Opinion ID: 616890
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Exhaustion as to Cumulative Impacts Beyond Water Depletion

Text: In the Notice of Appeal to the Forest Service, Plaintiffs generally argued that the increase in development at the BVP would deplete water from the Colorado River, threatening four endangered species of fish. Aplt.App. 128-130 (These depletions will subject the endangered Colorado River fish to additional harm.) Id. at 130. They also argued that the BVP should have been considered a connected action, Aplt.App. 131, a similar action, Aplt.App. 135, or a cumulative action, Aplt.App. 135-36; see 40 C.F.R. § 1508.25(a). Finally, Plaintiffs claimed that the Forest Service failed to assess the cumulative effects and impacts of the BVP. They stated that, the water depletion (and other) impacts from the new Base Village are `cumulative impacts' that must be analyzed, disclosed and considered under NEPA in the context of the Snowmass Ski Area Master Plan Amendment projects. Aplt.App. 136. Under a section addressing the failure to mitigate impacts to lynx, Aplt.App. 145, and a subsection addressing the proper scope of any analysis, Aplt.App. 146, Plaintiffs argued that the BVP should be a connected or cumulative action with the Improvements Project, Aplt.App. 147-48, due to cumulative impacts on water, air quality, visual quality, road traffic, vehicle accidents and road kill, access to local health care, and so on resulting from an increased human presence on the mountain. Aplt.App. 149. They also listed other possible effects, including effects on the lynx habitat, effects on visual quality, and a loss of natural qualities and roadless or wilderness area values. Aplt.App. 150. In order to exhaust administrative remedies, claims cannot be only vaguely and cryptically referred to, if at all, during the administrative appeal. See Kleissler v. U.S. Forest Service, 183 F.3d 196, 203 (3d Cir.1999). In fact, [c]laims not properly raised before an agency are waived, unless the problems underlying the claim are `obvious,' or otherwise brought to the agency's attention. See Forest Guardians, 495 F.3d at 1170 (citations omitted). In their administrative appeal, Plaintiffs exhausted the water depletion issue, but not the other issues presented here, specifically: impacts to wildlife ... air quality, water quality, litter, solid waste generation, visual quality, and so on. Aplt. Br. at 28. The agency appeal contained an entire section dedicated to the potential impact of the BVP on water depletion. Aplt.App. 125-31. The section discusses endangered fish, but lumps other potential resource impacts into blanket statements like other impacts, Aplt.App. 136, and other components of the environment. Aplt.App. 138. These descriptions do not present a claim in sufficient detail to allow the agency to rectify the alleged violation. See Forest Guardians, 495 F.3d at 1170. The agency needs something more to go on, and Plaintiffs cannot merely mention broad categories of potential impacts with little or no analysis. See Dodd Ins. Servs., Inc. v. Royal Ins. Co. of America, 935 F.2d 1152, 1158 (10th Cir. 1991). More explanation is necessary. Later, in the same Notice of Appeal, Plaintiffs argued that the cumulative impacts from an increase in skier/snowboarder numbers due to the BVP, Aplt. App. 148, should be considered. These impacts include impacts to water, air quality, visual quality, road traffic, vehicle accidents and road kill, access to local health care, and so on. Aplt.App. 149. In Vt. Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, the Supreme Court cautioned that administrative proceedings should not be a game or a forum to engage in unjustified obstructionism by making cryptic and obscure reference to matters that `ought to be' considered and then, after failing to do more to bring the matter to the agency's attention, seeking to have that agency determination vacated.... 435 U.S. 519, 553-54, 98 S.Ct. 1197, 55 L.Ed.2d 460 (1978). Moreover, [W]hile it is true that NEPA places upon an agency the obligation to consider every significant aspect of the environmental impact of a proposed action, it is still incumbent upon intervenors who wish to participate to structure their participation so that it is meaningful, so that it alerts the agency to the intervenors' position and contentions.... Comments must be significant enough to step over a threshold requirement of materiality before any lack of agency response or consideration becomes of concern. The comment cannot merely state that a particular mistake was made ...; it must show why the mistake was of possible significance. Id. at 553-54, 98 S.Ct. 1197 (quoting Portland Cement Ass'n v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 375, 394 (D.C.Cir.1973)). Because claims beyond water depletion were merely included in long lists without expounding on the significance of the proposed impacts, or were only described vaguely as other impacts, these claims were not exhausted.