Opinion ID: 777060
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Adequacy of the EIS for the Coos Bay RMP

Text: 27 ONRC argues that the EIS for the Coos Bay RMP is inadequate in that it merely refers to the Guidelines, which have never been analyzed in an EIS. The Coos Bay EIS makes no attempt itself to analyze the effect of the fungus on the Port Orford Cedar. 28 In reviewing the adequacy of an EIS, we employ a rule of reason to determine whether the EIS contains a `reasonably thorough discussion of the significant aspects of probable environmental consequences.' [ Or. Natural Res. Council v. Lowe, 109 F.3d 521, 526 (9th Cir.1997)]. Under this standard, review consists only of insuring that the agency took a `hard look.' Id.  Neighbors of Cuddy Mountain v. USFS, 137 F.3d 1372, 1376 (9th Cir. 1998). The rule of reason analysis and the review for an abuse of discretion are essentially the same. Id. We examine the adequacy of the EIS using an objective good faith standard. See Coalition for Canyon Pres. v. Bowers, 632 F.2d 774, 782 (9th Cir.1980).
29 As a threshold matter, defendants argue that NEPA did not obligate the BLM to undertake a detailed environmental analysis of the fungus and the Port Orford Cedar when it prepared the EIS for the Coos Bay RMP. The defendants argue that the EIS merely analyzes the resource management plan, rather than a specific action, and that analysis of the fungus and the Cedar is not required until the time a federal agency makes an irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources. We disagree. 30 Federal regulations require preparation of an EIS in conjunction with the preparation of any RMP. See 43 C.F.R. § 1601.0-6 (Approval of a resource management plan is considered a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. The environmental analysis of alternatives and the proposed plan shall be accomplished as part of the resource management planning process ...). An agency may not avoid an obligation to analyze in an EIS environmental consequences that foreseeably arise from an RMP merely by saying that the consequences are unclear or will be analyzed later when an EA is prepared for a site-specific program proposed pursuant to the RMP. [T]he purpose of an [EIS] is to evaluate the possibilities in light of current and contemplated plans and to produce an informed estimate of the environmental consequences.... Drafting an [EIS] necessarily involves some degree of forecasting. City of Davis v. Coleman, 521 F.2d 661, 676 (9th Cir.1975) (emphasis added). If an agency were able to defer analysis discussion of environmental consequences in an RMP, based on a promise to perform a comparable analysis in connection with later site-specific projects, no environmental consequences would ever need to be addressed in an EIS at the RMP level if comparable consequences might arise, but on a smaller scale, from a later site-specific action proposed pursuant to the RMP. 31 Once an agency has an obligation to prepare an EIS, the scope of its analysis of environmental consequences in that EIS must be appropriate to the action in question. NEPA is not designed to postpone analysis of an environmental consequence to the last possible moment. Rather, it is designed to require such analysis as soon as it can reasonably be done. See Save Our Ecosystems v. Clark, 747 F.2d 1240, 1246 n. 9 (9th Cir.1984) (Reasonable forecasting and speculation is ... implicit in NEPA, and we must reject any attempt by agencies to shirk their responsibilities under NEPA by labeling any and all discussion of future environmental effects as `crystal ball inquiry,' quoting Scientists' Inst. for Pub. Info., Inc. v. Atomic Energy Comm'n, 481 F.2d 1079, 1092 (D.C.Cir.1973)). If it is reasonably possible to analyze the environmental consequences in an EIS for an RMP, the agency is required to perform that analysis. The EIS analysis may be more general than a subsequent EA analysis, and it may turn out that a particular environmental consequence must be analyzed in both the EIS and the EA. But an earlier EIS analysis will not have been wasted effort, for it will guide the EA analysis and, to the extent appropriate, permit tiering by the EA to the EIS in order to avoid wasteful duplication. 32 It is clear that the EIS for the Coos Bay RMP should have included an analysis of the likely impact of the RMP on the fungus and the Port Orford Cedar. This environmental problem was readily apparent at the time the EIS was prepared. (Indeed, it was apparent several years before, as evidenced by the earlier preparation of the Guidelines.) The RMP contained enough specifics to permit productive analysis of the fungus and the Cedar, including proposals for alternative ways of dealing with the problem. We therefore inquire whether the analysis in the EIS for the Coos Bay RMP is adequate under NEPA.
33 ONRC argues that the EIS is inadequate because its only discussion of the fungus and the Cedar is contained in a brief reference to the Guidelines, and because the EIS illegally tiers to the Guidelines. Tiering, or avoiding detailed discussion by referring to another document containing the required discussion, is expressly permitted by federal regulation: 34 Agencies are encouraged to tier their environmental impact statements to eliminate repetitive discussions of the same issues and to focus on the actual issues ripe for decision at each level of environmental review. Whenever a broad environmental impact statement has been prepared (such as a program or policy statement) and a subsequent statement or environmental assessment is then prepared on an action included within the entire program or policy (such as a site specific action) the subsequent statement or environmental assessment need only summarize the issues discussed in the broader statement and incorporate discussions from the broader statement by reference and shall concentrate on the issues specific to the subsequent action. 35 40 C.F.R. § 1502.20. 36 However, tiering to a document that has not itself been subject to NEPA review is not permitted, for it circumvents the purpose of NEPA. While NEPA empowers neither the plaintiffs nor this court to second-guess the BLM's management decisions, it does require the BLM to articulate, publicly and in detail, the reasons for and likely effects of those management decisions, and to allow public comment on that articulation. See Methow Valley Citizens, 490 U.S. at 349, 109 S.Ct. 1835 (Publication of an EIS ... gives the public the assurance that the agency has indeed considered environmental concerns in its decisionmaking process.). Although the Guidelines may contain a detailed analysis of the impact of the fungus on the Port Orford Cedar, the BLM is not excused from its responsibility under NEPA to perform an analysis of the effects of the fungus on the Cedar in an EIS specifically addressed to the Coos Bay RMP. See 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C)(i), (iii). 37 We specifically noted in Northcoast that the Guidelines would not be indefinitely shielded from NEPA review: Although CEQ procedures allow agencies to incorporate by reference certain materials to cut down on the bulk of an EIS, they cannot `tier' their site-specific EISs to the broader [Port Orford Cedar] program where the program itself has not been subject to NEPA procedures. 136 F.3d at 670. We cautioned additionally that judicial estoppel will prevent the Secretaries from arguing they have no further duty to consider their [Port Orford Cedar] management policies when site-specific programs are challenged. Id. We now hold, as we warned in Northcoast that we would, that the EIS for the Coos Bay RMP may not tier to the Guidelines, for which an EIS has never been prepared.
38 Because the Coos Bay EIS may not tier to the Guidelines, its adequacy depends on the analysis contained in the EIS itself. The sum total of the analysis in the EIS is the statement that the BLM will: 39 Conform all management activities within the range of Port-Orford-cedar to the guidelines described in the BLM Port-Orford-cedar Management Policies to mitigate damage caused by Phytophthora lateralis. Site-specific analysis for projects within the range of Port-Orford-cedar will consider possible effects on the species. 40 This two-sentence statement is obviously inadequate. The first sentence is an impermissible attempt to tier the analysis to the Guidelines. The second sentence is not an analysis, but rather a promise of a later site-specific analysis to be performed in connection with specific projects within the range of the Port-Orford-cedar. The revised EA for the Sandy-Remote Analysis Area is such a site-specific analysis. The adequacy of that EA has also been challenged by ONRC. We now turn to that question. 41