RECENT NEPA CASES (2018)

P.E. Hudson, Esq.1 Department of the Navy, Office of General Counsel

Port Hueneme, California

Lucinda Low Swartz, Esq.2 Environmental Consultant

Kensington, Maryland ABSTRACT This paper reviews substantive NEPA cases issued by federal courts in 2018, and explains the implications of the decisions and relevance to NEPA practitioners. INTRODUCTION In 2018, the U.S. Courts of Appeal issued 35 substantive decisions involving implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by federal agencies. The 35 cases involved seven different departments. Overall, the federal agencies prevailed in 28 of the cases, did not prevail in five cases, and prevailed on some but not all NEPA claims in two cases, with a total prevail rate of 80 percent (83 percent if the partial cases are included). The U.S. Supreme Court issued no NEPA opinions in 2018; opinions from the U.S. District Courts were not reviewed. For comparison purposes, Table 1 shows the number of U.S. Court of Appeals NEPA cases issued in 2006 – 2018, by circuit. Figure 1 is a map showing the states covered in each circuit court.

1 Questions concerning information in this paper should be directed to:

P.E. Hudson, Esq. Counsel, Department of the Navy, Office of General Counsel Center for Seabees and Facilities Engineering/Civil Engineer Corps Officers School Port Hueneme, CA 93001 Telephone: 805/982-1691 Email: pam.hudson@navy.mil Note: Any views attributable to co-author P.E. Hudson are her personal views and not necessarily the views of the federal government.

2 Co-author: Lucinda Low Swartz, Esq. Environmental Consultant 4112 Franklin Street Kensington, MD 20895 Telephone: 301/933-4668 Email: LLS@LucindaLowSwartz.com Website: www.LucindaLowSwartz.com

2

Table 1. Number of U.S. Courts of Appeal NEPA Cases, by year and by circuit U.S. Courts of Appeal Circuits

Ist 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th D.C. TOTAL

2006 3 1 1 11 6 1 23

2007 1 1 8 2 3 15

2008 1 1 1 2 13 3 1 2 24

2009 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 13 2 2 27

2010 1 2 1 1 12 4 1 1 23

2011 1 1 12 14

2012 2 1 2 3 1 1 12 3 2 1 28

2013 2 2 1 1 9 2 1 3 21

2014 2 5 10 2 3 22

2015 1 1 6 2 4 14

2016 2 1 1 14 1 1 7 27

2017 1 1 1 13 1 8 25

2018 1 3 2 1 16 3 9 35

TOTAL 9 7 7 14 9 12 5 5 149 28 9 44 298

3% 2% 2% 5% 3% 4% 2% 2% 50% 9% 3% 15%

3

Figure 1. Map of U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal

4

STATISTICS Federal agencies prevailed in 80 percent (83 percent if the partial cases are included) of the substantive NEPA cases brought before the U.S. Courts of Appeal. The U.S. Department of the Agriculture (United States Forest Service [USFS], Animal Plant Health Inspection Service – Wildlife Services [APHIS-WS]) was involved in 12 cases; the U.S. Department of Transportation (Federal Aviation Administration [FAA], and Federal Highway Administration [FHWA]) was involved in six cases. The U.S. Department of the Interior (Bureau of Land Management [BLM], and National Park Service [NPS]) was involved in five cases and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) was involved in five cases. With respect to the other agencies,

• U.S. Department of Defense (Army Corps of Engineers [USACE]) was involved in four cases.

• The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission [NRC] was involved in two cases. • U.S. Department of Energy (Bonneville Power Administration [BPA]) was involved in

one case. The USFS did not prevail in three of its ten cases, FERC did not prevail in one of its five cases, and NRC did not prevail on one of its two cases. USFS was involved in two cases in which it prevailed on some but not all of the NEPA claims brought. Of the 35 substantive cases, two cases involved a categorical exclusion (CATEX), 14 involved environmental assessments (EA), and 15 involved environmental impact statements (EIS). In four cases, the court ruled that a NEPA document was not required. Two cases in which the agencies did not prevail involved EAs (Greenpeace, Inc. v. Stewart, No. 17-35945, 743 Fed. Appx. 878 (9th Cir. Nov. 28, 2018) (unpublished) and American Rivers v. Fed. Energy Reg. Comm'n, 895 F.3d 32 (D.C Cir. 2018)). Five cases in which the agencies did not prevail involved EISs, (Sierra Club v. U.S. Forest Serv., 897 F.3d 582 (4th Cir. 2018, Cowpasture River Pres. Assoc. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 911 F.3d 150 (4th Cir. 2018), and Oglala Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 896 F.3d 520 (D.C. Cir. 2018)) although in two of them, the agencies prevailed on some but not all of the NEPA claims brought (Sierra Club v. U.S. Forest. Serv., 897 F.3d 582 (4th Cir. 2018) and Alliance for Wild Rockies v. U.S. Forest Serv., 907 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 2018)). One case in which the agency did not prevail involved whether plaintiffs had waived their right to bring a NEPA claim (Alliance for Wild Rockies v. Savage, 897 F.3d 1025 (9th Cir. 2018)). The agencies prevailed in the other 28 cases. TRENDS The following relates some trends and interesting conclusions from the 2018 substantive cases. Note that there are several cases that were not reported, which means they have no precedential value, depending on the court. However, the rulings can still be of value to NEPA practitioners.

5

Assessment of Impacts: Eighteen of the cases involved one or more challenges to assessment of impacts, including cumulative impacts, as well as two categorical exclusion cases. The cases also involved challenges to analysis of "stale," old, outdated data or methodologies (software, for example). The courts tended to focus on the deference afforded to the agency when they upheld the impact assessment analysis.

Categorical Exclusion:

• Highway J. Citizens Group v. U.S. Dep't of Transp., 891 F.3d 697 (7th Cir. 2018) (reasoning that renovating 7.5 miles of an existing two-lane road does not stand out as a major cause of a significant effect and upholding agency's categorical exclusion determination using agency's environmental report).

• BRRAM, Inc. v. Federal Aviation Admin., No. 16-4355, 721 Fed. Appx. 173 (3d Cir. Jan. 9, 2018) (determining that FAA properly considered applicant's request to amend its Operating Specifications [the terms an air carrier must comply with to ensure an air carrier is operating safely in air transportation] and determined that no extraordinary circumstances existed; the court also upheld FAA's decision applying a categorical exclusion).

Direct impacts:

• Native Ecosystems Council v. Marten, 883 F.3d 783 (9th Cir. 2018) (finding that if an agency’s mistake was not a significant factor in the approval of project then it was not inconsistent with the agency having taken a "hard look" at the project).

• Friends of the Santa Clara River v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, 887 F.3d 906 (9th Cir. 2018) (construing that the Corps, in issuing a Section 404 permit, reasonably determined that the project was not likely to affect steelhead populations in the Santa Clara River, when it used the California Toxics Rule, a method for calculating a site-specific dissolved-copper criterion and considered other sources of data, including project-specific modeling).

• Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians of the Colusa Indian Community v. Zinke, 889 F.3d 584 (9th Cir. 2018) (upholding EIS despite challenges to economic data, air quality analysis, and impacts to protected fish).

• Atchafalaya Basinkeeper v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, 894 F.3d 692 (5th Cir. 2018) (rejecting that an EA was a "mitigated FONSI," and concluding that the Corps properly used the Louisiana Wetland Rapid Assessment Method (LRAM) to assess wetland impacts, including selection of compensatory mitigation).

• American Rivers v. Federal Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 895 F.3d 32 (D.C Cir. 2018) (finding “[t]he record simply [on myriad grounds] does not provide a rational connection between the licensing decision, the record evidence, and the finding of no significant environmental impact").

• Northern Plains Resource Council, Inc. v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgm't, No. 16-35447, 725 Fed. Appx. 527 (9th Cir. Feb. 27, 2018) (determining that the BLM adequately considered the effects upon the affected topography and water resources, and the agency was “fully informed and well-considered,” and was entitled to judicial deference).

6

• McGuinness v. U.S. Forest Serv., No. 16-2406, 741 Fed. Appx. 915 (4th Cir. Jul. 26, 2018) (deferring to agency expertise and its ability to address impacts to property values as an impact; even if an impact is “highly controversial,” the court considered that was only one of ten factors in determining significance).

• Informing Citizens Against Runway Airport Expansion v. Fed. Aviation Admin., No. 17-71536, 2018 WL 6649605, -- Fed. Appx. --- (9th Cir. Dec. 18, 2018) (not for publication) (finding that FAA addressed the project’s effect on property values sufficiently to comply with NEPA when FAA examined several studies about the effect of aircraft noise on property values).

• Wildlands Defense v. Seesholtz, No. 18-35400, 2018 WL 6262505, -- Fed. Appx. --- (9th Cir. Nov. 29, 2018) (not for publication) (discussing that USFS considered both the context and intensity of the proposed actions and considered the projects’ impacts on the total area affected by the fire and on the project areas, the identification of the geographic area within which a project’s impacts on the environmental resources may occur is a task assigned to the special competency of the appropriate agencies).

• Vaughn v. Fed. Aviation Admin., No. 16-1377, 2018 WL 6430368, -- Fed. Appx. --- (D.C. Cir. Nov. 30, 2018) (not for publication) (finding that FAA sufficiently considered impacts of noise levels and of reducing noise and emissions to the extent practicable; it also held that FAA sufficiently considered air emissions and on the climate).

• Paradise Ridge Defense Coalition v. Hartman, No. 17-35848, 2018 WL 6434787, -- Fed. Appx. --- (9th Cir. Dec. 7, 2018) (not for publication) (reasoning that the agency's EA was not arbitrary and capricious: the FHWA’s reliance on the Highway Safety Manual was the industry standard; it used accepted engineering judgment; and the agency provided a “reasonably thorough discussion” of the risk and severity of collisions between vehicles and wildlife, as well as mitigation measures to decrease the risk of those collisions).

• Comanche Nation of Oklahoma v. Zinke, No. 17-6247, 754 Fed. Appx. 768 (10th Cir. Dec. 14, 2018) (not for publication) (rejecting that the NEPA analysis was flawed because it failed to consider the economic effects the new casino would have on Comanche Nation’s existing casino because socioeconomic impacts, standing alone, do not constitute significant environmental impacts cognizable under NEPA).

• The Town of Weymouth, Massachusetts v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, No. 17-1135 (consolidated with 17-1139,17-1176, 17-1220, 18-1039, 18-1042), 2018 WL 6921213, -- Fed. Appx. --- (D.C. Cir. Dec. 27, 2018) (not for publication) (rejecting argument that FERC violated NEPA by inadequately considering coal ash, noise, traffic, greenhouse-gas emissions, and the project’s effects on environmental justice communities).

Use of old or "stale" data/surveys/software:

• Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians of the Colusa Indian Community v. Zinke, 889 F.3d 584 (9th Cir. 2018) (concluding that the plaintiff was unable to support its generalized statement that the unspecified “biological data” contained in the FEIS is “stale” when oldest data was historical from 2000, but most other data was after 2006).

7

• American Rivers v. Federal Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 895 F.3d 32 (D.C Cir. 2018) (stating that reliance on a decade-old survey of fish entrainment and estimates was not sufficient: no updated information was collected; no field studies were conducted, nor was any independent verification of the applicant's estimates undertaken).

• Vaughn v. Fed. Aviation Admin., No. 16-1377, 2018 WL 6430368, -- Fed. Appx. --- (D.C. Cir. Nov. 30, 2018) (not for publication) (deferring to FAA’s reasonable explanation that a noise screening using earlier "outdated" software counts as “environmental analysis” for the purpose of complying with the agency’s own guidance; because FAA started conducting its EA before March 2012 [the date the new software was available], it was not required to switch to the new software in March 2012).

• Northern Plains Resource Council, Inc. v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgm't, No. 16-35447, 725 Fed. Appx. 527 (9th Cir. Feb. 27, 2018) (not for publication) (upholding tiering to a 1990 EIS, when plaintiff failed to point to any evidence, other than age, suggesting the unreliability of the 1990 data. The court reasoned that "[t]he age of data, without more, is not dispositive as to reliability").

Cumulative impacts:

• Friends of the Santa Clara River v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, 887 F.3d 906 (9th Cir. 2018) (finding that because the Corps reasonably determined that the project was not likely to affect steelhead populations in the Santa Clara River, it was not arbitrary or capricious to conclude that the project would not result in significant cumulative water quality impacts to steelhead).

• Atchafalaya Basinkeeper v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, 894 F.3d 692 (5th Cir. 2018) (finding the lower court’s concern about cumulative effects based on the alleged past noncompliance with Corps permit conditions was misplaced because the Corps acknowledged extrinsic past impacts on the basin and explained how the permit will not only remediate the impacts of this project but would not interfere with further efforts to restore the watershed).

• American Rivers v. Federal Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 895 F.3d 32 (D.C Cir. 2018) (finding that FERC's cumulative impact analysis left out critical parts of the equation and, as a result, fell far short of the NEPA mark, when it gave scant attention to those past actions that had led to and were perpetuating the Coosa River's heavily damaged and fragile ecosystem; nor did it offer any substantive analysis of how the present impacts of those past actions would combine and interact with the added impacts of the 30-year licensing decision).

• City of Boston Delegation v. Federal Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 897 F.3d 241 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (concluding that FERC thoroughly considered the environmental effects of another pipeline upgrade project (the Atlantic Bridge Project) throughout the cumulative impacts section of the instant project's [the AIM Project] EIS, and it contained sufficient discussion of the cumulative impacts of the Atlantic Bridge project; the court then held that another project's (Given Access Northeast Project) cumulative impact analysis was limited, but sufficient, given the preliminary stage and the resulting lack of available information about its scope at the time).

8

• Northern Plains Resource Council, Inc. v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgm't, No. 16-35447, 725 Fed. Appx. 527 (9th Cir. Feb. 27, 2018) (rejecting contention that the BLM’s cumulative-impacts analysis violated NEPA by failing to address reasonably foreseeable mining in the “mirror-image” mine to the north of the existing mine area because the BLM reasonably determined that hypothetical future mining activity contemplated to the north is not currently a reasonably foreseeable future action).

• Fath v. Texas Dep't of Transp., No. 17-50683, 2018 WL 3433800, -- F.3d --- (5th Cir. Jul. 17, 2018) (finding that, given the overpass project’s limited scope and location over busy urban intersections, it was not arbitrary and capricious for the state transportation agency to limit its cumulative impact analysis where the record supports its finding that the project will have no significant direct or indirect impacts).

• Clatsop Residents Against Walmart (CRAW) v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, No. 16-35767, 735 Fed. Appx. 909 (9th Cir. May 25, 2018) (not for publication) (rejecting plaintiff’s contention the Corps’ cumulative impacts analysis under NEPA was arbitrary and capricious, because the Corps aggregated the cumulative effects of past projects into an environmental baseline, which included quantified and detailed information about past impacts, and that the choice of a five-year baseline range was sufficient because NEPA does not impose a requirement that the Corps analyze impacts for any particular length of time and the five-year range included the most significant past impact, the 14.9 acres fill of the property).

• Wildlands Defense v. Seesholtz, No. 18-35400, 2018 WL 6262505, -- Fed. Appx. --- (9th Cir. Nov. 29, 2018) (not for publication) (finding that USFS appropriately considered cumulative impacts when it aggregated the cumulative effects of past projects into an environmental baseline, against which the incremental impact of a proposed project was measured).

• Vaughn v. Fed. Aviation Admin., No. 16-1377, 2018 WL 6430368, -- Fed. Appx. --- (D.C. Cir. Nov. 30, 2018) (not for publication) (finding that FAA did not need to conduct a cumulative analysis because it had already determined the project would have no significant effect).

Alternatives Considered: Seven cases involved challenges to the sufficiency of the alternatives considered:

• Little Traverse Lake Property Owners Ass'n v. National Park Serv,, 883 F.3d 644 (6th Cir. 2018) (finding plaintiff's proposal was not a reasonable alternative because the alternative route they proposed did not accomplish the stated purpose and need of the proposed action).

• Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians of the Colusa Indian Community v. Zinke, 889 F.3d 584 (9th Cir. 2018) (ruling that the range of alternatives was not “illusory” when the agency analyzed five alternative sites).

• Audubon Society of Greater Denver v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, 908 F.3d 593 (10th Cir. 2018) (upholding Corps' alternatives analysis in a water storage reallocation project because: (1) the Corps considered increased water conservation at length and concluded that water conservation is not an equivalent practicable alternative because it did not meet the needs of the project, (2) it adequately explained why upstream gravel pits did not merit

9

further discussion, and (3) it sufficiently explained why storing water at another reservoir was not a viable alternative to the project).

• Granat v. U.S. Dep't of Agriculture, No. 17-15665, 720 Fed. Appx. 879 (9th Cir. Apr. 27, 2018) (not for publication) (holding that the USFS had considered a reasonable range of alternatives and that it engaged with the public to develop four action alternatives consistent with the project’s purpose and need).

• McGuinness v. U.S. Forest Serv., No. 16-2406, 741 Fed. Appx. 915 (4th Cir. Jul. 26, 2018) (not for publication) (finding that the USFS's consideration of the alternatives, including the No Action alternative, was more than sufficient to satisfy the NEPA requirement that it take a "hard look" at the effect of its actions on the existing noise level).

• Vaughn v. Fed. Aviation Admin., No. 16-1377, 2018 WL 6430368, -- Fed. Appx. --- (D.C. Cir. Nov. 30, 2018) (not for publication) (rejecting allegations that FAA’s EA was deficient because it considered only the proposed action and the no-action alternatives, when FAA evaluated various groups of procedures in different combinations, in order to determine what “alternative action” to present in the Final EA).

• Informing Citizens Against Runway Airport Expansion v. Fed. Aviation Admin., No. 17-71536, 2018 WL 6649605, -- Fed. Appx. --- (9th Cir. Dec. 18, 2018) (not for publication) (concluding that FAA acted reasonably by seriously considering only alternatives that involved a 5,200-foot runway, which was reasonably related to a project’s purpose; because keeping the current runway length was not a viable alternative, FAA did not violate NEPA by failing to examine that alternative).

Federal Action: Four cases involved whether an agency's action qualified as a federal action.

• Township of Bordentown, New Jersey v. Federal Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 903 F.3d 234 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (finding that FERC was not required to exert jurisdiction over the entire pipeline project because of a small federal component and that FERC properly addressed the potential impacts of the project).

• Havasupai Tribe v. Provencio, 906 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2018) (holding the original approval of the plan of operations [documented by an EIS in1998] was a major federal action and the resumed operation of Canyon Mine did not require any additional government action because it did not change the status quo).

• Friends of the Columbia Gorge v. Bonneville Power Admin., No. 15-72788, 716 Fed. Appx. 681 (9th Cir. Mar. 27, 2018) (not for publication) (finding that agency's determination that the Wind Project was not a federal action because: (1), the project will receive no federal money; (2) the agency exercised no control over the planning and development of the Wind Project; (3) the agency engaged in a joint NEPA analysis with the state's regulatory agency; and (4) even if interconnection with the agency’s facilities is the only feasible means of transmitting power generated from the Wind Project, the interconnection and the Wind Project serve complementary, but distinct functions).

• Cascadia Wildlands v. U.S. Dep't of Agriculture, No. 17-35508, 752 Fed. Appx. 457 (9th Cir. Nov. 14, 2018) (not for publication) (discussing small federal handle, and finding that decision to assist the State of Oregon in its removal of gray wolves was not a "major federal action" because neither the agency's financial contribution (10%) to the Oregon

10

Wolf Conservation and Management Plan nor its control over the Plan’s operation, alone or in combination, were sufficient to render its involvement a "major federal action").

Connected Actions/Segmentation: Four cases dealt with connected actions/segmentation:

• Big Bend Conservation Alliance v. Federal Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 896 F.3d 418 (D.C. Cir 2018) (finding that the connected actions doctrine does not require the aggregation of federal and non-federal actions, and does not dictate that NEPA review encompass private activity outside the scope of the sum of the geographically limited federal actions; reasoning that because no federal action was required to authorize the pipeline's construction, there were no connected federal actions and so the connected-actions regulation did not apply).

• City of Boston Delegation v. Federal Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 897 F.3d 241 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (holding that the functional and temporal distinctness of the three pipeline upgrade projects, as underscored by factual developments concerning two other upgrades to its northeast pipeline system, substantiate that it was permissible for FERC to prepare a separate EIS for construction of 5 miles of new pipeline (West Roxbury Lateral), which would run adjacent to an active quarry outside of Boston).

• Township of Bordentown, New Jersey v. Federal Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 903 F.3d 234 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (finding that proposal to upgrade existing interstate natural gas pipeline system so that applicant could increase pipeline capacity for natural gas from its Mainline to its Trenton-Woodbury Lateral had independent utility and was not connected to other pipeline upgrade projects).

• Fath v. Texas Dep't of Transp., No. 17-50683, 2018 WL 3433800, -- F.3d --- (5th Cir. Jul. 17, 2018) (finding that separate highway projects are not cumulative actions as defined by 40 C.F.R. § 1508.25(a)(2), and that the agency did not improperly segment the highway projects under 23 C.F.R. § 771.111(f)).

Adoption/Incorporation by Reference: Three of the cases involved adoption of other agency's impact statements or tiered to larger impact statements.

• Sierra Club v. U.S. Forest Serv., 897 F.3d 582 (4th Cir. 2018) (discussing that the USFS, when adopting the FERC's FEIS, did not undertake an independent review of the sedimentation analysis, given that it adopted the EIS in spite of the USFS's prior disagreement over the level of efficacy of barriers intended to block sedimentation of waterways).

• Cowpasture River Preservation Assoc. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 911 F.3d 150 (4th Cir. 2018) (stating as a cooperating agency, the USFS violated NEPA because it adopted FERC’s inadequate EIS without undertaking the required “independent review,” and because the FEIS did not satisfy the USFS’ earlier comments and concerns on the DEIS).

• Alliance for Wild Rockies v. U.S. Forest Serv., 907 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 2018) (distinguishing between tiering and incorporation by reference).

Predetermination: Three cases involved allegations that impact analysis did not occur prior to agency decision-making (predetermination).

11

• Oglala Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 896 F.3d 520 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (finding that the tribe does not need to show irreparable harm for the agency to consider NEPA claims before approving license to construct a uranium mining project in the Black Hills of South Dakota).

• Natural Resources Defense Council v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 879 F.3d 1202 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (upholding NRC's approval of a license for uranium mining at the Ross Project in Wyoming although there was not enough information before the agency concerning post-mining aquifer restoration; the court opined that NRC’s NEPA process needs improvement but that a remand would be pointless considering that supplemental information was considered by the agency after the license was issued).

• Paradise Ridge Defense Coalition v. Hartman, No. 17-35848, 2018 WL 6434787, -- Fed. Appx. --- (9th Cir. Dec. 7, 2018) (not for publication) (holding that agency did not make “an irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources” before completing its analysis, and so did not impermissibly predetermine the outcome of the NEPA analysis).

Duty to Supplement: Three cases involved the duty to supplement or involved challenges to supplemental documents.

• Western Organization of Resource Councils v. Zinke, 892 F.3d 1234 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (recognizing that neither NEPA nor the agency’s own documents create a legal duty for the agency to update the Federal Coal Management Program’s programmatic EIS analyzing the climate impacts of federal coal leasing).

• Greenpeace, Inc. v. Stewart, No. 17-35945, 743 Fed. Appx. 878 (9th Cir. Nov. 28, 2018) (not for publication) (“USFS violated NEPA by declining to supplement its NEPA documents despite significant new circumstances that arose when USFS's reanalysis of the project revealed below guideline deer habitat capabilities").

• Friends of the Santa Clara River v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, 887 F.3d 906 (9th Cir. 2018) (discussing May 2011 Supplemental Analysis [incorporated into the 2009 ROD] merely confirmed the Corps’ conclusion but was not its basis; accordingly, it did not contain “significant new information” that would require the Corps to recirculate the EIS/EIR for further comment).

Waiver of claims: Three cases addressed the waiver of claims defense.

• Little Traverse Lake Property Owners Ass'n v. National Park Serv, 883 F.3d 644 (6th Cir. 2018) (explaining plaintiffs waived their claims for inadequate impact analysis when they did not renew their objections in the republished 2009 Trail Plan, but the court then provided that the claim involving alternatives was not waived because the agency did not respond to the plaintiffs’ suggestions for an alternative route they submitted during the 2009 Trail Plain public involvement period).

• Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians of the Colusa Indian Community v. Zinke, 889 F.3d 584 (9th Cir. 2018) (explaining that because the plaintiffs did not tell the agency to consider the alternatives it proposed during the comment period, it waived any argument that the failure to consider those alternatives represented a violation of NEPA).

• Alliance for Wild Rockies v. Savage, 897 F.3d 1025 (9th Cir. 2018) (construing that the plaintiffs did not waive their claims regarding impacts to the Cabinet-Yaak grizzly bear

12

because they raised the concerns at the first available opportunity, which in this case, was the FEIS).

Purpose and Need: Two of the cases involved challenges to purpose and need statements. Purpose and need statements in impact assessments were discussed during challenges involving sufficiency of alternatives.

• Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians of the Colusa Indian Community v. Zinke, 889 F.3d 584 (9th Cir. 2018) (disagreeing with the argument that the FEIS's purpose and need statement was "artificially limited" and opining that the purpose and need statement was quite broad).

• Little Traverse Lake Property Owners Ass'n v. National Park Serv,, 883 F.3d 644 (6th Cir. 2018) (upholding the purpose and need statement, because while the Trail Plan does prescribe a definite terminus, that requirement was not unreasonably narrow because it allowed for sufficient flexibility in planning the trailway’s path, and the Trail Plan demonstrated considerable flexibility in achieving its purpose).

Contractor Conflict of Interest: Two cases involved claims that the environmental consultant/agency had a conflict of interest with the underlying project.

• Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians of the Colusa Indian Community v. Zinke, 889 F.3d 584 (9th Cir. 2018) (finding that the plaintiff did not provide any evidence that agency did not make an independent choice to contract with contractor and plaintiff did not show an impermissible conflict of interest when it failed to allege that any financial stake contractor had in aiding with permit approvals was significant).

• City of Boston Delegation v. Federal Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 897 F.3d 241 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (providing that the supposed conflict was not a "disqualifying conflict" under the FERC's rules and that “even if petitioners had identified an actual conflict of interest, it would afford a ground for invalidating the EIS only if it rose to the level of compromising the objectivity and integrity of the NEPA process").

Emergency Action: One case addressed the unique situation of emergency action; this is an issue rarely litigated.3

• Forest Service Service Employees for Environmental Ethics v. U.S. Forest Service, No. 17-35569, 726 Fed. Appx. 605 (9th Cir. Jun. 8, 2018) (not for publication) (addressing emergency provisions and upholding the USFS's decision to construct a community protection line during the Wolverine wildfire of 2015 in the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest in eastern Washington).

3 For an in-depth treatment of emergencies, see Daniel R. Mandelker, et al., NEPA LAW AND LITIGATION §

5:17 (2018); see also CEQ Guidance, Memorandum to Federal Agency Contacts on Emergency Actions and NEPA (Sep. 8, 2005) and attachments, available at https://ceq.doe.gov/docs/nepa-practice/Emergencies_and_NEPA.pdf and CEQ Guidance, Memorandum to Heads of Federal Departments and Agencies, Emergences and NEPA (May 12, 2010), available at https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/nepapub/nepa_documents/RedDont/G-CEQ-Emergencies.pdf.

13

Each of the substantive 2018 NEPA cases, organized by federal agency, is summarized below. Unpublished cases are noted (16 of the 35 substantive cases in 2018 were unpublished, a significant number, with 11 cases from the Ninth Circuit, 2 cases from the D.C. Circuit, 1 from the Third, 1 from the Fourth Circuit, and 1 from the Fifth Circuit). Although such cases may not have precedential value depending on the court, they can be of value to NEPA practitioners.

14

2018NEPACASESU.S.COURTSOFAPPEAL

U.S.DEPARTMENTOFAGRICULTURE

NativeEcosystemsCouncilv.Marten,883F.3d783(9thCir.2018)Agencyprevailed.Issues:“Hardlook,”relianceonscientificstudiesFacts:AfterissuinganEIS,USFSapprovedaprojecttothinover2,500acresofforestland,including495acresofoldgrowthforest,intheGallatinNationalForest(Montana)forthepurposeofreducingthethreatofwildfireinapopulatedareaoftheforest.PlaintiffsbroughtsuittoenjointheprojectcontendingitviolatedNEPAandotherstatutes.Thedistrictcourtenjoinedtheprojectbut,afterrequiringUSFStoremedydefectsinBiologicalOpinionsconcerningtwolistedspecies,dissolvedtheinjunction.Thecourtofappealsaffirmed.Decision:ReiteratingthatanEIScomplieswithNEPAifitshowsthattheagencytooka"hardlook"attheenvironmentalconsequencesofitsproposedaction,thecourtstatedthatanagencyfailstomeetits"hardlook"obligationwhenit"rel[ies]onincorrectassumptionsordata"indraftinganEISorpresentsinformationthatis"soincompleteormisleadingthatthedecisionmakerandthepubliccouldnotmakeaninformedcomparisonofalternatives,"quotingNativeEcosystemsCouncil,418F.3dat960andKlamath-SiskiyouWildlandsCtr.v.BureauofLandMgmt.,387F.3dat993.

Addressingtheplaintiffs’claimsthattheEISwasmisleadingorinaccurateinthreerespectsandwasthereforedeficient,thecourtagreedwithUSFSintwoinstances(USFShadnoobligationtoprovideadetaileddescriptionofanarticleitcitedintheEISandthattheUSFSdidnotmisrepresentthecontentsofanunpublishedreportusedintheEISanalysis).Thecourtdidagreewiththeplaintiffs’thirdinstanceandconcludedthatUSFSwas“flatlywrong”initsinterpretationofaManagementIndicatorSpeciesAssessmentrelatingtopopulationsofgoshawkandpinemarten.However,

“[i]tdoesnotappear,however,thatthemistakewasasignificantfactorinUSFS'sapprovalof[theproject]. WedonotunderestimatetheimportanceofaccuratedescriptionsoftheresultsofMISsurveys.Inthecontextofthisparticularproject,however,weconcludethatUSFS'smistakewasnotinconsistentwithitshavingtakena‘hardlook’attheproject.”

SierraClubv.U.S.ForestServ.,897F.3d582(4thCir.2018)Agencyprevailedonsome,butnotall,oftheNEPAclaims.Issue:EISadoptionFacts:MountainValleyPipeline(MVP)planstoconstruct,operate,andmaintainabout300milesofnewundergroundnaturalgaspipelinefromWetzelCounty,WVAtoPittsylvaniaCounty,VA.Thepipelinewouldrequireright-of-wayfrombothBLMandUSFS(JeffersonNationalForest)andaCertificateofPublicConvenienceandNecessityfromFERC.

15

FERC,asleadagencyfornaturalgaspipelineprojects,issuedanEISfortheproject.USFSandBLMservedascooperatingagencies.AsallowedundertheCEQNEPA-implementingregulations,USFSandBLMmayadoptFERC'sEIS,butonlyiftheEIS"meetsthestandardsforanadequatestatement"underpertinentregulations,40C.F.R.§1506.3(a),andonlyiftheagenciesundertake"anindependentreviewofthestatement"anddeterminethattheir"commentsandsuggestionshavebeensatisfied,"id.§1506.3(c);seealsoHughesRiverWatershedConservancyv.Glickman,81F.3d437,445&n.6(4thCir.1996).BothBLMandUSFSdidultimatelyadopttheEISandissuedRODsonthebasisofthatEIS.WithrespecttotheUSFSdecision,itwasundisputedthattheMVPpipelineprojectwasnotconsistentwiththeJeffersonNationForestLandResourceManagementPlan.BasedontheEIS,USFSdecidedtoamendtheForestPlansuchthattheMVPprojectwouldbeconsistentwiththeplan,withtheamendmentslimitedtoapplyonlytotheMVPproject.PlaintiffsdidnotchallengeFERC’sissuanceofthecertificate.PlaintiffsdidchallengeBLM’sdecisionasaviolationoftheMineralLeasingActandUSFS’decisionasaviolationofbothNEPAandtheNationalForestManagementAct.Initially,thecourtofappealsvacatedbothagencydecisionsandremandedthecasestotheagenciesforfurtherproceedings.OnlytheNEPAchallengeisdiscussedbelow.Decision:PlaintiffschallengedUSFS’NEPAcomplianceinseveralrespects:adequateanalysisoferosionandsedimentation,forestimpacts,abilitytoconductameaningfulanalysis,andanalysisofalternatives.

ErosionandSedimentation.MVPpreparedthreedraftsofa“HydrologicAnalysisofSedimentation,”whichwasattachedtotheEIS.USFSfiledcommentsonthefirstdraftandMVPsubmittedaseconddrafttoaddressthoseconcernsandprovidingadditionalinformationregardingbestmanagementpracticesandsedimentcontainmentmeasures.

USFSalsofiledcommentsontheseconddraftandconveyedapprehensionwithconclusionsregardingsedimentationandimpactthresholds.AfterUSFSfiledthesecondsetofcomments,MVPexpressedconcernthatloweringthecontainmentefficiencyvalue(to48%fromMVP’s79%)assuggestedbyUSFS“wouldhaveramificationsfortheentireprojectanalysisandwouldnotaccuratelyreflecttheworkthatMVPhasalreadydone.”USFSurgedMVPtoprovideadditionalsupportingdocumentationforhowMVPcameupwiththeirmodelassumptions,inparticularthecontainmentefficiency.

MVPissuedathirdandfinalversionofthereportrespondingtoUSFScomments.However,thenextdayFERCissueditsEIS,whichincorporatedandreliedupontheseconddraftofthereport.Sixmonthslater,USFSadoptedtheFERCEISandissueditsROD,presumablyrelyingonthethirdandfinalhydrologicreport.USFS

“didnotprovideanydiscussionastohowitsconcernswithregardtotheseconddrafthadbeenalleviated,anddidnotexplainhowtheEISwasanadequatestatementeventhoughitreliedontheseconddraft,notthethird.TheRODstatesmerely,‘USFShydrologyandaquaticbiologyspecialistsreviewedthe[HydrologicReport]and...enlistedexpertisefromlocal,certifiedconsultantstovalidateresults.’”

