Opinion ID: 6346804
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The EA and FONSI mark the consummation of the

Text: agency’s decision-making process The EA and FONSI conclude the agencies’ programmatic review under NEPA of allowing well stimulation treatments in the Pacific Outer Continental Shelf and reflect the agencies’ understanding that CZMA review is not required for this action. In the programmatic EA, the agencies considered four alternatives ranging from not authorizing well stimulation treatments to authorizing well stimulation treatments without restriction, and, in the FONSI, the agencies found that “the Proposed Action”— authorizing well stimulation treatments without restriction— “would not cause any significant impacts.” There is nothing preliminary or tentative about these documents, even if the agencies included a disclaimer in the EA that it is “not itself a decision document.” To be sure, the use of well stimulation treatments will not occur in practice until an individual permit application has been approved. But as the district court explained, the agencies concede that no further programmatic environmental review of these treatments will be conducted. And it is “the effect of the action and not its label that must be considered.” Or. Nat. Desert Ass’n v. U.S. Forest Serv., 465 F.3d 977, 985 (9th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted). Here, the effect of the FONSI is that it provides the agencies’ final word on the environmental impacts of the proposed action and concludes that the authorization of well stimulation treatments will not have a significant impact. This programmatic conclusion will not be revisited, so Plaintiffs here “are able to show . . . a completeness of action by the agency.” Kern, 284 F.3d at 1070. Absent the proposed action approved in the EA, no permits could be sought. EDC V. BOEM 31 We have repeatedly held that final NEPA documents are final agency actions. Friedman Bros. Inv. Co. v. Lewis, 676 F.2d 1317, 1318 (9th Cir. 1982); Te-Moak Tribe of W. Shoshone of Nev. v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 608 F.3d 592, 598 (9th Cir. 2010); Rattlesnake Coal. v. EPA, 509 F.3d 1095, 1104 (9th Cir. 2007); Hall v. Norton, 266 F.3d 969, 975, n.5 (9th Cir. 2001). We are bound by these decisions and see no reason to depart from that principle here. The NEPA review process concludes in one of two ways: (1) the agency determines through an EA that a proposed action will not have a significant impact on the environment and issues a FONSI, or (2) the agency determines that the action will have a significant impact and issues an EIS and record of decision. See 40 C.F.R. §§ 1505.2 (record of decision), 1508.13 (FONSI). Final NEPA documents constitute “final agency action” under the APA, whether they take the form of an EIS and Record of Decision or an EA and FONSI, because they culminate the agencies’ environmental review process. We reject the agencies’ claim that the EA and FONSI are merely their “first, preliminary steps toward making a decision about the use of well stimulation treatments in the federal waters off the California coast,” particularly in the context of this litigation, where 51 permits authorizing well stimulation treatments were approved without environmental review. There is no argument or evidence that these 51 already-approved permits will be revisited, especially after the agencies approved unrestricted use of well stimulated treatments in the EA and FONSI. It would make no sense to have a full environmental impact evaluation on one permit or multiple individual permits without considering the total environmental impact of the full picture. Environmental law does not require a court to 32 EDC V. BOEM miss the forest for the trees. The agencies’ programmatic approval is not insulated from judicial review. The FONSI and programmatic EA satisfy the first prong of the Bennett test because they are the final step in the agencies’ programmatic review under NEPA and reflect the agencies’ determination that review under the CZMA is not warranted. 2. The EA and FONSI determine rights and obligations and are actions from which legal consequences will flow The programmatic EA and ensuing FONSI also satisfy the second prong of the Bennett test for final agency actions. By finding that well stimulation treatments have no significant environmental impact, the agencies have allowed the permitting process for these treatments to proceed. This return to the pre-settlement status quo and lifting of the moratorium on well stimulation treatments in the Pacific Outer Continental Shelf strongly affects the legal rights of oil companies, as demonstrated by Intervenors’ involvement in this suit and DCOR’s request for reconsideration of the judgment to allow the agencies to act on its pending applications. Also, the rights of Plaintiffs to further environmental review, and the obligation of the agencies to prepare a full EIS, are fully and finally determined by the FONSI and are not subject to any further administrative procedure. Legal consequences flow from the FONSI insofar as oil companies do not need to abide by any depth, discharge, or frequency limitations in their permit applications because the agencies have not imposed any such limitations on permit applications. In fact, the FONSI green lights the unrestricted use of well stimulation treatments, with no cautionary limitations. EDC V. BOEM 33 The agencies urge us to look for a decision document outlining a binding plan that is separate from final NEPA documents for agency action to be “final,” but they concede that their programmatic review of well stimulation treatments offshore California is complete. In fact, the agencies describe their “work left to do” as only reviewing and approving individual, site-specific permits. The conclusion of the programmatic environmental review of offshore well stimulation treatments determines rights, obligations, and legal consequences. The EA and FONSI meet the Bennett test for “final agency action,” and we have subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims.