Opinion ID: 793549
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Consideration of NEPA alternatives

Text: 43 UEC next contends that the Forest Service acted arbitrarily when the Project's EA formally considered only two alternatives: a no-action alternative and the modified proposed action. Under NEPA, federal agencies prepare an EIS when they propose a major Federal action[] significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(c). Agencies need not prepare a full EIS, however, if they initially prepare the less detailed [EA] and, based on the EA, issue a [FONSI], concluding that the proposed action will not significantly affect the environment. Pennaco Energy, Inc. v. Dep't of Interior, 377 F.3d 1147, 1150 (10th Cir.2004) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also 40 C.F.R. §§ 1501.4, 1508.9. A properly drafted EA must include a discussion of appropriate alternatives to the proposed project. Davis v. Mineta, 302 F.3d 1104, 1120 (10th Cir.2002). 44 We review the Forest Service's actions only to insure that the agency has taken a `hard look' at environmental consequences. Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390, 410 n. 21, 96 S.Ct. 2718, 49 L.Ed.2d 576 (1976). In deciding whether the [agency] acted arbitrarily by not considering certain alternatives, we remain mindful that an agency decision concerning which alternatives to consider is necessarily bound by a rule of reason and practicality. Airport Neighbors Alliance, Inc. v. United States, 90 F.3d 426, 432 (10th Cir. 1996). [A]n agency need not analyze the environmental consequences of alternatives it has in good faith rejected as too remote, speculative, . . . impractical or ineffective. Id. While it is true that defendants could reject alternatives that did not meet the purpose and need of the project, they could not define the project so narrowly that it foreclosed a reasonable consideration of alternatives. Davis, 302 F.3d at 1119 (internal quotation marks omitted). 45 The Project was designed to improve or maintain habitat conditions in order to promote long-term ecosystem health for the benefit of people, wildlife, and fish. 1 AR 000136 (Decision Notice and FONSI). The primary objective is to reduce densities of aspen and spruce stands that are at most risk of spruce beetle infestation, while maintaining a forested appearance. Under the secondary objective, the Project will supply local resource-dependent enterprises with raw materials in an economically feasible manner. Id. 46 UEC argues that the Forest Service violated NEPA by defining the project's objectives so narrowly that the only possible alternatives were the proposed project or no action. It also contends that the Forest Service could have addressed the spruce beetle infestation in non-commercial ways and considered alternatives that did not revalidate roadless areas. According to the Forest Service, a non-commercial alternative would achieve neither project objective. Given the Project's dual objectives and the agency's discretion to chose those objectives, see Airport Neighbors Alliance, 90 F.3d at 432, the Forest Service examined a reasonable range of alternatives and did not act arbitrarily when it considered only the no-action alternative and the modified proposed action.