Opinion ID: 3034729
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: consideration of range of alternatives

Text: [11] NEPA requires federal 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.” 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(E). The alternatives provision of NEPA applies whether an agency is preparing an EIS or an EA, and NEPA’s implementing regulations require an EA to include “brief discussions of the need for the proposal, of alternatives as required by [42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(E)], of the environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives, and a listing of agencies and persons consulted.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.9(b) (2000); see also Bob Marshall Alliance, 852 F.2d at 1229 (“[A]ny proposed federal action involving unresolved conflicts as to the proper use of resources triggers NEPA’s consideration of alternatives requirement, whether or not an EIS is also required.”). In short, NEPA “requires that alternatives . . . be given full and meaningful consideration.” Bob Marshall Alliance, 852 F.2d at 1229. Native Ecosystems discredits the Jimtown EA as insufficient because it did not consider a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project. Native Ecosystems’s argument is confusing. In one breath, Native Ecosystems faults the For10 Unlike Neighbors of Cuddy Mountain I, where the “Forest Service . . . failed to even mention the number or percentage of trees meeting the definition of old growth that would be destroyed,” 137 F.3d at 1379, here the Forest Service identified the number of goshawk home ranges impacted by prior fires and actions in the Jimtown Project cumulative effects area and specifically considered the impact the Jimtown Project and other actions had on goshawk home ranges and the critical components of each home range. NATIVE ECOSYSTEMS v. USFS 15157 est Service for failing to consider a “range” of alternatives— suggesting that its concern is with the number of alternatives considered by the Forest Service. In the next breath, Native Ecosystems faults the Forest Service for failing to consider an alternative to the Jimtown Project that would “comply” with the Helena National Forest’s Forest Plan—suggesting that its concern is with the substance of the alternatives considered by the Forest Service. If Native Ecosystems is simply concerned with the number of alternatives considered by the Forest Service in the Jimtown Project EA, Native Ecosystems’s claim fails. The Forest Service’s Jimtown Project EA considered a total of six alternatives, four of which were raised but rejected without detailed consideration. Of the six proposed alternatives, two alternatives—a “no action” alternative and the “preferred alternative” (the proposed Jimtown Project)—were the focus of the EA and given detailed consideration by the Forest Service. Native Ecosystems ignores the four alternatives dismissed by the agency, and contends that the EA’s development of only two alternatives failed to meet NEPA’s requirements. NEPA and its implementing regulations only require the following with respect to the number of alternatives that must be considered by an agency: 1) the agency must consider “appropriate” alternatives to recommended courses of action, 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(E); 2) an EIS must “[r]igorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives” and must explain why it has eliminated an alternative from detailed study, 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14(a) (2000) (emphasis added); 3) the agency must consider a “no action” alternative, id. § 1502.14(d); and 4) the agency must designate a “preferred” alternative, id. § 1502.14(e). The statutory and regulatory requirements that an agency must consider “appropriate” and “reasonable” alternatives does not dictate the minimum number of alternatives that an agency must consider. 15158 NATIVE ECOSYSTEMS v. USFS [12] To the extent that Native Ecosystems is complaining that having only two final alternatives—no action and a preferred alternative—violates the regulatory scheme, a plain reading of the regulations dooms that argument. So long as “all reasonable alternatives” have been considered and an appropriate explanation is provided as to why an alternative was eliminated, the regulatory requirement is satisfied. In short, the regulation does not impose a numerical floor on alternatives to be considered.11 Nor have we previously imposed a numerical requirement as the bellwether of reasonableness. Rather, the substance of the alternatives has been a focus, not the sheer number of alternatives considered. See Muckleshoot Indian Tribe v. U.S. Forest Serv., 177 F.3d 800, 813-14 (9th Cir. 1999) (noting that the Forest Service failed to consider an adequate range of alternatives because its EIS included a “no action” alternative and two nearly identical action alternatives, none of which were “more consistent with [the agency’s] basic policy objectives than the alternatives that were the subject of final consideration.”); see also W. Land Exch. Project v. Dombeck, 47 F. Supp. 2d 1196, 1211-12 (D. Or. 1999) (concluding that the Forest Service met its statutory obligations where it had considered and dismissed six alternative plans that did not meet the purpose and needs of the proposed project). [13] We turn now to the substance of the alternatives considered by the Forest Service, and the potential alternatives 11 Curry v. U.S. Forest Serv., 988 F. Supp. 541 (W.D. Pa. 1997), is not to the contrary. The court in Curry