Sierra Nevada Forest Protection Campaign v. United States Forest Service

MEMORANDUM *

Petitioners, Sierra Nevada Forest Protection Campaign, Plumas Forest Project, Earth Island Institute, and Center for Biological Diversity (collectively “SNFPC”), appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the respondents United States Forest Service (“FS”) and intervenor Quincy Library Group. SNFPC asserts that FS failed to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq., in approving the Meadow Valley Defensible Fuel Profile Zone and Group Selection Project (“MVP”). FS approved the MVP by issuing a Finding of No Significant Impact (“FONSI”) after analyzing the project in an Environmental Assessment (“EA”), rather than preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”), which would have involved a more rigorous analysis. See Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr. v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 387 F.3d 989 , 993 (9th Cir.2004) (citing 40 C.F.R. §§ 1502.1 , 1508.9, 1508.13).

SNFPC claims that the EA failed to consider the cumulative impacts of nearby projects together with' the MVP on the California spotted owl. SNFPC also asserts that the EA failed to consider what it contends are highly uncertain effects and…

specially concurring.

I concur and write separately to clarify one point. The cumulative impact of the MVP and any future project will necessarily be considered in the EIS or EA of the future project; that is the appropriate time for such cumulative impact analysis to be conducted.