Opinion ID: 65019
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Requirement of an EIS

Text: In arguing that an EIS was required, Appellants attempt to distinguish this case from Sabine River. In that case, strikingly similar to the present one, FWS set an acquisition boundary for a wildlife refuge on 3,800 acres in East Texas, and accepted a negative, no-development easement from a landowner inside the acquisition boundary. See Sabine River, 951 F.2d at 674-76. The designation precluded the construction of a proposed reservoir. Id. at 673. The reservoir was in the preliminary planning stage, and the state agency with jurisdiction over it had obtained none of the necessary federal and state permits, had secured no funding, and had not yet entered into any firm contracts for the 300 thousand plus acre feet of water that the reservoir would generate each year. Id. We concluded that the acquisition of a negative easement which by its terms prohibits any change in the status quo does not amount to `major Federal action[] significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.' ... The acquisition of a negative easement which prohibits development does not result in the requisite `change' to the physical environment. Id. at 679-80 (citations omitted). The acceptance of such an easement is tantamount to inaction, and thus the acceptance did not effectuate any change to the environment which would otherwise trigger the need to prepare an EIS. Id. at 680. In the instant case, the district court properly set forth the factors to consider in applying Sabine River : whether the agency action (1) precludes any development of the land, (2) changes the character or function of the land, and (3) prohibits any change in the status quo of the land. City of Dallas, Tex., 2008 WL 2622809 at . The City argues that three independent authorities dictate that an EIS was required in this instance: FWS's own NEPA guidelines, the NEPA implementing regulations issued by the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), and the NEPA implementing regulations issued by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). The FWS guidelines include a number of criteria to assist the agency in determining whether an EIS is needed. Among these are increased safety or health hazards, 550 FW 3.3(B)(2)(e), and [a]dverse effects on municipal, industrial, or agricultural water supply or quality..., id. at 3.3(B)(2)(i). The City points to these guidelines and argues that an EIS is required to weigh adequately the health and water supply effects of not building the reservoir. But these guidelines have no binding force. See Coliseum Square Ass'n, Inc. v. Jackson, 465 F.3d 215, 229 (5th Cir.2006) (Generally, to be legally binding on an agency, its own publications must have been `promulgated pursuant to a specific statutory grant of authority and in conformance with the procedural requirements imposed by Congress.') (citation omitted). When agency publications have not been promulgated pursuant to a specific grant of statutory authority, an agency's decision to analyze impacts by other methods is not automatically arbitrary and capricious. Id. at 230. These guidelines were not promulgated pursuant to law. Further, by their own terms, they are meant to assist in determining whether an EIS is necessary, not dictate when an EIS is necessary, and carefully note that whether any of the criteria triggers the need for an EIS depends in each instance on the severity and duration of effects. FW550 3.3(B)(2). The DOI regulations the City points to are binding on the agency, but they do not mandate the preparation of an EIS in this case. In the regulations, among the Major Actions Normally Requiring an EIS are major new refuge system units ... which involve substantive conflicts over existing State and local land use [or] significant controversy over the environmental effects of the proposal. 62 Fed.Reg. 2375, 2382. The City argues that the refuge meets both these criteria. But by their own terms, the regulations normally require preparation of an EIS but do not dictate preparation in each case. Further, the regulations clearly envision that when, pursuant to an EA, the agency determines that an action will have no major environmental impacts, an EIS is not required even when the action otherwise meets the criteria. Id. In this case, after preparing an EA the agency made a reasoned decision that there were no significant environmental effects. More importantly, by their own terms the regulations only envision preparation of an EIS when there is a conflict with existing State and local land use or where there is significant controversy over environmental effects. In this case, while a feasibility study has been completed, the City and TWDB have taken no concrete steps to develop the reservoir (such as applying for permits), much less put any land to use. The development of an acquisition boundary does not conflict with existing State and local use, but merely with a potential future use. Further, the City and TWDB have been unable to show with any specificity the effects of setting the acquisition boundary. A controversy such as this oneover the highly speculative, uncertain effects of not building a particular reservoircannot be significant within the meaning of both the regulations and NEPA. Similarly, while the CEQ regulations that the City points to are binding on federal agencies, see Fritiofson v. Alexander, 772 F.2d 1225, 1236 (5th Cir.1985), they do not mandate the preparation of an EIS in this case. The regulations merely require an agency to determine whether an action is one that normally requires an EIS. See 40 C.F.R. § 1501.4(a). If the agency determines that the action does not normally require an EIS, it then prepares an EA and makes a finding as to whether the proposed action has significant environmental impacts. Id. at 1501.4(b). In this case, as described above, FWS properly prepared an EA and made a FONSI, as envisioned by the CEQ regulations. TWDB also argues that the instant case is distinguishable from Sabine River because the refuge designation in this case will cause changes in the physical environment. As noted in the EA, FWS envisions removing non-native tree species in the refuge and reintroducing native hardwood and evergreen species. TWDB argues that this distinguishes the case from Sabine River, where there was no evidence that the refuge site would be changed in any way by the acceptance of an easement. See Sabine River Auth. v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior, 745 F.Supp. 388, 394 (E.D.Tex. 1990). However, as the district court noted in its order denying Appellants' motion for partial summary judgment, the action at issue here is the establishment of an acquisition boundary for the refuge. The establishment of that boundary does not effect any change in the physical environment, but merely authorizes the purchase of property from willing buyers or the acceptance of conservation easements. Once sufficient land is acquired, FWS will be required to comply with NEPA in formulating a Comprehensive Conservation Plan to guide refuge forest management. If changes in the physical environment are proposed in that plan, an EIS may be required. But the present federal action will have no significant physical effects such that an EIS is required. As in Sabine River, where the acceptance of a negative, non-development easement was tantamount to inaction, Sabine River, 951 F.2d at 680, setting an acquisition boundary for the refuge does not effect a change in the use or character of land or in the physical environment. Thus, it is not a major Federal action[] significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2), and no EIS is necessary under the requirements of NEPA.