Opinion ID: 169168
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Monitoring of CRCT

Text: 21 UEC argues that the decision to approve the project was covered by the 1982 planning regulations of the NFMA and their specific rules regarding the monitoring of indicator species. It argues that those regulations required the Forest Service to provide quantitative population trend data for all indicator species (including the CRCT). See 36 C.F.R. §§ 219.19 and 219.27 (1983). It argues that the Forest Service never gathered actual population trend data, but instead relied on stream inventory and stream condition data as a proxy. The Forest Service argues that it was not required to comply with the 1982 regulations, but that it had only to use the best available science as required by the 2000 transition regulations. The district court found that the 1982 regulations applied, and it affirmed the forest service's approval of the project under those standards. UEC v. Richmond, No. 05-CV-72 TC, 2006 WL 325375, at -13 (D.Utah Feb. 10, 2006). 22 At the onset, we note that UEC has established the required nexus between the Forest Service's monitoring of CRCT and the project's approval to give it standing. We may only review a monitoring program to the extent it bears on the approval of a particular project. UEC III, 443 F.3d at 749. The Forest Service argues that despite its monitoring of CRCT, the project's impacts on CRCT are so minimal, that deficiencies in CRCT monitoring are irrelevant. Aplee. Br. at 22. In UEC III, however, we stated that population trend data is necessary to evaluate a proposed project's actual effect on the environment—such as where . . . a proposed project will create a significant impact on the environment, thus requiring an [EIS] . . . . Id. at 750. 23 An EIS was issued in this case. Additionally, the parties agree that CRCT are present in the project area. Furthermore, the project contains a number of mitigation measures designed to reduce negative effects the project would otherwise have on CRCT populations. Without pre-decisional data on CRCT populations, the Forest Service could not have fully evaluated whether the project's mitigation measures were adequate. Nor could it evaluate the efficacy of those mitigation measures in the future. Taken together, these facts suggest that adequate monitoring data would be necessary to evaluate the project's effect on the environment as part of the initial administrative approval. 24 As previously discussed, the 1982 regulations were entirely superceded by the 2000 transition regulations with respect to site-specific project decisions implementing pre-November 9, 2000 forest plans. The forest plan in this case was adopted in 1986. 7 The project ROD was issued on July 1, 2004, during the transition period. Accordingly, the decision to approve the project was governed by the best available science standard, not the specific monitoring requirements of the 1982 regulations. See UEC IV, 479 F.3d at 1281-82. 25 UEC argues that, despite the transitional best available science standard, the Forest Service was bound to follow the 1982 monitoring requirements because those requirements were incorporated into the 1986 forest plan and spelled out in the Forest Service Manual. To be sure, the Forest Service is required to comply with existing forest plans, see 16 U.S.C. § 1604(i), which here includes the requirement to monitor certain management indicator species, including the CRCT. Moreover, the Forest Service Manual is useful in identifying the Forest Service's standard policies and practices. However, the 1986 forest plan did not expressly reference the 1982 regulations (then codified at § 219.19) in adopting requirements to monitor management indicator species designated by the plan. 8 Furthermore, the forest plan expressly stated that the administration and management of the Forest will be guided by existing and future laws, regulations, policies and standards and guidelines. II Aplt.App. at 548 (emphasis added). We made clear in UEC III that such language in a forest plan does not incorporate the 1982 monitoring regulations. See 443 F.3d at 748 and n. 12. Therefore, the Forest Service is obligated to apply the new regulations, see Ecology Ctr., 451 F.3d at 1191, and is also bound to apply the terms of the 1986 forest plan, including the obligation to monitor the management indicator species listed in the plan, to the extent the plan does not conflict with the best available science standard. 9 26 While significant portions of the parties' briefs discuss whether the Forest Service met the 1982 monitoring regulations, neither brief discusses whether the Forest Service's planning actually complied with the best available science standard. Indeed, there is no evidence that the Forest Service intended to make use of the best available science when approving the project. See Richmond, 2006 WL 325375, at . Thus, we are faced with the same scenario we encountered in Ecology Center. 27 In Ecology Center, the district court analyzed the Forest Service's 2003 approval of a logging project for compliance with the 1982 monitoring regulations. See Ecology Ctr., Inc. v. Russell, 361 F.Supp.2d 1310, 1316-17 (D.Utah 2005). The district court found that the Forest Service had complied with the 1982 regulations and that its approval of the project was not arbitrary and capricious. Id. at 1317. While the Forest Service argued on appeal that the 2000 transitional best available science standard governed, there was no evidence that it actually considered the best available science standard when approving the project. Ecology Ctr., 451 F.3d at 1192. Although Ecology Center never argued that the Forest Service failed to use the best available science, we vacated and remanded the Forest Service's approval of the project, holding that the Forest Service's failure to consider or mention the best available science standard rendered its approval of the project arbitrary and capricious. Id. at 1195 (citing Forest Watch v. U.S. Forest Serv., 410 F.3d 115, 119 (2d Cir.2005)). 28 In this case, there is no evidence that the Forest Service utilized the best available science standard in approving the Trout Slope West project. Indeed, the ROD approving the project never used the phrase best available science, much less considered the substantive quality of the science utilized in approving the project. See III Aplt.App. at 644-61. Even on appeal, the Forest Service fails to explain how the science it utilized was in fact the best available science. 29 The fact that UEC never argued that the Forest Service failed to use the best available science standard brings into conflict two established lines of precedent. The first is that we will not, absent manifest injustice, vacate or reverse a district court decision based on an argument not made by the plaintiff. See Sussman v. Patterson, 108 F.3d 1206, 1210 (10th Cir. 1997). The second, is that we may not affirm an agency decision based on reasoning that the agency itself never considered. See Ecology Ctr., 451 F.3d at 1195 (citing SEC v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194, 196, 67 S.Ct. 1575, 91 L.Ed. 1995 (1947)); Forest Watch, 410 F.3d at 119. This conflict was resolved by Ecology Center and UEC IV which dictate that we must vacate the Forest Service's approval of the Trout Slope West project for failure to consider the best available science standard. See UEC IV, 479 F.3d at 1287-88; Ecology Ctr., 451 F.3d at 1195. 10 We offer no opinion as to whether the Forest Service's monitoring of CRCT complied with the best available science standard, the forest plan, or the forest service manual. 11 30 On remand, as discussed above, the Forest Service will be governed by the requirements in the current forest plan and the most recent version of the NFMA implementing regulations, which were adopted in 2005. Those regulations require the Forest Service to: 31 (1) Document how the best available science was taken into account in the planning process within the context of the issues being considered; (2) Evaluate and disclose substantial uncertainties in that science; (3) Evaluate and disclose substantial risks associated with plan components based on that science; and (4) Document that the science was appropriately interpreted and applied. 32 36 C.F.R. § 219.11(a)(1)-(4) (2005). As we stated in Ecology Center, the Forest Service need not necessarily collect new data, but it must seek out and consider all existing scientific evidence relevant to the decision . . . [and] determine which data are the most accurate, reliable, and relevant. 451 F.3d at 1194 n. 4 (internal quotations and citations omitted). After considering this best available science, the Forest Service may then issue a new ROD on the Trout Slope West project.