Opinion ID: 3051262
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Effect of CEQ’s Alternative Arrangements for

Text: NEPA Compliance On January 15, 2008 CEQ purported to approve “alternative arrangements” for the Navy to continue its use of MFA sonar while complying with NEPA, reasoning that “emergency circumstances” prevented normal compliance. CEQ’s authority to grant such relief derives from 40 C.F.R. § 1506.11, which provides in full: Where emergency circumstances make it necessary to take an action with significant environmental impact without observing the provisions of these regulations, the Federal agency taking the action should consult with the Council about alternative arrangements. Agencies and the Council will limit 2116 NRDC v. WINTER such arrangements to actions necessary to control the immediate impacts of the emergency. Other actions remain subject to NEPA review. 40 C.F.R. § 1506.11. CEQ’s letter of explanation to the Navy stated that the district court’s modified injunction “imposes training restrictions . . . that continue to create a significant and unreasonable risk that Strike Groups will not be able to train and be certified as fully mission capable.” CEQ Letter to Donald C. Winter at 3. CEQ also stated that “the inability to train effectively with MFA sonar puts the lives of thousands of Americans directly at risk. . . . Therefore, there are urgent national security reasons for providing alternative arrangements under the CEQ regulations.” Id. at 3-4. The Navy then petitioned this court to vacate the district court’s preliminary injunction, arguing that CEQ’s approval of “alternative arrangements” deprived NRDC of the “likelihood of success on the merits” of its NEPA claims, thus eliminating the legal basis for the injunction. We remanded to the district court to allow it to consider in the first instance whether this legal development merited vacatur or a partial stay of the injunction. On remand, the Navy maintained that the CEQ’s “emergency circumstances” determination relieved it of the requirement to prepare an EIS prior to commencing the remaining SOCAL exercises. NRDC argued that CEQ’s action was beyond the scope of the regulation and otherwise invalid, and that the preliminary injunction should remain in place. The district court considered these arguments and concluded that its preliminary injunction was “not affected by [CEQ’s] approval of emergency alternative arrangements because there is no emergency.” Feb. 4, 2008 Dist. Ct. Order at 2. Accordingly, it held that “CEQ’s action is beyond the scope of the regulation and is invalid[ ]” and that “[t]he Navy is not, therefore exempted from compliance” with NEPA and the preliminary injunction. Id. The district court found that CEQ’s NRDC v. WINTER 2117 interpretation of “emergency circumstances” to include a court order entered in the course of pending litigation was not authorized by 40 C.F.R. §1506.11, because it was contrary to both the plain meaning of “emergency circumstances” and the drafters’ original intent. It also found that CEQ’s action was contrary to the governing statute, NEPA.38 The Navy makes two basic arguments as to why the district court erred by failing to vacate the preliminary injunction in light of CEQ’s approval of “alternative arrangements.” First, the Navy argues that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review CEQ’s approval of alternative arrangements because such approval constitutes a superseding agency action that removes as moot any basis for an injunction predicated on plaintiffs’ original claims concerning the Navy’s EA. Second, the Navy argues that, even if the district court could review CEQ’s action, the court erred by not deferring to CEQ’s and the Navy’s assessment that “emergency circumstances” exist within the meaning of 40 C.F.R. § 1506.11. We address the Navy’s arguments in turn. a. Subject Matter Jurisdiction over NRDC’s Challenge to CEQ’s Action [1] The Navy argues that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider the validity of CEQ’s action because that action allegedly moots the plaintiffs’ original claims. Specifically, the Navy contends that the adoption of CEQ’s “alternative arrangements” in a superseding Decision Memorandum constitutes a new administrative action, which can only be challenged by a new claim on the merits. See Rat38 The district court also noted that CEQ had essentially crafted its own, alternative injunction, which suggested that CEQ, as an executive body, was effectively “sitting in review of a decision of the judicial branch.” The district court observed that CEQ’s actions raised “serious constitutional concerns under the Separation of Powers doctrine,” but it declined, pursuant to the doctrine of constitutional avoidance, to make a finding as to the constitutionality of its action. See Feb. 4, 2008 Dist. Ct. Order at 24. 