Sierra Club v. U.S. Forest Service

• Decision Date: 01 February 1995
• Docket Number: No. 94-1005,94-1005
• Citation: 46 F.3d 835
• Parties: , 25 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,799 The SIERRA CLUB, a non-profit California corporation; Native Ecosystems Council, a Montana non-profit corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE; United States Department of Agriculture; Roberta Moltzen, Forest Supervisor, Black Hills National Forest; Tom L. Thompson, Acting Regional Forester, Region Two; F. Dale Robertson, Chief, United States Forest Service, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture; Defendants-Appellees, Black Hills Forest Resources Association, Intervenor-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Page 835

46 F.3d 835

40 ERC 1151, 25 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,799

The SIERRA CLUB, a non-profit California corporation Native Ecosystems Council, a Montana non-profit corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE; United States Department of Agriculture; Roberta Moltzen, Forest Supervisor, Black Hills National Forest; Tom L. Thompson, Acting Regional Forester, Region Two; F. Dale Robertson, Chief, United States Forest Service, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Defendants-Appellees Black Hills Forest Resources Association, Intervenor-Appellees.

No. 94-1005.

United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 13, 1994.

Decided Feb. 1, 1995.

Jack Tuholske, Missoula, MT, argued, for appellants.

Robert A. Mandel, Rapid City, SD, argued, for appellees.

Before McMILLIAN, Circuit Judge, LAY, Senior Circuit Judge, and BOWMAN, Circuit Judge.

LAY, Senior Circuit Judge.

The Victoria Project Area (Victoria) is a 16,883 acre portion of the 1,235,780 acre Black Hills National Forest (Forest). Victoria includes 15,372 acres of National Forest System lands and 1,511 acres of private land. The Forest is located predominantly in western South Dakota, but extends into northeastern Wyoming. As required by the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), 16 U.S.C. Secs. 1604-1614, a land management plan for the Black Hills Forest (Forest Plan) was approved in 1983. The Forest Plan covers ten years and, supplemented by the analysis of its effects contained within the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), directs the Forest Service's management of the Forest. The plan "contains the overall management direction and describes the activities necessary to achieve the desired future condition of the Forest." ¹

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) ² requires an EIS be prepared for all "major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment...." 42 U.S.C. Sec. 4332(2)(C). If these activities were not adequately analyzed in the Forest Plan EIS, and they constitute a "major Federal action," a project level EIS may be necessary in addition to the Forest Plan EIS. See, e.g., Salmon River Concerned Citizens v. Robertson, 32 F.3d 1346, 1356 (9th Cir.1994). If an activity is contemplated that does not automatically require an EIS, an Environmental Assessment (EA) may be conducted to determine whether a project level EIS is necessary. 40 C.F.R. Secs. 1501.3-1501.4. An EA analyzes and compares several alternative courses of action, including doing nothing, the "No Action" alternative. 40 C.F.R. Sec. 1508.9(2)(b). The purpose of the document is to assist in determining whether any of the proposed actions will significantly affect the environment. 40 C.F.R. Sec. 1508.9(a)(1).

In 1990, the Pactola Ranger District commenced planning projects to achieve the goals, or the desired future condition of the Forest, for the Victoria area. The Forest Plan has multiple goals. Timber harvesting is one, along with improving the quality and quantity of wood fiber. See 36 C.F.R. Sec. 219.27(c); Forest Plan at II-16. Other goals are to increase the biological diversity of the Forest and maintain and improve appropriate habitats for existing wildlife species. See 36 C.F.R. Sec. 219.27(g); Forest Plan at II-17. A 1990 survey of Victoria found an absence of vegetative diversity. Generally, the more diverse a habitat, the more species it will support. Forest Plan at II-17. The District considered timber sales as a way of meeting its timber production objectives ³ while increasing the diversity of the habitat in Victoria by reducing the portion of the area occupied by closed-canopy and overmature timber stands.

To determine whether timber sales in Victoria would significantly affect the environment, the District undertook an EA which compared the effects of various alternative projects involving timber harvests to the effects of doing nothing, the No Action alternative. The Forest Supervisor considered the EA and issued notice of her decision. The notice indicated the Supervisor found no significant environmental impacts ⁴ would result The Sierra Club ⁵ filed an administrative appeal within the agency, challenging the EA on the grounds that it was defective under NEPA because it analyzed an inadequate range of alternatives. As a result of that appeal, the Forest Service ordered a new EA to address the Sierra Club's concerns.

from the project selected. Thus, no EIS was required for the project.

