Cascadia Wildlands, an Oregon non-profit corporation v. Bureau of Indian Affairs, an agency of the United States Department of the Interior

FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CASCADIA WILDLANDS, an Oregon
non-profit corporation; OREGON
WILD, an Oregon non-profit
corporation; UMPQUA WATERSHEDS,
INC., an Oregon non-profit
corporation,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, an
agency of the United States
Department of the Interior,
Defendant-Appellee,
and,
COQUILLE INDIAN TRIBE, a federally
recognized Indian tribe,
Intervenor-Defendant–Appellee.
No. 14-35553
D.C. No.
6:13-cv-01559-
TC
OPINION
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Michael J. McShane, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted
February 5, 2015—Seattle, Washington

-- 1 of 20 --

2 CASCADIA WILDLANDS V. BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
Filed September 11, 2015
Before: Raymond C. Fisher, Carlos T. Bea
and Mary H. Murguia, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by Judge Fisher
SUMMARY*
Environmental Law
The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment
in favor of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Coquille
Indian Tribe in an action challenging the Bureau’s approval
of the Middle Forks Kokwel timber sale, a plan by the Tribe
to harvest 268 acres of timber in the Coquille Forest in
southwest Oregon.
The panel held that the Bureau and the Tribe did not
violate the National Environmental Policy Act by aggregating
the Alder/Rasler Project (a timber harvest on adjacent and
overlapping land), which had been approved but not yet
completed, as part of the environmental baseline against
which the incremental impact of the Kokwel Project was
considered. The panel also held that the Coquille Restoration
Act did not require that the Kokwel Project comply with the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Recovery Plan for the
northern spotted owl, an endangered species living in the
Coquille Forest.
* This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has
been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

-- 2 of 20 --

3 CASCADIA WILDLANDS V. BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
COUNSEL
Nicholas S. Cady (argued), Cascadia Wildlands, Eugene
Oregon; Sean T. Malone, Eugene, Oregon; Daniel R. Kruse,
Eugene, Oregon, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Sam Hirsch, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Stuart
Gillespie, Brian C. Toth and Ellen J. Durkee (argued),
Environmental & Natural Resources Division, Department of
Justice, Washington, D.C.; Mary Anne Kenworthy, Office of
the Regional Solicitor, Department of the Interior, Portland,
Oregon, for Defendant-Appellee.
Edmund C. Goodman (argued), Hobbs, Straus, Dean &
Walker, LLP, Portland, Oregon; Brett V. Kenney, North
Bend, Oregon, for Intervenor-Defendant–Appellee.
OPINION
FISHER, Circuit Judge:
Cascadia Wildlands, Oregon Wild and Umpqua
Watersheds (collectively, Cascadia) challenge the Bureau of
Indian Affairs’ (BIA) approval of the Middle Forks Kokwel
timber sale (the Kokwel Project), a plan by the Coquille
Indian Tribe (the Tribe) to harvest 268 acres of timber in the
Coquille Forest in southwest Oregon. Cascadia argues the
BIA violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),
42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq., because it did not adequately
consider the cumulative environmental impact of the Kokwel
Project in light of a previously approved harvest, the
Alder/Rasler Project, on adjacent and overlapping land.
Cascadia also argues the Kokwel Project violates the Coquille

-- 3 of 20 --

4 CASCADIA WILDLANDS V. BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
Restoration Act (CRA), 25 U.S.C. § 715 et seq., because the
project is inconsistent with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service’s (FWS) Recovery Plan for the northern spotted owl.
The district court granted summary judgment to the BIA
and the Tribe on both claims.1 We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. First, the BIA and the Tribe
did not violate NEPA by aggregating the Alder/Rasler
Project, which had been approved, but not yet completed, as
part of the environmental baseline against which the
incremental impact of the Kokwel Project was considered.
Second, the CRA does not require compliance with the
Recovery Plan for the northern spotted owl.
BACKGROUND
The Coquille Forest comprises 5,410 acres of land along
the southwest Oregon coast that was restored to the Coquille
Indian Tribe in 1996 by an amendment to the Coquille
Restoration Act. See 25 U.S.C. § 715c. Under the CRA, the
forest is held in trust by the federal government and managed
for the benefit of the Tribe. See id. § 715c(b), (d)(5).
In 2011 and 2013, the BIA approved two different
proposals by the Tribe to harvest timber in the Coquille
Forest. In 2011, the BIA approved the Alder/Rasler Project,
which called for 270 acres of regeneration harvest, 52 acres
of density management and 56 acres of commercial thinning
1 Cascadia named only the BIA as a defendant. The Tribe intervened as
a defendant in the district court.

