Idaho Conservation League v. Bonneville Power Administration

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
IDAHO CONSERVATION LEAGUE,
Petitioner,
v.
BONNEVILLE POWER
ADMINISTRATION,
Respondent.
No. 12-70338
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Bonneville Power Administration
Argued and Submitted October 6, 2014
Portland, Oregon
Before: KOZINSKI, FERNANDEZ and DAVIS,** Circuit Judges.
1. It’s generally sufficient for an environmental assessment (EA) to consider
only a no-action and preferred alternative. Earth Island Inst. v. U.S. Forest Serv.,
697 F.3d 1010, 1021–22 (9th Cir. 2012). But see W. Watersheds Project v. Abbey,
FILED
JUN 21 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The Honorable Andre M. Davis, Senior Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 4 --

page 2
719 F.3d 1035, 1051–53 (9th Cir. 2013) (finding deficient an EA that considered
one no-action alternative and three action alternatives). The EA at issue considers
no-action and preferred alternatives at length. It also explains that two other
alternatives did not merit extended consideration because they weren’t feasible.
See Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Salazar, 695 F.3d 893, 916 (9th Cir. 2012).
And the preferred alternative contains various measures aimed at “[m]inimizing
impacts [of flexible winter power operations] by limiting the degree or magnitude
of the action.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.20(b) (defining mitigation). Finally, the EA
explains that the agencies rejected proposed monitoring and mitigation strategies
because BPA already engages in monitoring and mitigation for existing operations
at the Dam. Accordingly, BPA’s failure to discuss a monitoring and mitigation
alternative in the EA was not arbitrary and capricious. See Earth Island Inst., 697
F.3d at 1023.
2. We reject the contention that the EA violates NEPA’s “hard look”
requirement by failing to incorporate up-to-date baseline information to analyze
the environmental impacts of flexible winter operations. With respect to erosion,
the EA supplements historical information with citations to and discussions of
more recent studies. And with respect to the flowering rush, the EA relies on first-

-- 2 of 4 --

page 3
hand observations of the rush’s spread around Lake Pend Oreille as well as recent
analyses of the origin and spread of this invasive species. The EA thus
demonstrates that BPA “ha[d] available, and . . . carefully consider[ed] detailed
information” concerning the possible impacts of flexible winter operations on
erosion and the flowering rush. N. Idaho Cmty. Action Network v. U.S. Dep’t of
Transp., 545 F.3d 1147, 1153 (9th Cir. 2008).
Nor are we persuaded that the EA’s analysis of wildlife impacts is deficient
because its conclusion might have changed, had it considered more extensive data
regarding erosion and the flowering rush. Because BPA took the requisite hard
look at those two environmental factors, Petitioner’s challenge to the EA’s analysis
of wildlife impacts also fails.
Petitioner finally argues that the EA is deficient because it fails to consider
recent wildlife surveys. But Petitioner has pointed us to no case, and we are not
aware of any, in which an otherwise sufficient EA violated NEPA for failing to
incorporate such surveys. See, e.g., N. Plains Res. Council v. Surface Transp. Bd.,
668 F.3d 1067, 1085–86 (9th Cir. 2011) (faulting an EIS for relying on stale data);
Lands Council v. Powell, 395 F.3d 1019, 1031 (9th Cir. 2005) (same). In any
event, “the primary wildlife concern [associated with flexible winter operations] is
related to loss of habitat around the lake from erosion,” and BPA adequately

-- 3 of 4 --

page 4
analyzed erosion impacts. Accordingly, BPA fulfilled its duty “to take a ‘hard
look’ at how the choices before [it] affect the environment, and then to place [its]
data and conclusions before the public.” W. Watersheds, 719 F.3d at 1047.
3. BPA’s motion to strike the declarations of Kathryn Didricksen and John
Robison is GRANTED IN PART. We strike paragraphs 8–11 of the Didricksen
declaration, paragraphs 7 and 13 of the Robison declaration and the portions of
Petitioner’s opening brief that rely on those paragraphs as they seek to add
evidence in support of Petitioner’s substantive claims. The remaining portions of
the declarations are allowed for the limited purpose of explaining the
administrative record. See Idaho Conservation League v. Mumma, 956 F.2d 1508,
1520 n.22 (9th Cir. 1992) (as amended). BPA’s motion for judicial notice is
GRANTED. See Ctr. for Envtl. Law & Policy v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 655
F.3d 1000, 1010 n.5 (9th Cir. 2011).
We address Petitioner’s remaining claims in an opinion filed concurrently
herewith.
DENIED.

-- 4 of 4 --