Opinion ID: 615771
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Text: Wyoming next claims that the Forest Service violated NEPA when it failed to prepare a supplemental EIS after making changes to the rule in the FEIS and the final rule. The district court, agreeing with Wyoming and CMA, held that the Forest Service violated NEPA when it made four substantial changes between the draft EIS and the final EIS and did not prepare a supplemental EIS. Wyoming, 570 F.Supp.2d at 1344. These four substantial changes include: (1) eliminating the procedural aspects of the rule by incorporating those procedures in the Planning Regulations; (2) broaden[ing] the scope of the Roadless Rule to include areas with classified roads within [IRAs]that is, making the rule applicable to roaded as well as unroaded portions of IRAs covered by the rule; (3) identif[ying] an additional 4.2 million acres of roadless areas that would be subject to the Roadless Rule; and (4) making a change to the type of timber harvesting that would be allowed; specifically, . . . limit[ing] the `stewardship exception' in the final Roadless Rule to harvesting only `small diameter timber.' Id. On appeal, the Forest Service and the Environmental Groups argue that these changes were not substantial changes to the proposed actions, and therefore, those changes did not trigger a duty under NEPA to prepare a supplemental DEIS or FEIS. We agree that a supplemental EIS was not required. An agency is required to prepare a supplemental DEIS or FEIS if: (1) [t]he agency makes substantial changes in the proposed action that are relevant to environmental concerns, or (2) [t]here 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)(i)-(ii). The duty to prepare a supplemental EIS is based on the need to facilitate informed decisionmaking. S. Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Norton, 301 F.3d 1217, 1238 (10th Cir.2002), rev'd on other grounds and remanded, 542 U.S. 55, 124 S.Ct. 2373, 159 L.Ed.2d 137 (2004). Of course, every change [to a proposed action] however minor will not necessitate a new substantive analysis and repetition of the EIS process. To make such a requirement would lead agencies into Xeno's paradox, always being halfway to the end of the process but never quite there. New Mexico ex rel. Richardson, 565 F.3d at 708. Therefore, a supplemental EIS is required only if the new information or changes made to the proposed action will affect the quality of the human environment in a significant manner or to a significant extent not already considered. Friends of Marolt Park v. U.S. Dept. of Transp., 382 F.3d 1088, 1096 (10th Cir. 2004) (quoting Marsh v. Or. Natural Res. Council, 490 U.S. 360, 374, 109 S.Ct. 1851, 104 L.Ed.2d 377 (1989)) (internal quotation marks omitted). As to the latter point, even if a change made will have a significant environmental impact, the failure to issue a supplemental EIS is not arbitrary or capricious [if] the relevant environmental impacts have already been considered during the NEPA process. Id. at 1097. Furthermore, an agency is generally entitled to deference when it determines that new information or a change made to the proposed action does not warrant preparation of a supplemental EIS. See Marsh, 490 U.S. at 375-77, 109 S.Ct. 1851 (stating that because an agency's decision whether to prepare a supplemental EIS requires substantial agency expertise, courts must defer to the agency's informed discretion); see also Holy Cross Wilderness Fund v. Madigan, 960 F.2d 1515, 1524 (10th Cir.1992). In this instance, we agree that the Forest Service was not required to prepare a supplemental EIS, and accordingly hold that the district court erred in concluding otherwise. First, the Forest Service did not make a substantial change when it shifted the procedural component of the proposed Roadless Rule to the 2000 Planning Regulations. See FEIS at xi (stating that [t]he procedural alternatives described in the DEIS have been removed from the FEIS because of the decision to incorporate the procedures in the final Planning Regulations). The Forest Service initially analyzed the proposed procedural aspect, as well as the no action; no procedures alternative to the proposed procedures, in the DEIS. See DEIS at S-23, 2-6 to 2-10, 3-223 to 3-225. Thereafter, the Forest Service did not discard those procedures, but instead moved the procedures to the 2000 Planning Regulations. In