2118 NRDC v. WINTER tlesnake Coalition v. EPA, 509 F.3d 1095, 1103-04 (holding that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over new final agency action).39 The district court implicitly rejected this argument by continuing to exercise jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ NEPA claim. Its decision to do so is firmly grounded in the familiar principle that only a valid subsequent action can render a legal claim moot. See Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Slater, 528 U.S. 216, 222-23 (2000); United States v. Larson, 302 F.3d 1016, 1020 (9th Cir. 2002) (“The stipulation moots [plaintiff’s] challenge to the suppression ruling only if it is valid.”). Accordingly, the district court did not rely on an erroneous legal premise or abuse its discretion in concluding that it had jurisdiction to assess the validity of the new action in order to determine whether plaintiffs’ original claims could survive. See Adarand, 528 U.S. at 222-23. [2] Nor did the district court abuse its discretion by leaving in place the preliminary injunction after determining that CEQ’s action did not require its vacatur. The Navy’s contention that the district court issued “an entirely new injunction . . . based on new, ancillary claims” mischaracterizes the posture of this case. The Navy challenged the injunction based on 39 Notably, none of the cases that the Navy cites in support of this argument involve a plaintiff’s challenge to the validity of a new agency action. For example, in Forest Guardians v. U.S. Forest Serv., 329 F.3d 1089, 1096 (9th Cir. 2003), plaintiffs’ claims were rendered moot because the superseding and controlling environmental documentation that displaced the earlier agency action did not rely on the challenged assumptions that formed the basis of plaintiffs’ claims. In W. Radio Serv. Co. Inc. v. Glickman, 113 F.3d 966, 974 (9th Cir. 1997), a challenge to a letter postponing the issuance of certain permits until a fee structure was established was rendered moot by the subsequent issuance of a fee structure. In Aluminum Co. of Am. v. Bonneville Power Admin., 56 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir. 1995), challenges to a 1993 Rule of Decision were moot because augmentations were being issued under a subsequent Rule of Decision. Finally, in Oregon Natural Res. Council v. Harrell, 52 F.3d 1499, 1501-02, 1508 (9th Cir. 1995), the district court ordered a challenged ROD withdrawn because it was incomplete, and a subsequent challenge to that nonoperative ROD was thus held to be moot. NRDC v. WINTER 2119 CEQ’s action; NRDC argued only that CEQ’s action did not change the merits of its NEPA claims. Thus, the district court here did not “[g]rant[ ] a preliminary injunction based on a showing that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in establishing a violation of an ancillary court order, rather than a showing that they were likely to succeed on the merits of any of their claims.” Alabama v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 424 F.3d 1117, 1135 (11th Cir. 2005). b. The District Court’s Assessment of Whether “Emergency Circumstances” Existed
The district court concluded that CEQ’s interpretation of 40 C.F.R. § 1506.11 is not entitled to deference. It reasoned that under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq., the courts traditionally afford deference to (1) an agency’s reasonable interpretation of a statute it administers “if the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue . . . ,” citing Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837, 843 (1984), and (2) an agency’s interpretation of its own regulations unless “an alternative reading is compelled by the regulation’s plain language or by other indications of the [agency’s] intent at the time of the regulation’s promulgation,” citing Thomas Jefferson Univ. v. Shalala, 512 U.S. 504, 512 (1994), and Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410, 414 (1945). See Feb. 4, 2008 Dist. Ct. Order at 1314. NRDC challenged neither the propriety of CEQ’s original promulgation of 40 C.F.R. § 1506.11 nor the fact that § 1506.11 allows alternative arrangements for compliance with NEPA under genuine emergency circumstances. Instead, NRDC limited its challenge to CEQ’s application of the regulation to the facts of this case. Accordingly, the district court considered whether the term “emergency circumstances” could be afforded so broad an interpretation as to encompass 2120 NRDC v. WINTER the Navy’s need to continue its long-planned, routine sonar training exercises without the mitigation measures imposed by the district court. The district court concluded that the plain language of the regulation and the limited indicia of the agency’s original intent compelled a narrower interpretation of “emergency circumstances” than the one afforded it by CEQ. Accordingly, the district court concluded that it did not owe deference to CEQ’s interpretation of § 1506.11 under Thomas Jefferson and Seminole Rock. We review that conclusion to determine whether in so doing it relied on an erroneous legal premise or abused its discretion; we conclude that it did neither. [3] The district court followed established Supreme Court precedent in finding that an agency’s interpretation of its own regulation is not entitled to deference when it is inconsistent with the regulation itself, conflicts with agency intent at the time of promulgation, and reaches beyond “the limits imposed by the statute,” NEPA. See Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452, 461-63 (1997). Next, the district court, after concluding that the meaning of “emergency circumstances” was clear, applied the appropriate legal principles that an agency’s interpretation of its own regulation is entitled to deference “only when the language of the regulation is ambiguous.” See Christensen v. Harris County, 529 U.S. 576, 588 (2000). Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it determined not to give deference to CEQ’s overly broad interpretation of “emergency circumstances.”40 40 The district court also held that Skidmore deference is inapplicable because this case involves an agency’s interpretation of a regulation, not its informal interpretation of a statute it administers. See Feb. 4, 2008 Dist. Ct. Order at 19 n.13 (rejecting plaintiffs’ argument that because it does not arise out of formal rulemaking, CEQ’s interpretation is entitled to little or no deference under Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134, 140 (1944)). While this holding is correct as a matter of law, our determination that the district court neither abused its discretion nor relied on an erroneous legal premise in concluding that no deference is owed CEQ’s overly broad interpretation of “emergency circumstances” renders this issue moot. NRDC v. WINTER 2121
In finding that no emergency circumstances existed, the district court reasoned that the “Navy’s current ‘emergency’ is simply a creature of its own making, i.e., its failure to prepare adequate environmental documentation in a timely fashion, via the traditional EIS process or otherwise.” Feb. 4, 2008 Dist. Ct. Order at 17. In short, it was not a sudden unanticipated event. The district court supported its conclusion by noting that the CEQ letter does not specify an “emergency” other than the district court’s mitigation order itself, which, in CEQ’s view, creates a “significant and unreasonable risk” that strike groups will not be able to train and be certified as fully mission capable. Id. at 16-17. [4] On appeal, the Navy argues that “no matter its genesis[,] . . . the inability to certify its west coast-based strike groups for deployment to hostile areas overseas during a time of war” is a pressing national emergency. The Navy cites to declarations, including one of the Chief of Naval Operations, that attests to the national security impacts of such a failure at a time when the United States is currently engaged in war in two countries. The Navy contends that the district court’s view that the term “emergency circumstances” as used in the regulation per se excludes the circumstances presented here is an impermissible substitution of its judgment for that of multiple federal agencies (citing Ass’n of Pac. Fisheries v. EPA, 615 F.2d 794, 810-11 (9th Cir. 1980)). We reject this argument and hold, for the reasons explained above, that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the plain meaning of “emergency circumstances” precludes an interpretation so broad as to encompass the Navy’s need to continue long-planned, routine training exercises without mitigation measures ordered by the court. [5] There is ample support for the manner in which the district court exercised its discretion. The district court properly relied on dictionary definitions of “emergency” and “emer2122 NRDC v. WINTER gency circumstances” to support its conclusion that CEQ’s interpretation is not entitled to deference. See Watson v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 579, 583 (2007) (noting that terms are construed consistently with their everyday meaning, including by reference to the dictionary absent statutory definition or definitive clue). As the district court observed, the Oxford English Online Dictionary defines “emergency” as “[t]he arising, sudden or unexpected occurrence (of a state of things, an event, etc.).” Oxford English Online Dictionary, available at http://dictionary.oed.com. Black’s Law Dictionary defines the term “emergency circumstances,” through a cross-reference to “exigent circumstances,” as “[a] situation that demands unusual or immediate action and that may allow people to circumvent usual procedures, as when a neighbor breaks through a window of a burning house to save someone inside.” Blacks Law Dictionary 260, 562 (8th ed. 2004) (emphasis added). The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the circumstances in the present case fall outside the scope of these definitions because its preliminary injunction was entirely predictable given the parties’ litigation history. Feb. 4, 2008 Dist. Ct. Order at 15.41 The Navy urges that the risk to national security created by the preliminary injunction falls squarely within the legal definition of “emergency circumstances.” However, the Navy has been on notice of its possible legal obligations to prepare an EIS for the SOCAL exercises from the moment it first 41 NRDC provides several more dictionary definitions of “emergency,” all of which include the terms “unexpected” or “unforseen.” The Navy refers us to another source that defines “emergency” as “a situation demanding immediate attention.” Random House Dict. of the English Lang. 636 (2d ed. 1987). We do not adjudicate the meaning of the word “emergency” here. Rather, we need conclude only that the district court did not rely on erroneous legal principles or abuse its discretion in reaching its determination as to that term’s plain meaning. Because we are not “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed[,]” we leave the district court’s determination intact. Sports Form, Inc., 686 F.2d at 752. NRDC v. WINTER 2123 planned those exercises. In addition, NRDC filed its complaint almost a year ago, and on August 7, 2007, the district court held that the Navy was likely to lose on the merits of NRDC’s