Opinion ID: 1192958
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The National Environmental Policy Act Challenge

Text: Petitioners submit that the FAA violated NEPA when it decided to authorize the building of a new airport at the West Bay Site. To facilitate our discussion of this argument, we briefly outline the NEPA provision at issue.
NEPA requires a federal agency to prepare an EIS before taking any major action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C); see Stewart Park & Reserve Coal., Inc. v. Slater, 352 F.3d 545, 557 (2d Cir.2003); Citizens Against Burlington, Inc. v. Busey, 938 F.2d 190, 193 (D.C.Cir. 1991). The purpose of an EIS is to provide full and fair discussion of significant environmental impacts and [to] inform decisionmakers and the public of the reasonable alternatives which would avoid or minimize adverse impacts or enhance the quality of the human environment. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.1. Thus, NEPA is a procedural statute that mandates a process rather than a particular result. Stewart Park & Reserve Coal., Inc. v. Slater, 352 F.3d at 557. The agency's overall EIS-related obligation is to take a `hard look' at the environmental consequences before taking a major action. Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 462 U.S. 87, 97, 103 S.Ct. 2246, 76 L.Ed.2d 437 (1983). Significantly, [i]f the adverse environmental effects of the proposed action are adequately identified and evaluated, the agency is not constrained by NEPA from deciding that other values outweigh the environmental costs. Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 350, 109 S.Ct. 1835, 104 L.Ed.2d 351 (1989). The scope of judicial review of an EIS is narrow. Sierra Club v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, 701 F.2d at 1029. Given the role of the EIS and the narrow scope of permissible judicial review, a court may not rule an EIS inadequate if the agency has made an adequate compilation of relevant information, has analyzed it reasonably, has not ignored pertinent data, and has made disclosures to the public. Stewart Park & Reserve Coal., Inc. v. Slater, 352 F.3d at 557 (internal quotation marks omitted).