Opinion ID: 771609
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Alleged Delegation to State Agencies

Text: 60 Next, Plaintiffs argue that the Forest Service deferred to state agencies its responsibility for reviewing mitigation measures. The record and our case law answer that argument. 61 The EIS's sections on mitigating measures do refer, as a mere statement of fact, to state permitting agencies and requirements. See, e.g., EIS 2.12.13.5 at 2-124 (Water in the pit lake . . . would be required to meet Washington State Aquatic Life Water Quality Standards . . . .). However, those sections go on to consider and discuss mitigation responsibilities directly and at length. See, e.g., id. (The Proponent would prepare a detailed engineering design of the preferred alternative . . . .). 62 The fact that the EIS acknowledges that the project will be forced to comply with pollution permitting requirements is not, by itself, arbitrary or capricious. Cf. City & County of San Francisco v. United States, 615 F.2d 498, 501 (9th Cir. 1980) (noting that the Navy's decision not to prepare an EIS was reasonable when the Candidate EIS noted that the lessee would be required to conform to all applicable pollution control laws and regulations as a condition of tenancy). Such an acknowledgment does not, without more, shift the Forest Service's responsibility to state agencies.