the FEIS, the Forest Service explained the reasoning behind this change, stating: Public comments on the proposed Planning Regulations and Agency comments on the DEIS [for the Roadless Rule] also suggested that the procedures for roadless area protection were best suited for the Planning Regulations. Upon review, most of the roadless area characteristics identified in the DEIS and proposed Roadless Rule were similarly required by the Planning Regulations. Therefore, the Forest Service determined that the procedures contemplated in the Roadless Rule should be an explicit part of the plan revision process, and addressed them at [§] 36 CFR 219.9(b)(8) of the final Planning Regulations. FEIS at 1-16; see also id. at 1-10 (Since the close of the DEIS comment period . . . , the Agency determined [the procedural] requirements were more appropriately addressed in the [§] 36 CFR 219 Planning Regulations. Comments received on the DEIS about the procedures were shared with the Planning Regulations team, and were incorporated into that rulemaking.). After making this shift, the Forest Service fully analyzed the effects of the procedural aspects in the 2000 Planning Regulations. See, e.g., National Forest System Land and Resource Management Planning Regulations; Final Rule, 65 Fed.Reg. 67, 514, 67,514-81 (Nov. 9, 2000). Furthermore, the Forest Service addressed the impact of this shift as part of the cumulative-impacts analysis in the FEIS, which revealed that the shift was not substantial in terms of the environmental concerns of the proposed action. See supra Part II.C.5 (discussing the sufficiency of the Forest Service's analysis of the cumulative impacts of, inter alia, the 2000 Planning Regulations and the Roadless Rule). Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the Forest Service acted arbitrarily and capriciously in failing to prepare a supplemental EIS after making this change, because shifting the procedural aspect of the proposed Roadless Rule to the 2000 Planning Regulations was not a substantial change[] in the proposed action that [is] relevant to environmental concerns. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.9(c)(1)(i). [35] Second, the Forest Service was not required to prepare a supplemental EIS when it made the Roadless Rule's prohibitions applicable to roaded portions, in addition to unroaded portions, of IRAs. As initially proposed, the prohibitions in the Roadless Rule were not intended to apply to the 2.8 millions acres of IRAs on which roads had been constructed. See DEIS at S-4 (stating that of the 54.3 million acres of IRAs, roads have been constructed in approximately 2.8 million acres. . . . The remaining 51.5 million acres make up the `unroaded portions of [IRAs]' discussed in the proposed rule). In the FEIS, the Forest Service abandoned the distinction between roaded and unroaded IRAs, making the rule appl[icable] to the entire area within the boundaries of the [IRAs], including portions that contain existing roads. FEIS at 2-5. The Forest Service indicated that this change was made in response to [p]ublic comments indicat[ing] that this [roaded versus unroaded] concept was confusing and would be difficult to apply and administer consistently. Id. at 2-5 n. 3. After making this change, however, the Forest Service explained that [t]he effects analysis in the DEIS was actually based on application of the prohibitions to entire [IRAs], since data was not specific to roaded or unroaded portions. Therefore, both the concept and the definition of `unroaded portion' were deleted from the alternatives and analysis in this FEIS. Id. In other words, even though the proposed rule was initially only intended to apply to unroaded portions of IRAs, the DEIS analyzed the environmental effects and consequences of the rule as it applied to both roaded and unroaded areas. Therefore, the Forest Service had already considered the environmental effects of this change in the DEIS. As stated above, we have held that even when an agency makes a substantial change, the failure to issue a supplemental EIS is not arbitrary or capricious [if] the relevant environmental impacts [of that change] have already been considered during the NEPA process. Friends of Marolt Park, 382 F.3d at 1096; see also Marsh, 490 U.S. at 374, 109 S.Ct. 1851 (noting that a supplemental EIS is only required where the impacts of new information or change have not already been considered