Opinion ID: 6983530
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The NEPA Alternatives

Text: Having upheld the reasonableness of the Commission’s baseline, we set aside our Chevron lens and turn to the rule of reason to determine whether the Commission faithfully discharged its duties under NEPA when it evaluated alternatives to the EWEB proposal. The petitioners contend that the Commission erred when it endorsed its staffs identification of the “no-action” alternative in the final environmental impact statement as the continued operation of the Leaburg and Walterville developments under the terms of their original licenses. The petitioners assert that the proper “no-action” alternative under NEPA instead should have been the alternative of not issuing a license at all. Alternatively, the petitioners contend that the Commission violated NEPA because the range of alternatives examined by the Commission did not include license denial and subsequent project decommissioning and dam removal. These contentions fail. As discussed below, the Commission’s identification and evaluation of alternatives satisfied NEPA’s procedural requirements. Under NEPA, an environmental impact statement must include “the alternative of no action.” 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14(d) (1998); Association of Pub. Agency Customers, Inc., 126 F.3d at 1188. An environmental impact statement also must discuss “reasonable alternatives” to the proposed agency action. 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C)(iii); Alaska Wilderness Recreation and Tourism Ass’n, 67 F.3d at 729 (quoting 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14) (explaining that consideration of alternatives “is the heart of the environmental impact statement”). The rule of reason guides “both the choice of alternatives as well as the extent to which the Environmental Impact Statement must discuss each alternative.” City of Carmel-By-The-Sea v. United States Dep’t of Transp., 123 F.3d 1142, 1155 (9th Cir.1997) (citations omitted). Under the rule of reason, the Commission “need not consider an infinite range of alternatives, only reasonable or feasible ones.” Id. (citing 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14(a)-(c)). “[F]or alternatives which were eliminated from detailed study, [the environmental impact statement must] briefly discuss the reasons for their having been eliminated.” 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14(a) (emphasis added). In the Order on Rehearing the Commission acknowledged that “[i]n the relicens-ing context, defining a logical ‘no action’ alternative is difficult, because the Commission is legally required to take some action on the application for a new license, pursuant to Section 15 of the FPA.” 81 Fed. Energy Reg. Comm’n Rep. (CCH) at 62,326 (quoting Public Serv. Co. of New Hampshire, 68 Fed. Energy Reg. Comm’n Rep. (CCH) ¶ 61,177, at 61,866-67 (Aug. 1, 1994)). We conclude that the statutory scheme sustains the Commission’s no action definition and betrays the predominantly semantic nature of this dispute. As the Commission explained, by operation of FPA section 15(a), the effect of the Commission’s taking “no action” on EWEB’s relicensing application would have been to permit EWEB to continue operating the project indefinitely subject to the terms and conditions of its expired original license. See id. Section 15(a) authorizes the Commission to impose upon the reli-censed party “such terms and conditions as may be authorized or required under the then existing laws and regulations.” 16 U.S.C. § 808(a)(1). The Commission also may issue a “non-power license” if the public interest requires that “all or part of any licensed project should no longer be used ... for power purposes.” 16 U.S.C. § 808(f); see 18 C.F.R. § 16.11 (1998). Here, the Commission logically questioned “whether license denial could appropriately be considered ‘no action’ in the case of a relicensing .... [as d]enial would require action, rather than inaction, and would presumably be coupled with other proposed actions, such as federal takeover, issuance of a nonpower license, or project decommissioning.” Order on Reh’g, 81 Fed. Energy Reg. Comm’n Rep. (CCH) at 62,326 (quoting Public Serv. Co. of New Hampshire, 68 Fed. Energy Reg. Comm’n Rep. (CCH) at 61,866-67); see also Edwards Mfg. Co., 81 Fed. Energy Reg. Comm’n Rep. (CCH) ¶ 61,255 (Nov. 25, 1997) (explaining that the decision to deny relicensing and to require dam removal constitutes a major federal action). In view of this regime, the Commission logically concluded that the “definition of the no action alternative as continued operation of the project under the same terms and conditions as the existing license simply reflects this statutory reality.” Order on Reh’g, 81 Fed. Energy Reg. Comm’n Rep. (CCH) at 62,326 (quoting Public Serv. Co. of New Hampshire, 68 Fed. Energy Reg. Comm’n Rep. (CCH) at 61,867). The Commission’s choice of the terms of the original license as the no action alternative finds additional support from the Council on Environmental Quality’s (“CEQ”) response to Question No. 3 of its NEPA guidance memorandum. 21 The response states, in pertinent part: [Wjhere ongoing programs initiated under existing legislation and regulations will continue, even as new plans are developed .... “no action” is “no change” from current management direction or level of management intensity. To construct an alternative that is based on no management at all would be a useless academic exercise. Therefore, the “no action” alternative may be thought of in terms of continuing with the present course of action until that action is changed. Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ’s National Environmental Policy Act Regulations, 46 Fed.Reg. 18026, 18027 (1981). We recognize that the relicensing process does not fit perfectly under the model of updating a land management plan as contemplated in the response to Question 3. Nevertheless, this Court has employed this regulatory language under analogous circumstances, see Association of Pub. Agency Customers, 126 F.3d at 1188 (holding that “CEQ regulations allow the status quo [of continuing power sales contracts] to properly be the no action alternative.”), and we find nothing in the regulation to preclude its application in the hydropower relicensing context. In light of the scheme established by FPA section 15 and our decision in Association of Public Agency Customers, we conclude that the Commission properly identified the no action alternative. We similarly reject the petitioners’ contention that the Commission did not adequately examine the alternative of license denial. In the Order on Rehearing, the Commission explicitly stated that “license denial and dam removal will in most proceedings not be considered a reasonable alternative by anyone.” 81 Fed. Energy Reg. Comm’n Rep. (CCH) at 62,327; see Final Environmental Impact Statement, §§ 2.5, 2.7, at 2-9 to 2-11. The Commission noted that “[d]ams, and the reservoirs they create, usually serve a variety of non-power public purposes, such as flood control, irrigation, and recreation. Moreover, ... removing a dam can have significant adverse environmental impacts.” Id. at n. 13. Here, the final environmental impact statement clearly considered the alternatives urged by the petitioners. Although the Commission never engaged in a lengthy evaluation of the dam removal alternative at any stage of the administrative process, its analysis comfortably meets the “discuss briefly” standard of 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14(a) and the rule of reason employed by this Court. In sum, we are satisfied that the Commission has taken a hard look at the range of licensing alternatives and complied with its procedural obligations under NEPA.