Nat'l Parks Conservation Ass'n v. Semonite

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued December 7, 2018 Decided March 1, 2019

No. 18-5179

NATIONAL PARKS CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION,

APPELLANT

v.

TODD T. SEMONITE, LIEUTENANT GENERAL, ET AL.,

APPELLEES

Consolidated with 18-5186

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia

(No. 1:17-cv-01361)

(No. 1:17-cv-01574)

Matthew G. Adams argued the cause and filed the briefs

for appellants National Trust for Historic Preservation, et al.

William S. Eubanks II argued the cause for appellant

National Parks Conservation Association. With him on the

briefs was Eric R. Glitzenstein.

J. Blanding Holman was on the brief for amici curiae The

Lawyer’s Committee for Cultural Heritage Preservation, et al.

in support of appellant.

2

Tyler Joseph Sniff was on the brief for amici curiae 18th

Director of the National Park Service Jonathan B. Jarvis, et al.

in support of appellant National Parks Conservation

Association.

Dustin J. Maghamfar, Attorney, U.S. Department of

Justice, argued the cause for federal appellees. With him on the

brief were Jeffrey H. Wood, Acting Assistant Attorney General,

Eric A. Grant, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, and

Andrew C. Mergen, Mark R. Haag, and Heather E. Gange,

Attorneys.

Elbert Lin argued the cause for appellee Virginia Electric

and Power Company. With him on the brief were Eric J.

Murdock, Harry M. Johnson, III, and Timothy L. McHugh.

Michael J. Thompson and Brett K. White were on the brief

for amici curiae PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. in support of

appellees.

Before: GARLAND, Chief Judge, and TATEL and MILLETT,

Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge TATEL.

TATEL, Circuit Judge: In order to “create and maintain

conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive

harmony,” the National Environmental Protection Act

(NEPA), 42 U.S.C. § 4331(a), requires any federal agency

issuing a construction permit, opening new lands to drilling, or

undertaking any other “major” project to take a hard look at the

project’s environmental consequences, id. § 4332(2)(C),

including the impacts it may have on “important historic . . .

aspects of our national heritage,” id. § 4331(b). To this end, the

3

agency must develop an environmental impact statement (EIS)

that identifies and rigorously appraises the project’s

environmental effects, unless it finds that the project will have

“no significant impact.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.9(a)(1). And that is

what happened here. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

(“Corps”) granted a permit allowing a utility company to build

a series of electrical transmission towers across the historic

James River, from whose waters Captain John Smith explored

the New World, and it did so without preparing an EIS because

it found that the project would have “no significant impact” on

the historic treasures along the river. As explained below,

however, the Corps’s “no significant impact” finding was

arbitrary and capricious: important questions about both the

Corps’s chosen methodology and the scope of the project’s

impact remain unanswered, and federal and state agencies with

relevant expertise harbor serious misgivings about locating a

project of this magnitude in a region of such singular

importance to the nation’s history. Accordingly, we reverse the

district court’s decision to the contrary and remand with

instructions to vacate the permit and direct the Corps to prepare

an environmental impact statement.

I.

Over 400 years ago, Captain John Smith arrived on the

shores of what is now known as the Chesapeake Bay. Keen on

learning more about the unfamiliar land, Captain Smith

voyaged up the winding James River, passing through lush

forests and under open skies. During his voyages, Smith

produced “maps and writings [that] influenced exploration and

settlement in the New World for over a century.” 152 Cong.

Rec. 22,282 (2006) (statement of Rep. Davis). These journeys

came to symbolize our nation’s founding and to serve as an

equally important reminder of one of the darkest episodes in

our history—the settlers’ devastation of Native American

4

populations, including the “eventual collapse of the Powhatan

polity.” John S. Salmon, Project Historian, National Park

Service, Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic

Water Trail Statement of National Significance 2 (2006).

Long after Smith’s voyages, the river “serv[ed] as a

strategic transportation corridor that shaped the settlement and

commerce of the region.” H.R. Res. 16, 110th Cong. preamble

(2007). Indeed, “the economic, political, religious, and social

institutions that developed during the first [nine] decades” of

the corridor’s settlement “have profound effects on the United

States” to this day. Jamestown 400th Commemoration

Commission Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-565, § 2(a)(3), 114

Stat. 2812, 2812. The same region commanded center stage

through the nation’s infancy, bearing witness to “the British

surrender that marked the end of the American Revolution.”

Colonial National Historical Park Amendments, S. Rep.

No. 104-30, at 2 (1995).

Honoring these ties to our nation’s past, Congress and

several federal agencies have established a series of “historic

resources” in and around the Chesapeake Bay, including

Jamestown, Carter’s Grove National Historic Landmark, and

the Captain John Smith National Historic Trail (“Historic

Trail”), the nation’s only congressionally-protected water trail.

Due to the James River’s “extraordinary historic, economic,

recreational, and environmental importance,” Congress

recognizes it as “‘America’s Founding River.’” H.R. Res. 16

§§ 1, 2. According to one representative, Congress

“[d]esignat[ed] this [H]istoric [T]rail . . . to spur efforts to

protect and restore the region’s historic and environmental

assets.” 152 Cong. Rec. 22,283 (2006) (statement of Rep.