Infindingfortheplaintiffsonthisclaim,thecourtstated:

“wediscernnoevidencethattheUSFSundertooktherequiredindependentreviewoftheEIS'ssedimentationanalysis.NorcanweascertainhowtheUSFSconcludedthatitscommentshadbeensatisfied,especiallyafterhavingexpressedsuchgraveconcernsaboutthesedimentationimpactandcontainmentfigurespresentedintheseconddraftoftheHydrologicReport.USFSsuggeststhewrittencommentsfromMVPaftertheseconddraft,andUSFS'sRODmonthslater,demonstratethatthe

16

concernshadbeenalleviated...ButwecertainlycannotdiscernUSFS'srationalebecause,asMVPcounseladmittedatargument,"[TheUSFS]doesn'tsayintherecordspecificallythat[itsproposed48%figure]isincorrect."Indeed,theUSFSexpressednothingbutskepticismofthe79%figureformorethanthreemonths.Infact,theUSFSproposedthe48%figureasaceiling,ratherthanafloororevenadesiredtarget,forsedimentcontainment.Giventhecircumstances,wesimplycannotconcludethattheUSFSundertookanindependentreviewanddeterminedthatitscommentsandconcernsweresatisfiedwhenitshiftedfroma48%ceilingto79%withabsolutelynoexplanation.See40C.F.R.§1506.3(c).ThisshiftisparticularlyconcerninginlightofMVP'scommentaryattheMay9meetingthatusingthe48%figurewouldhaveramificationsfortheentireprojectanalysis.Id.at136...

“PursuanttoNEPA,weconcludetheUSFSactedarbitrarilyandcapriciouslyinadoptingthesedimentationanalysisintheEIS.Itdidnot"articulate[]arationalconnectionbetweenthefactsfoundandthechoicemade."Balt.Gas&Elec.,462U.S.at105,103S.Ct.2246.ByMVPcounsel'sownadmission,thereisnostatementintheRODexplainingtheUSFS'sabandonmentofitsearlierconcerns."[TheUSFS]doesn'tsayintherecordspecificallythat[itsproposed48%figure]isincorrect."Itsdecisionalso‘runscountertotheevidencebeforetheagency.’Defs.ofWildlife,762F.3dat396(internalquotationmarksomitted).LeadinguptothefilingoftheEIS,theUSFSexpressedsteadfastconcernsaboutthefiguresproposedbytheHydrologicReport.ButitisnotclearwhetherandhowMVP'scommentsandthestudiesandreportsitprovidedtoUSFSalleviatedthoseconcerns.Finally,FERCincorporatedtheseconddraftoftheHydrologicReportintheEIS,eventhoughthethirdandfinaldraftwasissuedthepreviousday.ThereisalsonoindicationFERCconsideredthethirddraftatall,yetUSFSadoptedtheEISanyway.”

ForestImpacts.TheplaintiffsarguedthattheBLMandUSFSviolatedNEPAbecause,inadoptingtheEIS,theydidnotconsidertheimpactontheforestsinconsideringalternativeroutesandplans.Forexample,theagenciesdidnotconsiderwhetherthecoreforeststhroughwhichtheright-of-waywouldpasswouldstillbepartofacontiguousforestpatch,orwhetheralternativerouteswouldreducevisualorscenicimpacts.BLMandUSFSdidnotrecognizethattheEISfailstojustifyitsconclusionthatnoneofthealternativeroutesoffersasignificantenvironmentaladvantage.

Findingfortheagencies,thecourtconcludedthattheplaintiffs

“hadnotmettheir‘demandingburden’onthisissue.Almyv.Sebelius,679F.3d297,307(4thCir.2012).NEPArequiresthatagenciesreasonablyevaluatearightofway'simpactsonforestsand‘candidlyacknowledge[]itsrisks.’Websterv.U.S.Dep'tofAgric.,685F.3d411,429(4thCir.2012).‘Itisofcoursealwayspossibletoexploreasubjectmoredeeplyandtodiscussitmorethoroughly.’Coal.onSensibleTransp.,Inc.v.Dole,826F.2d60,66(D.C.Cir.1987).TheBLMandtheUSFS,throughtheirrespectiveRODs,sufficientlyexplainedtheirmethodologyandidentifiedthecompetingfactorstheyweighedinreachingtheirconclusion.Theyalsoconsideredviablealternativesandexplainedwhytheyarenotappropriate...Insum,perhapstheagencies'analysiscouldhavebeenmore‘nuanced,buttheagenciesdidnot‘entirelyfail[]toconsideranimportantaspectoftheproblem,’andtheirdecisionwasnot‘implausible.’Defs.ofWildlife.,762F.3dat396.Wethusdefertotheagencies'conclusionsontheissueofforesteffects.”

Abilitytoconductameaningfulanalysis.TheplaintiffsarguedthattheDEISprecludedmeaningfulcommentbecause(1)itfailedtoaddresstheefficacyofMVP'sErosionandSedimentControlPlan,(2)itsdescriptionoftheproject'spurposeandneedprecludedmeaningfulanalysis,and(3)itdidnotadequatelyanalyzeorweighimpactsonforests.Therefore,theplaintiffsclaim,theagenciesshouldnothaveadoptedtheEIS.Thecourtrejectedeachofthesearguments.

17

“Petitionershavenotdemonstratedthat‘omissionsintheDEISleftthepublicunabletomakeknownitsenvironmentalconcernsabouttheproject'simpact.’Nat'lComm.fortheNewRiverv.FERC,373F.3d1323,1329(D.C.Cir.2004).”

“AlthoughPetitionerswouldlikemoredetail,specificallyabouttheprecisefinaldestinationofthegastransportedthroughthepipeline,theyhavenotsufficientlyexplainedhowtheabsenceofthatdetailprecludedmeaningfulanalysisoftheDEIS.”

Althoughclaimingthat“theylackedameaningfulopportunitytorespondtoanimpactsanalysis…Petitionersandotherssubmitteddetailedcommentsonthese[impacts].Clearly,then,therewasanopportunityformeaningfulcommentandreview,andPetitionerstookadvantageofit.’

Analysisofalternatives.TheplaintiffsalsoarguethattheUSFSRODisdeficientbecauseitdoesnotdiscussallalternativesexaminedinFERC'sEIS.Rather,it"unlawfullylimiteditsanalysistoonlytwoalternatives:MVP'sproposalandthe`noaction'alternative."AlthoughtheNEPAregulationsrequirethataROD"[i]dentifyallalternativesconsideredbytheagencyinreachingitsdecision,specifyingthealternativeoralternativeswhichwereconsideredtobeenvironmentallypreferable"(40C.F.R.§1505.2(b)),itistheEISthatmust"[r]igorouslyexploreandobjectivelyevaluateallreasonablealternatives,"and"[d]evotesubstantialtreatmenttoeachalternativeconsideredindetailincludingtheproposedactionsothatreviewersmayevaluatetheircomparativemerits."Id.§1502.14(a),(b).

“Therefore,theUSFSdidnotactarbitrarilyinfailingtotickthrougheachalternativeandthereasonsforrejectingthem.ByadoptingtheEISandrenderingitsdecision,itsufficiently‘identified’allalternativesconsideredand‘specified’thatthepreferredroutewasenvironmentallypreferable.Id.§1505.2(b).Intheend,theUSFSwastaskedwithdeterminingwhethertoamenditsForestPlan,andwhethertojoinintheBLM'sdecisiontograntarightofway.Itwasnottaskedwithapprovingtheprojectasawhole—norcoulditbeundertheNaturalGasAct.Therefore,thisargumentfails.”

Note:InOctober2018,theFourthCircuitCourtofAppealsclarifiedthisdecisioninSierraClub,Inc.v.U.S.ForestServ.,No.17-2399(L),No.18-1012,No.18-1019,No.18-1036,739Fed.Appx.185(4thCir.Oct.10,2018)(notforpublication)(“[O]urprioropinioninSierraClubv.U.S.ForestServ.,897F.3d582(4thCir.2018),doesnotvacatetheportionoftheBLM’sRODauthorizingarightofwayandtemporaryusepermitsforMVPtocrosstheWestonandGauleyBridgeTurnpikeTrail”).

AllianceforWildRockiesv.Savage,897F.3d1025(9thCir.2018)AgencydidnotprevailonthepreliminaryNEPAquestion.Issue:WaiverofNEPAclaimsFacts:ThiscaseinvolvedthequestionofwhetherplaintiffshadwaivedtheirclaimregardingimpactstotheCabinet-Yaakgrizzlybearbecausetheyhadnotraisedthisargumentinatimelymannerduringagencyproceedings.

Decision:Thecourtofappealsconcludedthattheplaintiffsdidnotwaivetheirclaimandcouldproceedwiththelitigation:

“’Absentexceptionalcircumstances...belatedlyraisedissuesmaynotformabasisforreversalofanagencydecision.’HavasupaiTribev.Robertson,943F.2d32,34(9thCir.1991)(percuriam).Here,AlliancedidnotfileanobjectiontotheallegedincreaseintotallinearroadmilesuntilafterissuanceoftheFinalEnvironmentalImpactStatement,which,inthetypicalcase,wouldbeuntimely.See36C.F.R.§218.8(c);HavasupaiTribe,943F.2dat34(notingthatissuesraisedafterpublicationofthefinalenvironmental

18

impactstatementwere‘belatedlyraised’andconcludingthattheappellant‘hadsomeobligationtoraisetheseissuesduringthecommentprocess’).”

“This,however,isnotatypicalcase;Alliance'sfailuretoobjectatanearliertimeresultedfromUSFS'sfailuretodisclosethisaspectoftheProjectintheDraftEnvironmentalImpactStatement.ItwasfirstrevealedintheFinalEnvironmentalImpactStatement,towhichAlliancepromptlyobjected.Inotherwords,Allianceraiseditsobjectionatthefirstavailableopportunity,anditisthereforenotwaived.”

HavasupaiTribev.Provencio,906F.3d1155(9thCir.2018)Agencyprevailed.Issue:DefinitionoffinalagencyactionFacts:GrandCanyonNationalParkisborderedtothenorthandsouthbytheKaibabNationalForest.ThesouthernportionoftheforestcontainsRedButte,asiteofreligiousandculturalsignificancetotheHavasupaiTribe.In1988,afterpreparinganEIS,USFSapprovedaplantobuildandoperatewhatbecameknownasCanyonMine,a17.4-acreuraniummineintheareaaroundRedButte.TheCanyonMineisnowownedbytwoenergycompanies,collectivelyknownasEnergyFuels.InJanuary2012,theSecretaryoftheInteriorwithdrew,for20years,morethanonemillionacresofpubliclandsaroundGrandCanyonNationalParkfromnewminingclaims.Thatwithdrawaldidnotextinguish"validexistingrights."InApril2012,USFSissuedaMineralReportfindingthattheformerownersoftheCanyonMinehad“located”miningclaimsatthesitein1978and“discovered”uraniumoretherebetween1978and1982.Itfurtherfoundthattherewere84,207tonsofuraniumoreonthesite,andthat"underpresenteconomicconditions,theuraniumdepositontheclaimscouldbemined,removed,transported,milledandmarketedataprofit.USFSalsoreviewedits1988decision,includingitsEISandthemine'sapprovedplanofoperations.Ina"MineReview"datedJune25,2012,USFSconcludedthattheexistingplanofoperationswas"stillineffectandnoamendmentormodificationtothe[plan]isrequiredbeforeCanyonMineresumesoperationsundertheapproved[plan]."USFSfurtherconcludedthat"[n]onewfederalactionsubjecttofurtherNEPAanalysisisrequiredforresumptionofoperationsoftheCanyonMine."Inthisappeal,thecourtofappealsconsidered,amongotherclaims,whetherUSFS’2012decisionthatEnergyFuelshadavalidexistingrighttooperatetheCanyonMineonlandwithinthewithdrawalareawassubjecttoNEPA.Decision:Asapreliminarymatter,thecourtconcludedthattheUSFSdeterminationthatEnergyFuelshadvalidexistingrightswasafinalagencyactionsubjecttojudicialreview.AlthoughUSFSclaimedthatithadnoauthoritytorecognizeminingrights,andthattheMineralReportrepresentedonlytheagency's"opinion"astotheirvalidity,thecourtconcludedthattheMineralReportwasfinalbecausetheactionmarkedtheconsummationoftheagency’sdecisionmakingprocessandtheactionwasonebywhichrightsorobligationshavebeendeterminedorfromwhichlegalconsequenceswillflow.Bennettv.Spear,520U.S.154(1997).TheMineralReportdeterminedthatsuchrightsexistedwithrespecttoCanyonMine.Inaddition,thecourtstated:

“Wehaveobservedthat"courtsconsiderwhetherthepracticaleffectsofanagency'sdecisionmakeitafinalagencyaction,regardlessofhowitislabeled."ColumbiaRiverkeeperv.U.S.CoastGuard,761F.3d1084,1094-95(9thCir.2014).”

19

TurningtothequestionofwhethertheMineralReportwasa“majorfederalaction”underNEPA,thecourtnotedthat:

“Wehaveheldthat‘whereaproposedfederalactionwouldnotchangethestatusquo,anEISisnotnecessary.’UpperSnakeRiverChapterofTroutUnlimitedv.Hodel,921F.2d232,235(9thCir.1990).NorisanEISnecessaryto‘discusstheenvironmentaleffectsofmerecontinuedoperationofafacility.’BurbankAnti-NoiseGrp.v.Goldschmidt,623F.2d115,116(9thCir.1980).

Inthiscase,theoriginalapprovaloftheplanofoperationswasamajorfederalaction.“[R]esumedoperationofCanyonMinedidnotrequireanyadditionalgovernmentaction.Therefore,theEISpreparedin1988satisfiedtheNEPA.”

AllianceforWildRockiesv.U.S.ForestServ.,907F.3d1105(9thCir.2018)AgencyprevailedontheNEPAclaims.Issue:TieringFacts:ThePayetteNationalForestismanagedinaccordancewiththe2003PayetteForestPlan,whichemphasizesrestorationandmaintenanceofvegetationandwatershedconditions.In2011,USFSproposedamendmentstothePayetteForestPlan,whichwerecalledtheWildlifeConservationStrategy(WCS)amendmentsandwouldprioritizeactivitiesthatwouldhelpmaintainorrestorehabitatforcertainspeciesofwildlifethatUSFSdeterminedwereingreatestneedofconservation.USFSpreparedandpublishedanEISfortherestorationproject.TheFEIS,publishedinMarch2014,statedthatthepurposeoftheprojectistomovevegetationtowardtheForestPlan's"desiredconditions,"whicharethoseconditionsdeemeddesirabletoachievethespecificpurposeforeachManagementPrescriptionCategory(MPC).TheFEISfurtherstatesthattheProjectis"consistentwiththescienceintheForest's[WCSDEIS],"whichincludesimprovinghabitatforspeciesofconcern,maintainingandpromotinglargetreeforeststructureandforestresiliency,andreducingtheriskofundesirablewildlandfire.TheProjectalsoaimstorestorecertainstreams,withanemphasisonrestoringhabitatoccupiedbyESA-listedspecies,suchasthebulltrout.InSeptember2014,USFSissuedaRODfortheLostCreekProject,selecting,fromthefivealternativesdiscussedintheFEIS,amodifiedversionofAlternativeB,whichimplementedrecreationimprovement,roadmanagement,watershedrestoration,andvegetationmanagement,including22,100acresofcommercialloggingandapproximately17,700acresofnon-commerciallogging.IntheROD,USFSalsoapproveda"minimumroadsystem"fortheProject,decommissioningapproximately68milesofroadsanddesignating401milesofroadsformaintenanceorimprovementintheProjectarea.FollowingapprovaloftheProject,PlaintiffsfiledsuitinfederalcourtallegingthatUSFSviolatedNEPAbyimproperlyincorporatingtheanalysisof—ortieringto—prioragencydocumentsthatdidnotundergoafullNEPAreview.PlaintiffsalsoallegedviolationsoftheNationalForestManagementActandtheEndangeredSpeciesAct,whicharenotaddressedhere.ThedistrictcourthadgrantedsummaryjudgmentinfavorofUSFS;thecourtofappealsaffirmedthelowercourt’sdecisionwithrespecttoNEPA.Decision:Thecourtfirstdiscussedrequirementsoftiering:

20

“Ordinarily,anagencycanavoidsomeoftheburdensoftheNEPAprocessby‘tiering’toapriordocumentthathasitselfbeenthesubjectofNEPAreview.‘Tiering’isdefinedas‘avoidingdetaileddiscussionbyreferringtoanotherdocumentcontainingtherequireddiscussion,’Kern,284F.3dat1073…CEQregulationsfurtherstatethat‘[t]ieringisappropriatewhenthesequenceofstatementsoranalysesis...[f]romaprogram,plan,orpolicyenvironmentalimpactstatementtoaprogram,plan,orpolicystatementoranalysisoflesserscopeortoasite-specificstatementoranalysis.’40C.F.R.§1508.28(a).TheNinthCircuithasfurtherinterpretedtheseregulationstoonlypermittieringtoanotherenvironmentalimpactstatement.LeagueofWildernessDefs.-BlueMountainsBiodiversityProjectv.U.S.ForestServ.,549F.3d1211,1219(9thCir.2008)(collectingcases);seealsoKern,284F.3dat1073(‘However,tieringtoadocumentthathasnotitselfbeensubjecttoNEPAreviewisnotpermitted,foritcircumventsthepurposeofNEPA.’).ThisisbecauseinordertocomplywithNEPA,theagencymust‘articulate,publiclyandindetail,thereasonsforandlikelyeffectsofthosemanagementdecisions,and...allowpubliccommentonthatarticulation.’Kern,284F.3dat1073.”

Thecourtthendifferentiatedbetweentieringandincorporationbyreference:

“Alternatively,whereanagencymerelyincorporatesmaterial‘byreference,withoutimpedingagencyandpublicreviewoftheaction,theagencyisnotimproperlytiering.See40C.F.R.§1502.21(‘Agenciesshallincorporatematerialintoanenvironmentalimpactstatementbyreferencewhentheeffectwillbetocutdownonbulkwithoutimpedingagencyandpublicreviewoftheaction.’);Californiaexrel.ImperialCty.AirPollutionControlDist.v.U.S.Dep'toftheInterior,767F.3d781,792-93(9thCir.2014).Ultimately,whenreviewingforNEPAcompliance,welooktowhethertheagencyperformedtheNEPAanalysisonthesubjectaction.SeeMuckleshootIndianTribev.U.S.ForestServ.,177F.3d800,809(9thCir.1999).”“TheAlliancearguesthattheWCSamendmentsarepolicydecisionsthathavenotundergonethefullNEPAreview,andareimproperlyrelieduponintheProjectFEIStojustifydeviationsfromthepoliciessetforthinthePayetteForestPlan.WenoteattheoutsetthatbecausetheWCSamendmentsthemselvesareanagencypolicystatement,notaNEPAdocument,tieringtothisdocumentwouldbecategoricallyimproperundertheCEQregulations.LeagueofWildernessDefs.BlueMountainsBiodiversityProject,549F.3dat1219.Similarly,althoughtheWCSDEISisaNEPAdocument,adoptingthescientificanalysisintheWCSDEISwouldbeimproperbecausethatdocumentdidnotundergopubliccommentandwasthereforenotsubjecttothefullNEPAreview.SeeKern,284F.3dat1073.”

ThecourtdidnotfindthattheUSFS’relianceontheWCSDEISwasimproper:“[T]hiscasedoesnotinvolveanEISthatlackstherequiredNEPAanalysis.Rather,theportionsoftheProjectFEISidentifiedbytheAllianceshowthatForestServicereliedondataandsciencepreparedfortheWCSDEIS.Thismightbeconsideredimpropertiering,butforthefactthattheProjectFEISgoesontoanalyzethedesiredconditionsforMPC5.1andthewildlifehabitatcategoriesfromtheWCSamendmentsinthecontextofthepresentproject,includinganalyzingthecumulative,directandindirecteffectsonvegetativeresourcesandwildlife.TheAlliancehasnotidentifiedanyrequiredanalysisthatwasnotperformedintheProjectFEIS.TotheextenttheAlliancechallengestheadoptionofWCSstandardsinlieuofthePayetteForestPlan'sstandards,thismightgiverisetoaseparateNFMAclaim,butitdoesnot,inandofitself,constituteimpropertieringunderNEPA,aswehavepreviouslyunderstoodandappliedthat

21

term.See40C.F.R.§1502.20.WeaccordinglyrejecttheAlliance'scontentionthatUSFSviolatedNEPAbyincorporatingthestandardsandscienceunderlyingtheWCSamendments.”

CowpastureRiverPreservationAssoc.v.U.S.ForestServ.,911F.3d150(4thCir.2018).Agencydidnotprevail.Issue:EISadoptionFacts:AtlanticCoastPipeline,LLCsoughtaCertificateofConvenienceandPublicNecessityfromFERCtoconstructandoperatethe600-mileAtlanticCoastPipeline(ACP)fromWestVirginiatoNorthCarolina,andaspecialusepermitfromUSFStoconstructandoperatethepipelinethroughpartsoftheGeorgeWashington(16miles)andMonongahela(5miles)NationalForests.FERCbeganthepreparationofanEISfortheprojectandUSFSbecameacooperatingagency.DuringtheEISprocess,USFSsubmittedcommentsstating,amongotherconcerns,thattheFERCEISmustanalyzealternativeroutesthatdidnotcrossnationalforestlandandmustaddressUSFSpolicythatrestrictsspecialusesonnationalforestlandstothosethat“cannotreasonablybeaccommodatedonnon-NationalForestSystemlands.”USFSalsoexpressedconcernsregardinglandslides,slopefailures,sedimentation,andimpactstogroundwater,soils,andprotectedspeciesthatitbelievedwouldresultfromtheACPproject.FERCdidnotaddressnon-forestalternatives,statingintheDEISthattheACPwasroutedonnationalforestlandstoavoidtheneedforcongressionalapprovalofthepipelinetocrosstheAppalachianNationalScenicTrail(ANST).Regardingimpactstotheforests,FERCstatedthat:“ashorterpipelinecouldconceptuallyhavesignificantlygreaterqualitativeimpactstosensitiveresourcesthanalongerroute,whichcouldmakethelongerroutepreferable.Inthisinstance,wehavenotidentifiedorreceivedanyinformationthatsuggeststheshorterpipelineroutethroughtheNationalForestshassignificantlygreaterimpactstosensitiveresourcesthanthealternative,butacknowledgethatgroundresourcesurveyshavenotbeenconducted.”DespiteUSFS’clearlystatedconcernsregardingadverseimpactsoftheACPprojectincludingcommentsontheDEIS,astheapplicant’sproposeddeadlineforaFEISapproached,thecourtnotedthattheagency’s“tenorbegantochange.”Specifically,USFSstatedinalettertoFERCandtheapplicantdatedMay2017,thatitwouldnotrequiresite-specificstabilizationdesignsbeforeauthorizingtheproject.FERCissuedtheFEISinJuly2017.Onthesameday,andinlinewiththeapplicant’stimeline,USFSreleaseditsdraftRODproposingtoadopttheFERCEIS,grantthespecialusepermit.Andexempttheapplicantfromseveralforestplanstandards.ThealternativesanalysisintheFEISisidenticaltotheDEIS,onwhichUSFShadsubmittedcommentsregardingalternativesandimpacts.USFSissueditsfinalRODinNovember2017,issuedthespecialusepermitandgrantedaright-of-wayacrosstheANST.PlaintiffschallengedthisdecisionarguingviolationsofNEPA,theNationalForestManagementAct,andtheMineralLeasingAct.Decision:TheCourtofAppealsforthe4thCircuitconcludedthattheUSFS’decisionsviolatedtheNFMAandNEPA,andthattheagencylackedstatutoryauthoritypursuanttotheMLAtograntapipelinerightofwayacrosstheANST.

22

AfterreiteratingthatNEPArequiresagenciestoconsideralternativestotheproposedactionandtotakeahardlookatenvironmentalconsequences,thecourtturnedtothetermsunderwhichacooperatingagencymayadoptanotheragency’sEIS:

“Asacooperatingagency,USFSmayadoptFERC’sEISonlyifitundertakes‘anindependentreviewofthe[EIS]’and‘concludesthatitscommentsandsuggestionshavebeensatisfied.40C.F.R.§1506.3(c);seealsoSierraClub,897F.3dat590.ItmustalsoensurethattheEISis‘adequate’underNEPAregulations.40C.F.R.§1506.3(a).InreviewinganEIS,thecourt’sresponsibilityisto‘determinewhetherthe[agency]hasconsideredtherelevantfactorsandarticulatedarationalconnectionbetweenthefactsfoundandthechoicemade.’SierraClub,897F.3dat594(quotingBalt.Gas&Elec.Co.v.Nat.Res.Def.Council,Inc.,462U.S.87,105(1983)).”

PlaintiffsassertedthatFERC’sFEISwasinadequatebecauseitfailedtosufficientlystudyalternativepipelineroutesfortheACPthatavoidednationalforestlands.AccordingtoPetitioners,USFSviolatedNEPAbecauseitadoptedFERC’sinadequateEISwithoutundertakingtherequired“independentreview,”andbecausetheFEISdidnotsatisfyUSFS’earliercommentsandsuggestionsontheDEIS.USFSarguedthatafterFERChadapprovedthecertificate,USFScouldonlyapprovethepipelineasauthorizedbyFERCordenythepermitsandright-of-way.SinceFERCwasresponsibleforanalyzingalternativepipelineroutes,USFSreasonablyreliedonthatanalysisinadoptingtheEIS.Thecourtdisagreed:

“ThechainofeventssurroundingUSFS’ssuddenacquiescencetothealternativesanalysisintheFEISissimilartothatinSierraClubv.ForestService,wherewedeterminedthatUSFShadactedarbitrarilyandcapriciouslyinadoptingthesedimentationanalysisintheFEISforadifferentpipelineproject.SeeSierraClub,897F.3dat594–96.Here,likeinSierraClub,‘[g]iventhecircumstances,wesimplycannotconcludethatUSFSundertookanindependentreviewanddeterminedthatitscommentsandconcernsweresatisfied’whenitseeminglydroppeditsdemandthatoff-forestalternativeroutesbestudiedbeforetheACPwasauthorizedwithoutanyfurtheranalysis.Id.at595.Inlightofthis,andparticularlyconsideringUSFS’searlierskepticismthatlocationdecisionsfortheACPweremadesolelytoavoidcongressionalapproval,weholdthatadoptingtheunchangedalternativesanalysisintheFEISwasarbitraryandcapricious.”

Further,withrespecttotheimpactsanalysis,thecourtstatedthat:

“theFEIScouldnothavesatisfiedUSFS’sconcernsthattheDEISlackednecessaryinformationtoevaluatetheenvironmentalconsequencesofthepipeline.Indeed,theFEISconcededthatUSFS’sconcernsremainedunresolved.Nevertheless,asAtlantic’sdeadlinesdrewnear,USFSdisregardedtheseconcernsandadoptedtheFEIS--includingitsconclusionsthatlandsliderisks,erosionimpacts,anddegradationofwaterqualityremainedunknown--theverysamedayFERCissuedit.TosupportitsdecisiontoapprovetheprojectandgranttheSUP,USFSreliedontheverymitigationmeasuresitpreviouslyfoundunreliable.ThiswasinsufficienttosatisfyNEPA,anddidnotconstitutethenecessaryhardlookattheenvironmentalconsequencesoftheACPproject.”

23

Granatv.U.S.Dep'tofAgriculture,No.17-15665,720Fed.Appx.879(9thCir.Apr.27,2018)(notforpublication)Agencyprevailed.Issues:Alternatives,localagencycooperationFacts:ToimplementUSDA’s2005TravelManagementRule,USFSdevelopedaproposalforlimited,additionaldesignationsofmotorizedtrailsinthePlumasNationalForest.Itidentified1,107milesof“user-created”routeswheremotorvehicleusehadoccurredovertimewithoutagencyauthorization,publishedanEISandissuedaRODdesignating234ofthesemilesasopenformotorizedtravel.Plaintiffschallengedthedecisionindistrictcourt,arguingthatUSFSviolatedNEPAbyfailingtoconsiderareasonablerangeofalternativesandfailingtocoordinateandcooperatewithlocalcountiesduringtheroutedesignationprocess.Thedistrictcourtgrantedsummaryjudgmenttotheagency.Decision:Thecourtofappealsaffirmed,holdingthatUSFShadconsideredareasonablerangeofalternatives.Itengagedwiththepublictodevelopfouractionalternativesconsistentwiththeproject’spurposeandneed.Thesefouralternativesexaminedareasonablerangeofuser-createdroutesfordesignation,includinganoactionalternativethatwouldhavepermittedmotorvehicleuseonall1,107milesofuser-createdroutes.Theplaintiffsdidnotshowthat“consideringadditionalalternativeswas‘necessarytopermit[USFStomake]areasonedchoice.’SeeStateofCaliforniav.Block,690F.2d753,767(9thCir.1982)(internalquotationmarksomitted).”Inaddition,thecourtfoundthatUSFShaddischargeditsdutytocoordinateandcooperatewiththelocalcountiesbecausetheagencyhadheldpublicmeetings,metwiththecountyrepresentatives,solicitedthecounties’input,andconsideredthecounties’commentsandobjections.

ForestServiceEmployeesforEnvironmentalEthicsv.U.S.ForestService,No.17-35569,726Fed.Appx.605(9thCir.Jun.8,2018)(notforpublication)Agencyprevailed.Issue:EmergencyFacts:Plaintiff-AppellantForestServiceEmployeesforEnvironmentalEthics(FSEEE)challengedaUSFSdecisiontoconstructacommunityprotectionline(CPL)duringtheWolverinewildfireof2015intheOkanogan-WenatcheeNationalForestineasternWashington.TheCPLwasa300-footwideswathoflandthinnedofvegetationthatstretchedformanymiles.USFSconstructedtheCPLtoactasabarrierbetweentheWolverinefireandpopulatedcommunities.Plaintiffschallengedthatdecision,claimingaviolationofNEPA.Inresponse,USFSarguedthatitreliedonanemergencyregulation,whichauthorizedittoforegoanEISorEApriortoconstructingtheCPL.ThedistrictcourtissuedasummaryjudgmentforUSFS.Decision:Thecourtofappealsaffirmedthelowercourtdecision:“FSEEE'sonlyargumentisthat‘forestfiresarenotemergenciesexemptfromNEPA.’Insupport,FSEEEcitesadictionarydefinitionof‘emergency’:‘anunforeseencombinationofcircumstancesortheresultingstatethatrequiresimmediateaction.’BecauseforestfiresareacommonoccurrenceinthewesternUnitedStates,FSEEEreasonsthattheyarenot‘unforeseen’and,thus,thatUSFSactedarbitrarilybyresortingtotheUSFSEmergencyRuleduringitsresponsetotheWolverinefire.Whileitistruethatfireshappeneveryyear,itdefiesplainlanguageandcommonsensetoconcludethatnoindividualfire-oritscourse,intensity,orduration-couldbe

24

unforeseeable.Itisunreasonabletoarguethatforestfirescanneverpresentemergencysituationswhenviewedatthetimethefireisraging.Further,FSEEEprovidesnoevidence-outsideoftheimmaterialNCPlan,whichwascraftedbyadifferentagencyinchargeofadifferentarea-thattheWolverinefirewasnotanemergency.”Therefore,USFSdidnotactarbitrarilyorcapriciouslyininvokingtheUSFSEmergencyRuleduringtheWolverinefire.

