Opinion ID: 47918
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Feasibility of the Mitigation Measures

Text: 19 The district court held that the administrative record contains no support for the Corps's conclusion that the mitigation measures would remove or reduce [to insignificance] the identified adverse impacts of the project. [T]he EA discusses the project's adverse impacts and describes the associated mitigation measures but nothing in the Document connects the two together. O'Reilly, 2004 WL 1794531 at . 20 We have consistently accepted the proposition that reliance on mitigation measures may reduce a project's impacts below the level of significance. In Spiller, 352 F.3d at 241, we explicitly approved that principle, while noting that we have implicitly endorsed [such] use[.] Id. (citing Sierra Club v. Espy, 38 F.3d 792, 803 (5th Cir.1994) (holding that EAs satisfied NEPA where they considered appropriate alternatives, including mitigation measures) and Louisiana v. Lee, 758 F.2d 1081, 1083 (5th Cir.1985) (holding that it was proper to consider restrictions placed on dredging permits in reviewing the agency's decision not to file an EIS)). Other circuits agree. See, e.g., Cabinet Mountains Wilderness v. Peterson, 685 F.2d 678, 682 (D.C.Cir.1982); C.A.R.E. Now, Inc. v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 844 F.2d 1569 (11th Cir. 1988); Greenpeace Action v. Franklin, 14 F.3d 1324 (9th Cir.1992); Roanoke River Basin Ass'n v. Hudson, 940 F.2d 58 (4th Cir.1991); Audubon Soc'y of Cent. Ark. v. Dailey, 977 F.2d 428 (8th Cir.1992). 21 Furthermore, the Supreme Court has held that proposed mitigation measures need not be laid out to the finest detail, even within the more labor-intensive context of an environmental impact statement. Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 352, 109 S.Ct. 1835, 104 L.Ed.2d 351 (1989) (There is a fundamental distinction . . . between a requirement that mitigation be discussed in sufficient detail to ensure that environmental consequences have been fairly evaluated ... and a substantive requirement that a complete mitigation plan be actually formulated and adopted.); Miss. River Basin Alliance v. Westphal, 230 F.3d 170, 176-77 (5th Cir.2000) (quoting Robertson, 490 U.S. at 352, 109 S.Ct. 1835). Mindful of that distinction, we have still required that an EIS involving mitigation must include a serious and thorough evaluation of environmental mitigation options for [a] Project to allow its analysis to fulfill NEPA's process-oriented requirements[.] Miss. River Basin Alliance, 230 F.3d at 178. We have, moreover, noted that mere perfunctory or conclusory language will not be deemed to constitute an adequate record and cannot serve to support the agency's decision not to prepare an EIS. Citizen Advocates For Responsible Expansion, Inc. (I-Care) v. Dole, 770 F.2d 423, 434 (5th Cir.1985) (citing Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning Comm'n v. U.S. Postal Serv., 487 F.2d 1029, 1039 & 1040 (D.C.Cir.1973)); see also DANIEL R. MANDELKER, NEPA LAW & LITIG. § 8:57 (2006) (an environmental assessment does not require the full and `reasonably complete' discussion of mitigation measures that is required in an impact statement. Agencies must develop the record to a reasonable degree, however, in a manner that thoroughly and fairly evaluates environmental consequences.). With these principles in mind, we examine the Corps's EA and the reasons set forth there for its conclusion that each significant environmental impact it had identified would be reduced to insignificance by its prescribed mitigation measure. 4 22
23 The Corps's EA predicts that the project will have substantial, long-term, adverse effects on project site soils, including: 1) creation of anoxic and anaerobic conditions 5 due to clearing, grading, excavation, and filling; 2) possible impairment of subsurface drainage due to substrate compaction; 6 and 3) decreased aquifer recharge capability due to an increase in impervious surfaces. 7 All of the above work could contribute to a possible reduction in the site's flood control functions, including increased surface runoff volume and rate; reduced subsurface lateral flow, storage, and recharge; and reduced filtration. 24 In discussing the role of mitigation in reducing these problems, the EA states that the drainage plan incorporated into the development relies on a 100-foot vegetated buffer zone for flood water storage as well as creating detention areas. Additionally, the plan would raise the elevation of the major road. The EA also notes that the drainage plan meets St. Tammany Parish requirements. The EA asserts, without data or analysis, that the project as mitigated should have minimal [e]ffect on flooding within the scope of a 25-year storm, although storms in categories above a 25-year event could flood the development. 8 25
26 In its assessment of water quality impacts, the Corps's EA notes that the project could cause long-term, adverse impacts from increased non-point source pollution, 9 primarily in the roadside drainage swales incorporated in the project design. The EA asserts that the planned 100-foot vegetated buffer will minimize the amount of sediment entering the river and that the project will comply with St. Tammany Parish ordinances enacted to control sediment-laden run-off. The EA also states that Best Management Practices will be incorporated into project construction and inclusion of vegetated drainage swales and greenspaces will filter run-off and that [c]ompliance with the recommendations/ requirements of local ordinances and/or `Best Management Practices' should limit the volume of sediments entering local waterways. It neither describes what these practices may include nor how they will work. Similarly, the EA states that compliance with required state environmental permits should eliminate the potential for contamination of ground water resources, but does not describe what these permits require. 27
28 The EA predicts moderate to major adverse impacts on wildlife habitat, which, in turn, would create long-term adverse impacts to wildlife in a localized area. The document also notes that the project will result in a long-term increase in noise to levels loud and frequent enough to disturb wildlife in adjacent areas. In discussing mitigation of habitat loss and other adverse impacts on wildlife, however, the EA states, without explanation, that the buffer zone will mitigate some of the impact to aquatic organisms. When discussing habitat for non-aquatic wildlife the EA simply states that the buffer zone will be preserved and may provide habitat for some species, although others may be eliminated entirely. 29
30 The EA notes that the project will result in a total and complete loss of wetland functions for the developed portion of the site, which will, in turn, affect the remaining area directly affected by the development, as well as nearby wetlands and non-wetlands. Some of the mitigation discussion is built into the requirements pertinent to flood control, non-point source pollution, and wildlife habitat, discussed above. Beyond that, the EA says only that compensatory mitigation for wetland functionality losses will be required. The permittee must purchase credits for 47.5 acres of pine flatwood/savannah wetlands, which will be acquired from an approved site within the same USGS hydrologic watershed. 31
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.