Castle). Other members of Congress observed that the region

“represents a lasting tribute to the American spirit of discovery

and exploration,” id. at 22,282 (statement of Rep. Davis),

5

affording visitors “the opportunity to marvel at some of the

same sites that Captain Smith and his crew beheld 400 years

ago,” id. at 22,283 (statement of Rep. Hoyer).

The National Park Service, an agency of the Department

of the Interior, pursuant to its obligation “to conserve the

scenery [and] natural and historic objects” of our national

parks, 54 U.S.C. § 100101(a), acts as steward of these

resources, striving to “offer[] visitors an opportunity to

vicariously share the experience of Smith and his crew”

through views “evocative of the seventeenth century,” Park

Service, A Conservation Strategy for the Captain John Smith

Chesapeake National Historic Trail Introduction 3 (2013). To

this end, and in accordance with its conservation “management

plan” for the Historic Trail, the Service seeks to “[m]aximize

the visual and historical integrity of the visitor experience” by,

among other things, ensuring that all new utility lines are

underground. Park Service, General Management Plan:

Colonial National Historical Park 19, 34 (1993) (“Management

Plan”).

Enter the demands of modernity. Although the

approximately fifty-mile leg of the James River involved in this

case has retained its seventeenth-century charm, the rest of

Virginia has kept apace with modern development, which

means it depends on electricity. Following the 2012 issuance

of an Environmental Protection Agency rule requiring power

generation facilities to reduce certain air pollutant emissions,

see 77 Fed. Reg. 9304 (Feb. 16, 2012), Virginia Electric and

Power Company (“Dominion”) determined that, in order to

comply with the rule, it would have to retire two coal-fired

power generators. To compensate for the resulting electricity

shortfall, Dominion applied in 2013 to the Corps, which has

jurisdiction over certain projects concerning “waters of the

United States,” see 33 C.F.R. § 328.1 (internal quotation marks

6

omitted), for a permit to construct a new electrical switching

station and two transmission lines. Supported by seventeen

250-or-so-foot steel-lattice transmission towers, the line at

issue here would stretch for eight miles, four of which would

cross the James River and cut through the middle of the historic

district encompassing Jamestown and other historic resources.

See Figure 1.

Figure 1: Overview Map of Project and Historic Properties (created by

Industrial Economics, Inc.), Joint Appendix (J.A.) 495

Before it could greenlight the undertaking, known as the

Surry-Skiffes Creek-Whealton project (“Project”), the Corps

had to satisfy several statutory obligations. First, as relevant

here, NEPA required the Corps to consider alternatives to the

Project and to prepare an “environmental impact statement” if

the Project would “significantly affect[] the quality of the

human environment,” 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C)—an analysis

which must take into account effects on historic resources, 40

C.F.R. § 1508.8. But the Corps could bypass preparation of an

7

EIS if, based on a preliminary “environmental assessment,” it

determined that the Project would have “no significant impact”

on the environment. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.9. Second, the Clean

Water Act required the Corps to determine that no “practicable

alternative” existed that “would have less adverse effect on the

aquatic ecosystem.” Id. § 230.12(a)(3)(i). Third, the National

Historic Preservation Act (“Preservation Act”) required the

Corps to “take into account the effect of the undertaking on any

historic property,” 54 U.S.C. § 306108, and, if the project

might “directly and adversely affect any National Historic

Landmark,” to take steps “to minimize harm to the landmark,”

id. § 306107.

Pursuant to these obligations, the Corps studied the

Project’s environmental impacts and considered nearly thirty

alternatives. In doing so, the Corps relied on a Cultural

Resources Effects Assessment prepared by Dominion and its

consultants, which included a series of photo simulations that

superimposed mockups of the proposed towers over the

existing landscape. In its initial environmental assessment, the

Corps determined that the Project would adversely but non-

significantly affect historic resources, rendering an EIS

unnecessary.

At various points throughout the process, the Corps, as

required by Preservation Act regulations, reached out to

“consulting parties,” which include local governments and

other “individuals and organizations with a demonstrated

interest in the undertaking.” 36 C.F.R. § 800.2(c). It also

invited other federal agencies and the public to comment on its

NEPA process. See 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C) (requiring an

agency to “consult with . . . any Federal agency which has

jurisdiction by law or special expertise” and to provide any

resulting statements “to the public”).

8

And comment they did, to the tune of 50,000 submissions,

many of which urged the Corps to prepare an EIS. Condensing

the gist of thousands of comments into one simple but clear

proposition, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

(“Advisory Council”)—the independent federal agency tasked

with the “preservation of historic propert[ies],” 54 U.S.C.

§ 306101(a)(1)—warned that the Project “threaten[s] to

irreparably alter a relatively unspoiled and evocative landscape

that provides context and substance for the historic properties

encompassed within.” Letter from Advisory Council

Chairman 1 (May 2, 2017), J.A. 414.

