Opinion ID: 448992
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Programmatic EIS

Text: 72 The District Court found that plaintiffs are likely to prevail in showing that NIH should complete a programmatic EIS. As this court has explained, under NEPA two types of EIS are possible: programmatic and specific. A programmatic EIS reflects the broad environmental consequences attendant upon a wide-ranging federal program. The thesis underlying programmatic EISs is that a systematic program is likely to generate disparate yet related impacts.    Whereas the programmatic EIS looks ahead and assimilates 'broad issues' relevant to [the program], the site-specific EIS addresses more particularized considerations   . Nat'l Wildlife Federation v. Appalachian Regional Comm'n, supra, 677 F.2d at 888. 73 Various standards guide judicial review of whether an agency should complete a programmatic EIS. The Supreme Court has emphasized that the question of preparing a programmatic EIS is initially committed to the agency. Kleppe v. Sierra Club, supra, 427 U.S. 390, 96 S.Ct. 2718, 49 L.Ed.2d 576. Under CEQ regulations a programmatic EIS should be prepared if actions are connected, cumulative, or sufficiently similar that a programmatic EIS is the best way to identify the environmental effects. 40 C.F.R. Sec. 1508.25. As this court has noted, Two considerations are especially helpful in reviewing the responsible officials' decision not to prepare a programmatic EIS: (a) Could the programmatic EIS be sufficiently forward looking to contribute to the decisionmakers' basic planning of the overall program? and (b) Does the decisionmaker purport to 'segment' the overall program, thereby unreasonably constricting the scope of    environmental evaluation? Nat'l Wildlife Federation v. Appalachian Regional Comm'n, supra, 677 F.2d at 889. Thus a programmatic EIS should be prepared if it can be forward-looking and if its absence will obstruct environmental review. 74 The District Court found that the federal defendants have passed the point at which a programmatic EIS is required by NEPA and the Council on Environmental Quality's regulations. 587 F.Supp. at 764. Though we share the District Court's view that a programmatic EIS would be helpful, we are not prepared to agree, on the record before us, that, as a matter of law, plaintiffs are likely to succeed in showing that the absence of a programmatic EIS unreasonably constricts environmental evaluation. If NIH gives adequate environmental consideration to each deliberate release experiment--and, as noted, that consideration must be far more complete and rigorous than the consideration NIH has thus far undertaken--then we cannot, at this point, say that such consideration will obstruct environmental review. We thus reverse the District Court's finding that plaintiffs are likely to succeed in showing, at this point, that the governing law requires NIH to complete a programmatic EIS on deliberate release experiments. 75 This reversal, however, should not be construed to mean that NIH need give no consideration to the environmental effects of deliberate release experiments beyond the individual experiments. Since NIH has given no serious consideration to whether a programmatic EIS is justified, we cannot evaluate its claims that deliberate release experiments are neither so cumulative or connected that a programmatic EIS is required under the CEQ regulations, nor so similar that a programmatic EIS may not be the best way to assess adequately their environmental effects. 40 C.F.R. Sec. 1508.25. Additionally, we note that federal development of a new technology with unknown environmental consequences is the type of action in which programmatic considerations are particularly important. Scientists' Institute for Public Information v. AEC, supra, 481 F.2d at 1089-1090. NIH is about to begin a process of reviewing what will be a stream of applications for approval of a new technology with unknown environmental consequences. Under these circumstances, NIH should at least consider whether a programmatic EIS is required to fulfill the agency's legal obligations under NEPA and the CEQ regulations. We thus conclude that, if NIH does not at least consider the advisability of a programmatic EIS, its approval of individual deliberate release experiments is likely to violate established principles of reasoned decisionmaking. See State Farm, supra, 104 S.Ct. at 2867 (agency may not entirely fail[ ] to consider an important aspect of the problem). And, unlike NIH's completely conclusory statement that it would not prepare a programmatic EIS, 49 Fed.Reg. 697 (January 5, 1984), reasoned consideration of these important aspects of the problem should reflect an articulated, rational connection between the facts found and the choice made. Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, supra, 371 U.S. at 168, 83 S.Ct. at 246. 10 76 In short, we vacate the part of the injunction enjoining NIH approval of all deliberate release experiments, but we stress that NIH's attention to important issues regarding deliberate release experiments will continue to influence whether its individual decisions may be found to reflect the rule of reason, Committee for Auto Responsibility v. Solomon, supra, 603 F.2d at 1003, that measures the adequacy of environmental review.