Opinion ID: 179768
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: National Environmental Policy Act Claim

Text: We next address plaintiffs' argument that NMFS violated NEPA by failing to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS). Under NEPA, a federal agency must prepare an EIS for any major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C). An agency may first prepare an environmental assessment (EA) to determine whether the effects of a proposed action are significant. If the EA establishes that the action may have significant environmental impacts, the agency must prepare an EIS. If the agency makes a finding on the basis of an EA that the action will have no significant impact (FONSI), no EIS is required. See 40 C.F.R. § 1501.4. Plaintiffs contend an EIS was required in this case on two bases, which we discuss in turn.
Plaintiffs first argue that NMFS's finding of significance under the MMPA in essence compels a finding of significance under NEPA. According to plaintiffs, NMFS's determination under the MMPA that sea lions are having a significant negative impact on the decline or recovery of listed salmonid populations necessarily implies that the environmental benefits of authorizing the lethal removal of sea lions will have a significant positive impact on these salmonid populations. They contend that this significant beneficial environmental impact triggers the duty to prepare an EIS under NEPA. As a threshold matter, plaintiffs' argument appears to raise an issue of first impression in this circuit: whether NEPA requires an agency to prepare an EIS when an action has a significant beneficial impact but no significant adverse impact on the environment. [9] This is a question we need not resolve, however, because even if solely beneficial impacts trigger an EIS, the record does not demonstrate a significant beneficial impact on the human environment in this instance. First, just because NMFS has concluded that sea lions are having a significant negative impact on listed salmonid populations does not mean that the agency has also determined that the removal action authorized here will have a significant positive impact on these same populations. Second, even if NMFS concluded that its action would have a significant positive impact on the fish populations involved, that would not necessarily translate into a finding of a significant effect on the quality of the human environment, as required by NEPA: although both statutes speak of significance, the legal standards under the MMPA and NEPA are distinct. [10]
In the alternative, plaintiffs contend that NMFS should have prepared an EIS based on significant adverse impacts. They rely on three theories of adverse impact, none of which is persuasive. First, plaintiffs contend that an EIS was required based on the controversial and uncertain nature of the action. See 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27(b)(4) (in deciding whether an action has a significant impact, the agency should consider [t]he degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly controversial); id. § 1508.27(b)(5) (the agency also should consider [t]he degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks). As plaintiffs correctly point out, the lethal removal of sea lions at Bonneville Dam has been the subject of some controversy. Most significantly, the Marine Mammal Commission criticized aspects of NMFS's decisionmaking. NMFS, however, acted reasonably in concluding that the Commission's concerns did not make the agency's action highly controversial within the meaning of the NEPA regulations. The term `controversial' refers `to cases where a substantial dispute exists as to the size, nature, or effect of the major federal action rather than to the existence of opposition to a use.' Found. for N. Am. Wild Sheep v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 681 F.2d 1172, 1182 (9th Cir.1982). A substantial dispute exists when evidence ... casts serious doubt upon the reasonableness of an agency's conclusions.  Nat'l Parks & Conservation Ass'n v. Babbitt, 241 F.3d 722, 736 (9th Cir.2001) (emphasis added). Here, the Commission criticized some aspects of NMFS's draft EA, but it did not disagree with the EA's primary conclusions that an EIS was not required, that sea lions are having a significant impact under section 120 and that some sort of lethal removal is reasonable. Second, plaintiffs contend an EIS was required based on the action's potentially deadly consequences for Steller sea lions that frequent the Bonneville Dam area. Plaintiffs contend that Steller sea lions, which, unlike California sea lions, are listed as threatened under the ESA, could be killed mistakenly because NMFS's decision authorizes shooting sea lions that are in the water, where Steller sea lions can be hard to distinguish from California sea lions. See 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27(b)(9) (in deciding the question of significance under NEPA, an agency should consider [t]he degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species). Plaintiffs' argument is unpersuasive because NMFS adopted a series of safeguards to ensure that only targeted sea lions would be killed, and concluded that, [b]ecause of these requirements, it is highly unlikely that a marksman would shoot any sea lion other than one on the list of predatory sea lions. The record does not demonstrate that this conclusion is in error. Third, plaintiffs contend an EIS was required based on the impacts to local wildlife viewing opportunities if sea lions are removed from the Bonneville Dam area. Plaintiffs correctly observe that the lethal removal program will reduce or eliminate sea lion viewing opportunities in the vicinity of the dam. But their argument is unpersuasive, in part because the NEPA regulations do not treat wildlife viewing opportunities as a major factor in deciding whether an EIS is required. See 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27(b)(8). Nor does the record contain substantial evidence showing that the dam is a popular site for sea lion viewing. We therefore reject this argument.