Quite a few commenters also pointed to perceived errors

in the Corps’s determination that the Project would not

significantly impact, in the Advisory Council’s words,

“historic properties of transcendent national significance.”

Letter from Advisory Council Director 1 (May 2, 2017),

J.A. 411. Writing to the Corps fully twenty times, the Park

Service warned that the Project “would forever degrade,

damage, and destroy the historic setting of these iconic

resources.” Letter from Park Service Director 1 (Dec. 11,

2015), J.A. 1829. The Virginia Department of Historic

Resources feared “irreparabl[e] alter[ation] [of] the character

of the area.” Letter from Virginia Department of Historic

Resources Director 2 (Nov. 13, 2015), J.A. 1855. Others,

including then-Interior Secretary Sally Jewell, the Council on

Environmental Quality, and many non-governmental

organizations, sounded similar alarms.

Other commenters identified what they viewed as serious

flaws in the Corps’s methodologies. To give a flavor of these

concerns, a specialist at the Department of Energy’s Argonne

National Laboratory (“Argonne”) found the Corps’s analyses

“scientifically unsound” and “completely contrary to accepted

professional practice.” Response from Robert Sullivan ¶ 1

9

(Jan. 10, 2017), J.A. 534. The Park Service, the Advisory

Council, and others critiqued the Corps’s socioeconomic,

visual, and cumulative effects analyses.

Still other commenters criticized the Corps’s evaluation of

alternatives. Summarizing several such concerns, the Advisory

Council wrote that the “alternatives analysis was extremely

problematic,” that the National Parks Conservation

Association (“Conservation Association”) had funded a study

“that challenged the accuracy of the data and assumptions used

by Dominion,” and that the engineering firm retained by the

National Trust for Historic Preservation (“National Trust”) had

developed alternatives that “would cost less to construct, be

built more quickly, and meet all relevant reliability standards.”

Letter from Advisory Council Chairman 3 (May 2, 2017),

J.A. 416. According to one of the Corps’s own specialists,

Dominion could yet “take a harder look at the alternatives” and

the company’s cost estimates for the alternatives were “bloated

and excessive.” Sustainable Program Manager Review 3–4,

J.A. 540–41.

While this deluge poured in, the Corps consulted with

various agencies, conducted site visits, and twice directed

Dominion to revise its photo simulations. Upon reviewing

these amended analyses, the Corps and Dominion still believed

that the Project, alone among all options, met the requisite

reliability, cost, and timing parameters.

Commenters remained unsatisfied. Several agencies

warned that the revised analyses, as the Park Service put it, still

contained “fundamental flaws” that, though “repeatedly

identified,” nonetheless “remain[ed] unresolved.” Letter from

Park Service Acting Regional Director 1 (Jan. 12, 2017),

J.A. 475. Indeed, the “majority of the consulting parties” found

Dominion’s amendments “superficial and inadequate.” Letter

10

from Advisory Council Chairman 3 (May 2, 2017), J.A. 416.

Underscoring that such concerns endured past the final round

of revisions, the Park Service director during this process

submitted an amicus brief in his now-private capacity,

emphasizing that, since the Project will “forever . . . destroy the

historic setting of these iconic resources,” the Park Service,

were it the agency with permitting authority, could not approve

the Project “because its adverse impacts are so significant.”

18th Director of the National Park Service Jonathan B. Jarvis

Br. 7 (internal quotation marks omitted).

The process reached a temporary denouement in 2017.

Following the change in administration, then-newly appointed

(now-former) Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke met with the

Corps, acknowledged its “thoughtful and thorough

consideration of the issues,” and announced that he “st[ood]

ready to sign a final agreement as a concurring party.” Letter

from Ryan Zinke 1 (Mar. 30, 2017), J.A. 420. Shortly

thereafter, the Corps issued a permit to Dominion. In the

accompanying Memorandum for the Record (“Memo”), the

Corps acknowledged that the Project would “intrude upon the

viewsheds of historic properties and on a unique and highly

scenic section of the James River.” Memo § 10.3.8, J.A. 257.

Nonetheless, the Corps concluded, the effects on these

“national treasure[s]” were “moderate at most” and “inherently

subjective.” Id. §§ 10.3.8, 12.3, J.A. 257, 266 (internal

quotation marks omitted). Where visible at all, it explained, the

transmission towers would not “block[]” or “dominate” the

view and would join existing “modern visual intrusions,” such

as the Busch Gardens amusement park and recreational boat

traffic. Id. § 10.3.8, J.A. 257–58.

The Corps also executed a Memorandum of Agreement

with Dominion, in which the company agreed to offset the

harm to historic resources by, among other things, periodically

11

reviewing the continued need for the Project and investing in

Virginia’s historic preservation efforts. Although a few other

participants, including Interior, signed this Memorandum, most

declined to do so because they remained concerned “that the

adverse effects resulting from this undertaking [could not] be

mitigated.” Letter from Advisory Council Chairman 2 (May 2,

2017), J.A. 415.

The National Trust, the Association for the Preservation of

Virginia Antiquities, and the Conservation Association

(collectively, the “Conservation Groups”) sued in district court

alleging that the Corps failed to satisfy its NEPA, Clean Water

Act, and Preservation Act obligations. The district court found

that the “Corps made a ‘fully informed and well-considered’

decision” and granted summary judgment to the agency.