McGuinnessv.U.S.ForestServ.,No.16-2406,741Fed.Appx.915(4thCir.Jul.26,2018)(notforpublication)Agencyprevailed.Issues:Alternatives,impactsignificanceFacts:After11yearsofenvironmentalstudyandpubliccomment,includingtwoEAsandtwonoisestudies,USFSauthorizedthedevelopmentofashootingrangeintheNantahalaNationalForestinNorthCarolina.ResidentsofthecountywhoopposedtheprojectchallengedtheUSFSdecisionarguingthatthesecondEAdidnotconsideranadequaterangeofalternatives,thestudyofnoiseimpactswasflawed,theeffectsoftheprojectonaparticulartrailhadnotbeenadequatelyconsidered,thestudyoftrafficimpactswasinsufficient,andthedescriptionoftheimplementationoftheprojectwasinsufficient.ThedistrictcourtgrantedsummaryjudgmentforUSFS,concludingthattheagencyhadgivenahardlooktopotentialenvironmentalimpactsandUSFS’decisionnottoprepareanEISwasnotarbitraryandcapriciousbecausetheagencyprovidedanexplanationofitsdecisionthatincludedarationalconnectionbetweenthefactsfoundthroughthosestudiesandthechoiceitultimatelymade.Decision:Thecourtofappealsaffirmedthelowercourtdecision.NoActionAlternative:“TheSeptember2013EAdiscussesateverystepofitsanalysis,inafairlydetailedmanner,theneedfortheproposedshootingrangeandtheenvironmentalimpactsofthealternativestotheproposedshootingrange,includingthenobuildalternative.Mostsignificantly,theSeptember2013EAdescribesexistingnoiselevelsinthevicinityoftheproposedshootingrangesites,andprovidesadetaileddescriptionoftheadditionalnoisethatwouldresultfromeitheroftheproposedalternatives.”“USFS'sconsiderationofthealternatives,includingtheNoActionalternative,wasmorethansufficienttosatisfytheNEPArequirementthatit‘takea`hardlook”’attheeffectofitsactionsontheexistingnoiselevel.AracomaCoalCo.,556F.3dat191.Inconsideringtheimpactoftheproposedalternativesonsoils,waterquality,airquality,culturalandhistoricalresources,roadlessareas,biologicalresources,andthehumanenvironment,theSeptember2013EAaddressed,invaryingdegreesofdetail,theNoActionalternative.WeconcludethatUSFStooktherequisite‘hardlookatthepotentialenvironmentalconsequencesof’itsdecisionauthorizingtheproposedshootingrange.”PreparationofanEIS:“ItisapparentfromboththeSeptember2013EAandtheDecisionNoticethatUSFSdidnotactarbitrarilyorcapriciouslyinselectingthePerryCreekalternativewithoutfirstissuinganEIS.Theagencycarefullyconsideredthenoiseeffectsofitsdecision,notingthattheshootingrangewouldcreateadditionallow-levelnoiseforresidentsinthevicinityandthathikersontheChunkyGalTrailwouldheargunfireandincreasednoiselevelsthatwouldapproximateloudconversationalspeechorevenshoutingduringveryheavyshootingrangeuse.”IntheDecisionNotice,USFSfoundthattheeffectsonthequalityofthehumanenvironmentarenot

25

likelytobehighlycontroversialandthattheeffectsarenotuncertain,anddonotinvolveuniqueorunknownrisk,notingthat"’[t]heForestServicehasconsiderableexperiencewiththetypesofactivitiestobeimplemented.’"“Thesearereasonableconclusionsbasedonagencyexpertisetowhichwedefer.Inthiscontext,agencyactionis‘likelytobehighlycontroversial’when‘asubstantialdisputeexistsastothesize,natureoreffectofthemajorfederalaction.’Ruckerv.Willis,484F.2d158,162(4thCir.1973)(internalquotationmarksomitted).Thegeneraleffectsofgunfireontheenvironmentareclearlynotuncertainorunknown.Thesoundofariflebeingdischargediswell-knowntoanyoneinUSFS.And,assumingtheproposedprojectqualifiesasa‘majorfederalaction,’thereisno‘substantialdispute’regarding‘thesize,natureoreffect’oftheproposedproject.AppellantsnitpicktheresultsofthesoundtestsconsideredbyUSFS,butmereopposition—ortheextentofthatopposition—toaproposedagencyactiondoesnotcreatea‘substantialdispute’ormaketheaction‘highlycontroversial.’”“Finally,evenifweconcluded,basedontheissuesidentifiedbytheAppellants,thattheproposedprojectis‘likelytobehighlycontroversial,’40C.F.R.§1508.27(b)(4),‘theexistenceofacontroversyisonlyoneofthetenfactorslistedfordeterminingifanEISisnecessary.’Soc'yHillTowersOwners'Ass'nv.Rendell,210F.3d168,184(3dCir.2000).”PropertyValues:“AppellantscontendUSFSviolatedNEPAbynotconsideringthepossibleeffectsoftheproposedshootingrangeprojectonthevaluesofnearbyproperty…. Thoughauthorityisscant,somecourtshaveconsideredthepotentialeffectofaproposedagencyactiononnearbypropertyvalues.SeeMyersvilleCitizensforaRuralCmty.,Inc.v.FERC,783F.3d1301,1324(D.C.Cir.2015)(consideringwhether‘EnvironmentalAssessment[took]a“hardlook”at“quantifyingtheimpactsoftheprojectonpropertyvaluesandlostdevelopmentopportunities”’)…. AsisapparentfromitsstatementintheSeptember2013EA,USFSdidnotsimplyrefusetoconsidertheeffectofashootingrangeonpropertyvalues.Itacknowledgedthatitwasofconcerntosomelocalresidents,albeitnotamajorissueintheglobalsense.Moreover,theagencygaveatleastsomeconsiderationtothisissue,notingthatithad‘searchedtheliteratureandconsultedwithsocialscientistsandlegalexperts.’… Weconclude,basedontherecordbeforeus,thatUSFS‘consideredtherelevantfactors,’‘examinedtherelevantdataandprovidedanexplanationofitsdecisionthatincludesarationalconnectionbetweenthefactsfoundandthechoicemade.’AracomaCoalCo.,556F.3dat192(internalquotationmarksomitted).EventhoughtheEAomitsmentionoftheanecdotalevidenceregardingpropertyvalues,wearenotabletosaythattheagencymadeanarbitraryandcapriciousdecision.”CostofIncreasedRoadMaintenance.“AppellantsarguethatUSFSfailedtoestimatethecostofincreasedroadmaintenanceandfailedtoconsiderpotentialissuescreatedbyincreasedtrafficrelatedtotheshootingrange.USFS,however,tooktherequiredhardlookatthisissue,anditsdecisiontoauthorizetheprojectnotwithstandingthemaintenancecostsandincreasedtrafficwaswellwithinitsdiscretion.”

CascadiaWildlandsv.U.S.Dep'tofAgriculture,No.17-35508,752Fed.Appx.457(9thCir.Nov.14,2018)(notforpublication)Agencyprevailed.Issue:FederalactionFacts:PlaintiffenvironmentalgroupschallengedaUSDAAnimalandPlantHealthInspectionServices-WildlifeServices’decisiontoparticipateintheOregonWolfConservationandManagementPlanwithoutfirstcomplying

26

withNEPA.TheyarguedthatfederalfundingfortheprojectrequiredthepreparationofaNEPAdocument.ThedistrictcourtfoundfortheagencyandtheCourtofAppealsaffirmed.Decision:“ThedistrictcourtcorrectlyconcludedthatWildlifeServices’decisiontoassisttheStateofOregoninitsremovalofgraywolveswasnota‘majorfederalaction’under[NEPA].‘UnderNEPA,federalagenciesarerequiredtoprepareeitheran[EA]or[EIS]formajorFederalactionssignificantlyaffectingthequalityofthehumanenvironment.’AlaskaCtr.fortheEnv’tv.U.S.ForestServ.,189F.3d851,853(9thCir.1999)(citing42U.S.C.§4332(C)).‘Therearenoclearstandardsfordefiningthepointatwhichfederalparticipationtransformsastateorlocalprojectinto[a]majorfederalaction.Thematterissimplyoneofdegree.’AlmondHillSch.v.U.S.Dep’tofAgric.,768F.2d1030,1039(9thCir.1985)(citationomitted);seegenerally40C.F.R.§1508.18.”“Ingeneral,wemakethisdeterminationbyconsidering:(1)thedegreetowhichthegivenactionisfundedbythefederalagency,and(2)theextentofthefederalagency’sinvolvementandcontrolintheaction.See,e.g.,KaMakani‘OKohalaOhanaInc.v.WaterSupply,295F.3d955,960(9thCir.2002)...NeitherWildlifeServices’financialcontributiontotheOregonWolfConservationandManagementPlan(OregonWolfPlanorthePlan)noritscontroloverthePlan’soperation,aloneorincombination,aresufficienttorenderitsinvolvementa‘majorfederalaction.’”ThecourtheldthattheWildlifeServices’contributedonly“amarginalleveloffederalfunding,”whichamountedtoeightpercentoftheplan’stotalcost.“WegenerallyhavebeenunwillingtoimposetheNEPArequirementswhenfederalfundingfallsbelowtenpercentofastateproject’stotalcosts.See,e.g.,RattlesnakeCoal.v.U.S.EPA,509F.3d1095,1101–02(9thCir.2007)(concludingthatfederalfundingaccountingforsixpercentoftheestimatedbudget‘doesnotfederalize’thestateproject);KaMakani,295F.3dat960(concludingthatfederalfundingconstituting‘lessthantwopercentoftheestimatedtotalprojectcost....alonecouldnottransformtheentire[stateproject]intoa‘majorfederalaction”’).”Inaddition,thecourtheldthatWildlifeServiceslackedactualpowertocontroltheOregonWolfPlan,whichisastate-runprogramcoveredbystateadministrativerulesandledbytheOregonDepartmentofFishandWildlife(ODFW).ODFWhadsolediscretiontodeterminewhenawolfshouldbekilledunderitsrules,andwhereandwhentoremoveproblemwolves.OregonwouldcontinuetokillgraywolvesifWildlifeServiceswerenotinvolved.“Underthisstateregulatoryframework,WildlifeServicesexercisesonlymarginaldiscretionastowhethertoacceptorrejectODFW’srequesttoremoveaspecificproblemwolf.Butthischoiceislimited,asWildlifeServicesmustremovethewolfonlyunderconditionssetbyODFWandthePlan.WildlifeServicesdeterminesthemethoditwillusefortheremoval,butmustconsultwithODFWtomakethisdetermination,andmustselectoneofthemethodspermittedbyODFWandthePlan.WildlifeServicesalsolacks‘regulatoryauthorityorlatitudetoimplementotherapproaches,norcanitrequirealternativeactionsofODFW.’”

Greenpeace,Inc.v.Stewart,No.17-35945,743Fed.Appx.878(9thCir.Nov.28,2018)(notforpublication)Agencydidnotprevail.Issue:Supplementation

27

Facts:GreenpeacechallengedUSFS’sauthorizationoffourtimbersaleprojectsintheTongassNationalForestallegingviolationsofboththeNationalForestManagementActandNEPA.ThelowercourtheldforUSFS,butthecourtofappealsreversedthatdecisionandorderedthelowercourttovacateUSFS’approvalofthetimbersales.Decision:WithrespecttoNEPA,thecourtofappealsfoundthat“USFSviolatedNEPAbydecliningtosupplementitsNEPAdocumentsdespitesignificantnewcircumstances.40C.F.R.§1502.9(c)(1)(ii)(requiringsupplementationwherethereare‘significantnewcircumstancesorinformationrelevanttoenvironmentalconcernsandbearingontheproposedactionoritsimpacts’).SignificantnewcircumstancesarosewhenUSFS’sreanalysisoftheprojectsrevealedbelow-guidelinedeerhabitatcapabilities.See,e.g.,FriendsoftheClearwaterv.Dombeck,222F.3d552,557(9thCir.2000)(‘[A]nagencythathaspreparedan[environmentalimpactstatementorenvironmentalassessment]cannotsimplyrestontheoriginaldocument.Theagencymustbealerttonewinformationthatmayaltertheresultsofitsoriginalenvironmentalanalysis....’).”

WildlandsDefensev.Seesholtz,No.18-35400,2018WL6262505,--Fed.Appx.---(9thCir.Nov.29,2018)(notforpublication).Agencyprevailed.Issues:Impacts,cumulativeimpactsFacts:Plaintiffssoughttoenjointheoperationoftwopost-fireprojectsintheBoiseNationalForest,claimingviolationsofNEPAandtheEndangeredSpeciesAct.Thecourtofappealsaffirmedthelowercourtopiniondenyingthepreliminaryinjunction.Thecourt’sNEPAreasoningisaddressedbelow.Decision:Aplaintiffseekingapreliminaryinjunctionmustestablishthatheorsheislikelytosucceedonthemeritsthatheorsheislikelytosufferirreparableharmintheabsenceofpreliminaryrelief,thatthebalanceofequitiestipsinhisorherfavor,andthataninjunctionisinthepublicinterest.ThecourtconcludedthattheUSFSdecisionnottoprepareanEISwasnotarbitraryandcapriciousbecausetheagencyhadtakenahardlookattheconsequencesofitsactions,baseditsdecisiononaconsiderationoftherelevantfactors,andprovidedaconvincingstatementofreasonstoexplainwhytheproject’simpactswereinsignificant.USFSconsideredboththecontextandintensityoftheproposedactionsandconsideredtheprojects’impactsonthetotalareaaffectedbythefireandontheprojectareas,but“[i]nanyevent,‘[t]he‘identificationofthegeographicarea’withinwhichaproject’simpactsontheenvironmentalresourcesmayoccur“isataskassignedtothespecialcompetencyoftheappropriateagencies.”’Tri-ValleyCAREs,671F.3dat1127(quotingKleppev.SierraClub,427U.S.390,414(1976)).”USFSalsoappropriatelyconsideredcumulativeimpacts.”Anagencymaydischargeitsobligationtoconsidercumulativeimpacts‘byaggregatingthecumulativeeffectsofpastprojectsintoanenvironmentalbaseline,againstwhichtheincrementalimpactofaproposedprojectismeasured.’CascadiaWildlandsv.BureauofIndianAffairs,801F.3d1105,1111(9thCir.2015).USFSactedwithinitsdiscretionindoingsointhiscase.”

28

U.S.DEPARTMENTOFDEFENSE

FriendsoftheSantaClaraRiverv.U.S.ArmyCorpsofEng'rs,887F.3d906(9thCir.2018)Agencyprevailed.Issue(s):Impacts,CumulativeImpacts,SupplementationFacts:Environmentaladvocacyorganizations("Friends")challengedCorps'CWASection404permitandEIS,involvingtheNewhallLandProject.InDecember2003,NewhallLandappliedtotheCorpsforaCWASection404permitthatwouldallowconstructionandinfrastructureoftheNewhallRanchProject,alarge-scaleresidential,commercialandindustrialdevelopmentinNWLosAngeles,nearthecityofSantaClara.TheCorpscoordinatedwiththeCaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlifetoprepareacombineEIS/EIR,publishedtheNoticeofIntentinboth2004and2005,andheldtwopublicscopingmeetings.InMay2009,theCorpscirculatedtheDEIR/DEISforpubliccomment.Aftertakingintoaccountpubliccomments,theCorpspublishedtheFEIR/FEIS,whichincludedaSection404(b)(1)GuidelinesEvaluation.ThisEIS/EIRanalyzedwaterquality,biologicalresourcesandcumulativeimpacts,anddiscussedtheProject'swaterdischargesintotheSantaClaraRiverandpotentialimpactstotheSouthernCaliforniaSteelhead,anendangeredspecies.TheCorpsdeterminedtheProjectwasnotpartofthesteelhead'scriticalhabitat,butanalyzedthepotentialforimpactinitshabitatanddownstreamthroughtheProjectareaduetostormwaterdischarges,whichwouldhavepotentialforimpactduringthewetmonthsbutnotduringthemonthstheriverwaspartiallydry(the"DryGap").TheCorpsfoundthatthesechangeswouldnothaveasubstantialadverseeffectonthesouthernsteelhead.InmakingthedeterminationtheCorpsanalyzedthewastewaterandstormwaterdischargesfordissolvedcopperconcentrationintheSantaClaraRiverthatoccurredduringstormeventslargeenoughtoflowthroughtheDryGap(9.0microgramsperliter).Thisconcentrationwaslessthanthelimitofthe32microgramsperliterofdissolvedcopperrequiredbytheCaliforniaToxicsRule(CTR),anEPA-promulgatedregulationestablishingwaterqualitystandards(WQS)inCalifornia,fortheSantaClaraRiver.TheCorpsconcludedthattheProjectwouldnotaffectthesteelheadandthereforeitwasnotrequiredtoconsultwithNMFStodischargeitsresponsibilitiesundertheESA.TheVenturaCoastkeepersentalettertotheCorpsstatingthedischargeswouldharmtheSouthernCaliforniaSteelhead;theEPAcommentedaswell,focusingontheCorp'spracticabilityanalysisfordifferentalternativesshouldhaveconsideredtheexpectedrevenues.However,aftercollaborationbetweenEPA,theCorpsandNewhall,theEPAsubsequentlysentaletterstatingitwouldnotseekreviewofthepermitdecision,citingprojectimprovementsandadditionalmitigationmeasures.InAugust2011,theCorpsissuedaROD,addressedCoastkeeper'scommentletter,andsummarizedtheresultsofaSupplementalWaterQualityAnalysisconductedbyathird-partyconsultantinMay2011,whichshowedthattheadditionalstormwaterretentionmeasuresincorporatedintotheProjectwouldfurtherreducethedissolved-copperconcentrationintheProject'sstormwaterdischarges.TheFriendssuedtheCorpsandEPAallegingviolationsofNEPA.ThedistrictcourtgrantedsummaryjudgmentfortheCorpsandFriendsappealed.Decision:FriendscontendedthattheCorpsfinalEIR/EISprovidedaninadequateanalysisofthecumulativeimpactsoftheProject'sdissolved-copperdischargesonsteelheadinthereachoftheSantaClaraRiverdownstreamoftheDryGap.

29

First,Friendsarguedthata2007NMFSTechnicalMemorandum(AnOverviewofSensoryEffectsonJuvenileSalmonidsExposedtoDissolvedCopper),thatVenturaCoastkeepersubmittedwithitscommentsontheFinalEIR/EIS,demonstratedthattheProject’sdissolved-copperdischargesmaycausesublethalimpactstosteelhead,andtheFinalEIS/EIRfailedtoconsiderthoseimpacts(itreliedontheCTRdata).Indiscussingtheclaim,whichreferencedtheNMFSMemorandum,thecourtnoteditmaynotsubstituteitsscientificjudgmentforthatoftheagency.“Thedeterminationofwhatconstitutesthe‘bestscientificdataavailable’belongstotheagency’s‘specialexpertise[’]”andwarrantssubstantialdeference.SanLuis&Delta-MendotaWaterAuth.v.Jewell,747F.3d581,602(9thCir.2014).Accordingly,“[t]hebestavailabledatarequirement‘merelyprohibits[theCorps]fromdisregardingavailablescientificevidencethatisinsomewaybetterthantheevidence[it]relieson.’”KernCty.FarmBureauv.Allen,450F.3d1072,1080(9thCir.2006).Inthiscase,theCorpsreasonablyconcludedthattheNMFSMemorandumdidnotcontainthebestscientificdataavailablefortheProject.TheNMFSMemorandumsummarizedandanalyzedlaboratorystudiesregardingtheeffectsofconcentrationsofcopperoncohosalmoninmunicipalwater.Itdidnotconsidersteelheadpopulationsortheeffectofcopperconcentrationsinnaturalconditions.Moreover,itdidnotconsideranydataspecifictotheProjectortheSantaClaraRiver.ThecourtalsodiscusseditwasnotarbitraryorcapriciousfortheCorpstoconsidertheCTRas“ausefulbenchmark”toassessthepossiblewater-qualityimpactsoftheProject’sdischarges.TheCorpscouldreasonablyconsidertheCTRcriteriaasonesourceofinformation,giventhattheEPApromulgatedtheCTRtoestablishwater-qualitycriteria“legallyapplicableintheStateofCaliforniaforinlandsurfacewaters,enclosedbaysandestuariesforallpurposesandprogramsundertheCleanWaterAct.”65Fed.Reg.at31,682;seealso40C.F.R.§131.38.TheCTRprovided“anestimateofthehighestconcentrationofasubstanceinwaterwhichdoesnotpresentasignificantrisktotheaquaticorganismsinthewaterandtheiruses,”65Fed.Reg.at31,689,andwhichCaliforniaandtheEPAmustconsiderinimplementingvariouswaterqualityprogramsundertheCWA.Becausetheeffectsofdissolvedcopperandotherdissolvedmetalsdependonwater“hardness”andotherfactorsthatvaryamongbodiesofwater,theCTRprovidesamethodforcalculatingasite-specificdissolved-coppercriterion.TheCorpscouldthusreasonablyconsidertheCTRaspartofitsanalysis.Moreover,becausetheCorpsconsideredothersourcesofdata,includingproject-specificmodeling,indeterminingthatissuanceoftheSection404Permitwouldhavenoeffectondownstreamsteelhead,Friends’argumentsregardinglimitationsintheapplicabilityoftheCTRwerenotmaterial.TheNinthCircuitruledthatbecausetheCorpsreasonablydeterminedthattheProjectwasnotlikelytoaffectsteelheadpopulationsintheSantaClaraRiver,itwasnotarbitraryorcapricioustoconcludethattheProjectwouldnotresultinsignificantcumulativewaterqualityimpactstosteelhead.SeeSw.Ctr.forBiologicalDiversityv.U.S.ForestServ.,100F.3d1443,1448(9thCir.1996)(explainingthatanagency’s“noeffect”determinationundertheESAsupporteditsconclusionthattheactionwould“notindividuallyorcumulativelyhaveasignificanteffectonthehumanenvironment”underNEPA)(quoting40C.F.R.§1508.4).TheFinalEIS/EIRprovidedasufficientdiscussion“toshowwhymorestudyisnotwarranted,”40C.F.R.§1502.2(b),andsatisfiedNEPA’srequirements.Second,Friends'challengedtheCorps’referencetotheMay2011SupplementalAnalysis(incorporatedintotheROD)initsresponsetocommentsontheFinalEIS/EIR.Friends'arguesthattheCorpswasrequiredtorecirculatearevisedEIS/EIRcontainingtheSupplementalAnalysisoralternatively,includethefulldocumentasanAppendix.ThecourtfoundthattheSupplementalAnalysismerelyconfirmedtheCorps’conclusion(thattherewouldbenoeffectbecauseitestablishedthattheProjects'stormwaterretentionmeasureswouldfurtherlowerthedissolved-copperconcentrationintheProject'srunoff),butwasnotitsbasis;accordingly,itdidnotcontain“significantnewinformation”thatwouldrequiretheCorpstorecirculatetheEIS/EIRforfurthercomment.Californiaexrel.ImperialCty.AirPollutionControlDist.v.U.S.Dep’toftheInterior,767F.3d781,794(9thCir.2014);seealso40

30

C.F.R.§1502.9(c)(1)(ii).ThecourtfoundthattheCorpsdidnotviolateNEPAbyincorporatingtheSupplementalAnalysisbyreferenceandinformingthepublicthatitwasavailableuponrequest,ratherthanprovidingthedocumentinanappendix.BecausetheFinalEIS/EIRprovidedanadequateanalysisofthecumulativeimpactsoftheProject’sdissolvedcopperdischarges,theFriends'NEPAclaimfailed.

AtchafalayaBasinkeeperv.U.S.ArmyCorpsofEng'rs,894F.3d692(5thCir.2018)Agencyprevailed.Issue(s):Impacts(MitigatedFONSI),Mitigation,CumulativeImpactsFacts:EnvironmentalgroupschallengedtheissuanceofapermitandEAinvolvinga162-milecrudeoilpipelineinsouthernLouisiana.ThedistrictcourtgrantedapreliminaryinjunctionbasedontheCorps'failuretosatisfyNEPAinissuingitsconstructionpermit.TheCorpsappealedtheinjunctioninthiscase.InDecember2017,afterayear-longreviewtheCorpsissuedBayouBridgePipeline,LLC("BayouBridge)aCWASection404permit,33U.S.C.§1344andunder§§10and14undertheRiversandHarborsActof1899,33U.S.C.§§403,408,allowingittobuilda162-milepipelinefromLakeCharles,LouisianatoterminalsnearSt.James.PortionsofthePipelinecrosstheAtchafalayaBasin,affectingwetlands.TheCorpsauthoredtwoEAs,oneundertheRiversandHarborsAct(the"408EA")andoneundertheCWA(the"404"EA),whichconsistedof200pagesforbothdocumentsandanother200pagestogetherofappendicesandconcludedwithaFONSI.AtchafalayaBasinkeeperandotherorganizations("Atchafalaya")broughtsuitagainsttheCorpsinJanuary2017seekinganinjunctionallegingviolationsofNEPA.ApplicantsBayouBridgeandStuppBrothers,LLCintervened.Thedistrictcourtheldanexpeditedhearing(beforethecompleteARwasfiled)andconcludedthatAtchafalayahadshownirreparableharmanddemonstratedalikelihoodofsuccessonthemeritsaswellastheotherprerequisitesofpreliminaryrelieffortwooftheirclaimsthat:(1)theEAsviolatedNEPAandtheCWAbyfailingtoadequatelyanalyzemitigationforthelossofcypress-tupeloswampalongthepipelinerightofwaythroughtheBasin;andthat(2)theEAsviolatedNEPAandtheCWAbyfailingtoadequatelyconsiderhistoricalnoncompliancebyotherpipelinesandthecumulativeeffectsofthisproject.TheresultingpreliminaryinjunctionstoppedconstructiononlywithintheAtchafalayaBasin(the"Basin").TheCorpssoughtastayoftheinjunctionpendingappeal,whichtheFifthCircuitgrantedinasplitdecision.Decision:ThedistrictcourtreviewedeachofAtchafalaya'schallenges,bothprocedurallyandsubstantively.ThelowercourtrejectedboththeassertionthattheimpactanalysisontheBasinoftheoilspillswasarbitraryandcapricious,andthattheCorpsprovideddefectivepublicnoticeofthetypeandlocationofproposedmitigationmeasures(becausetheCorpsaddressedcommentsintheEAforover26pages,thecourtnoted).ThelowercourtthenfocusedonspecificimpactsoftheprojectintheBasin,i.e.,that455.5acresof“jurisdictionalwetlands”wouldbetemporarilyaffectedandapproximately142acresofthosewetlands“wouldbepermanentlyconvertedfromforestedtoherbaceouswetlandswithinthepermanentright-of-way.”TheSection404EAstatedthat“[t]heproposedprojectwillchangeand/orreducewetlandfunctionalqualityalongtheproposedROWbyconversionofforestedhabitattypes.”TheEAidentified“[a]keyissue(s)ofconcerninthiswatershedisthelossofwetlandfunctionandvalue.”ThelowercourtfoundthreefailuresintheEAs:(1)thatthe404EAusedperfunctoryorconclusorylanguageinvolvingmitigationmeasurestoavoidsignificance,(2)thattherelevantsectionoftheCWAregulation(33C.F.R.§

31

332.3)didnotrequireamitigationhierarchy,thattheCorpsfailedtoexplainhowthemitigationchoices,servedthegoalsofreplacinglostfunctionsandservices,andwhetherapreferenceformitigationwasappropriate,thatthe404EAwasdevoidofinformationanalyzingtheconsequencesofthe"irretrievableloss"of142acresofcypress/tupeloswampwetlands,andhowthemitigationwouldeffectlossofthecypress/tupeloswamp,andnodiscussionofbestpracticesfortheconstruction,andhowtheywouldoffsetthetemporaryimpacts,and(3)EAsdidnotaddresscumulativeimpactsoftheprojectwithearlierprojectsthatcreatedspoilbanksandotherdetrimentalimpacts.TheFifthCircuitaddressedeachofthesethree"failures."First,theFifthCircuitnotedthatmitigatedFONSIsarethoseprojectsthatwithoutmitigationwouldhavesignificantenvironmentalimpact.Itdiscussedthatthelowercourt'srelianceonO'Reillyv.U.S.ArmyCorpsofEng'rs,477F.3d225(5thCir.2007)(findingthattheCorpsfailedtodiscussmitigationmeasuresinvolvingtheimpactofahousingdevelopmentonadjacentwetlands,whichwasundisputableandirrevocable)wasmisapplied.Here,itfoundthat200+pagesinbothEAsacknowledgedpotentialenvironmentalimpactsfromtheproject,discussedthirdparties’concernsaboutthoseimpacts,referencedindetailthehydrological,horticulturalandwildlifeenvironmentintheaffectedacreageoftheBasin,andexplainedhowandwheremitigationbankcreditsandconstructionprotocolswouldbeadoptedtorenderthewatershedimpactnot“significant.”TheFifthCircuitrejectedthatthedocumentwasa"mitigatedFONSI."ItcontemplatedthatperhapstheCorps'discussionmightbeimprovedwithafewdetails,butthatthepathcouldbe"reasonablybediscerned"fromtheEAsandotherpubliclyavailabledocumentsandshouldhavebeenupheld.Nat’lAss’nofHomeBuildersv.Defs.ofWildlife,551U.S.644,658,127S.Ct.2518,2530(2007).ThecourtnextreviewedthequestionwhethertheCorpsproperlyappliedCWAregulationswhenitdeterminedthatBayouBridgecould(1)utilizeapprovedconstructionmethodswithintheBasin,and(2)purchase(a)in-kindmitigationcredits,i.e.cypress-tupeloacreagewithinthewatershedand,whenthosewereexhausted,(b)out-of-kindcreditsofbottomlandhardwoodacreagewithinthewatershedtocompensatefortheproject’simpact.TheFifthCircuitnotedthatthelowercourtmisappliedtheCWAregulationsinvolvingthemitigationhierarchy(33U.S.C.§332.3)andfailedtoacknowledgeitsapplicationbymeansoftheLouisianaWetlandRapidAssessmentMethod(LRAM).TheFifthCircuitreasonedthatthelanguageoftheregulationssetupaplainhierarchythatsupportedmitigationbanks,asopposedtoAtchafalayaprofferedclean-upbyBayouBridgeofthespoilbankscreatedbyotherpipelinebuilderslongago.ThecourtstatedthattheCorpswasauthorizedtoemployout-of-kindcreditswithinthesamewatershediftheyservetheaquaticresourceneedsofthewatershedandtheCorpsreasoningisdemonstratedintheAR.ThecourtthenlookedtowhethertheCorpssufficientlydocumentedhowthosecreditsservetheBasin'saquaticresourceneeds.InreviewingtheAR,thecourtfoundtheLRAMisthetypeoffunctionalassessmenttoolthatCWAregulationadvisesshouldbeusedtodeterminehowmuchcompensatorymitigationisrequired.TheLRAMwaspublishedandwassubjecttocommentbythepublicandnumerousfederalandstateagencies,andwasrevisedfollowingtheirinput.TheLRAM'spurposeis"quantifyadverseimpactsassociatedwithpermitapplicationsandenvironmentalbenefitsassociatedwithcompensatorymitigationtodeterminetheamountandtypeofcreditsnecessarytooffsetagivenimpact.TheLRAMscoreswetlandimpactsbasedonfactorsincluding(1)numberofacresaffectedbytheprospectivepermit,(2)howdifficultthewetlandsaretoreplace,(3)habitatcondition;(4)hydrologiccondition,(5)negativehumaninfluences,and(6)permanentortemporaryloss.TheLRAMassignsvaluestothequalityofthewetlandsandofmitigationbanks,convertsthevaluesintocredits,anddeterminesonawatershedbasishowmanyacresinmitigationbanksmustbepurchasebytheapplicant.TheSupremeCourthasheldthattheuseofscientific

32

methodology,likeintheLRAM,issubjecttojudicialdeference.Marshv.OregonNat.Res.Council,490U.S.360,109S.Ct.1851,1861(1989).TheCorpsusedtheLRAMinits404EAandfullyexplaineditsbackgroundanduse.ThecourtfoundtheLRAManalysis"rationallyconnected"theout-of-kind-mitigationbankpurchasesintheBasintothe"aquaticfunctionsandservices"lostbytheproject,asrequiredbyCWAregulations,andNEPAbecause:(1)theApplicantwasrequiredtobuybottomlandhardwoodcreditswithintheBasinwatershedonlybecauseithadalreadypurchasedallavailablecypress/tupeloswampcredits(ratherthanthelesspreferredalternatives);(2)theCorpsresponsibilityundertheCWAwastoensuretheprotectionofaquaticfunctionsandservices,whichdidnotincludetheprotectionoftreespecies,assuch;(3)the404EAstatedthat"the[LRAM]wasutilizedtodeterminetheacquisitionofatotalof714.5acresofsuitablehabitatcredits,fromapprovedmitigationbankswithinthewatershedofimpact;"(4)citingCWAregulations,the404EAdiscussionofrequiredcompensatorymitigationbankpurchasesnotatedthattheconclusionwasconsistentwiththepreferredhierarchyassetforthbytheCorps(i.e.in-basin,in-kindmitigationfirst,in-basin,out-of-kindmitigationsecond,etc.);(5)theCorps404EA'sanalysisincludestheCorps'BestManagementPracticesduringconstructionandrequiresconditionsthatmustbemetwithspecificity;(6)O'Reilly,whichwouldhaverequiredtheCorpstodiscussmitigationalternatives(irrespectiveofthedistinctionbetweenaFONSIand"mitigatedFONSI"),isdistinguishable(O'ReillypredatedanddidnotrelyonCWAregulationsformitigationhierarchyorrelyontheLRAMtool).ThecourtalsonotedthattheexpeditedjudicialprocessdidnotallowforthereviewoftheAR.ThelowercourtfoundtheEAsdeficientforfailingtoevaluatethepipeline'sprojectimpactcumulativelywiththeeffectofspoilbanksleftfrompastprojectandanallegedhistoryofnoncompliancewithpriorCorps-approvedpermits.TheFifthCircuitnotedthelowercourtmisreadtheapplicablestatuteandtheEAs.UnderNEPA,agenciesmustconsidereach“cumulativeimpact”ofpermittedactions,andthattermisdefinedas“theimpactontheenvironmentwhichresultsfromtheincrementalimpactoftheactionwhenaddedtootherpast,present,andreasonablyforeseeablefutureactions.”40C.F.R.§1508.7(emphasisadded).Here,theEAsconcludedthatbecauseofappropriatemitigationmeasures,intermsofconstructionconditionsandlimitationsinthepermit,andBayouBridge’spurchaseofcompensatorymitigationbankacreage,therewouldbenoincrementalimpact;hence,therecouldbenocumulativeeffectswithregardtopre-existingspoilbanks.The408EAspecificallyacknowledgedpast,presentandreasonablyforeseeablefutureactions,includingpreviouspipelines,andmaintaineditsconclusionthattherewouldbenoadverseresultsfromtemporarydischargesduringthisconstruction.The404EAstatedthatthedistrictcommanderreviewedthe408EAbeforepublishingtheFONSIandthatthe404EAdiddiscusscumulativeeffectsontheenvironment.Itconcluded“throughtheeffortstakentoavoidandminimizeeffects...andthemandatoryimplementationofamitigationplan...permitissuancewillnotresultinsubstantialdirect,secondaryorcumulativeadverseimpactontheaquaticenvironment.”TheEAstated:“[r]esultingnaturalresourcechallengesandstressesincludepermanentlossofwetlands(ofwhichthisprojectconstitutestemporaryorconversionimpacts,notpermanentwetlandloss),lossofwildlifehabitat,andimpactstowaterquality.Akeyissue(s)ofconcerninthiswatershedislossofwetlandfunctionandvalue.”Notonlydoesthisclearlysignifynopermanentwetlandloss,butalso,afterexplainingmitigationfortemporaryimpacts,monitoringandmitigationbankpurchasesinaccordwiththeLRAM,theEAstated:“Appropriatecompensatorymitigationwaspurchasedatthesebankstooffsetunavoidableimpactstowetlandsthatwouldresultfrompermitissuance.”Finally,torecapitulatethepermitconditionsmentionedpreviously,BayouBridge’sconstruction,accordingtothepermit,willleavethesmallestpossiblefootprintandwillinseveralwaysbeaccomplishedwithouthinderingpossiblefutureeffortstoremoveoldspoilbanksleftbypriorconstruction.Inaddition,theCorpsisauthorizedunderthepermittorequirereplantingofdesirablenativetreespeciesandundertakeadditionalcompensatorymitigation,furtherremediationactions,and/orfurthermonitoringiftheinitialmitigationprovesinadequate.

