Friends of the Columbia Gorge, Inc. v. Columbia River Gorge Commission
Docket: A150010
Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon; June 19, 2013; Oregon; State Appellate Court
The Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area management plan mandates that Oregon and Washington develop a regional air quality strategy, which must be approved by the Columbia River Gorge Commission. In 2011, the states submitted the Columbia River Gorge Air Study and Strategy, which the commission approved, prompting a petition for judicial review of this decision. The Scenic Area Act, enacted by Congress in 1986, established the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, covering approximately 292,000 acres, and facilitated the creation of the Columbia River Gorge Commission to manage the area in cooperation with the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture.
In May 2000, the commission amended the management plan to enhance air quality protection. The states and the U.S. Forest Service are tasked with monitoring air pollution, analyzing emissions data to identify significant sources of pollution, and developing a regional air quality strategy. They must provide annual progress reports to the commission, including a workplan and timeline for data collection and strategy implementation.
Following this, in 2001, Oregon and Washington's air quality agencies issued a workplan that projected the regional air quality strategy's implementation by 2006, though this was delayed. On September 13, 2011, the air agencies presented their strategy to the commission, recommending the use of the federal Regional Haze Program as a framework for improving visibility in the Gorge. This program, established by the EPA in 1999, requires states to create and update regional haze plans every five years to ensure progress in visibility improvement in designated Class I areas.
The Columbia River Gorge is situated between two Class I areas, Mt. Hood and Mt. Adams, benefiting from the Regional Haze Programs of Oregon and Washington, which aim to improve air quality. The air agencies indicated that haze sources affecting the Gorge are the same as those across the Northwest and emphasized the importance of coordinating visibility improvement efforts across states. They recommended tracking air quality in the Gorge with updates to the Regional Haze Plan to ensure ongoing benefits.
The commission approved the regional air quality strategy, but the petitioner seeks to remand this decision, arguing two main points: first, that the strategy lacks essential features of a true strategy, such as specific goals, criteria, and binding measures, and is merely a summary of the existing Regional Haze Program; second, that it fails to meet the requirements of the management plan and the Scenic Area Act, as it does not enhance or protect air quality or the Gorge's resources.
In response, the commission asserts that it acted within its discretion and that the management plan does not mandate the inclusion of regulatory provisions in the strategy. The commission contends that the term "strategy" is sufficiently met by the approved plan, despite the petitioner's disagreement. The court finds that the Columbia River Gorge Air Study and Strategy qualifies as a "strategy" under the management plan, agreeing with the commission that the petitioner’s definition, while valid, is overly restrictive and does not necessitate the specific measures the petitioner demands.
Petitioner contends that an effective air quality strategy should establish specific targets, such as timelines, benchmarks, binding criteria, or incentive programs, rather than relying solely on existing frameworks like the Regional Haze Program. However, these specific requirements are absent from both the management plan and the Scenic Area Act. The Columbia River Gorge Air Study and Strategy does establish a goal of "continued improvement" in visibility, intending to achieve this by adhering to existing pollution control measures, particularly the Regional Haze Program. The air agencies will evaluate visibility improvements every five years alongside updates to the Regional Haze Plan and will compare trends in the Gorge with those in nearby wilderness areas. If haze levels worsen, they will investigate and consult with the Gorge Commission for potential solutions.
Despite the petitioner's argument that the strategy fails to adequately protect and enhance air quality or Gorge resources, the air agencies maintain that while the focus is on visibility, they also address public health and ecological concerns related to particulate matter and ozone. The strategy claims that reducing haze pollution will indirectly benefit all resources protected under the Scenic Area Act, as the pollutants affecting visibility also impact broader ecosystem issues. Thus, the petitioner’s claims regarding the inadequacy of the Columbia River Gorge Air Study and Strategy as a "regional air quality strategy" are rejected, as the strategy incorporates a comprehensive framework for air quality management.
Haze reduction efforts are expected to improve public health and benefit natural and cultural resources, primarily focusing on visibility enhancement. While the regional haze plans aim for visibility improvement, they also address broader pollution issues, including acid deposition. The Scenic Area Act and the related management plan do not require that regional air quality strategies individually address each resource type (scenic, cultural, recreational, natural). The air agencies' decision to prioritize visibility as a proxy for other pollution concerns is legally valid, and the commission acted within its authority in approving the Columbia River Gorge Air Study and Strategy as the regional air quality strategy. The petitioner did not show that the commission erred in this approval. The management plan does not mandate specific elements in a regional air quality strategy, and the judicial review standard focuses on whether the commission's discretion was exercised in line with the management plan and the Scenic Area Act. The court affirms the commission's decision. Initially, three air agencies participated, but later only Oregon's DEQ and SWCAA were involved. The petitioner’s claims that the strategy fails to address new pollution sources or requires action for constant pollution levels are dismissed.