National Parks Conservation Association v. Semonite, 311 F.

Supp. 3d 350, 361 (D.D.C. 2018) (quoting Vermont Yankee

Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resource Defense Council,

435 U.S. 519, 558 (1978)).

On appeal, the Conservation Groups present three

arguments: that due to the significance of the Project’s impacts,

the Corps was required to prepare an EIS; that the Corps’s

alternatives analyses fell short of the requirements imposed by

both NEPA and the Clean Water Act; and that the Corps failed

to fulfill its obligations under section 110(f) of the Preservation

Act, 54 U.S.C. § 306107, which requires an agency to

minimize harm to any National Historic Landmark “directly

and adversely” affected by a project. “We review the district

court’s decision to grant summary judgment de novo.” Aera

Energy LLC v. Salazar, 642 F.3d 212, 218 (D.C. Cir. 2011).

12

II.

We begin with the Conservation Groups’ argument that

NEPA required the Corps to prepare an EIS because, as they

see it, the Project will significantly impact historic resources.

“Our role in reviewing [the Corps’s] decision not to prepare an

EIS is a limited one, designed primarily to ensure that no

arguably significant consequences have been ignored.”

Myersville Citizens for a Rural Community, Inc. v. FERC, 783

F.3d 1301, 1322 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks

omitted). Responsible for determining whether the Corps’s

decision was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or

otherwise not in accordance with law,” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A),

we ask whether the Corps is “able to make a convincing case

for its finding” of no significant impact. Sierra Club v. U.S.

Department of Transportation, 753 F.2d 120, 127 (D.C. Cir.

1985).

“NEPA’s primary function is ‘information-forcing,’

compelling federal agencies to take a hard and honest look at

the environmental consequences of their decisions.” American

Rivers v. FERC, 895 F.3d 32, 49 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (internal

citations omitted). To satisfy this “hard look” requirement, the

Corps must prepare an EIS for any project “significantly

affecting the quality of the human environment.” 42 U.S.C.

§ 4332(2)(C). Under NEPA’s regulatory scheme, crafted by the

Council on Environmental Quality, such effects can be, among

others, historic, aesthetic, or cultural. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.8.

Congress has declared that “preserv[ing] important historic,

cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage”

constitutes an important goal of the statute. 42 U.S.C.

§ 4331(b)(4). And we in turn have recognized that protecting

such resources is “an interest that NEPA’s procedural mandate

was intended to vindicate.” Oglala Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, 896 F.3d 520, 529 (D.C. Cir. 2018).

13

As mentioned earlier, if the Corps believes that a project may

not require an EIS, it may first prepare an environmental

assessment to determine whether a “no significant impact”

determination might find support in the record. 40 C.F.R.

§ 1508.9(a).

During the NEPA process, the Corps must consult

agencies with “special expertise with respect to any

environmental impact involved.” 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C); see

also 40 C.F.R. § 1501.6(a)(2) (requiring agencies to use the

resulting analysis “to the maximum extent possible”). But, as

the lead agency, the Corps, which “b[ears] the ultimate

statutory responsibility” for the Project, “does not have to

follow [other agencies’] comments slavishly—it just has to

take them seriously.” Citizens Against Burlington, Inc. v.

Busey, 938 F.2d 190, 201 (D.C. Cir. 1991).

Whether a project has significant environmental impacts,

thus triggering the need to produce an EIS, depends on its

“context” (region, locality) and “intensity” (“severity of

impact”). 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27. Here, because all parties agree

that the historically-saturated “context”—i.e., this 50-mile

stretch of the James River—qualifies as significant, our inquiry

focuses on the “intensity” element, which enumerates ten

factors that “should be considered.” Id. § 1508.27(b).

Implicating any one of the factors may be sufficient to require

development of an EIS. See Grand Canyon Trust v. FAA, 290

F.3d 339, 347 (D.C. Cir. 2002), as amended (Aug. 27, 2002)

(granting a petition for review after finding a project implicated

one factor, without reaching additional factors). The district

court found that “none of the significance factors weigh in

favor of [the] contention that an EIS is required.” National

Parks Conservation Association, 311 F. Supp. 3d at 363. The

Conservation Groups disagree, arguing that the Project

implicates three such factors: “[t]he degree to which the effects

14

on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly

controversial,” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27(b)(4); “[u]nique

characteristics of the geographic area such as proximity to

historic or cultural resources,” id. § 1508.27(b)(3); and the

“degree to which the action may adversely affect districts [or]

sites . . . listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register

of Historic Places,” id. § 1508.27(b)(8). We consider each in

turn.

A.

The first factor considers “[t]he degree to which the effects

on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly

controversial.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27(b)(4). The word

“controversial,” we held in Town of Cave Creek v. FAA, refers

to situations where “‘substantial dispute exists as to the size,

nature, or effect of the major federal action.’” 325 F.3d 320,

331 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (quoting North American Wild Sheep v.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 681 F.2d 1172, 1182 (9th Cir.

