Opinion ID: 3050173
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: New Developed Recreation Site

Text: ONRC also contends that the Forest Service violated the Rogue River LRMP and the NFMA by authorizing development facilities that will affect currently undeveloped riparian habitat in the Middle Fork. ONRC argues that the Rogue River LRMP explicitly prohibits “new developed recreation sites” on Riparian Reserves. Emphasizing that the ski area construction began in 1963, the Forest Service asserts that the project is not a “new” recreation site but the expansion of an existing site, and that the Riparian Reserve restriction does not apply. We agree with the Forest Service. [12] In addition to being fully supported by the Riparian Reserves language of the Rogue River LRMP, this conclusion is also fully consistent with treatment of this issue in the Restricted Watershed terrain portion of the Rogue River LRMP. In the standards and guidelines for Restricted Watershed MS 22, the Rogue River LRMP provides that “[n]ew developed recreation sites will not be constructed. Expansion of existing recreation sites will be analyzed in project environmental analysis.” While the second sentence does not appear in the standard and guidelines for Riparian Reserve MS 26, the two treatments are consistent and there is no reason to treat them differently. We therefore hold that the term OREGON NATURAL RESOURCES v. GOODMAN 13073 “new” is intended to have a uniform meaning throughout the Rogue River LRMP and that the prohibition therein of new developed recreation sites in Riparian Reserves does not apply to the MASA expansion. D. Remaining Claims [13] Lastly, we hold that the district court did not err in ruling for the Forest Service on all of the remaining claims raised by ONRC in its motion for summary judgment. We hold that the Forest Service did not violate the NEPA requirement that the 2004 FEIS discuss or analyze potential violations of all federal, state and local laws, which include Oregon state wetland laws and regulations. The Forest Service included in the FEIS a discussion of whether the proposed expansion would violate federal and state laws, and explicitly noted that state and local agencies would have regulatory responsibilities for many activities and actions in the expansion project. Although the FEIS does not specifically address Oregon’s unique regulatory program for wetlands, the FEIS is clear that state approval is a condition of the project. Thus, it would be “fly speck[ing]” to find a NEPA violation on these grounds, and we decline to do so. See Ecology Ctr., 430 F.3d at 1077. Second, we find that the Forest Service’s FEIS adequately disclosed the shortcomings in the Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) models used to estimate sediment impacts on the municipal watershed and, therefore, complied with NEPA. The NEPA does not require the reviewing court to “decide whether an [EIS] is based on the best scientific methodology available,” Or. Envtl. Council v. Kunzman, 817 F.2d 484, 496 (9th Cir. 1987) (quoting Friends of Endangered Species v. Jantzen, 760 F.2d 976, 986 (9th Cir. 1985)) (alteration in original); rather the question is whether the FEIS adequately disclosed the model’s potential weakness. We agree with the district court that it did. In Appendix H to the FEIS, the Forest 13074 OREGON NATURAL RESOURCES v. GOODMAN Service outlined several limitations of the WEPP model: its failure to account for the higher erosion rates that typically occur during the first two years after disturbance; the fact that its components are reasonably effective on the agricultural rangelands for which the WEPP model was designed, but that it has limitations when applied to forest lands; and the fact that no watershed template is currently available. Thus, because the NEPA requires adequate disclosure, not the best scientific methodology available, we hold that the Forest Service made adequate disclosures concerning the WEPP model’s shortcomings. [14] Finally, the Forest Service relied upon another computer model, the Equivalent Roadless Area (ERA) model, to address cumulative watershed effects. ONRC asserts that the Forest Service violated the NEPA by using the ERA model to assess the cumulative impacts of the proposed project when taken together with past projects in the affected area. The ERA model simulates the current condition of the terrain in the watershed which reflects the impact of past projects, and the FEIS describes the ERA methodology and the results of the analysis in detail. Because we do not question the methodology, but “defer[ ] instead to the agency’s expertise in developing the model,” an analysis that “consider[s] cumulative watershed effects and provide[s] a significant amount of quantified and detailed information” satisfies the NEPA. Envtl. Prot. Info. Ctr., 451 F.3d at 1014 (citation omitted). Accordingly, we find that the Forest Service did not violate the NEPA by using the ERA model to analyze the cumulative watershed impact of the MASA expansion. E. Injunctive Relief We have noted in other contexts that, “where the question of injunctive relief raises intensely factual issues, the scope of the injunction should be determined in the first instance by the district court.” Nat’l Parks & Conservation Ass’n v. Babbitt, 241 F.3d 722, 738 (9th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks OREGON NATURAL RESOURCES v. GOODMAN 13075 and citation omitted). But where, as here, “there are no such intensely factual issues and the scope of the injunction to which [the plaintiff] is entitled is quite plain,” we may “decide the injunction question on this appeal.” Id. at 739. “To determine whether injunctive relief is appropriate, ‘even in the context of environmental litigation,’ we apply ‘the traditional balance of harms analysis.’ ” Id. at 737 (quoting Forest Conservation Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 66 F.3d 1489, 1496 (9th Cir. 1995)). In this case, we conclude that ONRC has shown the potential for irreparable harm to the Pacific fisher should the project continue. The MASA expansion would result in eliminating habitat that may be vital to the preservation of the fisher population in the project area. Until the Forest Service conducts a proper Biological Evaluation establishing the size of the local fisher population and its relationship to its habitat, there remains a “sufficient possibility of environmental harm” to justify injunctive relief. Id. at 738.3 Similarly, until the Riparian Reserve and Restricted Watershed lands are properly classified and subjected to the additional scrutiny required by these classifications, the possibility of environmental harm to the ecological health of the region’s waterways remains. See id. at 738 n.18 (“[B]ecause NEPA can do no more than require the agency to produce and consider a proper EIS, the harm that NEPA intends to prevent is imposed when a decision to which NEPA obligations attach is made without the informed environmental consideration that NEPA requires.”) (citing Sierra Club v. Marsh, 872 F.2d 497, 500 (1st Cir. 1989)). [15] MAA argues that these violations are insignificant and are outweighed by the risk of financial harm should the project be enjoined further. We disagree and find that in this case, the risk of permanent ecological harm outweighs the temporary economic harm that MAA may suffer pending further 3 At oral argument, counsel for ONRC suggested that one year of additional study would likely be sufficient. 13076 OREGON NATURAL RESOURCES v. GOODMAN study. We note in particular that this is not a case where an injunction would halt ongoing economic activity but would simply delay the expansion of an existing facility. See Lands Council, 494 F.3d at 780 (noting that this court has “held time and again that the public interest in preserving nature and avoiding irreparable injury outweighs economic concerns”) (citations omitted). We also conclude that in this case, the public’s interest in preserving the environment favors injunctive relief. See Earth Island II, 442 F.3d at 1177.