Opinion ID: 503513
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Site-Specific Impacts

Text: 25 In the rehearing denial order, FERC's discussion of the economic feasibility and need for the power, cultural resources, and aquatic and terrestrial resources provides a clear statement of reasons why these factors are insignificant. FERC's analysis compels our conclusion that they took the required hard look at the potential environmental impacts in these three areas. 26 However, we cannot reach the same conclusion after examining FERC's assessment of the project's impact on recreational resources and visual quality. At the outset, we note that FERC neglected to prepare either an environmental assessment (EA) or a FONSI, as required by 40 C.F.R. Sec. 1501.4 (1987), thereby violating the required NEPA procedure. The only environmental analysis performed was the two FERC staff reports of December 29, 1982 and May 31, 1984, filed after the license was issued, after the petition for rehearing was filed, and just one week before the petition for rehearing was denied. Thus, the basis for FERC's conclusion that the project will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment, and therefore not require preparation of an EIS, can only be ascertained by reviewing the voluminous agency record. This kind of speculation regarding the basis for an agency's decision not to prepare an EIS is precisely what NEPA was intended to prevent. See The Steamboaters v. F.E.R.C., 759 F.2d 1382, 1393 (9th Cir.1985). NEPA is an essentially procedural statute, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 435 U.S. 519, 558, 98 S.Ct. 1197, 1219, 55 L.Ed.2d 460 (1977), and [w]e enforce NEPA under our authority to 'hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be ... without observance of procedure required by law.'  City of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F.2d 1016, 1020 (9th Cir.1986) (quoting Lathan v. Brinegar, 506 F.2d 677, 692-93 (9th Cir.1974) (en banc)); Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 706(2)(D). FERC's failure to follow required NEPA procedure violates the law and provides a sufficient basis for reversing their decision. 27 In addition to this technical violation of NEPA, FERC's substantive evaluation of the project's impact on recreational use and visual quality also violates NEPA. Although FERC identified recreational use and visual quality as the most important and most severely affected resource in the project area, their conclusion that the license conditions will adequately mitigate the project's impact on this resource, to the point of insignificance, is simply not supportable on the record. An agency must supply a convincing statement of reasons why potential effects are insignificant. The Steamboaters v. F.E.R.C., 759 F.2d at 1393. While it is true that mitigation measures can justify an agency's conclusion that a project's impact is not significant, an agency must explain exactly how the measures will mitigate the project's impact. Id. at 1394; Jones v. Gordon, 792 F.2d at 829. At no point does FERC attempt to explain exactly how Keating's six proposed mitigation measures will reduce the significance of the project's impact on recreational use and visual quality. Indeed, at this point, any such explanation could only represent speculation in any case, considering that the existing, specific recreation use and visual quality of this area have yet to be determined by the post-licensing, two recreation season study. Additionally, FERC's verbatim adoption of Keating's proposed mitigation measures and the Forest Service-Keating two recreation season study, without any analysis of how these measures would diminish the project's impact, violated FERC's duty to independently assess the consequences of a project. Southern Oregon Citizens Against Toxic Sprays, Inc. v. Clark, 720 F.2d 1475, 1480 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1028, 105 S.Ct. 446, 83 L.Ed.2d 372 (1984). 28 As in The Steamboaters, FERC's omission is particularly troubling because of the serious questions raised by LaFlamme regarding the impact of this project. LaFlamme's concerns regarding the loss of the sight and sound of over 4000 feet of cascading water, as well as the ponds, pools, waterfalls and streamlets created by this vigorously moving river, and the resulting loss of the aesthetic quality and recreational opportunities such a river creates, were neither specifically addressed, nor adequately mitigated, due to the lack of any discussion of how these measures would lessen the project's impact. 29 FERC's reliance on a post-licensing, two season recreation study as an adequate mitigation measure is also misplaced. First, NEPA clearly requires that consideration of the environmental impacts of proposed projects take place before any licensing decision is made. [T]he very purpose of NEPA's requirement that an EIS be prepared for all actions that may significantly affect the environment is to obviate the need for speculation by insuring that available data is gathered and analyzed prior to the implementation of the proposed action. Foundation for North American Wild Sheep v. United States Department of Agriculture, 681 F.2d at 1179. After all, once a project begins, the pre-project environment becomes a thing of the past. Evaluating the project's effect on pre-project resources is simply impossible. 30 Although FERC labels this post-licensing study as merely a means for fine-tuning the previously imposed mitigation measures, the scope of this study is so comprehensive that FERC in essence will be considering the project's impact on specific aspects of recreational use and visual quality for the first time. In fact, as recognized in the December 29, 1982 report, Keating never submitted recreational use data for the Sayles Flat area. FERC relied solely on data gathered at the Echo Lake Development when they determined that Keating's six proposed mitigation measures would reduce any impact from the project on recreation to the point of insignificance. This type of post-licensing data gathering violates NEPA's very letter and purpose. 31 Additionally, reliance on a post-licensing study to fully develop a mitigation plan deprives FERC of any foundation upon which to base their conclusion that the project's impact on recreational use and visual quality will not be significant. We fail to see how mitigation measures can be properly analyzed and their effectiveness explained when they have yet to be fully developed. Oregon Natural Resources Council v. Marsh, 832 F.2d 1489, 1493 (9th Cir.1987). 32 Finally, the controversy created by this project supports our conclusion that substantial questions were raised regarding whether this project may significantly degrade some aspect of the human environment. [T]he degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly controversial is one factor in determining how significantly a proposed action affects the quality of the environment. 40 C.F.R. Sec. 1508.27(b)(4) (1987). In Foundation for North American Wild Sheep, this court stated that the term 'controversial' refers 'to cases where a substantial dispute exists as to the size, nature, or effect of the major federal action rather than to the existence of opposition to a use.'  681 F.2d at 1182 (quoting Rucker v. Willis, 484 F.2d 158, 162 (4th Cir.1973)). In that case, the numerous responses from conservationists, biologists, and other knowledgeable individuals, all ... disputing the EA's conclusions [regarding the likely effect of] reopening [the road], led this court to conclude that this is precisely the type of 'controversial' action for which an EIS must be prepared. Id. 33 Similarly, LaFlamme's dispute with FERC centers around the effect the dam will have on recreational use and visual quality in the project area, as well as the effect the proposed mitigation measures will have on preventing significant degradation of the quality of the environment. While FERC disputes LaFlamme's contentions, nowhere [does FERC explain] why [LaFlamme's] points do not suffice to create a public controversy based on potential environmental consequences. Jones v. Gordon, 792 F.2d at 829. NEPA requires such a well-reasoned explanation. 34 We conclude that there were substantial questions raised regarding whether the project may significantly affect recreational use and visual quality in the project area, and that FERC failed to explain or discuss how the proposed mitigation measures lessen the project's impact on these resources to the point of insignificance. Therefore, because this record reflects a decision which is neither fully informed or well-considered, we conclude that FERC's decision not to prepare an EIS was unreasonable.