Opinion ID: 3038137
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Analysis of Mitigating Measures

Text: Plaintiffs also argue that the EIS did not describe and discuss mitigating measures as required by NEPA. According to the plaintiffs, the EIS listed general mitigation measures and did not analyze the effectiveness of each measure. Plaintiffs argue that BLM’s development of lease stipulations and Required Operating Procedures (“ROP”) intended to reduce the environmental impact of the NWPA oil program did not constitute a sufficient discussion of mitigation. [10] NEPA requires only that an EIS contain “a reasonably complete discussion of possible mitigation measures.” Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Counsel, 490 U.S. 332, 352, 109 S.Ct. 1835 (1989). The mitigation must “be discussed in sufficient detail to ensure that environmental consequences have been fairly evaluated.” City of Carmel-By-The-Sea v. U.S. Dept. of Transp., 123 F.3d at 1142, 1154 (9th Cir. 1997). In other words, an EIS must include “[m]eans to mitigate adverse environmental impacts.” 40 C.F.R. § 1502.16(h). NEPA does not require an agency to formulate and adopt a complete mitigation plan. Methow Valley, 490 U.S. at 352, 109 S.Ct. 1835. In Okanogan Highlands Alliance v. Williams, 236 F.3d 468, 476 (9th Cir. 2000), we held that even though the EIS described the mitigating measures in general terms and relied on general processes, the agency took the requisite hard look and NEPA’s mitigation measures requirement was satisfied. We explained that “[t]he exact environmental problems that will have to be mitigated are not yet known because the Project does not exist,” but the EIS must contain a discussion of potential adverse effects and possible mitigating measures. Here, BLM developed stipulations and ROPs to avoid or minimize environmental harms from the oil program. ROPs, which are pre-application requirements, procedures, management practices, or design features, were developed and 8364 NORTHERN ALASKA ENVIRONMENTAL v. KEMPTHORNE included in the EIS to ensure future environmental protection. Specifically, the EIS provided the stipulations and ROPs for each alternative and also outlined their purpose and effectiveness with respect to various resources. According to BLM, the stipulations and ROPs are based on knowledge of the resources in the planning area and current industry standards. BLM also represented that additional protective measures may be developed as part of NEPA evaluations of subsequent permit authorizations, including exploration and development plans. [11] Because it is impossible to know which, if any, areas of the NWPA are most likely to be developed, BLM development of more specific mitigating measures cannot be required at this stage. BLM, therefore, did not act arbitrarily in providing general mitigation measures in the EIS. Id. D. Cumulative Impacts of Reasonably Foreseeable Actions Next, plaintiffs argue that the EIS failed to consider and describe the cumulative impacts of amending the Northeast Integrated Activity Plan/EIS to open previously protected areas to leasing. Here plaintiffs point to BLM’s announcement, issued six months before this FEIS, of plans to revise the Northeast EIS in a “Notice of Intent to Amend the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska Integrated Activity Plan and to Prepare an Accompanying Environmental Impact Statement, Request for Information, and Call for Nominations and Comments (“Notice of Intent”). Plaintiffs argue that an existing proposal to amend the Northeast EIS covering adjacent areas by removing specified wildlife protections is a foreseeable future action that the BLM must consider in the NWPA EIS. [12] A cumulative impact is defined as “the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions . . . .” Cuddy Mountain, 137 F.3d at NORTHERN ALASKA ENVIRONMENTAL v. KEMPTHORNE 8365 1378; 40 C.F.R. § 1508.7. NEPA requires that an FEIS consider “[c]umulative actions, which when viewed with other proposed actions have cumulatively significant impacts and should therefore be discussed in the same impact statement.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.25(a)(2). Ninth Circuit precedent defines a “reasonably foreseeable” action, for which cumulative impacts must be analyzed, to include “proposed actions.” Lands Council v. Powell, 379 F.3d 738, 746 (9th Cir. 2004) rev’d on other grounds, Lands Council v. Powell, 395 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 2005). Furthermore, we have previously held that an action is “not too speculative” when the agency issues a press release and Notice of Intent. See Tenakee Springs v. Clough, 915 F.2d 1308, 1313 (9th Cir. 1990); Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, 177 F.3d at 812. [13] The Notice of Intent in this case signifies a proposed action that will require a cumulative effects analysis. Defendants’ argument that the proposed amendment is not a reasonably foreseeable action is unpersuasive. As the district court properly explained, however, the issue is one of timing. In the Notice of Intent, the agency has in effect given notice that it will consider all impacts, cumulative and site specific, in any modification to the EIS in the Northeast Planning Area. See Salmon River Concerned Citizens v. Robertson, 32 F.3d 1346, 1357-58 (9th Cir. 1994) (“having persuaded the district court that it understands its duty to follow NEPA in reviewing future site-specific programs, judicial estoppel will preclude the Forest Service from later arguing that it has no further duty to consider the cumulative impact of site specific programs.”) (citations omitted). The cumulative impacts of leasing in the Northeast Planning Area on the NWPA will have to be addressed at a later stage. E. Endangered Species Act Violations Plaintiffs allege that the FWS and BLM failed to satisfy the ESA because the Biological Opinion (“BiOp”) prepared by the Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”) (1) fails to assess the 8366 NORTHERN ALASKA ENVIRONMENTAL v. KEMPTHORNE entire agency action, and (2) ignores the uneven distribution of two bird species: Steller’s eiders and spectacled eiders. [14] The ESA “requires the Secretary of the Interior to ensure that an action of a federal agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or endangered species.” Conner, 848 F.2d at 1451-52; see also 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2), Section 7(a)(2). The ESA sets forth a “process of consultation whereby the agency with jurisdiction over the protected species issues to the Secretary a “biological opinion evaluating the nature and extent of jeopardy posed to that species by the agency action.” Conner, 848 F.2d at 1452; See also 16 U.S.C. § 1536(b). To comply with these requirements, “each agency shall use the best scientific and commercial data available.” 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2). Here, BLM requested formal consultation with FWS because the NWPA contains two endangered species, the spectacled and Steller’s eiders. After an unsuccessful initial consultation and attempt to produce a satisfactory BiOp, BLM developed “assumptions” about oil and gas activities to assist the FWS in issuing a “no-jeopardy” determination. [15] Plaintiffs argue that the BiOp violated the ESA because it relied on improper assumptions in assessing the entire BLM action and because it ignores the fact that eiders are unevenly distributed. As discussed earlier, however, there is insufficient information about the precise location and extent of future oil and gas activities. As the district court properly held, the projections used are based on potential oil and gas activity as envisioned by this Court in Conner. 848 F.2d at 1454. The BiOp, therefore, properly relied on a reasonable and foreseeable oil development scenario, which satisfied ESA’s requirement for the agency to “make projections, based on potential locations and levels of oil and gas activity, of the impact of production on protected species.” Id. There was no violation of the ESA at this stage. If future actions differ from the BiOp assumptions, BLM must reinitiate consulta- NORTHERN ALASKA ENVIRONMENTAL v. KEMPTHORNE 8367 tion with the FWS. See 50 C.F.R. § 402.16(b). The ESA, therefore, requires environmental analysis beyond this initial stage where agency action causes an effect to listed species or critical habitat that was not considered in the BiOp. Id.