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

Heading: Prior Timber Harvests

Text: The Lands Council first argues that the Final Environmental Impact Statement section on the cumulative impacts of past timber harvests is “particularly vague and lacking in any detailed discussion” because the Forest Service did not note in detail past timber harvesting projects and the impact of those projects on the Little North Fork watershed. We agree. The Final Environmental Impact Statement generally describes the past timber harvests, gives the total acres cut, with types of cutting, per decade, and asserts that timber harvests have contributed to the environmental problems in the Project area. But there is no catalog of past projects and no discussion of how those projects (and differences between the projects) have harmed the environment. Apart from a map in the Project file that shows past harvests, with general notes about total acres cut per watershed, there is no listing of individual past timber harvests. Moreover, there is no discussion of the connection between individual harvests and the prior environmental harms from those harvests that the Forest Service now acknowledges. Instead, the Final Environmental Impact Statement contains only vague discussion of the general impact of prior timber harvesting, and no discussion of the environmental impact from past projects on an individual LANDS COUNCIL v. POWELL 1029 basis, which might have informed analysis about alternatives presented for the current project. When we consider the purposes that NEPA was designed by Congress to serve, what was done here is inadequate. Congress wanted each federal agency spearheading a major federal project to put on the table, for the deciding agency’s and for the public’s view, a sufficiently detailed statement of environmental impacts and alternatives so as to permit informed decision making. The purpose of NEPA is to require disclosure of relevant environmental considerations that were given a “hard look” by the agency, and thereby to permit informed public comment on proposed action and any choices or alternatives that might be pursued with less environmental harm. To this end, we have previously held that NEPA requires adequate cataloguing of relevant past projects in the area. Muckleshoot Indian Tribe v. United States Forest Serv., 177 F.3d 800, 809-10 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[A]n EIS must catalogue adequately the relevant past projects in the area. . . . Detail is therefore required in describing the cumulative effects of a proposed action with other proposed actions.” (internal citation and quotation marks omitted)). Stated differently, the general rule under NEPA is that, in assessing cumulative effects, the Environmental Impact Statement must give a sufficiently detailed catalogue of past, present, and future projects, and provide adequate analysis about how these projects, and differences between the projects, are thought to have impacted the environment. See Neighbors of Cuddy Mountain v. United States Forest Serv., 137 F.3d 1372, 1379-80 (9th Cir. 1998); City of Caramel-By-The-Sea v. United States Dept. of Transp., 123 F.3d 1142, 1160-61 (9th Cir. 1997). The issue then is whether the description of past timber harvests and previous environmental harms caused by these past timber harvests was set forth in sufficient detail to promote an informed assessment of environmental considerations and policy choices by the public and agency personnel upon review of the Final Environmental Impact Statement. 1030 LANDS COUNCIL v. POWELL [3] Here, while the Final Environmental Impact Statement discloses tables with types of past harvesting, there was no inclusion of the specific projects that comprise the totals. Though the Forest Service asserts that the Final Environmental Impact Statement had a “comprehensive accounting” of past timber harvests, in fact the prior harvests from different projects were not separately discussed, neither as to their method of harvest, nor as to the consequences of each. Although the agency acknowledged broad environmental harms from prior harvesting, the data disclosed would not aid the public in assessing whether one form or another of harvest would assist the planned forest restoration with minimal environmental harm. For the public and agency personnel to adequately evaluate the cumulative effects of past timber harvests, the Final Environmental Impact Statement should have provided adequate data of the time, type, place, and scale of past timber harvests6 and should have explained in sufficient detail how different project plans and harvest methods affected the environment. The Forest Service did not do this, and NEPA requires otherwise.7 Muckleshoot, 177 F.3d at 809-10. 6 This was not difficult data to generate, as is apparent by the Forest Service’s response to the Freedom of Information Act request from the Lands Council. 