Court Opinion

ID: 9494124
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 15:29:52.706042+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:56:13.972801
License: Public Domain

concurring in the judgment:
I am inclined to agree with Judge Ward-law that petitioners did not properly raise their statutory interpretation claim in their petition for rehearing of the Forest Service’s determination on behalf of Secretary of Agriculture. Whatever the outcome of that question, however, I would affirm FERC’s determination because I believe that its findings complied with the statutory requirements.
Judge Wardlaw’s opinion accurately states one of the disagreements between the parties: High Country believes that in interpreting the first two sentences of section 7(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, the second sentence must be viewed as providing an exception to the first. FERC appears to interpret the second sentence as an independent and additional standard to be applied to proposed projects. In this case the disagreement is of academic interest only and has no practical or legal consequence.
In the proceedings below, FERC, as it was required to do, simply adopted the determination of the U.S. Forest Service.1 Thus, it is of no consequence which of the various interpretations of the two sentences of section 7(a) FERC may believe to be correct. The standard to be applied by a federal agency, such as the Forest Service, in determining whether to assist a project, including whether to grant a license,2 is whether that project would have a direct and adverse effect on the values for which that river was established. As the second sentence of section 7(a) states, however, the Forest Service may assist a project that does not invade or unreasonably diminish those values for which the river was established. It follows from a *749careful reading of the two sentences that any project that does invade the river or that unreasonably diminishes certain of its values necessarily directly affects' the river.3 Here, FERC applied the correct statutory standard, because it deferred to a determination of the Forest Service that was based on findings that fully complied with the requirements of section 7(a).
The Secretary of Agriculture, acting on behalf of the Forest Service, found that there was sufficient likelihood of direct and adverse effects as to require it to refuse to license High Country’s projects. For example, the Forest Service determined that the Rocky Creek project would “caus[e] significant direct and indirect negative effects” on the fish in that river (italics added). Furthermore, the Forest Service considered that the Diobsud Creek project would “potentially] ... affect vulnerable fish stocks ... in the Skagit WSR.”4
However, the direct and adverse effects of the projects on the Skagit river were not the principal focus of the order — the Forest Service made that determination without much difficulty. The Forest Service described the initial question as to whether the proposed projects would “invade the designated Skagit WSR.”5 The report further described the first inquiry as determining “the potential for project-area effects to be of consequence in the Skagit WSR; specifically, to invade the area or affect its scenic, recreational, and fish and wildlife values.” Clearly, the term “affect” means “adversely affect” and not “positively affect.” The report determines that the effect was “significantQ.”
Having made the above determination, the Forest Service then moved on to what it considered to be “[t]he next question,” which constituted its major concern. That was whether, given the direct and adverse effect on the Skagit, there was an unreasonable diminution in the river’s fishery values. With respect to the two projects in question, the Forest Service specifically found that both projects would “unreasonably diminish the fishery value in the Skagit WSR” as a result of the invasion of the river and consequent diminution of the fish stock. On the basis of these findings, the Forest Service refused to recommend that High Country receive a license.
The inescapable conclusion is that the Forest Service found that there would be a direct, adverse effect on the river sufficient to satisfy the requirements of section 7(a). In reaching its determination, the Forest Service took into account the provision contained in the second sentence of that section and concluded that the limitations contained therein were inapplicable because the project would both invade the river and unreasonably diminish its fishery values. That finding was premised upon the proposed project’s direct effect and its potential adverse impact on the river — that it would likely create sediment *750that would invade the river, and that such an invasion of sediment would diminish the fish stock. The finding is explicitly supplemented by the additional finding that the projects would unreasonably diminish the fishery values.6 Thus, the provisions of the second sentence of 7(a) provide no benefit to petitioners in this instance, no matter how one reads the sub-section.
Under Summon, FERC was bound to adopt the findings of the Forest Service. See 790 F.2d at 103. Because these findings comply with the requirements of section 7(a), I concur in the judgment.

. In rendering its decision, FERC noted that the Forest Service, on behalf of the Secretary of Agriculture, "has the authority to determine whether any of the proposals would have a direct and adverse effect on the River.” See also Swanson Min. Corp. v. FERC, 790 F.2d 96, 103 (9th Cir.1986).

. Under section 7(a), such assistance includes the award of a license. See 16 U.S.C. § 1278(a).

. A project invades or diminishes the river by, e.g., making it less scenic, less interesting to boat along or camp beside, or less habitable for animals or fish living in or near it. These are all direct effects of the project on the river.

. Although the Forest Service's report does not explicitly state that the direct effect of the Diobsud Creek project on the river would also be adverse to the river, that is not the standard required for FERC to refuse to issue a licence. All that is needed under section 7(a) is that the proposed project "directly affect[ ]” the river. There can be no question that the effect the report described is an adverse rather than a positive effect. While not a model of clarity, the Forest Service’s findings are sufficient to meet the "direct effect” standard.

.The Skagit WSR is described in the report as “the Skagit National Wild and Scenic River” which is “158.5 miles long including portions of the Skagit, Sauk, Cascade, and Suiat-tle Rivers within and outside the National Forest.”

. The Forest Service evaluated the likelihood of sediment delivery and the magnitude of its effect on the fish. It concluded that the likelihood of delivery and the magnitude of effect were so high that the projects would unreasonably diminish the fishery values of the Skagit river.