Opinion ID: 771609
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Adequacy of the Discussion of Mitigating Measures

Text: 51 The trial court did not err in ruling that, under the applicable standard of review, the EIS contains a reasonable discussion of mitigation. The EIS contains a thorough discussion of the potential adverse environmental effects of the Project. The Forest Service took the requisite hard look  at those potential problems and required BMG to monitor the actual effects of the Project throughout its life. The EIS provides methods for ensuring that environmental problems do not develop. For example, if there is a decrease in water quality, the EIS provides procedures for ensuring compliance with applicable water-quality standards. The procedures are in bullet form and are stated in somewhat general terms, but this format is not deficient in the circumstances: The exact environmental problems that will have to be mitigated are not yet known because the Project does not exist. The EIS also requires BMG to post a security deposit to ensure compliance with environmental standards. 52 We realize that the line between an EIS that contains an adequate discussion of mitigation measures and one that contains a mere listing is not well defined. In Cuddy Mountain, the EIS for a proposed sale of timber contained the following discussion of mitigation measures: [S]mall increases in sedimentation . . . would be mitigated by improvements in fish habitat in other drainages . . . . Offsetting mitigation would include such projects as riparian enclosures (fences around riparian areas to keep cattle out) and fish passage restoration (removing fish passage blockages). These activities can be effective but cannot be quantified with present data. 137 F.3d at 1380. We held that the Forest Service's perfunctory description of the mitigating measures was inadequate. Id. 53 By contrast, in Methow Valley, the Supreme Court analyzed the adequacy of an EIS that examined the environmental impact of a proposed ski resort on National Forest land. The EIS stated that the proposed project would not have a measurable effect on existing air quality, but that the off-site development of private land would have a significant effect on air quality. The EIS then identified potential actions that could be taken by the county governments to mitigate those adverse impacts, including the development of an air-quality management plan. The circuit court held that the EIS was inadequate because the effectiveness of the mitigation measures had not been assessed, and the measures themselves had yet to be developed. Methow Valley, 490 U.S. at 347. The Supreme Court reversed. Id. at 353. 54 The Supreme Court noted that an EIS without a reasonably complete discussion of possible mitigation measures would undermine the `action-forcing' function of NEPA. Id. at 352. There is a fundamental distinction, however, between a requirement that mitigation be discussed in sufficient detail to ensure that environmental consequences have been fairly evaluated, on the one hand, and a substantive requirement that a complete mitigation plan be actually formulated and adopted, on the other. Id. The Court concluded that, because the EIS predicted that the on-site environmental impacts would be minimal, the proposed measures cannot be deemed overly vague or underdeveloped. Id. at 358. 55 The difference between the discussion of proposed mitigation measures in Methow Valley and that in Cuddy Mountain appears to be one of degree. In Cuddy Mountain , this court read the EIS as suggesting that the Forest Service did not even consider mitigating measures for the creeks actually affected by the sale. 137 F.3d at 1381 (emphasis added). By contrast, the EIS in the present case suggests that the Forest Service did consider and take a hard look at the environmental effects and mitigating measures. The EIS predicts that the environmental effects from the mine on ground water will be minimal, but extensive monitoring will be required nonetheless. The EIS then proposes several ways to prevent overflow from the mine-pit lake from affecting water quality. If those measures are unsuccessful, the EIS then provides a process for achieving compliance with water-quality standards. Similar processes are described for achieving compliance with water-quality standards in the mine-pit lake itself and in the waste-rock dumps. Each mitigating process was evaluated separately and given an effectiveness rating. 56 It is true that the mitigating measures are described in general terms and rely on general processes, not on specific substantive requirements. In the Forest Service's responses to comments from the Environmental Protection Agency on the draft EIS, the Forest Service explained that, 57 [s]ince it is not possible to predict exactly what water quality will be, it is difficult to predict what exact mitigation will be necessary. We have set up . . . a procedure to determine specific mitigation or treatment, if any, is required. Moreover, a perfor mance security which assumes treatment of the pit discharge water is necessary, will be collected prior to development. 58 Because the actual adverse effects are uncertain, and the EIS considered extensively the potential effects and mitigation processes, we conclude that the present case is closer to Methow Valley. Accordingly, we hold that the discussion of mitigating measures in the EIS is adequate. 59