Must NEPA Always Be Followed to the Letter When Obtaining an Environmental Assessment to Acquire a Conservation Easement?...

...After All, Aren’t We Maintaining the Environmental Status Quo?”

Note By: Ben W. Alderton; Originally published in JNREL Vol. 19, No. 2

Abstract By: Brandon Wells, Staff Member

Land that the Department of Defense (“DOD”) has been entrusted with for the training of military personnel has increasingly become a refuge for many threatened and endangered animals. Questions about what the DOD should do in this scenario have led to the solution of allowing the DOD to purchase lands surrounding training grounds and designating them as conservation lands. But, another question has arisen from these purchases of conservation lands. When acquiring conservation lands, should the DOD (or any other military department) be required to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) and prepare an Environmental Assessment (“EA”)?

NEPA is only triggered by a “major federal action”, and once triggered, requires the federal agency to complete an EA. An EA can result in one of two outcomes, either a finding of no significant impact (“FONSI”) or a duty to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”). Since acquiring conservation land would seem to lead to a FONSI, it seems wasteful to require a government agency to expend time and resources in preparing an EA. However, recent case law has not lead to a definitive answer.

“NEPA is a procedural statute that demands that the decision to go forward with a federal project which significantly affects the environment to be an environmentally conscious one.” Sabine River Auth. V. U.S. Dept. of Interior, 951 F.2d 669, 676 (5th Cir. 1992). The federal agencies have the responsibility for issuing the EA and the FONSI or EIS. Before the DOD or other federal department can issue a FONSI, they have to also issue an EA. An EA is not to be taken lightly, and can result in high expenses in both cost and time to federal departments.
The court in Sabine River came close to resolving this issue. The holding in Sabine River seemed to indicate that acquiring a conversation easement was merely maintaining the status quo, and therefore NEPA was not triggered. However, there was no specific language in the case stating NEPA was not triggered. Also, in Sabine River the federal agency had already prepared an EA, failing to answer the question of whether the EA was actually required.

There has been a circuit split on the issue of whether NEPA is triggered when the Department of the Interior is designating a critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”). Pacific Legal dealt with the specific issue of whether the federal agency must prepare an EIS when listing endangered species. The court in Pacific Legal noted that “the legislative history [suggests that NEPA] was not intended to be applied to agencies whose function it was to protect the environment.” Pacific Legal Found. v. Andrus, 657 F.2d 829 (6th Cir. 1981).

The Ninth Circuit case of Douglas County v. Babbitt addressed the issue of whether a federal agency triggered NEPA when it was acting within the statutory scope of the ESA because an EA had been prepared prior. Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995). The court in Douglas County determined that NEPA did not apply to the designation of a critical habitat. However, in Catron County, the Tenth Circuit concluded that NEPA was triggered when designating a critical habitat under the ESA. Catron County Bd. of Comm’rs. v. Babbitt, 75 F.3d 1429 (10th Cir. 1996).

Even though the cases resulted in different outcomes, one possible explanation may be that in Douglas County the designation of habitats only affected federal lands. In Catron County some of the designated land potentially affected land owned by the county. Questions of standing such as these lead to the question of whether a challenge can be made to not preparing an EA in response to acquiring conservation easements.

A plaintiff who asserts purely economic injuries does not have standing to challenge any agency action under NEPA. Douglas County, 48 F.3d at 1499. Therefore, the plaintiff challenging the agency action must have some concrete and cognizable interest in the suit. Courts seem to be lenient in allowing plaintiffs to proceed, but one major group, developers, will undoubtedly be excluded by this standing requirement.

Thus, after much discussion, the question still remains as to whether the DOD must prepare an EA when acquiring these conservation easements. Sabine River seems to indicate that NEPA may not be triggered, but in that case an EA had already been filed prior to acceptance of the easement. The circuit split between Douglas County and Catron County doesn’t do much except to confuse the issue. Until the issue is taken up by Congress or the Supreme Court, the mystery will remain. In the meantime, prudence will likely require the DOD to prepare an EA to protect itself from litigation when acquiring conservation lands.

“Save Our Mountains: The Impact of Save Our Cumberland Mountains v. Kempthorne in Encouraging NEPA Efficiency”

Former staff member Lindsay Yeakel wrote this comment appearing in JNREL Vol. 21, No. 2. The following abstract was written by staff member Nick Kloiber.

On January 1, 1970, Congress enacted the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"), requiring that any proposed action involving federal funds or permits must be approved by the proper federal agency, which may require an environmental assessment (EA) or a published environmental impact statement (EIS). The overall effect of this law has required agencies to consider environmental concerns in their decision making process.

In Save Our Cumberland Mountains v. Kempthorne, 453 F.3d 334 (6th Cir. 2006), the question was raised about how far agencies must go to be in compliance with NEPA. The plaintiffs challenged an agency's ruling of no significant impact in relation to a coal mining permit application, arguing that the decision was arbitrary and that EA issued by the Agency was incomplete in that it didn't consider sufficient alternatives to the proposal.

The Sixth Circuit held that the agency met the requirements of NEPA in reaching its decision of no significant impact. The agency considered environmental impact, issues of resulting damage if the permit were issued, and looked at studies of comparative mining operations to decide that the current application would have no significant impact, and thus did not abuse its discretion or reach the decision arbitrarily.

