The following excerpt is from N. Alaska Envtl. Ctr. v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior, 983 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2020):
Friends of Yosemite Valley v. Norton is not to the contrary. 348 F.3d 789 (9th Cir. 2003), clarified by 366 F.3d 731 (9th Cir. 2004). There, we concluded that a programmatic EIS prepared for the Merced River management plan did not need to include detailed site-specific analysis. Id. at 80001. However, our conclusion regarding the required level of site specificity was tailored to our conclusion regarding the nature of the federal action that was the subject of the EIS. See id. Having concluded that the management plan provided only broad guidelines and made no irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources, we held that the EIS "contain[ed] sufficiently specific data and information for [its] purpose." Id. at 801. Friends of Yosemite Valley does not dictate that any EIS labeled "programmatic"
[983 F.3d 1088]
or covering a broad-scale management plan cannot also cover site-specific actions and the impacts thereof where appropriate.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.