-- 4 of 20 --

5 CASCADIA WILDLANDS V. BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
between 2011 and 2016.2 The purposes of the Alder/Rasler
Project were to generate money for the Tribe and manage
forest growth. The Alder/Rasler Project also called for the
construction of 3.21 miles of roads in the forest. The BIA
and the Tribe conducted an Environmental Assessment (EA),
which estimated the project would create between 44 and 220
jobs and over $10.5 million in revenue through the sale of
22.44 million board feet of timber.
The EA also found the Alder/Rasler Project likely would
adversely affect the northern spotted owl, an endangered
species living in the Coquille Forest, by removing 270 acres
of suitable habitat. The EA noted, however, that there were
no occupied owl habitats within the project area, and no owl
nest sites within 1.5 miles of the project area. Based on the
EA, the BIA issued a Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI) and approved the project in February 2011, without
conducting an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
In 2013, the BIA approved a second project – the Kokwel
Project – to conduct an additional 268 acres of regeneration
harvest, 221 acres of commercial thinning and 42 acres of
density management in the Coquille Forest over 10 years.
The Kokwel Project was planned on land adjacent to, and
overlapping with, the Alder/Rasler Project. The primary
purpose of the Kokwel Project was to generate money for the
Tribe. The BIA and the Tribe conducted an EA, which
2 Regeneration harvest would involve clearing 85 to 90 percent of
stands, with the intent of developing a new stand. Commercial thinning
and density management would involve reducing stand density by about
60 percent, with the intent of promoting healthy forest conditions, and
increasing diversity, complexity and productivity of the stand and the
riparian area.

-- 5 of 20 --

6 CASCADIA WILDLANDS V. BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
estimated the Kokwel Project would create 242 direct jobs,
532 indirect jobs and over $8 million in revenue through the
sale of 13.9 million board feet of timber.
FWS performed a Biological Assessment and concluded
the Kokwel Project likely would adversely affect the northern
spotted owl, and would “take” up to 14 northern spotted owls
at four sites.3 Therefore, FWS concluded the Kokwel Project
was inconsistent with its Recovery Plan for the northern
spotted owl.4 The Recovery Plan calls for the conservation of
spotted owl habitat “to provide additional demographic
support to the spotted owl population,” and directs land
managers to work with FWS to “maintain and restore”
particularly “high-quality spotted owl habitat stands.” FWS
also found, however, that “[b]ecause there will be less than
one percent of [nesting, roosting and foresting habitat] loss in
the 43,000 acre . . . analysis area, . . . this habitat loss will not
significantly impact the provincial habitat conditions that
provide for spotted owls,” or “jeopardize the continued
existence of the spotted owl.”
In the EA, the BIA and the Tribe agreed with the FWS
that the Kokwel Project was likely to adversely affect the
northern spotted owl by removing 268 acres of suitable
habitat. The EA then analyzed the cumulative impact of the
3 Under the Endangered Species Act, “[t]he term ‘take’ means to harass,
harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to
attempt to engage in any such conduct.” 16 U.S.C. § 1532(19).
4 The Recovery Plan was created pursuant to the Endangered Species
Act, which requires the Secretary of the Interior to “develop and
implement [recovery plans] for the conservation and survival of
endangered species and threatened species listed pursuant to this section.”
16 U.S.C. § 1533(f)(1).

