Sierra Club v. United States Army Corps Of Engineers

701 F.2d 1011 (1983)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

The Army Corps (D) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)(D) were involved in the approval process of a new proposed highway labeled Westway. At some point, it became apparent that construction of the replacement highway would require preparation of an environmental impact statement ('EIS') pursuant to § 102(2)(C) of NEPA. The statement was begun, and eventually, a formal draft was issued. The Project reevaluated the alternatives and completed further engineering and environmental studies. As for water quality issues, the draft and final reports used a 1973 data to determine that the proposed area was a biological wasteland. The final environmental impact statement recommending Westway was signed by NYSDOT and FHWA (D) and was issued on January 4, 1977. The final EIS analyzed the quality of urban development, traffic patterns, air quality, noise, water quality, and the impact of the proposed landfill on the aquatic habitat of the inter-pier region. Noting that the inter-pier area was 'biologically impoverished,' the FEIS stated that Westway would create an estuarine habitat in the inter-pier area that will closely resemble that of the main channel. The Water Report, which had similarly described the inter-pier area as a 'biological wasteland,' was appended to the FEIS. FHWA (D) approved federal funding for Westway. Landfill approval in the Hudson River was required from the Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to the CAA and RHAA. Public interest review procedures require the Corps (D) decisionmakers to consult with and give great weight to the views of, Fisheries Service and Wildlife Service. They objected to the report along with the EPA. Ds refused to amend the report. Sierra Club (Ps) sued Ds. Ps basic argument was that the 1973 Fish report was outdated and that a new study showed a thriving fish population in the biological wasteland. The court issued an injunction against the permit granted by Ds. Ds were ordered to issues a supplemental report. Ds and Ps appealed.