claims. We affirmed that ruling in November of 2007. Still, the Navy waited until January 10, 2008, to raise a cry of “emergency” and request the NEPA and CZMA waivers it relies on here, in order to continue its routine, planned training exercises. We find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s determination that such a series of events gives rise to a predictable outcome, not an unforeseeable one demanding “unusual or immediate action.” Moreover, the district court’s conclusion finds support in CEQ’s recent response to Hurricane Katrina. In March 2006, CEQ approved alternative arrangements to allow the Federal Emergency Management Agency to respond on an emergency basis to “[d]amages to the critical physical infrastructure in the New Orleans Metropolitan Area from the impact of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita [that] rendered parts of the city inoperable and uninhabitable.” NEPA Alternative Arrangements for Critical Physical Infrastructure in New Orleans, 71 Fed. Reg. 14712, 14713 (March 23, 2006). The alternative arrangements explain that generally, such arrangements are made when “emergency circumstances require taking actions with significant environmental impacts and there is not sufficient time to follow the regular [EIS] process.” Id. (emphasis added). This language supports the district court’s view that the words “emergency circumstances” in 40 C.F.R. § 1506.11 refer to unexpected, suddenly arising situations that require agency action in a shorter time frame than would be required to prepare an EIS. By contrast, the Navy’s routine SOCAL exercises were planned well in advance and with “sufficient time to follow the regular [EIS] process.” In concluding that the Navy’s failure to comply timely with NEPA does not constitute an “emergency circumstance” within the meaning of 40 C.F.R. § 1506.11, the district court also relied on the limited drafting history of the regulation. As 2124 NRDC v. WINTER the district court pointed out, the initial proposed version of the regulation required an agency “proposing to take” an emergency action to consult with CEQ regarding alternative arrangements.42 See Proposed Implementation of Procedural Provisions, 43 Fed. Reg. 25230, 25243 (June 9, 1978) (emphasis added). However, the drafters changed “proposing to take” to “taking” in order to remove the inference that consultation must necessarily precede agency action because “such a requirement might be impractical in emergency circumstances and could defeat the purpose of the section.” Implementation of Procedural Provisions; Final Regulations, 43 Fed. Reg. 55978, 55988 (Nov. 29, 1978). While the Navy dismisses this drafting history as reflecting only that “the proposed regulation was broadened to allow actions to be taken prior to consultation with CEQ,” we find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s contrary conclusion that the regulatory history “supports a narrow, rather than a broad interpretation of the phrase ‘emergency circumstances’ ” and that the regulatory history reflects CEQ’s intent to use the regulation to accommodate “sudden unanticipated events” but not more predictable events such as provisionally unfavorable litigation results. Feb. 4, 2008 Dist. Ct. Order at 19. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not rely on an erroneous legal premise or abuse its discretion in finding that the Navy’s attempt to characterize a federal court injunction as an “emergency circumstance” is contrary to the plain meaning of the language and to the intended purpose of CEQ’s emergency circumstances regulation.43 42 In its analysis of the agency’s intent, the district court appropriately declined to consider the declaration of Nicholas C. Yost, CEQ general counsel at the time the regulation was drafted, as “an unreliable guide” to CEQ’s intent, comparing the declaration to “subsequent legislative history.” Feb. 4, 2008 Dist. Ct. Order at 18-19 (quoting Chapman v. United States, 500 U.S. 453, 464 n.4 (1991) (internal citations omitted)). 43 NRDC makes the additional argument that CEQ’s order goes beyond the scope of the regulation because the “alternative arrangements,” preNRDC v. WINTER 2125
[6] Prior judicial decisions also support our conclusion that the district court did not rely on erroneous legal premises or abuse its discretion in concluding that CEQ’s action is invalid. In each of the cases sustaining an application of 40 C.F.R. § 1506.11, CEQ allowed “alternative arrangements” in response to unanticipated emergencies that required federal agencies to respond quickly to new and changing events. For example, in Valley Citizens for a Safe Environment v. Vest, the court upheld “alternative arrangements” which permitted the Air Force to fly C-5A transport planes into and out of Westover Air Force Base on a twenty-four hour schedule, despite a previously prepared EIS’s prohibition of such flights. 