was not focused solely on the fact that the Forest Service offered only two alternatives in its EA; rather, the court first resolved that the project warranted an EIS instead of an EA because of a potential significant impact on the environment. The court went on to voice its concern that the Forest Service failed to consider a “broad range of reasonable alternatives” as required by NEPA. Id. at 551-54. Curry simply does not support Native Ecosystems’s argument that an EA violates NEPA simply because it has only a “no action” alternative and a “preferred” alternative. NATIVE ECOSYSTEMS v. USFS 15159 raised by Native Ecosystems, to determine whether the Forest Service considered “appropriate” and “reasonable” alternatives under NEPA. In undertaking this analysis, we join our sister circuits in holding that an agency’s obligation to consider alternatives under an EA is a lesser one than under an EIS. In rejecting any alternatives, the agency must only include “brief discussions of the need for the proposal, of alternatives required by [42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(E)], of the environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives, and a listing of agencies and persons consulted.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.9(b) (2000). See Mt. Lookout—Mt. Nebo Prop. Prot. Ass’n v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm’n, 143 F.3d 165, 172 (4th Cir. 1998) (“The rigor with which an agency must consider alternatives is greater when the agency determines that an EIS is required for a particular federal action.”); Sierra Club v. Espy, 38 F.3d 792, 803 (5th Cir. 1994) (same); Friends of the Ompompanoosuc v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm’n, 968 F.2d 1549, 1558 (2d Cir. 1992) (same). In judging whether the Forest Service considered appropriate and reasonable alternatives, we focus first on the stated purpose for the Jimtown Project. See Idaho Conservation League v. Mumma, 956 F.2d 1508, 1520 (9th Cir. 1992) (benchmarking whether an alternative is reasonable, and should have been considered by the Forest Service in its EA or EIS, depends on the “ ‘nature and scope of the proposed action’ ” (quoting California v. Block, 690 F.2d 753, 761 (9th Cir. 1982))). The “Purpose and Need” section of the EA states: The purpose is to maintain healthy, sustainable ecosystems that 1) reduce fire risk, 2) control noxious weeds and provide native habitats similar to the habitat that existed when fire was a natural component of the ecosystem, and 3) provide wood for people’s use. Alternatives that do not advance the purpose of the Jimtown Project will not be considered reasonable or appropriate. See 15160 NATIVE ECOSYSTEMS v. USFS Westlands Water Dist. v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 376 F.3d 853, 868 (9th Cir. 2004) (“The ‘range of alternatives that must be considered in the EIS need not extend beyond those reasonably related to the purposes of the project.’ ” (quoting Laguna Greenbelt, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Transp., 42 F.3d 517, 524 (9th Cir. 1994))). According to Native Ecosystems, the Forest Service did not consider a “reasonable” range of alternatives because it failed to consider an alternative that would fully comply with the current Helena National Forest Plan. Native Ecosystems first claims the Forest Service should have considered an alternative that did not involve commercial harvest as part of the thinning portion of the Jimtown Project.12 Native Ecosystems goes on to argue the Forest Service should have considered in detail an alternative that did not require amendment of the Helena National Forest Plan’s hiding cover/road density standard, but instead, included treatment measures designed to move the project area into compliance with the Forest Plan’s hiding cover/road density standard. The EA’s preferred alternative proposes to offer the commercial sale of any marketable timber from the thinning component of the Jimtown Project. The project area is designated as a livestock grazing area under the Helena National Forest Plan, which provides: “Timber harvest may be used as a tool 12 One of the four alternatives raised but rejected by the Forest Service would have removed the commercial sale component from the proposed Jimtown Project. The other three alternatives considered but dismissed from detailed study were (1) an alternative that would not involve building a temporary road, (2) an alternative that would use another method of weed control, and (3) an alternative that would expand the proposed project. The Forest Service dismissed the no-road alternative because it concluded either the no-action alternative captured this goal or the Forest Service could alter the preferred alternative to achieve the same purpose. The Forest Service determined that the weed control and project expansion alternatives also were unreasonable. Native Ecosystems does not challenge the dismissal of these three alternatives from detailed consideration. NATIVE ECOSYSTEMS v. USFS 15161 to improve forage production [in designated livestock grazing areas]. However, forested land is classified as unsuitable for timber management.” Native Ecosystems’s insistence that this designation prevents a commercial timber harvest in the Jimtown Project area is a misinterpretation of the plan, which does not prohibit commercial timber harvest on the project lands—only “timber management.” “Timber management” is defined as “the purposeful growing, tending, harvesting, and regeneration of regulated crops of trees to be cut into logs, bolts or