Opinion ID: 3037764
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Reliance on LSRs

Text: In a somewhat related argument, EPIC contends that USFS (and FWS) improperly relied on the existence of LSRs to diminish the Project’s impact on critical habitat. EPIC’s argument is based primarily on our recent decision in Gifford Pinchot, 378 F.3d at 1069-76. Gifford Pinchot involved a challenge under the ESA to FWS regulations defining “adverse modification” of critical habitat and to FWS’s reliance on LSRs to compensate for loss of critical habitat in various biological opinions. We invalidated the adverse modification regulation because it did not account for considerations of “recovery” as opposed to “survival” when evaluating adverse modification of critical habitat under the ESA. Id. at 1069-71. We also held that FWS’s finding — that loss of critical habitat was not an adverse modification because of the existence of the LSR habitat — was arbitrary and capricious, and noted that this error was not harmless because reliance on the LSRs pervaded the BiOps. Id. at 1076 & n.12. EPIC argues that FWS’s BiOp in this case suffers from similar flaws, while admitting it has not brought an action under the ESA or challenged the BiOp itself. In the BiOps challenged in Gifford Pinchot, FWS appears to have essentially treated the LSRs as a substitute for critical habitat. Id. at 1075-76. In contrast, although the FWS BiOp in this case does contain some discussion of LSRs, it contains 6998 EPIC v. USFS a significant analysis of the Project’s effect on critical habitat that is independent of the LSR discussion. Moreover, even assuming the FWS BiOp is similarly flawed, USFS did not rely exclusively on this document or on its finding of no “adverse modification.” Further, EPIC’s NEPA challenge involves a different statutory scheme than the one at issue in Gifford Pinchot: NEPA regulations direct USFS to consider the “degree” to which critical habitat is adversely affected, whereas the ESA prohibits any “adverse modification” of critical habitat. [8] Although there is some discussion of the existence of LSRs in the EA, in this case (and unlike Gifford Pinchot), reliance on the LSRs does not pervade the EA or FONSI, and USFS did not use the LSRs as a “substitute” for critical habitat.4 The EA and FONSI demonstrate that the agency gave a “hard look” at the Project’s effect on critical habitat and an adequate explanation of why USFS found adverse impacts to critical habitat were not likely to be significant within the meaning of NEPA — i.e., the small percentage of critical habitat lost and maintenance of critical constituent elements such as dispersal habitat. We therefore conclude that the EA contains an adequate discussion of the critical habitat issue and that it was not arbitrary and capricious for the agency to determine that an EIS was not required. 4 Importantly, Gifford Pinchot does not mandate that agencies ignore LSRs altogether, and expressly approved reliance on compliance with the NFP, especially the LSRs, when analyzing jeopardy to the species (as opposed to its critical habitat) under the ESA. 378 F.3d at 1066-68. Most of the references to LSRs in the EA and FONSI relate to the Project’s impact on the species, as opposed to its critical habitat. EPIC v. USFS 6999 C. Impacts to Watershed 1. Uncertainty EPIC contends that an EIS was also necessary because the Project is likely to have significant, short-term adverse impacts on the watershed and because the impacts are “uncertain.” EPIC’s allegation of “uncertainty” is based on the EA’s use of the term “immeasurable” to describe increases in cumulative watershed effects. However, read in the proper context, this term reflects not uncertainty in projecting effects, but USFS’s conclusion that any effects would be so negligible that they could not be measured: “These increases would be immeasurable and not likely to adversely affect water quality, anadromous fish habitat or species.” 2. Short-term Adverse Effects [9] EPIC also alleges that the EA’s analysis of watershed impacts does not provide the “hard look” required by NEPA, that the agency did not use high-quality information, and that the agency focused disproportionately on the long-term benefits of the Project. Although EPIC alleges that the EA contains “very limited actual analysis of watershed impacts,” in fact the EA contains fifteen pages devoted to the watershed issue, describing the existing status of the watershed and the projected impacts of the Project, and including precautions and methods that would be utilized to minimize impacts. [10] Although “[s]ignificance cannot be avoided by terming an action temporary,” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27(b)(7), an adverse effect still must be significant to require an EIS. The EA does not ignore short-term adverse effects resulting from the Project. The EA addresses such effects throughout the analysis, concluding that both direct and indirect short-term effects will be “minor” or “negligible” for at least seven different, detailed reasons, including various protective measures incorporated into the Project parameters and the small and 7000 EPIC v. USFS widely-dispersed nature of the areas affected. Although the EA expects beneficial long-term effects from the Project, it contains a reasoned evaluation of the short-term adverse impacts. Because these impacts are expected to be only “minor” or “negligible,” an EIS was not required. 