-- 6 of 20 --

7 CASCADIA WILDLANDS V. BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
Kokwel Project by comparing it against an environmental
baseline, or “No Action Alternative.” The No Action
Alternative described the “existing condition and the
continuing trends,” assuming “[o]ngoing activities would
continue to occur on existing projects,” including “other
projects covered by earlier decision records.” The EA
explained that it would aggregate other projects into the No
Action Alternative, rather than individually discuss them:
The following descriptions of the No Action
Alternative and the Proposed Action assume
the combined relevant effects of all past
actions. It is not necessary to individually
identify or catalog these past actions as the
description of the affected environment
incorporates all those actions. For the
cumulative effects analysis the description of
the potential resulting impacts is the
cumulative effect of all past, present and
reasonably foreseeable actions. Reasonably
foreseeable future actions are assumed to be
the same for the No Action as well as the
Proposed Action. Stands . . . are expected to
be selectively harvested approximately every
60 to 80 years . . . . Current timber
management on the surrounding private land
is more intensive and occurs on a larger scale
at rotations as short as 30 to 40 years. . . .
Table 8 lists treatments proposed for the
foreseeable future on [the Tribe’s] lands in the
analysis area that will be considered in the
following resource-specific cumulative impact
discussions. Other incidental use of the
[Tribe’s] lands such as recreational use is

-- 7 of 20 --

8 CASCADIA WILDLANDS V. BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
expected to continue at rates similar to those
of the past ten years.
Table 8 listed only one treatment proposed for the
foreseeable future: the Alder/Rasler Project. The EA’s
resource-specific cumulative impact discussions did not
individually analyze the impact of any specific past, present
or reasonably foreseeable action. With respect to the northern
spotted owl, the EA said the Middle Fork Coquille River
watershed, which contains the Coquille Forest, has
approximately 42,587 acres of spotted-owl-habitat-capable
habitat, and approximately 28,108 acres of current nesting,
roosting and foraging habitat. The EA presented a table,
called “Impacts of the proposed action on [northern spotted
owl] nest patches, core areas, and home ranges.” The table
compared “current” acres of northern spotted owl habitat,
elsewhere listed as “pre-harvest” acres, with “post” acres.
The table showed the Kokwel Project would not reduce any
northern spotted owl habitat within a “nest patch” (300
meters) or “core area” (half mile), and would reduce habitat
within the “home ranges” (1.3 miles) of four historic owl sites
from 2,985 to 2,718 acres. Thus, the EA concluded the
Kokwel Project “would reduce the amount of [nesting,
roosting and foraging] habitat within [northern spotted owl]
home ranges by a cumulative of approximately seven
percent.’”
Based on these data, the EA concluded the “cumulative
effects” from the Kokwel Project and other “foreseeable
projects” “would not appreciably diminish spotted owl
suitable habitat.” It explained, “[m]ost of the owl core areas
occur on [Bureau of Land Management] lands within the
watershed; these areas are not expected to change
substantially over time.” Furthermore, though the project

-- 8 of 20 --

9 CASCADIA WILDLANDS V. BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
would have an incremental impact of reducing habitat by
seven percent, the EA also found, “[o]verall, the habitat
would benefit from opening of the canopy, encouraging
development of a multi-layered canopy and encouraging tree
and understory growth.”
Relying on the EA, the BIA in February 2013 issued a
FONSI and approved the project, without conducting an EIS.
Cascadia challenged the BIA’s decision in the district court,
and the court granted summary judgment to the BIA and the
Tribe. Cascadia appeals.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment
de novo. See Mont. Wilderness Ass’n v. Connell, 725 F.3d
988, 994 (9th Cir. 2013). We review Cascadia’s NEPA and
CRA claims under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA).
See id. Under the APA, an agency decision will be set aside
if it is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or
otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).
“Review under the arbitrary and capricious standard is
narrow, and we do not substitute our judgment for that of the
agency.” Ecology Ctr. v. Castaneda, 574 F.3d 652, 656 (9th
Cir. 2009) (alterations omitted) (quoting Lands Council v.
McNair (Lands Council II), 537 F.3d 981, 987 (9th Cir. 2008)
(en banc), overruled on other grounds by Winter v. Natural
Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)) (internal
quotation marks omitted). “Rather, we will reverse a decision
as arbitrary and capricious only if the agency relied on factors
Congress did not intend it to consider, entirely failed to
consider an important aspect of the problem, or offered an
explanation that runs counter to the evidence before the
agency or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a

