Opinion ID: 487461
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Use of a Worst Case Analysis

Text: 31 The CEQ regulations provide that an EIS must include a worst case analysis when an agency is faced with incomplete or unavailable information. 40 C.F.R. Sec. 1502.22 (1985). 4 The regulation thus requires disclosure and analysis of the 'cost[s] of uncertainty--i.e., the costs of proceeding without more and better information.'  Southern Oregon Citizens Against Toxic Sprays, Inc. v. Clark, 720 F.2d 1475, 1478 (9th Cir.1983) [hereinafter SOCATS ] (quoting Sigler, 695 F.2d at 970), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1028, 105 S.Ct. 446, 83 L.Ed.2d 372 (1984); see Friends of Endangered Species, 760 F.2d at 988. In general, NEPA imposes a duty on federal agencies to gather information and do independent research when missing information is important, significant, or essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives. Save Our Ecosystems v. Clark, 747 F.2d 1240, 1244 n. 5, 1248-49 (9th Cir.1984). Only if the costs are exorbitant or the means of obtaining the information is beyond the state of the art is the agency excused from compliance and allowed to perform a worst case analysis. Id. at 1249. Reliance on a worst case analysis is justified if the costs of research are exorbitant in light of the size of the project and/or the possible harm to the environment. Id. at 1244 n. 5. Appellants argue that the Secretary violated Sec. 1502.22 because the EIS does not establish either that the costs of obtaining the missing information are exorbitant or that the means are beyond state-of-the-art scientific research techniques. 32 The 1985 EIS justified its decision to forgo additional independent research and to prepare a worst case analysis principally on the ground that the costs would be exorbitant. 5 It cites estimates ranging from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars per study for each of several dozen studies that might be carried out. The EIS also indicates that completion of such studies would require several years, thus implicitly recognizing the harm to the environment that might be caused by infestations of gypsy moths during that period without chemical insecticides. The EIS, however, explains only that [b]ecause of the cost and time involved, a worst case analysis was done. 33 Appellants correctly point out that the EIS does not explicitly evaluate the cost of the studies in light of the size of the project and/or the possible harm to the environment. A more thorough EIS might well have done so. We believe, however, that the EIS implicitly embodies such a calculus. Despite some evidence introduced by appellants that indicated that the costs of research might be somewhat lower, we believe that the district court did not clearly err in finding that the costs were in fact exorbitant. The omission of an explicit exposition of the agency's determination of exorbitance does not warrant deeming this EIS legally inadequate. To do so in this case would impermissibly fly speck the EIS. 6