1982)) (emphasis in original). And as we explained in Fund for

Animals v. Frizzell, “certainly something more is required” for

a highly controversial finding “besides the fact that some

people may be highly agitated and be willing to go to court over

the matter.” 530 F.2d 982, 988 n.15 (D.C. Cir. 1975) (per

curiam) (emphasis added).

According to the Conservation Groups, “[w]here, as here,

two federal agencies have argued for years over the ‘size,’

‘nature,’ and ‘effect’ of the project on resources under [the Park

Service’s] jurisdiction (as have other agencies with ‘special

expertise’ under NEPA), the Court’s test for ‘controversy’ fits

like a glove.” Conservation Association Br. 22 (emphasis

omitted). For its part, the Corps asserts that, under Cave Creek

and Frizzell, it “reasonably concluded that comments

demanding an EIS ‘represent passion for the affected

15

resources’ . . . rather than substantive dispute.” Corps Br. 38

(quoting Memo § 12.3, J.A. 266). The Conservation Groups

acknowledge that a highly controversial finding must rest on

more than passionate opposition, but they insist that the

criticism of the Corps’s NEPA process rises to the requisite

“something more.”

The Conservation Groups first point out that much of the

disagreement centers on perceived defects in the Corps’s

methodology and that, as the district court observed, “[m]any

courts have found ‘something more’ to be scientific or other

evidence that reveals flaws in the methods or data relied upon

by the agency in reaching its conclusions.” National Parks

Conservation Association, 311 F. Supp. 3d at 363 (citing

National Parks & Conservation Association v. Babbitt, 241

F.3d 722, 736–37 (9th Cir. 2001)) (internal quotation marks

omitted); accord Biodiversity Conservation Alliance v. U.S.

Forest Service, 765 F.3d 1264, 1275 (10th Cir. 2014) (“A

substantial dispute can be found, for example, when other

information in the record cast[s] substantial doubt on the

adequacy of the agency’s methodology and data.” (internal

quotation marks and citation omitted)); see, e.g., Cave Creek,

325 F.3d at 332 (no controversy where the petitioners “pointed

to nothing casting serious doubt on [the agency’s] preferred

model”). An expert at Argonne labeled the Corps’s analyses

“scientifically unsound, inappropriate, and completely contrary

to accepted professional practice,” accusing the agency of

conflating a cultural resource analysis with the very different

visual resource analysis. Response from Robert Sullivan ¶ 1

(Jan. 10, 2017), J.A. 534. The Advisory Council voiced serious

concerns about the photo simulations: “[T]here are flaws in the

visual effects assessment. . . . [C]onsulting parties have

repeatedly suggested that the Corps should require photographs

and simulations from an adequate range of viewpoints . . . to

illustrate the extent and magnitude of the effects.” Letter from

16

Advisory Council Assistant Director 2 (Mar. 2, 2016),

J.A. 1483. And the Park Service believed that the visual

analyses “d[id] not meet [its] standards,” questioning whether

the Corps and Dominion completed “an adequate visual

analysis,” “evaluat[ed] . . . socioeconomic impacts,” and

undertook a “sufficient cumulative effects analysis.” Letter

from Park Service Associate Regional Director 1 (Mar. 25,

2016), J.A. 1357; Letter from Park Service Acting Regional

Director 2 (Jan. 12, 2017), J.A. 476. If such comments,

representing just a small sample of the many criticisms in the

record, do not “cast substantial doubt on the adequacy” of the

Corps’s methodologies, Biodiversity Conservation Alliance,

765 F.3d at 1275 (internal quotation marks omitted), then we

are unsure what would.

According to the Conservation Groups, the controversy

surrounding the Project is especially intense because many of

those raising concerns—methodological and otherwise—are

themselves government agencies with “special expertise” over

historic resources. 40 C.F.R. § 1501.6(a)(2). And as they also

point out, courts regularly find that such concerns demonstrate

that a project qualifies as highly controversial. See, e.g., North

American Wild Sheep, 681 F.2d at 1182 (criticism from

conservationists, biologists, two state agencies, and “other

knowledgeable individuals” represented “precisely the type of

‘controversial’ action for which an EIS must be prepared”);

Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 109

F. Supp. 2d 30, 43 (D.D.C. 2000) (project classified as

“genuinely and extremely controversial” where three federal

agencies, one state agency, and the public “all disputed the

Corps evaluation”).

Again, the Conservation Groups are correct. The Advisory

Council questioned the Corps’s “treatment of effects on

historic properties of transcendent national significance.”

