back | home > society > policy > nepa

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

Major Relevant Cases (Annotated)*

General

Hanly v. Kleindienst 471 F.2d 823 (2nd Circ. 1972)
This case weighs the interpretation of the word "significantly" in the critical NEPA phrase "major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment" (42 U.S.C. § 4332(C)), as it is applied to the proposed construction of a Manhattan federal building. In determining whether the effects of the project were significant (and therefore whether the responsible agency would be required to prepare an environmental impact statement), two criteria were used: the extent of adverse environmental effects beyond those created by existing uses of the area and the extent of absolute adverse effects, including the cumulative effect of existing conditions. The ruling also established that the appropriate criterion for threshold determinations was the "arbitrary, capricious . . . " standard found in the Administrative Procedure Act (§ 10(e)).

Strycker's Bay Neighborhood Council, Inc. v. Karlen 444 U.S. 223 (1980)
The Supreme Court ruled that NEPA is a strictly procedural document. The Department of Housing and Urban Development was not required to select an environmentally preferable alternate site for a Manhattan housing project. The Court found it sufficient that the agency had appropriately considered a reasonable range of alternatives according to NEPA procedure and had ruled out the environmentally preferable site because it would cause delays in construction.

Fire Related

National Helium Corp. v. Morton, 455 F.2d 650 (10th Cir. 1971)
A federal decision not to act was defined as a major federal action when the Department of the Interior decided not to stockpile helium. The court ruled that the "rapid depletion of the helium resources of the country" was an environmental consequence of the "no action" decision. The determination of significance was left up to the Secretary of the Interior, but the clear result was that the decision not to act is subject to NEPA. This ruling has obvious implications for fire management; an agency making an overt decision not to address a hazardous fuels situation must go through the NEPA process, just as it would if it were proposing a concrete action.

* Adapted in part from Weinberg (2001) and Coggins et al. (2001).

summary | flowchart | cases | document | CEQ NEPA Regulations | references