Opinion ID: 47918
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Adverse Effects on Traffic and Safety

Text: 32 The EA states that the project will result in adverse and long-term impacts on traffic and transportation patterns, and as a result, could lead to increased safety concerns. The discussion of mitigation, however, is limited to statements that [a]ppropriate adjustments to the local highway system, such as warning signs, and traffic control signs or signals may be required to accommodate increases in traffic volume and that areas of congestion points may need to be altered. The EA also mentions that the applicant indicated in 2000 that it would conduct a traffic study, and that the developer would fund some identified improvements in order to mitigate adverse impacts. 33 After reviewing the EA's findings of significant adverse environmental impacts that will result from the project together with its reasoning as to the feasibility of the described mitigation measures imposed, we conclude that the district court correctly held that the EA fails to sufficiently demonstrate that the mitigation measures adequately address and remediate the adverse impacts so that they will not significantly affect the environment. The EA before us lists the potentially significant adverse impacts, and describes, in broad terms, the types of mitigation measures that will be employed. As is evident from our above review of the Corps's treatment of each individual potential impact, however, the EA provides only cursory detail as to what those measures are and how they serve to reduce those impacts to a less-than-significant level. Because the feasibility of the mitigation measures is not self-evident, we agree with the district court that the EA does not provide a rational basis for determining that the Corps has adequately complied with NEPA. 34 We recognize that an EA is meant to be a `rough-cut, low-budget', preliminary look at the environmental impact of a proposed project. Spiller, 352 F.3d at 240. The record before us, however, is simply not sufficient to determine whether the mitigated FONSI relies on `. . . mitigation measures which . . . compensate for any adverse environmental impacts stemming from the original proposal' that, unmitigated, would be significant. Id. at 241 (quoting Cabinet Mountains Wilderness, 685 F.2d at 682). In other words, the EA fails to tell us why the proposed agency action will not have a significant impact on the human environment. Coliseum Square, 465 F.3d at 224 (citing 40 C.F.R. §§ 1501.4(e), 1508.13). We therefore agree with the district court's determination that, the Corps acted arbitrarily in relying only on the information in the current EA to support the issuance of its mitigated FONSI. In so holding, we pause to note that [w]e have never said that deficiencies in an EA can only be cured by preparing an EIS, and that is not the law. Fritiofson v. Alexander, 772 F.2d 1225, 1248 (5th Cir.1985) (overruled on unrelated grounds by Sabine River Auth. v. U.S. Dep't of Interior, 951 F.2d 669, 677 (5th Cir.1992)). Our review of the record today indicates only that we lack the information that would allow us to defer to the Corps's determination that mitigation will reduce the project's effects below the level of significance.