Opinion ID: 502245
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: nepa compliance at the chincoteague refuge

Text: 67 We reach, finally, the sole merits issued decided by the district court: its determination that the Wildlife Service had complied with NEPA in deeming adequate its environmental assessment of the decision to allow some bird hunting in a portion of the Chincoteague refuge. 68 NEPA requires officials engaged in major Federal actions to complete an environmental assessment (EA) that evaluates the action's potential environmental impacts and adjudges whether the statute's mandate for preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) has been triggered. See 42 U.S.C. Sec. 4332(C). If the EA concludes that the federal action in question will have no significant impact, and thus that no EIS is required, the agency must explain this finding. 69 Plaintiffs assert that in finding no significant impact at Chincoteague, the Wildlife Service failed to discuss certain types of data relevant to hunt opening decisions. Specifically, the Society urges that the Service included in its EA virtually no data bearing on (1) surveys and counts of animals observed in the wild; (2) age cohorts and sex ratios for populations of each species; (3) the number and distribution of animals of each species taken by hunters and trappers; (4) the number of hunters and trappers seeking each species and the effort they make to do so; and (5) information respecting the location, quality and condition of each species' habitat. It also suggests that the Service failed to give serious consideration to the potential cumulative impacts of sport hunting. 70 Cases in this circuit employ a four-part test to evaluate agency findings of no significant impact. We evaluate: 71 (1) whether the agency took a hard look at the problem; 72 (2) whether the agency identified the relevant areas of environmental concern; 73 (3) as to the problems studied and identified, whether the agency made a convincing case that the impact was insignificant; and 74 (4) if there was an impact of true significance, whether the agency convincingly established that changes in the project sufficiently reduced it to a minimum. 75 Sierra Club v. Peterson, 717 F.2d 1409, 1413 (D.C.Cir.1983). Our mission is simply to ensure that the agency took account of these factors and that its decision was not arbitrary and capricious. 76 Reviewing the Wildlife Service's EA in light of these factors, we conclude that the district court correctly upheld the EA's no significant impact finding as not arbitrary and capricious. As the district court noted, the 19-page assessment evaluates four alternative hunting plans, possible endangerment to selected species, benefits to the community, benefits to the refuge through culling of excessive bird populations, disturbances to the wildlife, and the potential impact of the hunting program given the refuge's size. See District Court Opinion II at 10. 77 The Wildlife Service's consideration of these factors satisfies our hard look inquiry, and its focus on endangered species and the repercussions of hunting, though lacking in the precision urged by the Humane Society, identifie[s] the relevant areas of environmental concern and constitutes a sufficiently convincing case that the impact is insignificant. The agency also notes the fact that hunting had long been allowed on the portion of Chincoteague in question, a 492-acre section known as Wildcat Marsh which was acquired by the Wildlife Service in 1983. The hunting plan selected was not as broad in scope as others considered by the Service, keeping, in conformity with the fourth factor of our review, any adverse impacts to a minimum. 78 Although one might wish the Wildlife Service had addressed with greater specificity the five factors urged above by plaintiffs, in the context of the overall assessment filed by the Service the cursory treatment these factors receive is not fatal to the Service's finding. As the district court noted, the small size of the marsh, coupled with the mobility of the birds and animals under analysis, make site-specific statistical analysis like that required by the Society's proposed five factors, difficult to carry out. As in National Audubon Society v. Hester, 801 F.2d 405 (D.C.Cir.1986), a case also involving the adequacy of an EA, [t]he Service's documentation may have been succinct, but nonetheless adequately discloses the concerns underlying the agency's decision and demonstrates that the decision rests on a rational basis. Id. at 408.