Opinion ID: 175356
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Global Warming

Text: Plaintiffs argue that the Service violated NEPA by failing to discuss global warming in the EA. The Service's decision to implement a project is arbitrary and capricious under NEPA if an EA or EIS entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem. Lands Council, 537 F.3d at 987. However, the Service is only required to focus on the issues that are truly significant to the action in question. 40 C.F.R. § 1500.1(b). Also, [i]mpacts shall be discussed in proportion to their significance. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.2(b). Plaintiffs point out that global warming has been recognized by courts as an issue of national importance. See Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 521, 127 S.Ct. 1438, 167 L.Ed.2d 248 (2007); Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., 538 F.3d 1172, 1221-24 (9th Cir.2008). They also point out that the Deputy Chief for the National Forest System has issued a guidance document directing the Service to incorporate climate change analysis into its evaluations of projects. That guidance document suggests, for example, that a qualitative discussion of climate change would be necessary in an EA for a proposal to underburn 30,000 acres of ponderosa pine stands. It states, however, that proposals require no discussion if they are of a minor scale [so] that the direct effects would be meaningless. The Project involves a relatively small amount of land and it will thin rather than clear cut trees. Further, we note that the Service addressed comments regarding climate change in its December 2007 notice of final decision. We therefore conclude that the EA adequately considered the Project's impact on global warming in proportion to its significance.