WildEarth Guardians v. Salazar
| Decision Date | 30 July 2012 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action Nos. 10–01174 (CKK), 11–00037(CKK). |
| Citation | 880 F.Supp.2d 77 |
| Parties | WILDEARTH GUARDIANS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Ken SALAZAR, Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior, et al., Defendants, and Antelope Coal LLC, et al., Defendant–Intervenors. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Matt G. Kenna, Public Interest Environmental Law, Brad A. Bartlett, Energy Minerals Law Center, Durango, CO, Michael P. Senatore, Adam M. Kron, Defenders of Wildlife, Washington, DC, Samantha Ruscavage–Barz, Wildearth Guardians, Santa Fe, NM, Scott A. Gollwitzer, Asheville, NC, for Plaintiffs.
Coby Howell, U.S. Department of Justice, Portland, OR, John S. Most, Department of Justice, Environment & Natural Resources Division, Washington, DC, for Defendants.
John Alan Bryson, Holland & Hart, Jay Christopher Johnson, Martin & Gitner, PLLC, Washington, DC, Andrew C. Emrich, Hollard & Hart, LLP, James Kaste, State of Wyoming, Attorney General's Office, Cheyenne, WY, Christopher L. Colclasure, Holland & Hart LLP, Denver, CO, for Defendant–Intervenors.
Plaintiffs 1 bring these consolidated actions challenging the United States Bureau of Land Management's decision to authorize the leasing of certain public lands in northeastern Wyoming for coal mining operations. Before the Court is a series of cross-motions for summary judgment. Upon careful consideration of the parties' submissions, the relevant authorities, and the record as a whole, Plaintiffs' [70, 71] Motions for Summary Judgment shall be DENIED and Defendants' [74, 75, 79] Cross–Motions for Summary Judgment shall be GRANTED.2
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦BLM ¦United States Bureau of Land Management ¦
+-------------------+---------------------------------------------------------¦
¦Defendants ¦Federal Defendants and Intervenors ¦
+-------------------+---------------------------------------------------------¦
¦EIS ¦Environmental Impact Statement ¦
+-------------------+---------------------------------------------------------¦
¦EPA ¦United States Environmental Protection Agency ¦
+-------------------+---------------------------------------------------------¦
¦ESA ¦Endangered Species Act ¦
+-------------------+---------------------------------------------------------¦
¦Federal Defendants ¦BLM and FWS ¦
+-------------------+---------------------------------------------------------¦
¦FLPMA ¦Federal Land Policy and Management Act ¦
+-------------------+---------------------------------------------------------¦
¦FWS ¦United States Fish and Wildlife Service ¦
+-------------------+---------------------------------------------------------¦
¦GHG ¦Greenhouse gas ¦
+-------------------+---------------------------------------------------------¦
¦Intervenors ¦Antelope Coal LLC, National Mining Association, and State¦
¦ ¦of Wyoming ¦
+-------------------+---------------------------------------------------------¦
¦NAAQS ¦National Ambient Air Quality Standard ¦
+-------------------+---------------------------------------------------------¦
¦NEPA ¦National Environmental Policy Act ¦
+-------------------+---------------------------------------------------------¦
¦NO2 ¦Nitrogen dioxide ¦
+-------------------+---------------------------------------------------------¦
¦NOx ¦Nitrogen oxide ¦
+-------------------+---------------------------------------------------------¦
¦Plaintiffs ¦WildEarth Plaintiffs and PRBRC ¦
+-------------------+---------------------------------------------------------¦
¦PM10 ¦Particulate matter ¦
+-------------------+---------------------------------------------------------¦
¦PRB ¦Powder River Basin ¦
+-------------------+---------------------------------------------------------¦
¦PRBRC ¦Powder River Basin Resource Council ¦
+-------------------+---------------------------------------------------------¦
¦ROD ¦Record of Decision ¦
+-------------------+---------------------------------------------------------¦
¦WAII Tracts ¦West Antelope II tracts ¦
+-------------------+---------------------------------------------------------¦
¦WildEarth ¦WildEarth Guardians, Defenders of Wildlife, and Sierra ¦
¦Plaintiffs ¦Club ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
The Court assumes familiarity with its prior opinions in this action, which set forth the factual and procedural background of the case. See Wildearth Guardians v. Salazar, 783 F.Supp.2d 61 (D.D.C.2011); Wildearth Guardians v. Salazar, 272 F.R.D. 4 (D.D.C.2010).