33

TheCorpsacknowledgedextrinsicpastimpactsontheBasinandexplainedhowthepermitwillnotonlyremediatetheimpactsofthisprojectbutwillnotinterferewithfurthereffortstorestorethewatershed.TheFifthCircuitfoundthelowercourt’sconcernaboutcumulativeeffectsbasedontheallegedpastnoncompliancewithCorpspermitconditionswasmisplaced.NotonlydidsomeofthoseprojectspredatetheCWA,butAppellants’factualinformationundermineespecificchargesmadebyAppelleesaboutcertainpermitholders.

Dissent:JudgeReavley,inahealthydissent,disagreedwithtwooftheFifth'sCircuitsfindings.TheJudgediscussedthatthepipelineprojectwouldclear262acresofwetlandsintheAtchafalayaBasin,impactingtworesourcetypes,cypress-tupeloswampandbottomland-hardwoodforest.TheCorpsreliedontheLRAM,butfoundthatoneofthechosenmitigationbanksdidnothavethenumberofcypress-tupeloacresnecessarytomatchafullyin-kindmitigation;theCorpsthensanctionedinsteadthepurchaseof69cypress-tupeloacresand243.8bottomlandhardwoodacres.Thus,theCorpsswappedeachacreofunaccounted-forcypresstupeloofsurplusbottomlandhardwood,andtreatedthetworesourcetypesinterchangeably.TheJudgeexplainedthattheLRAMlackedacriticalexplanatorycomponent.Inshort,33C.F.R§332.3(e)(1)prefersin-kindoverout-of-kindmitigationbecausesimilarresourcesare"mostlikelytocompensateforthefunctionsandserviceslostattheimpactsite."TheLRAMlistshabitatsandgroupsintosixresourcecategories;however,theLRAMdoesnotexplainhowtoquantifyimpactstooneresourceintermsofanothermuchlesshowcypresstupeloandbottomlandhardwoodhabitats,i.e.outofkindhabitats,ofa"differentstructuralandfunctionaltype"canswapseamlessforeachotherintermsoftheBasin'sresourceneeds.Therefore,theLRAMisnotatoolforout-of-kindmitigation.Nordoesthe404EAexplainthisgap,andtheCorpsdidnotmeetitsregulatoryburdentoexplainout-of-kindmitigation.TheJudgealsodisagreedwiththestandardappliedformitigationwithinthecontextofaFONSI.TheCorpsarguedhowever,thatO’Reilly’sscrutinyappliesonlytomitigatedFONSIs,thoseinwhichanagencyengagesinatwo-partfinding:(1)projectimpactsalonewouldbesignificantbut(2)withmitigation,theimpactsarereducedtoinsignificance.Thiscase,theCorpssays,doesnotinvolveamitigatedFONSIbecausetheagencyconsideredtheprojectimpactsandmitigationallatoncebeforeissuingasingleFONSI,relyingontheCEQ'sGuidance,FinalGuidanceforFederalDepartmentsandAgenciesontheAppropriateUseofMitigationandMonitoringandClarifyingtheAppropriateUseofMitigatedFindingsofNoSignificantImpact,Jan.21,2011.TheJudgenotedthatthedistinctionisallformwithnosubstance.O’Reillystandsforafundamentalproposition:WhenmitigationisanecessarypartofaFONSI,theagencybearsadutytoexplainwhythemitigationwillbeeffective.477F.3dat231–32.Thusframed,therearebuttwotypesofFONSIsunderO’Reilly:(1)thoseinwhichmitigationisanintegralpartoftheinsignificantoutcomeand(2)thoseinwhichthemitigationisultimatelygratuitous—thatis,whentheimpactswouldbeinsignificantevenwithoutmitigation.Thereisnothirdoption.Ofcourse,themannerinwhichanagencyarrivesatitsFONSIcanmaketheroleofmitigationapparentonthefaceoftheadministrativerecord(AR).WhentheagencyissuesaformalmitigatedFONSI,weknowforsurethatmitigationisanintegralpiece.But,ashere,whentheEAlumpsprojectimpactsandmitigationintoasingleconsiderationwithnofurtherexplication,therecordobscureswhethertheimpactswouldhavebeensignificantabsentthemitigation.Allthesame,thesefaciallyambiguousassessmentscaninvolvenecessarymitigation.TheJudgequestioned:wasmitigationnecessarytothisproject’sinsignificantimpact?Ontheonehand,theCorpswasunwillingtoconcedethatmitigationwasnecessarytoreducetheproject’simpacttoinsignificance.ThisdespitethepagesandpagesoftheEAdetailingthehundredsofacresofshreddedwetlandsandcorrespondingcompensatorymitigation.See33C.F.R.§320.4(r)(1)(explainingthatcompensatorymitigationismeanttorectify“significantresourcelosses”).Nonetheless,thatmustnecessarilymeantheproject’simpactswouldbeinsignificantevenwithoutmitigation;buttheCorpswasunwillingtosaythateither.Andthereinliestheparadox—the

34

ambiguousrecordenabledtheCorpstotiptoeonanonexistentfencebetweentheonlytworealities:mitigationthatmattersandmitigationthatdoesnot.Whenanagencycloakstheimportanceofmitigationbehindanambiguousadministrativerecord,thecourtshouldholdtheagencytothestandardarticulatedinO’Reilly.

AudubonSocietyofGreaterDenverv.U.S.ArmyCorpsofEng'rs,908F.3d593(10thCir.2018)AgencyPrevailed.Issue(s):Alternatives,Supplementation(ofAdministrativeRecord(AR)).Facts:TheAudubonSocietyofGreaterDenver("Audubon")challengedtheCorps'compliancewithNEPA,interalia,involvingChatfieldStorageReallocationProject,whichwouldallowcertainwaterprovidersintheDenvermetropolitanareatostore20,600acre-feetofwaterintheChatfieldReservoir,inDenver,Colorado.ThelowercourtupheldtheCorps'EISandAudubonappealed.In1973,theCorpsconstructedtheChatfieldReservoirbyerectingadamacrosstheSouthPlatteRiverSWofDenver.TheReservoirwasprimarilybuiltforfloodcontrol,butCongressauthorizedtheCorpstodeveloprecreationalfacilitiesattheReservoir.In1974,theCorpsleasedthelandsurroundingtheReservoirtotheStateofColorado,whichopenstheareatothepublicasChatfieldStatePark,oneofthemostpopularstateparksinColorado.In1986,CongressauthorizedtheCorpstostudywhetheritwouldbefeasibleandeconomicallyjustifiabletoreallocatepartofChatfieldReservoir'sstoragecapacityfromfloodcontroltomunicipal,industrial,andagriculturalwaterstorage.Theresultingstudypredictedthat,eventakingintoaccountwaterconservationprograms,waterproviderswillneedapproximately50%morewaterin2050becauseofpopulationgrowthintheDenvermetropolitanarea.Undercurrentconditions,absentthedevelopmentofadditionalwatersupply,theDenvermetropolitanareawillhave“approximately90,000acre-feetofunmet[water]needs”in2050.In2009,CongressauthorizedmodificationsoftheChatfieldReservoir,andanyrequiredmitigationtoaccommodatewaterstorage.TheReallocationProjectallowedthewaterproviderstostore20,600acre-feetofwaterinChatfieldReservoir.TheimmediatepracticaleffectoftheReallocationProjectwasthatthemaximumwaterlevelintheReservoirwouldriseby12feet,flooding587acresofChatfieldStatePark,includingvariousrecreationfacilitiesandsensitiveenvironments.Becauseoftheseeffects,thewaterprovidersalsoproposedtwoplans—onetorelocatetherecreationfacilitiesandtheothertomitigateenvironmentaldamage.BothplansinvolvedthedischargeofdredgedandfillmaterialintowetlandsnearChatfieldReservoir.AspartofitsreviewoftheReallocationProject,theCorpspreparedanEIS.TheEISstatedthatthemainproblemaddressedbytheReallocationProjectwastheincreasingwaterdemandintheDenverMetroareathatexceededavailablewatersupplies.Thepurposeandneedwastoincreaseavailabilityofwater,provideanadditionalaverageyearyieldofuptoapproximately8,539acre-feetofmunicipalandindustrialwater,whichwassustainableoverthe50-yearperiodofanalysis,inthegreaterDenverMetroareasothatalargerproportionofexistingandfuturewaterneedscanbemet.TheCorpsinitiallyexaminedthirty-eightalternativesforsecuringadditionalwatersupplyfortheDenvermetropolitanarea.Thesestrategiesfellintosevencategories:increasedwaterconservation,agriculturaltransfers,importationofwater,developmentofnewwaterstoragefacilities,storageofadditionalwateratexistingreservoirs,increaseduseofsurfacewaterandgroundwater,andincreasedwaterrecycling.TheCorpsusedfourcriteriatocomparethesepotentialalternatives:abilitytomeetpurposeandneed,cost,logisticsandtechnology,

35

andenvironmentalimpacts.Afterbrieflyexplainingitsdecisionnottofurtheranalyzethirty-fouralternatives,theCorpsconsideredtheremainingfouralternativesindetail.First,theCorpsconsideredAlternative1,the“NoActionAlternative,”whichmeanttheReallocationProjectwouldnotproceedandwaterproviderswouldhavetolooktootheroptionstosecureadditionalwater.Specifically,theNoActionAlternativeassumedthatthewaterproviderswouldstoresurfacewaterinanewly-constructedPenleyReservoiranddownstreamgravelpits.TheCorpsnextconsideredAlternative2,inwhichthewaterproviderswouldmeetfuturedemandusinggroundwaterandsurfacewaterstoredindownstreamgravelpits.ThegravelpitsinAlternative2wouldbedevelopedinthesamewayasinAlternative1.PAA0715.ButinAlternative2,insteadofbuildingPenleyReservoir,thewaterproviderswouldalsorelyongroundwatertoservetheircustomers.TheCorpsthenevaluatedAlternative3,whichistheReallocationProjectthatwasultimatelyselected.UnderAlternative3,thewaterproviderscouldstore20,600acre-feetofwaterinChatfieldReservoir.IncreasingtheamountofwaterinChatfieldReservoirwouldraisethewaterlevelby12feet.ItstatedthatnonewinfrastructurewouldbeneededatChatfieldbyanywaterprovider.Finally,theCorpsexaminedAlternative4,whichwouldallowwaterproviderstostore7,700acre-feetofwaterinChatfieldReservoir.Alternative4wouldincreasethewaterlevelinthereservoirbyfivefeet.Tomeetadditionaldemand,thewaterproviderswouldalsorelyongroundwaterandsurfacewaterstoredindownstreamgravelpits(againdevelopedinthesamewayasinAlternative1).Aftercomparingthesefouralternatives,theCorpschoseAlternative3.TheCorpsconcludedthatAlternative3maximizes[NationalEconomicDevelopment]benefits”byminimizingthecostofsupplyingwaterandbestmeetsthewatersupplyneedsofthewaterproviders.TheCorpsalsoconcludedthatAlternative3istheLeastEnvironmentallyDamagingalternativebecause:1)theenvironmentalimpactsofAlternative3atChatfieldcanallbefullymitigated;2)Alternative3doesnotresultinthedryingupofanyfarmlandorincludetheuseofnon-renewablegroundwater;and3)Alternative3istheplanmostconsistentwiththeCorps'sevenEnvironmentalOperatingPrinciples.WhileconductingtheNEPAanalysis,theCorpsremainedmindfulthatthealternativechosenwouldneedtocomplywiththeCWA.InMay2014,theCorpsissueditsROD;inOctober2014,Audubonsoughtreviewofthedecision.ThelowercourtupheldthedecisionanddeniedAudubon’srequestforinjunctiverelief.Decision:AudubonarguedthattheCorpsdismissedthreealternativeswithoutsufficientexplanation.Specifically,AudubonfaultedtheCorpsforfailingtoexamineenhancedwaterconservationmeasures,whichgobeyondthestandardmethodsalreadybeingusedbywaterproviders.AudubonalsomaintainedthattheCorpserredwhenitexcludedupstreamgravelpitsfromfurtherconsiderationbecausetheyofferedsufficientcapacityfortheReallocationProject.AudubonassertedthatthewaterproviderscouldhavepurchasedstoragecapacityattheRueter-HessReservoirinsteadofexpandingtheChatfieldReservoir.TheTenthCircuitupheldtheCorps'analysisofalternatives.First,theCorpsconsideredincreasedwaterconservationatlengthandconcludedthatwaterconservationisnotanequivalentpracticablealternativetotheproposedprojectbecausethe“shortagesofsustainablewatersuppliesfacedbythewaterproviderswillnotberesolvedbywaterconservationmeasuresalone.”Instead,theCorps'

36

subsequentanalysesassumedthat“[c]urrentwaterconservationpracticesconstituteanindependentparallelaction”totheReallocationProject.AstheCorpsexplainedinresponsetoapubliccomment,waterconservationgoalsandamountswereconsideredwhendeterminingtheamountofwaterneededforfutureuse.Therefore,theCorpsviewedeachalternativeasalsoincludingthevariousconservationprogramsascomponents.TheCorpsconcludedthat,whileconservationcandelaythetimingoftheneedforadditionalsupplies,itdoesnotinitselfeliminatetheneedforadditionalsupplies.”ThecourtrejectedAudubon'ssuggestionbecause,Davisv.Mineta,302F.3d1104,1122(10thCir.2002),abrogatedonothergroundsbyDineCitizensAgainstRuiningOurEnv'tv.Jewell,839F.3d1276(10thCir.2016),didnotindicatethattheCorp'sanalysiswasinadequate.InDavis,theagency'sNEPAanalysiswasdeficientbecauseit“summarilyrejected”alternativesthatcouldnot,“standingalone,”achievetheproject'sgoals.302F.3dat1120.TheDOTmade“noeffort”toconsiderwhetherthesealternatives,whenanalyzed“inconjunction”witheachother,couldachievetheprojectgoals.Id.at1121.TheCorps'analysisherewasfarmoreextensive.TheCorpsthoroughlydescribedthecurrentstatusofthewaterproviders'conservationplansandexplainedthat,becausethefutureunmetwaterneedissogreat,thewaterproviderswilldevelopevenmorestringentwaterconservationmeasures,evenaftertheReallocationProjectiscompleted.ThisdiscussionsufficientlyexplainedwhytheCorpsdidnotconsiderenhancedwaterconservationtobeareasonablealternativeworthyoffurtheranalysis,whichisallthatNEPArequires.Second,theCorpsadequatelyexplainedwhyupstreamgravelpitsdidnotmeritfurtherdiscussion.Upstreamgravelpitswere“eliminatedfromfurtherconsiderationduetolimitedstoragecapacityandthelogisticaldifficultiesofcombiningreservoirstomeetthestoragerequirementsoftheproject.”Theupstreamgravelpitshad5,490acre-feetofcapacityspreadacrossthreereservoirs,whichwaslessthanthe8,539acre-feetsoughtbytheReallocationProject.Ontheotherhand,downstreamgravelpits,whichtheCorpsdidanalyzeatlength,wouldhaveprovided7,835acre-feetofstorageandpresentedfewerlogisticalcomplications.Comparedtotheupstreamgravelpits,thedownstreamgravelpitswereclosertoexistingwatersupplysystems,whichminimizedconnectioncostsforthewatersuppliers.Giventhattheupstreamanddownstreamgravelpitsweresimilaralternatives,butthedownstreamoptionofferedmorestorageatalowercost,theCorps'decisiontoexcludeupstreamgravelpitsasanalternativewasneitherarbitrarynorcapricious.PrairieBandPottawatomieNationv.Fed.HighwayAdmin.,684F.3d1002,1011(10thCir.2012)(“[A]nagencyneednotconsideranalternativeunlessitissignificantlydistinguishablefromthealternativesalreadyconsidered.”).NotwithstandingtheCorps'reasoning,AudubonassertedthattheCorpsanalysiswasarbitraryandcapriciousbecauseaftertheCorpsfinalizedtheEIS,anupstreamgravelpitownerinformedtheCorpsthata“preliminary”reportshowedthatthepitcouldhavethecapacityfor11,000acre-feetofstoragewhenexpanded.”ThisnewinformationdoesnotrendertheCorps'decisionarbitraryorcapriciousbecausetheinformationwasnotprovidedtotheCorpsuntilafterthefinalEISwasissued.PrairieBand,684F.3dat1012–13.Third,theCorpssufficientlyexplainedwhystoringwaterattheRueter-HessReservoirwasnotaviablealternativetotheReallocationProject.TheCorpsfurthernotedthatseveralwaterprovidersalreadyownedthestoragecapacityattheRueter-HessReservoir.ThoughtheRueter-HessReservoirhadrecentlybeenexpanded,thecapacitywasanticipatedtoprimarilymeettheneedsofthecurrentstorageowners,whohadnotmadeanyadditionalstoragecapacityavailableforsalesince2012.TheCorpsexplainedthatstoringadditionalwateratRueter-Hesswasnotapracticablealternativebecausetherewasnoavailablestorageinthatreservoir.Thisanalysiswasnotarbitraryorcapricious.AudubonarguedthatthedistrictcourtabuseditsdiscretionbydenyingthemotiontosupplementtheARbecausetheARlacksdocumentationrequiredtodetermineiftheCorps'dismissalofRueter-HessReservoirandenhancedwaterconservationmeasureswasjustified.Audubonclaimedthatconsiderationofawaterconservationsurvey

37

wasnecessaryfortheCorpstodeterminewhetherenhancedwaterconservationwasaviablealternativetotheReallocationProject.Audubonalsoclaimedthatareportonawaterrecyclingprogram(ProjectWISE)wasnecessaryfortheCorpstoproperlyevaluatetheviabilityofstoringadditionalwaterintheRueter-HessReservoir.ThedistrictcourtdeniedAudubon'smotionbecauseneitherthesurveyofwaterconservationeffortsnortheProjectWISEinformationindicatedthattheCorps'NEPAanalysiswasdeficient,andthatthewaterconservationefforts,includingpotentialeffortstoenhancewaterconservationinthefuture,includingthesummaryofProjectWISEwereextensivelydiscussedintheEIS.Therefore,theextrarecordevidencewouldnothavefilledgapsoraddressedinadequaciesintheCorps'analysis.

ClatsopResidentsAgainstWalmart(CRAW)v.U.S.ArmyCorpsofEng'rs,No.16-35767,735Fed.Appx.909(9thCir.May25,2018)(notforpublication)Agencyprevailed.Issue(s):CumulativeImpacts(includingbaseline).Facts:Interestgroup,ClatsopResidentAgainstWalmart(CRAW),challengedapprovalofapplicationforaCWA§404permittofill.37acresofwetlandsinWarrenton,Oregon.TheoriginalpermitapplicanttransferredthepermittoWalmart.Decision:CRAWchallengedtherangeofalternativesundertheCWA,whichtheNinthCircuitrejected.CRAWalsocontendedthattheCorps’cumulativeimpactsanalysisunderNEPAwasarbitraryandcapricious.TheNinthCircuitdisagreedbecausetheCorps“aggregat[ed]thecumulativeeffectsofpastprojectsintoanenvironmentalbaseline,”CascadiaWildlandsv.BureauofIndianAffairs,801F.3d1105,1111(9thCir.2015),whichincluded“quantified[and]detailedinformation”aboutpastimpacts,OceanAdvocatesv.U.S.ArmyCorpsofEng’rs,402F.3d846,868(9thCir.2005).TheCorps’choiceofafive-yearbaselinerangewasnotarbitraryandcapriciousbecause“NEPAdoesnotimposearequirementthatthe[Corps]analyzeimpactsforanyparticularlengthoftime”andthefive-yearrangeincludedthemostsignificantpastimpact,the14.9acresfilloftheNygaardproperty.SelkirkConservationAlliancev.Forsgren,336F.3d944,962(9thCir.2003).TheCorpsalsodidnoterrindisregardingthewetlandsacreageidentifiedinClatsopCounty’smasterplanasnot“reasonablyforeseeable,”40C.F.R.§1508.7,becausethemasterplandoesnotincludeatimelineoridentifyanyspecificproposedprojects.TheNinthCircuitpointedoutthattheCorpsprojectedthatfillpermitauthorizationswouldcontinueatthepaceoffouracresofaffectedwetlandsperyear.TheNinthCircuitfoundthattheCorps’cumulativeimpactsanalysiswasthereforenotarbitraryandcapriciousunderNEPA.

U.S.DEPARTMENTOFENERGY

FriendsoftheColumbiaGorgev.BonnevillePowerAdmin.,No.15-72788,716Fed.Appx.681(9thCir.Mar.27,2018)(notforpublication).Agencyprevailed.Issue(s):Federalaction.

38

Facts: FriendsoftheColumbiaGorgeandSaveOurScenicAreapetitionedforreviewofaBonnevillePowerAdministration(BPA)recordofdecisiongrantingtheWhistlingRidgeEnergyProject,aninterconnectiontoBPA’stransmissionsystem.BPAdeterminedtheWindProject—asopposedtotheinterconnectionitself—wasnotamajorfederalactionunderNEPA.

Decision:Findingfortheagency,thecourtstatedthatdeterminingwhetheranactionisfederalforpurposesofNEPArequiresananalysisofallfactsandcircumstancessurroundingtherelationshipbetweenthefederalagencyandtheallegedlynonfederalaction.Thecourtevaluated(1)whethertheprojectreceivedfederalfunding,(2)whetherthefederalgovernmentexercisedcontrolovertheplanninganddevelopmentoftheproject,(3)whethertheenvironmentaleffectsofthestateactionwereignoredorwhetherthestateprojectwastakenintoaccountasoneofthesecondaryeffectsofthefederalaction,and(4)whetherthetwoprojectsweresofunctionallyinterdependentthattheprojectsconstituteasinglefederalactionorwhethertheyservedcomplementary,butdistinctfunctions.

“ThesefactorssupportBPA’sdeterminationthattheWindProjectwasnotafederalaction.First,theProjectwillreceivenofederalmoney.Second,thefederalgovernmentexercisednocontrolovertheplanninganddevelopmentoftheWindProject.Third,BPAengagedinajointNEPAanalysiswithWashington’sregulatoryagency.Lastly,evenifinterconnectionwithBPAistheonlyfeasiblemeansoftransmittingpowergeneratedfromtheWindProject,theinterconnectionandtheWindProject‘servecomplementary,butdistinctfunctions.’[citationomitted]IncontrasttothesituationinPortofAstoriav.Hodel,595F.2d467(9thCir.1979),BPAwouldmerelytransmitpowergeneratedbytheprivateWindProjecttootherprivateconsumersalongitsexistingtransmissionsystem.Cf.id.at471(identifyingfederalactioninacontracttosupplyfederallygeneratedpowertoanaluminumplant). Accordingly,wecannotconcludethatBPA’sno-federal-actiondeterminationwasarbitrary,capricious,orcontrarytolaw.”

U.S.DEPARTMENTOFTHEINTERIOR

LittleTraverseLakePropertyOwnersAssociationv.NationalParkService,883F.3d644(6thCir.2018)Agencyprevailed.Issue(s):WaiverofClaims,PurposeandNeed,Alternatives,Supplementation(oftheAdministrativeRecord(AR)).Facts:In2008,NPSproposedaplantobuildascenictrailway,theSleepingBearHeritageTrail,throughtheSleepingBearDunesNationalLakeshoreinLeelanauCounty,Michigan.TheSleepingBearHeritageTrailisahard-surfaced,non-motorized,multi-usetrailthatwillspantwenty-sevenmilesfromthenorthernendoftheNationalLakeshoreatCountyRoad651totheLeelanau–BenziecountylinesouthofEmpire,Michigan.TheTrailcurrentlyrunsalmosttwenty-twomilesfromEmpirenorthtoBohemianRoad(CountyRoad669),justwestofTraverseLakeRoad.TheTrailispartoftheLakeshoreGeneralManagementPlan,andwasdevelopedbytheLeelanauScenicHeritageRouteCommittee(the“Committee”),whichwascomprisedofrepresentativesfromNPS,localmunicipalities,theMichiganDOT,theLeelanauConservancy,theLeelanauCountyRoadCommission,andotherinterestedorganizationsandcitizens.

39

InJanuary2007,theCommitteesolicitedproposalsforapre-engineeringstudyanddraftEA.OnOctober1,2008,NPSreleasedaproposedplanandEA(the“2008TrailPlan”),whichstatedthattheplan’s“purposeandneed”wasto“assistinthecreationofanon-motorizedtrailwaythatwillprovideacontinuousscenicpathway”withinLeelanauCounty,beginningattheintersectionofM–22andManningRoadandendingatGoodHarborBay,CountyRoad651.The2008TrailPlandividedthetwenty-sevenmilepathintoninedistinctsegmentsinordertoanalyzealternativesandenvironmentalimpactswithmorespecificity,andineachsegmenttheplanconsideredthreealternatives—AlternativeA,AlternativeB,andNoAction.Theeasternmostsegment,Segment9,encompassedtheLittleTraverseLakeareaatissue.Segment9ranfromtheintersectionofBohemianRoadandTraverseLakeRoad,easttotheswimmingbeachandfacilitieslocatedatthenorthernendofCountyRoad651,nearthenorthernboundaryoftheLakeshore,andprovidesaccesstohistoricBufkaFarm.The2008TrailPlanroutedAlternativeAforSegment9southofLittleTraverseLakealongHighwayM–22,butforAlternativeB,the“preferredalternative,”the2008TrailPlanproposedaten-footoff-roadasphaltsectiononthenorthsideofM–22uptoTraverseLakeRoadthatwouldthenturnnorth,usingTraverseLakeRoadforapproximatelythreemilesbeforeemergingbackontheM–22right-of-way.BoththeeastandwestendsofTraverseLakeRoadintersectwithM–22,andtheroadextendsapproximately2.7milesbetweenthoseintersections.TraverseLakeRoadisapproximatelytwenty-twofeetwide,withunpavedshoulders,andmaturetreesarepresentonbothsidesoftheroad.ThesouthsideofTraverseLakeRoadisboundedbymorethanseventyprivateparcels.WetlandareasarelocatedneartheeastandwestendsofLittleTraverseLake,andsanddunes,somesteepandmorethanfiftyfeetinheight,arepresentalongtheeasternendoftheroad.WhenNPSreleasedthe2008TrailPlanforpublicreviewandcomment,itreceived50comments.Amongthecomments,residentslivingalongTraverseLakeRoadobjectedtotheexpansionoftheroadwaytoaccommodatetheTrail,assertingthatitwould“turnaquietresidentialstreetintoahighwaywithpavedshoulders.”OpponentsofAlternativeBalsoexpressedconcernsthattheAlternativewouldpresenthazardsforwalkers,joggers,andbikersduetoincreasedtraffic.OpponentsalsovoicedconcernsaboutAlternativeB’spotentialimpactonwetlandslocatednearbothendsofLittleTraverseLakeanddunesattheeastendofTraverseLakeRoad.ThepresidentoftheLittleTraverseLakePropertyOwnersAssociation“stronglyoppose[d]anymodificationofTraverseLakeRoadtoprovideforbicyclelanes,”assertingthat“[c]onstructionofabicyclelaneonthenorthsideofTraverseLakeRoad”wouldinterferewith“criticaldunesandrequiretheremovalofmany,manymaturetrees”anditwouldbe“bothcostlyandenvironmentallydreadful!”ThePropertyOwnersAssociationalsostatedthatatrailonthesouthsideoftheroadwouldcrossmorethanseventydrivewaysandinterferewithutilities,mailboxes,andlandscaping,contrarytoNPS’sassessmentthattheTrailwouldminimallyimpactadjacentlandowners.Finally,thePropertyOwnersAssociationsuggestedthattheTrailbereroutedtoterminateatthenorthendofBohemianRoadatLakeMichigan.Afterconsideringthepubliccommentstothe2008TrailPlan,NPSissuedarevisedplanandanEAinMarch2009(the“2009TrailPlan”).TherevisedplanmaintainedtheinitialproposalforAlternativeA,butmodifiedAlternativeBforsegments1,2,and9.TherevisedAlternativeBforSegment9wasapproximately4.8mileslong,2.3milesofwhichrunsalongTraverseLakeRoad.Itwasdescribedas:

[A]10’off-roadasphaltsectiononthenorthsideofM–22uptoTraverseLakeRoad.TheTrailwayturnsnorthonthewestsideofTraverseLakeRoadontoanoff-roadboardwalkwithinthecountyroad right of way. It continues as a separate 10’ off road asphalt path on the north side of

40

TraverseLakeRoadeitherwithinthecountyroadright-of-wayoronLakeshorepropertysouthofproposedwilderness.TheTrailwaywouldthenfollowanoldtwotrackroadthatrunsfromthenortheast end of Little Traverse Lake becoming a crushed limestone path behind the BufkaFarmstead.

