Webster v. United States Department of Agriculture
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 14389
4th Cir.2012Background
- NRCS, with local sponsors, developed the Lost River Subwatershed Project for watershed protection, flood prevention, and recreation.
- The 1974 EIS analyzed six alternatives, including a five-dam plan; four dams were flood-control, one Site 16 was multi-purpose.
- Over time, local sponsors changed and water-supply needs emerged, leading NRCS to modify purposes and advance Site 16 with water supply.
- 2009 SEIS updated the analysis, adding Site 16’s water-supply purpose and removing Site 23; 2009 ROD followed, later withdrawn.
- Plaintiffs alleged NEPA violations, challenging the 2009 SEIS and Site 16 dam impacts on their land.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are Site 16 purposes/needs properly supported under NEPA? | NRCS relied on sponsors without independent inquiry. | NRCS conducted searching independent review of purposes/needs. | NRCS adequately scrutinized purposes/needs; not arbitrary. |
| Was scoping required before the 2009 SEIS? | A new scoping was needed because 2009 SEIS replaced prior SEIS. | No new scoping required absent substantial changes or new information. | Not required; prior scoping sufficed. |
| Did the 2009 SEIS omit information or mischaracterize connected actions? | Omissions and connected-action failures undermine analysis. | Omissions were inconsequential; no connected actions proven. | No reversible omission; no connected actions requiring inclusion. |
| Were all reasonable alternatives adequately analyzed? | Multiple-action and alternative-site options deserved detailed study. | Seventeen alternatives discussed; no need to detail every remote option. | NRCS reasonably analyzed alternatives and no requirement to detail rejected options. |
| Did the 2009 SEIS provide sufficient discussion of environmental effects and mitigation? | Effects and mitigation were inadequately detailed or incomplete. | Hard look conducted; mitigation discussed and tied to identified effects. | SEIS provided thorough analysis and concrete mitigation measures. |
Key Cases Cited
- National Audubon Society v. Department of the Navy, 422 F.3d 174 (4th Cir. 2005) (NEPA requires hard look and public participation; procedural, not result-driven)
- Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332 (1989) (NEPA is procedural; agencies must adequately consider environmental impacts)
- Hodges v. Abraham, 300 F.3d 432 (4th Cir. 2002) (NEPA review is a holistic, not flyspeck, inquiry)
- Citizens Against Burlington, Inc. v. Busey, 938 F.2d 190 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (purpose/needs must be reasonable to structure EIS analysis)
- Wyoming v. Department of Agriculture, 661 F.3d 1209 (10th Cir. 2011) (scoping and alternatives analysis; avoid needless detail)