Opinion ID: 221481
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Riparian Areas

Text: As we understand SJCA's riparian-area NEPA claim, it is arguing that the EIS did not satisfy the requirements of NEPA because it acknowledged that some of the Project's proposed development may not comply or may conflict with various Area 9A standards, id., Vol. I at 273-275, yet it offered only perfunctory references to mitigation measures without analyzing how those measures could correct the anticipated violations of the Forest Plan. According to SJCA, the EIS's discussion of mitigation measures fell short of NEPA's mandated hard look, and left the public unable to assess the Project's conformity with Forest Plan mandates. We disagree. To be sure, an EIS must assess whether there are [p]ossible conflicts between the proposed action and the objectives of Federal ... use plans, 40 C.F.R. § 1502.16(c), and then discuss steps that can be taken to mitigate [a project's] adverse environmental consequences. Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 351, 109 S.Ct. 1835, 104 L.Ed.2d 351 (1989). This requirement is [i]mplicit in NEPA's demand that an agency prepare a detailed statement on `any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented.' Id. at 351-52, 109 S.Ct. 1835 (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 4332(C)(ii)). Accordingly, the EIS must discuss mitigation... in sufficient detail to ensure that environmental consequences have been fairly evaluated. Id. at 352, 109 S.Ct. 1835. An agency is required to discuss possible mitigation measures in defining the scope of the EIS, 40 CFR § 1508.25(b) (1987), in discussing alternatives to the proposed action, § 1502.14(f), and consequences of that action, § 1502.16(h), and in explaining its ultimate decision, § 1505.2(c). Id. It is not enough to merely list possible mitigation measures. Colorado Envtl. Coal. v. Dombeck, 185 F.3d 1162, 1173 (10th Cir.1999). But NEPA does not contain a substantive requirement that a complete mitigation plan be actually formulated and adopted. Robertson, 490 U.S. at 352, 109 S.Ct. 1835. An EIS's discussion of mitigation measures need be only reasonably complete. Id. It need not present a mitigation plan that is legally enforceable, funded or even in final form to comply with NEPA's procedural requirements. Nat'l Parks & Conservation Ass'n v. U.S. Dep't of Transp., 222 F.3d 677, 681 n. 4 (9th Cir.2000). [T]he line between an EIS that contains an adequate discussion of mitigation measures and one that contains a `mere listing' is not well defined. Okanogan Highlands Alliance v. Williams, 236 F.3d 468, 476 (9th Cir.2000). The essential test is reasonableness. See Robertson, 490 U.S. at 352, 109 S.Ct. 1835 (discussion need be only reasonably complete). And the detail that reasonableness requires can depend on the stage of the approval process at which the EIS is prepared. Detailed quantitative assessments of possible mitigation measures are generally necessary when a federal agency prepares an EIS to assess the impacts of a relatively contained, site-specific proposal. See Neighbors of Cuddy Mountain v. U.S. Forest Service, 137 F.3d 1372, 1380-81 (9th Cir.1998); The Wilderness Soc'y v. Bosworth, 118 F.Supp.2d 1082, 1106-07 (D.Mont.2000). But requiring such detail would often not be appropriate when the EIS concerns a large-scale, multi-step project and the risks to be mitigated cannot be accurately assessed until final site-specific proposals are presented. For the EIS to analyze in detail every possible site proposal could take enormous time and resources, much of which would be wasted on potential proposals that would never materialize. Thus, NEPA regulations allow for tiering of environmental reviews: Tiering refers to the coverage of general matters in broader environmental impact statements (such as national program or policy statements) with subsequent narrower statements or environmental analyses (such as regional or basinwide program statements or ultimately site-specific statements) incorporating by reference the general discussions and concentrating solely on the issues specific to the statement subsequently prepared. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.28. Tiering can eliminate repetitive discussions of the same issues and [allows the agency] to focus on the actual issues ripe for decision at each level of environmental review, id. § 1502.20, while exlud[ing] from consideration issues already decided or not yet ripe, id. § 1508.28(b); see Sierra Club v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, 295 F.3d 1209, 1215 (11th Cir.2002). N. Alaska Environmental Center v. Kempthorne, 457 F.3d 969 (9th Cir.2006), is instructive. Environmentalists alleged that an EIS analyzing the environmental consequences of a BLM plan to offer long-term oil and gas leases in northern Alaska violated NEPA because it only listed general mitigation measures and did not analyze the effectiveness of each measure. Id. at 979. The Ninth Circuit, however, upheld the EIS's discussion of mitigation measures. Similar to the project at issue here, the BLM's approval of the leasing plan did not approve any construction projects. Actual on-the-ground disturbances would not occur until the project's exploration and development stages, see id. at 977, and permits for those actions would not issue until the agency had performed extensive analysis of site-specific environmental effects and appropriate mitigation measures, see id. at 973. Although the EIS included lease stipulations and required operating procedures to avoid or minimize the environmental impact of the leasing program, it left further details regarding possible additional mitigation measures to site-specific environmental assessments when lessees submitted exploration and development plans. See id. at 979. Given the uncertainty regarding which sites would eventually be developed at such an early stage of a multi-step process, the court determined that the development of more specific mitigating measures was not required at that time. Id; see Theodore Roosevelt Conservation P'ship v. Salazar, 616 F.3d 497, 515-17 (D.C.Cir.2010) (programmatic EIS's discussion of mitigation measures satisfied NEPA even though many of the mitigation measures were described in general terms and their exact application ... [would] be determined on a site-specific basis); N. Alaska Envtl. Ctr. v. Lujan, 961 F.2d 886, 890-91 (9th Cir.1992) (detailed analysis of mitigation measures is unwarranted in a programmatic EIS; it can be deferred until a concrete development proposal crystalizes the dimensions of a project's probable environmental consequences (internal quotation marks omitted)). We think that the EIS's discussion of the Project's impact on Area 9A standards was reasonably complete. Robertson, 490 U.S. at 352, 109 S.Ct. 1835. The EIS and the ROD indicate that further review will take place when the Lessees submit site-specific permit applications. That review will be tiered to the [EIS] and will be limited in scope ... to the site-specific aspects of the environmental analysis that were not covered by the [EIS]. Aplts. App. at 413. Because of the uncertainty regarding the siting of wells and ancillary facilities, much of the EIS analysis had to rely on conceptual approximations of the best facility location based upon field knowledge, topographic map aids, and the application of well spacing rules. Aplees.-Fed. Defs. Supp.App., Vol. I at 110-11. Even so, the EIS included more than seven pages of siting and engineering techniques and best management practices to reduce CBM development effects to surface water quality, quantity, and use. Id. For example, the EIS recommends 11 mitigation measures if a pipeline, road, or power line has to cross a stream, wetland, or riparian area. As the EIS points out, the Forest Service Region 2 Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook describes the general effectiveness of many of these measures, often referencing empirical studies. The EIS also recommends the development of site-specific mitigation plans during the approval process of individual wells that would disturb wetlands or riparian areas, and notes that the Forest Plan requires the Lessees to implement monitoring plans to assess surface-water quality. SJCA has utterly failed to explain why it was unreasonable for the EIS to leave further detail to environmental analyses tied to specific site approvals. If SJCA believes that such analyses are nonexistent or inadequate, it can challenge the associated site approvals.