Opinion ID: 615771
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Overview of NEPA

Text: Congress enacted NEPA in 1969. 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-70. The statute, which has been described as [t]he centerpiece of environmental regulation in the United States, Forest Guardians, 611 F.3d at 711 (quoting New Mexico ex rel. Richardson, 565 F.3d at 703) (internal quotation marks omitted), requires federal agencies to integrate environmental values into the decisionmaking process by considering the environmental impacts of proposed actions and reasonable alternatives to such actions, see, e.g., Barnes v. U.S. Dep't of Transp., 655 F.3d 1124, 1131 (9th Cir.2011) (Congress passed NEPA `to protect the environment by requiring that federal agencies carefully weigh environmental considerations and consider potential alternatives to the proposed action before the government launches any major federal action.' (quoting Lands Council v. Powell, 395 F.3d 1019, 1026 (9th Cir.2005))). NEPA established a `national policy [to] encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment,' and was intended to reduce or eliminate environmental damage and promote `the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to' the United States. Ecology Ctr., Inc. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 451 F.3d 1183, 1185 (10th Cir.2006) (alteration in original) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 4321). NEPA has two aims: First, it places upon an agency the obligation to consider every significant aspect of the environmental impact of a proposed action. Second, it ensures that the agency will inform the public that it has indeed considered environmental concerns in its decisionmaking process. Forest Guardians, 611 F.3d at 711 (quoting Balt. Gas & Elec. Co. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 462 U.S. 87, 97, 103 S.Ct. 2246, 76 L.Ed.2d 437 (1983)) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also New Mexico ex rel. Richardson, 565 F.3d at 703 (By focusing both agency and public attention on the environmental effects of proposed actions, NEPA facilitates informed decisionmaking by agencies and allows the political process to check those decisions.). However, NEPA is strictly a procedural statute; it does not mandate substantive results. E.g., Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 129 S.Ct. 365, 376, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008); Utah Envtl. Cong. v. Russell, 518 F.3d at 821. Under NEPA, before a federal agency undertakes a `major Federal action[] significantly affecting the quality of the human environment,' it must prepare an environmental impact statement (`EIS') that details, among other things, the environmental impacts of the proposed action, any adverse environmental effects that would occur as a result, and alternatives to the proposed action. Greater Yellowstone Coal. v. Flowers, 359 F.3d 1257, 1274 (10th Cir.2004) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C)). Through the NEPA process, the agency must take a `hard look' at information relevant to its decision. Forest Guardians, 611 F.3d at 711. We have described the multi-stage process for preparation of an EIS as follows: Initially, an agency announces its intent to study a proposed action through a process called scoping, during which the agency solicits comments and input from the public and other state and federal agencies with the goal of identifying specific issues to be addressed and studied. 40 C.F.R. § 1501.7. After assessing the input from the scoping process, the government then prepares a draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), id. § 1502.9(a), which is then presented to the public and other government agencies for notice and comment. Id. § 1503.1(a). After evaluating the feedback received during the notice and comment process, the agency prepares a FEIS. Id. § 1502.9(b). If after preparing either a DEIS or FEIS, the proposed action substantially changes in a way relevant to environmental concerns, or if new information comes to light about environmental impacts, an agency must prepare a supplemental EIS (SEIS). Id. § 1502.9(c)(1). Citizens' Comm. to Save Our Canyons v. U.S. Forest Serv., 297 F.3d 1012, 1022 (10th Cir.2002). In every EIS prepared under NEPA, agencies must include a detailed statement on: (i) the environmental impact of the proposed action, (ii) any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented, (iii) alternatives to the proposed action, (iv) the relationship between local short-term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and (v) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented. 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C). After completing the NEPA process and making a final decision on the proposed action, the agency then must publish a record of its decision, showing how its final decision-making process incorporated the [EIS's] findings. BioDiversity Conservation Alliance v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 608 F.3d 709, 712 (10th Cir.2010) (citing 23 C.F.R. § 771.127). The requirements of NEPA have been augmented by longstanding regulations issued by the Council on Environmental Quality (`CEQ'). New Mexico ex rel. Richardson, 565 F.3d at 703; see 40 C.F.R. pts. 1500-08.