Case Law Details
National Trust for Historic Preservation v. US Dept of Veterans Affairs
Project Description:
This case involved the selection of a location, known as the Mid-Cities site, in New Orleans for construction of for two medical facilities: the LSU Medical Center (LSUMC) and the Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC). FEMA provided funding for the relocation of Charity Hospital, and the VA was directly responsible for relocating the VAMC; therefore, both FEMA and the VA were required to comply with NEPA and the NHPA. They decided to carry out their responsibilities through a tiered NEPA process, which involved a Programmatic EA (Tier 1) followed by a site-specific EA (Tier 2). The Tier 1 EA was intended to cover site selection, acquisition, and preparation. The Tier 2 study was intended to cover design, construction, and operation. FEMA and the VA jointly prepared the Programmatic EA, and then each issued a FONSI, which approved the Mid-Cities site for LSUMC and the VAMC. The agencies then began to prepare the site-specific EA.
2010 WL 1416729
2010 WL 1416729
U.S. District Court – Louisiana
03/31/2010
Mid-Cities Hospital Site
Other
Case Summary
The plaintiffs filed suit challenging the Tier 1 FONSIs issued by FEMA and the VA, based on alleged violations of NEPA. They alleged that the defendants violated NEPA in Tier 1 by (1) unlawfully segmenting the project, (2) inadequately examining the environmental impacts of the proposed action, including noise, traffic, draining, contamination, and land use; (3) improperly tiering the NEPA process; and (4) improperly relying on mitigation measures as the basis for a FONSI, because the FONSIs lacked conditions to ensure the effectiveness of the mitigation measures.
Key Holdings
NEPA
Segmentation. The plaintiffs claimed that FEMA and the VA had unlawfully segmented the project by separating decisions into two separate phases – in other words, they argued that the tiered process resulted in unlawful segmentation. The court rejected this argument, finding that segmentation exists only when a single action is divided into smaller parts with the purpose of avoiding compliance with NEPA. The court found that the use of a tiered process for analyzing this action was not segmentation.
Impacts Analysis. The plaintiffs challenged the adequacy of the impacts analysis in the Tier 1 EA on several topics, including noise, traffic, draining, contamination, and land use. In each area, the court found that the EA’s analysis was adequate for a Tier 1 study.
Tiering. The plaintiffs argued that the tiered process was unlawful because, under the CEQ regulations, tiering can only be used when an EIS is prepared (not for an EA). They also argued, more generally, that the tiered process was unlawful because it allowed the defendants to make in irretrievable commitment to the selected site before the full impacts of constructing the facilities at that site were known. The court held that an EA could be used as the basis for a tiered process, and found that the tiered process did not irreversibly commit the agencies to the site, because funding for construction would be made available only after completion of the Tier 2 studies.
Mitigation Measures. The plaintiffs argued that the Tier 1 FONSIs were invalid because they relied upon the implementation of mitigation measures, without including sufficient conditions to ensure that the mitigation measures would actually be effective. Specifically, the plaintiffs challenged the adequacy of the mitigation measures for draining and flooding, land use, historic buildings, socioeconomic effects, and businesses. In each area, the court found that the measures included in the FONSI were sufficient to ensure effectiveness of the mitigation measures.
File Attachment
Download the decision