Opinion ID: 771609
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Requirements for Discussing Mitigation in an EIS

Text: 16 NEPA requires federal agencies to prepare an EIS for each major Federal action[ ] significantly affecting the quality of human environment. 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C). The requirement ensures that federal agencies are informed of environmental consequences before making decisions and that the information is available to the public. Inland Empire Pub. Lands Council v. United States Forest Serv., 88 F.3d 754, 758 (9th Cir. 1996). NEPA does not mandate particular substantive results, but instead imposes only procedural requirements. Laguna Greenbelt, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Transp., 42 F.3d 517, 523 (9th Cir. 1994). We review an EIS under a rule of reason to determine whether it contains a reasonably thorough discussion of the significant aspects of the probable environmental consequences. Carmel-by-the Sea, 123 F.3d at 1150. We must be satisfied that the agency took a hard look at the possible environmental consequences. Idaho Sporting Cong., 137 F.3d at 1149. We must not, however, substitute our judgment for that of the agency. Laguna Greenbelt, 42 F.3d at 523. 17 An EIS is not complete unless it contains a reasonably complete discussion of possible mitigation measures.  Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 352 (1989). That requirement is implicit in NEPA's demand that an EIS must discuss  `any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented.'  Id. at 351-52 (quoting NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4332(C)(ii)); see also 40 C.F.R. 1502.16(h) (stating that an EIS must contain [m]eans to mitigate adverse environmental impacts). NEPA does not contain, however, a substantive requirement that a complete mitigation plan be actually formulated and adopted. Methow Valley, 490 U.S. at 352. The requirement would be inconsistent with NEPA's reliance on procedural mechanisms. Id. at 353. 18 A mitigation plan need not be legally enforceable, funded or even in final form to comply with NEPA's procedural requirements. National Parks & Conservation Ass'n v. United States Dep't of Transp., 222 F.3d 677, 681 n.4 (9th Cir. 2000). We need only be satisfied that the agency took the requisite hard look at the possible mitigating measures; but, on the other hand, a perfunctory description  is not adequate to satisfy NEPA's requirements. Neighbors of Cuddy Mountain v. United States Forest Serv., 137 F.3d 1372, 1380 (9th Cir. 1998). A mere listing of mitigating measures, without supporting analytical data, also is inadequate. Idaho Sporting Cong., 137 F.3d at 1151. 19 Plaintiffs argue that the EIS and ROD contain inadequate discussions of the measures necessary to mitigate the environmental consequences of the mine-pit lake, the water overflow from the lake, and the waste-rock dumps. Plaintiffs contend that, although the EIS does list potential mitigating measures, the EIS fails to include supporting documentation as to the effectiveness, reliability, cost, and feasibility of the listed measures. Plaintiffs also argue that the Forest Service violated NEPA and the APA by transferring its duties to state permitting agencies. 20
21 The EIS contains an extensive discussion of the potential effects of the Project on water quality, both in the mine-pit lake and in the ground water. The Forest Service conducted geochemical modeling by computer to predict (a) the quality of water that would accumulate in the pit and discharge from the lake and (b) the potential effects of the discharge. The EIS predicts that the [w]ater that would fill and ultimately discharge from the open pit is predicted to exceed the Washington fresh water chronic criteria for cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, and selenium and the Washington State fresh water acute criteria for silver and selenium. The EIS also concludes: In light of the relatively low flow and short ground water flow path predicted (the pit acts as a ground water sink, except for the extreme northeast corner), seepage from the open pit is expected to have a low overall impact on ground water quality in the vicinity of the pit. Furthermore, due to the biased assumptions used in the pit water quality study, predicted pit lake pollutant concentrations may overestimate the concentrations that would be observed under field conditions. 22 EIS 4.6.3 at 4-49. 23 The EIS discusses monitoring measures that would be required in order to quantify any measurable environmental impacts . . . . Impacts that result in violations of regulatory stipulations would require alterations of Crown Jewel Project operations or additional mitigation actions. Mitigation is discussed separately in section 2.12 of the EIS. The EIS uses a rating system to determine the probable effectiveness in achieving the mitigation measures objectives. Each mitigation measure is rated High (achieves the desired results more than 90 percent of the time), Moderate (achieves the desired results between 75 and 90 percent of the time, or logic dictates that it is more than 90% effective, but no documentation exists), or Low (effectiveness is unknown or unverified, or estimated to be less than 75 percent). The EIS proposes that potential water discharge problems be mitigated in the following manner: 24 Any water discharged from the Crown Jewel Project site, including the mine pit or collection and infiltration ponds, must meet [Washington] water quality permit requirements and federal water quality standards. If water quality requirements are not met, appropriate water treatment would be required. Water treatment may include, but is not limited to: 25 Precipitation and settling using lime, sulfide, ferric ion, and/or flocculents; Filtration; 26 Ion exchange; 27 Reverse osmosis; 28 Electrodialysis; 29 Air stripping; 30 Biological precipitation; or, 31 Passive wetlands. 