Opinion ID: 36501
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Omission of Mitigation Discussion in Draft EIS

Text: In addition to their complaints regarding the EIS’s environmental inadequacies, petitioners take issue with several aspects of the EIS’s discussion of mitigation measures. First, they argue that the Air Force and FAA violated NEPA by failing to discuss mitigation measures in the draft EIS. CEQ regulations require agencies to prepare a draft EIS prior to issuance of a final EIS.40 The draft “must fulfill and satisfy to the fullest extent possible the requirements established for final statements.”41 A final EIS must contain a discussion of possible mitigation measures.42 Whether the draft EIS must also contain a discussion of mitigation measures is a question of first impression in this circuit.43 40 40 C.F.R. § 1502.9(a). 41 Id. 42 Methow Valley, 490 U.S. at 351-52. 43 As yet, the issue appears to have been directly addressed by only the Eastern District of California, in Westlands Water District v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, 275 F. Supp 2d 1157, 1187-89 (E.D. Cal. 2002). In that case, the Department of the Interior 20 The Supreme Court has stated that, absent a discussion of possible mitigation measures, “neither the agency nor other interested individuals can properly evaluate the severity of the adverse effects.”44 Although the Court there referred to inclusion of a mitigation discussion in a final EIS, the same reasoning can apply to the draft. Under the structure created by the CEQ regulations, the lead agency must request comments from other agencies and the public on the draft EIS before preparing the final EIS.45 Following that structure in the present case, the Air Force provided a public comment period on the draft which closed before the Air Force issued the final EIS. Thus, by excluding mitigation measures from the draft, the Air Force prevented the public from commenting on those measures during the comment period. On the other hand, even if the agency omits the mitigation discussion from the draft, nothing prevents the public from commenting on the mitigation measures once the agency issues the final EIS, and petitioners do not argue that prepared a draft EIS without a discussion of mitigation measures that were later included in the final EIS. The court found the EIS inadequate under NEPA. The Ninth Circuit later reversed the district court, finding that the Department’s draft EIS did contain a discussion of mitigation measures. 376 F.3d 853, 872-75 (9th Cir. 2004). Thus, the court of appeals did not address the question of whether the final EIS would have been adequate had the draft not contained such a discussion. 44 Methow Valley, 490 U.S. at 352. 45 40 C.F.R. § 1503.1. 21 they were prevented from commenting during the two months between the issuance of the final EIS and the Air Force’s ROD.46 Given these considerations, we find it unnecessary in the present case to adopt a rigid rule that a draft EIS must contain a mitigation discussion, although we note that inclusion of such a discussion is ideal.