Opinion ID: 2973913
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: NEPA’s Requirement

Text: Apart from its argument that our decision in Northwoods forbade additional selective harvesting without a new Impact Statement even where the acreage was below the harvest already approved, Heartwood says that NEPA itself also directly proscribes the Forest Service’s actions. Heartwood argues that NEPA demands additional impact analysis before the Forest Service carries out the proposed harvesting plan. As discussed above, NEPA requires that any agency contemplating a “major Federal action[] significantly affecting the quality of the human environment” conduct a detailed analysis of the proposed action’s environmental effects using an Impact Statement. 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C). If, after the original Impact Statement has been completed, “significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts” arise, the agency must issue a Supplemental Impact Statement. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.9(c)(1)(ii). When new circumstances arise suggesting that a Supplemental Impact Statement might be necessary, the agency conducts a Supplemental Information Report. See Friends of the Clearwater v. Dombeck, -11- No. 05-1417 Northwoods Wilderness Recovery, Inc. v. United States Dep’t of Agric. Forest Serv. 222 F.3d 552, 555 (9th Cir. 2000). To satisfy NEPA, this report must take a “hard look” at whether the new circumstances will significantly differ from those that the original Impact Statement discussed. Marsh v. Oregon Natural Res. Council, 490 U.S. 360, 374 (1989). Heartwood contends that NEPA required the Forest Service to undertake an additional environmental impact study. Specifically, Heartwood argues that the Forest Service was obligated to prepare a Supplemental Impact Statement. Heartwood also says that the Forest Service must have submitted whatever action it took to public scrutiny. In essence, it says that the Supplemental Information Report wrongly concluded that the excess harvesting had no effect and that the Forest Service erred because it failed to take the necessary “hard look,” see Marsh, 490 U.S. at 374, that NEPA requires. A bona fide “hard look,” it argues, would have concluded that the excess harvesting did have an effect, thereby triggering a Supplemental Impact Statement. We disagree. In conducting the Monitoring and Evaluation Report and issuing the Supplemental Information Report, the Forest Service satisfied its obligations under the APA and NEPA. Thus, its action was not arbitrary and capricious. In its Supplemental Information Report, the Forest Service concluded that the first decade’s excessive harvest “did not have unforeseen impacts to the environment” (R. 41, J.A. 83A) and therefore that a Supplemental Impact Statement was unnecessary. In so doing, the Supplemental Information Report incorporated the in-depth analysis contained in the Monitoring and Evaluation Report, a study that examined the effect of the first decade’s harvesting on Ottawa National Forest natural resources such as wildlife, soil, and water. Specifically, the Monitoring and Evaluation Report examined the excessive harvesting’s -12- No. 05-1417 Northwoods Wilderness Recovery, Inc. v. United States Dep’t of Agric. Forest Serv. effect on various fauna such as threatened and endangered species and so-called “Management Indicator Species.”7 The Supplemental Information Report determined that “[t]he types and levels of harvest that have been emphasized, even though at an increased rate during the 1st decade of Plan implementation, will serve to improve habitats for many species on the forest.” (R.41, J.A. 152.) For example, during the relevant period, the gray wolf population improved from an “endangered” to a “threatened” classification. (R. 41, J.A. 95.) Other species that the increased logging either did not affect or benefitted include the whitetail deer, northern goshawk, black bear, barred owl, American bittern, and ruffed grouse. (R. 41, J.A. 95-126.) In total, the eighty-seven page study examined how the harvesting had affected the forest’s soil and water, at least nineteen key animal species, and several forms of rare plants, vegetation, trees, and other flora. Heartwood offers no evidence suggesting that the study was somehow biased, methodologically flawed, or otherwise deficient, and our review has found no such defect.8 As a result, the agency’s decision that no Supplemental Impact Statement was required was not arbitrary and capricious. Heartwood cannot point to evidence showing that the Forest Service “relied on factors which Congress has not intended it to consider.” See Henry Ford Health Sys. v. Shalala, 233 F.3d 907, 911 (6th Cir. 2000). Neither can it show that the Forest Service either 7 Management Indicator Species are various plants and animals that the Forest Service monitors to gauge the effects of forest management on the forest’s wildlife generally. (R. 41, J.A. 102.) 8 While we find that this study was adequate, we must emphasize that the mere publication of a document, per se, is insufficient to satisfy NEPA. We find for the Forest Service because, after reviewing the relevant documents, we conclude that the documents reflect an analysis that is sufficiently thorough to constitute NEPA’s requisite “hard look.” If, hypothetically, a document purporting to make the requisite considerations in fact neglected to examine critical factors or was shoddily prepared, it could fail to meet NEPA’s requirements. -13- No. 05-1417 Northwoods Wilderness Recovery, Inc. v. United States Dep’t of Agric. Forest Serv. “entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem” or “offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency.” See id. Finally, the agency’s conclusion is clearly not “so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise.” See id. Absent such evidence, the Court must presume that the agency’s actions complied with the law. Volpe, 401 U.S. at 415-17. Finally, the statutes do not require public comment on the Supplemental Information Report. See Friends of the Clearwater v. Dombeck, 222 F.3d at 559-60 (“Although NEPA requires agencies to allow the public to participate in the preparation of [a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement], there is no such requirement for the decision whether to prepare [the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement].”). The Forest Service met its obligations under the law by not acting arbitrarily and capriciously in preparing the Supplemental Information Report. It was not obligated to offer that report or any other document for public comment.