Opinion ID: 3038137
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Site Specific Analysis

Text: [2] With respect to the need for site specific analysis in the EIS, our law under NEPA makes it clear that there must be such analysis whenever there is an “irretrievable commitment of resources” by a federal agency to a project. See Conner v. Burford, 848 F.2d 1441 (9th Cir. 1988). There is no question here that approval of the leasing program represents an irretrievable commitment of resources. The issue is whether it was sufficiently site specific. Plaintiffs’ major contention is that “site specific” in this context requires an analysis of the environmental effect with respect to each parcel involved in a possible lease for exploration and development. The problem is that until the lessees do exploratory work, the government cannot know what sites will be deemed most suitable for exploratory drilling, much less for development. We are left with a “chicken or egg” conundrum in that if plaintiffs’ interpretation of its requirements were adopted, NEPA could never be satisfied in the circumstances of this case. [3] Our task, however, is to give effect to Congressional intent as expressed not only in NEPA, but also in the 1976 and 1980 enactments relating to the Alaska Reserve. The government’s resolution of the problem of how to give appropriate effect to all the relevant statutes in this case was to consider hypothetical situations that represented the spectrum of foreseeable results, once all phases of the program were 8358 NORTHERN ALASKA ENVIRONMENTAL v. KEMPTHORNE completed. We cannot say that this resolution, as set forth in the FEIS, is arbitrary or capricious under our circuit’s law. Conner v. Burford is one of our seminal cases considering the procedures for evaluating the environmental effects of leasing programs to develop oil and gas resources. In that case the government instituted programs to sell oil and gas leases without preparing any EIS at all. Two types of leases were involved. One, the so called “no surface occupancy” or “NSO” leases, forbid any use, or even occupancy of the surface of the national forest land being leased, without BLM approval of the specific, surface-disturbing activity the lessees planned to undertake. We held that such leases themselves involved no “irretrievable commitment of resources” and no EIS was required at the leasing stage. The second and more numerous type of leases in Conner were “non NSO” leases. They authorized the lessees to undertake development subject to government regulation of surface disturbing activities such as roads and drilling. The government could not totally preclude such activities, however, and for that reason we held an EIS was required for non NSO leases. Plaintiffs place principal reliance on Conner, but we do not believe it advances their position in this case. Here the leases are more like the “non NSO leases” in Conner. The government can condition permits for drilling on implementation of environmentally protective measures, and we assume it can deny a specific application altogether if a particularly sensitive area is sought to be developed and mitigation measures are not available. The government cannot, however, consistent with current statutory imperatives, forbid all oil and gas development in Alaska’s NWPA. The leasing program thus does constitute an irretrievable commitment of resources. An EIS is undeniably required, and, indeed one has been prepared. NORTHERN ALASKA ENVIRONMENTAL v. KEMPTHORNE 8359 The issue here is plaintiffs’contention that the EIS is insufficient because it does not undertake a parcel by parcel analysis of surfaces that will eventually be explored and developed. As to this contention, Conner is of no assistance to plaintiffs, for we did not discuss the degree of site specificity required in the EIS. The only question was whether one had to be completed at all. [4] We recognize that in arguing that this EIS analysis should have been parcel specific, the plaintiffs raise legitimate concerns about the uncertainty at this stage of gauging the adverse effects that future development may have on this environment. Similar concerns, however, are inherent in any program for the development of natural resources. This is because such projects generally entail separate stages of leasing, exploration and development. At the earliest stage, the leasing stage we have before us, there is no way of knowing what plans for development, if any, may eventually materialize. [5] Such concerns underlay our decision in Conner and inform our decision today. They become critically important when dealing in the environmental context of Northern Alaska. Indeed, the D.C. Circuit addressed them in North Slope Borough v. Andrus, 642 F.2d 589, 600 (1980), when it upheld an EIS prepared for off shore exploration of resources under the Beaufort Sea, off the Northeast Planning Area. The D.C. Circuit explained that uncertainty is an inherent problem with multi-stage projects such as oil and gas programs, which include separate leasing, exploration, and development stages. Id. The court went on to say that “[t]he Secretary [of Interior] plainly cannot be expected or required to wait until the totality of environmental effects is known.” Id. The D.C. Circuit concluded that when an agency complies in good faith with the requirements of NEPA and issues an EIS indicating that the agency has taken a hard look at the pertinent environmental questions, its decision should be afforded great deference. Id. at 599. The same holds true for the instant case. There is no 8360 NORTHERN ALASKA ENVIRONMENTAL v. KEMPTHORNE basis for holding that the analysis in the EIS was arbitrary, capricious, or done in bad faith. NEPA applies at all stages of the process, however. Any later plan for actual exploration by lessees will be subject to a period of review before being accepted, rejected or modified by the Secretary. See 43 C.F.R. § 3162.3-1(c). Plaintiffs will have an opportunity to comment on any later EIS. In addition, before any activity for exploration or development occurs, permits from several agencies may be required and additional permit conditions imposed for the protection of land, water and wildlife resources. Id. [6] For these reasons we conclude that the government was not required at this stage to do a parcel by parcel examination of potential environmental effects. Such effects are currently unidentifiable, because the parcels likely to be affected are not yet known. Such analysis must be made at later permitting stages when the sites, and hence more site specific effects, are identifiable. We do not agree, however, with the government’s further suggestion that any challenge to the sufficiency of the EIS at this stage is premature. The government overreaches when it suggests that the Tenth Circuit’s decision in Park County Resource Council v. United States Department of Agriculture, 817 F.2d 609 (1987) precludes any challenge to an FEIS at the leasing stage. The Tenth Circuit held that plaintiffs in that case could, at the permit stage, challenge the earlier approval of the leasing program that was instituted without preparation of any EIS. The court held the plaintiffs were not required to make the objection at the earlier stage. The Tenth Circuit therefore recognized that the failure to prepare an EIS could be raised at either stage. Park County is consistent with our decision in Conner. It is also consistent with our decision today that plaintiffs are entitled to raise a challenge to the sufficiency of the EIS at NORTHERN ALASKA ENVIRONMENTAL v. KEMPTHORNE 8361 this stage, but that their particular challenge to site specificity lacks merit, and that they will be able to raise more focused criticisms of site analysis at the exploration and permit stages of the leasing program.