Hill v. Boy
| Decision Date | 02 July 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 97-8872,97-8872 |
| Parties | 28 Envtl. L. Rep. 21,433, 11 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 1531 Richard S. HILL; Derrill M. Maxwell, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Wayne W. BOY, Col., District Engineer, Savannah, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; John H. Zirschky, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Work), et al., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
Gary P. Bunch, Carrollton, GA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Ronald Spritzer, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
Before ANDERSON and BIRCH, Circuit Judges, and COHILL *, Senior District Judge.
In this case, the appellants challenge the United States Army Corps of Engineers' issuance of a section 404 permit under the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1344, for the proposed construction of a reservoir and dam in Carroll County, Georgia. We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand. Because we conclude that the Corps of Engineers did not adequately consider the potential adverse environmental impact of a petroleum pipeline that crosses underneath the proposed reservoir, we vacate in part and remand to the district court with instructions for the district court to remand the section 404 permitting decision to the Corps of Engineers.
On August 10, 1994, the United States Army Corps of Engineers ("Corps") issued a section 404 permit under the Clean Water Act ("CWA"), 33 U.S.C. § 1344, 1 to the Carroll County Water Authority ("Water Authority"). The section 404 permit authorized the Water Authority to discharge 320,000 cubic yards of dredged and/or fill material into the waters of Snake Creek and adjoining wetlands for the construction of an earthen dam and a 650 acre reservoir. 2 The reservoir is proposed to be used as a public water supply and for compatible public recreational activities. In issuing the section 404 permit and approving the project, 3 the Corps prepared an Environmental Assessment ("EA") in which the Corps concluded that
the proposed work will not have significant adverse effects on the quality of the human environment. The proposed action does not constitute a major Federal Action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment; and, therefore, does not require the preparation of a detailed statement under Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
In making a "finding of no significant impact" ("FONSI"), and thus deciding not to prepare an environmental impact statement ("EIS"), the Corps assumed that a liquid petroleum pipeline that crosses underneath the proposed Snake Creek reservoir would be relocated by the Water Authority. 4 In the EA for the Snake Creek project, the Corps responded to objections raised by the public, including objections raised by the plaintiffs in the instant case. The Corps stated the objections about the petroleum pipeline and the Corps' responses as follows:
(g) The application indicated that a natural gas pipeline crossed the project area, when in fact the pipeline is a liquid petroleum pipeline. The applicant has indicated that the pipeline would be relocated....
(p)(4) The application did not contain a contingency plan for actions to be taken in the event of a spill from the petroleum line currently located within the project area. This plan is not necessary since the line would be relocated.
(public objections underlined). In the appendix to the EA, entitled "Evaluation For Compliance With 404(B)(1) Guidelines," the Corps stated that However, the relocation of the petroleum pipeline was not made a condition of the Water Authority's section 404 permit and the administrative record before the Corps did not indicate that any specific plan of relocation existed.
In May 1995, the appellants, a number of property owners whose homes are located below the proposed dam (hereinafter "the property owners"), filed a four-count complaint against the EPA and the Corps. In Count I, the property owners challenged the Corps' issuance of a section 404 permit to the Water Authority, alleging that the Corps failed to clearly demonstrate that the proposed Snake Creek reservoir was the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative. In Count II, the property owners alleged that the EPA should have vetoed the Corps' issuance of the section 404 permit under section 309(c) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1344(c). 5 In the third count of their complaint, the property owners alleged that the Corps failed to prepare an EIS as required under the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"), 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C). Finally, in Count IV, the property owners alleged that the Corps' issuance of the section 404 permit was arbitrary, capricious, and otherwise not in accordance with the CWA or its implementing regulations, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). 6
In an August 5, 1996 order, the district court granted the defendants' motion for partial summary judgment and dismissed the property owners' claims (Counts I and II) brought under the citizen suit provision of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a)(2). 7 In the same order, the district court also entered a protective order prohibiting the property owners from engaging in any discovery and limiting the court's review on Counts III and IV to the administrative record. Subsequently, in a January 30, 1997, order, the district court granted summary judgment to the defendants on Counts III and IV of the property owners' complaint and denied the property owners' motion to remand the section 404 permitting decision to the Corps. The property owners appeal.
The "object of NEPA is to require federal agencies to consider environmental values when making decisions [and] [t]he initial responsibility of the federal agency is to determine the extent of the environmental impact." C.A.R.E. Now, Inc. v. Federal Aviation Admin., 844 F.2d 1569, 1572 (11th Cir.1988). Section 102(2)(C) of NEPA, 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C), requires a federal agency to prepare an EIS when a major federal action significantly affects the quality of the human environment. 8 In order to assist federal agencies in determining whether they must prepare an EIS, the federal Council on Environmental Quality ("CEQ") has issued regulations which provide guidance to the agencies. See Sabine River Auth. v. United States Dep't of Interior, 951 F.2d 669, 677 (5th Cir.1992) (citing Sierra Club v. Marsh, 769 F.2d 868, 870 (1st Cir.1985)). The CEQ regulations direct federal agencies to prepare an EA in order to determine whether the environmental effects of a proposed project are "significant." 40 C.F.R. §§ 1501.3, 1501.4, 1508.9, 1508.27 (1998). Under these regulations, the purpose of an EA is to "[b]riefly provide sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an environmental impact statement or a finding of no significant impact." 40 C.F.R. § 1508.9(a)(1) (1998). Thus, an agency will reach one of two conclusions in an EA: "either that the project requires the preparation of an EIS to detail its environmental impact, or that the project will have no significant impact ... necessitating no further study of the environmental consequences which would ordinarily be explored through an EIS." Sabine River Auth., 951 F.2d at 677.
