Opinion ID: 720609
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The NEPA and NFMA Claims

Text: 16 ISC claims that the Forest Service failed to comply with NEPA's requirement that all information provided in NEPA documents be complete and accurate, 40 C.F.R. §§ 1502.16, 1502.24; it further maintains that the Service violated NFMA by failing to monitor adequately indicator, sensitive, and threatened and endangered species. 36 C.F.R. § 219.19(a)(6). We reject both of these contentions.

17 NEPA is a procedural statute. Its purpose is to ensure informed agency action. Oregon Envt'l Council v. Kunzman, 817 F.2d 484, 492 (9th Cir.1987). Accordingly, it requires only that the agency take a hard look at its decision, and not that environmental concerns trump all others. Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 353, 109 S.Ct. 1835, 1847-48, 104 L.Ed.2d 351 (1989) (holding that NEPA requires neither that actions be taken to mitigate adverse effects of federal actions, nor that an EIS include an explanation of what measures will be employed to mitigate adverse environmental impacts). 18 ISC provides little support for its claim that information contained in the EISs is inaccurate. Moreover, while a number of its allegations about the accuracy of specific points in the EIS are belied by the record, this court need not fly-speck the document and hold it insufficient on the basis of inconsequential, technical deficiencies, but will instead employ a rule of reason to determine whether it contains a reasonably thorough discussion of the significant aspects of the probable environmental consequences. Oregon Envt'l Council, 817 F.2d at 492 (citations omitted). In this matter, it is clear that the Forest Service took the required hard look at the environmental consequences of the proposed timber harvests and sales. The Service examined the effect that the actions would have on the chinook salmon and determined that it was unlikely that the fish would be adversely affected, a finding in which the NMFS concurred. The Service also examined the effect of the proposed harvests and sales upon threatened, endangered and sensitive species. Both the Cove and Mallard EISs broadly describe the environments that would be affected by the proposed actions, and further include a comprehensive discussion of the impacts of the actions on recreational activities, visual quality, cultural resources, wilderness, and wildlife. In addition, both the EISs consider the cumulative impacts of the proposed activities, including the effects upon each of the two areas of the road construction and timber harvests occurring in the watersheds of the other. Cf. Oregon Natural Resources Council v. Marsh, 52 F.3d 1485 (9th Cir.1995) (holding that the Army Corps of Engineers violated NEPA by narrowly limiting scope of discussion of cumulative impacts). 19 Furthermore, the Forest Service discussed the impact of the projects on roads, trails, trailheads, fishing, hunting, commercial outfitting services, and snowmobile and off-highway wheeled vehicles. The consequences for sensitive species were also examined, as were those for big game indicator species such as the Rocky Mountain elk. The EISs also include analyses of old-growth and snag-dependent species and habitat, and consider the risk of mass wasting (landslide) that is posed by the timber harvest. 20 We are not prepared to hold that this fairly exhaustive discussion is inadequate, and we reject ISC's claims on this point. 21
22 NEPA requires that a Supplemental EIS (SEIS) be prepared when there are significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.9(c)(1)(ii). ISC maintains that the listing of the spring/summer and fall chinook salmon as a threatened species constitutes a new circumstance, and that a SEIS was thus required. 23 As the government notes, however, the new listing changed the legal status of the salmon, but it did not change the biological status. Forest Conservation Council v. Espy, 835 F.Supp. 1202, 1216 (D.Idaho 1993), aff'd, 42 F.3d 1399 (9th Cir.1994). The Forest Service previously determined that it was unlikely that the proposed actions would have a negative impact on the salmon; as this finding was not premised on the salmon's non-threatened status, the determination that the salmon were in fact threatened did not constitute new information that would show that the timber harvests and sales were likely to  'affec[t] the quality of the ... environment' in a significant manner or to a significant extent not already considered. Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council, 490 U.S. 360, 374, 109 S.Ct. 1851, 1859, 104 L.Ed.2d 377 (1989) (citations omitted). Thus, we hold that the determination by the NMFS that the spring/summer and fall chinook salmon were a threatened species was not a significant new circumstance[ ] that would require a SEIS.
24 ISC claims that the Forest Service failed to comply with NFMA's requirement that species in the areas affected by the proposed activities be monitored adequately. 36 C.F.R. § 219.19(a)(6). Once again, ISC provides little support for its allegations. Animal species and habitat in the analysis areas are being monitored through the use of fish analyses and surveys, elk summer habitat analyses, watershed monitoring, and threatened and endangered species surveys. The Forest Plan also requires fish and water quality monitoring and the observation of fish habitat trends, population trends of indicator wildlife and fish species, and analyses of the impacts of the proposed activities on soils and water quality. Moreover, the impacts of the proposed sales on salmon and other threatened, endangered, and sensitive species and their habitat are also discussed. There is little in the record to support ISC's claims that the monitoring plans were inadequate. 25 Accordingly, ISC's NEPA and NFMA challenges must be rejected; moreover, to the extent that ISC bases those challenges on the Forest Service's failure to comply with Forest Service Manual requirements, we note that those requirements do not have the independent force and effect of law. Western Radio Services Co. v. Espy, 79 F.3d 896, 901 (9th Cir.1996). Thus, we affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment on the NEPA and NFMA claims. 26 II. Dismissal of the Clean Water Act Claim and Denial of the Motion to Amend 27 While ISC's original complaint did discuss the Forest Service's alleged violation of state water quality standards, we think that the district court's dismissal of the claim was appropriate, as nowhere in that claim did ISC discuss the Administrative Procedure Act, the statute which would entitle ISC to relief from the government's alleged violation of state water quality standards. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a) (A pleading which sets forth a claim for relief ... shall contain ... a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.) 28 Moreover, because of ISC's inexplicably late filing of its motion to amend, we find that the district court's denial of the motion was proper. After ISC filed its initial complaint, the Forest Service invited ISC to amend its complaint to state a claim under the Administrative Procedure Act. However, it was not until six weeks after the claims were dismissed, and four days after dispositive motions were due, that ISC did so. 29 In Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227, 230, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962), the Supreme Court held that [i]f the underlying facts or circumstances relied upon by a plaintiff may be a proper subject of relief, he ought to be afforded an opportunity to test his claim on the merits [only] [i]n the absence of ... undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive, ... repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendment previously allowed, [or] undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment. Id. at 182, 83 S.Ct. at 230. The proposed amendment is certainly marred by the first factor, as ISC previously had an opportunity to timely amend its complaint and it failed to do so. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's denial of leave to amend.