Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/321206877/Pat-Webster-v-USDA-4th-Cir-2012
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 04:27:45+00:00

Document:
Notice: Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978; permit applications, etc.
for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins.
John Preston Bailey, Chief District Judge.
Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Floyd wrote the opinion, in which Judge Wilkinson and Judge Gregory joined.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee United States Department of Agriculture.
filed this action contending that the NRCS has failed to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
major action" must formulate an environmental impact statement (EIS) if the action could significantly affect the environment. Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S.
Quality (CEQ), a governmental body created by the NEPA.
prepare and consider an EIS. 40 C.F.R. 1501.7, 1508.22.
draft a final EIS that addresses any comments. Id.
or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts" arise. Id.
except, in general, it need not undertake a scoping process. Id.
the underlying events giving rise to this appeal.
Act of 1944, ch. 665, 58 Stat. 887, authorizing "the construction and operation of certain dam and reservoir projects."
including the Potomac River Watershed. 58 Stat. at 905-06.
the Project: watershed protection, flood prevention, and recreation.
residences. The NRCS also considered and responded to comments received by various governmental agencies.
State Conservation Agency (WVSCA), also later joined.
sponsors released a work plan for implementing the Project.
was lacking, prompting them to suspend its implementation.
NRCS resume implementation of the Project, so it did.
whether an EIS is necessary, 40 C.F.R. 1501.3, 1501.4(c).
benefits, and opportunities for incidental recreation.
to the next dam scheduled for construction, the Site 27 dam.
16,740 acres in accordance with the Project.
"Hardy County Water Resources Assessment," which evaluated the existing and projected water needs for Hardy County.
was necessary to meet the projected short-term water demand.
lawsuit pursuant to the parties stipulation.
agreeing to implement the Project for Site 16.
We review de novo the district courts order granting summary judgment. Henry v. Purnell, 652 F.3d 524, 531 (4th Cir.
judgment as a matter of law." Id. (quoting Ausherman v.
Bank of Am. Corp., 352 F.3d 896, 899 (4th Cir. 2003)).
conducted the required hard look." Id.
Transp., 677 F.3d 596, 601 (4th Cir. 2012) (quoting 5 U.S.C.
highly deferential, inquiry. Id.; Ohio Valley Envtl. Coal. v.
its judgment." Hodges, 300 F.3d at 445.
and needs. As a result, they insist that the NRCSs stated purposes and needs for the dam at Site 16 are unreasonable.
need to which the agency is responding in proposing the alternatives including the proposed action." 40 C.F.R. 1502.13.
contours for its exploration of available alternatives. See id.
are reasonable. See, e.g., id. at 1244-45; Natl Parks & Conservation Assn, 606 F.3d at 1070; Citizens Against Burlington, Inc. v. Busey, 938 F.2d 190, 196 (D.C. Cir. 1991).
that the EIS becomes essentially "a foreordained formality."
must examine to a point that would make its task unmanageable.
1974 EIS and work plan, which explained in detail the floodwater, sediment, and erosion problems justifying the Project.
basis for deciding that watershed protection and flood prevention were appropriate purposes and needs for Site 16s dam.
and needs underlying Site 16s dam was an appropriate exercise of its discretion.
proposed action or its impacts arise, see id. 1501.7(c).
the 2009 SEIS replaced the 2007 SEIS. We disagree.
the NRCS was not required to engage in another scoping process when preparing the 2009 SEIS.
impermissibly intrude into its decisionmaking prerogative.
and operation of Site 16s dam do not constitute connected actions.
construction," the "[l]ocation and distance of access roads,"
how long," and the "[l]ocation and size of parking areas."
not second-guess the agencys decision to omit it.
facility and water distribution system.
Agencies must consider connected actions in the same EIS.
would have taken place in the others absence. See, e.g., N.
and are not considered connected actions. N. Plains Res.
Council, 668 F.3d at 1087-88.
the NRCSs construction of Site 16s dam, it is not a connected action.
speculative impacts or actions in an EIS . . . .").
all reasonable alternatives in its 2009 SEIS.
rejected as too remote, speculative, or . . . impractical or ineffective." Id. (omission in original) (quoting Citizens Comm.
"the alternative of no action." 40 C.F.R. 1502.14(d).
consideration of which it should have provided detailed study.
is an insufficient ground for disturbing the agencys decision.
would call into question this determination, so we defer to it.
construction of the dam at Site 16.4 In support, they list specific effects that they allege the NRCS neglected to consider.
conduct a sufficient cumulative-impacts analysis.
impacts of the alternatives[,] including the proposed action."
statements in subsequent statements by reference, see 40 C.F.R.
1974 EIS, we will not assume that it did.
need not do so with effects that are merely speculative. Wyoming, 661 F.3d at 1253.
eliminated recreation as a purpose.
be relevant and important to a decision." 40 C.F.R. 1502.23.
allow for reasoned evaluation and decisionmaking. See Suburban OHare Commn v. Dole, 787 F.2d 186, 191 n.8 (7th Cir.
EIS when comparing the different alternatives. See 1502.23.
Conservancy v. Glickman, 81 F.3d 437, 446 (4th Cir. 1996).
the proposed actions benefits with its environmental effects.
projects adverse environmental effects." Id. (quoting S. La.
Envtl. Council, Inc. v. Sand, 629 F.2d 1005, 1011 (5th Cir.
such projects, even if it as at the high end of the normal range.
exercise of the agencys discretion.
Project if Site 16s dam is not constructed. It includes a comparison of both monetary and nonmonetary benefits and costs.
NRCS considered the costs and benefits of Site 16 specifically, and that the public had the information to do the same.
"relatively contained, site-specific proposal." Id.
new wetlands in specified locations.
Moreover, the Mitigation Summary was not the only section of the 2009 SEIS that discussed mitigation measures.
our belief that the NRCS fairly evaluated the actions environmental consequences.
related to wetlands effects does not dissuade us of this belief.
it developed plans to mitigate those effects.
Act Section 404 permit from the Army Corps.
or part of the proposal." Id. 1508.15. Once requested, cooperating agencies are required to participate in the NEPA process. Id. 1501.6(b)(1).
done so, such error was harmless. See United States v. Coal.
that assisted the NRCSs preparation of the 2009 SEIS.
issuance of the 2009 SEIS before obtaining the requisite permit from the Army Corps does not violate the NEPA.
Notice: Environmental statements; availability, etc.: USEC Inc.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.