16 U.S.C. § 6514

Environmental analysis

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 16 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Authorized hazardous fuel reduction projectsExcept as otherwise provided in this subchapter, the Secretary shall conduct authorized hazardous fuel reduction projects in accordance with—(1) the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 [42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.]; and(2) other applicable laws.(b) Environmental assessment or environmental impact statement

The Secretary shall prepare an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement pursuant to section 102(2) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)) for each authorized hazardous fuel reduction project.

(c) Consideration of alternatives(1) In generalExcept as provided in subsection (d), in the environmental assessment or environmental impact statement prepared under subsection (b), the Secretary shall study, develop, and describe—(A) the proposed agency action;(B) the alternative of no action; and(C) an additional action alternative, if the additional alternative—(i) is proposed during scoping or the collaborative process under subsection (f); and(ii) meets the purpose and need of the project, in accordance with regulations promulgated by the Council on Environmental Quality.(2) Multiple additional alternativesIf more than 1 additional alternative is proposed under paragraph (1)(C), the Secretary shall—(A) select which additional alternative to consider, which is a choice that is in the sole discretion of the Secretary; and(B) provide a written record describing the reasons for the selection.(d) Alternative analysis process for projects in wildland-urban interface(1) Proposed agency action and 1 action alternative

For an authorized hazardous fuel reduction project that is proposed to be conducted in the wildland-urban interface, the Secretary is not required to study, develop, or describe more than the proposed agency action and 1 action alternative in the environmental assessment or environmental impact statement prepared pursuant to section 102(2) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)).

(2) Proposed agency action

Notwithstanding paragraph (1), but subject to paragraph (3), if an authorized hazardous fuel reduction project proposed to be conducted in the wildland-urban interface is located no further than 1½ miles from the boundary of an at-risk community, the Secretary is not required to study, develop, or describe any alternative to the proposed agency action in the environmental assessment or environmental impact statement prepared pursuant to section 102(2) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)).

(3) Proposed agency action and community wildfire protection plan alternative

In the case of an authorized hazardous fuel reduction project described in paragraph (2), if the at-risk community has adopted a community wildfire protection plan and the proposed agency action does not implement the recommendations in the plan regarding the general location and basic method of treatments, the Secretary shall evaluate the recommendations in the plan as an alternative to the proposed agency action in the environmental assessment or environmental impact statement prepared pursuant to section 102(2) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)).

(e) Public notice and meeting(1) Public notice

The Secretary shall provide notice of each authorized hazardous fuel reduction project in accordance with applicable regulations and administrative guidelines.

(2) Public meetingDuring the preparation stage of each authorized hazardous fuel reduction project, the Secretary shall—(A) conduct a public meeting at an appropriate location proximate to the administrative unit of the Federal land on which the authorized hazardous fuel reduction project will be conducted; and(B) provide advance notice of the location, date, and time of the meeting.(f) Public collaboration

In order to encourage meaningful public participation during preparation of authorized hazardous fuel reduction projects, the Secretary shall facilitate collaboration among State and local governments and Indian tribes, and participation of interested persons, during the preparation of each authorized fuel reduction project in a manner consistent with the Implementation Plan.

(g) Environmental analysis and public comment

In accordance with section 102(2) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)) and the applicable regulations and administrative guidelines, the Secretary shall provide an opportunity for public comment during the preparation of any environmental assessment or environmental impact statement for an authorized hazardous fuel reduction project.

(h) Decision document

The Secretary shall sign a decision document for authorized hazardous fuel reduction projects and provide notice of the final agency actions.

(Pub. L. 108–148, title I, § 104, Dec. 3, 2003, 117 Stat. 1897.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, referred to in subsec. (a)(1), is Pub. L. 91–190, Jan. 1, 1970, 83 Stat. 852, which is classified generally to chapter 55 (§ 4321 et seq.) of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 4321 of Title 42 and Tables.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2008–2023 · leading case: Wildwest Inst. v. Bull, 547 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Wildwest Inst. v. Bull, 547 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2008). · cites it 5× “See 16 U.S.C. § 6514 (a). Thus, the Forest Service must prepare an environmental impact statement (“EIS”) when formulating a hazardous fuels reduction project, which identifies alternatives to its proposed action.”

Conservation Cong. v. United States Forest Serv., 235 F. Supp. 3d 1189 (E.D. Cal. 2017). · cites it 6× “16 U.S.C. § 6514 . An EA or EIS is required for every such project.”

All. for the Wild Rockies v. Carl Petrick, 68 F.4th 475 (9th Cir. 2023). “at 1165 (citing 16 U.S.C. § 6514 (a)). But HFRA provides a statutory categorical exclusion to NEPA when the project is located “in the wildland-urban interface.”

Native Ecosystems Council v. Erickson, 330 F. Supp. 3d 1218 (D. Mont. 2018). “(citing 16 U.S.C. § 6514 (a) ). *1230 V. ESA Finally, the ESA requires federal agencies to ensure that "any action authorized, funded, or carried out" by the agency "is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in…”

Decker v. United States Forest Serv., 780 F. Supp. 2d 1170 (D. Colo. 2011). “See 16 U.S.C. § 6514 . III. ADMINISTRATIVE EXHAUSTION “Plaintiffs must exhaust available administrative remedies before the [Forest Service] prior to bringing their grievances to federal court.”

Wildwest Inst. v. Bull (9th Cir. 2008). · cites it 5× “See 16 U.S.C. § 6514 (a). Thus, the Forest Service must prepare an environ- mental impact statement (“EIS”) when formulating a hazard- ous fuels reduction project, which identifies alternatives to its proposed action.”

Friends of Rapid River v. Probert (D. Idaho 2019). · cites it 2× “16 U.S.C. § 6514 (b). That said, the purpose of HFRA is to prioritize projects intended to address the threats to forest health posed by catastrophic wildfire, disease, and insect infestation.”

Conservation Cong. v. U.S. Forest Serv. (E.D. Cal. 2021). “16 U.S.C. § 6514 (c)(1)(C). A reasonable 22 alternatives claim is distinct from a hard-look claim under 23 NEPA.”

All. for the Wild Rockies v. Higgins (D. Idaho 2021). “DISCUSSION Alliance generally claims that the USFS’s failure to use the statutory definition of wildland-urban interface violates HFRA and requires a remand for a supplemental NEPA analysis. See Alliance’s Mem. ISO MSJ, pp.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.