17

Letter from Advisory Council Director 1 (May 2, 2017),

J.A. 411. Interior Secretary Jewell warned that the Project

would “introduce a major intrusion into a landscape” like “no

other preserved locale in the Nation.” Letter from Sally

Jewell 1 (Jan. 17, 2016), J.A. 473. The Park Service worried

that the Project “would forever degrade, damage, and destroy

the historic setting of these iconic resources,” admonishing that

“[t]his is not acceptable for resources designated by Congress

to ensure their permanent protection.” Letter from Park Service

Director 1 (Dec. 11, 2015), J.A. 1829. As the Service observed,

“[s]ince the 1930s, the visitor experience and interpretation of

Jamestown has been a collective effort . . . to shift [visitors’]

sense of place back in time,” and “[w]ithin the Historic District

the James River is unblemished by any man-made physical

crossing.” Letter from Park Service Associate Regional

Director 6 (July 5, 2016), J.A. 878; Letter from Park Service

Associate Regional Director 3 (Jan. 29, 2016), J.A. 1494. The

Service repeatedly communicated its concerns to the Corps,

and its own management plan requires that the “visual and

historical integrity of the visitor experience” be “maximize[d]”

and that all new utility lines be installed underground.

Management Plan at 19, 34.

And the list goes on. Industrial Economics, Inc., a

consultant retained by the Park Service, feared that the Project

could “have implications for successful future designation [of

Jamestown] as a UNESCO World Heritage Site.” Industrial

Economics, Inc. Report 9 (Jan. 2017), J.A. 499. The Virginia

Department of Historic Resources warned of “irreparabl[e]

alter[ation] [of] the character of the area.” Letter from Virginia

Department of Historic Resources Director 2 (Nov. 13, 2015),

J.A. 1855. Members of Congress, delegates to the Virginia

Assembly, the Keeper of the National Historic Register, and

the Council on Environmental Quality all voiced similar

reservations. The non-profit Coalition to Protect America’s

18

National Parks, comprising current and former Park Service

employees, pleaded, as did a bevy of other organizations, that

“[t]he Corps owes . . . to this and future generations of

Americans to protect the place where ‘America Began.’” Letter

from Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks 1 (Dec. 23,

2016), J.A. 464.

These are hardly the hyperbolic cries of “highly agitated,”

not-in-my-backyard neighbors “willing to go to court over the

matter.” Frizzell, 530 F.2d at 988 n.15. Instead, they represent

the considered responses—many solicited by the Corps itself—

of highly specialized governmental agencies and organizations.

The Advisory Council, tasked as it is with preserving

America’s historic resources, merits special attention when it

opines, as it did here, on “the treatment of effects on historic

properties of transcendent national significance.” Letter from

Advisory Council Director 1 (May 2, 2017), J.A. 411; see also

Preservation Coalition, Inc. v. Pierce, 667 F.2d 851, 858 (9th

Cir. 1982) (“[J]udgments of historical significance made by the

Advisory Council . . . deserve great weight.”). Of course, as

lead agency the Corps owes no obligation to bend to the will of

others. See Citizens Against Burlington, 938 F.2d at 201 (a lead

agency must only “take [other agencies’ comments]

seriously”). But repeated criticism from many agencies who

serve as stewards of the exact resources at issue, not to mention

consultants and organizations with on-point expertise, surely

rises to more than mere passion.

The Corps argues that because the Park Service is a

component of the Interior Department, Secretary Zinke’s letter

approving the Project, in the district court’s words, “effectively

withdrew” the Service’s “previous stance that an EIS was

required.” National Parks Conservation Association, 311 F.

Supp. 3d at 366. We disagree. For one thing, even if the Zinke

letter did withdraw the Service’s opposition, numerous other

19

groups remained adamantly opposed. We are unsure,

moreover, whether the Zinke letter actually responds to the

Park Service’s concerns. As the Conservation Association

points out, the letter “never even reference[s] [the Park

Service’s] objections [or] longstanding methodological

critiques.” Conservation Association Reply Br. 10. And most

important, the Zinke letter says little about the only question

before us: whether the Corps acted arbitrarily and capriciously

in declining to prepare an EIS. Regardless of Interior’s stance,

the Corps retained its NEPA obligation to “consider

adequately” whether the Project is highly controversial. Cave

Creek, 325 F.3d at 327. Because the facts underlying the Park

Service’s concerns changed not at all between the Jewell and

Zinke letters, the Corps had to either confront those facts or

explain why the Zinke letter rendered them irrelevant. See

Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, 136 S. Ct. 2117, 2125

(2016) (“One of the basic procedural requirements of

administrative rulemaking is that an agency must give adequate

reasons for its decisions.”). Indeed, in our view, that two

Interior Secretaries had diametrically different views about the

same project on the same facts simply reinforces its

controversial nature.

The Corps next contends that it did acknowledge and try

to address concerns raised during the NEPA process by, for

example, instructing Dominion to revise its analyses to address

the shortcomings identified by commenters. But that misses the

point. The question is not whether the Corps attempted to

resolve the controversy, but whether it succeeded. Given that

many critical comments, including those from the Advisory

Council and the Argonne specialist, post-dated Dominion’s

revisions, the Corps obviously failed.

In short, the Corps’s assessment of the scope of the

Project’s effects has drawn consistent and strenuous

20

opposition, often in the form of concrete objections to the

Corps’s analytical process and findings, from agencies

entrusted with preserving historic resources and organizations

with subject-matter expertise. This demonstrates the

“something more” needed to show that “the effects on the

quality of the human environment are likely to be highly

controversial.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27(b)(4).

B.