The Court did, however, side with the plaintiffs in holding that the agency failed to consider sufficient alternatives to the proposal. The agency had argued it had a binary choice between granting and denying, whereas NEPA required it to study alternatives available. The Court reasoned that the agency could limit the scope of their review to reasonable alternatives, while not limiting it to a binary choice alone.

The decision in Kempthorne provides a better understanding of just what an Agency must do to satisfy the requirements of NEPA. It encourages companies seeking permits to do environmental studies prior to submitting an application, allowing the agency to incorporate the information into an EA without having to spend time and money on a full EIS. It also requires all agencies to look at reasonable alternatives to the proposal they are evaluating, instead of just granting or denying the application. This helps to ensure EA's accomplish their goals and that agency findings of no significant impact aren't arbitrary but are backed up by not just research but by consideration of alternatives. The overall cost, time, and effort savings encouraged by Kempthorne are a win-win for agencies, the environment and industry alike.

Protecting the Roads Not Traveled: The Continued Conflict Around the “Roadless Rule” of 2001

This post was written by Assistant Online Editor Zach Becker.

On August 3, 2009, the State of Colorado proposed a petition to send to the USDA as to the management of the national forest "roadless areas" within the State of Colorado. On that same day, began a 60 day public comment period as to the proposed petition, which has provided an opportunity for the general public to critique and/or praise the proposals by Colorado before the state forwards its roadless rule petition to the USDA for approval. As one can imagine, this 60 day period has been filed with emotional pleas from environmental groups and surprisingly sportsmen. Pleas that point out legitimate and critical flaws in the proposed plan's ability to effectively protect some of the majestic, and largely untouched natural forests of Colorado and the fish and wildlife that call these habitats home. One of the areas of highest concern is the Currant Creek area, located of the North Fork of the Gunnison River, which is of interest for its coal mining potential. This area of undisturbed and pristine aspen and oak forests is a key location for elk and mule deer rearing, migration and hunting and would be immensely impacted by an allowance of mining in this pristine and remote habitat, high in the Colorado Rockies.

The U.S. National Forest Service divides each of its "management area" into different units. Each unit is provided with a different "forest plan" in order to achieve desires objectives, goals and management prescriptions for that unit. "Activities proposed to occur within a management area must be consistent with the management-area prescriptions as well as with the prescriptions applicable to the entire forest unit." Cal. ex. rel. Lockyer v. USDA, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 19219 at *6 (9th Cir. 2009). One such national forest unit distinction is the "roadless area." The roadless areas are largely undeveloped areas of wilderness, generally without roads. Before the promulgation of the "Roadless Rule" in 2001, "most forest plans provided for the extraction uses, including logging, mining, oil and gas development, and construction of off-road vehicle routes, on at least some portion of what are classified as inventoried roadless areas." Id at *7-8. In 1999, President Clinton asked the National Forest Service to devise a rule that would provide permanent protection to roadless areas in the national forests. Within a week, the Forest Service had begun work on the "Roadless Rule" and the rule was promulgated on January 5, 2001, just prior to Clinton leaving office, and went into effect on May 12, 2001. This provided the requested protection to all of the nation's roadless areas, other than select areas in Alaska and Idaho. The "Roadless Rule" was met almost immediately with opposition, with several cases calling into question the validity of such a blank rule throughout the US with little concern for state economies and objectives.

In response to this opposition and now within the Bush era, the National Forest Service devised and announced in 2005, the "State Petition Rule", which was thought to replace the "Roadless Rule." The "State Petition Rule" provided that a state could petition the Forest Service to make state-specific considerations for projects and treatment schemes for the roadless areas within that state's borders.

On August 25, 2009, The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the "State Petition Rule", was promulgated incorrectly, having violated the statutory requirements for promulgation of both the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act. Cal. ex. rel. Lockyer v. USDA, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 19219 (9th Cir. 2009). The Court then reinstated the Clinton era "Roadless Rule", which provides greater protection to the wildlife and environment found within the roadless areas of the nation's federal forests, and permanently enjoined the "State Petition Rule".

The state petition that may be forwarded by Colorado depending on the public comment period's reaction, is a petition as would be compliant with the "State Petition Rule", which would not be possible under the "Roadless Rule." There have been U.S. District Court decisions that have come to the opposite conclusion of the Ninth Circuit as to the validity of the two rules in question, in fact actually permanently enjoining the "Roadless Rule" throughout the U.S. Wyoming v. United States Dep't of Agric., 570 F. Supp. 2d 1309 (D. Wyo. 2008). Nevertheless, the Ninth Circuit opinion followed in 2009. The situation in Colorado presents a fork in the road for both the State of Colorado and the USDA. If the state chooses to forward its petition for consideration as allowed by the "State Petition Rule", then the USDA will have to directly address the question that has provided a split within authorities throughout the U.S. Without such action by the USDA, the only way for the roadless areas to be totally protected is by express action of President Obama to uphold the 2001 national rule, asking for the USDA to reinstate the "Roadless Rule", so as to pursue the same direction and objective as Clinton had in mind when he first asked for the rule to be created in 1999. With such explicit action, the roadless areas of our nation's forests can once again be guaranteed permanent and effective protection, thus ensuring that these areas and the wildlife that are contained within them, may be present for future generation within this country.