Opinion ID: 3062246
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Hard Look at Adjacent Fens

Text: BCA next contends that, even if the Forest Service’s methodology for gathering information about the surrounding fens was acceptable, the Forest Service failed to take the requisite hard look at the impact of motorized traffic on fens. According to BCA, because fens have unique value, we should review only portions of the Forest Service’s analysis that explicitly discusses fens in particular, without considering analysis of the impact on any other types of riparian landscapes and wetlands. Even if we adopt that premise, however, the Forest Service sufficiently addressed the impact on fens to satisfy the hard look standard. We determine whether the agency “took a ‘hard look’ at information relevant to the decision,” Richardson, 565 F.3d at 704, by asking whether the agency “entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency, or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise.” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983). “[W]e may not supply a reasoned basis for the agency’s action that the agency itself has not given. We will, however, uphold 6 (...continued) Unlike NFMA, 16 U.S.C. § 1604, NEPA does not require consistency with agency policy. -14- a decision of less than ideal clarity if the agency’s path may reasonably be discerned.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The EA itself addresses the impact on fens in several sections. The Forest Service articulates in the EA its goal to avoid damage to fens. See, e.g., App. 190 (“Design criteria: . . . Avoid loss of rare wetlands such as fens and springs”). The EA concluded that authorizing the Albany Trail “is not expected to significantly impact this area.” App. 126. The EA also concludes that authorizing the Albany Trail would not significantly impact three plant species of concern that grow in fens. In particular, the Forest Service found that the action “may adversely impact individuals but [is] not likely to result in loss of viability on the Planning Area nor cause a trend toward federal listing or a loss of species viability range wide.” App. 91. In support of these conclusions, the Forest Service also points to its Biological Assessment of the area. The Biological Assessment concluded that continuing use of the Albany Trail will not significantly affect sensitive plant species, including plants that grow in fens. Most direct effects occurred in the first 2 years of trail establishment and at the time the corduroy was laid down. Continuing direct effects to Astragalus leptaleus, if present, would occur if the trail users establish new routes through wetlands widened the route through use, through sediment from the trail and from hydrologic changes from the crossing area. -15- Recreational trail use can affect the presence of pollinators that are needed by Astragalus leptaleus (Weiss 1999). Pollinators are negatively influenced by the fragmentation produced by motorized routes (Bhattacharya et al. 2003). Motorized trail use can change soil properties and infiltration of precipitation thus changing the growing environment for plants. (Trimble and Mendel 1995). App. 275. The Biological Assessment offers similar analyses of the impact on dozens of other plant species that grow in fens. See, e.g., App. 316 (“Motorized trail use can change soil properties and infiltration of precipitation thus changing the growing environment for plants (Trimble and Mendel 1995). Recreational use within wetland/fen areas could remove and/or injure plants, alter soil properties, change the hydrologic regime and/or reduce the overall vigor of round leaf sundew. Recreational trail use can affect the presence of pollinators that are needed by Drosera rotundifolia (Weiss 1999). Pollinators are negatively influenced by the fragmentation produced by motorized routes (Bhattacharya et al. 2003). Other effects to Drosera rotundifolia would be similar to those described for Astragalus leptaleus (see previous section).”). The Forest Service’s Report on Species of Local Concern (“Report”) also evaluated the impact of its action on plant species native to fens. See, e.g., App. 444 (assessing the impact of opening the Albany Trail on Carex lasiocarpa and concluding that most direct effects -16- occurred within the first two years after trail establishment and at the time the corduroy was laid down). Although the Endangered Species Act, rather than NEPA, required the Forest Service to prepare the Biological Assessment, 16 U.S.C. § 1536(c)(1), we may look to the findings of the Biological Assessment, as well as the contents of the Report, to determine whether the agency took a hard look at the challenged impact. See Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Rice, 85 F.3d 535, 546–47 (11th Cir. 1996) (concluding the Corps of Engineers’ preparation of an EA/FONSI for a landfill project met NEPA’s hard look requirement because the agency had the benefit of biological opinions, expert opinions, and public hearings); see also Cascadia Wildlands v. U.S. Forest Serv., 937 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1276 (D. Or. 2013), appeal dismissed (Feb. 27, 2014); Strahan v. Linnon, 967 F. Supp. 581, 604 (D. Mass. 1997), aff’d, 187 F.3d 623 (1st Cir. 1998). By the time the Forest Service made its decision, the agency had identified and considered the impacts it described in the Biological Assessment and the Report. Thus, it is safe to say that the EA, the Biological Assessment, and the Report satisfy NEPA’s twin aims of obligating “the agency to consider every significant aspect of the environmental impact” and ensuring “that the agency will inform the public that it has indeed considered environmental concerns.” Forest Guardians v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 611 F.3d 692, 711 (10th Cir. 2010) (quoting Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 462 U.S. 87, 97 (1983)). -17- BCA contends the Biological Assessment and the Report reach only the conclusion that opening the trail will not significantly affect certain plant species. According to BCA, those documents do not address the broader impact on fens generally, and thus the Forest Service did not explicitly indicate that the reasoning in the Biological Assessment and the Report supports its conclusion of no significant impact. BCA identifies that, in addition to the plant species that grow in fens, the Forest Service should have separately considered the impact on soil properties and hydrological function. But, when the Forest Service analyzed motorcycles’ impact on plants that grow in fens, it essentially considered how motorcycles affect the fens. The Biological Assessment indicates that changes in soil properties or hydrologic function would change the growing environment for plants. Thus, we can easily infer that the agency adequately considered the action’s impact on soil properties and hydrologic function when it assessed the impact on plant species. 7 In that context, the Forest Service’s analysis identifies that, because motorcyclists have been driving on the Albany Trail for decades, the potential damage―not only to sensitive plant species but also to the soils and hydrologic function upon which 7 It is important to note that, because the Forest Service had not done botanical surveys of each of these areas, the Forest Service did not limit its impact analysis to small areas where certain plants were actually present. The Forest Service “assume[d] presence of any species likely to occur in the vicinity of the trail routes,” App. 275, and therefore considered the impact on plants and, by extension, soil and hydrologic function, in the wider area. -18- those plants depend―had already been done. That conclusion is reasonable, and we do not see evidence in the record that undermines it. Thus, we cannot conclude the agency “entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem,” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n, 463 U.S. at 43, or that the assessment of the impact on adjacent fens was arbitrary and capricious.