Opinion ID: 805481
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Scientific Integrity

Text: [11] NEPA regulations require that an agency ensure the “scientific integrity” of the discussions and analyses in an EIS and explicitly refer to “the scientific and other sources relied upon for conclusions in the [EIS].” 40 C.F.R. § 1502.24. As a reviewing court, we are “most deferential when the agency is making predictions[ ] within its area of special expertise.” Lands Council, 537 F.3d at 993 (internal quotation marks omitted). “At the same time, courts must independently review the record in order to satisfy themselves that the agency has made a reasoned decision based on its evaluation of the evidence.” Earth Island Inst. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 442 F.3d 1147, 1160 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted), overruled on other grounds by Winter, 555 U.S. 7. The League argues that the EIS overstates the risk of wildfire and beetle infestation in the Unit. In particular, the LEAGUE OF WILDERNESS DEFENDERS v. USFS 8521 League takes issue with the EIS’s use of the terms “imminent,” “catastrophic,” and “stand-replacing.” For example, the EIS states that trees in the Unit have structural characteristics that indicate they are at imminent risk of catastrophic loss to bark beetles and high risk of loss to wildfire. . . . [T]here is a high and increasing probability that ponderosa pine across the Lookout Mountain [U]nit will support a landscape-scale western pine or mountain pine beetle outbreak, or a large stand-replacing event. The League makes three arguments under the heading of scientific integrity: (1) the EIS overstates the risk of beetle infestation, (2) it overstates the risk of wildfire, and (3) it fails to acknowledge that greater tree mortality would occur under the Project than under the no-action alternative. [12] First, the League argues that the EIS relies on three scientific reports that do not support its assessment of the risk of beetle infestation. The League’s focus on these reports is misplaced. All three reports support the general proposition that excessive density presents a risk of beetle infestation leading to “serious” or “excessive” tree mortality, and that controlled thinning can reduce that risk. The studies do not use the terms “imminent” or “catastrophic,” but the EIS does not cite these studies for the specific language that the League challenges on appeal. Other documents cited in the EIS refer to density levels where beetles caused “imminent mortality” and “catastrophic losses” at “epidemic” or “landscape” levels. A Deschutes National Forest report in 1996 established UMZ density levels above which particular stands would be considered “imminently susceptible” to insect attack. The Study Plan, which underwent both internal and external peer review, also concluded that trees within the Unit “currently have structural characteristics which place them at imminent risk of catastrophic loss to bark beetles.” We therefore cannot say that the EIS lacks “scientific integrity” or misrepresents the 8522 LEAGUE OF WILDERNESS DEFENDERS v. USFS scientific literature when it asserts that trees within the Unit face such a risk. The League contends that the Service’s UMZ levels lack scientific integrity because, in its view, the density of trees in the Unit has continued to increase well above the UMZ with only “modest natural mortality every 10 years or so.” However, the UMZ levels have support in the scientific record and are entitled to deference as a calculation that is within the agency’s area of special expertise. See Lands Council, 537 F.3d at 993. Moreover, in challenging only the Service’s reliance on density to determine susceptibility to infestation, the League overlooks the agency’s reliance on additional measurements of tree health within the Unit, such as declining growth rate and low tree vigor. The League cites a district court case involving a successful NEPA challenge to the Service’s erroneous reliance on one of the same scientific reports on tree density at issue here. See Earth Island Inst. v. Morse, No. 2:08-cv-01897, 2009 WL 2423478, at -8 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2009). However, in that case, the Service flatly misstated the significance of a particular density target identified in the report. Id. at . The League does not point to a similar error here. The League also contends that the EIS’s use of “imminent” and “catastrophic” is inconsistent with the plain meaning of those terms. NEPA regulations require that an EIS “be written in plain language . . . so . . . the public can readily understand [it].” 