The next intensity factor the Conservation Groups cite

examines the “[u]nique characteristics of the geographic area

such as proximity to historic or cultural resources.” 40 C.F.R.

§ 1508.27(b)(3). According to the Conservation Association,

“[t]he Corps-approved project entails putting giant modern

transmission towers not only in close ‘proximity to’ numerous

highly unique historic and cultural sites that are ‘one-of-a-kind

resources of national importance,’ but putting them directly in

and across the nation’s only Congressionally-designated

historic water trail.” Conservation Association Br. 19

(emphasis in original) (citation omitted). The Corps responds

that the Project “‘is not a blockage to viewing the river or the

surroundings’ and ‘will not dominate the view.’” Corps Br. 27

(quoting Memo § 10.3.8, J.A. 258). Again, the Corps misses

the point.

Congress has consistently “recommit[ted] itself to

protecting and restoring the James River for the enjoyment and

prosperity of current and future generations.” H.R. Res. 16 § 4.

As one congressman put it, these efforts preserve “the

opportunity [for visitors] to marvel at some of the same sites

that Captain Smith and his crew beheld.” 152 Cong.

Rec. 22,283 (2006) (statement of Rep. Hoyer). Of course, when

Captain Smith sailed up the James River in the seventeenth

century, he beheld nothing either licensed by the U.S. Army

21

Corps of Engineers or built by Dominion Energy. In other

words, even without blocking the view or dominating the

landscape from all angles, the Project undercuts the very

purpose for which Congress designated these resources: to

preserve their “unspoiled and evocative landscape[s].” Letter

from Advisory Council Chairman 1 (May 2, 2017), J.A. 414.

Insisting that the Project is nothing new, the Corps points

to existing “modern visual intrusions” in the same region that

represent a “successful mix of progress and history.” Corps

Br. 28 (quoting Memo § 10.3.8, J.A. 257). This

mischaracterizes the record. Although there is some modern

development, including an amusement park, boat traffic, and

resorts, the Corps itself described these as largely “low density

intrusions that become relatively lost within the overall

landscape.” National Register of Historic Places Eligibility 4

(May 7, 2015), J.A. 2205. As the Conservation Association

observes, “the record does not support the assertion . . . that

existing intrusions are remotely comparable in size, magnitude,

or impact to this massive project that will be the only overhead

crossing of the James River in a fifty-one-mile stretch.”

Conservation Association Br. 20 (emphasis in original).

The Corps maintains that the mitigation steps contained in

its Memorandum of Agreement with Dominion “would reduce

[the Project’s] impacts to a minimum.” Corps Br. 42. But the

relevance of the Memorandum is dubious given that the Corps

declined to rely on it when making its “no significance”

findings. To the extent the Corps leans on it now, the document

offers little support. Except for requiring Dominion to

“examine” alternative “coating and finishing materials” for the

transmission towers, the enumerated mitigation measures the

Corps cites relate not to reducing the significance of the

Project’s visual impacts on the historic resources along the

James River, but rather to periodic evaluation of the continued

22

need for the Project itself and to more general historic

preservation efforts throughout the Commonwealth.

Memorandum of Agreement § I.e.1, J.A. 293.

Finally, the Corps emphasizes that the Project’s effects are

visual and that the Seventh Circuit, citing our decision in

Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission v.

U.S. Postal Service, 487 F.2d 1029, 1038–39 (D.C. Cir. 1973),

stated that aesthetic “judgments are inherently subjective and

normally can be made . . . reliably on the basis of an

environmental assessment.” River Road Alliance, Inc. v. Corps

of Engineers of U.S. Army, 764 F.2d 445, 451 (7th Cir. 1985).

But “normally” is not the same as “always.” And in Maryland-

National Capital Park, we distinguished aesthetic judgment

calls that entail “defining what is beautiful” from situations like

this one where Congress’s purpose in designating the resources

was to preserve “an unencumbered view of an attractive scenic

expanse.” 487 F.2d at 1038 & n.5.

C.

The foregoing largely demonstrates why the Project

implicates the final intensity factor invoked by the

Conservation Groups: the “degree to which the action may

adversely affect districts [or] sites . . . listed in or eligible for

listing in the National Register of Historic Places.” 40 C.F.R.

§ 1508.27(b)(8). Indeed, the Corps itself gets us much of the

way there. It concedes that the Project’s “close proximity” to

Carter’s Grove, an eighteenth-century Georgian-style

plantation, “would detract from the resource’s characteristics

of setting and feeling which are integral to the resource’s

qualifications for listing on the [National Register of Historic

Places].” Cultural Resources Effects Assessment § 3.9.4

(Sept. 15, 2015), J.A. 2024. And it is hardly just Carter’s

Grove. By the Corps’s own count, the region boasts fifty-seven

23

sites on the National Register or eligible for inclusion on it—a

concentration of historic resources found “[i]n no other place

in [the] United States.” Letter from Park Service Regional

Director 1 (Oct. 22, 2015), J.A. 1911.

