Tinian Women Association v. Usdn, 976 F.3d 832

In 2005–09 the U.S. and Japan agreed to realign forces by relocating roughly 8,000 Marines from Okinawa to Guam; Japan committed substantial funding. The relocation was implemented through a series of agency decisions memorialized in Records of Decision (2010 Relocation ROD; 2015 Relocation SEIS ROD).
The Navy’s Joint Guam Program Office (JGPO) prepared a Relocation EIS (2010) addressing moving Marines to Guam and certain Tinian/CNMI training facilities; the CJMT Draft EIS separately proposed expanded ranges on Tinian and Pagan.
Tinian Women Association (TWA) sued to set aside the Relocation EIS/SEIS under NEPA and the APA, alleging (1) the relocation and CNMI training actions were “connected” and should have been covered in a single EIS or their cumulative impacts considered together, and (2) the Navy failed to consider stationing alternatives beyond Guam and the CNMI.
The district court granted summary judgment to the Navy on the procedural NEPA claim and dismissed the alternatives claim (and found a third claim waived). TWA appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed: it held the relocation and CNMI training were not "connected" for NEPA purposes and cumulative impacts could be deferred to the forthcoming CJMT EIS; the alternatives claim was dismissed for lack of standing (non-redressable because relief would require altering the U.S.–Japan agreement); a supplemental-EIS claim was waived for late pleading.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Guam relocation and CNMI training are "connected actions" requiring a single EIS	The relocation and proposed CNMI ranges are part of one larger project and must be evaluated together	The actions have independent utility and purposes; separate EISs are permissible	Not connected; separate analyses allowed (agency action upheld)
Whether Relocation EIS must include cumulative impacts of CJMT proposals	Cumulative impacts of CNMI ranges foreseeably magnify relocation effects and must be addressed now	Navy issued a notice and will consider cumulative effects in the CJMT EIS; deferral is appropriate	Deferral acceptable because Navy committed to analyze impacts in future EIS
Whether court can order consideration of alternatives beyond Guam/CNMI	Navy improperly limited stationing alternatives; must consider locations outside Guam/CNMI	Treaty/Agreement with Japan largely fixes relocation to Guam, constraining Navy's ability to choose other locations	Dismissed for lack of standing (not redressable): remedy would require rescinding/modifying the U.S.–Japan agreement
Whether TWA preserved a claim that Navy failed to supplement the Relocation EIS after changed circumstances	TWA later argued changes warranted supplementation of the Relocation EIS	Navy argued the claim was not pleaded and was raised too late	Waived: district court did not abuse discretion denying leave to amend; claim raised first at summary judgment

Lands Council v. McNair, 629 F.3d 1070 (9th Cir. 2010) (standard for APA arbitrary-and-capricious review)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (Article III standing framework)
Great Basin Mine Watch v. Hankins, 456 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 2006) (independent utility defeats "connected actions" theory)
Native Ecosystems Council v. Dombeck, 304 F.3d 886 (9th Cir. 2002) (prohibition on segmenting projects to avoid NEPA)
Northern Alaska Envtl. Ctr. v. Kempthorne, 457 F.3d 969 (9th Cir. 2006) (permitting deferral of some cumulative-impact analysis to future EIS when agency commits to do so)
Salmon Spawning & Recovery Alliance v. Gutierrez, 545 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir. 2008) (procedural standing and limits on redressability when remedy would upend treaty-level decisions)
Center for Environmental Law & Policy v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 655 F.3d 1000 (9th Cir. 2011) (agency promise to analyze future impacts can bind agency and affect judicial review)
Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332 (1989) (NEPA protects cognizable environmental interests and requires consideration of alternatives)
Navajo Nation v. U.S. Forest Service, 535 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2008) (claim‑raising requirements; claims must be adequately pleaded)
William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 668 F.2d 1014 (9th Cir. 1981) (notice/prejudice factors in denying late amendments)