-- 9 of 20 --

10 CASCADIA WILDLANDS V. BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
difference in view or the product of agency expertise.” Id.
(quoting Lands Council II, 537 F.3d at 987) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
DISCUSSION
I. NEPA
Cascadia argues the BIA and the Tribe violated NEPA
because they did not adequately consider the cumulative
impacts of the Kokwel Project in light of the Alder/Rasler
Project. “The purpose of NEPA is to require disclosure of
relevant environmental considerations that were given a ‘hard
look’ by the agency, and thereby to permit informed public
comment on proposed action and any choices or alternatives
that might be pursued with less environmental harm.” Lands
Council v. Powell, 395 F.3d 1019, 1027 (9th Cir. 2005). To
that end, “NEPA imposes procedural requirements, but not
substantive outcomes, on agency action.” Id. at 1026.
NEPA requires the preparation of an EIS for “major
Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the
human environment.” 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C). “As a
preliminary step, an agency may prepare an EA to decide
whether the environmental impact of a proposed action is
significant enough to warrant preparation of an EIS.” Blue
Mountains Biodiversity Project v. Blackwood, 161 F.3d 1208,
1212 (9th Cir. 1998) (citing 40 C.F.R. § 1508.9).
An EA is a “concise public document” that “[b]riefly
provide[s] sufficient evidence and analysis for determining
whether to prepare an [EIS] or a finding of no significant
impact.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.9(a). “If an agency decides not to
prepare an EIS, it must supply a ‘convincing statement of

-- 10 of 20 --

11 CASCADIA WILDLANDS V. BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
reasons’ to explain why a project’s impacts are insignificant.
‘The statement of reasons is crucial to determining whether
the agency took a “hard look” at the potential environmental
impact of a project.’” Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project,
161 F.3d at 1212 (citation omitted) (quoting Save the Yaak
Comm. v. Block, 840 F.2d 714, 717 (9th Cir. 1988)).
To determine whether a proposed action will significantly
impact the human environment, NEPA directs agencies to
consider “[w]hether the action is related to other actions with
individually insignificant but cumulatively significant
impacts.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27(b)(7). “Significance exists if
it is reasonable to anticipate a cumulatively significant impact
on the environment.” Id. “Cumulative impact is 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. . . . Cumulative
impacts can result from individually minor but collectively
significant actions taking place over a period of time.” Id.
§ 1508.7 (emphasis removed).
“[T]he general rule under NEPA is that, in assessing
cumulative effects, the [agency] must give a sufficiently
detailed catalogue of past, present, and future projects, and
provide adequate analysis about how these projects, and
differences between the projects, are thought to have
impacted the environment.” Lands Council, 395 F.3d at
1028. An agency, however, may satisfy NEPA by
aggregating the cumulative effects of past projects into an
environmental baseline, against which the incremental impact
of a proposed project is measured. See Castaneda, 574 F.3d
at 666–67; League of Wilderness Defenders – Blue Mountains
Biodiversity Project v. U.S. Forest Serv. (LOWD), 549 F.3d
1211, 1216–18 (9th Cir. 2008).

-- 11 of 20 --

12 CASCADIA WILDLANDS V. BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
Cascadia concedes the cumulative impact of past actions
may be aggregated. It contends, however, that the BIA was
not permitted to aggregate the Alder/Rasler Project, because
it is not a past action, but a reasonably foreseeable future
action.5 Castaneda and LOWD did not reach that question.
Both cases involved disputes regarding the aggregation of
past projects. See Castaneda, 574 F.3d at 666 (“WildWest
complains the cumulative impact statements do not contain
discussion of prior projects on an individual basis.”); LOWD,
549 F.3d at 1216 (“LOWD contends that the cumulative
effects analysis . . . regarding past timber sales is insufficient
because it ‘only mentions one . . . past timber sale’ . . . and
otherwise generally ‘states that timber harvest has occurred
in the past.’” (second alteration in original)).
Agencies, however, have “discretion in deciding how to
organize and present information” in environmental
assessments. See Mont. Wilderness Ass’n, 725 F.3d at 1002.
LOWD explained:
[O]ur law . . . requires us to defer to an
agency’s determination in an area involving a
high level of technical expertise . . . [and] we
are not free to impose on the agency our own
notion of which procedures are best or most
likely to further some vague, undefined public
good. . . . Accordingly, to the extent that
40 C.F.R. § 1508.7 does not explicitly provide
otherwise, the Forest Service is free to
5 The government concedes the Alder/Rasler Project is not a past action,
but a reasonably foreseeable future action. Indeed, the Kokwel EA
describes the Alder/Rasler Project as a “treatment[] proposed for the
foreseeable future.”