other round sections for industrial or consumer use.” [14] The Forest Service will not engage in “timber management” in the Jimtown Project area if it adopts the EA’s preferred alternative. Rather, the Forest Service would be thinning to reduce fire risk; a service contractor will be permitted to sell any commercially viable small trees taken during the thinning. These actions do not amount to timber management in violation of the Helena National Forest Plan. The Forest Service persuasively points out that whether or not the preferred alternative involved a commercial sale component, the environmental impacts of the project are the same: a commercial component does not affect the project’s design because the project focuses on fuels reduction and not on profitability.13 The availability of commercial timber is simply a 13 The party proposing the no commercial harvest alternative during the NEPA public comment period was concerned that a commercial sale would lead to the harvest of large trees. The Forest Service dismissed these concerns in the EA in its explanation for why it was not giving the proposed alternative detailed consideration: The proposal is commercial in the sense that a service contractor would have the right to remove smaller diameter trees with commercial value. The contractor would also be required to remove many trees without commercial value. The purpose and need for the project does not specify the need to produce a commercial timber sale. It is hoped that there will be sufficient value in the surplus material to help accomplish the thinning, prescribed fire, and weed treatment proposed. The guidelines for designating leave trees and trees for removal are specified in the “Stand Density Harvest Prescription” which is in the project file. 15162 NATIVE ECOSYSTEMS v. USFS collateral benefit to the government and does not change the purpose or scope of the project. Native Ecosystems has not persuaded us that the Forest Service ignored a reasonable alternative. Native Ecosystems also asks us to invalidate the EA because the Forest Service did not consider an alternative that would not require an amendment of the Helena National Forest Plan’s hiding cover/road density standard.14 This challenge does not make sense in the context of the Jimtown Project. The project was conceived in an effort to address the increased vegetation resulting from long-term fire suppression. The objective is to remove excess fuels and reduce the potential for large-scale fires that could ultimately wipe out any hiding cover. Increasing short-term hiding cover conditions will lead to an inevitable stand-replacing wildfire, a condition that might obliterate all hiding cover for the long term. As the Forest Service noted: “While continued exclusion of fire can allow for development of dense sapling understories and thereby provide hiding cover for a period, these conditions are clearly not sustainable over time.” Consequently, the Forest Service determined that sustaining some cover over time is preferable to losing a large percentage of it in a single event. See Akiak Native Cmty. v. U.S. Postal Serv., 213 F.3d 1140, 1148 (9th Cir. 2000) (observing that “it makes no sense” for the Postal Service to consider alternatives that do not promote the goal of improving efficiency when “the [agency’s] purpose is to accomplish one thing.”) (quoting City of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F.2d 1016, 1021 (9th Cir. 1986) (per curiam)). When the purpose of the Jimtown Project is to reduce fire risk, the Forest Service need not consider alternatives that would increase fire risk. 14 Native Ecosystems’s suggestion also fails to recognize that the Jimtown Project area is already out of compliance with the hiding cover/road density requirements for big game under the Helena National Forest Plan. According to the DN/FONSI: “The wildlife analysis for this project concluded that even the ‘no action’ alternative fails to comply with the standard.” NATIVE ECOSYSTEMS v. USFS 15163 Native Ecosystems’s proposed alternative also would have been redundant. The DN/FONSI makes clear that if Native Ecosystems wanted an alternative that did not involve amending the Helena National Forest Plan and moved the project area closer to compliance with the current hiding cover/road density standard, it got one—the “no action” alternative. NEPA does not require federal agencies to consider alternatives that are substantially similar to other alternatives. See Westlands Water Dist., 376 F.3d at 868 (“Nor is an agency required to undertake a ‘separate analysis of alternatives which are not significantly distinguishable from alternatives actually considered, or which have substantially similar consequences.’ ” (quoting Headwaters, Inc. v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 914 F.2d 1174, 1181 (9th Cir. 1990))). We are not persuaded by Native Ecosystems’s reliance upon Muckleshoot Indian Tribe to support its demand for a “no forest plan amendment” alternative. In Muckleshoot, we faulted the Forest Service for failing to consider “an alternative that was more consistent with its basic policy objectives than the alternatives that were the subject of final consideration.” 177 F.3d at 813. [15] In light of Native Ecosystems’s failure to raise substantial questions that demonstrate the Jimtown Project may have a significant effect on the environment, the Forest Service’s consideration of a “no action” alternative and its “preferred” alternative met its statutory and regulatory duty to prepare appropriate alternatives for the Jimtown Project EA.