Western Organization v. Ryan Zinke
892 F.3d 1234
D.C. Cir.2018Background
- In 1979 the Department of the Interior (acting through BLM) adopted a Federal Coal Management Program (Program) and published a programmatic EIS (PEIS); a supplemental PEIS followed in 1985. The Program set a framework for future coal leasing and for preparing project-specific NEPA analyses.
- Appellants (environmental groups) sued in 2014, alleging the Department violated NEPA and the APA by failing to update/supplement the 1979 PEIS in light of substantial new climate science and greenhouse-gas information.
- The district court dismissed, holding the Department had no duty to supplement because the Program (the challenged "major Federal action") was completed in 1979; plaintiffs appealed.
- The Secretary acknowledged the PEIS analyses are outdated and that new science exists, but argued NEPA's supplementation duty does not apply because no new or ongoing "major Federal action" remains for that original decision.
- The D.C. Circuit affirmed: applying SUWA/Norton, the court held the relevant "major Federal action" was the adoption of the Program in 1979 (completed then), so NEPA/APA do not require a programmatic supplement now; the opinion noted plaintiffs retain other avenues (petition for rulemaking, challenge to individual leasing decisions).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether NEPA/CEQ regs require supplementation of the 1979 Program PEIS given new climate science | New greenhouse‑gas science is "significant new information" that makes supplementation required under 40 C.F.R. §1502.9(c) and Marsh's test | The Program was adopted in 1979 and that adoption was the "major Federal action"; because the action is complete, §1502.9(c) supplementation duty does not apply | Held: No supplementation duty—Program adoption was the completed action, so NEPA does not require a programmatic supplement now (SUWA controlling) |
| Whether prior agency statements in PEIS/ROD created a binding, independent obligation to update the PEIS | Agency language promising to "update when necessary" or "when conditions change" created a binding commitment to supplement | The 1982 regulatory amendments deleted the updating provision and clarified the Department did not intend to bind itself beyond NEPA's requirements | Held: No independent binding duty remains; any prior commitment was superseded by the 1982 rule and is controlled by NEPA as interpreted by SUWA |
| Whether plaintiffs' claim is actionable under APA §706(1) (i.e., agency unlawfully withheld action) and whether the failure to prepare a supplemental EIS is "final agency action" under §704 | Plaintiffs bring the claim under §706(1) to compel non‑discretionary supplementation; an EIS-preparation obligation is reviewable even if procedural | Defendants argued the decision not to prepare a supplement is not "final agency action" under §704 and thus not independently reviewable | Held: Court declined to decide §704 finality because it resolved the case on the substantive NEPA question; reaffirmed that §706(1) can compel discrete non‑discretionary acts but found no such duty here |
| Available remedies/avenues after this ruling | Plaintiffs argued programmatic supplementation is required and sought to compel it | Defendants maintained individual-leasing NEPA analyses and rulemaking are the appropriate fora | Held: Court noted plaintiffs may petition for rulemaking or challenge specific lease decisions or BLM reliance on the PEIS when contested, but did not order agency action here |
Key Cases Cited
- Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council, 490 U.S. 360 (1989) (supplemental EIS required when remaining governmental action is environmentally significant and new information shows significant impacts)
- Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55 (2004) (plan approval can be the completed "major Federal action" so no duty to supplement after adoption)
- Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (1997) (two‑part test for "final agency action")
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing to challenge agency failure to prepare an EIS as vindication of procedural rights)
- WildEarth Guardians v. Jewell, 738 F.3d 298 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (EIS for a specific lease can be challenged on sufficiency; project‑level analyses assess GHGs)
- Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007) (authority to seek review of agency refusals related to rulemaking/petitions)