Thus,whilethe2009TrailPlanretainedaroutealongTraverseLakeRoad,itproposedthreesignificantchangestoaddresstheconcernsidentifiedintheearliercomments.First,NPSsoughttominimizetheimpactstowetlandsbyusinganoff-roadboardwalktocrossthewetlandsandShaldaCreekatthewestendofLittleTraverseLake,ratherthanwideningTraverseLakeRoadtoaccommodatetheTrail.Second,aftercrossingthewetlands,the2009TrailPlanproposedaseparateasphaltpathonthenorthsideofTraverseLakeRoad,eitherwithinthecountyroadright-of-wayoronLakeshorepropertyratherthanusingtheroadwaysurface.Thisseparatepathwassuggestedtoaddresssafetyconcernsaboutbikeandpedestriantraffic,andtominimizetheimpactonTraverseLakeRoadresidents,almostallofwhomliveonthesouthsideoftheroad.TheseparatepathalsoallowedforgreaterflexibilityintheTrail’spath,sothattheTrailcanavoidmaturetrees.Finally,ratherthancrossingmostofthewetlandsattheeastendofthelake,NPSproposedthattheTrailfollow“anoldtwotrackroadthatrunsfromthenortheastendofLittleTraverseLakebecomingacrushedlimestonepathbehindtheBufkaFarmstead.”The2009TrailPlananalyzedtheimpactofthetrailwayalternativesontopography,wetlandsandwaterquality,vegetationandwildlife,Michiganstate-listedspecies,soils,socioeconomics,culturalresources,visitoropportunitiesanduse,andoperationsandmaintenance.The2009TrailPlandeterminedthat“fourwetlandareas...couldbeimpacted,”andthat“[t]hreesurfacewaterscouldbeaffected,”including“ShaldaCreekonTraverseLakeRoad.”However,theEAexplainedthat“boardwalksorhardenedtrailsurfaces[]wouldbelocatedtotheextentfeasibletoavoiddirectlydredgingorfillingwetlands,”andthe2009TrailPlandescribedbestmanagementandmonitoringpracticesforreducingconstructionimpacts.Basedonitsanalysis,NPSconcludedthatAlternativeB“wouldlikelyhaveshort-termandlong-termminoradverseimpactsonthewetlandsandwaterqualityoftheLakeshore.”The2009TrailPlanalsodeterminedthatAlternativeBforSegment9couldimpactvegetationandforestresources,including“directremovalorlossofvegetationthatservesaswildlifehabitat.”Indeed,theTrailPlanexplainedthatbecauseSegment9wouldbeconstructedinforestedareas,“[trail][p]lacementoutsiderights-of-waywouldberequiredinSegment...9,”andthat“developmentofanewtrailthroughanareaofrelativelynativeforestwhereaswathofvegetationisremovedtoconstructthetrailwouldrepresenthabitatloss.”However,theTrailPlanconcludedthat“[m]inimaltreeremovalisexpectedduetothewidespacingofexistingmaturetreesinthisarea,”andthat“virtuallyalltraillocationsoutofthehighwayrights-of-wayareonpreviouslydisturbedareas,orareaswithwidelyspacedtrees.”Thus,NPSconcludedthatAlternativeB’s“impactstovegetationarelikely,intheshort-termtobemoderateadverseandinthelong-term,tobeminorandadverse.”The2009TrailPlanaddressedduneecosystemsinitsassessmentofimpactsontopographyandsoils.TheEAacknowledgedthatslopesinportionsofSegment9rangefrom18%to45%,andthat“retainingwallsmayhavetobeusedwhentheslopesideexceeds25%.”TheTrailPlanalsoconsideredthephysicalcharacteristicsofthedunes,discussingtheerodibilityofthesoiltypeinrelationtoTrailwaydevelopment.Whiletheenvironmentalassessmentrecognizedthatsomeadverseimpactstotopographymightoccurinseveralsegments,itexplainedthat“[d]isturbanceofareaswithsteepsideslopesandgradientswouldbeavoidedwherepossible.”TheEAdescribedbestmanagementpracticesthatwouldbeemployedtoreduceimpacts,including“siltfencing...inareasofsteeptopography”and“restorationtodisturbedareasinordertoreducedestructiveerosion.”NPSconcludedthat

41

revisedAlternativeB“wouldhaveshort-andlong-termminoradverseimpactsontopography,”andshort-term“moderate”andlong-term“minor”adverseimpactsonsoils.NPSmadethe2009TrailPlanavailableforpublicreviewandcommentfromMarch5toApril4,2009,publicizingtherevisedTrailPlaninthesamemannerasthe2008TrailPlan.Thistime,NPSreceivedonlyfivecommentsontherevisedTrailPlan,noneofwhichobjectedtotherevisedSegment9orraisedconcernsregardingTraverseLakeRoad.Noneofthecommentssubmittedduringthe2009commentperiodweresubmittedbyTraverseLakeRoadresidents.InAugust2009,NPSissuedafindingofnosignificantimpact(“FONSI”)andselectedpreferredAlternativeBforSegment9.Almostsixyearslater,theLittleTraverseLakePropertyOwnersAssociation,alongwithindividualresidentsonTraverseLakeRoad(collectively“Residents")broughtaction,contendingthatthe2009planviolatedNEPA.Insupportoftheirclaims,theResidentssoughttosupplementtheARwithadditionalpictures,maps,andotherdocuments.Thelowerdistrictcourtdismissedtheclaims.Onappeal,theResidentschallengedthedistrictcourt’sconclusionthattheyfailedtopreservemostoftheirchallengestothe2009TrailPlan.TheyalsoarguedthatNPSviolatedNEPAwhenitfailedtoconsideranalternativerouteproposedbyPlaintiffsduringthe2008publiccommentperiod.Finally,Residents’contendedthatthedistrictcourtabuseditsdiscretionwhenitdeniedtheirmotiontosupplementtheadministrativerecordwithadditionalphotos,maps,andlaytestimony.Decision.TheSixthCircuitfoundthattheResidents'challengestotheadequacyandaccuracyofthe2009TrailPlan’senvironmentalanalysiswereforfeited.ThecourtdiscussedthattheResidentsdidnotpreservetheirchallengesfortworelatedreasons.First,Residentsfailedtoraiseanyobjectionstothe2009TrailPlanduringthe2009publiccommentperiod,eventhoughtheywererequiredtomakesurethatNPSwasawareoftheircontinuedobjectionsandconcerns,sothattheagencycouldgivetheissuesmeaningfulconsiderationbeforeissuingitsfinaldecision.Second,whileResidentsarticulatedobjectionsandconcernsregardingthe2008TrailPlan,theNPSmeaningfullyaddressedResidents’specificcomplaintswithsignificantchangesintherevised2009TrailPlan,requiringResidentseithertorenewtheirobjectionsorotherwisetomakecleartoNPSthattherevisedproposaldidnotsufficientlyresolvetheirobjectionstothe2008TrailPlan.TheSixthCircuitfoundthattheearliercommentsonthe2008TrailPlandidnotpreserveResidents'abilitytochallengethelater2009TrailPlan.NPSspecificallyaddressedtheResidents'materialobjectionstothe2008TrailPlanwithsignificantchangesintherevisedproposal,suchthatitwasreasonableforNPStobelievethatithadsufficientlyaddressedResidents’concernswhentheydidnotrenewtheirobjectionsin2009.ThecourtheldthatwhenanagencysignificantlyrespondstocommentsandobjectionstoanEA,partiesmustrenewtheirobjectionsiftheybelievetheagencyfailedtosufficientlyaddresstheirconcerns,sothattheagencyisputonnoticeoftheparties’positionandcontentionswithregardtothenewproposal,inordertoallowtheagencytogivetheissuesfurthermeaningfulconsideration;otherwisetheparties’claimsunderNEPAareforfeited.ThecourtdiscussedthathadtheNPSignoredResidents'objectionswhenitissuedtherevised2009TrailPlan,theirclaimslikelywouldhavebeenpreservedbecausetheywouldhavetimely“alert[ed]theagencyto[their]positionandcontentions,”andNPSwouldhavefailedto“givetheissuemeaningfulconsideration.”TheSixthCircuitdidfindthattheResidents'claimthatthe2009TrailPlanfailedtoconsiderreasonablealternativeswasnotforfeited,becausethe2009TrailPlanfailedtoconsiderorrespondtoanalternativerouteResidentsproposedduringthe2008commentperiod.However,thecourtfoundtheclaimwaswithoutmeritbecausethealternativeroutetheyproposeddidnotaccomplishthestatedpurposeandneedoftheproposed

42

action,andthereforeResidents’proposalwasnotareasonablealternativethatwouldrequireadetailedstudyandresponsebytheNPS.Duringthe2008commentperiod,ResidentsurgedtheNPStoconsiderstoppingtheTrailattheendofBohemianRoad.But“[a]lternativeactions...aremeasuredagainstthePurposeandNeedStatement,whichexplainswhytheagencyisproposingtospendfederalmoneyonanactionthatpotentiallyresultsinsignificantenvironmentalimpact,”Coal.fortheAdvancementofReg’lTransp.v.Fed.HighwayAdmin.,576Fed.Appx.477,481(6thCir.2014),andResidents’proposedalternativeroutedoesnotfulfilltheTrailPlan’spurposetocreate“acontinuousscenicpathwayfrom...thesouthboundaryofLeelanauCountytothenorthboundaryoftheLakeshoreatGoodHarborBay,CountyRoad651,allwithinLeelanauCounty.”ThesuggestedproposalwouldshortentheTrailbynearlytenpercent,andwouldfrustratetheTrail’spurposeofreachingthenortheastern-mostportionsoftheLakeshore.Thus,whileNEPArequiresagenciestoevaluatereasonablealternativestotheproposedaction,see42U.S.C.§4332(2)(C)(iii)and40C.F.R.§1502.14(a),NPSwasnotrequiredtoassessResidents’proposalbecauseitwouldnothaveachievedtheTrail’sstatedpurposeandneed,and“[o]nlyalternativesthataccomplishthepurposesoftheproposedactionareconsideredreasonable.”Webster,685F.3dat422.Residentsalsoarguedthat,whileanagencyisnotrequiredtoconsiderandeliminateeveryconceivablealternative,theTrailPlan’sstatedpurposeandneedwasunreasonablynarrow.Inparticular,ResidentscontendedthatNPSimposedarigidandinflexibleconditionontheTrailPlanbyrequiringthatitreachthenorthernboundaryoftheLakeshoreatGoodHarborBay,CountyRoad651.TheSixthCircuitnotedthat"[a]genciesenjoyconsiderablediscretionindefiningthepurposesandneedsfortheirproposedactions,providedthattheyarereasonable,”Webster,685F.3dat422.Whilecourtsmayrejectanagency’sstatementofpurposeandneedas“unreasonablynarrow”ifthestatement“compelstheselectionofaparticularalternative,”TheodoreRooseveltConservationP’shipv.Salazar,661F.3d66,73(D.C.Cir.2011),theTrailPlan’sstatedpurposeofreachingthenortheastern-mostportionoftheLakeshoredidnotcompeltheselectionofaparticularalternative,anditwasreasonablycalculatedtoachievetheCommittee’sstatedgoalofreachingtheentireLakeshorewithinLeelanauCounty.WhiletheTrailPlandidprescribeadefiniteterminus,thatrequirementwasnotunreasonablynarrowbecauseitallowedforsufficientflexibilityinplanningthetrailway’spath.Infact,theTrailPlandemonstratesconsiderableflexibilityinachievingitspurpose.IncontestedSegment9alonethereweretwooptions,AlternativeAandAlternativeB,thatwouldhavereachedtheCommittee’sdesiredterminus.EachoftheothereightsegmentsoftheTrailPlanalsohadtwoactionalternatives,whichwereplannedtobeginandendatthesamepointsineachsegment.Thatmeant,forexample,thatselectingpreferredAlternativeBinSegment1didnotnecessarilyprecludetheagencyfromselectingAlternativeAinSegment2.Thus,fromthetrailway’sstartingpointattheLeelanau–BenzieCountylinetoitsdesiredterminusatCountyRoad651,thereweremorethan500possiblecombinationsofroutesthattheTrailcouldhavetakentoachieveNPS’sgoalofreachingthenortheastern-mostportionoftheLakeshore.Moreover,NPS'desiretoreachCountyRoad651wascalculatedtoensurethatthetrailwayachievedtheCommittee’sstatedgoalstoreachtheentireLakeshorewithinLeelanauCounty,andtoprovidenon-motorizedaccessto“thebeaches,trailheads,andotherpointsofinterest”inthenortheastern-mostportionoftheLakeshore,includingthepopularswimmingbeachatGoodHarborBayandhistoricBufkaFarm.Thus,theTrailPlan’spurposeandneedwerereasonableandwell-considered.BecauseResidents’proposedalternativewouldnothaveachievedtheTrailPlan’sreasonablepurpose,Residents’claimthatNPSfailedtoconsiderreasonablealternativesbecauseitignoredtheirproposalforatruncatedTrailwaswithoutmerit.

43

ResidentsalsocontendedthatNPS'failuretoincludeanenvironmentalscreeningforminthe2009TrailPlanwasaperseviolationofNEPAbecausetheagency’sDO–12Handbookrequiresascreeningformforanyprojectthatmayhaveanimpactonthehumanenvironment.TheDO–12Handbookincludesan“EnvironmentalScreeningForm,”whichcontainsachecklistfordeterminingwhetheraprojectmayimpactphysical,natural,orculturalresourcesorhaveothereffectsthatcouldrequireanenvironmentalimpactstatement.AccordingtotheDO–12Handbook,NPSmustcompleteascreeningformfor“anyprojectthatmayhaveanimpactonthehumanenvironment,”andNPSconcededthatitdidnotincludeascreeningforminthe2009TrailPlan.But“[i]nternaloperatingmanuals...donotcarrytheforceoflaw,bindtheagency,orconferrightsupontheregulatedentity[,]”Reichv.Manganas,70F.3d434,437(6thCir.1995),andtheDO–12HandbookwasintendedasaguidetoassistParkServiceemployees,notasabindinglegalmandate.TheDO–12HandbookwasneverpublishedintheFederalRegister,and“[f]ailuretopublishintheFederalRegisterisanindicationthatthestatementinquestionwasnotmeanttobearegulation.”Instead,theDepartmentoftheInteriorhaspromulgatedseparaterulesthat“codifyitsproceduresforimplementing[NEPA],”73Fed.Reg.61292(Oct.15,2008),whichdidnotrequirepreparationofthescreeningformdescribedintheDO–12Handbook,see43C.F.R.pt.46.TheSixthCircuitrejectedNPS'assertionthattheDO–12Handbook,“accordingtoitsownterms,hastheforceoflaw”becausenoNEPAprovision,see42U.S.C.§§4331–70,CEQregulation,see40C.F.R.§§1500–08,orDOIsupplementalNEPAregulation,see43C.F.R.pt.46,mandatedthecompletionofthescreeningform,andtheHandbookdidnotindependentlycreatelegallyenforceableobligations.Therefore,thescreeningformdescribedintheDO–12Handbookrepresentedanon-bindinginternalproceduralrequirementthatdidnotcarrytheforceoflaw,bindtheagency,orconferrights,andNPS’failuretoincludeanenvironmentalscreeningforminthe2009TrailPlanwasnotaperseviolationofNEPA.Finally,theSixthCircuitupheldthedistrictcourt’sorderdenyingResident'srequesttosupplementtheARbecauseResidentsfailedtoshow“exceptionalcircumstances”requiringsupplementation.Thecourtdiscussedthat“[s]upplementationoftheARmaybeappropriate‘whenanagencyhasdeliberatelyornegligentlyexcludedcertaindocumentsfromtherecord,orwhenacourtneeds“background”informationtodeterminewhethertheagencyhasconsideredallrelevantfactors.’”S.ForestWatch,Inc.v.Jewell,817F.3d965,977(6thCir.2016).A“strongshowingofbadfaith”mayalsojustifysupplementationoftherecord.ButResidentsdidnotshowthatNPSdeliberatelyornegligentlyexcludedcertaindocuments,andResidentsdidnotallegethatNPSactedinbadfaith.Asthedistrictcourtobserved,ResidentsdidnotallegethatanyofthematerialsthattheyproposebeaddedtotherecordwerepresentedtoNPSpriortothetimeitissuedthe2009FONSI.ThecourtremarkedthatitwouldbestrangetosaythatNPSdeliberatelyexcludedcertaindocumentsthatwereneverpresentedtoitforconsideration.CachilDeheBandofWintunIndiansoftheColusaIndianCommunityv.Zinke,889F.3d584(9thCir.2018)AgencyPrevailed.Issue(s):PurposeandNeed,Alternatives,WaiverofClaims,Mitigation,Impacts(olddata).Facts:CachilDeheBandofWintunIndiansoftheColusaIndianCommunity,citizens’groups,andindividuals(collectively"Cachil")broughtactiontoenjointheBureauofIndianAffairs("BIA")fromtakingparceloflandintotrustforotherIndiantribe,EstomYumekaMaiduTribeoftheEnterpriseRancheria("Enterprise")bychallengingapplicationfromEnterpriseRancheroMaiduIndianstotheBIAfor40acresoflandintrusttobuildacasinoandhotelcomplex.

44

First,onAugust13,2002,Enterprisesubmittedits“fee-to-trust”applicationtotheSecretaryoftheInterior.TheapplicationrequestedthatInteriortaketitletotheYubaSiteintrustsothattheTribecouldbuilda207,760square

footcasinoandaccompanyinghotel.TheapplicationincludedaDecember2001documententitled "GamingandHotelMarketAssessment:Marysville,California,”whichevaluatedtenmarketareasinNorthernCaliforniaand analyzedthecharacteristicsofotherexistingtribalcasinos,andestimatedrevenuesandexpensesforacasino/hotelfor2004–2008.Enterprise'sconsultant,AnalyticalEnvironmentalServices("AES")preparedadraftEAandsubmittedittotheBIAonAugust15,2003,whosuggestednumerousrevisions.InMay2004,BIAmadetheEAavailableforpublicreview,andcomment.OnJuly7,2004,BIAsentacopyoftheEAtoColusa,whodidnotcommentonit.Third,afterreceiptofcommentsbyothersthanColusaontheEA,BIAdecidedtoprepareanEIS.TheBIA,inpreparingfortheDEIS,engagedinitsvigorousscopingprocessandpublisheditsNOIinthefederalregisteronMay20,2005,andagain,theColusadidnotcommentonit.AEScompletedtheDEIS,underBIA'ssupervision,inFebruary2008.TheDEISanalyzedfivepotentialalternativestotheregulatoryaction:A)EnterpriseRancheria’sproposedfacilityontheYubaSite;B)asmallercasinowithoutahotelontheYubaSite;C)awaterparkontheYubaSite;D)asmallcasinoonanothersiteinButteCounty;andE)noaction.TheDEISrecognizedthatwhiletheproposedfacilityontheYubaSitewouldbenefitEnterprise,“thesurroundingtribesthatoperatecasinoscouldexperiencedecreasesinwinnings,andpotentiallybeadverselyimpactedbythedecreases,”withtheproposedcasino/hotelprojectexpectedtocapture“approximately$77million[peryear]intotalgamingwin[ings]fromthelocalmarket.”TheanalysiswasbasedonastudybythecompanyGamingMarketAdvisorsfromJune2006containedinAppendixMoftheDEIS,entitled“Socio-Economic,GrowthInducingandEnvironmentalJusticeImpactStudy.”TheDEISwasmadeavailableforreviewandcommentwasinvitedthroughpublicationintheFederalRegister,andinChico,Marysville,Oroville,andSacramentonewspapers.ApublichearingwasheldonApril9,2008.Whilemultiplecommentsontheprojectweresubmitted,includingbyIndianTribeswhowereopposedtotheproject,again,Colusadidnotsubmitanycommentsontheproject.InMay2010,BIAcompletedtheFEIS.TheFEISretainedthesamefivealternativeswhichwerecontainedintheDEIS,andincorporatedthesameanalysisasincludedintheDEISwithrespecttothecasinoalternatives’effectsonothertribalcasinos.BIAmadetheFEISavailableforpublicreviewandcommentbypublishingaNoticeofAvailabilityintheFederalRegisterandChico,Marysville,andOrovillenewspapers.ColusathensubmittedacommentletterdatedSeptember7,2010.ThecommentlettercomplainedthattheFEIS’sPurposeandNeedStatementwasundulyrestrictive;theFEISfailedtoconsiderreasonablealternatives;andAppendixM,whichanalyzedtheeffectoftheproposedcasinoonothertribalcasinos,relieson“conjectureratherthandata.”TheBIArespondedtoeachofthecomments.TheBIApublisheditsRODunderIGRA(the“IGRAROD”)inSeptember2011.TheIGRARODconcludedthattheprojectwould“1)beinthebestinterestoftheTribeanditsmembers;and2)thatitwouldnotbedetrimentaltothesurroundingcommunity.”Pursuantto25U.S.C.§2719(b)(1)(A),theBIAsoughttheconcurrenceofCaliforniaGovernorJerryBrowninitsdecision.GovernorBrownconcurredbyletterdatedAugust30,2012.TheUnitedAuburnIndianCommunityoftheAuburnRancheria(the“UAIC”)filedacomplaintintheDistrictofColumbiaonDecember12,2012andtheColusafiledacomplaintintheEasternDistrictofCaliforniaafewdayslater.OnDecember20,2012,CitizensfiledacomplaintintheDistrictofColumbiaaswell.TheCitizensandUAIC

45

caseswereconsolidatedandtransferredtotheEasternDistrictofCalifornia.OnJanuary23,2013,theCitizens/UAICcasewasfurtherconsolidatedwithColusa’sintoasinglecase.Enterpriseintervenedasadefendant.Citizens,Colusa,andUAICimmediatelymovedforinjunctiverelieftopreventtheBIAfromtakingthelandintotrustforEnterprise.Themotionforinjunctivereliefwasdenied.TheYubaSitewastakenintotrustonMay15,2013.Thedistrictcourtdeniedtheplaintiffs'reliefwhenitgrantedtheDefendants'motionforsummaryjudgment.CitizensandColusa(nowcollectively"Colusa")appealed.Decision:ColusaarguedthattheFEISwasprocedurallydeficientinanumberofways.First,ColusaarguedtheFEIS’s“purposeandneed”statementwas“artificiallylimited.”TheNinthCircuitdisagreed.First,thecourtreviewedtheobjectivesofthetrustacquisition:

•Restoretrust landtotheTribeinanamountequaltotheamountof landpreviously lostasaresultoffederalaction...

•Provideemploymentopportunitiesfortribalmembersand[the]non-tribalcommunity.•ImprovethesocioeconomicstatusoftheTribebyprovidinganewrevenuesourcethatcouldbeutilized tobuild a strong tribal government, improveexisting tribal housing,providenewtribalhousing,fundavarietyofsocial,governmental,administrative,educational,health,andwelfare services to improve the quality of life of tribalmembers, and to provide capital forothereconomicdevelopmentandinvestmentopportunities.

• Allow Tribal members to become economically self-sufficient, thereby eventually removingTribalmembersfrompublic-assistanceprograms.

•Fundlocalgovernmentalagencies,programs,andservices.•Makedonationstocharitableorganizationsandgovernmentaloperations.•EffectuatetheCongressionalpurposessetoutin[IGRA].

ThePurposeandNeedStatementfurtherstatedthattheTribe“hasnosustainedrevenuestream”whichcanbeusedtofundprogramsforTribalmembers.Thecourtopinedthepurposeandneedstatementwasquitebroad.ItdescribedtheBIA’sintenttoprovideEnterprisewithavehicleforsubstantialeconomicdevelopment,andthevariousbenefitsthatmayaccruefromeconomicself-sufficiency.Colusaarguedthatthe“narrow”PurposeandNeedStatementledtoadeficientanalysisofpossiblealternatives.ButtheBIAconsideredfivepossiblealternatives:AlternativeA,thehotelcasinoprojectthatwasultimatelyacceptedontheYubaSite;AlternativeB,asmallercasinoontheYubaSite;AlternativeC,awaterparkontheYubaSite;AlternativeD,acasinoonanalternatesiteinButteCounty;andAlternativeE,noaction.TheFEISconsideredindetailtheenvironmentalandeconomicconsequencesofeachalternative.BasedontheanalysisofthepossiblealternativesintheFEIS,theInteriorconcludedthatthebestalternativewastheoneselected—AlternativeA,thecasino/hotelprojectontheYubaSite.Thus,therangeofalternativeswasnot“illusory.”Inaddition,ColusaarguedthattheFEISshouldhaveanalyzedtwoadditionalsites—1)asiteinOrovillepurchasedbyEnterprisein2006,and2)anunspecifiedsiteonfederallandnearEnterprise.ThecourtdiscussedthatColusafailedtoproposetheseadditionalsitesduringthecommentperiod.Withrespecttonon-obviousdefaultsinanEAorEIS,“personschallenginganagency’scompliancewithNEPAmuststructuretheirparticipationsothatitalertstheagencytotheparties’positionandcontentions,inordertoallowtheagencytogivetheissuemeaningfulconsideration.”Dep’tofTransp.v.Pub.Citizen,541U.S.752,764,124S.Ct.2204,159L.Ed.2d60(2004)(original

46

alterations,citations,andinternalquotationmarksomitted).Afailuretoidentify“intheircommentsanyrulemakingalternativesbeyondthoseevaluatedintheEA”causesthosenowobjectingtoanagencyrulemakingto“forfeit[]anyobjectiontotheEAonthegroundthatitfailedadequatelytodiscusspotentialalternativestotheproposedaction.”Id.at764–65,124S.Ct.2204;seealsoN.IdahoCmty.ActionNetworkv.U.S.Dep’tofTransp.,545F.3d1147,1156&n.2(9thCir.2008)(findingthattheDOT'shighwayconstructionprojectdidnotviolateNEPAwhentheagencyfailedtoconsideratunnelalternativethatwasnotbroughttoitsattentionuntilwellafterthenoticeandcommentperiodfortheEISclosed,andrulingthat“anyobjectiontothefailuretoconsiderthatalternativehasbeenwaived”).ThecourtheldthatbecauseColusadidnottellBIAtoconsiderthealternativesitnowproposed,itwaivedanyargumentthatthefailuretoconsiderthosealternativerepresentedaviolationofNEPA.Then,ColusaarguedthattheFEISfailedadequatelytoanalyzetheeffectoftheproposedprojectonthelocalenvironment,becausesomeofthedataonwhichtheFEISreliedwasinadequate.First,Colusaarguedthatthe“biologicaldata”onwhichtheFEISreliedwas“stale.”Second,ColusaarguedthatAppendixM—whichanalyzedthesocio-economicimpactsoftheYubaSitecasinoproject—wasbasedoninsufficientdata.Colusaarguedthatunspecified“biologicaldata”intheFEISisoutdated,citingtoLandsCouncilv.Powell,395F.3d1019,1031(9thCir.2005),aNinthCircuitdecisioninwhichthecourtruledthatcertainsix-yearolddataonwhichanFEISreliedwas“suspect.”Colusathenstatedbroadlythat“muchofthebiologicalinformation”is“severalyearsold,”and“insomecasesnearlytenyearsold.”TheNinthCircuitfoundthoseclaimsunsupported.ThecourtreviewedtheFEISAppendices--whichcontainedavarietyofdifferentstudies,letters,anddeclarationsfrompotentiallyimpactedparties.Forexample,AppendixDcontaineda“WaterandWastewaterFeasibilityStudy”preparedinJuly2008,approximatelytwoyearsbeforethepublicationoftheFEIS,andAppendixHcontaineda“BiologicalResourcesAssessment”ofthesiteofthetrustacquisitionpreparedin2007,threeyearsbeforethecompletionoftheFEIS.ColusadidnotexplainwhythedataintheAppendiceswasunreliable.ThedatainthevariousAppendiceswasgenerallycompiledafter2006,twoyearspriortothepublicationoftheDEIS,andfouryearspriortothepublicationoftheFEIS.Colusapointedtonoauthority,andprovidednoargument,indicatingthatdatawhichisfouryearsoldisinherentlysuspect.Colusaassigneda2003datetoAppendixL,whichcontainedcorrespondencewiththeStateofCalifornia’sOfficeofHistoricPreservationindicatingthatnohistoricpropertieswouldbeimpacted.However,thatAppendixcontainedtwoletters—onefrom2003,andanotherfrom2007,thelatterofwhichsimilarlyconcurredthatnohistoricpropertieswouldbeaffected.ApartfromAppendixL,onlyoneAppendixcontainsdataolderthan2006:AppendixE,a2000declarationthataproposedwastewatertreatmentplantontheYubaSitewouldnothaveasignificantenvironmentalimpact.Thisdocumentishistoricandnotsubjecttoupdating,andColusahasnotallegedthatthishistoricdocumentwasthebasisofanyspecificconclusionsdrawnintheFEIS.Colusawasthereforeunabletosupportitsgeneralizedstatementthattheunspecified“biologicaldata”containedintheFEISwas“stale.”ColusanextarguedthattheeconomicdataonwhichEnterprisereliedwasflawed.Asnotedabove,AppendixMoftheFEIScontainedastudyauthoredbyGamingMarketAdvisorsentitled“Socio-Economic,GrowthInducingandEnvironmentalJusticeImpactStudy.”Thatstudydescribedthelikelyeconomicimpactoftheproposedcasinoonothercompetingcasinos,includingthatofplaintiffColusa.ColusaarguedthatAppendixMreliedonstaledataandmadeimpropereconomicassumptions.Bycontrast,ColusainsistedthattheMeisterDeclarationcontainedamoreaccurateaccountingoftheeffectEnterprise’scasinowouldhaveonColusa.But,theMeisterDeclarationwasproperlystruckasitpost-datedtheFEISandRODs.ItalsowasbasedonproprietarydatawhichColusadidnotprovidetotheBIAduringtheregulatoryprocessandwhichColusastillhasnotdisclosed.

47

Further,Colusa’sargumentregardingtheallegedlymissingeconomicdatawasconnectedtoitsclaimthatColusawillexperienceeconomicharmasaresultofthecasinoproject.TheNinthCircuitstatedthattheyhave“consistentlyheldthatpurelyeconomicinterestsdonotfallwithinNEPA’szoneofinterests.”ColusanextarguedthattheFEISfailedtotakea“hardlook”attheenvironmentalimpactsoftheproposedaction.ColusaarguedthattheairqualitywasdeficientunderNEPA,because“[t]heFEISmerelyassertedthattheemissionsfromEnterprise’sproposedcasinowouldconformtoCalifornia’sstateplan,butdidnotgiveanyfiguresthatwouldsupportthatassertion.”Colusaalsoarguedthat“itappearsthatNOxemissionsmayexceedEPA’sdeminimisthresholdforbothozoneandPM2.5emissionsandrequireoffsetsorotheractionsbyDOItoconformtotheCaliforniaStateImplementationPlan.”Colusadidnotelaborateontheeffectofthealleged“NOx”emissions,orotherwiseexplainhowtheexistenceofsuchemissionsviolatetheCleanAirAct,NEPA,oranyotherstatute.ThecourtheldColusawaivedtheargumentforfailingtodevelopit.Further,Colusa’sgeneralcontentionthattheFEISprovidedinsufficientfiguresisincorrect,astheFEISsupporteditsconclusionthattheemissionsfromEnterprise’sproposedcasinowouldnotviolatetheCleanAirActoranyCaliforniaregulation.Accordingto40C.F.R.§93.153(b)(1),thedeminimisthresholdforemissionsofNOxis100tonsperyear.TheFEISdescribesmitigationmeasuresthatwillreduceemissionsofNOxtobelow25poundsperday,or4.56tonsperyear,wellbelowtheregulatorythreshold.ColusanextarguedthattheFEISignorespotentialharmtosixfishspeciesofconcern,fiveofwhicharelistedundertheESA.ColusaarguedthattheFEISshouldhavediscussedwhetherornotthecanalsneartheYubaparcelare“screened”inordertoprotectthemigratoryfish.Colusadidnotprofferanyevidencethattherewasanactualdangertothesespeciesoffish,orotherwisedescribealikelyeffectofthecasinoprojectonthefish.TheFEISstatedthatthefishspecieswillnotliveinorneartheprojectsite.ColusaarguedthatBIAfailedtoexercise“sufficientindependentoversightover[the]preparationoftheFEIS,”andinsistedthatEnterprise,ratherthantheBIA,“chose”AESasitscontractorforthecreationoftheEIS.ColusaalsoarguedthatAEShadanimpermissible“financialinterest”intheoutcomeoftheproject.ThecourtdisagreedwithColusa.ColusadidnotprovideanyevidencethatBIAdidnotmakeanindependentchoicetocontractwithAES.First,EnterprisecontractedwithAESunderBIA'ssupervision,thenBIAcontractedwithAESonaprofessionalservicesthirdpartyagreement.Colusadidnotshowanimpermissibleconflictofinterest,asitfailedtoallegethatanyfinancialstakeAEShasinaidingwithpermitapprovalsissignificant.BIAmadeafactualdeterminationthattherewasnoconflictofinterest,andabsentproofthatthisfindinglackssubstantialevidencetosupportit,thecourtshoulddefertotheagency’sfactualdetermination.ColusaarguedthatthefailuretorequireAEStomakeacertification“underpenaltyofperjury”demonstratesafailureofoversight.Thecourtstatednosuchrequirementforastatementunderpenaltyofperjuryexistsintheregulations.TheNinthCircuitupheldthelowercourt'sdecision.

WesternOrganizationofResourceCouncilsv.Zinke,892F.3d1234(D.C.Cir.2018)Agencyprevailed.Issue:DutytoSupplement(outdatedanalysis)

48

Facts:WestOrganizationofResourceCouncilsandFriendsoftheEarth,nonprofitorganizationswhosemembersareconcernedabouttheenvironmentalandclimate-relatedimpactsofcoalproductionandcombustion,petitionedtocompeltheDOItoupdatethefederalcoalmanagementprogram’sPEIS.Asamatterofbackground,theMineralLeasingAct,30U.S.C.§181etseq.(2012),andtheFederalLandPolicyandManagementAct(FLPMA)of1976,43U.S.C.§1701etseq.,authorizestheDOItoleaserightstominecoalonpubliclands.In1979,actingthroughtheBLM,theDOIpublishedaprogrammaticEIS(“PEIS”)foraFederalCoalManagementProgram(“Program”).ThePEISanalyzedtheDOI'spreferredprogram,aswellasseveralalternativesforafederalcoalmanagementplan.Theseincludednonewfederalleasing;onlystatedeterminationofleasinglevels;andemergencyleasingonly,amongothers.ThePEISconsideredthephysical,ecological,socioeconomic,transportation,andenergyimpactsofthevariousalternatives.Aspartofthisanalysis,theagencyacknowledgedthatemissionsresultingfromcoalminingandcombustioncouldleadtoincreasedatmosphericcarbondioxide,andexplained“thereareindicationsthattherisingCO2levelsintheatmospherecouldposeaseriousproblem,commonlyreferredtoasthegreenhouseeffect.”Itaddressedcarbondioxideasa“potentialpollutant,”andpredictedincreasedlevelsofemissionsfromcoalproductionundertheproposedalternatives.Theagencyultimatelystated“thereareuncertaintiesaboutthecarboncycle,thenetsourcesofcarbondioxideintheatmosphere,andtheneteffectsofcarbondioxideontemperatureandclimate,”andcalledforfurtherstudyofthe“impactsofincreasedcoalutilization."InJulyofthatyear,theDepartmentissuedaRODadoptingtheProgram.BLMthenpromulgatedregulationsestablishingtheProgram’sprocedures.Itamendedthoseregulationsin1982,andlastissuedasupplementtotheProgram’sPEISin1985.In2014,AppellantssuedtheSecretaryandotherDOIofficials,claimingthattheDOI’sfailuretoupdatetheFederalCoalManagementProgram’sPEISviolatesNEPAandtheAPA.TheStatesofWyomingandNorthDakotaandtheWyomingMiningAssociationintervenedasdefendants.Thedistrictcourtheldthat,becausetheProgramwasestablishedandtheDOIhadnotproposedtotakeanynewactionrespectingtheProgram,theDepartmenthadnoobligationtoprepareaneworsupplementalPEIS.WhiletheappealwaspendingSecretaryoftheDOI,SallyJewell,issuedanorderpausingallactivityonnewleasestopermittheagencytorevisitthePEIS.Theorderexplainedthat“[n]umerousscientificstudiesindicatethatreducing[greenhousegas]emissionsfromcoaluseworldwideiscriticaltoaddressingclimatechange.”SecretaryJewellthereforeconcludedthat,inlightofthe“lackofanyrecentanalysisoftheFederalcoalprogramasawhole,amorecomprehensive,programmaticreview[wa]sinorder.”Ontheparties’jointmotion,thecourtheldthecaseinabeyance.OnMarch29,2017,newlyappointedSecretaryZinkeorderedanimmediatehaltto“[a]llactivitiesassociatedwiththepreparationofthe[new]PEIS”andliftedthemoratoriumonnewleasing.SeeSec’yoftheInterior,OrderNo.3348(Mar.29,2017).Decision:AppellantsclaimedthatNEPArequiredtheDOItoissueasupplementalPEISanalyzingtheclimateimpactsoffederalcoalleasing.TheD.C.CircuitreviewedtheSecretary’scompliancewithitsstatutorymandateundertheAPA,§706(1)whichstatesthata“reviewingcourtshall...compelagencyactionunlawfullywithheldorunreasonablydelayed.”5U.S.C.§706(1).AppellantscontendedthatNEPArequirestheDOItosupplementthe1979PEISfortheFederalCoalManagementProgram,andthattheDOI’sfailuretodosoconstitutes“agencyactionunlawfullywithheld.”AppellantsrequestedrelieftocompeltheDOItocomplywiththestatuteasrelieffortheDOI’s“failuretoact.”

49

AppellantsassertedtheDOImustupdatethePEISbasedontwosources—(1)thesupplementationrequirementintheCEQregulations;and(2)statementsincludedbytheDOIintheinitialPEISandRODpromisingtoupdatetheenvironmentalanalysisascircumstanceschanged.AppellantsalsoreliedheavilyontheSupremeCourt’sdecisioninMarshv.OregonNaturalResourcesCouncil,490U.S.360,109S.Ct.1851,104L.Ed.2d377(1989):

[T]heSupremeCourtexplainedinMarsh[that]NEPA’sdutytosupplementanEISapplieswhen“remaininggovernmentalactionwouldbeenvironmentally ‘significant,’”theagencyretainsan“opportunity to weigh the benefits of the project versus the detrimental effects on theenvironment,”and“newinformation issufficienttoshowthattheremainingactionwill ‘affectthe quality of the human environment’ . . . to a significant extent not already considered.”Interior’scontinuingmanagementofthecoal-leasingprogrameasilybringsthiscasewithinthattest because—among other things—we now know that continued authorization of leases toextract(andthenburn)federalcoalis“affect[ing]thequalityofthehumanenvironment...toasignificant extent not already considered.” The climate-change implications of that ongoingactionaresubstantialandshouldnowbeinformedby38yearsofresearchthatInteriorexpresslycalled for in its1979PEIS,buthasnever considered ina supplementalprogrammatic analysis.Marshforbidsthisresult,asdoestheplaintextofthegoverningregulation....

