## Facts

- The United States Department of the Navy planned to construct an aircraft outlying landing field to support training operations.
- The proposed site was near an important habitat for migratory waterfowl, raising concerns about disturbance to bird populations and the risk of bird-aircraft strikes.
- In connection with the project, the Navy prepared an environmental-impact statement (EIS) addressing environmental effects and comparing potential locations and other options.
- Several North Carolina counties and environmental organizations (the waterfowl advocates) sued the Navy in federal district court.
- The plaintiffs alleged violations of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) based on asserted defects in the EIS and decisionmaking process.
- The plaintiffs argued the Navy did not fairly evaluate alternatives and instead assembled the EIS to justify a site selection already made.
- The plaintiffs claimed the EIS selectively presented or characterized evidence to minimize effects on waterfowl, including allegedly misstating study conclusions regarding bird impacts.
- The plaintiffs asserted the Navy failed to conduct adequate site visits during relevant migration periods, resulting in an incomplete understanding of bird presence and patterns.
- The plaintiffs also alleged the Navy inadequately studied the probability and consequences of bird-aircraft strikes, and improperly relied on data from smaller bird species and less concentrated populations.
- The plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction barring construction until the Navy satisfied NEPA’s requirements.
- The Navy responded that it satisfied NEPA by taking a hard look at environmental consequences in the EIS, and that NEPA does not forbid an agency from having a preferred option while preparing an EIS.

## Issues

1. Whether the Navy’s EIS complied with NEPA’s procedural requirements, including the duty to take a hard look at environmental consequences of the proposed landing field near migratory waterfowl habitat.
2. Whether the Navy’s evaluation of reasonable alternatives in the EIS was adequate under NEPA, or instead was unlawfully skewed to support a predetermined site.
3. Whether alleged shortcomings in data collection and analysis—such as limited migration-period site visits and the use of bird-strike data from different species or contexts—rendered the EIS insufficient under NEPA.
4. Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to a permanent injunction halting construction based on the claimed NEPA violations.

## Decision

- The court rejected the plaintiffs’ NEPA challenge and concluded that the Navy’s EIS satisfied NEPA’s procedural demands.
- The court found that NEPA requires informed decisionmaking and disclosure, not a particular substantive outcome, and that the central question was whether the Navy took the required hard look.
- The court determined that the Navy’s discussion of alternatives and environmental effects was adequate for NEPA purposes, even though the plaintiffs argued the presentation favored the Navy’s preferred location.
- The court credited that NEPA does not bar an agency from having a preference while preparing an EIS, so long as the EIS meaningfully evaluates environmental impacts and reasonable options.
- The court declined to issue a permanent injunction to halt construction, effectively allowing the project to proceed based on the existing NEPA review.

## Legal Principles

- NEPA is primarily procedural: it requires agencies to study and disclose environmental consequences of major federal actions, but it does not mandate the most environmentally protective choice.
- An EIS must take a “hard look” at likely environmental effects; judicial review focuses on whether the agency reasonably evaluated impacts and explained its analysis, not whether the court would have made the same policy choice.
- NEPA requires consideration of reasonable alternatives; the analysis must be genuine and informative, but it need not treat every conceivable alternative as equal.
- An agency may have a preferred alternative when preparing an EIS; the key is whether the EIS still provides a fair, reasoned analysis that informs decisionmakers and the public.
- Injunctive relief for a claimed NEPA violation is equitable and depends on showing a legal deficiency warranting court intervention, not merely disagreement with the agency’s judgments or conclusions.

## Conclusion

Washington County and allied plaintiffs challenged the Navy’s EIS for a proposed aircraft landing field near migratory waterfowl habitat, arguing the Navy biased its analysis, minimized bird impacts, and inadequately studied bird-strike risks and alternatives. The court held that the Navy’s EIS met NEPA’s procedural requirements by taking the required hard look and that NEPA did not prohibit the Navy from favoring a particular site so long as the EIS meaningfully evaluated impacts and options; accordingly, the court denied the requested permanent injunction and allowed the project to proceed.


Washington County, North Carolina v. U.S. Department of the Navy, 357 F. Supp. 2d 861 (2005)