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

Heading: Similar Actions

Text: 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.