Opinion ID: 217548
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: 2004 Framework: Dissenting Views

Text: Sierra Forest and California also both argue that the Forest Service violated NEPA when approving the 2004 Framework by failing to disclose and to respond to the views of experts opposed to intensified management. In preparing the final EIS, the agency must `discuss at appropriate points ... any responsible opposing view which was not adequately discussed in the draft statement and [must] indicate the agency's response to the issue raised.' Robertson, 490 U.S. at 350 n. 13, 109 S.Ct. 1835 (quoting 40 C.F.R. § 1502.9(b)) (alterations in original); see also Lands Council, 537 F.3d at 1001 ([T]he Forest Service must acknowledge and respond to comments by outside parties that raise significant scientific uncertainties and reasonably support that such uncertainties exist.); 40 C.F.R. § 1503.4(a) (An agency preparing a final environmental impact statement shall assess and consider comments both individually and collectively, and shall respond ... in the final statement.). The mere presence of expert disagreement does not violate NEPA because experts in every scientific field routinely disagree. Lands Council, 537 F.3d at 1001. NEPA also does not require an agency to publish every comment ... in the final EIS. Nor must an agency set forth at full length the views with which it disagrees. California v. Block, 690 F.2d 753, 773 (9th Cir.1982) (internal citations omitted). Sierra Forest and California present an array of experts who submitted comments to the 2004 Framework draft SEIS. As a general matter, the final SEIS incorporates a science consistency review that raises conflicting perspectives. It also acknowledges and responds to general critiques concerning the use of science. Plaintiffs' experts' more specific criticisms can be broken down into five categories. Most critiques concerned the California spotted owl. The final SEIS, however, expressed uncertainty concerning California spotted owl analysis, noted submission of concerns about the reliability of habitat projections for the California spotted owl and disclosed conflicting science about the effects of canopy cover reductions from fuel treatments. Most importantly, the SEIS dedicates nearly 12 pages to airing concerns about California spotted owl management and providing agency responses. Second, the experts expressed concerns regarding the uncertainty inherent in long-term modeling. The final SEIS acknowledges that [c]oncerns have been expressed about the reliability of habitat projections used in this analysis and the deterministic nature of the models underlying those projections, but explains the importance and inherent flaws of modeling. The SEIS also includes modeling appendices, which describe modeling assumptions and sensitivity analysis to address questions about uncertainty in modeling outcomes. Moreover, the Regional Forester acknowledged the validity of some critiques and chose not to rely on 120-year projections when deciding to adopt the 2004 Framework. Third, the experts argued that the 2004 Framework will lead to further decline of fisher and marten populations. The final SEIS acknowledges uncertainty concerning marten and fisher habitat use and the effect of management on persistence in the Sierra Nevada. It also recognizes that concerns have been expressed that treatments... may increase fragmentation and create barriers to fisher movement, that reductions to canopy that will harm fisher habitat and about effects of the [HFQLG] pilot project, particularly on marten in eastside pine habitats. The SEIS also airs and responds to three pages of additional concerns regarding fisher and marten management. Fourth, the experts raised concerns regarding meadow species, such as the willow flycatcher and Yosemite toad. The final SEIS acknowledges uncertainty concerning the effects of grazing on these species and accepts one of the willow flycatcher working group's suggestions concerning development of a conservation strategy. More importantly, the SEIS raises and addresses a host of public concerns regarding both meadow species in the volume dedicated to responding to public comments. Fifth, the experts critique the fire ecology underpinning the core management analysis. The final SEIS notes uncertainty whether unaltered wildfires would have a greater or lesser impact ... on ecosystem integrity and habitat compared to fires in treated areas. Again, the SEIS acknowledges and responds to a substantial number of critics addressing fire and fuels management, including critiques of the scope and methods of treatment. California specifically argues that the agency did not bring attention to ... critical expert comments but rather mixed them into the stack of all public comments.... Similarly, Sierra Forest contends that the SEIS does not disclose that these `other' viewpoints were expressed by the country's leading spotted owl experts, including the retired Forest Service owl expert ... and the agency's own wildlife office. However, NEPA does not require that a final SEIS prioritize the concern of scientific experts or disclose their identities amongst public critiques. The practical concerns of individual landholders or hikers may be just as importantand just as trenchantas the formal submissions of academic experts. So long as an EIS addresses the substance of public comments, it need not single out the authors. In sum, the SEIS dedicates over 120 pages to raising and meaningfully responding to public critiques. That is all NEPA requires. Sierra Forest and California do not argue that the Forest Service's decision not to adopt critiques was arbitrary, capricious or contrary to law. Therefore, the Forest Service did not violate NEPA by failing to disclose conflicting scientific opinion.