Opinion ID: 175356
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Plaintiffs' Claims Under NEPA

Text: NEPA is a purely procedural statute, intended to protect the environment by fostering informed agency decision-making. See California ex. rel . Lockyer v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 575 F.3d 999, 1012 (9th Cir.2009). NEPA does not mandate particular results, but simply provides the necessary process to ensure that federal agencies take a hard look at the environmental consequences of their actions. High Sierra Hikers Ass'n v. Blackwell, 390 F.3d 630, 639 (9th Cir.2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). NEPA requires agencies to prepare a detailed environmental impact statement (EIS) for all major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. 42 U.S.C. § 4332(C). As a preliminary step, the agency may prepare an Environmental Assessment (`EA') to determine whether the environmental impact of the proposed action is significant enough to warrant an EIS. High Sierra Hikers, 390 F.3d at 639-40 (citing 40 C.F.R. § 1508.9). An EA must include brief discussions of the need for the proposal, of reasonable alternatives, and of the anticipated environmental impacts. See 40 C.F.R. § 1508.9(b).
The Service's EA cites the reduction of the risk of wildfires to local residents as a primary purpose of the Project. Plaintiffs argue that the Service violated NEPA by failing to address scientific debate concerning whether forest thinning actually reduces wildfire intensity. A failure in an EA to discuss and consider evidence contrary to the Service's position suggests that the Service did not take the requisite `hard look' at the environmental consequences of its proposed action. Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project v. Blackwood, 161 F.3d 1208, 1213 (9th Cir. 1998). This case is different from those in which courts have identified significant controversies as to the efficacy of the Service's proposed methods. In Sierra Club v. Eubanks, 335 F.Supp.2d 1070, 1074, 1077-78 (E.D.Cal.2004), the Service failed to respond to scientific studies showing that its activities would increase fire risk and, instead, relied on studies that did not actually support its position. In Sierra Club v. Bosworth, 199 F.Supp.2d 971, 979-80 (N.D.Cal.2002), the literature review that accompanied the EIS included a report that called into question the Service's methodology, but that the EIS failed to disclose or analyze. In this case, the EA acknowledges the limits of the benefits that would be provided by the Project. The EA does not claim that the Project would eliminate wildfires in the area altogether, but merely that it would reduce potential fire severity, in particular crown fires. The EA explains that limiting crown fires would enhance firefighter and public safety by reducing the average rate of fire spread from 1 to 3 miles per hour to 0.1 to 0.5 miles per hour. The Service's risk reduction calculations are supported by studies conducted in other regions, as well as by extensive modeling. We therefore affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment to the Service on this claim.
Plaintiffs argue that the Service violated NEPA by failing to discuss global warming in the EA. The Service's decision to implement a project is arbitrary and capricious under NEPA if an EA or EIS entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem. Lands Council, 537 F.3d at 987. However, the Service is only required to focus on the issues that are truly significant to the action in question. 40 C.F.R. § 1500.1(b). Also, [i]mpacts shall be discussed in proportion to their significance. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.2(b). Plaintiffs point out that global warming has been recognized by courts as an issue of national importance. See Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 521, 127 S.Ct. 1438, 167 L.Ed.2d 248 (2007); Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., 538 F.3d 1172, 1221-24 (9th Cir.2008). They also point out that the Deputy Chief for the National Forest System has issued a guidance document directing the Service to incorporate climate change analysis into its evaluations of projects. That guidance document suggests, for example, that a qualitative discussion of climate change would be necessary in an EA for a proposal to underburn 30,000 acres of ponderosa pine stands. It states, however, that proposals require no discussion if they are of a minor scale [so] that the direct effects would be meaningless. The Project involves a relatively small amount of land and it will thin rather than clear cut trees. Further, we note that the Service addressed comments regarding climate change in its December 2007 notice of final decision. We therefore conclude that the EA adequately considered the Project's impact on global warming in proportion to its significance.
The EA acknowledges that the Project would cause detrimental soil disturbance, particularly through groundbased logging. Plaintiffs argue that the Service violated NEPA because it failed to analyze soil disturbance mitigation measures sufficiently in the EA, and because it should have prepared an EIS evaluating cumulative soil disturbance. We reject both arguments. [1] The Project seeks to minimize soil disturbance by cutting most of the acreage during the winter such that all ground-based harvest activities using tractors or skidders would be done over snow or frozen ground. The Project would use helicopters on much of the remaining acreage. In the areas subject to ground-based logging, the Project would implement soil restoration, placing five tons of woody debris per acre on old skid roads. The Service provided analytical support for its claim that placing woody debris on old skid trails would reduce or eliminate detrimental soil conditions. The Service's EA, relying on an expert study, explains that the method would be beneficial for restoration of soil productivity, and that it would prevent further soil disturbance from unauthorized ATV use and from weed infestation. It further explains: This restoration proposal would qualitatively reduce the detrimental effects of previous harvest. This method of restoration has been shown to be effective in Region 1. The EA's explanation is not the perfunctory description of mitigating measures provided in Neighbors of Cuddy Mountain v. U.S. Forest Service, 137 F.3d 1372, 1380 (9th Cir.1998). The Service's analysis in the EA is consistent with other agency analysis, unlike in League of Wilderness Defenders v. Forsgren, 309 F.3d 1181, 1192 (9th Cir.2002). Further, the EA relies on applicable Best Management Practices (BMPs), including winter harvesting and placement of woody debris, that are appropriate for this project. See Envtl. Prot. Info. Ctr. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 451 F.3d 1005, 1015-16 (9th Cir.2006) (approving of reliance on specifically identified BMPs); Cf. Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project, 161 F.3d at 1214 (BMPs not appropriate for specific circumstances of project). We therefore conclude that the EA sufficiently explained that its mitigation measures would minimize, and compensate for, any soil disturbance from the Project.