32 Water quality problems may also be addressed by diverting discharges to the tailings facility (during operations only), or special cap design and construc tion on waste rock disposal areas or tailings pond embankments. 33 If water quality problems develop, then several steps would be taken to achieve compliance. These are: 34 1. Review of environmental impacts with the pos sibility of additional or increased frequency of monitoring; 35 2. Implement an interim (emergency or long term) water management plan to stabilize the situa tion; 36 3. Develop a conceptual engineering design of water treatment system alternatives that would be available to remedy the situation and select the most appropriate design for more detailed engineering; 37 4. The Proponent would prepare a detailed engi neering design of the selected alternative; the agencies would review and revise, as appropri ate, the environmental protection performance security required from the Proponent; 38 5. Undertake appropriate permitting of the selected water treatment system (conduct NEPA/SEPA review as appropriate); 39 6. Construct the selected water treatment system; 40 7. Operate and maintain the water treatment sys tem to meet design goals; 41 8. Monitor the water treatment system for compli ance; and, 9. Achieve a demonstrated `clean closure' or main tain long term (permanent) treatment. 42 Goal: Protect ground and surface water quality in case of unacceptable water discharges. Effectiveness: High 43 EIS 2.12.5.2 at 2-115. 44 The EIS's discussion of the mitigating measures required for the mine-pit lake takes a similar form. The EIS notes that the water in the mine-pit lake would be required to meet Washington State Aquatic Life Water Quality Standards and human health standards. The EIS then lists a nine-step process for BMG to follow in case the mine-pit's water quality exceeds the state criteria for protecting aquatic life or human health. For example, the EIS requires BMG to prepare a conceptual engineering design of water treatment system alternatives that would be available to remedy the situation as prescribed by modeling. The EIS notes that any water treatment system implemented by BMG would be subject to agency review and revision and, possibly, to further NEPA review. The EIS gives those mitigating measures an effectiveness rating of Moderate-High. 45 The EIS also contains a discussion of the possible environmental effects of, and the possible mitigating measures for, the waste-rock dumps. The EIS states that [h]umidity cell tests and confirmation geochemical testing indicated that 5% to 15% of the total waste rock material mined under[Alternative B] would potentially generate acid and leach metals. Potential effects include the leaching of dissolved metals,radionuclides, and nitrate into ground water and increases in sediment loading to streams. A more extensive analysis of the effects of the waste rock, based on computer modeling, is found in section 3.3.3 of the EIS at 3-10 to 3-21. The EIS states that, [i]f needed, an underdrain (french drain) system would be installed to intercept any spring and seep flow from the leaching of waste-rock material. During operations, all water draining from, or through, waste rock areas would be collected in sediment traps. Water collected in the ponds would be allowed to seep into the ground water system if quality is suitable. The EIS concludes that short-term impacts to ground water quality from the waste rock disposal areas are not expected to be substantial. Long-term impacts are expected to be somewhat less than during operations. 46 The EIS discusses, in a format like the one previously described, potential measures to mitigate the adverse effects of the waste-rock dumps: 47 The Proponent would be required to develop a waste rock management plan as part of Crown Jewel Proj ect permitting. This plan would address the potential for formation of acid generating hot spots and pre vention of acid rock drainage. The plan must be approved by the [Washington Department of Ecol ogy], [Washington Department of Natural Resources], BLM, and Forest Service prior to approval of the NPDES permit. The BLM and Forest Service would require this waste rock management plan prior to movement of waste rock as part of the Plans of Operations. 48 EIS 2.12.5 at 2-114. 49 The EIS explains that the waste-rock management plan must contain certain features, such as the procedures that would be used to handle, isolate, encapsulate and/or blend waste rock that exhibits acid generating potential.  Those measures are given an effectiveness rating of High.
