Western Organization of Resource Councils v. Jewell
124 F. Supp. 3d 7
D.D.C.2015Background
- Plaintiffs (Western Organization of Resource Councils and Friends of the Earth) challenge the federal Bureau of Land Management’s failure to supplement a 1979 programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the federal coal management program to address climate change impacts.
- The 1979 programmatic EIS guided the coal leasing program; plaintiffs allege it has never been supplemented to evaluate greenhouse gas emissions or mitigation measures.
- Plaintiffs claim organizational and member injuries from air quality and climate effects tied to coal mined under federal leases and seek an order compelling supplementation under NEPA and relief under the APA.
- Federal defendants moved to dismiss, arguing no legal duty to supplement because the programmatic "proposed action" was completed in 1979 and subsequent lease issuances are consistent with that approved program.
- The Court granted the federal defendants’ motion to dismiss, holding no ongoing major federal action exists that would trigger a duty to prepare a supplemental EIS.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether agency must supplement 1979 programmatic EIS under NEPA | 1979 EIS must be updated because the coal leasing program continues and new information about climate impacts makes supplementation required | No supplement required: the "proposed action" was completed when the program was adopted in 1979; current leases implement that approved program | Court: No duty to supplement; no ongoing major federal action remains that would trigger 40 C.F.R. § 1502.9(c) |
| Whether plaintiffs stated a cognizable APA claim | Failure to supplement is agency action unlawfully withheld or arbitrary and capricious | Plaintiffs point to only the supplementation theory; defendants dispute the legal basis but argue no discrete duty exists | Court did not need to decide §706(1) vs §706(2) but dismissed because no legal duty to supplement was shown |
| Whether post-1979 leasing or management decisions convert the program into ongoing "major federal action" | Continued leasing and modern impacts of coal combustion amount to ongoing action requiring new analysis | Post-1979 ministerial or implementing actions do not convert a completed program into an ongoing major federal action | Court: Continuing leases consistent with the approved program are implementation, not an ongoing major federal action requiring supplementation |
| Reliance on precedents supporting supplementation | Marsh, Friends of Clearwater, and National Wildlife support supplementation in some contexts | Defendants: those cases concern project-specific EISs or different factual contexts and do not require deviation from Norton principle | Court: Those authorities are not analogous; Norton controls and forecloses supplementation here |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard: facial plausibility required)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must state plausible claim)
- Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55 (2004) (APA §706(1) requires a discrete agency duty; supplementation only if major federal action remains)
- Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council, 490 U.S. 360 (1989) (standard for supplementation and review under NEPA)
- Greater Yellowstone Coalition v. Tidwell, 572 F.3d 1115 (10th Cir. 2009) (no supplementation where no allegation the plan was amended into a new major action)
- Center for Biological Diversity v. Salazar, 706 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2013) (additional independent actions did not trigger supplementation absent effect on plan validity)
- Wildearth Guardians v. Salazar, 783 F. Supp. 2d 61 (D.D.C. 2011) (construing scope of 1979 coal program EIS)
- National Wildlife Federation v. Appalachian Regional Commission, 677 F.2d 883 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (discusses limits on programmatic NEPA obligations)