Opinion ID: 169168
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: UEC's Challenges to Approval of the Trout Slope West Project

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.
33 UEC argues that the Trout Slope West project will damage water quality and thereby violate the 1982 regulations and the forest plan. Specifically, the 1982 regulations mandate that there should be no management practices that cause detrimental changes in water temperature, chemical composition, or deposits of sediment, all of which adversely affect water conditions. See 36 C.F.R. § 219.27(e) (1983). Similarly, the forest plan requires the Forest Service to [m]aintain or improve current stream channel stability ratings, II Aplt.App. at 427, and to maintain a biotic condition index of at least 75 in all streams, id. at 420. UEC argues that the project will adversely affect all of these standards. The Forest Service responds that the substantive standard of § 219.27(e) did not apply to the project's approval because the 1982 regulations were superceded in 2000. Regardless, it argues it complied with the regulations and the forest plan requirements concerning stream channel stability and the biotic condition index. 34 As is clear from our discussion above, the substantive standard of § 219.27(e) did not apply to the project's approval because the 1982 regulations were superceded in 2000. Again, however, there is no evidence that the Forest Service considered the best available science concerning water quality. Consequently, as with the monitoring of CRCT, the Forest Service must reevaluate the project's effect on water quality utilizing the best available science as required by the current NFMA regulations. For the same reasons stated above, we offer no opinion as to whether the Forest Service's evaluation of water quality complied with the best available science standard and the forest plan. See supra n. 11.
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.