50
51 The trial court did not err in ruling that, under the applicable standard of review, the EIS contains a reasonable discussion of mitigation. The EIS contains a thorough discussion of the potential adverse environmental effects of the Project. The Forest Service took the requisite hard look  at those potential problems and required BMG to monitor the actual effects of the Project throughout its life. The EIS provides methods for ensuring that environmental problems do not develop. For example, if there is a decrease in water quality, the EIS provides procedures for ensuring compliance with applicable water-quality standards. The procedures are in bullet form and are stated in somewhat general terms, but this format is not deficient in the circumstances: The exact environmental problems that will have to be mitigated are not yet known because the Project does not exist. The EIS also requires BMG to post a security deposit to ensure compliance with environmental standards. 52 We realize that the line between an EIS that contains an adequate discussion of mitigation measures and one that contains a mere listing is not well defined. In Cuddy Mountain, the EIS for a proposed sale of timber contained the following discussion of mitigation measures: [S]mall increases in sedimentation . . . would be mitigated by improvements in fish habitat in other drainages . . . . Offsetting mitigation would include such projects as riparian enclosures (fences around riparian areas to keep cattle out) and fish passage restoration (removing fish passage blockages). These activities can be effective but cannot be quantified with present data. 137 F.3d at 1380. We held that the Forest Service's perfunctory description of the mitigating measures was inadequate. Id. 53 By contrast, in Methow Valley, the Supreme Court analyzed the adequacy of an EIS that examined the environmental impact of a proposed ski resort on National Forest land. The EIS stated that the proposed project would not have a measurable effect on existing air quality, but that the off-site development of private land would have a significant effect on air quality. The EIS then identified potential actions that could be taken by the county governments to mitigate those adverse impacts, including the development of an air-quality management plan. The circuit court held that the EIS was inadequate because the effectiveness of the mitigation measures had not been assessed, and the measures themselves had yet to be developed. Methow Valley, 490 U.S. at 347. The Supreme Court reversed. Id. at 353. 54 The Supreme Court noted that an EIS without a reasonably complete discussion of possible mitigation measures would undermine the `action-forcing' function of NEPA. Id. at 352. There is a fundamental distinction, however, between a requirement that mitigation be discussed in sufficient detail to ensure that environmental consequences have been fairly evaluated, on the one hand, and a substantive requirement that a complete mitigation plan be actually formulated and adopted, on the other. Id. The Court concluded that, because the EIS predicted that the on-site environmental impacts would be minimal, the proposed measures cannot be deemed overly vague or underdeveloped. Id. at 358. 55 The difference between the discussion of proposed mitigation measures in Methow Valley and that in Cuddy Mountain appears to be one of degree. In Cuddy Mountain , this court read the EIS as suggesting that the Forest Service did not even consider mitigating measures for the creeks actually affected by the sale. 137 F.3d at 1381 (emphasis added). By contrast, the EIS in the present case suggests that the Forest Service did consider and take a hard look at the environmental effects and mitigating measures. The EIS predicts that the environmental effects from the mine on ground water will be minimal, but extensive monitoring will be required nonetheless. The EIS then proposes several ways to prevent overflow from the mine-pit lake from affecting water quality. If those measures are unsuccessful, the EIS then provides a process for achieving compliance with water-quality standards. Similar processes are described for achieving compliance with water-quality standards in the mine-pit lake itself and in the waste-rock dumps. Each mitigating process was evaluated separately and given an effectiveness rating. 56 It is true that the mitigating measures are described in general terms and rely on general processes, not on specific substantive requirements. In the Forest Service's responses to comments from the Environmental Protection Agency on the draft EIS, the Forest Service explained that, 57 [s]ince it is not possible to predict exactly what water quality will be, it is difficult to predict what exact mitigation will be necessary. We have set up . . . a procedure to determine specific mitigation or treatment, if any, is required. Moreover, a perfor mance security which assumes treatment of the pit discharge water is necessary, will be collected prior to development. 58 Because the actual adverse effects are uncertain, and the EIS considered extensively the potential effects and mitigation processes, we conclude that the present case is closer to Methow Valley. Accordingly, we hold that the discussion of mitigating measures in the EIS is adequate. 59
60 Next, Plaintiffs argue that the Forest Service deferred to state agencies its responsibility for reviewing mitigation measures. The record and our case law answer that argument. 61 The EIS's sections on mitigating measures do refer, as a mere statement of fact, to state permitting agencies and requirements. See, e.g., EIS 2.12.13.5 at 2-124 (Water in the pit lake . . . would be required to meet Washington State Aquatic Life Water Quality Standards . . . .). However, those sections go on to consider and discuss mitigation responsibilities directly and at length. See, e.g., id. (The Proponent would prepare a detailed engineering design of the preferred alternative . . . .). 62 The fact that the EIS acknowledges that the project will be forced to comply with pollution permitting requirements is not, by itself, arbitrary or capricious. Cf. City & County of San Francisco v. United States, 615 F.2d 498, 501 (9th Cir. 1980) (noting that the Navy's decision not to prepare an EIS was reasonable when the Candidate EIS noted that the lessee would be required to conform to all applicable pollution control laws and regulations as a condition of tenancy). Such an acknowledgment does not, without more, shift the Forest Service's responsibility to state agencies.