1991 WL 330963 (D. Mass. May 30, 1991). The court in Valley Citizens denied the plaintiffs’ request for an injunction until a supplemental EIS was completed because it concluded that the modified flight schedule was essential to supply military equipment and personnel for Operation Desert Storm, an emergency response to Iraq’s sudden invasion of Kuwait that same month. Id. at -6. The court agreed with the determination of CEQ and the Air Force that Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait reasonably constituted an emergency “given the military’s operational and scheduling difficulties and the hostile and unpredictable nature of the Persian Gulf region.” Id. at . Other cases sustaining CEQ’s application of 40 C.F.R. § 1506.11 also support the district court’s narrow interpretation of the phrase “emergency circumstances.” Courts have scribed prospectively through January 2009, go beyond those “actions necessary to control the immediate impacts of the emergency,” even if there were an emergency. Because we hold that there is no basis for reversing the district court’s determination that there were no “emergency circumstances” under 40 C.F.R. § 1506.11, and therefore no basis for CEQ’s order, we do not reach the merits of this argument. 2126 NRDC v. WINTER routinely given deference to CEQ’s finding of “emergency circumstances” in situations where that finding has been used to “avert imminent crises outside the agency’s control.” Id. at 17; see, e.g., Nat’l Audobon Society v. Hester, 801 F.2d 405, 405-7 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (giving deference where immediate action was necessary to prevent the extinction of the California condor); Miccousukee Tribe of Indians of Fla. v. United States, 509 F.Supp.2d 1288, 1290-91 (S.D. Fla. 2007) (giving deference where immediate deviation from a water delivery method was necessary to avoid pending extinction of the Cape Sable seaside sparrow in the Everglades); NRDC v. Pena, 20 F.Supp.2d 45, 50 (D.D.C. 1998) (giving deference where immediate action was necessary to secure storage of nuclear materials); Crosby v. Young, 512 F.Supp. 1363, 1380, 1386 (E.D. Mich. 1981) (where an immediate response was required for a city to meet a federal funding deadline for a development project to counteract potentially dire economic effects of the closure of a General Motors plant). In looking to prior decisions, the district court certainly did not apply an erroneous legal principle. Rather, it found legal authority that supported its view.
Circumstances” and NEPA The district court also held that CEQ’s broad reading of “emergency circumstances” here is ultra vires because it subverts NEPA’s directive that agencies perform their NEPA duties “to the fullest extent possible.”44 See 42 U.S.C. § 4332. The existence of specific Congressional exemptions to NEPA informed the district court’s decision not to read the regulation “so broadly as to independently authorize CEQ to do the same, in the absence of a legitimate ‘emergency.’ ” Feb. 4, 2008 Dist. Ct. Order at 21. Moreover, the court noted that 44 Moreover, NEPA also requires agencies to use “all practicable means and measures” to fulfill their duties under it. 42 U.S.C. § 4331(b). NRDC v. WINTER 2127 many of the exemptions granted in other cases involved agencies faced with conflicting Congressional mandates. Id. at 22. NEPA, the statute authorizing 40 C.F.R. § 1506.11, requires federal agencies to prepare an EIS for a major federal action “significantly affecting the quality of the human environment,” 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C), or, in the alternative, to implement mitigation measures to minimize impacts to the point where an EIS in not required. See, e.g., Nat’l Parks & Conservation Ass’n v. Babbitt, 241 F.3d 722, 734 (9th Cir. 2001). Although CEQ justified its approval of “alternative arrangements” to satisfy NEPA as grounded in “urgent national security” concerns, see Jan. 15, 2008 CEQ Letter at 4, the district court noted that, in the absence of a bona fide emergency, the “alternative arrangements” “operate[ ] to exempt [the Navy] from the ususal rigors involved in the preparation of an EIS, which forms the ‘heart’ of NEPA.” Feb. 4, 2008 Dist. Ct. Order at 21 n.14 (quoting Envtl. Def. Fund, Inc. v. Andrus, 619 F.2d 1368, 1374-5 (10th Cir. 1980)). Reviewing CEQ’s justification in this light, the district court concluded that CEQ’s broad reading of “emergency circumstances” has the effect of reading a “national security” or “defense” exemption into NEPA, where none exists.45 As the 45 Moreover, the district court’s conclusion was grounded in the wellestablished fact that there is no “national defense” exception to NEPA. See San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm’n, 449 F.3d 1016, 1035 (9th Cir. 2006); No GWEN Alliance of Lane County, Inc. v. Aldridge, 855 F.2d 1380, 1384 (9th Cir. 1988). “ ‘The Navy, just like any federal agency, must carry out its NEPA mandate to the fullest extent possible and this mandate includes weighing the environmental costs of the [project] even though the project has serious security implications.’ ” San Luis Obispo, 449 F.3d at 1035 (quoting No GWEN, 855 F.2d at 1384). Indeed, Congress has included exemptions for “paramount” national security concerns in many environmental statutes, but not in NEPA. See, e.g., Toxic Substances Control Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2621 (compliance waived if the President determines a requested waiver to be necessary “in the 2128 NRDC v. WINTER district court pointed out, Congress knows well how to exempt planned Defense Department activities from the requirements of NEPA. See, e.g., Nat’l Defense Auth. Act, Pub. L. No. 106-398, § 317, 114 Stat. 1654, 1654A-57 (2000) (specifically exempting Defense Department from preparing nationwide EIS for low-level flight training). The fact that Congress has not so exempted the Navy’s exercises in the Southern California Operating Area further supports the district court’s conclusion that 40 C.F.R. § 1506.11 should not be read to exempt the routine SOCAL exercises from NEPA’s requirements. The district court’s interpretation also comports with wellestablished Supreme Court precedent that narrowly interprets NEPA’s requirement that agencies comply with its provisions “to the fullest extent possible.” The Supreme Court has made clear that the “to the fullest extent possible” language was intended to address only cases in which there is an “irreconcilable and fundamental conflict” between NEPA’s requireinterest of national defense”); Coastal Zone Management Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1456(c)(1)(b) (under certain circumstances the President may exempt an activity that is in the “paramount interest of the United States”); Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1536(j) (exemption granted if the Secretary of Defense finds such exemption necessary “for reasons of national security”); Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1323(a) (the President may exempt federal effluent source for up to one year if in the “paramount interest of the United States”); Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300j- 6(a) (the President may exempt federal facility for up to one year if in the “paramount interest of the United States”); Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. § 6961(a) (the President may exempt federal solid waste management facility for up to one year if in the “paramount interest of the United States”); Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7417(b) (the President may exempt federal emission source for up to one year if in the “paramount interest of the United States”); Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. § 9620(j) (the President may issue orders to exempt facilities of the Department of Energy and the Department of Defense “as may be necessary to protect the national security interests of the United States . . .”). See Oct. 1, 2007 Brief of Amicus Curiae Law Professors Hope Babcock, et al. at 16 & n.4. NRDC v. WINTER 2129 ments and the requirements of another statute. See Flint Ridge Dev. Co. v. Scenic Rivers Ass’n. of OK, 426 U.S. 776, 787-88 (1976). Here, as the district court noted, the Navy has never contended that it could not reconcile the district court’s injunction with the requirements of NEPA. Similarly, NEPA regulations interpret the language “to the fullest extent possible” to mean that “each agency of the Federal Government shall comply with that section unless existing law . . . expressly prohibits or makes compliance impossible.” 40 C.F.R. § 1500.6. The legislative history of § 1500.6 explains that this language “shall not be used by any Federal agency as a means of avoiding compliance with [NEPA’s] directives . . . .” 115 Cong. Rec. (Part 29) 3970239703 (1969); see also Calvert Cliffs’ Coordinating Comm. Inc. v. U.S. Atomic Energy Comm’n, 449 F.2d 1109, 1114 (D.C. Cir. 1971) (“We must stress as forcefully as possible that this language does not provide an escape hatch for footdragging agencies; it does not make NEPA’s procedural requirements somehow ‘discretionary.’ . . . Indeed, [the language] sets a high standard for the agencies, a standard which must be rigorously enforced by the reviewing courts.”). The Navy asserts that national policy requires that it must be confident that its west coast-based strike groups are prepared and certified for deployment to hostile areas overseas during a time of war. However, as the district court noted, nothing prevented the Navy from preparing an EIS prior to commencing the SOCAL exercises; indeed, the fact that the Navy is currently developing an EIS for exercises in the Southern California Operating Area confirms that it is fully capable of meeting NEPA’s requirements. See Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement/ Overseas Environmental Impact Statement for the Southern California Range Complex, 71 Fed. Reg. 76,639 (Dec. 21, 2006). 2130 NRDC v. WINTER Although the Navy argues that “NEPA must give way” so that it may proceed with its training and certification unhindered by environmental rules, quoting Flint Ridge, 426 U.S. at 788, Flint Ridge itself holds that NEPA’s procedural requirements are not discretionary and do not give way unless a “clear and unavoidable conflict in statutory authority exists,” id, here, the district court carefully examined the record, with which it has longstanding familiarity, and determined that there was no such conflict in statutory authority, concluding that conditioning phrases like “consistent with other essential considerations of national policy,” 42 U.S.C. §4331(b), and “to the fullest extent possible,” id. §4332, do not indicate Congressional intent to create a statutory escape hatch. Nor does any intent appear in the implementing regulations, that would allow the Navy to conduct its exercises before completing an EIS.46 Feb. 4, 2008 Dist. Ct. Order at 22-23. In reaching these conclusions, the district court examined the various legal rules and applied those that were relevant to this proceeding. Having done so, it acted well within its discretion in determining that CEQ’s broad interpretation of “emergency circumstances” is contrary to the dictates of NEPA.
