N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
PAR ADISE R IDGE DEFENSE C OALITION,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. PETER J. HAR TM AN, in his offic ia l c a pa c i ty a s Division Adm

inistra tor for the Idaho Division of the

Fe de ra l Highwa

y Adm inistra

tion; e t a l., De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 17-35848 D.C . No. 1:16-c v-00374-B LW
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ida

ho B . Ly nn W inm ill, C hie f Judge , Pre siding Argue d an d Subm itte d Nove m be r 6, 2018 Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : FER

NANDEZ a

nd IKUTA, C irc uit Judge s, a nd SESSIONS, * * Distric t Judge
. 

# F IL ED DEC 07 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble W illia m K. Se ssions III, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Distric t of Ve rm ont, sitting by de s igna tion.The Para d ise R idge De fe nse C oa l ition (C o a l ition) a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s ruling tha t the Fe de ra l Highwa

y Adm inistra

t ion (FHWA) and the Idaho Transporta

t ion De pa rtm e nt (IDT) did not viola te the Nationa l Environm e nta l Polic y Ac t (NEPA) or othe r e nvironm e nta l re quire m e nts, se e 23 C .F.R . § 771.125; Exe c utive Orde r 11,990, in se le c ting a n a lte rnative for c onstruc tion of a ne w se gm e nt of Highwa

y US-95 south of M osc ow, Ida ho. The FHW A took the“ ha

rd look” tha

t NEPA re q

uire s, se e N

at. Re s. De f. C ounc il. v . U.S. Fore

st Se rv . , 421 F.3d 797, 810–11 (9th C i r. 2005), a nd the
a ge nc y ’ s de c ision wa s not a rbitra ry or c a pric ious unde r the Adm inistra t ive Proc e d ure Ac t, se e Or. N

at. De se r t Ass’n v . J

e w e ll , 840 F.3d 562, 568 (9th C ir. 2016). W e re

je c t the C oa lition’ s m

ultiple argum e n ts to thec ontra ry . First, the FHW A’ s re lia

n c e on the Highwa

y Sa fe ty M anua l for pre dic ting there lative sa fe ty of e a c h a lte rnative route wa s re a sona ble give n tha

t it is the industry sta nda rd for highwa y sa fe ty , a nd the C o a lition doe s not a rgue tha t the FHW A should ha

v e use d
an a l te rnative m e thodology
. Se e Idaho W ool Grow e rs Ass’n v . Vilsac k , 816 F.3d 1095, 1107–08 (9th C ir. 2016). TheFHW A disc lose d tha t the m e thodology

did not y ie ld c onfide nc e inte rva ls for e a c h of the propose d a lte rnative s, and the FHW A
a lso e xe rc ise d e ngine e ring judgme nt in its eva luation of thepropose d a l te rnative s. Furthe r, the FHW Aprovide d a “ re a sona bly thorough discussion” of the risk a nd
2se ve rity

of c o llisions betwe e n ve hic le s a nd wildlife , a s we ll a s m itiga tion m e a sure s to de c re a s e the risk of thosec ollisions. Se e N e ighbors of C

u ddy Mountain v . U.S. Fore st Se rv . , 137 F.3d 1372, 1376 (9th C ir. 1998). Se c ond, the FHW A did not m ake “ an irre ve rsible and irre trie va ble
c om m itm e nt of re s ourc e s ” be fore c om ple ting its a

na ly sis, se e Me tc alf v
. Dale y , 214 F.3d 1135, 1143 (9th C ir. 2000), a nd so did not im

pe rm issibly

pre de te rm ine the o utc om e of the NEPA a n a ly sis. Nor did the

FHW A e rr in c onside ring one route from

e a c h ge ogra

phic c orridor, be c a

use the route s within e a c h ge ogra phic
c orridor ha d substa

ntia lly sim ila

r c onse que nc e s, a

nd NEPA “ doe s not re quire a se pa ra te ana ly sis of a lte rnative s whic h a re not signific antly distinguisha ble from
a lte rnative s a c tua lly

c onside re d, or whic h ha

ve substa ntia lly sim ila

r c onse q ue nc e s.” Se eHe adw a te rs, Inc . v . Bure au of Land Mgmt., Me dford Dist. , 914 F.2d 1174, 1181 (9th C ir. 1990). TheFHW A a lso disc usse d the m itiga tion
m e a sure s for inva sive we e ds “ in suffic ie nt de ta il to e nsure tha t e nvironm e nta l
c onse q ue nc e s [ha d] be e n fa irly

e va luate d.” Se e Robe rtson v . Me thow Valle y C itize ns C ounc il , 490 U.S. 332, 352 (1989). Fina lly , to the e xte nt the C oa lition a rgue s tha t the IDT viola

te d NEPA, we
a lso re je c t those argum e n t s be c a use NEPA a

pplie s to fe de ra l a ge nc i e s, not sta te

3a ge nc ie s, se e 42 U.S.C . § 4332, a nd re ga rdle ss, the a g e nc ie s’ a c t ions did not viola te NEPA for the re a sons e xpla ine d a bove
. Nor did the FHW A viola

te its re gula

tion re quiring prior c onc urre nc e in a fina l Environm e nta l Im

pa c t Sta te m e nt unde r c e rta i n c irc um sta n c e s. Se e 23 C .F.R
. § 771.125. The

FHW A de t e rm ine d

tha t prior c onc urre nc e wa s not ne c e ssa ry for this proje c t, a

nd we a fford “ substa

ntia l de fe re nc e ” to a

n a ge n c y ’ s inte rpre t ation of its own re gula

tions, se e De

p’t of He alth &Human Se r v s. v . C h ate r , 163 F.3d 1129, 1133 (9th C ir. 1998). The FHW A c om

plie d with Exe c utive Orde r 11,990 by (am ong othe r things)
c onside ring the we tla

nds im pa c t a longsideothe r pe rtine nt fa c tors, suc h a s highwa

y sa fe ty , a nd outlining m

i tiga tion pla ns to minim iz e the im

pa c t to we tla

nds. Exe c utive Orde r 11,990 c onte m plate s a ba la nc ing of fa c tors, a

nd the FHW A’ s se le c tion of a lte rnative E-2 is supporte d by the re c ord a

nd is not a

rbitra ry , c a pric ious, or a

n a buse of disc re tion. Se e N at’l W ildlife Fe d ’n v . Adams , 629 F.2d 587, 593 (9th C ir. 1980). AFFIRM E D.

4