ELR Citation: ELR 20226
No(s). 04-35274 (9th Cir. Nov 7, 2005)

The court holds that the U.S. Forest Service complied with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) in connection with a proposed resource management project in the Helena National Forest. The Forest Service did not err in preparing an environmental assessment instead of an environmental impact statement. Although a "hard look" should involve the discussion of adverse impacts, such information does not automatically make the project "highly controversial" or "highly uncertain" for the purposes of determining whether substantial questions exist as to the significance of the effect. Moreover, the Forest Service's decision to consider only two alternatives—the proposed plan and a "no action" alternative—did not violate NEPA. So long as "all reasonable alternatives" have been considered and an appropriate explanation is provided as to why an alternative was eliminated, the regulatory requirement is satisfied. The regulation does not impose a numerical floor on alternatives to be considered. Nor did the Forest Service fail to ensure goshawk viability in violation of the NFMA. The record does not demonstrate any flaws in the methodology used by the Forest Service to identify goshawk habitat, and the long-term benefit of preventing stand-replacing fires, which completely destroy goshawk habitat, is preferable over any short-term benefit the goshawks might receive from retaining the dense forest structure in the project area.