* * *
Under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, BLM is permitted to lease public lands for coal mining operations upon conducting a competitive bidding process. See30 U.S.C. §§ 181, 201(a)(1). On April 6, 2005, Antelope Coal LLC filed an application with BLM requesting that certain public lands adjacent to its pre-existing mining operations in Campbell and Converse Counties, Wyoming be offered up for competitive lease sale to interested parties. See J.A. 168–98, 926. The new lands, referred to herein as the WAII tracts, consist of approximately 4,109 acres containing approximately 429.7 million tons of in-place federal coal. See J.A. 926.
On October 17, 2006, after conferring with the State of Wyoming and the Powder River Regional Coal Team, BLM published a notice of its intention to prepare an EIS for leasing the WAII tracts. SeeNotice of Intent (NOI) to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), 71 Fed.Reg. 61064 (Oct. 17, 2006). On November 1, 2006, BLM held a “scoping” meeting to preliminarily identify the issues to be addressed in the agency's environmental analysis. See J.A. 8–9. On February 8, 2008, EPA published BLM's draft EIS and solicited public comment. SeeWeekly Receipt of Environmental Impact Statements, 73 Fed.Reg. 7555 (Feb. 8, 2008). On March 24, 2008, BLM held another public hearing to receive comments on the draft EIS. See J.A. 1637, 1683. During the sixty-day comment period, three individuals testified and fourteen individuals and organizations submitted written comments. See J.A. 899, 1637, 1683.
BLM then prepared a final EIS spanning over 700 pages and published a notice of its availability on January 23, 2009. See J.A. 901–1637; Notice of Availability of Final Environmental Impact Statement, 74 Fed.Reg. 4228 (Jan. 23, 2009). In the final EIS, BLM reprinted and responded to the comments received on the draft EIS. See J.A. 1545–1637. The final EIS also included a biological assessment designed to ascertain whether leasing the WAII tracts for coal mining operations would negatively affect listed species or critical habitat. See J.A. 1512–43. FWS, as the relevant consulting agency, concurred in writing with BLM's underlying determination. See J.A. 33–34.
Subsequently, BLM held a thirty-day public comment period on the final EIS and published written responses to the comments received. See J.A. 1638–69. On March 25, 2010, in a 44–page ROD, BLM formally decided to divide the lands into two tracts and to offer each tract for lease at separate, competitive sealed-bid sales. See J.A. 1670–1714. On April 1, 2010, BLM published a notice of the availability of the ROD. SeeNotice Of Availability of the Record of Decision,74 Fed.Reg. 16502 (Apr. 1, 2010).
Under the “arbitrary or capricious” standard, which the parties agree applies to the Court's review, the reviewing court must “set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be ... arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). The party challenging the agency action bears the burden of proof. Abington Crest Nursing & Rehab. Ctr. v. Sebelius, 575 F.3d 717, 722 (D.C.Cir.2009) (citing City of Olmsted Falls v. FAA, 292 F.3d 261, 271 (D.C.Cir.2002)). In assessing the merits of the plaintiff's challenge, the district court begins with the presumption that the agency's action was valid. Grid Radio v. FCC, 278 F.3d 1314, 1322 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied,537 U.S. 815, 123 S.Ct. 82, 154 L.Ed.2d 19 (2002).