7 The Forest Service contends that by not raising this issue in the comments to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, the Lands Council has waived the argument. In our view, however, the Lands Council expressly and adequately raised and preserved this issue. For example, Lands Council commented on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement that the maps supplied did not display all past logging, which was keyed to method, to assess environmental impacts; the Forest Service replied that such a list was in the Project Files. This list was not provided in the Final Environmental Impact Statement, and the Forest Service’s response shows that the Lands Council raised the issue and the current objection to the Final Environmental Impact Statement is not waived. LANDS COUNCIL v. POWELL 1031 2. Reasonably Foreseeable Future Timber Harvests The Lands Council asserts that while the Final Environmental Impact Statement lists only one future timber harvest in the “reasonably foreseeable projects” discussion, there are other future harvests that should have been included in this section of the cumulative effects analysis. Lands Council points to the Deerfoot Ridge Restoration Project, scoped sixteen days after the Record of Decision was issued in this case, and the Forest’s 1998 Geographic Assessment, which recommends clear-cut harvesting in the Upper Little North Fork area. Because the Final Environmental Impact Statement must include cumulative effects discussion for “reasonably foreseeable projects,” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.7, the Lands Council asks us to determine whether these two potential projects are “reasonably foreseeable.” We need not address these issues, however, because: (1) the parties have agreed that the Deerfoot Ridge Restoration Project was in a different drainage and thus need not have been considered, and (2) the Lands Council has represented that a determination that the IPNF Inland Native Fish Strategy applies — a decision that we reach later in this opinion — moots the need to address the Geographic Assessment issue here. 3. Possibility of Toxic Sediment Transport Lands Council argues that cumulative effects analysis did not consider the risk of increased peak flows in the relevant watersheds caused by “rain-on-snow” events8 that could churn 8 “Rain-on-snow” events occur when rain melts a significant amount of snow that has accumulated in the holes or gaps in a forest. This melting causes a spike in runoff and water flow in watersheds. Increased water flows are reflected in greater velocity and volume of water; the water runs faster and there is more of it. The result is massive sediment deposit in a watershed. Clearcutting and shelterwood harvesting increase both the like1032 LANDS COUNCIL v. POWELL up toxic sediments downstream at the confluence of the North and South Forks of the Coeur d’Alene River. The evidence proffered to the district court demonstrated the risks of “peak flows”9 from the North Fork which scoop up toxic sediments from the heavily contaminated South Fork of the Coeur d’Alene River and deposit the contamination in Lake Coeur d’Alene and/or the Spokane River. Further, the proffered evidence showed that the Project would increase the amount and intensity of such peak flows, increasing the possible risk of toxic sediment transportation. The Lands Council argues that the district court erred by refusing to admit new evidence of this risk, and that had the evidence been admitted, it would have shown that the Forest Service did not address a substantial environmental risk posed by the Project. The Forest Service argues that the administrative record is complete, with no need of supplementation, and that district court did not err in limiting consideration to the administrative record. The Lands Council’s enthusiastic argument pressing evidence that the Forest Service did not consider stands at odds with the norms of administrative law and typical judicial review of agency action.10 As the district court below correctly noted, the Supreme Court has expressed a general rule that courts reviewing an agency decision are limited to the administrative record. Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729, 743-44 (1985). We have previously stated that “[j]udicial review of an agency decision typically focuses on lihood and severity of such events by opening up the necessary gaps in the forest. See, e.g., Brian Connelly, The Cumulative Effects of Forest Management on Peak Flows During Rain-on-Snow Events, at http://depts.washington.edu/cwws/Theses/connelly.html (1992) (abstract of a theses studying this phenomenon). 9 “Peak flows,” often measured in cubic feet (of water) per second, are the highest volume of water passing a given point at a given time. 10 Normally, if an Agency’s administrative record is incomplete, we would expect litigants to seek to supplement the record in the agency before seeking to expand the record before the district court. LANDS COUNCIL v. POWELL 1033 the administrative record in existence at the time of the decision and does not encompass any part of the record that is made initially in the reviewing court.” Southwest Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. United States Forest Serv., 100 F.3d 1443, 1450 (9th Cir. 1996). This general rule derives from our statutory role to review an agency’s action. See Fla. Power & Light Co., 470 U.S. at 743-44 (“The task of the reviewing court is to apply the appropriate APA standard of review to the agency decision based