Marsh v. Oregon Natural Res. Council
490 U.S. 360 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A federal agency's decision not to supplement an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in light of new information must be upheld unless it is found to be "arbitrary and capricious." This standard requires a court to defer to the agency's technical expertise, provided the agency has taken a "hard look" at the new information and made a reasoned decision based on its evaluation.
Facts:
- In 1962, Congress authorized the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to construct a three-dam project in Oregon's Rogue River Basin, which included the Elk Creek Dam.
- In 1980, the Corps completed a final supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FEISS) for the Elk Creek Dam, which analyzed the project's environmental effects, including its impact on fish populations and water quality.
- After the FEISS was completed, two new pieces of information emerged: a 1982 Soil Conservation Service (SCS) survey about local soil composition and a 1985 internal memorandum from two biologists at the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW).
- The ODFW memorandum (the "Cramer Memorandum") speculated that the dam would have more severe adverse effects on fish, particularly salmon, than the FEISS had projected, based on observations from one of the other dams in the project.
- After reviewing this new information, the Corps concluded it was not significant enough to require a new supplemental EIS and decided to proceed with the dam's construction.
- By the time Oregon Natural Resources Council filed suit, the Elk Creek Dam was approximately one-third complete.
Procedural Posture:
- Oregon Natural Resources Council sued the Secretary of the Army, Marsh, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, seeking to enjoin the construction of the Elk Creek Dam.
- The District Court, applying a "reasonableness" standard, denied the injunction, finding the Corps' decision not to prepare a second supplemental EIS was reasonable.
- The plaintiffs (now appellants) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court, holding that the new information was significant and that the Corps was required to prepare a supplemental EIS.
- The Corps (now petitioner) successfully petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a federal agency's decision not to prepare a supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) arbitrary and capricious when new information has emerged, but the agency, after careful review, concludes the information is not significant enough to alter the project's environmental analysis?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Stevens
No. A federal agency's decision not to prepare a supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not arbitrary and capricious if the agency takes a required "hard look" at new information and reasonably concludes, based on its expertise, that the information is not significant. The proper standard for judicial review of an agency's technical or factual determination under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is the deferential "arbitrary and capricious" standard from the Administrative Procedure Act, not a less deferential "reasonableness" standard. Resolution of this dispute involves primarily issues of fact requiring a high level of technical expertise, to which a court must defer. The Corps fulfilled its duty under NEPA by carefully scrutinizing the ODFW memo and SCS survey, preparing a Supplemental Information Report to document its analysis, and concluding that the new information was either inaccurate, exaggerated, or did not significantly alter the environmental impact conclusions of the original FEISS. The Corps did not commit a clear error of judgment, and its decision must be upheld.
Analysis:
This case establishes that the highly deferential "arbitrary and capricious" standard is the correct test for courts to apply when reviewing an agency's decision not to supplement an EIS. By rejecting a stricter "reasonableness" standard, the Court strengthened the discretion of federal agencies in ongoing projects. The decision clarifies that while agencies have a continuing duty to evaluate new environmental information, they can rely on their own experts to discount that information, provided their decision-making process is rational and well-documented. This makes it more difficult for project opponents to use new, but contested, scientific findings to force agencies to halt or re-evaluate projects that have already received approval.
Unlock the full brief for Marsh v. Oregon Natural Res. Council