Cascadia Wildlands v. Bureau of Indian Affairs
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 16199
9th Cir.2015Background
- The Coquille Forest (5,410 acres) was restored to the Coquille Indian Tribe and is managed by the BIA in trust for the Tribe.
- In 2011 the BIA approved the Alder/Rasler Project (270 acres regeneration harvest + other treatments) after an EA and FONSI; it remained approved but not completed.
- In 2013 the BIA approved the Kokwel Project (268 acres regeneration harvest + thinning and density management), adjacent to/overlapping Alder/Rasler, after an EA and FONSI; FWS found Kokwel likely to adversely affect northern spotted owl but not to jeopardize the species.
- The Kokwel EA incorporated other projects (listing Alder/Rasler in Table 8) into its No Action environmental baseline and analyzed Kokwel’s incremental impacts (e.g., ~7% reduction in home-range habitat at four historic owl sites).
- Cascadia challenged the Kokwel approval, alleging (1) NEPA violations for inadequate cumulative-effects analysis because Alder/Rasler was a reasonably foreseeable future project and (2) a Coquille Restoration Act violation because Kokwel allegedly conflicts with the FWS Recovery Plan for the northern spotted owl.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the BIA and the Tribe; the Ninth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BIA violated NEPA by aggregating Alder/Rasler into the environmental baseline | Alder/Rasler was a reasonably foreseeable future action and could not be aggregated as a past-action baseline; EA therefore failed to analyze cumulative impacts | Agency may aggregate approved reasonably foreseeable projects into the baseline; the Kokwel EA identified Alder/Rasler and used its EA data in the baseline | Affirmed: aggregation permissible; EA gave sufficient notice and took the required “hard look” |
| Whether the Kokwel EA provided adequate cumulative-effects analysis under NEPA | EA failed to catalog/analyze individual reasonably foreseeable projects and lacked clear methodology for baseline calculations | EA expressly stated it would assume ongoing/approved projects (Table 8 listed Alder/Rasler) and presented baseline/post-harvest data enabling review | Affirmed: EA sufficiently clear that Alder/Rasler was included; agency’s path reasonably discernible |
| Whether Kokwel violated the Coquille Restoration Act by being inconsistent with the FWS Recovery Plan | CRA’s command to follow "standards and guidelines of federal forest plans" means recovery plans (via Coos Bay Plan objectives) are mandatory, so Kokwel conflicts with recovery objectives | CRA requires adherence only to "standards and guidelines" (not objectives); Coos Bay Plan lists compliance with recovery plans as an objective, not a binding standard; NFP defines standards/guidelines more concretely | Affirmed: CRA does not require compliance with Coos Bay Plan objectives or FWS Recovery Plan; Kokwel did not violate CRA |
| Whether the FWS Recovery Plan is mandatory under CRA/ESA | Recovery Plan mandates must control management of Coquille Forest | Recovery plans are guidance; CRA references applicable forest plan standards/guidelines, not recovery plans or plan objectives | Affirmed: Recovery Plan is not a mandatory constraint under the CRA in this context |
Key Cases Cited
- Lands Council v. Powell, 395 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 2005) (NEPA requires agency to take a "hard look" and disclose environmental considerations)
- Ecology Ctr. v. Castaneda, 574 F.3d 652 (9th Cir. 2009) (agency may aggregate past projects into baseline for cumulative-effects analysis)
- League of Wilderness Defenders v. U.S. Forest Serv., 549 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2008) (agency discretion in organizing cumulative-effects presentation; aggregation permissible)
- Coalition on Sensible Transp., Inc. v. Dole, 826 F.2d 60 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (effects of approved projects may be incorporated into background database rather than restated)
- Piedmont Heights Civic Club, Inc. v. Moreland, 637 F.2d 430 (5th Cir. 1981) (NEPA satisfied where record shows cumulative effects of approved/pending projects were considered)
- Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr. v. BLM, 387 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2004) (EA inadequate where it only analyzed the project itself and relied on generalized conclusory statements)