Firm owner Bill Eubanks was quoted in a Bloomberg Law article discussing the “highly controversial” factor under NEPA’s implementing regulations that requires an Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) when, among other things, governmental or other subject matter experts dispute an agency’s conclusion about the significance of impacts or the methodology for assessing the relevant impacts. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit recently required an EIS on this basis for the Dakota Access Pipeline, which built on our firm’s groundbreaking victory for National Parks Conservation Association in March 2019 establishing the first-ever precedent in the D.C. Circuit mandating an EIS based on the “highly controversial” test. The court’s Dakota Access Pipeline ruling clarified that to be “highly controversial” for purposes of NEPA, the criticism or dispute need not come from sister agencies but instead may come from any stakeholder with relevant expertise — e.g., tribes, nonprofit organizations, and individuals. Together, the two rulings create a strong foundation for requiring agencies to prepare EISs when disputes exist regarding the methods for assessing impacts and/or the ultimate significance of such impacts. Whether this mandate will be watered down by the Trump Administration’s attempt to rewrite NEPA’s regulations is unclear (although unlikely).