-- 12 of 20 --

13 CASCADIA WILDLANDS V. BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
consider cumulative effects in the aggregate
or to use any other procedure it deems
appropriate. It is not for this court to tell the
Forest Service what specific evidence to
include, nor how specifically to present it.
549 F.3d at 1218 (citations, alterations and internal quotation
marks omitted).
That reasoning applies to projects that have been
approved, following an independent environmental
assessment under NEPA, just as it applies to projects that
have been completed. Thus, 40 C.F.R. § 1508.7 does not
explicitly require individual discussion of the impacts of
reasonably foreseeable projects, and, absent such a
requirement, it is not for the court to tell the agency how
specifically to present such evidence in an EA.
Our role is to ensure that the agency takes a “hard look”
at the cumulative environmental consequences of the
proposed project, and provides a clear explanation of its
analysis to enable informed public comment on the project
and possible alternatives. See Lands Council, 395 F.3d at
1027. An agency can take a “hard look” at cumulative
impacts either by individually discussing a previously
approved project, or incorporating the expected impact of
such a project into the environmental baseline against which
the incremental impact of a proposed project is measured.
Under either approach, what is important is that the agency
make clear it has considered the “incremental impact of the
action when added to other past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future actions.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.7.

-- 13 of 20 --

14 CASCADIA WILDLANDS V. BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
Our holding that the aggregation of future projects can be
permissible under NEPA does not require the public to
“blindly” accept an agency’s “conclusory assertions,” as
Cascadia argues. We are mindful that one of the “twin aims”
of NEPA is to “ensure[] that the agency will inform the
public that it has indeed considered environmental concerns
in its decisionmaking process.” Balt. Gas & Elec. Co. v.
Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 462 U.S. 87, 97 (1983).
When an agency chooses to aggregate reasonably foreseeable
projects, it must be “clear from the record that the cumulative
effects of the prior proposals were considered by both the
drafting and approving agencies.” Piedmont Heights Civic
Club, Inc. v. Moreland, 637 F.2d 430, 442 (5th Cir. 1981).
Here, the Kokwel EA identified the Alder/Rasler Project as
a reasonably foreseeable project that would be considered as
part of the baseline, i.e., the “No Action Alternative.” The
expected impacts of the Alder/Rasler Project, in turn, were set
forth in detail in the Alder/Rasler EA.
Our holding also is in accord with two circuits that have
addressed this question. See Coal. on Sensible Transp., Inc.
v. Dole, 826 F.2d 60, 70 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (“It makes sense to
consider the ‘incremental impact’ of a project for possible
cumulative effects by incorporating the effects of [previously
approved] projects into the background ‘data base’ of the
project at issue, rather than by restating the results of the prior
studies.”); Piedmont Heights Civic Club, 637 F.2d at 441
(“NEPA does not require an agency to restate all of the
environmental effects of other projects presently under
consideration. Where the underlying data base includes
approved projects and pending proposals, the ‘statutory
minima’ of NEPA has been met.” (quoting Vt. Yankee
Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc.,
435 U.S. 519, 548 (1978))). As the D.C. Circuit recognized

-- 14 of 20 --

15 CASCADIA WILDLANDS V. BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
in Coalition for Sensible Transportation, “incorporating the
effects of other projects into the background ‘data base’ of the
project at issue” can be “sufficient to alert interested members
of the public to any arguable cumulative impacts involving
these other projects.” 826 F.2d at 70–71. Any further
analysis “would be redundant and in no material way serve
the purposes of NEPA.” Id. at 71.
Cascadia argues that, even if it is permissible to aggregate
previously approved projects into an environmental baseline,
the Kokwel EA did not actually aggregate the impacts of the
Alder/Rasler Project. We disagree. The Kokwel EA
explained it measured the impacts of the Kokwel Project
against a baseline that assumes “[o]ngoing activities would
continue to occur on existing projects,” including “other
projects covered by earlier decision records.” It is undisputed
the Alder/Rasler Project was covered by an earlier decision
record – the Alder/Rasler EA. The Kokwel EA later said,
“[f]or the cumulative effects analysis the description of the
potential resulting impacts is the cumulative effect of all past,
present and reasonably foreseeable actions.” It said
“[r]easonably foreseeable future actions are assumed to be the
same for the No Action as well as the Proposed Action,” and
“Table 8 lists treatments proposed for the foreseeable future
on [the Tribe’s] lands in the analysis area that will be
considered in the following resource-specific cumulative
impact discussions.” Table 8, in turn, lists only one project
– the Alder/Rasler Project. Thus, the Kokwel EA explained
the Alder/Rasler Project was a “treatment[] proposed for the
foreseeable future,” which was “assumed to be the same” for
both the No Action and the Proposed Action, i.e., assumed as
part of the baseline against which the incremental impact of
the Kokwel Project was measured.

