Opinion ID: 169168
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: UEC's Remaining Challenges

Text: 35 While the Forest Service's failure to consider the best available science standard causes us to remand the case for an order vacating the project's approval, two other substantial arguments regarding whether the Forest Service complied with the forest plan and the NEPA were raised by UEC and adequately briefed and addressed by the parties. As these issues would likely be reargued in a subsequent appeal, we elect to address them now and so narrow the scope of our remand order. 12
36 The forest plan requires that the Forest Service: Designate and protect old growth areas for dependent species. Old growth should be a minimum of 160 contiguous acres and have old growth characteristics. . . . [And the forest service must] [r]etain 5% of area in old growth conditions at all times. . . . II Aplt.App. at 419. The forest plan does not define old growth, so in order for the Trout Slope West project to comply with the old-growth standards, the Forest Service was required to identify a method to delimit what old growth means in the Ashley National Forest. As previously noted, the EIS and project ROD referenced the old-growth measurement criteria identified in Hamilton. That publication defines old growth based on six criteria for live trees and four criteria for dead trees. 37 UEC argues that the Forest Service only relied upon Stand Exam Data in an attempt to meet old-growth standards adopted for the project. UEC argues that the stand exam data considered only three of the six old-growth criteria for live trees and no criteria for dead trees. Consequently, UEC argues that no meaningful conclusion of what areas constitute old growth can be extrapolated from Stand Exam data. Aplt. Br. at 34. UEC argues it was arbitrary and capricious for the Forest Service not to use all the old-growth standards it referenced from Hamilton. 38 Additionally, UEC argues that the Forest Service failed to apply the 160 contiguous acre standard. It argues that a stand of trees could qualify as old growth under Hamilton, but not under the forest plan which requires 160 contiguous acres for old growth. UEC argues that the Forest Service had tree stand data for only 28% of the management area encompassing the project. Of that 28% (154,727 acres) the Forest Service designated 32,068 acres as old growth, which constitute roughly 5.8% of the management area. However, of the 32,068 acres designated as old growth, the Forest Service admits that only 57% (18,278 acres) occur in stands greater than 160 acres. Thus, UEC argues that only 3.3% of the management area was reserved for old growth, not the 5% that was required. 39 However, Hamilton indicates that the three criteria actually used by the Forest Service for the project are required minimums. III Aplt.App. at 817. Thus, the Forest Service argues that it was not necessary to consider all ten Hamilton criteria, when three are sufficient. Furthermore, the Forest Service argues that it never adopted all the Hamilton criteria in the first place, because the EIS specifically notes that the Hamilton criteria are useful for classifying individual stands of old growth, but are not a management requirement and do not address old growth retention across a landscape. Id. at 728 (emphasis added). The EIS went on to note stands that meet Hamilton's minimum old growth characteristics can be estimated from Common Stand Exam data. Id. (emphasis added). Even so, the Forest Service considered additional criteria, aside from the three Hamilton criteria, including data on stand composition, stem density, roadless areas, and past harvest activities. I Aplee. Supp.App. at 84-90. Given the forest plan's lack of direction on what constitutes old growth, and the Forest Service's expertise in this area, we determine that its use of the three minimum Hamilton criteria, along with the Common Stand Exam data and the additional criteria, is reasonable in these circumstances. 40 With respect to the 160 acre and 5% standards, the Forest Service has treated the two as independent requirements since the forest plan's adoption in 1986. In other words, the Forest Service only considers contiguous blocks of 160 or more acres in designating and protecting old growth areas, but it considers all stands with old-growth characteristics for the 5% standard. Aplee. Br. at 38. The Forest Service's interpretation is reasonable because the two standards are separate in the forest plan, use different language, and are not both applied to every management area. Furthermore, nothing in the forest plan clearly suggests the two requirements should be read conjunctively. 13 We are obliged to defer to the Forest Service's interpretation. See UEC III, 443 F.3d at 739. 41 Because the project area will include at least 32,068 acres of old growth, 14 roughly, 5.8%, the Forest Service met the 5% criteria. With respect to the 160 acre criteria, it appears that only one contiguous stand of more than 160 acres will be affected by the project, see III Aplt.App. at 647, 695, 733-38, and that the stand will merely suffer a sanitation/salvage harvest that will remove dead, dying and diseased trees, resulting in no net loss of old-growth acreage, see id. at 738. Furthermore, the project will result in a harvest of only 40 acres of trees, lowering the 5.8% retention of old growth to 5.79%. Thus, the Forest Service appears to have complied with the forest plan standards for maintaining old-growth trees. At the very least, its interpretation of the standards and its application of them is not arbitrary and capricious. 42
43 Under the NEPA, an EIS must analyze the cumulative effects of a proposed project on the environment. The NEPA defines cumulative effects as: 44 the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. 45 40 C.F.R. § 1508.7 (2006). 46 UEC argues that the EIS for the project described the cumulative effects of the project but failed to analyze what the nature and extent of the impacts would be. See Defenders of Wildlife v. Babbitt, 130 F.Supp.2d 121, 138 (D.D.C.2001). It further argues that the EIS lacks meaningful analysis, and that it is conclusory, describing the negative impacts of the project but failing to provide a realistic evaluation of the cumulative impacts. Aplt. Br. at 49. 47 The Forest Service correctly notes, however, that the NEPA does not prohibit approval of projects with negative cumulative effects; it only requires that the Forest Service consider and disclose such effects. See Robertson, 490 U.S. at 350-51, 109 S.Ct. 1835. The Forest Service pointed to numerous cites in the administrative record where there is evidence of its cumulative effects analysis. Specifically, the Forest Service used two computer models to calculate the amount of expected runoff resulting from the project and the effect on stream channels. Both models showed that the impact of the project, when considered with previous actions taken in the project area, would be minimal. III Aplt.App. at 756. Additionally, the Forest Service analyzed the project's impact when considered together with past timber sales, all past timber harvests, old burns, and livestock grazing. Id. at 726. Again, UEC simply disagrees with the substance of the Forest Service's conclusions. This is insufficient because we must defer to the Forest Service's reasonable conclusions regarding technical or scientific matters within the agency's area of expertise. UEC III, 443 F.3d at 739. 48 We have said that the NEPA simply requires an agency to take a hard look at the potential impact of its proposed actions. Ecology Center, 451 F.3d at 1189. As long as the Forest Service complied with the NEPA's procedural requirements, we will not second-guess the wisdom of the ultimate decision. Id. In this case, the Forest Service took a hard look, analyzed a substantial amount of data, and simply reached a conclusion that UEC thinks is incorrect. The cumulative effects requirement of the NEPA was satisfied. 49 Accordingly, we AFFIRM those portions of the district court's order rejecting UEC's challenges concerning old growth and cumulative effects. However, we REVERSE the portion of the district court's order rejecting UEC's challenge to the Forest Service's monitoring of CRCT and its analysis of water quality and set aside its affirmance of the project's approval. We REMAND to the district court so it may remand to the Forest Service for further administrative action consistent with this opinion.