In January 1992, the Forest Service issued a second FONSI decision. The project selected called for two timber sales in the Victoria Area on 3,209 acres of land, for thinning timber stands on another 2,858 acres, for road work, and also included several measures to decrease the environmental impact of the timber sales.

The Sierra Club again appealed the decision within the agency. The Acting Regional Forester affirmed and the agency declined the Sierra Club's request for review at a higher agency level. In August 1992, the Sierra Club filed suit in district court claiming the second decision violated various provisions of NEPA.

The district court ⁶ granted the Forest Service's motion for summary judgment, determining the Service did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in issuing a FONSI on the proposed timber sales. Contrary to the Sierra Club's claims, the district court found the Forest Service adequately considered the project's impacts. The court stated that NEPA did not require the Forest Service to consider the impacts of acts by private parties on private land in Victoria. The court rejected the argument that the Forest Service inappropriately relied on a computer model for assessing habitat capabilities. To the charge that the Forest Service should have prepared an additional EIS, the district court found the Sierra Club failed to prove the programmatic EIS inadequate.

On appeal, the Sierra Club claims the district court erred in affirming the FONSI and in failing to order a site specific EIS. It argues the court should not have upheld the Forest Service's EA with respect to its cumulative impact analysis as defined by 40 C.F.R. Sec. 1508.7 and as required for EIS documents by 40 C.F.R. Sec. 1508.25. It contends the Forest Service failed to: 1) consider impacts from activities on the 1,511 acres of private land in Victoria; 2) consider impacts from previous timber sales in the Area; 3) consider the effect of timber sales on habitat fragmentation, particularly with regard to species dependent on old growth forest; 4) consider the effect of changing the land designation for 1,504 acres; and 5) include an analysis of diversity unit PO7. In addition the Sierra Club charges the court also erred by interpreting the Sierra Club's request for a site specific, project level EIS as a request for a supplemental EIS and then upholding the Forest Service's decision not to prepare an EIS. We affirm.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo. As did the district court, we review the Forest Service's FONSI decision under an arbitrary and capricious standard with a concern to determining whether the Forest Service considered the relevant factors or made a "clear error of judgment." Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 416, 91 S.Ct. 814, 824, 28 L.Ed.2d 136 (1971). We "must render an independent decision on the basis of the same administrative record as that before the district court; the identical standard of review is employed at both levels; and once appealed, the district court decision is accorded no particular deference." Lockhart v. Kenops, 927 F.2d 1028, 1032 (8th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 863, 112 S.Ct. 186, 116 L.Ed.2d 148 (1991) (quoting Brown v. United States Dep't of Interior, 679 F.2d 747, 748-49 (8th Cir.1982)). We must affirm if we find the Service took a "hard look" at the project, identified the relevant areas of environmental concern, and made a

convincing case for its FONSI. See Audubon Society v. Dailey, 977 F.2d 428, 434 (8th Cir.1992).

ADEQUACY OF THE EA

The Sierra Club first attacks the EA on its failure to consider the cumulative impacts from private acts on private lands within Victoria. 40 C.F.R. Sec. 1508.7 requires an EA to consider impacts resulting from the activities of Federal or non-Federal agencies or persons. ⁷ The Ninth Circuit has interpreted this section, and we agree, to require analysis of the impacts activities on private land have on the Forest. Resources Ltd., Inc. v. Robertson, 35 F.3d 1300, 1306 (9th Cir.1993). The district court erred in concluding otherwise.

On our review of the record however, we find this error of little consequence because the EA's consideration of the impacts of activities on private land was not so deficient as to make the Forest Service's FONSI arbitrary and capricious. The EA included private land holdings in its maps and aerial photographs. The EA reasonably assumed current land uses would continue within Victoria and expected non-commercial thinning of timber to occur on private land. The watershed report and the road density portion of the wildlife report included private lands in Victoria. The EA also included private land in its fuel/fire risk and smoke assessments, and assumed private construction would continue to occur in the urban forest interface areas. The EA did not make elaborate findings but nothing in the record suggests a need for more extensive analysis. The Sierra Club asserts an EA must address the impacts from such events on private lands as the owners deciding to clear cut all 1,511 acres of their land, but we find no statutory or regulatory mandate that an EA do...