-- 15 of 20 --

16 CASCADIA WILDLANDS V. BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
To be sure, when the EA set forth data regarding the
incremental impact of the Kokwel Project on specific
resources, it did not restate that the Alder/Rasler Project was
incorporated into the baseline. With respect to the northern
spotted owl, the EA provided a table showing the Kokwel
Project would reduce habitat within the “home ranges” (1.3
miles) of four historic northern spotted owl sites from 2,985
to 2,718 acres. The EA did not specifically explain how it
calculated the pre-harvest acreage of 2,985, or expressly say
its calculation included the Alder/Rasler Project. Similarly,
with respect to road construction, the EA said there were 543
miles of existing roads in the “Action Area,” resulting in a
road density of 4.73 mi/mi2, and the Kokwel Project would
create 2.92 miles of new road, which would not measurably
increase the road density. Again, the EA did not specifically
explain how it calculated the pre-harvest mileage of roads, or
expressly say its calculation included the Alder/Rasler
Project.
Although the EA’s explanation of its methodology could
have been clearer, to repeat each time the EA presented
baseline data for an individual resource that the Adler/Rasler
Project was, in fact, considered would have been redundant
and therefore unnecessary, particularly in a document meant
to be “concise” and “[b]rief[].” See 40 C.F.R. § 1508.9(a).
The EA is sufficiently clear that “the agency’s path may
reasonably be discerned.” Beno v. Shalala, 30 F.3d 1057,
1073 (9th Cir. 1994) (quoting Motor Vehicle Mfr. Ass’n v.
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983))
(internal quotation marks omitted). By specifically
identifying the Alder/Rasler Project at the outset and
explaining it would be assumed as part of the baseline in the
resource-specific cumulative impacts analyses, the Kokwel
EA sufficiently “catalogu[ed] . . . relevant past projects in the

-- 16 of 20 --

17 CASCADIA WILDLANDS V. BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
area,” Lands Council, 395 F.3d at 1027, told the public “what
data the conclusion was based on,” Klamath-Siskiyou
Wildlands Ctr. v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 387 F.3d 989, 994
(9th Cir. 2004), and “alert[ed] interested members of the
public to any arguable cumulative impacts involving” the
Alder/Rasler Project, Coalition for Sensible Transp., 826 F.2d
at 71. See Castaneda, 574 F.3d at 667 (holding EIS
adequately aggregated projects when it “refer[red] to a table
of Current and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions, and state[d]
past actions were considered in the Existing Conditions
section”).6 We therefore affirm the district court’s grant of
summary judgment to the defendants on the NEPA claim.7
II. Coquille Restoration Act
Cascadia argues the Kokwel Project violates the CRA
because the project is inconsistent with the FWS Recovery
Plan for the northern spotted owl. The CRA requires the
Secretary of Interior to manage the Coquille Forest “subject
to the standards and guidelines of Federal forest plans on
adjacent or nearby Federal lands, now and in the future.”
25 U.S.C. § 715c(d)(5) (emphasis added). Multiple federal
6 Cascadia’s reliance on Klamath-Siskiyou is misplaced. In Klamath-
Siskiyou, we held an EA was inadequate when “it only consider[ed] the
effects of the very project at issue,” and offered only “generalized
conclusory statements” regarding cumulative impacts. 387 F.3d at 996.
Here, as discussed above, the EA incorporated the Alder/Rasler Project
into the baseline against which the cumulative impact of the Kokwel
Project was measured, and set forth the baseline and post-harvest data on
which its conclusions were based.
7 Because the EA explained it aggregated the Alder/Rasler Project into
the No Action Alternative, we reject Cascadia’s argument this was a “post
hoc rationalization” by the BIA.