Marsh,490U.S.at371–74,109S.Ct.1851).TheDOIdidnotcontestAppellants’assertionthattheanalysesofclimateimpactsofcoalleasinginthePEISandsupplementalPEISareoutdated.NordidtheDOIdisputeAppellants’claimsthattheavailabilityofmeaningfulscientificresearchmeasuringgreenhousegasemissionsandtheirclimateimpactsqualifyas“significantnewinformationbearingon”federalcoalleasinganditsimpacts.Instead,theSecretaryassertedthatDOInolongerhadanyNEPAobligationsrelatedtotheFederalCoalManagementProgram.Onthispoint,theSecretarycontendedthat,because“BLMisnotproposingtotakeanynewactioninrelianceonthe1979[P]EIS,...[thesupplementation]regulationsimplydoesnotapply.”AndtheSecretarycontendedthatMarshisinappositebecause“[t]heCourtinMarshneverconsideredanyprogrammaticEIS,letalonethequestionwhetheraprogrammaticEISmustbesupplemented.”AlthoughtheFederalCoalManagementProgramhadbeenmodifiedinvariouswaysovertheyears,the1979regulationsandRODlargelyremainineffect.ThroughtheBLM,theSecretarycontinuestoruntheProgramandmakeleasingandgeneralprogrammaticmanagementdecisions—includinghowmany,where,andtowhomleasesshouldbegranted.InadministeringtheProgram,theDOIcontinuestoengageinNEPA-requiredenvironmentalanalysis.EachleaseissuedundertheProgramrepresentsanew“federalaction.”TheDepartmentpreparesaspecificEISorEAforeachleasebeforeitisapproved.See43C.F.R.§3425.3(2017).Theseproject-specificEISsassessgreenhousegasemissionsrelatedtospecificleases;however,theydonotpurporttoconsiderthegeneralclimateeffectsofthenationalleasingProgramasawhole.SeeCEQ,FinalGuidanceforFed.Dep’ts&AgenciesonConsiderationofGreenhouseGasEmissions&theEffectsofClimateChangeinNEPAReviews,81Fed.Reg.51,866,51,866–67(Aug.1,2016),availableathttps://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-08-05/pdf/201618620.pdf.TheD.C.CircuitheldthatneitherNEPAnortheDepartment’sowndocumentscreatealegaldutyfortheDOItoupdatetheFederalCoalManagementProgram’sPEIS,andthatthecourthadnoauthoritytocompeltheDOItosupplementitsanalysis.

50

NorthernPlainsResourceCouncil,Inc.v.U.S.BureauofLandMgm't,No.16-35447,725Fed.Appx.527(9thCir.Feb.27,2018)(notforpublication)Agencyprevailed.Issue(s):CumulativeImpacts,Tiering(staleEIS),Impacts.Facts:NorthernPlainsResourceCouncil,Inc.("NorthernPlains")challengedBLM'sdecisiontoleasecoallocatedinMontana’sBullMountains,allegingthatBLMfailedtocomplywithNEPAwhenitanalyzedpotentialenvironmentalimpactsofcoalleaseinitsEA.ThedistrictcourtgrantedsummaryjudgmentforBLMandNorthernPlainsappealed.Decision:NorthernPlainscontendedthattheBLM’scumulative-impactsanalysisviolatedNEPAbyfailingtoaddressreasonablyforeseeablemininginthe“mirror-image”minetothenorthoftheexistingminearea.TheNinthCircuitrejectedthiscontentionbecausetheBLMreasonablydeterminedthathypotheticalfutureminingactivitycontemplatedtothenorthisnotcurrentlyareasonablyforeseeablefutureaction.Here,futureminingactivitytothenorthwasa“remoteandhighlyspeculativeconsequence[]”thatdidnotwarrantanalysisintheEA.Thescope,magnitude,andtimeframeforfuturemininginthenorthhavenotbeenproposedoroutlined.Becauseadditionalmininghadnotbeenproposed,“acumulativeeffectsanalysiswouldbebothspeculativeandpremature."NorthernPlainsarguedthatBLMimproperly“tiered”itsanalysistoaEIS.Federalregulationsallow“tiering,”orincorporationbyreference,thegeneraldiscussionsinapreviousEISthatpertaintoissuesspecifictoasubsequentanalysis.See40C.F.R.§1508.28.Agenciesmayalsotier“[f]roman[EIS]onaspecificactionatanearlystage”toasubsequentanalysisatalaterstage.40C.F.R.§1508.28(b).Here,theBLMreasonablyreferencedanalysisfromits1990EIStosupplementandfacilitateitsanalysisoftheenvironmentaleffectsofcontinuedminingassociatedwithitsleasingdecision.SeeKernv.U.S.BureauofLandMgmt.,284F.3d1062,1073(9thCir.2002)(statingtieringisencouragedtoavoidrepetitivediscussionsofissuespreviouslyincludedinanotherEIS).NorthernPlainsalsocontendsthattieringwasimproperbecausethe1990EISdataistoo“stale”tobereliable.ButNorthernPlainsfailedtopointtoanyevidence,otherthanage,suggestingtheunreliabilityofthe1990data.Theageofdata,withoutmore,isnotdispositiveastoreliability.SeeTheodoreRooseveltConservationP’shipv.Salazar,616F.3d497,512(D.C.Cir.2010)(“NEPAdoesnotlimittieringtoanalysesstillonthescientificcuttingedge.”).Accordingly,thecourtheldthatthedistrictcourtproperlygrantedsummaryjudgmentonthisissue.NorthernPlainscontendedthatBLMfailedtotaketherequisite“hardlook”attheminingimpactsupontherelevanttopographyandwaterresources.TheNinthCircuitdiscussedthatbecausetheEAcontainedanextensivediscussionoftheanticipatedeffectsthatfurtherminingwouldhaveonthearea’stopographyandwaterresources,includingthegroundandsurfacewaterquality,thehydrologicimpactsofgroundwater,andtheeffectsofminingoperationsonareasprings.BecausetheBLMadequatelyconsideredtheeffectsupontheaffectedtopographyandwaterresources,itsdecisionwas“fullyinformedandwell-considered,”andisentitledtojudicialdeference.Finally,NorthernPlainscontendedthatBLM’ssignificantimpactsanalysiswasimproperbecauseitreliedonmitigationmeasuresthatminimizedtheimpactsonsurfaceandwaterresources.AlthoughBLMacknowledgedtheexistenceofsomesurfaceeffectsfromsubsistence,BLMreasonablyconcludedthattheoverallsurfaceeffectsfromsubsidencewouldbeminorintheshorttermandnegligibleinthelongterm.BLMnotedthatSignalPeak’s

51

currentminingpermitrequiredSignalPeaktomitigateshortandlong-termhydrologicandwetlandimpacts.BLMdidnotrelyonanymitigationmeasuresinitsanalysistotheextentthatanEISwouldberequired,anditsreasoneddecisionwasconsistentwithitsNEPAobligations.

ComancheNationofOklahomav.Zinke,No.17-6247,754Fed.Appx.768(10thCir.Dec.14,2018)(notforpublication)Agencyprevailed.Issue(s):Impacts,SocioeconomicImpacts.Facts:ComancheNationbroughtactionagainstSecretaryofInterior(the"Secretary")challengingapprovalofapplicationtotakelandintotrustfortheChickasawtribetoopencasinopropertyinWesternOklahoma,allegingviolationsofNEPA.InJune2014,ChickasawNationsubmittedanapplicationrequestingthattheDOItakeapproximatelythirtyacresoflandnearTerral,Oklahoma(the“Terralsite”)intotrustforthetribe.ChickasawNationintendedtousetheTerralsite,located45milesfromagamingfacilityoperatedbyComancheNation,foracasino.Afterreviewingtheapplication,theSecretarydeterminedthat:(1)ChickasawNationdoesnothaveareservation;and(2)theproposedsiteiswithintheboundariesofitsformerreservationinOklahoma.FormaltransferoftheTerralsiteoccurredinJanuary2017,andinthesamemonthaFONSIwasissuedbasedonanEAconductedpursuanttotheNEPA.Thenoticeofthetrustacquisitionwaspublishedlaterthatyear.ComancheNationchallengedtheactioninthedistrictcourt.Shortlyafterfilingitscomplaint,ComancheNationmovedforapreliminaryinjunctiontopreventChickasawNationfromopeningitscasinoontheTerralsite.Thedistrictcourtdeniedthatmotionforlackoflikelysuccessonthemerits,andComancheNationappealed.Decision:TheTenthCircuitreviewedofthedenialofapreliminaryinjunctionforabuseofdiscretion.Toobtainapreliminaryinjunction,amovingpartymustshow:

(1)thatithasasubstantiallikelihoodofprevailingonthemerits;(2)thatitwillsufferirreparableharmunlessthe preliminaryinjunctionisissued;(3)thatthethreatenedinjuryoutweighstheharmthepreliminaryinjunctionmightcausetheopposingparty;and,(4)thatthepreliminaryinjunctionifissuedwillnotadverselyaffectthepublicinterest.

TheNinthCircuitfocusedonthefirstprongandfoundthattheComancheNationwasunlikelytosucceedonthemeritsofitsNEPAclaiminvolvingtheEA.ComancheNationarguedthattheSecretarydidnottakea“hardlook”attheenvironmentalimpactofthecasinoproject,citingtoBaltimoreGas&Elec.Co.v.NaturalRes.Def.Council,Inc.,462U.S.87,100,103S.Ct.2246(1983).However,thecourtfoundthattherecordindicatedthatBIAcompletedadetailedEAandissuedaFONSIforthetrustacquisitionoftheTerralsiteforgaming.ItalsostronglystatedthattheComancheNation’sconclusoryallegationsthattheEAdidnotcomplywithBaltimoreGas,thatBIAhasahistoryoffailingtocomplywithNEPArequirements,andthatChickasawNationintendstobuildlarger-than-necessarysewerlagoonsarenotenoughtocarrythedayforobtainingapreliminaryinjunction.

52

TheComancheNationcontendedthattheSecretary’sNEPAanalysiswasflawedbecauseitfailedtoconsidertheeconomiceffectsthenewcasinowouldhaveonComancheNation’sexistingcasino.However,“[i]tiswell-settledthatsocioeconomicimpacts,standingalone,donotconstitutesignificantenvironmentalimpactscognizableunderNEPA.”CureLand,LLCv.U.S.Dep’tofAgric.,833F.3d1223,1235(10thCir.2016).TheNinthCircuitrejectedtheargumentthattheacquisitionwasarbitraryandcapriciousbecausetheSecretaryfailedtoconsultComancheNation.Agenciesshouldconsultwith“appropriateStateandlocalagenciesandIndiantribes.”40C.F.R.§1501.2(d).Theregulation’suseoftheterm“appropriate”suggestsanagencypossessesdiscretionindeterminingwhichbodiestoconsult.SeegenerallyMartel-Martinezv.Reno,61F.3d916(10thCir.1995)(table).ComancheNationagainreliedsolelyonsocioeconomiceffectsofthenewcasinoandthatwasnotenoughtoshowitwasnecessarilyanappropriateconsultingtribe.

U.S.DEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATION

HighwayJ.CitizensGroupv.U.S.Dep'tofTransp.,891F.3d697(7thCir.2018)Agencyprevailed.Issue(s):CategoricalExclusion(CATEX)(impacts).Facts:LocalresidentandenvironmentalgroupsbroughtactionundertheNEPAagainsttheDOT,challengingFHA'sapprovalofanenvironmentalreportandfederalfundingforWisconsin’sproposed7.5milesofrenovationofhighway.Wisconsinproposedtorenovatea7.5-milestretchofHighway164(formerlyknownasHighwayJ),atwo-laneroadinsouthernWashingtonCounty.Itwasbuiltinthe1960swith5to6.5inchesofasphalt,apavementexpectedtolast22years,andresurfacedin2000withanother2.5to3.5inches,expectedtoextendtheroad’slifeby12years.Thenewprojectentailsrepaving,reconstructionnearhillcrestswheredriverscannotseeapproachingtraffic,wideningthelanes,makingtheshouldersflatterandtwofeetwider,improvingsightlines,updatingguardrails,addingrumblestrips,andintroducingturnorbypasslanesatsomeintersections.A141-pageenvironmentalreportpreparedbetween2013and2015concludedthattherenovationwouldnotcauseanysignificantenvironmentaleffectsbutwouldreducetheaccidentandinjuryrate.(Accidentsare63%morelikely,pervehiclemiletraveled,onthisstretchthanonWisconsin’sotherruralhighways,andcrashesthatoccurare45%morelikelytoproduceaninjury.)FHAapprovedtheenvironmentalreportandfederalfundingin2015,findingthatitisunnecessarytoprepareanEIS.Onelocalresidentandtwogroupsfiledthissuit,contendingthatmorestudyisessential.Thedistrictcourtdeniedtheinjunction,andfoundthattheenvironmentalreportshowsthattheprojectfitsthecriteriaforcategoricalexclusion(CATEX),eliminatingtheneedforamoredetailstudy.ThePlaintiffsappealed,arguingthat:thattheagency’sfailuretowriteadecisionseparatefromthereportshowsthatithasyettogivetheprojectindependentconsideration,andthatthereportdoesnotanalyzecumulativeeffectsofmultiplehighway-renovationprojects.

53

Decision:TheSeventhCircuitdiscussedthatrenovating7.5milesofanexistingtwo-laneroaddoesnotstandoutasamajorcauseofasignificanteffect.Regulation1508.4establishesa“categoricalexclusion”ofprojectsthatarenotmajor:

Categoricalexclusionmeansacategoryofactionswhichdonot individuallyor cumulativelyhaveasignificanteffectonthehumanenvironmentandwhichhavebeen foundtohavenosucheffect inproceduresadoptedbyaFederalagency in implementationof theseregulations (§1507.3)and forwhich, therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement isrequired.

FHAimplementedthisregulationthrough23C.F.R.§771.117.UnderFHAregulations,renovatingexistingroadsgenerallydoes“notindividuallyorcumulativelyhaveasignificanteffectonthehumanenvironment”.Thepointoftheyears-long,141-pagestudywasnottoquestionthevalidityoftheregulationsbuttofindoutwhetherthisrenovation,inparticular,neededathoroughevaluationbecauseitwouldcause“[s]ignificantenvironmentalimpacts."

ThereportconcludedthattherenovationofHighway164wouldnothaveasignificantenvironmentaleffect.Aftertheworkisdoneitwillbethesameroad,inthesameplace,withthesametwolanes,andalittlewidersothatlargervehiclescansafelyusetheshoulders(andarelesslikelytohiteachotheriftheyveerfromthemiddleofalane).Wideningtheroadandimprovingsightlinesbyclearingsomeobstructionsatroadsidewilluse38acresoflandintotal(or5acrespermileofroad).Ofthose38acres,1.655arewetlands,whichwouldbefilled;that’sbadforsomeanimalsandplants,butthatthestatewillcreate2.825acresofnewwetlandsatanothersite.Nothreatenedorendangeredspecieswouldbeadverselyaffected.Theareathroughwhichthehighwayrunswouldremainhillyandforested.Allinall,thereportconcluded,notmuchbadcouldhappen,whiledriversandtheirpassengerswouldbecomesafer.Thereportaddedthatreducingthespeedlimitonthisstretchofroadmightendangerdrivers,becausealthoughsomewouldobeythelowerlimitmanywouldnot,anddatashowthatavarianceindifferentvehicles’speedsisamajorcauseofaccidents.

TheprincipalquestionsFHAhadtodecidewerewhethertheprojectwillhave“[s]ignificantenvironmentalimpacts”(§771.117(b)(1))orflunktheanalysisunder§771.117(d)(13).TheSeventhCircuitthencomparedtheargumentthatbecausetherewasnotaseparatewritingthenthedocumentwasdeficient,tothecurrentpracticeofsigningofsearchwarrants(withoutwrittenopinions),andthesignatureofthejudgeforapanelofaCircuitCourtofAppeals,wheretheotherjudgesjoinsilently.ThecourtgranteddeferencetoFHA,findingFHA'sstaffwasactiveinpreparingthereport,commentingondraftsandmakingsuggestions.Onlywhenthewholeprocesswascomplete,toitssatisfaction,didFHAsignoff,andthatnostatuteorregulationrequiredmore.

Thecourtthenconsideredtheargumentthatthe141-pagereportdidn’tanalyzethecumulativeeffectsofmanydifferenthighway-repairprojects,andfoundittrue,butirrelevant.FHAmustanalyzecumulativeeffectswhendecidingwhetherthecategory(renovatinghighways)comeswithintheexclusion.Butonceacategoricaldecisionhasbeenmade—andPlaintiffsdidnotcontestFHA’sfindingin§771.117thatroadrenovationscumulativelydonotamounttomajorfederalactionswithsignificantenvironmentaleffects—theremainingquestioniswhetheraparticularprojectflunkstheconstraintsof§771.117(e)orotherwisehas“[s]ignificantenvironmentalimpacts”(§771.117(b)(1))becausethatwaswhatthereportinvestigated.TheCourtrestatedthatjudicialreviewisdeferential,anditdeferredtoFHAapplyingthecategoricalexclusionof§1508.4and§771.117totheproject.Thecourtstatedthattryingtoincludeallcumulativeeffectsofeveryprojectwhenanalyzinganyprojectisnotfeasible.

TheextraordinarycircumstancesportionofSection771.117(b)(2)requiresanalysiswhenaprojectoccasions“[s]ubstantialcontroversyonenvironmentalgrounds."Plaintiffsstatedthattheirownoppositiontotheproject,

54

coupledwithlettersfromseveralotherorganizations,addupto“[s]ubstantialcontroversyonenvironmentalgrounds."TheSeventhCircuitdiscussedthatFHAdidnotactarbitrarily,however,indecidingthattheenvironmentalreportwasitselfanadequateresponsetothatcontroversybecauseSection771.117(b)doesnotrequireanEISwheneversomeoneopposesaproject;itrequiresonly“appropriateenvironmentalstudies."Thecourtheldthatthelengthyreportwassuchastudy.

Fathv.TexasDep'tofTransp.,No.17-50683,2018WL3433800,--F.3d---(5thCir.Jul.17,2018)Agencyprevailed.Issue(s):CumulativeImpacts,Segmentation.Facts:Environmentalgroupsandlocalresidents(Plaintiffs)broughtactionagainsttheTexasDepartmentofTransportation(DOT)andregionaltransportationauthorityforviolatingNEPAinvolvinganoverpassprojectfortheTexasStateHighwayLoop1inAustin,Texas.Asamatterofbackground,TexashadproposedseveralnewhighwaystoalleviatehorrifictrafficinAustin.ItwantedtobuildoverpasseswhereTexasStateHighwayLoops1(colloquiallyknownas"MoPac")intersectionwithtwoexistingstreetssothatMoPacwouldpassunderthosestreets.ItisalsointhemidstofextendingStateHighway45WestbyaboutfourmileswithatolledfreewaythatwillrunfromMoPac'ssoutherntipanddownintoborderingHaysCounty.Finally,ithadplanstoaddexpresslanesin8milesofMoPac.Fortheoverpassprojects,theDOTconductedanEA,basedonstudiesconductedbetween2014and2015andconcludedthattheoverpassprojectwouldnotcauseanysignificantenvironmentaleffects.Plaintiffschallengedthehighwaystudies,raisingconcernsaboutpotentialcombinedimpactsfromthehighwayprojectsontheEdwardsAquiferandendangeredorprotectedspecies,includingthegolden-cheekedwarblerandtheBartonSpringandAustinblindsalamanders.ThelowercourtconcludedthattheDOTcompliedwithNEPA.Decision:PlaintiffsfirstcontendedthattheDOTviolatedNEPAbystudyingthethreehighwayprojectsasseparateprojects,insteadofasingleproject,todeterminetheirenvironmentalimpacts.Theallegedviolationsconsistedof(1)studyingtheprojectsseparatelywithoutfirstconsideringwhethertheprojectsare“cumulativeactions”under40C.F.R.§1508.25(a)(2),and(2)improperlysegmentingthehighwayprojectsunder23C.F.R.§771.111(f).Thecourtcitedthelegalmaximthatagenciesgenerallyshouldnot“segment,”or“divideartificiallyamajorFederalactionintosmallercomponentstoescapetheapplicationofNEPAtosomeofitssegments.”SaveBartonCreekAss'nv.Fed.HighwayAdmin.,950F.2d1129,1140(5thCir.1992)(percuriam).BoththeCEQandFHWAhaveregulationsthatgovernwhetheragenciesmaytreatmultipleprojectsasseparateprojectsinstudyingtheirenvironmentalimpacts.UnderCEQregulations,agenciesmusttreatmultipleprojectsas“ineffect,asinglecourseofaction”iftheyare“connectedactions,”“cumulativeactions,”or“similaractions.”See40C.F.R.§§1502.4(a),1508.25(a).TxDotadmitsthatitdidnotcomplywiththisruleandtheFifthCircuitnotedthat,inhighwaycases,theFHWA’sregulationcontrols.Seee.g.,SaveBartonCreek,950F.2dat1141–42(concludingthatchallengedhighwaysegments“fullycomport[ed]withbothcaselawandFHWA’sregulations”and“satisfie[d]theFHWA’sstandards”withoutdiscussingtheCEQregulations);seealsoid.at1140&n.15(explainingthatourtestforthisissueconsistsoffactorsembodiedin§771.111(f)).InitsdiscussiontheSeventhCircuitnotedthatgiventhecaselawprecedentandthelackofhighwaycasessuggestingotherwise,§771.111(f)tailoredthegeneralpolicyof§1508.25(a)tothespecificquestionofwhethermultiplehighwayprojectsare“ineffect,asinglecourseofaction.”See40C.F.R.§1502.4(a);seealsoDANIELR.MANDELKERETAL.,NEPALAWANDLITIGATION§9.12(2ded.2017)(“CEQregulationsprovideonlygeneral

55

guidanceonwhenrelatedactionsorproposalsshouldbeconsideredtogetherinasingleimpactstatement.Moredetailedregulationsareprovidedbyindividualagencyregulations,suchastheregulationsapplicabletohighwayprojects,andbycaselaw.”).Asaresult,theFifthCircuitdeterminedthattheTxDotdidnotactarbitrarilyandcapriciouslybynotcomplyingwith§1508.25(a)(2).TheFifthCircuitthenexaminedwhethertheTxDottreatedtheproposedoverpassesonMoPacasastandaloneprojectinitsEA.Under§771.111(f),totreatahighwayprojectasastandaloneprojectforNEPApurposes,theprojectmust:

(1)Connectlogicalterminiandbeofsufficientlengthtoaddressenvironmentalmattersonabroadscope;(2) Have independent utility or independent significance, i.e., be usable and be a reasonableexpenditureevenifnoadditionaltransportationimprovementsintheareaaremade;and(3) Not restrict consideration of alternatives for other reasonably foreseeable transportationimprovements.

PlaintiffsarguedthatTxDotwronglyfoundthattheoverpassprojectmeets§771.111(f)(1)’scriteriabylookingonlyatwhethertheprojecthas“logicaltermini”andwithoutaskingwhetheritis“ofsufficientlength.”Wedisagree,asthiscourtandothercircuitshavesimilarlycondensed§771.111(f)(1)intoatestaboutlogicaltermini.SeeSaveBartonCreek,950F.2dat1141(“[B]oththesegmentoftheAustinOuterLoopaswellasMoPacSouthfullycomportwithbothcaselawandFHWA’sregulationsrequiringthatsegmentshaveindependentutility,connectwithlogicaltermini,anddonotforeclosetheopportunitytoconsideralternatives.”).Thecourtstatedthatitmadesensetoconcludethataprojectis“ofsufficientlength”whenitconnectedlogicaltermini.Itfoundthatinthiscase,theTxDotidentifiedtheoverpassproject’slogicalterminiatthepointswhereMoPacintersectswiththetwostreetsitwouldpassunder.Thecourtcouldn'tfindanyotherlogicalterminiandthePlaintiffsofferednoalternativetermini.TheFifthCircuitfoundthat“crossroads”arepreciselythesortoflogicalterminitheFHWAcontemplatedinissuing§771.111(f)(1).SeeConservationLawFound.,24F.3dat1472(citing37Fed.Reg.21,809,21,810(Oct.14,1972),whichdefines“highwaysection”as“asubstantiallengthofhighwaysectionbetweenlogicaltermini,”including“majorcrossroads,populationcenters,majortrafficgenerators,orsimilarmajorhighwaycontrolelements”).TheFifthCircuitheldthattheTxDOTcompliedwith§771.111.ThePlaintiffsnextarguedthatTxDotviolatedNEPAbecausetheoverpassproject’sEAcontainsnoanalysisoftheproject’s“cumulativeimpact”asrequiredby40C.F.R.§1508.25(c).TheTxDotcontendedthatafullanalysiswasunnecessarywhere,itdoesnotexpectaprojecttohaveanysignificantenvironmentalimpactthatcan“accumulate”withtheimpactsofotheractions.TheFifthCircuitagreedwiththeTxDOT,applyingthe"ruleofReason"anddiscussingthatinformationthatservesnotpurpose,andtheaimofNEPAwastomakeagenciescarefullyconsiderdetailedinformationconcerningsignificantenvironmentalimpactswhileprovidinginformationusefultothepublicdecisionmakingprocess.See40C.F.R.§1500.1(c)(“NEPA’spurposeisnottogeneratepaperwork—evenexcellentpaperwork—buttofosterexcellentaction.”).Thecourtheldthatafullcumulativeimpactanalysiswouldnotservethesepurposes.Theproposedoverpasseswereatwo-mileprojectinanareathatwasalreadyheavilydevelopedandtrafficked.Afterconductinganumberofdetailedtechnicalstudies,TxDotconcludedthattheprojectwouldnotsignificantlyimpacttheenvironment.Iftheprojectwouldhavenosignificantimpactbyitself,itisunlikelytochangetheenvironmentalstatusquowhen

56

“added”tootheractions.Seee.g.,AtchafalayaBasinkeeperv.U.S.ArmyCorpsofEng'rs,894F.3d692(5thCir.2018)(holdingthatafullcumulativeimpactanalysiswasunnecessarywhereEnvironmentalAssessmentsconcludedthataprojectwouldhavenoincrementalimpactand“hence,therecouldbenocumulativeeffects”);MinisinkResidentsforEnvtl.Pres.&Safetyv.FERC,762F.3d97,113(D.C.Cir.2014)(concludingthatnocumulativeimpactanalysiswasneededwhere“theEAconcludedthatbecausethe...Projectitselfwasexpectedtohaveminimalimpacts,nosignificantcumulativeimpactswereexpectedtoflow”).ThePlaintiffsarguedthatFritiofsonappliedandthatafullcumulativeeffectsassessmentmustbecompleted.Fritiofsonv.Alexander,772F.2d1225,1240(5thCir.1985),abrogatedonothergroundsbySabineRiverAuth.v.U.S.Dep'tofInterior,951F.2d669(5thCir.1992).InFritiofson,theFifthCircuitconcludedthatanagencyfailedtoadequatelyanalyzecumulativeimpactsinitsEAforaprojectthatwouldconsumeacresofwetlandsbecausetherecorddidnotshowconsiderationof“otherpast,present,andreasonablyforeseeablefutureactions”ontheisland.See772F.2dat1234,1247.ButthecourtfoundthatFritiofsonwas“undoubtedlyanunusualcase,”owingto“theuniqueandfragilenatureofwetlandareas”andtherapidincreaseinGalvestonIslandcommercialdevelopment.Seeid.at1246–47.AstheFifthCircuitexplainedinFritiofson,“[t]heextentof[acumulativeimpact]analysiswillnecessarilydependonthescopeoftheareainwhichtheimpactsfromtheproposedactionwillbefeltandtheextentofotheractivityinthatarea.”Id.at1246.TheFifthCircuitrejectedtheFritiofsonanalysis,andfoundthatgiventheoverpassproject’slimitedscopeandlocationoverbusyurbanintersections,itwasnotarbitraryandcapriciousforTxDottolimititscumulativeimpactanalysiswheretherecordsupportsitsfindingthattheprojectwillhavenosignificantdirectorindirectimpact.

BRRAM,Inc.v.FederalAviationAdmin.,No.16-4355,721Fed.Appx.173(3dCir.Jan.9,2018)(notforpublication)Agencyprevailed.Issue(s):CategoricalExclusion(CATEX)(impacts).Facts:In2016,AllegiantrequestedthatFAAamendeditsOperatingSpecificationstoallowittooperateatTrenton,NJ,acommercialairport.Initsrequest,Allegiantexplainedthatitwouldconductfourteenoperations(7takeoffsand7landings)perweek.AllegiantsubmittedanoiseassessmentthatstatedthatAllegiant'soperatingatTrentonwouldnothaveasignificantimpactonnoiselevelsinthearea.OnNovember2,2016,FAAissuedaRecordofDecisionapplyingacategoricalexclusion(CATEX)(the"Decision")forapprovingtherequestedamendment.ThediscussedAllegiant'snoiseassessmentalongwithanoiseassessmentpreparedbyTrenton,whichwasbasedonaforecastofairtraffictwentyyearsintothefuture,andconcluded,"nosignificantnoiseimpactswilloccurasaresultofAllegiant'soperation."ThelowercourtupheldtheDecision,andpetitioners,mostofwhomresideoroperateinPennsylvaniaacrosstheDelawareRiverfromTrenton,appealed.Decision:FAApublishedalistofCATEXsandcreatedalistoftwelveextraordinarycircumstancesthatrequiremorethoroughenvironmentalreview.Inthiscase,FAAconsideredAllegiant'srequesttoamenditsOperatingSpecifications(thetermsanaircarriermustcomplywithtoensureanaircarrieroperatingsafelyinairtransportation)anddeterminedthatnoextraordinarycircumstancesexisted.FAAthenconcludedthatit'sCATEXfor"[o]peratingspecificationsandamendmentsthatdonotsignificantlychangetheoperatingenvironmentoftheairport"appliedandthatpreparinganEISwasunnecessary.

57

ThePetitionerschallengedFAA'sdeterminationthatAllegiant'srequestdidnotpresentanyextraordinarycircumstances.Specifically,theyquestionedFAA'sconclusionthatitsextraordinarycircumstanceregardingnoise,whichprecludesadeterminationthataCATEXisapplicablewhenanaction"hasthepotentialforasignificantimpact"on"noiselevelofnoisesensitiveareas"didnotapplytoAllegiant'srequest.PetitionersclaimedthatFAAshouldnotonlyhaveevaluatedAllegiant'sproposedfourteenflights,butrather,consideredimpactoftheexpansionproposedbecauseFAAhasexplainedthatonceanairlineispermittedtooperateatanairport,FAAcannotcontrolthenumberofflightstheairlinewilloperate.TheThirdCircuitdisagreedwiththePetitioner'sassertions,statingthatasFAAexplainedinitsDecision,FAAconsideredbothAllegiant'snoiseanalysis,whichonlyaccountedforthefourteenflights,andanoiseanalysispreparedbyTrentonthatwasbasedonaforecasttwentyyearsintothefutureofallforeseeableairtrafficbyAllegiantandotherairlinesoperatingatTrenton.NeithernoiseanalysisshowedthattheywouldhaveasignificantimpactonnoiseintheareaunderFAA'sprevailingstandardsforsignificance.ThecourtdiscussedthatthePetitionersdidnotchallengethevalidityofTrenton'snoiseanalysis(forexample,theydon'targuethattheanalysisisbasedonimproperassumptionsaboutfutureairtrafficoritsconclusionsareerroneous).TheThirdCircuitaffirmedFAA'sDecisiontoapproveAllegiant'srequestedamendmenttoitsOperatingSpecifications.

