Opinion ID: 3029990
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The WATSED Model

Text: The Lands Council first claims that the Final Environmental Impact Statement’s cumulative effects analysis of instream sedimentation is arbitrary because the Water and Sediment Yields (“WATSED”) model14 used by the Forest Service was incomplete and ignored key variables such as high peak flow analysis, in-channel and streambank erosion, and “rainon-snow” peak flow events. Moreover, Lands Council argues that the fact that the model was incomplete was never disclosed. The Forest Service rejoins that this is a technical dispute and that courts routinely uphold modeling. NEPA requires that the Environmental Impact Statement contain high-quality information and accurate scientific analysis. 40 C.F.R. § 1500.1(b). If there is incomplete or unavailable relevant data, the Environmental Impact Statement must disclose this fact. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.22. The government concedes that the WATSED model does not include relevant variables in determining total sedimentation of the watershed and that WATSED does not have variables to predict the effects of large-scale, high-intensity, short-term peak flows. Although there are some disclosures of the model’s shortcomings in an appendix to the Final Environmental Impact Statement,15 nowhere do the disclosures cover the limitations of WATSED shown by the Lands Council and now conceded by the Forest Service. 14 “WATSED” is the model the Forest Service used to estimate the cumulative effects of the Project on water yield, peak flows, and sediment yield. 15 For example, Appendix D to the Final Environmental Impact Statement notes that WATSED estimates cumulative effect based on the average, measured response of the watersheds used to develop the model and that different watersheds react in different ways. LANDS COUNCIL v. POWELL 1037 [7] The Forest Service’s heavy reliance on the WATSED model in this case does not meet the regulatory requirements because there was inadequate disclosure that the model’s consideration of relevant variables is incomplete. Moreover, the Forest Service knew that WATSED had shortcomings, and yet did not disclose these shortcomings until the agency’s decision was challenged on the administrative appeal.16 We hold that this withholding of information violated NEPA, which requires up-front disclosures of relevant shortcomings in the data or models. See 40 C.F.R. § 1502.22; Lands Council v. Vaught, 198 F. Supp. 2d 1211, 1239 (E.D. Wash. 2002) (finding the same WATSED shortcomings and holding that the Environmental Impact Statement failed to disclose such shortcomings). 2. The Forest Service’s Sediment Reduction Analysis The Lands Council next argues that the EPA’s methodology in calculating the sediment reduction for the Project was faulty and that the district court erred in excluding evidence supporting this contention. The Lands Council proffered evidence to the district court that, if admitted, would tend to show that the Forest Service “overstated” the amount of reduced sedimentation from the Project’s culvert replacement.17 The Lands Council sought to demonstrate that many of the Project area’s culverts were not likely to fail; that when the culverts did fail, 100 percent of the sediment would not be washed downstream; and that the Forest Service asserted that it was replacing more culverts than its records indicated existed in the Project area. 16 Unlike the general disclosure language in the appendix to the Final Environmental Impact Statement, the “Appeal Transmittal Letter,” sent by Forest Service staff to the Regional Forester in response to the administrative appeal, states: “WATSED is not intended to estimate events, or instantaneous pulses.” 17 One of the major improvements contemplated by the Project is to use the money generated from timber harvests to replace or upgrade the existing culverts in the Project area. 1038 LANDS COUNCIL v. POWELL On this issue as above explained in Part III.A.3, the Lands Council urges us to make an exception to the general rule of administrative review. Again we need not decide this issue, because we have already held that NEPA was not satisfied. The Lands Council may submit its evidence to the administrative record if and when the Forest Service conducts a new NEPA analysis on this Project.