3. Cumulative Impacts [11] In determining whether an action requires an EIS, the agency must consider “[w]hether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27(b)(7). EPIC asserts that the EA’s analysis of cumulative effects on the watershed was seriously flawed, suggesting that the agency glossed over cumulative effects because the effects of the Project itself are small. However, the entire EA analysis of the watershed impacts is based on a “cumulative watershed effects” (“CWE”) model, which incorporates the proposed action’s effects together with current conditions and other reasonably foreseeable projects. The EA considers the CWE on a project level and also a larger watershed scale. EPIC does not argue that there is any particular error in using the CWE model; indeed, this court has previously refused to question this methodology, deferring instead to the agency’s expertise in developing the model. Inland Empire Pub. Lands Council v. Schultz, 992 F.2d 977, 981 (9th Cir. 1993). The agency considered cumulative watershed effects and provided a significant amount of quantified and detailed information; the EA’s analysis was sufficient and did not reveal the need for an EIS. D. Failure to Include Meteor Timber Sale EPIC also argues that the EA’s overall analysis of cumulative impacts is flawed because USFS failed to consider the impacts of the Meteor Timber Sale. Meteor and Knob were both initially part of a larger project, called “Comet,” which was abandoned. When the final Knob EA was issued, the EPIC v. USFS 7001 Meteor project had just been proposed, containing some of the units from the original Comet project. [12] Projects that are “reasonably foreseeable” should be included in the cumulative effects analysis. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.7. In the EA, USFS noted the Meteor proposal but specifically excluded it from its analysis because Meteor was “in the initial planning stage” and “specifics of the units (size and treatment prescription)” had not been identified at that time. Although “[i]t is not appropriate to defer consideration of cumulative impacts to a future date when meaningful consideration can be given now,” Kern v. BLM, 284 F.3d 1062, 1075 (9th Cir. 2002), nor do “we require the government to do the impractical,” if not enough information is available to permit meaningful consideration, Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project v. Blackwood, 161 F.3d 1208, 1215 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting Inland Empire Pub. Lands Council v. USFS, 88 F.3d 754, 764 (9th Cir. 1996)). See Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390, 410 n.20 (1976) (noting that once contemplated actions become more formal proposals, later impact statements on those projects will take into account the effect of the earlier proposed actions).5 Moreover, later, in response to comments to the EA, USFS did analyze the effect of the Meteor project based on the information known about the proposed project at that time. Cf. Friends of the Clearwater v. Dombeck, 222 F.3d 552, 56061 (9th Cir. 2000) (considering evidence that agency rectified NEPA violation). In the comment response, USFS explained that although the proposal was still not firm, enough was then known to permit a general discussion of effects. USFS noted that the Meteor project resembled the Knob project in terms of prescriptions, types of logging systems, scattering of units and other resource protection measures, and concluded that 5 Indeed, that is exactly what happened in this case, as USFS eventually prepared a full EIS for the Meteor Project, which included a cumulative analysis of the Knob and Meteor Projects. 7002 EPIC v. USFS Meteor would have similar minor or negligible watershed effects. [13] In sum, because the parameters of the Meteor project were unknown at the time of the EA, it was not arbitrary and capricious for USFS to omit the project from its cumulative analysis. Moreover, even if USFS made a clear error of judgment by failing to include this project in the EA, it remedied this error by including a reasonably complete discussion of the issue in the comment response, based on the project parameters that were known at that point in time. E. Reliance on Mitigation Measures EPIC also criticizes USFS’s reliance on mitigation measures to downplay the adverse effects of the Project. It argues that the EA provides no data supporting the efficacy of its mitigation measures. See Nat’l Parks, 241 F.3d at 733-35 (EIS required where effectiveness of proposed mitigation measures was too uncertain). This case differs from National Parks, however, because instead of analyzing potential impacts of a proposed action and then developing a plan to mitigate those adverse effects, the Project incorporates mitigation measures throughout the plan of action, so that the effects are analyzed with those measures in place.6 Thus, it cannot be said that the EA fails to analyze the effects of the mitigation measures; instead, the EA 6 Although it lacks the force of a regulation (see Friends of the Earth v. Hintz, 800 F.2d 822, 838 n.15 (9th Cir. 1986)), the Center for Environmental Quality’s “Forty Questions” memorandum discusses this approach: [W]here the proposal itself so integrates mitigation from the beginning that it is impossible to define the proposal without including the mitigation, the agency may then rely on the mitigation measures in determining that the overall effects would not be significant. 