Vaughnv.Fed.AviationAdmin.,No.16-1377,2018WL6430368,--Fed.Appx.---(D.C.Cir.Nov.30,2018)(notforpublication)Agencyprevailed.Issue(s):Impacts(Air,Noise,ClimateChange,OutdatedSoftware),CumulativeImpacts,Alternatives.Facts:CulverCity,theSantaMonicaCanyonCivicAssociation(anonprofitorganizationthatprotectstheenvironmentqualityofitsneighborhood),andtwoindividuals(wholiveinareasaffectedbythepurportedlyincreasednoiseandotheremissionsfromtheSoCalMetroplexproject)petitionedforreviewoforderapprovingredesignofair-trafficcontrolproceduresandflightpathsatseveralairportsinSouthernCalifornia,claimingviolationsofNEPA.In2016,aspartofabroaderprojecttomodernizethefederalairspace,FAAdecidedtoredesignair-trafficcontrolproceduresandflightpathsatseveralairportsinSouthernCalifornia.TheSoCalMetroplexprojectwasintendedtoimprovetheoperationalefficiencyofairtraffic,buttheredesignedflightrouteshaveallegedlyledtoincreasednoiseincertainneighborhoods.FAAissuedanEAandthenaFONSIfortheSoCalMetroplexprojectin2016.ThefourconsolidatedpetitionersobjectedtoFAA’sconclusionthattherewouldbenosignificantenvironmentaleffectsresultingfromtheproject.TheyraisedseverallinesofattackagainstFAA’sanalysis,arguingtheagencyfailedtoaccountadequatelyfornoise,airemissions,andcumulativeenvironmentaleffects,inviolationofNEPA.Decision:ThepetitionersfirstchallengedFAA’sconclusionthattheSoCalMetroplexprojectwouldnotleadtonoiseincreasesabovetheagency’s“significancethreshold.”ThepetitionersclaimedthatFAAhasastatutorydutynotonlytoconsidernoise,buttoconsiderwaysofreducingit.Specifically,theSoCalMetroplexprojectispartofabroaderFAAprogramcalledtheNext-GenerationAir

58

TransportationSystem(NextGen),whichaimstotransitionthenationalairspacefromusingoutdatedprocedurestoonesthattakeadvantageofnewtechnologiessuchasGPS.OneofthesevengoalsforNextGenisthatFAAmust“takeintoconsideration,tothegreatestextentpracticable,designofairportapproachanddepartureflightpathstoreduceexposureofnoiseandemissionspollutiononaffectedresidents.”Vision100Act,§709(c)(7).Baseduponthisgoal,thepetitionersarguedFAAmuststrivetoreducenoisebelowthepre-existinglevel,ratherthansimplyavoidanysignificantincreaseinnoise.TheNinthCircuitheldthatFAAsufficientlyconsideredreducingnoiselevels.TheWhitePaperthatFAAdevelopedinresponsetopubliccommentsdescribedseveralwaysinwhichtheagencymodifiedtheprojectinordertoaddresscommunityconcernsaboutnoise.Forexample,dueto“localconcernabouttheproposeddesigneliminating[aparticular]waypoint,”whichwouldleadtogreaternoiseovercertainareas,FAAredesignedtheprocedures“withanintervening,redundantwaypoint”inorderto“addresscommunityconcerns...whileprovidingtheairspacesafetyandefficiencyenhancementssoughtbytheproposedaction.”ThesemodificationsdemonstratedFAAconsideredreducingnoiseandemissionstotheextentpracticable.Vision100Act,§709(c).ThepetitionersnextobjectedtoFAA’suseofanoutdatedcomputerprogramcalledNIRStoanalyzenoiselevels.Accordingtothepetitioners,FAA’suseofNIRSviolatestheagency’sownguidancememorandum,whichcallsforusingAEDT,anewersoftwareprogram,for“projectswhoseenvironmentalanalysis”startedafterMarch1,2012.FAAOrder1050.1E.FAArespondedthatalthoughthedatasetusedforitsenvironmentalanalysiscoverstheperiodfromDecember2012toNovember2013,noiseanalysisusingNIRSactuallybeganbeforetheMarch2012cut-offdate.ThecourtdeferredtoFAA’sreasonableexplanationthatthisearlynoisescreeningcountsas“environmentalanalysis”forthepurposeofcomplyingwiththeagency’sownguidance.SeeAuerv.Robbins,519U.S.452,461,117S.Ct.905(1997)(findingagency’sinterpretationofitsownregulationis“controlling”unless“plainlyerroneousorinconsistentwiththeregulation”).BecauseFAAstartedconductingitsenvironmentalanalysisbeforeMarch2012,itwasnotrequiredtoswitchtothenewsoftwareinMarch2012.Finally,thepetitionerschallengedFAA’schoiceofametrictomeasurenoise.InsteadofusingtheCumulativeNoiseEquivalencyLevel(CNEL),whichweightsmoreheavilynoiseoccurringintheeveninghours,FAAusedtheDay-NightSoundLevel(DNL),whichdoesnot.Accordingtothepetitioners,FAAOrder5050.4B,NEPAImplementingInstructionsforAirportActions,§9(n)(Apr.28,2006)requiredFAAtouseCNELforprojectsinCalifornia.AsFAAexplained,however,whenviewedinlightofanotherFAAorder,itwaspermittedbutnotrequiredtousetheCNELmetricforthisproject.SeeAirportsDeskReferenceforFAAOrder5050.4B,Ch.17para.1(c)at2(Oct.2007)(“WhileDNListheprimarymetricFAAusestodeterminenoiseimpacts,FAAacceptstheCNELwhenastaterequiresthatmetrictoassessnoiseeffects”).FAA’sfinalEAexplainedthattheSoCalMetroplexprojectdoesnotinvolveanystateenvironmentalreview;hence,itwasnotrequiredtouseCNEL.FAAalsodeterminedtheprojectwouldhaveaminimaleffectonairemissionsandontheclimate.ThepetitionersarguedFAAimproperlypresumedtheSoCalMetroplexprojectwouldconformtoCalifornia’sSIP.Specifically,thepetitionerschallengedFAA’srelianceuponitspresumed-to-conformlist,whichspecifiesthatmodificationstoflightroutesandproceduresatorabovethemixingheight(generally3,000feetabovegroundlevel)haveonlyademinimiseffectontheenvironmentandthat,belowthataltitude,modificationsarepresumedtoconformiftheyare“designedtoenhanceoperationalefficiency(i.e.,toreducedelay).”72Fed.Reg.41578/2(2007).Seealso40C.F.R.§93.153(c)(2)(xxii).Ratherthanchallengingthevalidityofthepresumptions,however,thepetitioners’maincontentionwasthatthepresumptionsdonotapplytotheproject.

59

First,thepetitionersclaim“most,ifnotall”theprocedureswilloccurbelow3,000feetandthereforeFAAcannotpresumethateffectsonairemissionsaredeminimis.ThefinalEAstatedtheoppositetobetrue:“changestoflightpaths...wouldprimarilyoccuratorabove3,000feet[abovegroundlevel].”Second,thepetitionersarguedthatanymodificationstoproceduresbelow3,000feetdonotqualifyforthepresumptionofconformitybecausetheyareexpectedtoincreasefuelburn,albeitveryslightly,andthereforearenot“designedtoenhanceoperationalefficiency.”72Fed.Reg.41578/2(2007).AsFAApointedout,thepurposeoftheSoCalMetroplexprojectistoaddresscongestionintheairspaceandimprovesafety–benefitsFAAcouldreasonablyconcludeoverpowerthenegligibleincreaseinfuelburn.SeeVision100Act,§709(c)(describingthemulti-factornatureofFAA’smandatetoimplementNextGen).InitsfinalEA,FAAconcludedtheprojectwouldnothaveasignificanteffectontheclimatebecausetheprojectwouldincreasegreenhousegasesbyonly35metrictons(MT)(0.41%)in2016and42MT(0.44%)in2021.First,thePetitionercomplainedthatuseofademinimisstandardcontradictsguidanceissuedbytheCEQ.Accordingtothisguidance,astatementthatadditionalemissionswould“representonlyasmallfractionofglobalemissions...isnotanappropriatebasisfordecidingwhethertoconsiderclimateimpactsunderNEPA.”79Fed.Reg.77825/2-3(Dec.24,2014).AsFAApointedout,however,thesameguidancealsoprovidesadisclosurethresholdof25,000MT,belowwhich“aquantitativeanalysis...isnotrecommendedunlessquantificationiseasilyaccomplished.”Id.at77,807/2.Inthiscase,the42MTincreaseinemissionsin2021wasfarlessthanthe25,000MTthresholdatwhichdisclosurewassuggestedbytheCEQ.AsitwasnotclearFAAhadadutyeventoquantifytheincreaseinemissions,andtheNinthCircuitagreedwithFAA’sreasonableconclusionthattheprojectwouldnothaveasignificanteffectontheclimate.ThepetitionersalsoarguedCalifornialawrequiresthestatetoreducegreenhousegasemissionstocertainlevelsby2020.Thecourtrejectedthisargument,statingCalifornialawdoesnotimposeadutyonthefederalgovernment.Withrespecttonoise,FAAdidnotconductacumulativeanalysisbecauseithadalreadydeterminedtheprojectwouldhavenosignificantnoiseeffect.Despitethepetitioners’non-specificobjectionthattheEA“barelymentionscumulativenoiseimpacts,letalonetakesa‘hardlook’atsuchimpacts,”thepetitionersdidnotadvanceanyargumentagainstFAA’sreasoning.ThecourtdidnotfindFAAarbitraryandcapriciousfornotconductingacumulativeimpactanalysisforaparticularenvironmentalresourceaftertheagencyreasonablyhasconcludeditsproposedactionwillnothaveasignificanteffectonthatresource.SeeMinisinkResidentsforEnvt’lPres.&Safetyv.FERC,762F.3d97,113(D.C.Cir.2014).Withrespecttoairquality,FAAreasonablyconcludedtheSoCalMetroplexprojectwouldnotresultinanysignificantcumulativeeffects.Inresponse,thepetitionersclaimFAAfailedtoaccountforacontemporaryprojectofmuchbroaderscopeinitsanalysis,namely,aprojectattheLosAngelesInternationalAirportthatinvolvesmovingandextendingrunways.AsFAAexplained,however,theproposalfortheLAXrunwayprojectwasmadefor2025–fouryearspastthe2021planninghorizonfortheSoCalMetroplexproject.TheNinthCircuitheldFAAdidnotactarbitrarilyandcapriciouslybyexcludingtherunwayprojectfromitscumulativeairqualityanalysisbecausetheprojectwasnotreasonablyforeseeable.Finally,thepetitionerscomplainedthattheinformationprovidedinFAA’sdraftEAwasnotsufficientlyaccurate,makingitdifficultforamemberofthepublictodeterminewhereflightpathswouldcrosshisorherneighborhood.Inordertomakethisargument,thepetitionerspointonlytoFAA’shalf-mileadjustmentofasinglewaypointduringthecommentperiod.Accordingtothepetitioners,FAAdidnotperformanoiseanalysisofthechange,

60

makingit“impossible”forthepublictoanticipatethedegreeofenvironmentaleffectfromtheproject.FAApointedtoevidenceintherecordshowingitdidperformanewnoiseanalysisaftermovingthewaypointandagainfoundtherewasnosignificantnoiseeffect.TheNinthCircuitalsorejectedthepetitioners’argumentthattheagencyfailedtotakeahardlookatarangeofappropriatealternativestotheproject,asrequiredbytheNEPA.Inordertomakethisargument,thepetitionersrenewedtheirclaimthatFAAwasrequiredunderVision100toanalyzealternativesthatreducenoise.ButthecourtbelievedFAAmetitsdutyunderVision100.Thepetitioners’contention–thatFAA’sEAwasdeficientbecauseitconsideredonlytheproposedactionandtheno-actionalternative–wassimilarlyunpersuasive.AsFAApointedout,itevaluatedvariousgroupsofproceduresindifferentcombinations,inordertodeterminewhat“alternativeaction”topresentintheFinalEA.TheNinthCircuitheldFAAsatisfieditsdutytoconsiderappropriatealternatives.

ParadiseRidgeDefenseCoalitionv.Hartman,No.17-35848,2018WL6434787,--Fed.Appx.---(9thCir.Dec.7,2018)(notforpublication)Agencyprevailed.Issue(s):Impacts,predetermination.Facts:TheParadiseRidgeDefenseCoalition(Coalition)challengedthattheFederalHighwayAdministration(FHWA)andtheIdahoTransportationDepartmentviolatedNEPAinselectinganalternativeforconstructionofanewsegmentofHighwayUS-95southofMoscow,Idaho.Decision:TheNinthCircuitfoundFHWAtookthe“hardlook”thatNEPArequiresandtheagency’sdecisionwasnotarbitraryorcapricious.Thecourtfoundthat,first,theFHWA’srelianceontheHighwaySafetyManualforpredictingtherelativesafetyofeachalternativeroutewasreasonablegiventhatitistheindustrystandardforhighwaysafety,andtheCoalitiondidnotarguethattheFHWAshouldhaveusedanalternativemethodology.TheFHWAdisclosedthatthemethodologydidnotyieldconfidenceintervalsforeachoftheproposedalternatives,andtheFHWAalsoexercisedengineeringjudgmentinitsevaluationoftheproposedalternatives.Further,theFHWAprovideda“reasonablythoroughdiscussion”oftheriskandseverityofcollisionsbetweenvehiclesandwildlife,aswellasmitigationmeasurestodecreasetheriskofthosecollisions.Second,theFHWAdidnotmake“anirreversibleandirretrievablecommitmentofresources”beforecompletingitsanalysis,andsodidnotimpermissiblypredeterminetheoutcomeoftheNEPAanalysis.NordidtheFHWAerrinconsideringoneroutefromeachgeographiccorridor,becausetherouteswithineachgeographiccorridorhadsubstantiallysimilarconsequences,andNEPA“doesnotrequireaseparateanalysisofalternativeswhicharenotsignificantlydistinguishablefromalternativesactuallyconsidered,orwhichhavesubstantiallysimilarconsequences.”TheFHWAalsodiscussedthemitigationmeasuresforinvasiveweeds“insufficientdetailtoensurethatenvironmentalconsequences[had]beenfairlyevaluated.”

61

InformingCitizensAgainstRunwayAirportExpansionv.Fed.AviationAdmin.,No.17-71536,2018WL6649605,--Fed.Appx.---(9thCir.Dec.18,2018)(notforpublication)AgencyPrevailed.Issue(s):Impactsandimpactmethodology,alternatives,publiccomment/involvement.Facts:InformingCitizensAgainstRunwayAirportExpansion,thePetitioner,soughtreviewofFAA'sdecisiontoapproveaprojecttoconstructa5,200-footrunwayattheRavalliCountyAirportinHamilton,Montana.Decision:TheNinthCircuitfoundFAAactedwithinitsdiscretion,andexerciseditstechnicalexpertise,inusingfuelsalestoestimateannualoperationsattheairport.Itmadetheunderlyingdataaboutthefuelsalesavailablewiththe2014EA,whichexplainedthattheforecastingreportreliedinpartonhandwrittenrecordsoffuelsalestoestimateoperations.NEPArequiresanagencyto“disclosetheharddatasupportingitsexpertopinions,”butNEPAdoesnotdictatehowtheagencymustdisclosethatdata.Here,FAAprovided“sufficientenvironmentalinformation,consideredinthetotalityofcircumstances,topermitmembersofthepublictoweighin”and“informtheagencydecision-makingprocess.”Especiallyintherealmofaviationforecasting,FAAhassubstantialdiscretiontochooseamongavailableforecastingmethods,aslongasitexplainsitschoice.SeeN.PlainsRes.Council,Inc.v.SurfaceTransp.Bd.,668F.3d1067,1075(9thCir.2011)(“Theagencymustexplaintheconclusionsithasdrawnfromitschosenmethodology,andthereasonsitconsideredtheunderlyingevidencetobereliable.”)).Here,FAAexplainedthatFlightAwarecannotcaptureeveryoperationattheairport,soFAAreliedonrecordsoftheairport’sfuelsalestogetamorecompletepictureofannualoperations.FAAalsoexplainedthattherecordscontainedidentifyingnumberslinkedtospecificaircraft,enablingtheagencytodeterminewhichplanesboughtfuelandeliminateduplicatesthatalsoshowedupinFlightAware’sdata.Insum,FAAgavethenecessaryexplanationhere,sothecourtdeferredtoitschosenmethodologyforaviationforecasting.FAAreasonablyarticulatedtheproject’spurposeandneedandconsideredanappropriaterangeofalternatives.Substantialevidence—intheformofFlightAwaredataandrecordsoffuelsales—supportsFAA’sconclusionthatB-IIoperationsattheairporteitherexceeded,orcamesocloseto,the500-operationsthresholdthattheairportneededa5,200-footrunwaytoaccommodateB-IIaircraftsafely.Althougha4,800-footrunwaywouldaccommodatemostplanesusingtheairport,FAAdecidedthattheairportrequireda5,200-footrunwaybecause:(1)theairportseessomeusebylargerplanesthatwouldbenefitfroma5,200-footrunway;(2)the5,200-footrunwaywouldallowplanestocarrymorefuel,passengers,andcargo(inparticular,firefightingForestServiceplanescouldcarrytheirfullcapacityoffireretardant);and(3)FAAhaslimitedfundstodisburse,anditwouldbefinanciallyresponsibletobuilda5,200-footrunwayinitiallyinsteadofbuildinga4,800-footrunwayandlaterextendingitby400feettoaccommodatelargerplanes.Moreover,FAAinitiateditsEAinresponsetotheCounty’sprojectproposal,butFAAdidnotsimplyadopttheCounty’sgoalofhavinga5,200-footrunwayasitsown.Anagencymayallowaprivateinteresttogivecontexttoitsstatementofpurposeandneed.AndFAAhasastatutorymandatetopromote“thesafeoperationoftheairportandairwaysystem”andefficientairtransportation.49U.S.C.§47101(a)(1)(b).Providingadequaterunwaylengthfurthersbothofthosegoalsbygivingpilotshighersafetymarginsandallowingaircrafttoflyatfullcapacity.Againstthatbackground,FAAdidnotdefinethepurposeandneed“inunreasonablynarrowterms.”

62

Consequently,FAAactedreasonablybyseriouslyconsideringonlyalternativesthatinvolveda5,200-footrunway.Anagencyneedonlyevaluatealternativesthatarereasonablyrelatedtoaproject’spurpose.ConsideringanalternativethatmaintainedthecurrentrunwaylengthwouldhavecontravenedFAA’smandatetopromotesafeandefficientairtransportation,§47101(a)(1),(b),giventhatpastassessmentsoftheairportrecognizedthatthecurrentrunwaycanaccommodateonly75%ofB-IIaircraft.Becausekeepingthecurrentrunwaylengthwasnotaviablealternative,FAAdidnotviolateNEPAbyfailingtoexaminethatalternative.FAAaddressedtheproject’seffectonpropertyvaluessufficientlytocomplywithNEPA.FAAexaminedseveralstudiesabouttheeffectofaircraftnoiseonpropertyvalues.FAAalsoexplainedthatnospecificstudiesexistedfortheairport,although“noisemodeling”forthepreferredalternativeshowedthatnoresidentialpropertieswouldcomewithin“the65DNLcontour”—theareawhereplanesareloudest.PetitionercomplainedthatFAAdidnotaddressthestudiesthatitsmembersprovided,but“anagencyneednotrespondtoeverysinglescientificstudyorcomment.”PetitionerdidnotshowhowFAA’sfailuretorespondtoanyspecificcommentorstudyrendereditsfinaldecisionarbitrary.Petitioneralsoarguedthatitshouldhavehadanotherchancetocommentontheproject’seffectonpropertyvaluesafterFAAreleasedtheFEAin2017.ThecourtopinedthatthePetitioner’sargumentisuntenableasapracticalmatterbecauseitwouldcreateanendlessloopintheadministrativeprocess;anagencycouldneverproceedwithanactionaslongasthepubliccontinuedtocommentonnewinformationthattheagencyreleased.TheNinthCircuitfoundFAAgavethepublicameaningfulopportunitytoparticipateinthedecision-makingprocess.Thecommentperiodforthe2014EAlasted73days,includinganextensionatPetitioner’srequest.The2014assessmentcontainedinformationoneachsubjectaboutwhichPetitioner’sbriefsexpressedconcern.AlthoughNEPA’sstandardsforthenecessarylevelofpublicparticipationremain“amorphous,”thecourthasrecognizedthatNEPAdoesnotrequire“substantial”publicparticipation.SeeCal.Troutv.FERC,572F.3d1003,1017(9thCir.2009)(“Wehaveheldthatacompletefailuretoinvolveoreveninformthepublicaboutanagency’spreparationofan[EA]wouldviolateNEPA’sregulations,buthavealsoconcludedthatthecirculationofadraft[EA]isnotrequiredineverycase”).ThecourtfinallyheldthatFAAwasnotrequiredtoprepareanEIS.“ThemerefactthatanagencypreparedalengthyEAdoesnot,withoutmore,demonstratethattheagencymustprepareanEIS.”

INDEPENDENTAGENCIES

AmericanRiversv.FederalEnergyRegulatoryComm'n,895F.3d32(D.CCir.2018)Agencydidnotprevail.Issues:Impactanalysis,cumulativeImpactsFacts:In2013,FERCgrantedtheAlabamaPowerCompanya30-yearlicensetocontinuepowergenerationby7hydropowerdevelopmentsonaportionoftheCoosaRiver(collectivelyreferredtoasthe“CoosaProject”)andtoconsolidatealloftheprojectsintoasinglelicense.In2009,FERCissuedafinalEAandFONSIonthelicenseapplication,concludingthattherelicensingdecisionwasnotamajorfederalactionsignificantlyaffectingthequalityofthehumanenvironment.

63

InJune2012,USFWSissuedaBiologicalOpinionconcludingthattherelicensingtheprojectwasnotlikelytojeopardizeanythreatenedorlistedspecies,nordestroyordeleteriouslyaffectanycriticalhabitats.InJune2013,FERCgrantedAlabamaPoweranew30-yearleasetocontinueoperatingthenow-combinedCoosaProject.BoththeCommission'sfinalEAandtheUSFWSBiologicalOpinionwereincorporated,withoutchange,intothelicense.ThelicenseimposedseveraltermsandconditionsonAlabamaPower'soperations,includingthedutyto(i)implement"aeration"measurestoachieveaconstantminimumdissolvedoxygenlevelof4.0mg/Lateachdevelopment"atalltimes,"(ii)enhancedissolvedoxygenlevelsatLoganMartinduringperiodsofnon-generationtoprotectcertainlistedaquaticspecies,(iii)incorporatewater-qualitymonitoringmeasuresprescribedbytheAlabamaDepartmentofEnvironmentalManagement,and(iv)conductsurveysofaquaticspeciestoensurenofurtherdeclineofthreatenedandendangeredmusselsandsnails.Severalparties,includingtheeventualplaintiffsandAlabamaPower,soughtrehearingofthelicensingorder.FERCdeniedtheenvironmentalgroups’hearingrequestinfullbutgrantedAlabamaPower'srequest,materiallyslackeningAlabamaPower'sdutytomaintaintherequiredlevelsofdissolvedoxygen.Inparticular,theCommissionprovidedthattheprescribedwaterqualitystandards,includingthemaintenanceofdissolvedoxygenlevels,wouldapplyonlywhenthehydroelectricdevelopmentswereactuallygeneratingpower.PlaintiffenvironmentalgroupschallengedtheFERCrelicensingdecisiononthegroundthatitviolatedtheFederalPowerAct,NEPA,andtheEndangeredSpeciesAct.Decision:Thecourtofappealsheldfortheplaintiffs:

“Areviewofthelicenserenewal’simpactontheenvironmentandendangeredspeciesdocumentedthattheprojectwouldcausea100%takeofmultipleendangeredmussels,alargelossofindigenousfish,andperilouslylowdissolvedoxygenlevelsforsubstantialperiodsoftime.

“Nevertheless,FERCconcludedthatlicensingthegenerationprojectwouldhavenosubstantialimpactoneithertheRiver'secologicalconditionorendangeredspecies.Indoingso,FERCdeclinedtofactorinthedecadesofenvironmentaldamagealreadywroughtbyexploitationofthewaterwayforpowergenerationandthatdamage'scontinuingecologicaleffects.BecausetheCommission'senvironmentalreviewandabiologicalopinionitreliedonwereunreasonedandunsupportedbysubstantialevidence,theCommission'sissuanceofthelicensewasarbitraryandcapricious.”

Accordingly,thecourtvacatedthelicensingdecisionandremandedthecasebacktoFERC.

AfteragreeingwithplaintiffsthattheBiologicalOpiniondidnotcomplywiththeEndangeredSpeciesAct,thecourtturnedtothesufficiencyofFERC'sdecisionthatrelicensingtheCoosaRiverProjectfor30yearswouldnothaveanysignificantenvironmentaleffectsontheCoosaRiverecologicalsystem.“Becausetherecordofthelicensingproceedingspointsstronglyintheoppositedirection,theCommission'sdecisiontoforgoanEnvironmentalImpactStatementdoesnotholdwater.”

EnumeratingthedeficienciesintheEAthecourtheldthat“[t]herecordsimplydoesnotprovidearationalconnectionbetweenthelicensingdecision,therecordevidence,andthefindingofnosignificantenvironmentalimpact.”Inparticular:

• FERC’s“onlycitedevidencefortheamountoffishdeaths[asmanyas1.3Mfishperyear]wasamore-than-decade-old-surveyoffishentrainmentstudiesandestimatesprovidedbythelicenseapplicantitself,

64

AlabamaPower.Noupdatedinformationwascollected;nofieldstudieswereconducted.NorwasanyindependentverificationofAlabamaPower'sestimatesundertaken...TheCommission’sacceptance,hook,line,andsinker,ofAlabamaPower’soutdatedestimates,withoutanyinterrogationorverificationofthosenumbersis,inaword,fishy.Anditiscertainlyunreasoned."

• “NEPAdemandsfarmoreanalyticalrigorthantheAssessment'sbreezydismissalofthehighfishmortalityratedocumentedinitsdatedandunverifiedstudies.SeeMyersville,783F.3dat1322(agenciescannotoverlookasingleenvironmentalconsequenceifitiseven‘arguablysignificant’)”

• FERC's“cheeryassurancethat‘excellent’human-operatedsportandcommercialfisheriesremaindownstreamisjustwhistlingpastthegraveyard….TheCommission,foritspart,madenoefforttoexplainhowdownstream,human-operatedsportandcommercialfisheriesarerelevantbellwethersforenvironmentalimpactsintheupstreamCoosaRiver.Afterall,thenearbypresenceofanicezoohasneverbeenarelevantanswerunderNEPAtohighspeciesmortalityinnature.”

Thecourtthenturnedtotheconsiderationofcumulativeimpacts:

“Putsimply,anagency'sEnvironmentalAssessment‘mustgivearealisticevaluationofthetotalimpactsandcannotisolateaproposedproject,viewingitinavacuum.’GrandCanyonTrustv.FAA,290F.3d339,342(D.C.Cir.2002).Insodoing,the‘incrementalimpactoftheaction[atissue]mustbeconsideredwhenaddedtootherpast,present,andreasonablyforeseeablefutureactions.’Id.(alterationinoriginal;internalquotationmarksomitted).Inotherwords,‘[i]tmakessensetoconsiderthe“incrementalimpact”ofaprojectforpossiblecumulativeeffectsbyincorporatingtheeffectsofotherprojectsintothebackgrounddatabaseoftheprojectatissue.’CoalitiononSensibleTransp.,Inc.v.Dole,826F.2d60,70-71(D.C.Cir.1987)(internalquotationmarksomitted).Indeed,theCommissionagreedthattheNEPAcumulative-effectsanalysishadtoaccountforallpastimpactsofthedams'constructionandoperation,includingtheenduringorongoingeffectsofpastactions.”

PlaintiffschallengetoFERC’scumulativeimpactanalysisunderNEPAmirrorstheirobjectionstotheUSFWSBiologicalOpinionbecausetheEAreliesheavilyonthatopinioninestablishingthecurrentoperationoftheCoosaProjectasthebaselineformeasuringenvironmentalimpacts.“Asaresult,theService'sfailuretofactorthedamagealreadywroughtbytheconstructionofdamsintothecumulativeimpactsanalysisfatallyinfectedthisaspectoftheCommission'sNEPAdecisionaswell.”

“TheCommissiongavescantattentiontothosepastactionsthathadledtoandwereperpetuatingtheCoosaRiver'sheavilydamagedandfragileecosystem.Nordiditofferanysubstantiveanalysisofhowthepresentimpactsofthosepastactionswouldcombineandinteractwiththeaddedimpactsofthe30-yearlicensingdecision.TheCommission'scumulativeimpactanalysisleftoutcriticalpartsoftheequationand,asaresult,fellfarshortoftheNEPAmark.”

BigBendConservationAlliancev.FederalEnergyRegulatoryComm'n,896F.3d418(D.C.Cir2018)Agencyprevailed.Issue:Segmentation/connectedactions

Facts:PlaintiffBigBendConservationAlliancesoughtreviewoftwoFERCordersauthorizingTrans-PecosPipeline,LLCtoconstructandoperateanexportfacility(a1,100-footnaturalgaspipelinefromameterstationinTexastotheMexicanborder)toallowtheexportofnaturalgasfromtheUnitedStatestoMexico.Seekinganexpandedenvironmentalreview,BigBendarguesthatFERC,inadditiontoexercisingjurisdictionovertheExportFacilityattheborder,FERCalsoshouldhaveexercisedjurisdictionoverthe148-mileintrastatepipeline(Trans-Pecos

65

Pipeline),authorizedbytheStateofTexasthatwouldtransportnaturalgasproducedinTexastotheExportFacility.Alternatively,BigBendcontendsthatregardlessofthescopeofFERC'sjurisdictionundertheNaturalGasAct,anexpandedreviewwasrequiredbytheNEPA.

FERC'sjurisdictionaldeterminationsaffectedthescopeofitsenvironmentalreview.Inparticular,FERCissuedanEAaddressingimpactsoftheExportFacilityandrecommendingafindingofnosignificantimpact.BecauseFERCconcludedthattheTrans-PecosPipelinewasintrastateandnotunderfederalcontrol,theEAdidnotanalyzeitsenvironmentalimpacts.FERCconcludedthatanEISwasnotrequiredbecauseapprovaloftheExportFacility"wouldnotconstituteamajorfederalactionsignificantlyaffectingthequalityofthehumanenvironment."Plaintiffarguedthattheprojectsatissuewereimpermissiblysegmented,andthepipelineshouldbe"federalized"forNEPApurposes.Decision:ThecourtfoundforFERContheNEPAissues.WithrespecttowhethertheExportFacilityandTrans-PecosPipelinewere“connectedactions”thecourtfound:

“’Thepointoftheconnectedactionsdoctrineistopreventthegovernmentfrom“segmenting”itsown“federalactionsintoseparateprojectsandtherebyfailingtoaddressthetruescopeandimpactoftheactivitiesthatshouldbeunderconsideration.”’SierraClubv.U.S.ArmyCorpsofEng'rs,803F.3d31,49-50(D.C.Cir.2015)(bracketsomitted)(quotingDel.RiverkeeperNetworkv.FERC,753F.3d1304,1313(D.C.Cir.2014)).

“Theconnected-actionsdoctrinedoesnotrequiretheaggregationoffederalandnon-federalactions.InSierraClub,weheldthattheneedforfederalapprovalstoconstructdiscretesegmentsofanoilpipelinedidnotsubjecttheentirepipelinetoNEPAreview.See803F.3dat49-50.Althoughthepipelinewas‘undoubtedlyasingle“physically,functionally,andfinanciallyconnected”project,’thekeypointwasthatthebulkofitwasnotsubjecttofederaljurisdiction.Seeid.at50(quotingDel.Riverkeeper,753F.3dat1308).‘Theconnectedactionsregulation,’weexplained,‘doesnotdictatethatNEPAreviewencompassprivateactivityoutsidethescopeofthesumofthegeographicallylimitedfederalactions.’Id.at49.

“Thisreasoningcontrolshere.TheExportFacilitywassubjecttoFERC'sjurisdiction,buttheTrans-PecosPipelinewasnot.Becausenofederalactionwasrequiredtoauthorizethepipeline'sconstruction,therewerenoconnectedfederalactions,andsotheconnected-actionsregulationdoesnotapply.”

ThenaddressingwhetherFERC’sinvolvementinauthorizingtheExportFacilitywasenoughto“federalize”theTrans-PecosPipeline.Thecourt“declinedtoadoptthattheory…:”

“[J]udicialreviewofNEPAclaimsmustaddressactionsbythefederalgovernment,becausereviewundertheAPArequires‘finalagencyaction,’5U.S.C.§704,whichmeansfinalactionbyanagencyof‘theGovernmentoftheUnitedStates,’id.§701(b)(1).SeeKarst,475F.3dat1297-98;seealsoSierraClub,803F.3dat50-51(federalregulatorycontroloversegmentsofoilpipelinedidnotfederalizeentirepipelineproject);Coal.forUndergroundExpansionv.Mineta,333F.3d193,197-98(D.C.Cir.2003)(federalfundingforportionsofrailtransitsystemandprospectoffuturefederalfundingdidnotfederalizerail-lineextensionproject).”

CityofBostonDelegationv.FederalEnergyRegulatoryComm'n,897F.3d241(D.C.Cir.2018)Agencyprevailed.Issues:Connectedactions,cumulativeimpacts,contractorconflictofinterest.

66

Facts:InMarch2015,theFederalEnergyRegulatoryCommissionapprovedanapplicationfromAlgonquinGasTransmission,LLC,toundertakeanupgradetoitsnaturalgaspipelinesystem(theAlgonquinIncrementalMarket[AIM]Project).The$972millionprojectwouldreplace29milesofexistingpipelinewithlargerdiameterpipe,construct8milesofnewpipeline,buildthreenewmeterstations,andmodifyvariousothercompressorandmeterstations.TheAIMprojectalsoincludedaproposaltoconstructabout5milesofnewpipeline(WestRoxburyLateral),whichwouldrunadjacenttoanactivequarryoutsideofBoston.ThisprojectwouldenableAlgonquintomeetsomeoftheincreasingdemandfornaturalgasinNewEnglandandreducepricingvolatilityintheregion.InJanuary2015,FERCissueditsfinalEISfortheAIMProjectandissuedacertificatefortheprojectinMarch2015.

InadditiontotheAIMProject,Algonquinwaspursuingtwootherupgradestoitsnortheastpipelinesystem:theAtlanticBridgeProject(increasecapacityofitssystembyreplacingseveralmilesofpipelinewithlargercapacitypipeandconstructingormodifyinganumberofcompressorandmeterstations)andtheAccessNortheastProject(installpipelineandmodifyfacilitiesinordertoprovidenaturalgastoelectricpowerplantsinNewEngland).FERCissuedacertificatefortheAtlanticBridgeProjectinOctober2015;AlgonquinwithdrewitscertificateapplicationfortheAccessNortheastProjectinJune2017.

Plaintiffsallege,amongotherthings,thatFERC impermissiblysegmenteditsNEPAreviewbyfailingtoconsiderAlgonquin'sthreeplannedprojectstogetherinasingleEIS.Additionally,acoalitionofenvironmentalgroups,communityorganizations,andindividualsalleged,amongotherclaims,thattheCommissioninsufficientlyexaminedthecumulativeimpactoftheAtlanticBridgeandAccessNortheastprojects,failedtorecognizethebiasofathird-partycontractor,andfailedadequatelytoconsidersafetyissuesraisedbythepipeline'sproximitytotheIndianPointnuclearfacility.OnlytheNEPAissuesaresummarizedbelow.Decision:Thecourtheldfortheplaintiffsonallclaims:

“PetitionerspresenttworelatedargumentsunderNEPA.First,petitionerscontendthattheCommissionimproperlysegmenteditsenvironmentalreviewbyfailingtoexaminetheAIMProjectandAlgonquin'stwootherpipelineupgradeprojectstogetherinasingleenvironmentalstatement.Second,petitionerssubmitthattheCommissionfailedtogiveadequateconsiderationtothecumulativeenvironmentalimpactsofthethreeupgradeprojects.WefindnobasistosetasidetheCommission'sorderonthosegrounds…..

