Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc., the Sierra Club, Inc., Friends of the Earth, Inc., American Littoral Society, Inc., Physicians for Social Responsibility/nyc, Inc., New York Public Interest Research Group, Inc., Miriam Friedlander, Member of the New York City Council, Ruth W. Messinger, Member of the New York City Council, Carol Greitzer, Member of the New York City Council, Julia Harrison, Member of the New York City Council, Arthur Katzman, Member of the New York City Council, Carolyn B. Maloney, Member of the New York City Council, Stanley E. Michels, Member of the New York City Council, Dr. E. Thomas Henkel, Robert McAndrew and John Warlock v. Department of the Navy, John F. Lehman, Jr., as Secretary of the Department of the Navy, Everette Pyatt, as Assistant Secretary of the Department of the Navy, Admiral Carlisle A.H. Trost, as Chief of Naval Operations, Department of Defense, Casper W. Weinberger, as Secretary of the Department of Defense and Chapman B. Cox, as Assistant Secretary of the Departmen

Citations: 836 F.2d 760; 18 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20444; 27 ERC (BNA) 1081; 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 168Docket: 1682

Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; January 7, 1988; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Plaintiffs-appellants, including various environmental organizations and members of the New York City Council, appealed a decision from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York that denied their motion for a preliminary injunction against dredging and pier construction by the U.S. Navy for the proposed Staten Island homeport of the U.S.S. Iowa Battleship Surface Action Group. The plaintiffs argued that the Navy had not complied with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regarding the environmental impact of the homeport and its associated housing plans for personnel and their families. The district court acknowledged a strong likelihood that NEPA required a single environmental impact statement covering both the homeport's operational aspects and the housing plans. However, it ultimately denied the injunction, determining that the independent utility of the homeport and the lack of evidence for irreparable environmental harm justified proceeding with the project. The Navy's strategic decision in 1982 to disperse its fleet led to the selection of Stapleton and Fort Wadsworth in Staten Island for the Iowa SAG, with Stapleton designated for berthing and Fort Wadsworth for administrative and personnel facilities, while married personnel were expected to find housing in the private market.

The Navy's housing plan, initially outlined in an environmental impact statement (EIS) in 1984 and revised in 1985, included a draft supplemental EIS addressing changes to the homeport scheme, specifically regarding housing for married personnel. The alternatives considered were Navy-built military construction housing and Section 801 housing leased from private developers. The final supplemental EIS proposed 1,150 units of Section 801 housing at South Beach, Staten Island, and 550 military construction units at Fort Wadsworth. Following concerns from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation about protected wetlands at South Beach, the Navy reduced the housing plan to 800 units and committed to avoiding construction within 100 feet of wetlands. 

In May 1987, the Navy revealed plans to solicit proposals for up to 1,000 units of Section 801 housing, with some potentially not built at South Beach, and anticipated awarding contracts in 1988. Funding for Fort Wadsworth housing was not yet approved. Rear Admiral Benjamin F. Montoya emphasized the Navy's commitment to operational readiness over housing feasibility, noting the prevalence of inadequate housing at homeports nationwide. Dredging and pier construction at the Stapleton site commenced, with projected expenditures reaching twenty million dollars by the end of 1987.

Hudson, appealing to halt further construction, argues that the homeport's housing plan and dredging are interconnected actions under NEPA and should not be evaluated separately. To secure a preliminary injunction, Hudson must demonstrate irreparable harm and either a likelihood of success on the merits or substantial questions regarding the merits alongside a favorable balance of hardships. The district court concluded that the housing and operational aspects of the homeport are indeed connected actions, warranting a comprehensive environmental review under NEPA.

The district court denied the injunction due to the project's independent utility and the lack of allegations that the operational aspects would cause irreparable environmental harm under NEPA. The denial of the preliminary injunction was affirmed on the basis that there was no reasonable likelihood of success or sufficiently serious questions regarding the claim that NEPA requires a single EIS for both actions. NEPA mandates an EIS for major federal actions significantly affecting the environment. Regulations define connected actions as those that trigger, depend on, or are interdependent parts of a larger action. The district court found that while family housing construction is contingent on the operational aspects of the homeport, the reverse is not true; the Navy must proceed with operational aspects irrespective of housing construction. This finding implies that the two actions are not connected under the regulations, specifically under subdivision (ii). Additionally, although the Navy included housing in its EIS, this does not expand regulatory requirements, and the independent utility test indicates that the operational aspects stand alone, further supporting the conclusion that the actions are not interdependent under subdivision (iii).

The housing and operational components of the proposed homeport are deemed not to be connected actions as per case law and CEQ regulations, which means they do not require a single Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Hudson has failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success concerning the merits of its claims, leading to the conclusion that further analysis for a preliminary injunction is unnecessary. Consequently, the district court's denial of the plaintiffs-appellants' motion for a preliminary injunction is upheld. The Navy's housing proposal will still adhere to NEPA requirements, necessitating a separate EIS. Hudson argues that significant expenditures on the homeport will make it irreversible by the time the EIS is reviewed; however, any environmental issues related to housing can still be addressed. The district court found that the operational elements of the homeport can proceed independently of the housing, confirming that they do not meet the criteria for interdependence.