the project's effects on water quality, fisheries, bald eagles, recreation and aesthetics. We review for abuse of discretion the court's decision to exclude evidence. Roberts v. College of the Desert, 870 F.2d 1411, 1418 (9th Cir. 1988).
Generally, review of agency action, including review under NEPA, is limited to the administrative record but may be expanded beyond the record if necessary to explain agency decisions. Animal Defense Council v. Hodel, 840 F.2d 1432, 1436 (9th Cir. 1988). When a failure to explain action frustrates judicial review, the reviewing court may obtain from the agency, through affidavit or testimony, additional explanations for the agency's decisions. Id. The extra-record inquiry is limited to determining whether the agency has considered all relevant factors and has explained its decision. Id. The district court may also look outside the record when the agency has relied on documents not in the record and when supplementing the record is necessary to explain technical terms or complex subject matter. Id.