Opinion ID: 3051262
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: CEQ’s Broad Reading of “Emergency

Text: Circumstances” and NEPA The district court also held that CEQ’s broad reading of “emergency circumstances” here is ultra vires because it subverts NEPA’s directive that agencies perform their NEPA duties “to the fullest extent possible.”44 See 42 U.S.C. § 4332. The existence of specific Congressional exemptions to NEPA informed the district court’s decision not to read the regulation “so broadly as to independently authorize CEQ to do the same, in the absence of a legitimate ‘emergency.’ ” Feb. 4, 2008 Dist. Ct. Order at 21. Moreover, the court noted that 44 Moreover, NEPA also requires agencies to use “all practicable means and measures” to fulfill their duties under it. 42 U.S.C. § 4331(b). NRDC v. WINTER 2127 many of the exemptions granted in other cases involved agencies faced with conflicting Congressional mandates. Id. at 22. NEPA, the statute authorizing 40 C.F.R. § 1506.11, requires federal agencies to prepare an EIS for a major federal action “significantly affecting the quality of the human environment,” 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C), or, in the alternative, to implement mitigation measures to minimize impacts to the point where an EIS in not required. See, e.g., Nat’l Parks & Conservation Ass’n v. Babbitt, 241 F.3d 722, 734 (9th Cir. 2001). Although CEQ justified its approval of “alternative arrangements” to satisfy NEPA as grounded in “urgent national security” concerns, see Jan. 15, 2008 CEQ Letter at 4, the district court noted that, in the absence of a bona fide emergency, the “alternative arrangements” “operate[ ] to exempt [the Navy] from the ususal rigors involved in the preparation of an EIS, which forms the ‘heart’ of NEPA.” Feb. 4, 2008 Dist. Ct. Order at 21 n.14 (quoting Envtl. Def. Fund, Inc. v. Andrus, 619 F.2d 1368, 1374-5 (10th Cir. 1980)). Reviewing CEQ’s justification in this light, the district court concluded that CEQ’s broad reading of “emergency circumstances” has the effect of reading a “national security” or “defense” exemption into NEPA, where none exists.45 As the 45 Moreover, the district court’s conclusion was grounded in the wellestablished fact that there is no “national defense” exception to NEPA. See San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm’n, 449 F.3d 1016, 1035 (9th Cir. 2006); No GWEN Alliance of Lane County, Inc. v. Aldridge, 855 F.2d 1380, 1384 (9th Cir. 1988). “ ‘The Navy, just like any federal agency, must carry out its NEPA mandate to the fullest extent possible and this mandate includes weighing the environmental costs of the [project] even though the project has serious security implications.’ ” San Luis Obispo, 449 F.3d at 1035 (quoting No GWEN, 855 F.2d at 1384). Indeed, Congress has included exemptions for “paramount” national security concerns in many environmental statutes, but not in NEPA. See, e.g., Toxic Substances Control Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2621 (compliance waived if the President determines a requested waiver to be necessary “in the 2128 NRDC v. WINTER district court pointed out, Congress knows well how to exempt planned Defense Department activities from the requirements of NEPA. See, e.g., Nat’l Defense Auth. Act, Pub. L. No. 106-398, § 317, 114 Stat. 1654, 1654A-57 (2000) (specifically exempting Defense Department from preparing nationwide EIS for low-level flight training). The fact that Congress has not so exempted the Navy’s exercises in the Southern California Operating Area further supports the district court’s conclusion that 40 C.F.R. § 1506.11 should not be read to exempt the routine SOCAL exercises from NEPA’s requirements. The district court’s interpretation also comports with wellestablished Supreme Court precedent that narrowly interprets NEPA’s requirement that agencies comply with its provisions “to the fullest extent possible.” The Supreme Court has made clear that the “to the fullest extent possible” language was intended to address only cases in which there is an “irreconcilable and fundamental conflict” between NEPA’s requireinterest of national defense”); Coastal Zone Management Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1456(c)(1)(b) (under certain circumstances the President may exempt an activity that is in the “paramount interest of the United States”); Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1536(j) (exemption granted if the Secretary of Defense finds such exemption necessary “for reasons of national security”); Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1323(a) (the President may exempt federal effluent source for up to one year if in the “paramount interest of the United States”); Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300j- 6(a) (the President may exempt federal facility for up to one year if in the “paramount interest of the United States”); Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. § 6961(a) (the President may exempt federal solid waste management facility for up to one year if in the “paramount interest of the United States”); Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7417(b) (the President may exempt federal emission source for up to one year if in the “paramount interest of the United States”); Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. § 9620(j) (the President may issue orders to exempt facilities of the Department of Energy and the Department of Defense “as may be necessary to protect the national security interests of the United States . . .”). See Oct. 1, 2007 Brief of Amicus Curiae Law Professors Hope Babcock, et al. at 16 & n.4. NRDC v. WINTER 2129 ments and the requirements of another statute. See Flint Ridge Dev. Co. v. Scenic Rivers Ass’n. of OK, 426 U.S. 776, 787-88 (1976). Here, as the district court noted, the Navy has never contended that it could not reconcile the district court’s injunction with the requirements of NEPA. Similarly, NEPA regulations interpret the language “to the fullest extent possible” to mean that “each agency of the Federal Government shall comply with that section unless existing law . . . expressly prohibits or makes compliance impossible.” 40 C.F.R. § 1500.6. The legislative history of § 1500.6 explains that this language “shall not be used by any Federal agency as a means of avoiding compliance with [NEPA’s] directives . . . .” 115 Cong. Rec. (Part 29) 3970239703 (1969); see also Calvert Cliffs’ Coordinating Comm. Inc. v. U.S. Atomic Energy Comm’n, 449 F.2d 1109, 1114 (D.C. Cir. 1971) (“We must stress as forcefully as possible that this language does not provide an escape hatch for footdragging agencies; it does not make NEPA’s procedural requirements somehow ‘discretionary.’ . . . Indeed, [the language] sets a high standard for the agencies, a standard which must be rigorously enforced by the reviewing courts.”). The Navy asserts that national policy requires that it must be confident that its west coast-based strike groups are prepared and certified for deployment to hostile areas overseas during a time of war. However, as the district court noted, nothing prevented the Navy from preparing an EIS prior to commencing the SOCAL exercises; indeed, the fact that the Navy is currently developing an EIS for exercises in the Southern California Operating Area confirms that it is fully capable of meeting NEPA’s requirements. See Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement/ Overseas Environmental Impact Statement for the Southern California Range Complex, 71 Fed. Reg. 76,639 (Dec. 21, 2006). 2130 NRDC v. WINTER Although the Navy argues that “NEPA must give way” so that it may proceed with its training and certification unhindered by environmental rules, quoting Flint Ridge, 426 U.S. at 788, Flint Ridge itself holds that NEPA’s procedural requirements are not discretionary and do not give way unless a “clear and unavoidable conflict in statutory authority exists,” id, here, the district court carefully examined the record, with which it has longstanding familiarity, and determined that there was no such conflict in statutory authority, concluding that conditioning phrases like “consistent with other essential considerations of national policy,” 42 U.S.C. §4331(b), and “to the fullest extent possible,” id. §4332, do not indicate Congressional intent to create a statutory escape hatch. Nor does any intent appear in the implementing regulations, that would allow the Navy to conduct its exercises before completing an EIS.46 Feb. 4, 2008 Dist. Ct. Order at 22-23. In reaching these conclusions, the district court examined the various legal rules and applied those that were relevant to this proceeding. Having done so, it acted well within its discretion in determining that CEQ’s broad interpretation of “emergency circumstances” is contrary to the dictates of NEPA.