Opinion ID: 6320238
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: FWS complied with NEPA.

Text: In 2013, FWS issued an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) analyzing the experiment’s environmental impacts. Later, when FWS issued the permits and Safe Harbor Agreements, it conducted a less-intensive Environmental Assessment (EA) for each permit. All EAs concluded that the spotted owl would not be significantly affected. Friends contends FWS’ environmental analyses did not meet NEPA requirements in two ways. First, although FWS issued an initial EIS, Friends claims FWS had to issue a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (Supplemental EIS), instead of the lesser EAs, when it later issued the permits. Second, Friends argues FWS should have considered environmental effects of each permit with those from other permits and the broader experiment. We find FWS properly complied with its NEPA obligations. 24 FRIENDS OF ANIMALS V. USFWS
when it issued the permits. NEPA does not expressly address when an agency must prepare a Supplemental EIS. Marsh v. Or. Nat. Res. Council, 490 U.S. 360, 370 (1989). But “NEPA cases have generally required agencies to file [a Supplemental EIS] when the remaining governmental action would be environmentally ‘significant.’” Id. at 372 (quoting Tenn. Valley Auth. v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 188 n.34 (1978)). Whether an action, such as issuing the permits at issue, has environmental significance is a “classic example of a factual dispute” that “implicates substantial agency expertise” to which “we must defer.” Id. at 376–77. While NEPA does not squarely address Supplemental EIS obligations, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has issued regulations that “impose a duty on all federal agencies to prepare” a Supplemental EIS if “(i) the agency makes substantial changes to the proposed action that are relevant to environmental concerns; or (ii) there are significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts.” Id. at 372; 40 C.F.R. § 1502.9(d)(1). CEQ has published more guidance, which our circuit has adopted as the proper framework for applying § 1502.9(d)(1). Russell Country Sportsmen v. U.S. Forest Serv., 668 F.3d 1037, 1045 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ’s National Environmental Policy Act Regulations, 46 Fed. Reg. 18,026, 18,035 (Mar. 23, 1981)). Under this framework, a Supplemental EIS is not required if: “(1) the new alternative is a ‘minor variation of one of the alternatives discussed in the [original] EIS,’ and (2) the new alternative is FRIENDS OF ANIMALS V. USFWS 25 ‘qualitatively within the spectrum of alternatives that were discussed in the [original EIS].’” Id. Friends argues that FWS had to issue a Supplemental EIS under either prong of § 1502.9(d)(1). First, Friends maintains that FWS made “substantial changes” to the “heart” of the barred owl removal experiment because the goal of the experiment was to conserve the northern spotted owl but the permits authorized the take of spotted owls. Second, Friends contends that the specifics of each permit and Safe Harbor Agreement constitute “significant new information” that was not considered in the initial EIS. We disagree on both points. First, the incidental take of northern spotted owls authorized by the permits is only a “minor variation” of the broader barred owl removal experiment analyzed in the original EIS. The central component of the action was and still is the removal of barred owls from treatment areas. The permits help the removal of barred owls. Though FWS stated that the permits would allow the experiment to proceed in the most efficient and complete manner, the experiment would still be possible without access to any non-federal lands. We thus agree with FWS that the permits were an ancillary aspect of the experiment and constitute a “minor variation.” See Russell, 668 F.3d at 1048–49 (holding supplementation not required where variation is a “secondary rather than primary” aspect of the action). Additionally, the permits and Safe Harbor Agreements were clearly “within the spectrum of alternatives” discussed in the 2013 EIS. Id. at 1048. In the original EIS, FWS stated that “[w]here possible, we would seek cooperation from nonfederal landowners,” although “nonfederal lands would be included in the active experiment only if the landowners are willing.” Thus, the EIS adequately contemplated FWS’ 26 FRIENDS OF ANIMALS V. USFWS later issuance of the permits. And because issuance of the permits ultimately depended on the cooperation of nonfederal parties, it “would be incongruous” with NEPA to conclude FWS was without power to proceed with the experiment until such specifics of the Safe Harbor Agreements were fully fleshed out and assessed in a Supplemental EIS. Cf. Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 352–53 (1989). We are also satisfied that FWS conducted the required “hard look” review in determining that the permits were not environmentally significant. See Cal. ex rel. Imperial Cty. Air Pollution Control Dist. v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, 767 F.3d 781, 792 (9th Cir. 2014). FWS conducted an EA for each permit. Each EA determined the authorized incidental take of northern spotted owls was likely to be small because it would only occur if spotted owls repopulated non-baseline sites after barred owls were removed. In other words, spotted owls would be taken only if the experiment managed to increase the spotted owl’s population and range. And FWS concluded that such gains would be temporary, as barred owls would resume displacing the spotted owls after the experiment. In FWS’ opinion, the environmental effects of the experiment were the same with or without the permits. A Supplemental EIS is not required.
analyzed in a single EIS because they are not “connected actions.” An agency must discuss “connected actions” in a single EIS. 40 C.F.R. § 1501.9(e)(1). Friends claims that the broader experiment and the permits were “connected actions.” As Friends sees it, each permit and SHA depends on the experiment’s informational benefit to satisfy the “net conservation benefit” requirement. Friends thus claims that FRIENDS OF ANIMALS V. USFWS 27 FWS erred in analyzing the experiment separately from the permits and addressing each permit in isolation from the other permits. Actions are connected if they “[c]annot or will not proceed unless other actions are taken previously or simultaneously” or are “interdependent parts of a larger action and depend on the larger action for their justification.” Id. In applying § 1501.9(e)(1), we employ an “independent utility” test. Great Basin Mine Watch v. Hankins, 456 F.3d 955, 969 (9th Cir. 2006). “When one of the projects might reasonably have been completed without the existence of the other, the two projects have independent utility and are not ‘connected’ for NEPA’s purposes.” Id. (citation omitted). The permits are not “connected” to the broader experiment because the experiment would proceed without the permits. Friends claims that each permit’s legality depends on the experiment. But access to any of the nonfederal lands (let alone all of them) was not considered necessary by FWS to complete the experiment. While failure to gain access to non-federal lands could delay the result of the experiment, it would not altogether inhibit it. Put another way, “one of the projects”—the barred owl removal experiment—would be completed without the other, meaning the experiment and the permits have “independent utility” and are not “connected.” Id. (emphasis added). The permits are also not “connected” to each other. Each permit has “independent utility” because the issuance of one permit did not depend on the issuance of any other permit. The EIS stated that each permit depended on “cooperation from nonfederal landowners” and “nonfederal lands would be included in the active experiment only if the landowners are willing.” FWS issued the permits individually to each 28 FRIENDS OF ANIMALS V. USFWS landowner, and irrespective of whether the other permits would issue, so the permits are not “connected.” Id. Because the permits and the experiment were not “connected actions,” FWS did not have to assess their environmental impacts together in a single document. 8