The Corps’s findings, paired with the record’s “robust,

well-supported analyses, from agencies with Congressionally-

delegated authority and recognized expertise,” National Trust

Br. 16, satisfy this intensity factor. The out-of-circuit cases

cited by the Corps—concerning the construction of a golf

clubhouse near another, historic one, Presidio Golf Club v.

National Park Service, 155 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 1998),

and the refurbishment of an existing railroad to provide

commuter service, Advocates for Transportation Alternatives,

Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 453 F. Supp. 2d 289,

294–95 (D. Mass. 2006)—are easily distinguishable, as they

implicate neither comparably sized infrastructure nor equally

august historic resources.

D.

The Corps has thus failed to make a “convincing case” that

an EIS is unnecessary. Myersville Citizens, 783 F.3d at 1322.

Three intensity factors demonstrate not only that the Project

will significantly impact historic resources, but also that it

would benefit from an EIS. Indeed, Congress created the EIS

process to provide robust information in situations precisely

like this one, where, following an environmental assessment,

the scope of a project’s impacts remains both uncertain and

controversial. See, e.g., Grand Canyon Trust, 290 F.3d

at 345–47 (remanding for further proceedings when an agency,

analyzing noise impacts on a national park “identified [by the

Park Service] as among the nine national parks of ‘highest

priority,’” considered those impacts “in a vacuum” without

sensitivity to the park’s “natural quiet”); American Rivers, 895

24

F.3d at 50 (ordering an EIS based on concerns that the agency

“just shrugged off” potentially significant impacts based on

“estimates entirely unmoored from any empirical, scientific, or

otherwise verifiable study or source”).

III.

In preparing its EIS, the Corps will have to revisit its

theories about alternatives under NEPA, which in turn will

require it to reevaluate its Clean Water Act and Preservation

Act analyses. Accordingly, we see no reason to address most

of the remaining questions raised by the Conservation Groups.

See American Iron & Steel Institute v. EPA, 115 F.3d 979, 1008

(D.C. Cir. 1997) (“see[ing] no profit” in addressing remaining

argument where an agency was “already committed to agency

revision”). Though taking no position on the adequacy of the

Corps’s alternatives analyses, we urge it to give careful

consideration to its sister agencies’ concerns that the prior

iterations were “superficial,” “inadequate,” and “extremely

problematic.” Letter from Advisory Council Chairman 3

(May 2, 2017), J.A. 416.

There is, however, one issue whose resolution would

facilitate further proceedings before the Corps. Specifically,

the parties disagree about the meaning of section 110(f) of the

Preservation Act, which provides that for any project “directly

and adversely affect[ing] any National Historic Landmark,” the

agency must “to the maximum extent possible undertake such

planning and actions as may be necessary to minimize harm to

the landmark.” 54 U.S.C. § 306107. The debate centers on the

word “directly” as it relates to Carter’s Grove, the National

Historic Landmark at issue. According to the Corps and the

district court, because the Project does not “physically” intrude

on the plantation’s grounds—several towers are instead visible

from them—section 110(f) does not apply. See National Parks

25

Conservation Association, 311 F. Supp. 3d at 379 (“The Court

is persuaded that the meaning of ‘directly’ in Section 110(f)

refers to physical impacts . . . .”). The National Trust disagrees,

equating “directly” with having “no intervening cause.”

National Trust Br. 9 (internal quotation marks omitted).

Because we “owe no deference to [the Corps’s]

interpretation of a statute it does not administer,” Amax Land

Co. v. Quarterman, 181 F.3d 1356, 1368 (D.C. Cir. 1999),

“[w]e begin our analysis with the language of the statute,”

United States v. Wilson, 290 F.3d 347, 352 (D.C. Cir. 2002).

Although section 110(f) clearly encompasses physical effects,

nothing in the statute’s text so limits its reach. According to the

dictionary, both now and at the time section 110(f) was passed,

“direct” means “free from extraneous influence” or

“immediate.” Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014); see also

Black’s Law Dictionary (5th ed. 1979) (“direct” defined as

“without any . . . intervening influence” or “[i]mmediate”).

And had Congress wished to restrict section 110(f)’s reach to

physical impacts, “it could have easily done so by using the

word” physically. Marx v. General Revenue Corp., 568 U.S.

371, 384 (2013). Finally, although no agency has provided

binding guidance, the two actually responsible for

administering this statute—the Park Service, 54 U.S.C.

§ 306101(b), and the Advisory Council, id. § 304108(a)—both

understand “directly” to “refer[] to causation and not

physicality.” Letter from Advisory Council Assistant

Director 4 (Mar. 2, 2016), J.A. 1485; see also Lawyers’

Committee for Cultural Heritage Preservation Br. 19, Ex. A,

Letter from Park Service Acting Associate Director 2 (Sept. 21,

2017) (“The [Park Service] does not agree with the Corps’

position that Section 110(f) applies only when an undertaking

may physically impact a National Historic Landmark.”). On

remand, therefore, the Corps must reconsider its Preservation

Act analysis using this proper definition.

26

IV.

For the foregoing reasons, we reverse and remand to the

district court with instructions to vacate Dominion’s permit and

direct the Corps to prepare an environmental impact statement.

So ordered.