Opinion ID: 764212
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Failure to Consider an Adequate Range of Alternatives

Text: 71 We also agree with the Societies' contention that the Forest Service violated NEPA by failing to consider a range of appropriate alternatives to the proposed exchange. 72 The Societies first contend that the EIS fails to properly specify the underlying purpose and need to which the proposal is responding as required by NEPA regulations. See 40 C.F.R. § 1502 .13 (requiring a statement that shall briefly specify the underlying purpose and need to which the agency is responding in proposing the alternatives including the proposed action). 73 The EIS states that the purpose and need for the proposal is to consolidate ownership and enhance future resource conservation and management by exchanging parcels of National Forest System and Weyerhaeuser land. The Societies argue that this narrowly stated purpose fails to meet the requirements of section 1502.13 as it was interpreted in City of Carmel, where we held that [t]he stated goal of a project necessarily dictates the range of reasonable alternatives and an agency cannot define its objectives in unreasonably narrow terms. 123 F.3d at 1155. 74 While the statement of purpose contained in the EIS, taken in complete isolation, would appear too narrow to meet the standards articulated in City of Carmel, we note that the EIS expressly incorporates it within the LRMP's stated purpose of creat[ing] consolidated land ownership patterns where consistent management mandates, policies and objectives apply across large blocks of land. Because the EIS' statement of purpose makes clear that an exchange of land with Weyerhaeuser would foster the desirable consolidation of ownership of the checkerboard land holdings, it is reasonable and should be upheld. See Citizens Against Burlington v. Busey, 938 F.2d 190, 196 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 994, 112 S.Ct. 616, 116 L.Ed.2d 638 (1991) (holding that agency's stated objective should be upheld where reasonable). 75 However, in the course of evaluating the options that would best achieve the stated purpose of the proposed action, the Forest Service failed to consider an adequate range of alternatives. The EIS considered only a no action alternative along with two virtually identical alternatives. The selected alternative, Alternative 3, differed from Alternative 2 only in that it re-labeled a portion of the lands Weyerhaeuser transferred to the Forest Service a donation rather than an exchange, and added 141 acres of donated land. 76 In addressing the claims that the Forest Service erred in failing to mitigate the possible harms of the exchange, the district court concluded that there was no evidence that Weyerhaeuser would agree to plaintiffs' proposed alternative of the Forest Service purchasing the Weyerhaeuser land rather than exchanging for it and that there was no evidence that the agency failed to consider, as required by Resources Ltd., Inc. v. Robertson, 35 F.3d 1300, 1305 (9th Cir.1994), a reasonably full range of alternatives. 77 Our review of the record, reinforced by the statements of Weyerhaeuser's counsel at oral argument, compel us to reach the opposite conclusion. In this case, the Forest Service, after a process of scoping to collect the views of the public, initially considered five action alternatives and a no action alternative for the project. Three alternatives were eliminated from detailed study. Analyses were performed on the remaining two proposals and the no action plan. 78 One of the alternatives that was preliminarily eliminated from detailed study would have placed deed restrictions on the land traded to Weyerhaeuser, requiring that the lands be managed under National Forest Service standards, rather than allowing Weyerhaeuser to log the land pursuant to the less stringent standards of Washington state law. That alternative was rejected on the grounds that it would decrease Weyerhaeuser's incentive to trade. However, there is nothing in the record to demonstrate that the Forest Service even considered increasing Weyerhaeuser's incentive to trade either by offering additional acreage, subject to deed restrictions, or by decreasing the amount of Weyerhaeuser land transferred in the Exchange. 6 79 Although NEPA does not require the Forest Service to consider every possible alternative to a proposed action, nor must it consider alternatives that are unlikely to be implemented or those inconsistent with its basic policy objectives, Seattle Audubon Society v. Moseley, 80 F.3d 1401, 1404 (9th Cir.1996), we are troubled that in this case, the Forest Service failed to consider an alternative that was more consistent with its basic policy objectives than the alternatives that were the subject of final consideration. In this case, the applicable regulation controlling implementation of the Federal Land Policy Management Act, 43 U.S.C. § 1701 et seq., pursuant to which the Exchange was transacted, dictates that the agency officer authorized to conduct a land exchange shall reserve such rights or retain such interests as are needed to protect the public interest or shall otherwise restrict the use of Federal lands to be exchanged, as appropriate. 36 C.F.R. 254.3(h). A detailed consideration of a trade involving deed restrictions or other modifications to the acreage involved is in the public interest and should have been considered. 80 We also recognize that an agency's discussion of alternatives must be bounded by some notion of feasibility. See Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 551, 98 S.Ct. 1197, 55 L.Ed.2d 460 (1978). Counsel for Weyerhaeuser conceded at oral argument that the imposition of deed restrictions was a viable alternative to the Exchange Agreement of March 28, 1997. A viable but unexamined alternative renders [the] environmental impact statement inadequate. Citizens for a Better Henderson v. Hodel, 768 F.2d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir.1985). Imposition of deed restrictions was a feasible alternative that could not be ignored. 81 The plaintiffs also argue that the land could have been purchased outright with funds from the Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund. While the Forest Service itself cannot appropriate these funds, it can request them. The record reflects that such a request was never made, and indeed, this option was not even considered. 82 The appellees respond that, because it was not clear that the funds would be available for such a purchase, the Forest Service had no obligation to consider it, as it constituted a remote and speculative alternative. Vermont Yankee, 435 U.S. at 551, 98 S.Ct. 1197. However, NEPA regulations state that agencies shall include reasonable alternatives not within the jurisdiction of the lead agency. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14(c). This alternative clearly falls within the range of such reasonable alternatives, and should have been considered. We also note that in presenting the beneficial cumulative impacts of the exchange, the EIS frequently relies upon references to admittedly speculative funds that will be used by the Forest Service in restoring the forest lands that it gains through the transaction. We are troubled by this selective willingness to rely upon the availability of funding sources beyond the Forest Service's direct control. 83 The Forest Service also contends that because the purpose of the transaction was to carry out an exchange and not a purchase, it was not required to consider this alternative. Seattle Audubon Society, 80 F.3d at 1404 (holding that an agency is not required to examine alternatives inconsistent with its basic policy objectives). To the extent that Weyerhaeuser would have been exchanging its lands for federal monies rather than federal lands, we do not recognize such an inconsistency. 7 84 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. Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 350, 109 S.Ct. 1835, 104 L.Ed.2d 351 (1989). We conclude that in this case, the Forest Service failed to take the necessary hard look at the environmental impacts of the exchange and similarly failed to consider adequate alternatives to the proposed exchange.