ELR Citation: ELR 20702
No(s). 72-2126 (D.C. Cir. Aug 23, 1973)

Without disturbing the denial of a preliminary injunction in this challenge to the nearly completed Bulk Mail Facility, the court remands for a more detailed record on environmental effects and appropriate equitable remedies. Where a federal project deviates from local zoning procedures, special scrutiny should be applied in reviewing an agency decision not to file an impact statement for that project. Although esthetic considerations such as scenic views and attractive recreational areas are part of the quality of the human environment protected by NEPA, the statute does not contemplate a substantial inquiry by the agency or the court evaluating the esthetic appeal of a particular building design. In matters pertaining to health and natural resources, however, the statute requires an impact statement whenever arguably significant effects are identified, such as the oil and water runoff problems in this case. Thus, unless the agency on remand makes a convincing case that the impact is insignificant or a showing that modification of the project avoids the potential harm, equitable conditions should be devised to remedy what appears to be an erroneous failure to file an impact statement. Since the facility is already substantially completed, the district court may find that the public interest is best served by requiring design modifications that ameliorate the runoff problems.

Counsel for Appellants
Robert H. Levan General Counsel
David D. Freishtat
Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission
8787 Georgia Avenue
Silver Spring, MD 20907

Counsel for Appellees
Henry J. Bourguignon
Appellate Section, Land and Natural Resources Division
Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20530