We review an agency's decision not to prepare an EIS under an "arbitrary and capricious" standard of review. See Preserve Endangered Areas of Cobb's History, Inc. [P.E.A.C.H.] v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 87 F.3d 1242, 1248 (11th Cir.1996) (); North Buckhead Civic Ass'n v. Skinner, 903 F.2d 1533, 1538 (11th Cir.1990) (). 9 The District of Columbia Circuit has listed four criteria to be considered in determining whether an agency's decision not to prepare an EIS is arbitrary and capricious:
First, the agency must have accurately identified the relevant environmental concern. Second, once the agency has identified the problem it must have taken a "hard look" at the problem in preparing the EA. Third, if a finding of no significant impact is made, the agency must be able to make a convincing case for its finding. Last, if the agency does find an impact of true significance, preparation of an EIS can be avoided only if the agency finds that changes or safeguards in the project sufficiently reduce the impact to a minimum.
Coalition on Sensible Transp., Inc. v. Dole, 826 F.2d 60, 66-67 (D.C.Cir.1987) (quoting Sierra Club v. United States Dep't of Transp., 753 F.2d 120, 127 (D.C.Cir.1985)).
In challenging the Corps' decision not to prepare an EIS and arguing that the Corps' EA was deficient, the property owners primarily challenge the Corps' assumption that the petroleum pipeline, which crosses underneath the proposed Snake Creek reservoir, would be relocated by the Water Authority. The property owners contend that the administrative record is devoid of any evidence that the Water Authority actually plans to relocate the pipeline. 10 Furthermore, the property owners have proffered substantial evidence suggesting that the Water Authority has decided not to relocate the pipeline. 11
We conclude that the current record does not support the Corps' assumption that the petroleum pipeline will be relocated. In determining whether a remand is necessary, we address the question of whether the issuance...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sierra Club v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
... ... 1835) ... To determine whether an agency needs to perform an EIS, the agency prepares an environmental assessment ("EA") discussing the need for the proposed action, alternatives, and the environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.9; Hill v. Boy, 144 F.3d 1446, 1449-50 (11 th Cir.1998). In the EA, the agency must consider the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of proposed activities as well as the significance of those impacts on the human environment. 40 C.F.R. §§ 1508.7, 1508.8, 1508.27(b). Based on the EA, and consulting ... ...
-
D'Olive Bay Rest. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng.
...104 L.Ed.2d 377 (1989); Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 91 S.Ct. 814, 28 L.Ed.2d 136 (1971); Hill v. Boy, 144 F.3d 1446, 1450 (11th Cir.1998); Arango v. United States Department of the Treasury, 115 F.3d 922, 928 (11th Cir.1997); Preserve Endangered Areas of Cobb's......
-
Hoosier Envir. Council v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng.
...it reasonable to infer that the EPA might have tempered its feedback had it known the permit had already issued. See Hill v. Boy, 144 F.3d 1446, 1448 (11th Cir.1998) (noting that EPA did not seek to overrule the COE's issuance of a § 404 permit); Holy Cross Wilderness Fund v. Madigan, 960 F......
-
Forest Conservation Council v. Jacobs, CIV.A.1:03-CV1230ODE.
...analysis for determining whether to prepare an environmental impact statement or a finding of no significant impact.' "Hill v. Boy, 144 F.3d 1446, 1450 (11th Cir.1998) (quoting 40 C.F.R. § 1508.9(a)(1)). A "finding of no significant impact" ("FONSI") means that an environmental impact state......
-
Enforcement
...that subsection (a)(2) refers to the EPA Administrator, but not the Corps, and so there is no express waiver of immunity); Hill v. Boy, 144 F.3d 1446, 1449 n.7, 28 ELR 21433 (11th Cir. 1998) (following P.E.A.C.H. without further discussion). 231. Northwest , 118 F. Supp. 2d at 1120. son , t......
-
The Second Theme in Congress' Restructuring of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act: The Addition of Citizen Participation and Citizen Suits
...suit” because “the content of the standards is certainly at least somewhat discretionary with the EPA”). 66. See , e.g. , Hill v. Boy, 144 F.3d 1446, 1449 n.7, 28 ELR 21433 (11th Cir. 1998) (holding that EPA’s authority to veto the Corps’ §404 permits did not create a mandatory duty that it......
-
Enforcement
...that subsection (a)(2) refers to the EPA Administrator, but not the Corps, and so there is no express waiver of immunity); Hill v. Boy, 144 F.3d 1446, 1449 n.7, 28 ELR 21433 (11th Cir. 1998) (following P.E.A.C.H . without further discussion). 386. Northwest , 118 F. Supp. 2d at 1120. 387. I......
-
Citizen Suits Against the Federal Government and Tribes
...1992). 73. Cascade Conservation League v. M.A. Segale, Inc., 921 F. Supp. 692, 696, 26 ELR 21164 (W.D. Wash. 1996). 74. Hill v. Boy, 144 F.3d 1446, 1449 n.7, 28 ELR 21433 (11th Cir. 1998); Preserve Endangered Areas of Cobb’s History, Inc. v. Corps of Eng’rs, 87 F.3d 1242, 1249, 26 ELR 21449......