We also note that NRDC has raised a serious question as to whether CEQ acted arbitrarily and capriciously in the procedure it used to reach its “emergency circumstances” determination pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 1506.11. The Navy, arguing 46 The Navy argues, in the alternative, that CEQ’s action comports with NEPA because it actually gives effect to the district court’s conclusion that an EIS is likely required and provides “alternative arrangements” as a bridge until the agency completes this EIS. Because we have concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that no emergency existed and that CEQ had no authority to issue its order, we need not reach this argument. NRDC v. WINTER 2131 that the district court’s order created an emergency by compromising its ability to effectively train and certify its strike groups, requested alternative arrangements on January 10, 2008, and submitted evidence supporting that request the following day. Jan. 15, 2008 CEQ Letter at 1. CEQ approved the Navy’s request four days later, on January 15, 2008. Id. In the intervening time, CEQ held discussions with, and received briefings from, the Navy and NMFS and reviewed the Navy’s supporting documents. Id. at 4. At no point did CEQ request, nor did the Navy provide it, any of the evidence in the district court record contrary to the Navy’s position that the challenged mitigation measures would compromise its ability to train and certify its strike groups. Thus, CEQ reached its “emergency circumstances” determination without considering any of the substantial evidence on which the district court relied in concluding that the mitigation measures it imposed would not render the Navy unable to train and certify its strike groups. Where, as here, the basis for an emergency is alleged to be the effect of a district court order, entered after careful review of a full record submitted by both parties, a substantial question exists as to whether CEQ acted arbitrarily and capriciously when it failed to review the full record, and instead considered only one side’s views, and on that basis determined that the court’s order gave rise to “emergency circumstances.”47 47 CEQ’s action raises a serious question not only under the APA, but also under the Constitution. The separation of powers doctrine prevents Congress from vesting review of the decisions of Article III courts in the Executive Branch. See Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211, 21819 (1995) (explaining that Article III “gives the Federal Judiciary the power, not merely to rule on cases, but to decide them, subject to review only by superior courts in the Article III hierarchy”); see also Hayburn’s Case, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 409, 410 (1792). Here, the Navy represented, and CEQ determined, that “emergency circumstances” existed because the district court’s preliminary injunction prevented the Navy from effectively training and certifying its strike groups for deployment. In making this determination, CEQ presumably reviewed the same evidence that the Navy presented to the district court (without, as noted above, the benefit of NRDC’s evidence) and concluded, despite the district court’s explicit 2132 NRDC v. WINTER
[7] For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion or rely on an erroneous legal premise in determining that CEQ’s broad interpretation of “emergency circumstances” was not authorized by 40 C.F.R. § 1506.11 because it was contrary to the plain meaning of the regulation and contrary to NEPA and, accordingly, that the Navy remains subject to the traditional requirements of NEPA. factual finding to the contrary, that the imposed mitigation measures would compromise the Navy’s ability to train and certify its forces. We find substantial merit in NRDC’s argument that even if the district court’s factual findings with respect to the effect of its mitigation measures were erroneous, it was the job of the appellate court—and not the Executive Branch—to so conclude. However, because the district court declined to reach this question, we, too, do not consider the constitutional argument in determining that the district court did not rely on an erroneous legal premise or abuse its discretion when it held that CEQ’s action was invalid. NRDC v. WINTER 2133 Volume 2 of 2 2134 NRDC v. WINTER