Opinion ID: 148933
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Failure to Consider Reasonable Alternatives

Text: Plaintiffs also argue that the BLM violated NEPA because the agency's discussion of reasonable alternatives in the Amendment's EA is inadequate. The purpose of NEPA is to require disclosure of relevant environmental considerations that were given a `hard look' by the agency, and thereby to permit informed public comment on proposed action and any choices or alternatives that might be pursued with less environmental harm. Lands Council v. Powell, 395 F.3d 1019, 1027 (9th Cir.2005); see 42 U.S.C. § 4332(E) (requiring agencies to study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action in any proposal which involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources). Agencies are required to consider alternatives in both EISs and EAs and must give full and meaningful consideration to all reasonable alternatives. Native Ecosystems Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 428 F.3d 1233, 1245 (9th Cir.2005); see also 40 C.F.R. § 1508.9(b). The existence of a viable but unexamined alternative renders an environmental impact statement inadequate. Idaho Conservation League v. Mumma, 956 F.2d 1508, 1519 (9th Cir.1992) (quoting Citizens for a Better Henderson v. Hodel, 768 F.2d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir.1985)). Plaintiffs first argue that the BLM should have considered the alternative of approving only Phase I of the Amendment, rather than approving all three phases of the project, or that the BLM should have considered an alternative where the operator would be required to at least set forth up-front its Phase I plans. As discussed earlier, given the uncertainty of the exploration activities, the BLM imposed mitigation measures designed to adequately protect cultural resources in all phases of the Amendment. NEPA does not require a separate analysis of alternatives which are not significantly distinguishable from alternatives actually considered, or which have substantially similar consequences. Headwaters, Inc. v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 914 F.2d 1174, 1181 (9th Cir.1990) (citing N. Plains Res. Council v. Lujan, 874 F.2d 661, 666 (9th Cir.1989)). Because of the mitigation measures, the environmental consequences of approving only the first phase of the project versus all three phases are substantially similar; therefore, the BLM was not required to address this alternative in the EA. Plaintiffs next argue that the BLM violated NEPA by failing to seriously analyze any alternative except Cortez's chosen project. Specifically, Plaintiffs argue that the BLM's analysis of the No Action Alternative was insufficient because it consisted of only one paragraph. [11] Plaintiffs' argument is not persuasive. Although brief, the BLM's discussion was sufficient because the No Action Alternative maintains the status quo, i.e. the original HC/CUEP plan of operations. The Amendment's EA tiered to the EA for the original HC/CUEP, in which the direct impacts of the exploration activities were analyzed. See N. Idaho Cmty. Action Network v. U.S. DOT, 545 F.3d 1147, 1153 (9th Cir.2008) ([A]n agency's obligation to consider alternatives under an EA is a lesser one than under an EIS. . . . [W]ith an EA, an agency only is required to include a brief discussion of reasonable alternatives. (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).