Opinion ID: 221481
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Riparian Standards

Text: SJCA contends that the Project is inconsistent with Forest Plan standards that apply to Forest Management Area 9A. The Forest Plan defines Area 9A to include the aquatic ecosystem, the riparian ecosystem ..., and adjacent ecosystems that remain within approximately 100 feet measured horizontally from both edges of all perennial streams and from the shores of lakes and other still water bodies. Aplees.-Fed. Defs. Supp.App., Vol. I at 53 (emphasis added). The Forest Service manages these ecosystems together as a land unit comprising an integrated riparian area, and not as separate components. Id. The Forest Plan limits development within Area 9A through standards and guidelines. SJCA's briefs focus on four limitations (the Area 9A standards):  Proposed new land-use facilities (roads, campgrounds, buildings) will not normally be located within flood-plain boundaries for the 100-year flood. The Forest Service must [p]rotect present and all necessary future facilities that cannot be located out of the 100-year floodplain by structural mitigation (deflection structures, riprap, etc.). Aplts. Appx., Vol. I at 246.  The Forest Service must [p]revent stream channel instability, loss of channel cross-sectional areas, and loss of water quality resulting from activities that alter vegetative cover. Id.  The Forest Service must [l]ocate mineral removal activities away from the water's edge or outside the riparian area. Id. at 249.  The Forest Service must [l]ocate roads and trails outside riparian areas unless alternative routes have been reviewed and rejected as being more environmentally damaging. Id. at 250. SJCA contends that approval of the ROD violates the NFMA because some of the Project's proposed development is located in riparian areas and the EIS acknowledged that the Project may not comply with the Area 9A standards. According to SJCA, the Federal Defendants should therefore have modified the proposal, rejected the proposal, or amended the Forest Plan, but, instead, they shirked [their] duty under NFMA by deferr[ing] the anticipated `compliance issues' until the time individual wells were approved during implementation of the Project. Aplts. Br. at 42. SJCA also claims that the Federal Defendants' site-specific approval of two wells and the associated construction of an access road and pipeline violates the Area 9A standards. We need not repeat our reasoning with respect to SJCA's other NFMA issues to state that its challenge to the Project based on violation of the Area 9A standards can be ripe only if it challenges site-specific approvals whose contribution to violation of these standards is causally related to the Project approval. On this claim, in contrast to the other NFMA claims, SJCA's appellate briefs argue this causal connection, contending that approval of two Bull Canyon wells and the associated road construction violates the Forest Plan. [1] In August 2008 the Forest Service approved the construction of the two wells and the associated reconstruction of approximately 5000 feet of the existing Bull Canyon Road, NFSR 841, which provides access to the well sites. The parties appear to agree that the two well sites themselves are not located in Area 9A. They also agree that a portion of reconstructed Bull Canyon road runs along and crosses the upper reaches of Little Bull Creek, an [i]ntermittent and [e]phemeral tributary of the Lower Piedra River. Aplts. Supp. Post-Argument App., Vol. I at 262. What the parties disagree about, however, is whether the portion of Little Bull Creek along which Bull Canyon Road runs is part of Area 9A and therefore subject to the Area 9A standards. The Federal Defendants' position is straightforward. They rely (1) on the fact (unchallenged by SJCA) that Little Bull Creek is an [i]ntermittent and [e]phemeral stream, id., and (2) the definition of Area 9A as including only areas within 100 feet of perennial streams, see Aplees.-Fed. Defs. Supp.App., Vol. I at 53. Because the portion of Bull Canyon Road addressed in the approval of the Bull Canyon wells is therefore not in Area 9A, the approval could not violate the Area 9A standards. SJCA responds that the Federal Defendants' suggest[ion] that 9A standards may not apply to non-perennial streams is a  post-hoc rationalization, and asserts that they have always recognized the standards' applicability to [non-perennial] streams. Aplts. Reply Br. at 20 n.9. SJCA appears to be invoking (without citation to any court opinions or other authority) the doctrine of SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80, 63 S.Ct. 454, 87 L.Ed. 626 (1943), which does not permit an administrative agency to defend against a court challenge to an agency decision by invoking a rationale for its decision that had not been expressed in the agency's administrative proceedings. To support its assertion that the Federal Defendants had previously considered intermittent streams to be within Area 9A, SJCA primarily relies on the EIS. The EIS examined water influence zones (WIZs) to evaluate the proximity of CBM surface disturbances to surface drainages and water bodies, Aplees.-Fed. Defs. Supp.App., Vol. I at 108. For intermittent and ephemeral streams, such as Little Bull Creek, the WIZ extended 100 feet on each side of the stream. (For perennial streams it extended 300 feet on each side.) After noting the proposed new road construction adjacent to Little Bull Creek and elsewhere, the EIS stated that [r]oad construction as proposed in the WIZ would modify floodplains, increase sediment delivery, and impact water quality to a high degree in the Bull Creek watershed, [2] Aplts. App., Vol. I at 270, and that the proposed construction in the Bull Creek watershed may not comply with some of the Area 9A standards, [3] id. at 274. SJCA also claims support for its position in (1) a memo written by a forest hydrologist, which states that in the Bull Creek watershed the WIZ include[s] ... an area 100 feet from the exterior edge of any stream, id., Vol. II at 444, and (2) a hard-to-read map which may show Bull Canyon Road crossing a WIZ. But the EIS and other statements relied on by SJCA do not purport to redefine the boundaries of Area 9A, nor do they unequivocally state that the Bull Canyon Road, or the portion pertinent to our inquiry, is in Area 9A. That the EIS analyzed effects on water quality throughout a WIZ that included significantly more than Area 9A reflects the exhaustive breadth of the EIS, not its interpretation of the Forest Plan. In our view, the Federal Defendants' argument is not barred by Chenery. The record contains the Forest Plan's definition of Area 9A and the Federal Defendants' description of Little Bull Creek as an ephemeral or intermittent stream. No further analysis is necessary to determine that Little Bull Creek is not in Area 9A. Perhaps there is an ambiguity in the Federal Defendants' Supplemental Information Report that supported approval of the Bull Canyon wells and associated road construction. It said simply that no riparian zones would be affected by the proposed construction. Id. at 576. One might interpret the statement as saying that even though there is proposed construction in riparian zones, they will not be affected. But the more natural reading is that the construction would not be in riparian zones. And if SJCA had been uncertain about the matter, it could have objected to the well approval in administrative proceedings on the ground that Area 9A standards would be violated. Indeed, its failure to raise that objection in the administrative proceedings would have foreclosed our consideration of the issue if any defendant had raised an exhaustion defense. See Forest Guardians v. U.S. Forest Service, 641 F.3d 423, 430 (10th Cir.2011) (Plaintiffs must exhaust available administrative remedies before the [Forest Service] prior to bringing their grievances to federal court.) Accordingly, we hold that the approval of the Bull Canyon wells could not have violated the Area 9A standards because the well pads and their associated construction are not within Area 9A. And absent a challenge to site-specific approvals within Area 9A, SJCA has no ripe challenge to Project approval based on alleged violations of Forest Plan requirements for that area. We therefore remand to the district court to vacate its judgment on SJCA's Area 9A claims and to dismiss them without prejudice. As for SJCA's Area 9A challenge to the approval of the Bull Canyon wells and associated road construction, we reject the challenge on the merits.