-- 17 of 20 --

18 CASCADIA WILDLANDS V. BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
forest plans cover the Coquille Forest. One, the Coos Bay
District Resource Management Plan (the Coos Bay Plan),
“describes management of approximately 329,700 acres of
land in Oregon,” including the Coquille Forest. The Coos
Bay Plan lists as an “[o]bjective[]” to “[p]rotect, manage, and
conserve federal listed . . . species and their habitats to
achieve their recovery in compliance with the Endangered
Species Act, approved recovery plans, and Bureau special
status species policies.” Cascadia argues the “objective”
should be construed as a “standard and guideline” under the
CRA, such that compliance with FWS recovery plans is
mandatory in the Coquille Forest.8 We reject that argument.
First, the Coos Bay Plan expressly establishes an
“objective” of compliance with recovery plans, not a
“standard” or “guideline.” The Coos Bay Plan was adopted
in 1995, a year before Congress amended the CRA to require
compliance with applicable forest plan “standards and
guidelines.” Had Congress intended the CRA to require
compliance with the “objectives” of the Coos Bay Plan, it
could have done so expressly. See Smith v. United States,
508 U.S. 223, 229 (1993) (“Had Congress intended the . . .
construction petitioner urges, it could have so indicated. It
did not, and we decline to introduce that additional
requirement on our own.”).
Second, another federal forest plan covering the Coquille
Forest, the Northwest Forest Plan (NFP), expressly
8 It is undisputed that, generally, FWS recovery plans are not mandatory.
The Endangered Species Act does not mandate compliance with recovery
plans for endangered species. See Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Rice, 85 F.3d
535, 547–48 (11th Cir. 1996) (holding “recovery plans are for guidance
purposes only”).

-- 18 of 20 --

19 CASCADIA WILDLANDS V. BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
establishes “Standards and Guidelines for Management of
Habitat for Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forest Related
Species Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl.”9
The NFP governs over 24 million acres of federal land in the
Northwest, including the Coquille Forest. The NFP was
adopted in 1994 largely in response to concern over the
survival of the northern spotted owl. The NFP defines
“standards and guidelines” as “[t]he rules and limits
governing actions, and the principles specifying the
environmental conditions or levels to be achieved and
maintained.” Congress is presumed to have been aware of
the NFP when it adopted the CRA. See Dir., OWCP v. Perini
N. River Assocs., 459 U.S. 297, 319–20 (1983). That
Congress required compliance with the “standards and
guidelines” of applicable federal forest plans two years after
the largest such plan specifically listed “standards and
guidelines” suggests Congress did not intend to use the term
in a “generic” way, as Cascadia contends. On the contrary,
the more plausible inference is that Congress intended
“standards and guidelines” to refer specifically to identified
“standards and guidelines” in applicable federal forest plans.
Third, we reject Cascadia’s argument that the Coos Bay
Plan’s “objectives” should be construed as “standards and
guidelines” because the Coos Bay Plan uses similar language
to describe its objectives as the NFP uses to define “standards
and guidelines.” The Coos Bay Plan’s definition of
“objectives” is substantially broader than the NFP’s definition
of “standards and guidelines.” As noted, the NFP defines
“standards and guidelines” as “[t]he rules and limits
governing actions, and the principles specifying the
9 It is undisputed the NFP’s standards and guidelines do not require
compliance with the Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl.

-- 19 of 20 --

20 CASCADIA WILDLANDS V. BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
environmental conditions or levels to be achieved and
maintained.” The Coos Bay Plan defines “objectives” as
“[e]xpressions of what are the desired end results of
management efforts.” The NFP’s “standards and guidelines”
establish concrete requirements, such as “when an area is cut,
12 to 18 green trees per acre will be retained,” and “[t]here
must be 25 to 30 percent of each block in late-successional
forest at any point in time.” In contrast, the Coos Bay Plan’s
“objectives” establish general, high-level goals, such as
“[m]anage for the conservation of state listed species and
their habitats to assist the state in achieving management
objectives,” and “[s]tudy, maintain or restore community
structure, species composition, and ecological processes of
special status plant and animal habitat.” Because we hold the
CRA does not require compliance with the Coos Bay Plan’s
objective of compliance with recovery plans, we affirm the
district court’s conclusion that the Kokwel Project did not
violate the CRA.
AFFIRMED.

-- 20 of 20 --