American Law Institute-American Bar Association
Course On Environment Litigation
Boulder, Colorado
June 22-25, 2005
NEPA IN THE COURTS
By
William M. Cohen
Adjunct Professor
Washington College of Law
American University
Washington, D.C.
Of Counsel: Perkins Coie
Washington, D.C.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
RECENT SUPREME COURT RULINGS.................................................5
II.
THE CHARACTER OF NEPA LITIGATION ..........................................7
A.
Substantive goals, procedural duties ................................................7
Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co. v. NRDC, 462 U.S. 87 (1983)....................................8
B.
(2)
Threshold determination on whether to prepare an EIS, the
FONSI and negative declaration, and categorical exclusions..........8
Categorical exclusions.................................................................................15
C.
Controversy of a technical nature.....................................................17
D.
Exemptions from NEPA: statutory, emergency, statutory
conflict, functional equivalence .......................................................18
E.
Is the activity "federal"? ...................................................................20
F.
Non-action by the federal government.............................................23
G.
Application of NEPA to legislative proposals .................................23
H.
The time to prepare the EIS..............................................................27
I.
Who must prepare the EIS?..............................................................30
J.
Adequacy of the EIS; alternatives....................................................30
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519 (1978). .............31
K.
Programmatic EIS; scope of the EIS; divisibility of project or
program. ...........................................................................................38
Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co. v. NRDC, 462 U.S. 87 (1983)....................................39
L.
Assessment of socio-economic impacts in EISs. .............................40
-II-
M.
Extent of knowledge and information; research; worst case
analysis. ............................................................................................42
N.
Adverse comment by other agencies................................................44
O.
Courts will not review draft EISs and advise what should go
into prospective EISs; prematurity...................................................45
P.
Agency Recovery of Costs of Preparing NEPA Documents
from Applicants................................................................................46
Q.
Application of NEPA to Events Abroad. .........................................47
R.
The supplemental EIS. .....................................................................50
Id. at 370-385..........................................................................................................51
T.
Cumulative Impacts, Ecosystem Analysis, and Biodiversity...........53
II.
AFFIRMATIVE USE OF NEPA; AGENCIES BROADENING
THEIR MANDATES ..................................................................................56
III.
JUDICIAL REVIEW OF AGENCY DECISIONMAKING. .....................57
A.
Standing, Ripeness, and Case or Controversy .................................57
Ohio Forestry Association, Inc. v. Sierra Club, 523 U.S. 726 (1998). ..................59
Id. at 84. ..................................................................................................................60
B.
Scope and Standards of Review. ......................................................63
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519 (1978). .............63
Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co. v. NRDC, 462 U.S. 87 (1983)....................................63
C.
IV.
No Private Right of Action to Enforce the Terms in the EIS. .........64
ADDITIONAL FACTORS IN LITIGATION STRATEGY......................68
A.
Relief and Remedies.........................................................................68
B.
Intervention--....................................................................................72
C.
Discovery..........................................................................................74
-III-
D.
Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies, Primary Jurisdiction
and Ripeness, Comments on Draft EISs. .........................................74
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519 (1978). .............74
E.
Limited Role of the Court in Looking at Conflicting
Scientific Information Under NEPA. ...............................................75
F.
Statute of Limitations .......................................................................76
G.
Settlements .......................................................................................76
H.
Preliminary Injunctions ....................................................................78
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................79
General: ..................................................................................................................79
CEQ Guidance:.......................................................................................................79
-IV-
I.
RECENT SUPREME COURT RULINGS
In 2004, the Supreme Court decided two cases involving the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). They are Department of Transportation v. Public
Citizen, 124 S. Ct. 2204, 159 L. Ed. 2d 60, 2004 U.S. LEXIS 4027 and Norton v. S. Utah
Wilderness Alliance, 124 S. Ct. 2373, 159 L. Ed. 2d 137, 2004 U.S. LEXIS 4379.
Public Citizen
Department Of Transportation v. Public Citizen involved the Department of
Transportation's issuance of regulations concerning the standards for the granting of
Mexican truck operating authority in the United States. Prior to the promulgation of the
regulations, Congress enacted a moratorium on Mexican motor carriers coming into the
U.S. and gave the President the authority to lift the moratorium. As part of the North
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the U.S. agreed to phase out the moratorium.
The President announced his intention to lift the moratorium once the regulations were
issued by Transportation. In the process of issuing the regulations, Transportation
prepared an environmental assessment (EA) under the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) concluding that an environmental impact statement (EIS) was not required
because the regulations would not have a significant environmental impact. Petitioners
sued alleging violations of NEPA and the Clean Air Act (CAA). Among other things,
petitioners argued that Transportation violated NEPA because the EA did not consider
the environmental impact caused by the increased presence of Mexican trucks in the U.S.
and that it violated the CAA because Transportation did not prepare a full conformity
analysis.The Ninth Circuit held for petitioners and the Supreme Court reversed.
Justice Thomas delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. The Court's analysis
focussed on Transportation's lack of discretion over the moratorium and its lifting.
Without such discretion, neither NEPA nor the CAA requires it to consider the
environmental impact of the lifting of the moratorium. As the Court said: "the relevant
question is whether the increase in cross-border operations of Mexican motor carriers,
with the correlative release of emissions by Mexican trucks, is an 'effect' of " the issuance
of Transportation's rules. As for the Council on Environmental Quality's cumulative
impact regulation, it does not require that the agency "treat the lifting of the moratorium
itself, or consequences from the lifting of the moratorium, as an effect" of the
Transportation rules. "We hold that where an agency has no ability to prevent a certain
effect due to its limited statutory authority over the relevant actions, the agency cannot be
considered a legally relevant 'cause' of the effect." Thus the agency need not consider
these effects in its EA.
-5-