by the agency); New Mexico ex rel. Richardson, 565 F.3d at 705 (When the relevant environmental impacts [of a change to the proposed action] have already been considered earlier in the NEPA process, no supplement is required. (quoting Friends of Marolt Park, 382 F.3d at 1096-97) (internal quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly, because the Forest Service had already considered the environmental effects of applying the Roadless Rule to both roaded and unroaded IRAs in the DEIS, it did not act arbitrarily and capriciously when it refrained from preparing a supplemental EIS after that change was made in the FEIS. Third, the Forest Service was not required to prepare a supplemental EIS when it revised the relevant maps to include an additional 4.2 million acres in the IRAs subject to the Rule. Guided by prescriptions of the Council on Environmental Quality, we have stated that a new or different alternative does not require preparation of a supplemental EIS evaluating such a change when the new alternative is `qualitatively within the spectrum of alternatives that were discussed in the [DEIS].' New Mexico ex rel. Richardson, 565 F.3d at 705 (quoting Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's National Environmental Policy Act Regulations, 46 Fed.Reg. 18,026, 18,035 (Mar. 17, 1981) [hereinafter Forty Questions]); see also In re Operation of Mo. River Sys. Litig., 516 F.3d 688, 693 (8th Cir.2008) (A substantial change that requires an SEIS under 40 C.F.R. § 1502.9(c)(1)(i) is one that is not `qualitatively within the spectrum of alternatives that were discussed' in a prior FEIS. (emphasis omitted) (quoting Dubois v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 102 F.3d 1273, 1292 (1st Cir.1996))); Dubois, 102 F.3d at 1292 (stating that an additional alternative that has not been disseminated previously in a draft EIS may be adopted in a final EIS, without further public comment, only if it is `qualitatively within the spectrum of alternatives that were discussed' in the prior draft; otherwise a supplemental draft is needed (quoting Forty Questions, 46 Fed.Reg. at 18,035)). In the Forty Questions guidance document, which we have previously relied upon, [36] the CEQ explains when a modified alternative addressed in the FEIS, but not addressed in the DEIS, would be considered qualitatively within the spectrum of alternatives that were discussed in the draft: If it is qualitatively within the spectrum of alternatives that were discussed in the draft, a supplemental draft will not be needed. For example, a commentor on a draft EIS to designate a wilderness area within a National Forest might reasonably identify a specific tract of the forest, and urge that it be considered for designation. If the draft EIS considered designation of a range of alternative tracts which encompassed forest area of similar quality and quantity, no supplemental EIS would have to be prepared. The agency could fulfill its obligation by addressing that specific alternative in the final EIS. Forty Questions, 46 Fed.Reg. at 18,035 (emphasis added). This is analogous to the situation currently at issue. In the DEIS, the prohibitions in the preferred alternative were applicable to 54.3 million acres of IRAs, totaling 28% of the NFS. See, e.g., DEIS at A-3, A-4 tbl.1, 2-3. The Forest Service indicated in the proposed rule that [p]rior to finalizing this proposed rule, map adjustments may be made for forests and grasslands currently undergoing assessments or land and resource management plan revisions, thereby increasing or decreasing the total acreage of IRAs affected. 65 Fed.Reg. at 30,279 (proposed § 294.11). The Forest Serviceafter making these map adjustmentsincreased the total inventoried roadless area acreage . . . from 54.3 million acres in the DEIS to 58.5 million acres in the FEIS. FEIS at 2-23; see also id. at 1-1 n. 2 (stating that the [58.5 million-acre] figure has been revised from the 54.3 million acres shown in the DEIS). These additional areas identified in the FEIS embody the same characteristics as those areas identified in the DEISnamely, pristine roadless areas of the NFS, generally 5,000 acres or larger in size, that, for example, support a diversity of aquatic and terrestrial habitats, FEIS at 1-1, 1-4; provide large, relatively undisturbed blocks of habitat for a wide variety of native plants and threatened, endangered, proposed, . . . [and] sensitive