Sierra Club v. Bosworth

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
510 F.3d 1016 (2007)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

When establishing a nationwide categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), an agency's action is arbitrary and capricious if it fails to perform a programmatic analysis of cumulative environmental impacts before promulgating the exclusion.

Facts:

In response to the severe 2000 fire season and the President's 'Healthy Forests Initiative,' the U.S. Forest Service sought to expedite projects aimed at reducing wildfire risk.
On September 11, 2002, the Deputy Chief of the Forest Service announced the agency's intention to establish a categorical exclusion (CE) for fuels treatment activities before conducting a data analysis to support it.
The Forest Service then conducted a 'data call,' surveying 2,500 past hazardous fuels reduction projects covering over 2.5 million acres to support the new CE.
Before creating the new CE, the Forest Service amended its internal handbook to state that the mere presence of 'extraordinary circumstances,' such as endangered species habitat, would no longer automatically require an environmental assessment, giving the agency more discretion.
On June 5, 2003, the Forest Service officially published the final 'Fuels CE,' which categorically excluded from NEPA review hazardous fuels reduction projects using mechanical methods on up to 1,000 acres and prescribed burns on up to 4,500 acres.
The Sierra Club identified several specific projects planned under the new Fuels CE in California's Eldorado and Lassen National Forests, including the Grey Eagle, Forest Guard, and Rockeye projects.

Procedural Posture:

The Sierra Club and the Sierra Nevada Forest Protection Campaign sued the U.S. Forest Service in the U.S. District Court.
Plaintiffs challenged the nationwide validity of the Forest Service's 'Fuels CE' and its application to specific projects, alleging violations of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Forest Service, holding that an agency is not required to produce an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or Environmental Assessment (EA) before promulgating a categorical exclusion.
The Sierra Club (appellant) appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, with the Forest Service as the appellee.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the U.S. Forest Service's promulgation of a nationwide categorical exclusion for certain hazardous fuels reduction projects, without first conducting a programmatic cumulative impacts analysis, violate the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)?

Opinions:

Majority - Thompson, J.

Yes, the Forest Service's promulgation of the Fuels CE violated NEPA. The agency's action was arbitrary and capricious because it failed to properly assess the significance of the categorical exclusion by not conducting a required programmatic cumulative impacts analysis before its establishment. The agency must demonstrate it made a 'reasoned decision' based on relevant factors, and its failure to analyze the collective impact of the nationwide program rendered its decision invalid. The Forest Service's decision-making was an improper post-hoc rationalization, as it decided to create the CE before analyzing the supporting data. Furthermore, the agency failed to conduct a timely and adequate cumulative impacts analysis for the nationwide program, instead improperly attempting to defer such analysis to the individual project level. The agency also ignored substantial controversy and uncertain risks raised by other federal and state agencies, and the CE itself lacked the specificity required to ensure it would not cause significant environmental effects. The administrative record, containing only conclusory statements rather than quantified data, was insufficient to support the conclusion that the category of actions would have no significant impact.

Concurring - Kleinfeld, J.

Yes, based on the record presented. While expressing personal skepticism that projects designed to reduce fire danger could be considered arbitrary and capricious, the judge concurred because the government failed to provide anything in the administrative record to support its decision. The judge noted that his duty is to decide the case based on the law and the record, not personal policy preferences. The government's failure to present evidence demonstrating it had taken the required 'hard look' at the environmental consequences before promulgating the CE compelled concurrence with the majority's conclusion.

Analysis:

This decision significantly clarifies an agency's procedural obligations under NEPA when creating broad, nationwide categorical exclusions. It establishes that agencies cannot defer the analysis of cumulative impacts to the project-specific level; instead, a programmatic, 'big picture' analysis is required at the time the exclusion is created. The ruling reinforces the 'hard look' doctrine by invalidating post-hoc rationalizations and requiring agencies to substantively address scientific controversy raised by other expert bodies. This precedent makes it more difficult for agencies to use categorical exclusions to streamline large-scale federal programs without first undertaking a rigorous, data-driven assessment of their collective environmental effects.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Sierra Club v. Bosworth (2007)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"