40 C.F.R. § 1502.8; see also Pac. Rivers Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., ___ F.3d ___, 2012 WL 2333558, at  n.8 (9th Cir. June 20, 2012). The League asserts that the agency’s use of the terms is hyperbolic and may have been designed to gain unwarranted public support for the Project. Although under the circumstances the EIS probably should have defined the terms in its Glossary, it does disclose in its analysis of the noaction alternative that imminent risk does not mean immediate mortality. The EIS states: LEAGUE OF WILDERNESS DEFENDERS v. USFS 8523 Because the [Unit] trees are at a relatively high susceptibility to insects, there is an increasing probability that the level of pine beetle-caused mortality will become more prevalent even in the short term [less than 10 years]. In the long term, beyond 10 years, increased levels of beetle-caused mortality will occur, and can be expected to reach epidemic levels. The Study Plan, attached as an appendix to the EIS, also explains that “[w]hile wildfire and insect outbreaks are not a 100% certainty, there is a recognized risk from both fire and insects and this risk increases with time.” Although it is a somewhat close question, we conclude that the EIS’s use of these terms is not arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion. Second, the League argues that the EIS’s assertion that trees within the Unit face a “high risk of loss to wildfire,” including, possibly, “a large stand-replacing event,” is incorrect. The League points to the Service’s fire models which, “under current fuel and stand conditions,” found a potential for a passive crown fire over only about half of the Project area. A passive crown fire is a surface fire with individual tree torching, and generally represents moderate fire behavior with flame lengths between four and eight feet; an active crown fire consumes the tops of trees and represents high fire behavior, with flame lengths greater than eight feet. However, the League overlooks the EIS’s prediction that, without some logging or prescribed burning over the next twenty years, half the area will develop a potential for active crown fire, and the other half will develop a potential for passive crown fire, thereby leaving the entire Project area susceptible to “moderate or high fire behavior.” The League argues that the EIS does not present scientific evidence supporting its assertion that there is a “high and increasing probability” that trees in the Unit will face a “large stand-replacing event.” But in its own administrative appeal, 8524 LEAGUE OF WILDERNESS DEFENDERS v. USFS the League quoted forest ecologist Dr. Edwin Royce, who wrote that the experimental forest shows “many locations in need of fuel reduction in order to minimize the probability of the forest being consumed by a future crown fire.” The peerreviewed Study Plan also concludes that the Unit’s present condition was “conducive to a landscape-scale wildfire.” Given this, the lack of citation to specific scientific evidence supporting the assertion does not warrant reversal. This is not an instance, as in Earth Island, 442 F.3d at 1167, where the Forest Service “misunderstood” or “misrepresented” its data about projected tree mortality in an EIS. Third, the League argues that the EIS lacks scientific integrity because it does not reconcile its goal of reducing the risk of “catastrophic” tree mortality with its preferred alternative that would allow logging of 70 percent of all trees greater than 6 inches in diameter within the Project area. This argument mischaracterizes the Project’s risk-reduction goal and overlooks the function of an experimental forest. The EIS’s stated concern about the risk of catastrophic loss is not simply that a large number of trees might be killed (whether by logging, beetles, or wildfire), but rather that widespread mortality caused by beetles or wildfire would “mean the loss of existing high-value, long-term studies and eliminate most future research opportunities.” In its statement of purpose and need, the EIS explains that “[r]educing risk of loss will protect longterm studies and keep large blocks of homogenous structure to maintain options for future research opportunities.” The EIS also warns of “indiscriminate mortality caused by pine beetles” that would “negatively impact[ ]” the ability to conduct research in the Unit. The EIS’s discussion of fire risk notes that even fires of relatively low intensity could be “devastating” within the Experimental Forest, where ongoing research projects depend on particular trees and plots. Thus, the EIS clearly explains that its risk-reduction goal was not solely to save trees in the Project area, but rather to protect those trees for ongoing and future research. Even though the proposed Project might result in more tree mortality than a LEAGUE OF WILDERNESS DEFENDERS v. USFS 8525 beetle infestation or wildfire, it would do so as part of a controlled research study that would also protect ongoing and future research opportunities.