Idaho Conservation League v. BPA, No. 12-70338 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CasePetitioner filed suit under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., challenging the agencies' decision to change how they operated the Albeni Falls Dam during the winter months. The environmental assessment (EA) here concludes that no environmental impact statement (EIS) is required because the proposed action will not “result in any new significant impacts to the human environment.” The court concluded that NEPA only requires the preparation of an EIS when a proposed federal action is major. In this case, actions taken with respect to winter dam management since 1995 reinforce the conclusion that there was no change to the status quo. Because the period when the agencies held winter lake levels constant did not change the operational status quo, neither does the decision to revert to flexible winter operations. The court also concluded that, because the decision adopting flexible winter operations does not trigger NEPA’s requirement to publish an EIS, this and petitioner’s other challenges to the EA’s finding of no significant impact are moot. The court rejected petitioner's challenge to the BPA's failure to prepare a supplemental EIS. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review.
Court Description: Environmental Law. The panel denied a petition for review of a decision of the Bonneville Power Administration to move forward with a proposal to change how the Albeni Falls Dam in the Pacific Northwest operates during winter months without first preparing an environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act. Lake Pend Oreille, which serves as the dam’s reservoir, is jointly managed by the Army Corps of Engineers, the Bonneville Power Administration, and the Bureau of Reclamation. In the initial winter months of the dam’s operation, starting in the late 1950s, the Corps fluctuated the level of the lake, but in some years the Corps held the lake’s level constant. From 1997 to 2011, the Corps held the lake’s level constant. In 2011, the agencies confirmed in an environmental assessment that they planned to return to a more flexible approach and allow the lake level to fluctuate. NEPA only requires the preparation of an environmental impact statement when a proposed federal action is major, but “where a proposed federal action would not change the status quo,” an environmental impact statement is not required. Upper Snake River Chapter of Trout Unlimited v. Hodel, 921 F.2d 232, 235 (9th Cir. 1990). IDAHO CONSERVATION LEAGUE V. BPA 3 The panel held that the agencies complied with NEPA when they finalized their 2011 decision without preparing an environmental impact statement. The panel held that holding lake levels constant from 1997 to 2011 did not change the status quo, and reverting to the previous regime of fluctuating the lake levels did not change the status quo either. The panel held that because the agencies’ decision adopting flexible winter operations did not trigger NEPA’s requirement to publish an environmental impact statement, petitioner’s challenges to the environmental assessment’s finding of no significant impact were moot. The panel held that petitioner did not properly raise a challenge to the Bonneville Power Administration’s failure to prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement addressing the effects of the flowering rush on the dam’s operation.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.