“Thiscourthasdevelopedasetoffactorsthathelpclarifywhen‘physicallyconnectedprojectscanbeanalyzedseparatelyunderNEPA.’Id.at1315.Asrelevanthere,whenanagencyconsidersprojectsnon-contemporaneously,seeid.at1318,andwhenprojectshave‘substantialindependentutility,’id.at1316,separateenvironmentalstatementscanbeappropriate[referencingDel.RiverkeeperNetworkv.FERC,753F.3d1304,1313(D.C.Cir.2014)].

“ApplyingthoseconsiderationsinDelawareRiverkeeper,weconcludedthattheCommissionhadimpermissiblysegmenteditsreviewoffourpipelineupgrades.Theprojects,weexplained,were‘connectedandinterrelated’and‘functionallyandfinanciallyinterdependent,’andtheyalsohadsignificant‘temporaloverlap,’id.at1319,becausetheywere‘eitherunderconstruction’or‘pendingbeforetheCommissionforenvironmentalreviewandapproval’atthesametime,id.at1308.

“[W]econcludethattheCommissiondidnotactarbitrarilyandcapriciouslyindecliningtoconsiderAlgonquin'sthreeprojectsinasingleenvironmentalimpactstatement.Withregardtotemporaloverlap,theCommissionissuedtheAIMProjectcertificateinMarch2015,AlgonquinsubmittedtheapplicationforAtlanticBridgeinOctober2015,andAlgonquinhasyettofiletheAccessNortheastapplication.Theprojectsthuswerenotundersimultaneousconsiderationbytheagency.”

Thecourtalsoconcludedthattheprojectswerenot

67

“’financiallyandfunctionallyinterdependent.’Del.Riverkeeper,753F.3dat1319.Onthatscore,weconsider‘whetheroneprojectwillserveasignificantpurposeevenifasecondrelatedprojectisnotbuilt,’Coal.onSensibleTransp.,Inc.v.Dole,826F.2d60,69(D.C.Cir.1987),andwelooktothe‘commercialandfinancialviabilityofaprojectwhenconsideredinisolationfromotheractions,’Del.Riverkeeper,753F.3dat1316.”

Inthiscase,thecourtfoundthatFERChadreasonablyconcludedthattheprojectsdonotdependontheothersfpraccesstothenaturalgasmarket.“Inshort,thefunctionalandtemporaldistinctnessofthethreeprojects,asunderscoredbyfactualdevelopmentsconcerningtheAtlanticBridgeandAccessNortheastProjects,substantiatethatitwaspermissiblefortheCommissiontoprepareaseparateenvironmentalimpactstatementfortheAIMProject.”

Relatedly,theplaintiffscontendedthattheCommissionfailedtogivesufficientconsiderationtothecumulativeenvironmentalimpactsoftheAIM,AtlanticBridge,andAccessNortheastProjects,butthecourtdisagreed:

“Tosatisfy‘hardlook’review,anagency'scumulativeimpactsanalysismustcontain‘sufficientdiscussionoftherelevantissues’andbe‘well-considered.’Myersville,783F.3dat1324-25(citationomitted).Butimportantly,theadequacyofanenvironmentalimpactstatementisjudgedbyreferencetotheinformationavailabletotheagencyatthetimeofreview,suchthattheagencyisexpectedtoconsideronlythosefutureimpactsthatarereasonablyforeseeable.“AtthetimeoftheCommission'sconsiderationoftheAIMProject,theimpactsoftheAtlanticBridgeProjectwerereasonablyforeseeable.AndtheCommissionthoroughlyconsideredtheenvironmentaleffectsofAtlanticBridgethroughoutthecumulativeimpactssectionoftheAIMProject'senvironmentalimpactstatement.Thestatement‘containssufficientdiscussionof’thecumulativeimpactsofAtlanticBridgeandis‘well-considered.’Myersville,783F.3dat1325.“ThecumulativeimpactsdiscussionoftheAccessNortheastProjectismuchmorelimited,andunderstandablyso.AtthetimeoftheAIMProject'senvironmentalimpactstatement,AccessNortheastwasmonthsawayfromenteringthepre-filingprocessandoverayearawayfromissuanceofanoticeofintenttoprepareanenvironmentalimpactstatement.GivenAccessNortheast'spreliminarystageandtheresultinglackofavailableinformationaboutitsscopeatthetime,theprojectwas‘toopreliminarytomeaningfullyestimate[its]cumulativeimpacts.’TheodoreRooseveltConservationP'shipv.Salazar,616F.3d497,513(D.C.Cir.2010)….“Additionally,theAIMProjectandAccessNortheastwould‘notoverlapintime,’meaningtheshort-termimpactsfromconstructingtheformerwouldabatebeforeconstructioncommencedonthelatter,andnolong-termcumulativeimpactswerereasonablyanticipated.….Inlightof‘theuncertaintysurrounding[AccessNortheast],andthedifferenceintimingbetweenthetwoprojects,thisdiscussionsufficesunderNEPA.’Minisink,762F.3dat113.”

Thecourtdidnotethat“laterprojectscanfullyaccountforthecumulativeimpactswhenthoseeffectsbecomebetterknown.Andinfact,theenvironmentalassessmentfortheAtlanticBridgeProjectconsideredthecumulativeimpactsoftheAccessNortheastProjectoncethelatterproject'sdetailswerebetterdefinedanditsanticipatedimpactsbetterunderstood.”WithrespecttowhethertheEIScontractorhadanimpermissibleconflictofinterest,thecourtagreedwithFERCthat“thesupposedconflictidentifiedbypetitionersherewasnota‘disqualifyingconflict’undertheCommission'srules.”Further,“evenifpetitionershadidentifiedanactualconflictofinterest,itwouldaffordagroundforinvalidatingtheenvironmentalimpactstatementonlyifitrosetothelevelof"compromis[ing]theobjectivityandintegrityoftheNEPAprocess."CARE,355F.3dat686-87(formattingmodified).”

68

TownshipofBordentown,NewJerseyv.FederalEnergyRegulatoryComm'n,903F.3d234(D.C.Cir.2018)Agencyprevailed.Issues:Segmentation,cumulativeimpacts,impacts,federalaction(Jurisdiction)

Facts:TranscoproposedtoupgradeitsexistinginterstatenaturalgaspipelinesystemsothatitcouldincreasepipelinecapacityfornaturalgasfromitsMainlinetoitsTrenton-WoodburyLateral.TheProjectproposedtoconstructanewmeterandregulatingstation,compressorstation,andelectricsubstationalongtheTrenton-WoodburyLateralinChesterfield,NewJerseyandtoupgradeandmodifytheexistingmotordrivesandcompressorstationlocatedontheMainlineinMercerCounty,NewJersey.

TheNewJerseyNaturalGascompany("NJNG")contractedwithTranscotoutilizeallthecapacityaddedbytheProject,fordistributionviaNJNG'sintrastatepipelinesystem.Inanticipationofobtainingtheexcesscapacity,NJNGproposedtoconstructtheSouthernReliabilityLinkProject(SRL),a28-mile-longintrastatepipelinethatwouldconnecttoTransco'sTrenton-WoodburyLateralpipelineanddelivergassouth-eastwardforconnectionintoNJNG'sexistingsystem.Separately,PennEastproposedtoconstructtheinterstatePennEastPipelineProject,whichwoulddelivernaturalgasfromPennsylvania'sMarcellusShaleregionandterminateataninterconnectwithTransco'sMainline.NJNGhasindependentlycontractedwithPennEasttopurchase180,000dekathermsperdayofthePennEastproject'sexpectedsupply,fordeliverytotheSRLviaTransco'spipelinenetwork.

AsrequiredbytheNaturalGasAct,TranscosoughtandobtainedfromFERCacertificateofpublicconvenienceandnecessityauthorizingtheconstructionoftheProject,subjecttoTranscoreceivingallapplicableauthorizationsrequiredunderfederallaw.Priortoissuingthecertificate,FERCconductedanenvironmentalanalysisandissuedanEAconcludingthat,withtheappropriatemitigationmeasures,theProjectwouldhavenosignificantimpactontheenvironment.FERCissuedtheEAinNovember2015and,afterreceivingcomments,issuedTranscothecertificateinApril2016.

PlaintiffsraisedanumberofNEPAclaims,specificallychallengingFERC'sconclusionthattheProject'simpactsshouldbeconsideredseparatelyfromtheimpactsofthePennEastandSRLprojects,aswellasFERC'sdeterminationthattheProjectwouldnotsignificantlyimpactthepotablewellsintheproject'svicinity.Decision:ThecourtofappealsconcludedthatFERCcorrectlyrejectedconsideringtheProject'simpactsinconjunctionwiththeanticipatedimpactsoftheproposedPennEastpipelinethat,whencompleted,willbethesourceofthegasthatNJNGwilltransportusingthecapacityaddedbytheProject.

“InlinewiththeprevailingviewamongsttheCourtsofAppeals,bothFERCandthepetitionersagreethattheessentialquestioniswhetherthesegmentedprojectshaveindependentutility.…Projectshaveindependentutilitywhere‘eachprojectwouldhavetakenplaceintheother'sabsence.’Websterv.U.S.Dep'tofAgric.,685F.3d411,426(4thCir.2012).

Thepetitioners'theoryofinterdependence—or,statedintheinverse,thelackofindependentutility—reliesentirelyontheirunfoundedcontentionthat‘Transco'ssolestatedpurposefortheProjectistosupplycapacitytoNJNGfromthePennEastLine.’…Butthisissimplynotso.ThestatementsthatthepetitionerspointtoinsupportmerelyarticulatetheundisputedfactthattheProjectwouldsupplycapacitytoNJNG;theyareagnosticastothesourceofthegasthatwouldutilizethecapacity…. TheProjectexiststofulfillNJNG'sneedforgasinsouthernNewJersey,aneedthatwillexistandrequiresatisfactionwhetherornotPennEastisconstructed.”

PlaintiffsalsoarguedthatFERCshouldhaveconsideredtheSRLasanessentialpartoftheProjectsuchthattheimpactsoftheSRLinitsNEPAdocumentation.Thecourtdisagreed:

69

“FERChasdevelopedafour-factorbalancingtest‘todeterminewhetherthereissufficientfederalcontroloveraprojecttowarrantenvironmentalanalysis.’Nat'lComm.fortheNewRiverv.FERC,373F.3d1323,1333(D.C.Cir.2004).Underthetest,FERCconsiders

(1)whethertheregulatedactivitycomprisesmerelyalinkinacorridortypeproject;(2)whetherthereareaspectsofthenonjurisdictionalfacilityintheimmediatevicinityoftheregulatedactivitythatuniquelydeterminethelocationandconfigurationoftheregulatedactivity;(3)theextenttowhichtheentireprojectwillbewithintheCommission'sjurisdiction;and(4)theextentofcumulativefederalcontrolandresponsibility.

Id.at1333-34(citing18C.F.R.§380.12(c)(2)(ii)).AstheCourtofAppealsfortheDistrictofColumbiaCircuithasexplained,thepurposeofthistestistolimitconsiderationoftheenvironmentalimpactsofnon-jurisdictionalfacilitiestocasesinwhichthosefacilities‘arebuiltinconjunctionwithjurisdictionalfacilitiesandareanessentialpartofamajorfederalactionhavingasignificanteffectontheenvironment.’Id.at1334...

"...[a]lthoughwerecognizethatonecouldquibblewithitsanalysisofthesecondfactor,wediscernnoabuseofdiscretioninFERC'sfinalanalysisoritsweighingofthefactors.”

Plaintiffsalternativelyarguedthat,evenifFERCwerenotrequiredtoassertjurisdictionovertheSRL,itwasneverthelessrequiredunderNEPAtoassesswhether—inconjunctionwiththeProject—theSRLwouldforeseeablyhavecumulativeimpactsontheenvironment.Thecourtagainheldfortheagency.

“Whenconductingacumulative-impactsanalysis,FERC:

[M]ustidentify(i)the`areainwhichtheeffectsoftheproposedprojectwillbefelt';(ii)theimpactexpected`inthatarea';(iii)those`otheractions—past,present,andproposed,andreasonablyforeseeable'thathavehadorwillhaveimpact`inthesamearea';(iv)theeffectsofthoseotherimpacts;and([v])the`overallimpactthatcanbeexpectediftheindividualimpactsareallowedtoaccumulate.'

SierraClubv.FERC,827F.3d36,49(D.C.Cir.2016)(quotationmarksomitted)(quotingTOMACv.Norton,433F.3d852,864(D.C.Cir.2006)).

Inlinewiththistest,FERCdeterminedthattheProject's‘mainregionofinfluence’inwhichcumulativeimpactsmightbefeltwas.25milesfromeachoftheProject'scomponents,butneverthelessconsideredthecumulativeimpactsoftheSRL,PennEastline,andotherprojectseventhoughtheylargelyfelloutsideoftheProject'sareaofinfluence…. Basedonitsfindingthat‘eachprojectwouldbedesignedtoavoidorminimizeimpactsonwaterquality,forest,andwildliferesources,’andgiventheProject'sexpected‘temporaryandminoreffects,’FERCconcludedthattheProject‘wouldnotresultincumulativeimpacts.’"

Continuing,thecourtnotedthatthe

“petitionerscomplaintisnotthatthe.25mileareawasincorrect,butthatFERCfailedtotakefullaccountofalltheenvironmentalimpactsacrosstheentirespanofpipelinesotherthantheprojectunderreview—impactsfarafieldfromthegeographicareaimpactedbytheProject—merelybecausethosepipelineswillultimatelybepartofthesamenetworkasthatservedbytheProject.ToechotheCourtofAppealsfortheDistrictofColumbiaCircuit,suchanexpansivereadingofthecumulativeimpactsrequirement‘drawstheNEPAcircletoowidefortheCommission,’whichneedonlyreviewimpactslikelytooccurintheareaaffectedbytheprojectunderFERCreview.SierraClub,827F.3dat50.”

“Thecoreofthepetitioners’argument,thattheSRL‘asamajorlinearproject’thatwillspan‘approximately30milesinlength’willresultin‘considerable’environmentalimpactsalongitspath,

70

[citationomitted]itselfdefeatstheirclaimthatFERChadtoconsiderallthosevariousandobliqueimpactswhendeterminingwhethertheSRLwouldcumulativelyimpact‘thesamearea’astheprojectbeforeit—involvingnonewpipelineconstructionanddisturbingonlytheimmediatelysurroundingarea.Accordingly,FERCdidnotactarbitrarilyorcapriciouslywhenit‘acknowledge[d]thattheseresourcesmaybeaffected’bytheSRLbutproperlydeterminedthat‘adetailedanalysis’oftheimpactsalongtheentiretyoftheSRLwas‘notwithinthescopeofourenvironmentalanalysis’forthejurisdictionalProjectunderreview.[citationomitted]BydetailingandrecognizingevenenvironmentalimpactsoutsideofthezoneimpactedbythejurisdictionalProject,FERCgavethepetitioners’concernsthe‘seriousconsiderationandreasonableresponses’thatNEPArequires.TinicumTwp.v.U.S.Dep’tofTransp.,685F.3d288,298(3dCir.2012).NEPAdoesnotmandateexhaustivetreatmentofeffectsnotplausiblyfeltintheProject’simpactarea.”

“Contrarytothepetitioners’claim,FERCdidconsidertheSRL’simpactonvegetationandwildlife,andgiventheProject’s‘minor...impacts’determinedthatthecumulativeimpactswouldbeinsignificant.[citationomitted]FERCexplicitlyacknowledgedthattheSRLmayaffectthePinelandsNationalReserveandconcludedreasonablythatanyimpactswouldbemitigatedbytheresponsiblestateagencyoverseeingthepermittingprocessforthatproject.[citationomitted]FERCwascorrecttorelyuponNewJerseyauthoritiestodoso,asopposed—asthepetitionerswouldhaveit—toassumingtheworstandpiggybackingthathypotheticalimpactontotheotherwisecompliantjurisdictionalProject.[footnoteomitted]See,e.g.,EarthReports,Inc.v.FERC,828F.3d949,959(D.C.Cir.2016)(concludingthatFERCreasonablyreliedupontheregulatedparties’‘futurecoordinationwith’otherregulatorsinitsNEPAassessment);OhioValley,556F.3dat207–08(upholdingfindingofnocumulativeimpactthatwasbasedpartlyonprojectedmitigationeffortsbecausethemitigationwasaconditionofotherpermittingregimestowhichtheprojectwassubjectandthuswasnotspeculativeorconclusory);FriendsofOmpompanoosucv.FERC,968F.2d1549,1555(2dCir.1992)(concludingthatregulatedparties’responsibilitytoworkwithlocalauthoritiesonmitigationproposalconstituteda‘rationalbasis’forFERCfindingofnosignificantimpact).”

“Furthermore,hadFERCfailedtogivethespecificattentionthatitdidtothevarioustypesofimpactsthattheSRLmightpotentiallycause,wewouldstillapprovetheircumulativeimpactconclusions….FERCthusreasonablyconcludedintheEAthattheProject’s‘minimalimpacts’initsservicearea—relegatedlargelyto‘geologicalandsoilresources’impactsandothertemporaryimpacts—meantthattheProjectnecessarily‘wouldnotresultincumulativeimpacts.’[citationomitted]WeconcludethatFERCdidnotabuseitsdiscretioninreachingthisdecision.ThisisespeciallytrueconsideringthattheimpactsfromtheSRLthatthepetitionersallegeFERCignoredaredifferentthanthelimitedkindofimpactsthatFERCconcludedwerelikelytoresultfromtheProjectandsoarelesslikelytoresultincumulativelysignificantimpactswhenconsideredtogether.[footnoteomitted]….GiventhatthepetitionersfailedtoshowanythingmorethanminimalimpactsfromtheProjectitself,theyhavefailedtoshowthatFERCactedarbitrarilyorcapriciouslyindeterminingthattheProjectwouldlikewisenotcontributetosignificantcumulativeimpacts,eventakingintoaccountthepotentialdifferentimpactsoftheSRLonotherareaswithintheProject’sregion.”

“Thepetitionersneverthelessarguethatthislow-impactprojectshouldbehaltedasaresultofthepossiblysignificant—butmostlydifferent-in-kind—impactsofthenearbybutlater-in-timeSRL.Butthiscannotbehowthecumulativeanalysisinquiryoperates.Toholdotherwisewouldpermitajurisdictionalprojectwithlittleenvironmentalimpacttobetorpedoedbasedonlyonanearbynon-jurisdictionalproject’ssignificantimpact,whichFERChasnoauthoritytocontrolormitigate….Rather,thecumulativeimpactsanalysiswasmeanttoaddressinstanceswherethejurisdictionalprojectitselfhasminorenvironmentalimpactsthatneverthelessfallshortofstoppingtheproject,butwhere—ifaddedtotheminorimpactsfromnearbynon-jurisdictionalprojects—thecumulativeimpactofalltheprojectswould

71

besignificant.See40C.F.R.§1508.7(‘Cumulativeimpactscanresultfromindividuallyminorbutcollectivelysignificantactionstakingplaceoveraperiodoftime.’);cf.id.§1508.27(settingoutconsiderationsforwhetheraprojectis‘significant,’includingwhetherit‘isrelatedtootheractionswithindividuallyinsignificantbutcumulativelysignificantimpacts’(emphasisadded)).Theanalysiswasnotintendedtocombinetheeffectsofanearlyno-impactprojectwiththoseofaprojectwithpotentiallyseriousimpactsandthentobarthemboth.”

ThefinalNEPAclaimwenttoFERC’sconclusionthattheProject’sconstructionwouldnotsignificantlyimpactthewaterqualityofwellsorcisternsintheservicearea.Thecourtexplainedthat:

“InitsEA,FERCdeterminedthat‘[m]inor,temporaryimpactsongroundwaterinfiltrationcouldoccurasaresultoftree,herbaceousvegetation,orscrub-shrubvegetationclearing’aroundStation203duringitsconstruction,butthatTranscowouldthereafter‘restoreandrevegetateclearedareastopre-constructionconditionstothemaximumextentpracticable.’[citationomitted]TheEAcontinuedthat,intheeventthatgroundwateris‘encounteredduringconstruction,’Transcowouldadheretoaseriesofmitigationmeasures,whichwouldensurethat‘impactsongroundwaterwouldbeadequatelyminimized.’…[T]heparticularfindingthatFERCdidnot‘anticipateanysignificantimpactsoncisterns,wells,orsepticsystemsintheProjectareas”wasbasedmostdirectlyonFERC’sunderstandingthatthoseresourcessimplydidnotexist.”

“TranscoandseveralcommenterssubsequentlynotifiedFERCthattherewerenumerousprivatewellsintheprojectarea.Nevertheless,basedonadditionalassurancesfromTranscothatitwouldremedyanydamageordisruptiontothewatersupply—andwithoutrevisingtheEAoridentifyingthespecificnumberofpotentiallyimpactedwells—FERCissuedTranscothecertificate,subjecttoadditionalmonitoringandmitigationconditions.TheseincludedtherequirementthatTranscoidentifyandfilethelocationsofallprivatewellsintheStation203projectareapriortobeginningconstruction;conduct‘pre-andpost-constructionmonitoringofwellyieldandwaterquality’;andreporttoFERCanycomplaintsitreceivesfromwellownersandhowthecomplaintswereresolved.”

“ThepetitionerscontendthatFERC’s‘nosignificantimpacts’conclusionwasthereforearbitraryandcapriciousbecauseitwasnotbasedonsufficientevidence.BecauseweconcludethatFERCsufficientlyestablishedtheefficacyoftheproposedmitigationplan,wewillnotdisturbitsconclusionthattheProject’sgroundwaterimpacts—ifany—willnotbesignificant.”

“Whenanagency’s‘proposedmitigationmeasures[are]supportedbysubstantialevidence,theagencymayusethosemeasuresasamechanismtoreduceenvironmentalimpactsbelowthelevelofsignificance.’Nat’lAudubonSoc.v.Hoffman,132F.3d7,17(2dCir.1997).Mitigationmeasureswillbedeemed‘sufficientlysupported’where‘theyarelikelytobeadequatelypoliced,’suchaswherethemitigationmeasuresareincludedasmandatoryconditionsinapermit.Id.;BeringStraitCitizensforResponsibleRes.Dev.v.U.S.ArmyCorpsofEng’rs,524F.3d938,955–56(9thCir.2008)(explainingthatan‘”agencyisnotrequiredtodevelopacompletemitigationplandetailingtheprecisenature...ofthemitigationmeasures[,]”solongasthemeasuresare“developedtoareasonabledegree.”’(quotingNat’lParks&ConservationAss’nv.Babbitt,241F.3d722,734(9thCir.2001))).”

“NormusttheproposedmitigationbeincludedintheoriginalEAinordertopassmusterunderNEPA.IfFERCinitscertificateorderaddressesthecommenters’concernsabouttheadequacyoftheEA’sanalysisandclearlyarticulatesitsmitigationplantherein,ittakes“therequisite‘hardlook’attheimpactofthe...Projectontheenvironment.”’DRNII,857F.3dat401(quotingNRDCv.Hodel,865F.2d288,294(D.C.Cir.1988)).ThisisbecauseNEPA’s‘purposeisnottogeneratepaperwork—evenexcellentpaperwork—buttofosterexcellentaction’andto‘[e]nsurethatenvironmentalinformationisavailabletopublicofficialsandcitizensbeforedecisionsaremadeandbeforeactionsaretaken.’40C.F.R.§1500.1;Kleppe,427U.S.

72

at409(‘ByrequiringanimpactstatementCongressintendedtoassure[considerationoftheenvironmentalimpact]duringthedevelopmentofaproposal....’).”

TheTownofWeymouth,Massachusettsv.Fed.EnergyRegulatoryComm'n,No.17-1135(consolidatedwith17-1139,17-1176,17-1220,18-1039,18-1042),2018WL6921213,--Fed.Appx.---(D.C.Cir.Dec.27,2018)(notforpublication)Agencyprevailed.Issues:Impacts(coal,ash,noise,traffic,greenhousegas,environmentaljustice)

Facts:AlgonquinGasTransmissionandMaritimes&NortheastPipelineproposedupgradestotheirNewEnglandsystems,includingreplacingexistingpipeline,modifyingcertainfacilities,andbuildinganewcompressorstationinWeymouth,Massachusetts.ThepipelinecompaniesappliedtoFERCforacertificateofpublicconvenienceandnecessityundertheNaturalGasAct.FERCissuedthecertificateandtheTownofWeymouth,severalenvironmentalgroups,andaffectedpropertyownerschallengedthecertificationarguingthatFERCviolatedNEPAbyinadequatelyconsideringcoalash,noise,traffic,greenhouse-gasemissions,andtheproject’seffectsonenvironmentaljusticecommunities.Decision:Inasummarydecisionfortheagency,thecourtfoundthatFERChadreviewedAlgonquin’sproceduresfordealingwithunexpectedcoalashcontaminationandthatconstructionwouldcomplywithrelevantstateenvironmentalpolicies.ThecourtalsofoundthatFERChadadequatelyconsiderednoisefromthecompressorstationandconstructiontraffic.Withrespecttogreenhousegasesandenvironmentaljustice,thecourtstatedthat:

“Contrarytothepetitioners’assertions,FERCbothquantifiedtheproject’sexpectedgreenhousegasemissionsanddiscussedhowtheprojectwouldinteractwithMassachusetts’sclimatechangegoals.FERCalsoreasonablyconcludedthattheprojectwouldnotdisproportionatelyaffectenvironmentaljusticecommunitiesaroundWeymouthbecausethecompressorstation’seffectswouldbesimilartothoseexperiencedbynon-environmentaljusticecommunitiessurroundingthethreeexistingstationsbeingexpandedbytheproject.”

Finally,thecourtfoundthat“[a]lthoughthepetitionersarguethatFERC’sownbestpracticesdocumentrequiresanEISfortheproject,infacttheprojectisnotthetypethatFERCregulationssuggestwarrantsanEIS:‘theconstruction,replacement,orabandonmentofcompression,processing,orinterconnectingfacilities’callsforanEAratherthananEIS.”NaturalResourcesDefenseCouncilv.U.S.NuclearRegulatoryComm'n,879F.3d1202(D.C.Cir.2018)Agencyprevailed.Issue:ImpactanalysispriortodecisionmakingFacts:StratasoughtalicensefromNRCtomineuraniumattheRossProjectinWyoming.PlaintiffsintervenedinthelicensingproceedingandNRCadmitted5contentionsrelatingtorestorationofgroundwateruponthecompletionofmining,theabsenceofhydrologicalinformationongroundwaterfluidmigration,andfailuretoaddresscumulativeimpacts.Afterreceiptofthelicenseapplication,NRCpreparedaDEIStoanalyzetheimpactsoftheproposalandalternatives.AftercompletingtheDEISandseekingpubliccommentontheDEIS,NRCpublishedtheFEISinMarch2014.Shortlythereafter,theagencyissuedanRODandgrantedStrataalicense.

73

OnlythendidNRCconsiderwhetherplaintiffs’contentionsshouldbemigratedtotheDEIS.Afteranevidentiaryhearing,NRCrejectedalloftheplaintiffs’contentionsandfoundnofaultwiththedecisiontoissuethelicense.ItdidfindonefaultwiththeFEIS(notenoughinformationconcerningpost-miningaquiferrestoration),butrejectedplaintiffs’argumentthatNRCshouldinvalidatethelicenseonthegroundthattheFEISwasinadequateatthetimethelicensewasissued.Instead,NRCdecidedstafftestimonyintherecordbeforeitdealingwithaquiferrestorationatothersitesservedto"supplement[]"theFEIS,thusmakingitadequatetosupportissuanceofthelicense.Plaintiffschallengedthisdecision,arguingthatthepurposeofNEPAisto"insurethatenvironmentalinformationisavailabletopublicofficialsandcitizensbeforedecisionsaremadeandbeforeactionsaretaken,"40C.F.R.§1500.1(b),andNRCasmuchasadmittedtheFEISfailedinthatregard.Relatedly,plaintiffsciteRobertsonforthepropositionthatNEPAisaninformation-forcingstatute,intendedtorequireagenciestohavealltherelevantinformationbefore"resourceshavebeencommittedorthedieotherwisecast."490U.S.at349.Decision:Thecourtofappealsheldfortheagency:

“Thesearenotidleconcerns.Wemustconsider,however,theexactnatureoftheinitialdecisiontoissuethelicense.TheCommissionseekstoportraytheinitiallicensingdecisionasentirelyprovisional;thatisnotquitecorrectfor,astheCouncilscharge(andtheCommissiondoesnotdeny),Stratawasauthorizedtobegindiggingimmediatelyuponreceiptofthelicense.Atthesametime,thelicensewasprovisionalinthemostmeaningfulsense;noportionofitwasirrevocable,andtheCommission'sownregulationsmakeclearthattheBoardcanamendorrescindalicenseafterithasbeenissued.10C.F.R.§2.340(e)(2).Indeed,theBoarddidamendthelicensetoincreasetheareainwhichStratawasrequiredtoattempttolocateandtofillpreviouslydugboreholes.[citationomitted]

“Moreover,the[plaintiffs]havenotpointedtoanyharmfulconsequenceofthesupplementation;theBoardcametothesamedecisionafterithadconsideredthesupplementalinformation,andthereisnothingtobegainedbyremandingthemattertotheCommissionforthestaffortheBoardtoconsiderthesameinformationagain…..

“WedonotmeantoimplytheproceduretheBoardfollowedwasidealorevendesirable.CertainlyitwouldbepreferablefortheFEIStocontainallrelevantinformationandtherecordofdecisiontobecompleteandadequatebeforethelicenseisissued.[FriendsoftheRiver(FOTR)v.FERC,720F.2d93(D.C.Cir.1983)],however,makesclearthatevenifthisprocedurewasnotidealitwaspermissible,andcommonsensecounselsagainstprolongingthisdisputebyrequiringanutterlypointlessproceedingonremand.”

OglalaSiouxTribev.U.S.NuclearRegulatoryComm'n,896F.3d520(D.C.Cir.2018)Agencydidnotprevail.Issues:Impactanalysispriortodecisionmaking

Facts:Powertech(USA),Inc.appliedtoNRCforalicensetoconstructauraniumminingprojectintheBlackHillsofSouthDakota.TheOglalaSiouxTribe,whichhashistoricaltiestotheproposedprojectarea,intervenedinoppositionbecauseitfearedthedestructionofitscultural,historical,andreligioussites.NRCstaffgrantedthelicense.Onadministrativeappeal,theCommissiondecidedtoleavethelicenseineffect—notwithstandingitsowndeterminationthattherewasasignificantdeficiencyinitscompliancewithNEPA—pendingfurtheragencyproceedingstoremedythedeficiency.TheCommissiongroundedthisdecisionontheTribe'sinabilitytoshowthatnoncompliancewiththeActwouldcauseirreparableharm.Insodoing,theCommissionwasfollowingwhat

74

appearstobetheagency'ssettledpracticetorequiresuchashowing.Decision:Findingfortheplaintiffs,thecourtstated:

“TheNationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct,however,obligateseveryfederalagencytoprepareanadequateenvironmentalimpactstatementbeforetakinganymajoraction,whichincludesissuingauraniummininglicense.Thestatutedoesnotpermitanagencytoactfirstandcomplylater.Nordoesitpermitanagencytoconditionperformanceofitsobligationonashowingofirreparableharm.Thereisnosuchexceptioninthestatute.

“Infact,suchapolicyputstheTribeinaclassicCatch-22.Inordertorequiretheagencytocompleteanadequatesurveyoftheprojectsitebeforegrantingalicense,theTribemustshowthatconstructionatthesitewouldcauseirreparableharmtoculturalorhistoricalresources.Butwithoutanadequatesurveyoftheculturalandhistoricalresourcesatthesite,suchashowingmaywellbeimpossible.Ofcourse,iftheprojectdoesgoforwardandsuchresourcesaredamaged,theTribewillthenbeabletoshowirreparableharm.Bythen,however,itwillbetoolate.

“TheCommission'sdecisiontolettheminingprojectproceedviolatestheNationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct.Indeed,itvitiatestherequirementsoftheAct.Wethereforefindthedecisioncontrarytolawandgrantthepetitionforreviewinpart...

“Moreover,thiswasnotaone-offdecisionbytheNRC.Rather,itappearstoreflecttheagency'ssettledpractice.SeeStrataEnergy,Inc.,83N.R.C.566,595n.188(2016)(‘Itiswellsettledthatpartieschallenginganagency'sNEPAprocessarenotentitledtoreliefunlesstheydemonstrateharmorprejudice.’);seealsoCrowButteResources,Inc.,83N.R.C.340,413-14(2016)(relyingonthePowertechprecedenttokeepalicenseineffect,notwithstandingfindingthattheNRCstaffhadnotcompliedwithNEPA,andrepeatingthe‘irreparableinjury’requirement).

“Theagency'sdecisioninthiscaseanditsapparentpracticearecontrarytoNEPA.Thestatute'srequirementthatadetailedenvironmentalimpactstatementbemadefora‘proposed’actionmakesclearthatagenciesmusttaketherequiredhardlookbeforetakingthataction.See,e.g.,Pub.Emps.forEnvtl.Responsibilityv.Hopper,827F.3d1077,1081(D.C.Cir.2016)(holdingthatanagency'sdecisiontoissuealeaseforawindpowerproject‘withoutfirstobtainingsufficientsite-specificdata...violated’NEPA(internalquotationmarksomitted));NewYork,681F.3dat476(‘UnderNEPA,eachfederalagencymustpreparean[EIS]beforetakinga“majorFederalaction[]significantlyaffectingthequalityofthehumanenvironment.'”’(quoting42U.S.C.§4332(2)(C))).[footnoteomitted]NothinginNEPA'stextsuggeststhattherequiredenvironmentalanalysisofa‘proposed’actionisoptionalifapartydoesnotprovethat‘irreparableharm’wouldresultfromgoingforwardbeforetheagencycompletesavalidEIS.