Opinion ID: 616890
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Preservation of Water Depletion and Agency Conflation Issues

Text: In the district court, Plaintiffs argued, The Forest Service's analysis for the [Improvements Project] is arbitrary and capricious and not in accordance with NEPA's hard look requirement. In particular, the 2005 Draft and 2006 Final EAs do not analyze the cumulative impacts of the project with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions, do not analyze the impacts to [e]lk, and wholly ignore the impacts of the Burnt Mountain ski trails on backcountry recreation. Aplt.App. 200. What followed was a detailed analysis of the Forest Service's failure to take a hard look at the impacts on elk, Aplt.App. 203-06, and its failure to analyze the impacts of the Burnt Mountain ski trails, egress trail, and lynx mitigation measures on backcountry recreation, Aplt. App. 206-07. Nowhere did Plaintiffs mention potential cumulative effects due to an increase in skiers on the mountain, as argued before the agency, or the failure of the Forest Service to distinguish between a connected action and a cumulative action, raised here. Moreover, their district court brief only makes passing reference to the water depletion issue raised on appeal. Aplt.App. 219, 336 (The Forest Service's Amendment of the Snowmass Ski Area Master Plan constitutes `agency action' pursuant to the ESA, thus requiring the Forest Service to conduct new, or to reinitiate, formal ESA consultation on the impacts of the Master Plan Amendment on lynx and the four endangered Colorado river fish species. ) (emphasis added). In the reply brief, Plaintiffs addressed cumulative impacts of the BVP, but did not mention water depletionone of the main issues on appeal. In BioDiversity Conservation Alliance, we chose to overlook the forfeiture issue, finding a close case where groups challenging an agency decision failed to squarely address six independent reasons for the outcome before the district court. 608 F.3d at 714. We cautioned, however, that minimal development of an issue in the district court could well result in forfeiture in future appeals given the institutional interest of a court of appeals in not resolving issues in the first instance. Id. In this case, Plaintiffs gave minimal, if any, attention in the district court to the claims they present on appeal. Most notably, the water depletion issue is barely addressed, as a majority of the focus is placed on the cumulative impact on the elk population, Aplt.App. 203-06, and the impact on backcountry recreation, Aplt.App. 206-07. In the opening brief before the district court, the only sentence addressing the effects of the BVP states, Nor are the impacts from the Base Village discussed. Aplt.App. 203. This scant discussion of the BVP appears as an afterthought, and does not meet the standard for preserving an issue for review. See Thompson R2-J School District v. Luke P., 540 F.3d 1143, 1148 n. 3 (10th Cir.2008). Furthermore, any explication of the cumulative impacts of the BVP in the district court is minimal, and the conflation issue is only mentioned briefly in the reply brief; it is not addressed in the opening brief. Aplt.App. 330. Not surprisingly, the district court never addressed the conflation issue, and only held that the Forest Service ... determined that [the BVP] was not a connected action, as that is defined by NEPA.... The Forest Service's decision to consider the Base Village Project as unconnected to the Improvements Project is not arbitrary or capricious. See Ark Initiative, 2010 WL 3323661, at . Because the issue was not argued in the opening brief, only raised briefly in the reply, and not discussed by the district court, we decline to address it here. See Bancamerica Comm. Corp. v. Mosher Steel of Kansas, Inc., 100 F.3d 792, 798-99 (10th Cir.1996) (`[W]here a litigant changes to a new theory on appeal that falls under the same general category as an argument presented at trial' or presents `a theory that was discussed in a vague and ambiguous way' the theory will not be considered on appeal.) (quoting Lyons v. Jefferson Bank & Trust, 994 F.2d 716, 722 (10th Cir.1993)). Because the issues on appeal either have not been properly exhausted before the agency or preserved before the district court, the district court's judgment is AFFIRMED.