Case Law Details
Kleppe v. Sierra Club
Project Description:
Over several years the Department of the Interior (DOI) three different reports on development of coal resources in the Northern Great Plains region, including the Northern Great Plains Resources Program (NGPRP) study. The NGPRP study was an interagency effort designed to evaluate social, economic and environmental impacts of resource development in Montana, Wyoming, Nebraska, South Dakota and North Dakota. The study included several different resource development scenarios and analyzed possible environmental and cultural impacts of implementation of the scenarios. While that study was underway, DOI announced a review of the national program of coal-leasing program, and that a “short-term” leasing policy would be in effect pending completion of the review. DOI also announced that any coal lease issued during the study period would be subject to review under NEPA. In 1975, DOI issued a programmatic EIS for the national coal-leasing program.
427 U.S. 390
427 U.S. 390
U.S. Supreme Court
06/28/1976
Northern Great Plains Coal Leasing
Other
Case Summary
Plaintiffs brought suit against DOI, alleging that NEPA required preparation of an EIS for coal leasing within the entire Northern Great Plains region. DOI argued that because there was no plan proposed for a coal leasing program covering that specific geographic area, there was no need to prepare any NEPA document. The district court rejected plaintiffs’ claims, finding that none of the studies undertaken by DOI to review coal-leasing programs constituted a plan or program to develop or encourage development of coal leasing in the Northern Great Plains. The court of appeals reversed, finding that, based on the existence of the studies, DOI “contemplated” a regional plan. Thus, the court reasoned, DOI would be required to produce an environmental impact statement for development of coal resources in that region. DOI requested review by the Supreme Court.
Key Holdings
Definition of the Project. The Supreme Court held that the agency’s determination of when a proposal to act exists, for the purpose of NEPA compliance, is within the discretion of the agency. The court stated that “the determination of the region, if any, with respect to which a comprehensive statement is necessary, requires the weighing of a number of relevant factors, including the extent of the interrelationship among proposed actions and practical considerations of feasibility. Resolving these issues requires a high level of technical expertise and is properly left to the informed discretion of the responsible federal agencies.”
File Attachment
Download the decision