species, id. at 1-1, 1-4; and provide people with unique recreation activities, id. at 1-4. In other words, the additional IRAs identified in the FEIS can be reasonably characterized as forest area[s] of similar quality and quantity as those areas identified in the DEIS. Forty Questions, 46 Fed. Reg. at 18,035. Therefore, because of the similarities between the previously identified IRAs and the newly identified IRAs, the Forest Service did not need to prepare a supplemental EIS addressing these additional areas, but could instead address the change in the FEIS. Id. This is precisely what the Forest Service did through the FEIS viz., it addressed the environmental impacts of the Roadless Rule as it applied to all 58.5 million acres of IRAs. See, e.g., FEIS at 2-23 (stating that it had updated the information contained in environmental analysis to reflect the increased acreage); id. at 3-2 (The [IRAs] analyzed in this FEIS encompass 58.5 million acres in 120 national forests located in 38 States and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.). Accordingly, we conclude that the Forest Service was not required to prepare a supplemental EIS after increasing the acreage subject to the proposed rule. Lastly, the Forest Service did not make a substantial change to the proposed stewardship exception to the timber-harvesting prohibition by limiting that exception in the final Roadless Rule to harvesting generally small diameter timber. 66 Fed.Reg. at 3273 (to be codified at 36 C.F.R. § 294.13(b)(1)). [37] The timber-harvesting prohibition and stewardship exception were presented and analyzed in the DEIS and FEIS under Alternative 3. See DEIS at 2-4; FEIS at 2-7. In analyzing Alternative 3, the Forest Service did not propose specific language for the stewardship exceptioni.e., permitting only harvesting of small diameter treesbut instead explained the objective of the exception as permitting the achievement of ecological objectives, other than timber harvest, that may require vegetative manipulation such as improving forest ecosystem health, removing non-native species and replacing with native species, and improving wildlife habitat, such as thinning overly dense stands of trees to allow fire to be safely reintroduced into the ecosystem. DEIS at 2-5; see FEIS at 2-7. In the DEIS and FEIS analysis, the Forest Service indicated the ecological objectives furthered by the stewardship exception, such as improving forest health and reduction of fire hazard, were commonly achieved through the removal of small diameter trees. Compare DEIS at 3-21 (stating that many forest areas now have dense stands of small diameter trees and shrubs, and therefore hav[e] a relatively lower degree of ecosystem health and may be vulnerable to catastrophic stand replacing wildland fires), with FEIS at 3-121 (stating that under the forest-health-treatment activities permitted under Alternative 3, [l]ess work would be done using timber sale contracts because the smaller-diameter, lower-value trees would likely result in fewer economically viable timber sales). [38] Therefore, the Forest Service was not required to prepare a supplemental EIS in response to this change in the language of the stewardship exception because it had already analyzed the effects of the exception, as that exception was adopted in the final rule. See Friends of Marolt Park, 382 F.3d at 1097 (holding that a supplemental EIS is not required if the relevant environmental impacts have already been considered during the NEPA process). Furthermore, because it is evident in the DEIS that the Forest Service analyzed the stewardship exception in terms of removal of generally small diameter trees, this is undoubtedly an instance where a supplement was not necessary because the adopted alternative was `qualitatively within the spectrum of alternatives that were discussed in the [DEIS],' and, at most, was only a `minor variation' from those alternatives. New Mexico ex rel. Richardson, 565 F.3d at 705 (quoting Forty Questions, 46 Fed.Reg. at 18,035); see also Operation of Miss. River Sys. Litig., 516 F.3d at 693; Dubois, 102 F.3d at 1292. The district court erred in finding that this change mandated a supplemental EIS. In sum, we conclude that the changes made to the proposed action did not trigger a duty to prepare a supplemental EIS, either individually or collectively. The district court's conclusion to the contrary was erroneous. [39]