League of Wilderness Defenders-Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project v. United States Forest Service
689 F.3d 1060
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- Deschutes National Forest Lookout Mountain Unit subject to thinning and fuels reduction in an experimental forest.
- Project aims: reduce wildfire/insect risk and provide operational-scale forest-management research.
- Study Plan (2007–2009) divides area into blocks and areas for logging and controlled burning, with a control area.
- NEPA process produced final EIS in March 2010 and ROD selecting Alternative 2, with Alternative 3 offering less logging.
- League sues in September 2010 alleging NEPA violations; district court grants summary judgment for the Service; logging began May 2011.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasonableness of purpose and need and range of alternatives | League argues purpose/need too narrow, study-plan-driven | Service argues dual purpose aligns with statutory authority and supports feasible alternatives | Reasonable purpose/need and range of alternatives |
| Scientific integrity of risk assessments | EIS overstates wildfire/beetle risk and uses questionable terminology | EIS supported by peer-reviewed sources; deference given to agency expertise | EIS satisfies scientific integrity standards |
| Hard look at project impacts on tree mortality and snag-dependent species | No hard look; insufficient quantification of mortality and habitat effects | Qualitative analysis and monitoring suffice given uncertainty | EIS provides adequate hard look and monitoring plan |
Key Cases Cited
- Westlands Water Dist. v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 376 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2004) (scope of reasonable alternatives under NEPA; statutory context guides purpose/need)
- Carmel-by-the-Sea v. U.S. Dep’t of Transp., 123 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir. 1997) (underlying purpose/need must not be unreasonably narrow)
- Friends of Southeast’s Future v. Morrison, 153 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 1998) (agency discretion in defining purpose/need; balancing flexibility and reasonableness)
- National Parks & Conservation Ass’n v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 606 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2010) (range of alternatives must be reasonable in light of purpose/need)
- Muckleshoot Indian Tribe v. U.S. Forest Serv., 177 F.3d 800 (9th Cir. 1999) (incorporation of broader objectives in purpose/need from plan or context)
- Arizona Pub. & Future Found., Inc. v. Lewis, 722 F.2d 1423 (9th Cir. 1983) (alternatives must address dual purpose/need; not imprudent to exclude some)
- Earth Island Inst. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 442 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2006) (hard look; qualitative analysis acceptable when justified)
- Brong v. Brong, Earth Island Inst. v. Morse, 492 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2007) (quantitative rigor not required where explanation justifies conclusions)
- WildWest Institute v. Bull, 547 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2008) (snag habitat considerations and monitoring support hard look)
- Lands Council v. McNair, 537 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2008) (deference to agency expertise in scientific matters)
- Native Ecosystems Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 418 F.3d 953 (9th Cir. 2005) (hard look and decision-making informed by project context)