Opinion ID: 788207
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Single Document Requirement

Text: 34 KS Wild contends that the BLM also violated NEPA by evaluating each individual timber project in a separate EA, rather than together in a single document. It points to the language in 40 C.F.R. § 1502.4(a) that [p]roposals or parts of proposals which are related to each other closely enough to be, in effect, a single course of action shall be evaluated in a single impact statement. Section 1502.4(a) directs the agency to use the scoping provisions contained in 40 C.F.R. § 1508.25 to determine whether nominally separate proposals are a single course of action. 35 The BLM responds that because § 1508.25 only mentions impact statements, it is inapplicable where only EAs are at issue. That position is not supported by our caselaw, however. As the government recognizes, we have previously stated that the CEQ regulations implementing NEPA require that an agency consider `connected actions' and `cumulative actions' within a single EA or EIS.  Wetlands Action Network v. United States Army Corps of Eng'rs, 222 F.3d 1105, 1118 (9th Cir.2000) (emphasis added) (citing 40 C.F.R. § 1508.25). 36 Under § 1508.25, two or more agency actions must be discussed in the same impact statement where they are connected or cumulative actions. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.25(a)(1), (2); see also Earth Island Inst. v. United States Forest Serv., 351 F.3d 1291, 1306 (9th Cir.2003). Where the proposed actions are similar, the agency may wish to assess them in the same document and should do so when a single document provides the best way to assess adequately the combined impacts of similar actions.... 40 C.F.R. § 1508.25(a)(3). KS Wild does not contend that the four sales in the SFLBC watershed are connected actions, but it does argue that they are cumulative and similar.
37 Cumulative actions are tautologically defined in the pertinent regulation as those that when viewed with other proposed actions have cumulatively significant impacts. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.25(a)(2). In turn, as noted above, a cumulative impact is defined by the CEQ regulations 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.... Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.7. 38 Part of the problem in determining whether the four SFLBC timber sales constitute cumulative actions that must be analyzed together is caused by the circular nature of the definition—since an adequate assessment has not been done (as detailed above), it is not yet known whether the projects will have cumulatively significant impacts. We have previously dealt with this problem by requiring that the analysis be done in a single document when the record raises substantial questions about whether there will be significant environmental impacts from the collection of anticipated projects. See Blue Mountains Biodiv. Project v. Blackwood, 161 F.3d 1208, 1215 (9th Cir.1998); Thomas v. Peterson, 753 F.2d 754, 759 (9th Cir.1985). 39 In Blue Mountains, the Forest Service planned to conduct five timber sales in a single watershed as part of a post-fire forest recovery effort. When the EA for the first sale was released, the plaintiffs promptly challenged it. 161 F.3d at 1210. The flaw in that EA was remarkably similar to the main flaw in the Conde Shell and Indian Soda EAs—it failed to consider the cumulative impacts of the other four sales. Id. at 1214-15. We held that [a]t the very least, these sales raise substantial questions that they will result in significant environmental impacts. A single EIS, therefore, was required to address the cumulative effects of these proposed sales. Id. at 1215. 6 40 Blue Mountains did not specifically cite to § 1508.25(a)(2) to support its conclusion. In a case where § 1508.25(a)(2) was directly at issue though, we analogized to the discussion in Blue Mountains in considering whether a single document was required. See Native Ecosys. Council v. Dombeck, 304 F.3d 886, 895 (9th Cir.2002). In Native Ecosystems, the challenged agency actions were a series of decisions to waive maximum road density rules on certain areas of Forest Service land to permit the construction of sufficient roads to proceed with timber harvest activities. Id. at 890-91. We found it significant that, as with the SFLBC timber sales at issue here, the decisions to waive the road density rules were scheduled to be made incrementally, instead of being approved together simultaneously. Id. at 895. Emphasizing that the challenged actions were the waivers themselves and not approval of the actual timber sales, we [could] not say, on the record before us, that the series of road density amendments are cumulative actions under Section 1508.25(a)(2) so as to require their consideration together in a single NEPA review document. Id. 41 We reach a similar conclusion here. Mindful of the deference that agencies are to be accorded in scientific matters, in these circumstances we decline at this time to require the BLM to produce a single document. Given the incomplete discussion of cumulative impacts contained in the Conde Shell and Indian Soda EAs, we are not in a position to reach a conclusion on that issue now or to review the BLM's apparent decision that it was unnecessary to evaluate the cumulative effects of these timber sales in a single document. We simply do not know enough about the cumulative impacts to determine whether they will be significant or whether there are substantial questions as to their significance. 7 If the BLM goes forward with these projects, however, it should give serious consideration to evaluating the projects in a single document, since that will be an open issue once the cumulative effects have been better determined.
42 KS Wild contends that the SFLBC projects must be evaluated in a single NEPA document because, in addition to being cumulative, they are similar actions under 40 C.F.R. § 1508.25(a)(3). Section 1508.25(a)(3) defines similar actions as those which when viewed with other reasonably foreseeable or proposed agency actions, have similarities that provide a basis for evaluating their environmental consequences together, such as common timing or geography. It states that an agency may wish to analyze such actions in a single document and should do so when that is the  best way to assess adequately the combined impacts. (emphasis added). 43 The only occasion we have had to squarely consider § 1508.25(a)(3)'s similar actions language is Earth Island Institute v. United States Forest Service, 351 F.3d 1291(9th Cir.2003). That case highlights the different language used in § 1508.25(a) with respect to connected, cumulative, and similar actions. Id. at 1306. For the first two categories, the agency is told that it should analyze them in a single impact statement, which we interpret as a mandatory requirement. Id. For similar actions, on the other hand, we held that an agency should be accorded more deference in deciding whether to analyze such actions together. Id. 44 Here, we agree with KS Wild that the proposed projects are similar in many respects: they are adjacent to each other in the same watershed; are to be harvested under an identical silvicultural prescription; and are supervised by the same personnel. The primary differences between the projects are in their timing and in the fact that they take place on different pieces of land. Keeping in mind the deference that is to be accorded agency decisions, we are unable to conclude that analyzing the projects together is necessarily the best way to evaluate them. More precisely, we cannot say that the BLM acted arbitrarily in thinking otherwise.