on the record the agency presents to the reviewing court.”) (internal citation omitted). We have, however, crafted narrow exceptions to this general rule. In limited circumstances, district courts are permitted to admit extra-record evidence: (1) if admission is necessary to determine “whether the agency has considered all relevant factors and has explained its decision,” (2) if “the agency has relied on documents not in the record,” (3) “when supplementing the record is necessary to explain technical terms or complex subject matter,” or (4) “when plaintiffs make a showing of agency bad faith.” Southwest Ctr., 100 F.3d at 1450 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).11 These limited exceptions operate to identify and plug holes in the administrative record. Though widely accepted, these exceptions are narrowly construed and applied. See, e.g., Camp v. Pitts, 411 U.S. 138, 142-43 (1973) (holding that a reviewing court may require supplementation of the administrative record if it is incomplete); USA Group Loan Servs., Inc. v. Riley, 82 F.3d 708, 715 (7th Cir. 1996) (holding that a “court is supposed to make its decision on the basis of the administrative record,” but that “[t]here are exceptions”) (citing Animal Def. Council v. Hodel, 840 F.2d 1432, 1436 (9th Cir. 1988), amended by, 867 F.2d 1244 (1989)). The scope of these exceptions permitted by our precedent 11 A district court’s decision whether to admit extra-record evidence is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Southwest Ctr. for Biological Diversity, 100 F.3d at 1447. 1034 LANDS COUNCIL v. POWELL is constrained, so that the exception does not undermine the general rule. Were the federal courts routinely or liberally to admit new evidence when reviewing agency decisions, it would be obvious that the federal courts would be proceeding, in effect, de novo rather than with the proper deference to agency processes, expertise, and decision-making. [4] Here, the risks presented by the supplemental evidence are serious, because the evidence purports to show that the risk of toxic sediment transport would be increased by the Project, thereby creating risks to the public downstream. Yet it is not entirely clear that Lands Council could not have moved the agency to supplement its record with this evidence. [5] Given the difficulty of this issue, we decline to answer it without necessity. We need not address the extra-record evidence issue because we have determined that there are other bases for reversing the district court and enjoining the Project. The Lands Council’s arguments and evidence can be submitted to the Forest Service, and be made part of the administrative record, if and when the Forest Service conducts a new NEPA analysis of the Project. 4. Cumulative Effects on Westslope Cutthroat Trout Finally, the Lands Council challenges the cumulative effects analysis on the Westslope Cutthroat Trout.12 The Lands Council contests the lack of up-to-date habitat informa12 “Westslope Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarki lewisi, Salmonidae) are native to the upper Columbia, Missouri, and South Saskatchewan river drainages of western North America and are at the northern periphery of their range in southeastern British Columbia, Canada.” E. B. Taylor et al., Population Subdivision in Westslope Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarki lewisi) at the Northern Periphery of its Range: Evolutionary Inferences and Conservation Implications, 12 Molecular Ecology 2609, 2609 (2003) (available at http://www.zoology.ubc.ca/~etaylor/wsct2003.pdf). This sub-species was scientifically described by Lewis and Clark, whose cohort ate well on these fish. LANDS COUNCIL v. POWELL 1035 tion in the administrative record because the last survey of the Westslope Cutthroat Trout’s habitat conditions was taken thirteen years ago. The Forest Service counters that it conducted fish count surveys in 1993, 1994, 1996, and 1997.13 The evidence of fish count surveys is unavailing. While these fish count surveys are at least six years old, and reliance on them is suspect, the Final Environmental Impact Statement discloses no recent survey of the habitat of the Westslope Cutthroat Trout. Evidence of the current habitat conditions, and any degradation or improvement in the last thirteen years, is relevant evidence in analyzing and determining what, if any, impact the current Project will have on the cumulative effect of current and past timber harvesting on trout habitat and on trout population. Instead, the Forest Service predicted the Project’s impact on the Westslope Cutthroat Trout (and its habitat) using stale habitat data. [6] We do not suggest that all data relied upon by the agency be immediate, but here the data about the habitat of the Westslope Cutthroat Trout was too outdated to carry the weight assigned to it. We conclude that the lack of up-to-date evidence on this relevant question prevented the Forest Service from making an accurate cumulative impact assessment of the Project on the habitat and population of the Westslope Cutthroat Trout. See Seattle Audubon Soc’y v. Espy, 998 F.2d 699, 704-05 (9th Cir. 1993) (overturning an agency decision when it rested on “stale scientific evidence”).