Opinion ID: 217548
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: 2004 Framework: Short-Term Harm

Text: Sierra Forest and California first argue that the Forest Service violated NEPA by focusing on uncertain long-term impacts in the 2004 Framework SEIS, at the expense of known near-term harm. The sweeping policy goals announced in § 101 of NEPA are ... realized through a set of `action-forcing' procedures that require that agencies take a `hard look' at environmental consequences. Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 350, 109 S.Ct. 1835, 104 L.Ed.2d 351 (1989) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). A `hard look' includes considering all foreseeable direct and indirect impacts. Furthermore, a `hard look' should involve a discussion of adverse impacts that does not improperly minimize negative side effects. N. Alaska Envtl. Ctr. v. Kempthorne, 457 F.3d 969, 975 (9th Cir.2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C)(iv) (requiring analysis of the relationship between local short-term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity); Or. Natural Res. Council Fund v. Brong, 492 F.3d 1120, 1133 (9th Cir.2007) ([G]eneral statements about possible effects and some risk do not constitute a hard look absent a justification regarding why more definitive information could not be provided. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)). Nevertheless, where agency experts have analyzed the immediate harm of a proposed action, the Forest Service may conclude that long-term benefits outweigh short-term costs. See Native Ecosystems Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 428 F.3d 1233, 1251 (9th Cir. 2005). Proper analysis may also rely on long-term modeling, despite the inherent uncertainty of projections. See Nev. Land Action Ass'n v. U.S. Forest Serv., 8 F.3d 713, 718 (9th Cir.1993). The 2004 Framework final SEIS addresses short-term effects concerning the California spotted owl, fisher and marten old forest species at the core of Sierra Forest's NEPA claim. Concerning the California spotted owl, the SEIS acknowledges that implementing the HFQLG Act is likely to reduce owl habitat, widen gaps between habitat patches and create stand openings. Similarly, the SEIS indicates that implementation of the 2004 Framework will eliminate some canopy cover, which affects both California spotted owl habitat and habitat for owl prey. In sum, the SEIS states, there is some risk of negatively affecting California spotted owls in the short term because of the uncertainty associated with the effects of using mechanical treatment, potentially affecting five percent of protected activity centers. In order to mitigate potential harm and enhance understanding of the effects of forest management on the California spotted owl, the 2004 Framework adopts specific owl monitoring programs. The SEIS provides similar details with regard to the fisher and marten. It acknowledges that treatments may increase fragmentation and create barriers to fisher movement and yield short-term trade offs in current habitat quality through reductions in canopy closure and logging of large trees. The SEIS also notes that implementation of the 2004 Framework will harm marten habitat as compared to the 2001 Framework in the short term by eliminating one percent of canopy closure and five percent of old growth forests. Group selection logging in the HFQLG pilot project area will affect 0.57 percent of the project area per year for the first five years, reducing marten habitat, but would not render large areas unsuitable for foraging or dispersal. California also raises concerns about short-term effects on the willow flycatcher and the Yosemite toad. The SEIS explains that the 2004 Framework creates some short-term risk to the willow flycatcher by permitting grazing in nine sites where flycatchers have not been observed since 1982 or have been observed only after breeding season. Similarly, the SEIS explains that during the development of site-specific management plans, permitting cattle to graze increases the risk that Yosemite toads will be trampled. California does not specify what other types of short-term impacts it anticipates. California also points out that a particular chart found in the 2001 Framework SEIS was omitted from the 2004 Framework SEIS. This chart attached a degree of certainty to whether old forest habitats would be preserved by each alternative. Although NEPA requires us to determine whether the EIS's `form, content and preparation foster both informed decisionmaking and informal public participation,' City of Sausalito, 386 F.3d at 1207 (quoting Idaho Conservation League v. Mumma, 956 F.2d 1508, 1519 (9th Cir.1992)), we may apply only pragmatic judgment, Churchill County v. Norton, 276 F.3d 1060, 1071 (9th Cir.2001) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted), and may not impose upon the agency [our] own notion of which procedures are `best' or most likely to further some vague, undefined public good, Vt. Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 435 U.S. 519, 549, 98 S.Ct. 1197, 55 L.Ed.2d 460 (1978). We cannot mandate that a SEIS include a particular graph, no matter how helpful. Moreover, the SEIS states in text that the 2001 and 2004 Frameworks are indistinguishable in their short-run outcomes and presents in graphical form short-term acreage of old growth forest projected to exist during implementation of the alternatives under serious consideration. Collectively, the substantial discussion of potential harm to old forest species and projections of the size of old growth forests adequately addresses the relative short-term effects of these two alternatives. There is no question that implementation of the 2004 Framework will destroy some owl habitat, a consequence the SEIS plainly acknowledges. Annualizing anticipated effects would not have furthered the deliberation-forcing goals of NEPA. Moreover, the projected loss of habitat is small compared to both the scale of the Sierra Nevada and earlier management practices insensitive to the needs of old forest species. For example, the 2004 Framework SEIS states, Within the HFQLG project area ... [the 2004 Framework] is projected to result in roughly 65,000 fewer acres of suitable owl habitat in year 20 than [the 2001 Framework]. Less than 20 years ago, the federal courts reviewed practices that raised the question whether the owl can survive the near-term loss of another half-million acres of its habitat. Seattle Audubon Soc'y v. Moseley, 798 F.Supp. 1473, 1478 (W.D.Wash.1992). It is the prerogative of the Forest Service to determine that long-term effectseven long-term effects subject to uncertaintyremain desirable despite short-term harm. The Forest Service, when promulgating the 2004 Framework, disclosed and focused adequately on short-term effects of intensified management and therefore complied with NEPA.