Opinion ID: 1449830
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Issuance of the EA

Text: Under NEPA, if an agency determines that a project will significant[ly] affect[ ] the environment, the agency must prepare an EIS, a detailed statement on ... the environmental impact of the proposed project. 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C). As a preliminary step, an agency may prepare an EA in order to determine whether the environmental impact of a proposed action is significant enough to warrant preparation of an EIS. Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project v. Blackwood, 161 F.3d 1208, 1212 (9th Cir. 1998). See 40 C.F.R. § 1508.9 (describing an EA as a concise public document ... that serves to [b]riefly provide sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an environmental impact statement or a finding of no significant impact.). An agency must go further, and prepare an EIS, if substantial questions are raised as to whether a project may cause significant degradation of some human environmental factor. LaFlamme v. FERC, 852 F.2d 389, 397 (9th Cir.1988) (internal alterations and quotation marks omitted). See 40 C.F.R. § 1502.1 (describing the basic contents of an EIS). An EA need not conform to all the requirements of an EIS, [but] it must be sufficient to establish the reasonableness of the decision not to prepare an EIS. Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Nat. Hwy. Traffic Safety Admin., 538 F.3d 1172, 1215 (9th Cir.2008) (quotations and alteration omitted). Although NEPA does not require federal agencies to assess ... consider ... [and] respond to public comments on an EA to the same degree as it does for an EIS, see 40 C.F.R. § 1503.4, an agency must permit some public participation when it issues an EA. In particular, the agency must involve environmental agencies, applicants, and the public, to the extent practicable, id. § 1501.4(b), and [m]ake diligent efforts to involve the public in preparing and implementing their NEPA procedures, id. § 1506.6(a). In implementing NEPA's requirements for public participation, the Commission has promulgated a rule automatically permitting late intervention when it issues a draft EIS. See 18 C.F.R. § 380.10(a)(1). This rule provides that [i]n addition to submitting comments on the NEPA process and NEPA related documents, any person may file a motion to intervene in a Commission proceeding dealing with environmental issues under the terms of [Rule 214]. Id. § 380.10(a)(1)(i). So long as such a motion is filed within the comment period for the draft environmental impact statement it will be deemed timely under Rule 214. Id. § 380.10(a)(1)(i). The Commission has no similar rule for motions filed during the comment period for a draft EA. See Cameron LNG, LLC, 118 F.E.R.C. ¶ 61,019 (2007). Given this regulatory background, it is clear that the Commission does not consider the mere issuance of a draft EA to be determinative of good cause under Rule 214. If it did, the Commission would have promulgated a rule automatically permitting late intervention when it issued a draft EA, as it has done for those occasions where it issues a draft EIS. In the absence of such a rule, we cannot find the Commission's determinations that petitioners lacked good cause arbitrary and capricious simply because the Commission issued a draft EA. Petitioners contend that because in this case the Commission's decision to issue an EA and not an EIS violated NEPA (and was thus unexpected), the draft EA gave them good cause to intervene. But petitioners have put the cart before the horse  they essentially argue that because they are about to be denied the benefits of intervention they should be deemed as having good cause to intervene. If the Commission's decision to issue an EA rather than an EIS violates NEPA, the proper course is for petitioners to challenge that decision in the proper forum. See 16 U.S.C. § 825 l (b). Of course, because of their mistake in failing to intervene, petitioners now lack standing to pursue such a suit. See id. § 825 l (b) (Any party to a proceeding under this chapter aggrieved by an order issued by the Commission in such proceeding may obtain [judicial] review.... (emphasis added)); Covelo Indian Cmty., 895 F.2d at 585. It turns Rule 214 on its head, however, to argue that this lack of standing gives the petitioners good cause to intervene. If, as petitioners claim, losing one of the benefits of intervention constitutes good cause under Rule 214, then that rule is truly toothless  no untimely petitioner will ever lack good cause, since by definition no petitioner can obtain the benefits of intervention until he actually intervenes. [10] Petitioners also argue that the Commission's failure to provide an exemption for intervention in cases where it issues a draft EA violates NEPA's requirement that it involve environmental agencies, applicants, and the public, to the extent practicable. 40 C.F.R. § 1501.4(b); see also id. § 1506.6. This argument overstates the pertinent NEPA regulations. Although we have not unequivocally defined what sort of public participation is required to meet NEPA's amorphous standards, we have recognized that the level of participation required by NEPA's implementing regulations is not substantial. We have held that a complete failure to involve or even inform the public about an agency's preparation of an EA would violate NEPA's regulations, see Citizens for Better Forestry v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 341 F.3d 961, 970 (9th Cir.2003), but have also concluded that the circulation of a draft EA is not required in every case. Bering Strait Citizens for Responsible Res. Dev. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, 524 F.3d 938, 952 (9th Cir.2008). We have never suggested that intervention  much less untimely intervention  is necessary to satisfy NEPA's requirements. In Citizens for Better Forestry, we remarked that 40 C.F.R. § 1501.4(b) and 40 C.F.R. § 1506.6 meant that the public must be given an opportunity to comment on draft EAs. 341 F.3d at 970 (quoting Anderson v. Evans, 314 F.3d 1006, 1016 (9th Cir.2002)) (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). Similarly, in Bering Strait Citizens, we concluded that [a]n agency, when preparing an EA, must provide the public with sufficient environmental information, considered in the totality of the circumstances, to permit members of the public to weigh in with their views and thus inform the agency decision-making process. 524 F.3d at 953. But neither enabling the public to comment nor providing the public with sufficient information to elicit informed responses requires intervention. Non-parties to the Commission's proceedings are not prevented from commenting on proposed actions or receiving information about the Commission's decisions. Instead, non-parties are simply unable to challenge the Commission's final decision in court. In this case, the Commission fully satisfied the participation standards we have sublimated from NEPA's implementing regulations. The Commission circulated a draft EA and solicited comments, and both CalTrout and FOR filed comments on the draft EA. In its decisions denying petitioners' motions for intervention, the Commission noted that it [would] consider all comments from [petitioners] with full weight, see 120 F.E.R.C. ¶ 61,057 n. 9 (CalTrout); 122 F.E.R.C. ¶ 61,150 (FOR), and petitioners have not suggested otherwise. Petitioners were given a full opportunity to review and comment on the draft EA, as NEPA requires, and they took advantage of that opportunity. We decline to broaden NEPA by construing it to require intervention in such cases as well.