Opinion ID: 586835
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Failure To Prepare An EIS.

Text: 38 Vermont next contends that FERC abused its discretion under NEPA by failing to prepare an EIS. Put differently, Vermont argues that the EA and EA Supplement findings of no significant environmental impact are erroneous. We disagree. 39 If an agency prepares an EA and determines that a project will have no significant impact on the human environment, a costly and time consuming EIS need not be prepared. See 40 C.F.R. § 1508.13 (1991) (environmental impact statement required for major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment); see also Town of Orangetown v. Gorsuch, 718 F.2d 29, 34 (2d Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1099, 104 S.Ct. 1592, 80 L.Ed.2d 124 (1984); Hanly v. Kleindienst, 471 F.2d 823, 826 (2d Cir.1972), cert. denied, 412 U.S. 908, 93 S.Ct. 2290, 36 L.Ed.2d 974 (1973). In determining whether a proposed major federal action will have a significant environmental impact, federal regulations set forth criteria that an agency should consider, including the unique nature of the project site, the degree to which the project's effects on the environment are highly controversial, the degree to which the project will affect historical or cultural resources, and whether the project violates applicable environmental protection laws or requirements. See 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27(b)(3), (4), (8), & (10) (1991). Significantly, the regulations do not prescribe the weight to be given to these criteria. See River Road Alliance v. Corps of Eng'rs, 764 F.2d 445, 449 (7th Cir.1985) (The statutory concept of 'significant' impact has no determinate meaning, and to interpret it sensibly in particular cases requires a comparison that is also a prediction: whether the time and expense of preparing an environmental impact statement are commensurate with the likely benefits from a more searching evaluation than an [EA] provides.), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1055, 106 S.Ct. 1283, 89 L.Ed.2d 590 (1986). 40 Judicial review of agency decisions regarding whether an EIS is needed is  'essentially procedural.'  Town of Orangetown, 718 F.2d at 35 (citation omitted). [O]nce an agency has made a decision subject to NEPA's procedural requirements, the only role for a court is to ensure that the agency has considered the environmental consequences. Stryker's Bay Neighborhood Council, Inc. v. Carlen, 444 U.S. 223, 227, 100 S.Ct. 497, 500, 62 L.Ed.2d 433 (1980) (per curiam). Accordingly, a reviewing court must ensure that [FERC] has taken a 'hard look' at the environmental consequences ... and ... assess whether the agency has convincingly documented its determination of 'no significant impact.'  Town of Orangetown, 718 F.2d at 35. 41 In the present case, we conclude that FERC took the requisite hard look at the environmental impact of the Project on the Great Falls area. It examined the Project's impact on the aesthetic, cultural, historical, and recreational aspects of the site; it considered inconsistencies with state environmental plans; and it proposed measures to minimize certain unavoidable environmental impacts. Under these circumstances, and given that FERC's findings regarding the adequacy of mitigative measures are supported by substantial evidence, FERC has convincingly documented its finding of no significant impact. Town of Orangetown, 718 F.2d at 35. 42 Petitioners argue nevertheless that because the Project was highly controversial, one of the factors to be considered in determining significance of impact, an EIS is required. Vermont points to the opposition to the project from local residents, two governors of Vermont, and Vermont's U.S. senators. There is, however, a difference between controversy and opposition. The term highly controversial refers to instances in which a substantial dispute exists as to the size, nature, or effect of the major federal action rather than to the existence of opposition to a use. Town of Orangetown, 718 F.2d at 39 (citation omitted). Here, there is opposition and arguably controversy surrounding the Project's aesthetic impact. However, as explained by the court in River Road Alliance, 43 [a]esthetic objections alone will rarely compel the preparation of an environmental impact statement. Aesthetic values do not lend themselves to measurement or elaborate analysis. The necessary judgments are inherently subjective and normally can be made as reliably on the basis of an environmental assessment as on the basis of a much lengthier and costlier environmental impact statement. The fact that there was public opposition ... cannot tip the balance. 44 764 F.2d at 451 (citations omitted). Because the controversy, if any, concerns the largely subjective issue of the falls character with various flow rates, etc., we do not believe that a more extensive EIS would facilitate the agency's decision making. 45