On May 15, 1978, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit tried its hand at resolving the thorny question of the applicability of the National Environmental Policy Act's (NEPA's) environmental impact statement (EIS) requirements to the federal budget process. The court ruled in Sierra Club v. Andrus¹ that the Fish and Wildlife Service of the Department of the Interior was not required to prepare an individual impact statement in conjunction with its submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) of a "routine" annual budget request for the National Wildlife Refuge System which envisioned roughly constant funding levels. The court suggested that an EIS would be necessary, however, for budget requests which follow programmatic reviews or contemplate revised funding levels that will work environmentally significant changes in a program's status quo. In addition, the court directed OMB to develop formal procedures for complying with its NEPA obligations regarding such requests.

The D.C. Circuit's decision bears close examination as the most extensive judicial interpretation of this largely unexplored aspect of NEPA. Not surprisingly, the ruling opens more doors than it closes, and further administrative and judicial specification of the contours of NEPA's requirements in this area will undoubtedly be necessary.