Opinion ID: 327674
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Adequacy of the Environmental Impact Statement

Text: 35 Having decided that the Service must comply with NEPA, we turn to the Environmental Impact Statement actually filed. The adequacy of an EIS can only be considered in light of its purpose. The primary purpose of the impact statement is to compel federal agencies to give serious weight to environmental factors in making discretionary choices. Monroe County Conservation Council, Inc. v. Volpe, 472 F.2d 693, 697 (2d Cir. 1972). NEPA, in effect, requires a broadly defined cost-benefit analysis of major federal activities. It seeks to insure that more than economic costs alone are considered. 36 Environmental amenities will often be in conflict with economic and technical considerations. To consider the former along with the latter must involve a balancing process. In some instances environmental costs may outweigh economic and technical benefits and in other instances they may not. But NEPA mandates a rather finely tuned and systematic balancing analysis in each instance. 37 Calvert Cliffs', supra, 449 F.2d at 1113. NEPA is, at the very least, 'an environmental full disclosure law.'  Monroe County, supra, 472 F.2d at 697. 38 The EIS in this case describes the Proposed Action, as already noted, as a major U. S. Postal Service vehicle maintenance facility (VMF) in combination with a multi-story housing project. The EIS is a sizeable document whose very bulk is impressive. 22 Unfortunately for the Service, however, Judge Ward was not sufficiently impressed with its substance, finding it lacking in three respects. 23 These were the failure of the EIS to discuss sufficiently (1) the impact of the proposed housing; (2) the possibility that no housing would ever be erected; and (3) alternatives to the proposed construction. 39 Turning to the first of these alleged inadequacies, the judge found that one shortcoming of the EIS lay in using the housing portion of the project as a virtue, while ignoring many of its associated disadvantages. There is no doubt that the air-rights housing was a chief selling point for the entire project. In the Assessment of Trade-Offs section of the EIS, the paragraph concerning beneficial consequences ends as follows: 40 Most importantly, the proposed project is a response to a pressing local housing need, to which the community readily admits. And the ultimate finding is: 41 It is the conclusion of this Statement that the net effect of the project development is positive, as it represents an improvement of Postal Service operations as well as a much needed source of low- and moderate-income housing for the Chelsea-Clinton community. (Emphasis in the original.) 42 EIS at III-35-36. The summary portion of the EIS, in the section concerning impacts, notes: The most significant impact of the project is the positive response to a pressing and obvious need for low- and moderate-income housing in the area. EIS at 3. And there are other instances where the project is justified on the basis of the housing. 43 Yet the EIS does not contain a comprehensive analysis of the environmental impact of the housing. There is brief mention of possible overcrowding at a local elementary school, the need for future expansion of local health services, and the effect on park usage. But the report does not treat the effect of the housing with anywhere near the thoroughness accorded the VMF. For example, the VMF will require closing 29th Street for most of the day and diversion of traffic onto adjacent streets. The EIS states that tightened parking enforcement on those streets will help keep the extra volume of traffic flowing. But the statement does not consider where those parked cars will go; nor does it discuss what will be done with the automobiles of the residents of the proposed 860 apartments in the air-rights housing 24 or the automobiles of the 1,500 drivers and employees of the VMF. The required support services for the housing are not adequately discussed. Garbage collection is disposed of by a single paragraph stating, in effect, that it will all be trucked away. What will be the expected noise and air pollution contribution from those trucks is not adequately discussed. 44 A possibly more serious shortcoming of the housing analysis lies in the social, not physical, sciences. What effect will living at the top of an 80-foot plateau have on the residents of the air-rights housing? Will there be an emotional as well as physical isolation from the community? Will that isolation exacerbate the predicted rise in crime due to the increase in population density? That an EIS must consider these human factors is well established. Hanly v. Mitchell, 460 F.2d 640, 647 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 990, 93 S.Ct. 313, 34 L.Ed.2d 256 (1972). The EIS gives scant attention to these serious questions. It acknowledges that project size, height and design and the incidence of crime are all related. EIS at III-31. But the only response is to suggest that (p)roject design should reflect this emerging body of research to the extent practicable. Id. This is not enough. We do not know whether informed social scientists would conclude that the top of the VMF would likely become a human jungle, unsafe at night and unappealing during the day. The question must be faced, however, by those who plan the project. 