46 Fed. Reg. 18026, 18037 (1981). EPIC v. USFS 7003 analyzes the Project under the enumerated constraints and concludes that any environmental impacts will not be significant. The EA also contains very specific and detailed information on the ways that the timber harvest will be conducted in order to minimize effects on wildlife or watershed. In addition to these specifically identified measures, the EA also crossreferences applicable Best Management Practices (“BMPs”), attached in an appendix, which are also quite detailed. Compare Wetlands Action Network v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 222 F.3d 1105, 1121 (9th Cir. 2000) (upholding mitigation measures where special permit conditions were “extremely detailed,” even though all details of mitigation plan were not yet finalized) with Neighbors of Cuddy Mountain v. USFS, 137 F.3d 1372, 1380 (9th Cir. 1998)(holding that “perfunctory description” of mitigation measures was inadequate). The EA also explains that there will be concurrent monitoring of the implementation and effectiveness of these BMPs to aid in timely identification of threats and the need for preventative measures or project modifications. See Okanogan Highlands Alliance v. Williams, 236 F.3d 468, 476 (9th Cir. 2000) (upholding discussion of mitigation measures in an EIS where document provides methods for ensuring environmental problems do not develop). [14] In short, given the specificity of the protection measures, the analysis of the environmental impacts with these measures in place, and the provision for ongoing monitoring to ensure compliance, USFS has taken the requisite “hard look” at the Project’s environmental consequences, and it was not arbitrary and capricious for it to determine that the impacts would not be significant with these mitigation measures in place. F. Failure to Consider Reasonable Range of Alternatives [15] EPIC also complains that the EA is inadequate because it does not analyze an adequate range of alternatives 7004 EPIC v. USFS to the proposed action. We recently joined other circuits in holding that “an agency’s obligation to consider alternatives under an EA is a lesser one than under an EIS,” Native Ecosystems, 428 F.3d at 1246, and went on to hold that USFS considered an adequate range of alternatives when it dismissed four alternatives without detailed consideration and evaluated only two alternatives — the proposed project and a no-action alternative — in detail, id. at 1245-46. [16] In contrast, the EA here considered in detail a noaction alternative, the proposed Project alternative, and a third alternative that was similar to the Project but did not log any northern spotted owl critical habitat. USFS had also considered six additional alternatives, but eliminated them from detailed study for various reasons. To the extent EPIC argues that USFS did not give a sufficient explanation for rejecting these additional alternatives, the explanations were not arbitrary or capricious, and were tied to the stated purpose of the Project.7 See id. at 1247 (“Alternatives that do not advance the purpose of the [Project] will not be considered reasonable or appropriate.”). Therefore, USFS fulfilled its obligations under NEPA to evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed project. 7 One alternative was eliminated because it was found incompatible with maintenance of sensitive species; another alternative was eliminated because of concerns about cumulative watershed effects; a noncommercial alternative was rejected because it would not achieve the need to provide sustained yield of wood products and would cost taxpayers money instead of benefitting the Treasury; an alternative with an upper diameter limit was eliminated because it would not achieve desired stand conditions, as large decadent and high-risk trees would be left on site; a no-harvest alternative was rejected because it did not meet the purpose of the proposal to maintain stand health and reduce fire risk; and a chemicalfree alternative was rejected because it was determined that some gopher baiting was necessary to achieve regeneration of certain types of trees. EPIC v. USFS 7005 G. Short-term Increased Fire Risk EPIC further asserts that the EA contains inadequate disclosures about short-term increases in fire risk and that the EA does not demonstrate that the Project will meet the goal of reducing overall fire risk. In addition to the discussion noted above regarding fire risk within spotted owl critical habitat, the EA also contains a general section regarding fire risk and clearly discloses both the risk and the steps that will be taken to minimize that risk. In a similar vein, EPIC contends USFS violated NEPA by failing to document that the Project will meet its stated purpose — i.e., reducing the risk of stand-replacing fires. EPIC asserts that USFS failed to address the “body of scientific literature that directly disputes Defendant’s allegations that commercial logging in mature stands will decrease fire danger.” USFS responds that all project logging will be accompanied by fuel treatment, citing studies that have, in the agency’s view, shown thinning combined with prescribed fire/ fuels treatment has yielded the best results in preventing catastrophic wildfires. When specialists express conflicting views, we defer to the informed discretion of the agency. See Earth Island Institute v. USFS, 442 F.3d 1147, 1160 (9th Cir. 2006). Thus, we conclude that the EA adequately discloses and discusses the short-term increase of fire risk, and USFS’s conclusion that the Project will meet the goal of long-term risk reduction is not arbitrary or capricious.