25 45 In short, we agree with Judge Ward that the impact of the housing was not accorded the full consideration required by NEPA. See Calvert Cliffs', supra, 449 F.2d at 1128. The Service argues that since the housing portion of the project is speculative it cannot be required to assess the unknowable or to postpone the VMF indefinitely. We agree that the Service can only do the possible, but the total number of apartment units has been approximated and an evaluation of probable environmental impact need not await final detailed design. 46 The Service also contends that any inadequacy in the EIS treatment of housing is irrelevant because the entire project was, in effect, segmented by Congress into two parts a VMF to be built by the Service and housing to be built by New York City. 26 Since some other agency will construct the apartments, the Service asserts that a housing EIS is not its responsibility. But segmentation is not really the issue now before us. It is correct that the Service will not build the housing portion of this project, but even so, the Service cannot ignore it. If the potential impact of the housing is not considered before the VMF is constructed, it will be too late to reassess the project as a whole no matter what is shown by a later EIS for the housing prepared by another agency. The statutory mandate is not fulfilled by vague generalities or pious and self-serving resolutions or by assuming that someone else will take care of it. Monroe County, supra, 472 F.2d at 700. Moreover, using the housing as a selling point without disclosing its possible negative aspects is certainly not the environmental full disclosure called for by NEPA. See Monroe County, supra, 472 F.2d at 697. 47 This brings us to the failure of the EIS to disclose that the housing might never be built at all, the second defect found by Judge Ward. While the impact of the VMF alone was analyzed, the treatment of the VMF without housing was in some instances perfunctory compared with the analysis of the VMF with housing. 27 This defect in itself may well be easily remedied. More significant, however, is the failure to assess the importance and impact of the VMF by itself. The lack is fatal to the EIS for it is at least possible that without the housing the Assessment of Trade Offs would result in a decision not to proceed with the project at all. We do not suggest that it would be arbitrary or capricious for the Service to reach a contrary conclusion, but such a judgment must come only after full consideration of the VMF standing alone. 48 Finally, Judge Ward found the EIS inadequate in its discussion of alternatives, holding that treatment of the No Action and Scatter Site possibilities was conclusory and uninformative. Citing Life of the Land v. Brinegar, 485 F.2d 460, 472 (9th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 961, 94 S.Ct. 1979, 40 L.Ed.2d 312 (1974) (NEPA's 'alternatives' discussion is subject to a construction of reasonableness), the Service argues that since studies over the past decade all agree on the need for a consolidated VMF, certain alternatives could be rejected in the EIS without detailed analysis. But these studies were not made part of the EIS and so invocation of them cannot alone permit a reasoned choice of alternatives. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Morton, 148 U.S.App.D.C. 5, 458 F.2d 827, 836 (1972). Without a more detailed analysis of the rejected alternatives the community and other agencies will have no way of checking on the validity of the Service's conclusions. See Calvert Cliffs', supra, 449 F.2d at 1114. If, as the Service contends, there are studies conclusively showing the need for a consolidated VMF and rejecting various alternatives, it should be a simple matter to include in a revised EIS the supporting data from these studies. 49 Plaintiffs also argue strenuously that the EIS is defective because it does not deal with the suggested alternative location of the Yale Express garage. See Monroe County, supra, 472 F.2d at 697-98. The Service contends that it was not required to consider that site because its availability was not known until after the EIS was completed. The district judge never reached this issue. Since the EIS must be revised in any event, the Yale Express location should be considered as one of the possible alternatives to the Chelsea VMF. 50 In sum, we agree with the district court that the Service has failed to meet the requirements of NEPA in making a careful and informed decision, and we affirm the injunction of the district court. We do not suggest, however, that the Service will be unable to comply with NEPA, or that it will necessarily take it a long time to do so, although compliance, of course, must be thorough not perfunctory. The district court, as noted above, enjoined the Service not only from proceeding with construction of the VMF but also from entering into any contract. When we heard argument on April 10, 1975, the bids for the VMF were scheduled to expire on April 21, 1975. We have since been informed that the first and second lowest bidders have agreed to extend their bids until May 20 and May 21, respectively, and two other bidders have given the Service until June 10. Under the circumstances, it may be that the Service, in the exercise of business judgment, would want to take the risk of accepting one of the bids on the assumption that a satisfactory EIS still favoring the VMF at Chelsea can be prepared and filed in the near future. We express no view as to this other than to note that, should the Service so request before the mandate issues, we would consider granting a stay of the injunction for that limited purpose. 28 Cf. Hanly v. Mitchell,supra, 460 F.2d at 649.