Agency action must generally be affirmed on the grounds originally stated by the agency; a reviewing court may not attempt to supply “a reasoned basis for the agency's action that the agency itself has not given.” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n of the U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43, 103 S.Ct. 2856, 77 L.Ed.2d 443 (1983). Nor may counsel's “ post hoc rationalizations,” offered for the first time on judicial review, substitute for an agency's obligation to articulate a valid rationale in the first instance. El Rio Santa Cruz Neighborhood Health Ctr., Inc. v. HHS, 396 F.3d 1265, 1276 (D.C.Cir.2005). Consistent with these principles, judicial review is typically confined to the administrative record before the agency at the time the decision was made. Envtl. Def. Fund, Inc. v. Costle, 657 F.2d 275, 284 (D.C.Cir.1981).
In order to avoid a finding that the challenged agency action was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wild Earth Guardians v. U.S. Forest Serv.
... ... State of Wyoming, BTU Western Resources, Inc., National Mining Association, Wyoming Mining Association, Respondents-Intervenors. WildEarth Guardians and Sierra Club, Petitioners, v. United States Bureau of Land Management, Respondent. State of Wyoming, BTU Western Resources, Inc., ... WildEarth Guardians v. Salazar , 880 F.Supp.2d 77, 8182 (D.D.C.2012). It is not even enough for the agency decision to be incorrect; as long as there is some rational basis, the ... ...
-
WildEarth Guardians v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., Civil Case No. 1:11–cv–1481 RJL
... ... Milk Indus. Found. v. Glickman, 132 F.3d 1467, 1476 (D.C.Cir.1998) (internal quotations, citations, and modifications omitted). 4 ANALYSIS In WildEarth Guardians v. Salazar ( West Antelope I ), 880 F.Supp.2d 77 (D.D.C.2012), my colleague, Judge KollarKotelly, considered a nearly identical challenge by these same plaintiffs 5 to BLM's decision to lease two different coal tracts also located in Wyoming's PRB. Judge KollarKotelly granted summary judgment in favor of ... ...
-
Kunaknana v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs
... ... 171 ConocoPhillips asserts that [t]he decision in Wildearth Guardians v. Salazar demonstrates that the [Kunaknana] [P]laintiffs lack standing with respect to ... ...
-
WildEarth Guardians v. Jewell
... ... pt. 3420. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 et seq., requires federal agencies, including the BLM, to consider and report on the environmental effect of their proposed actions. See Theodore Roosevelt Conservation P'ship v. Salazar (Theodore Roosevelt I), 616 F.3d 497, 503 (D.C.Cir.2010). “NEPA is an ‘essentially procedural’ statute intended to ensure ‘fully informed and well-considered’ decisionmaking ... ” New York v. NRC, 681 F.3d 471, 476 (D.C.Cir.2012) (quoting Vt. Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural ... ...
-
Standing to Challenge Climate Change Decisions
...2011). 10. Id . at 1130. 11. 738 F.3d 298, 44 ELR 20001 (D.C. Cir. 2013). 12. Id. at 307, quoting WildEarth Guardians v. Jewell, 880 F. Supp. 2d 77, 84 (D.D.C. 2012). 13. Id. at 308. Copyright © 2016 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://w......
-
CHAPTER 5 THE EPA'S ROLE IN THE NEPA PROCESS
...§ 1712(c)(8). [89] 8 F.Supp.3d 17, (D.D.C. 2014) (RJL). [90] Id. at 37-38. [91] Id. at 38 (quoting WildEarth Guardians v. Salazar, 880 F.Supp.2d 77, 94 (D.D.C. 2012)). [92] Id. ...
-
CHAPTER 5 RECOGNIZING CLIMATE CHANGE PERMITTING TRIGGERS
...[57] Id. [58] Id. at 3. [59] Cf. Wildearth Guardians v. Salazar, 880 F.Supp.2d 77, 84-85 (D.D.C. 2012) (finding that climate change impacts that would allegedly result from the release of greenhouse gases were insufficient for plaintiffs to establish standing). [60] WildEarth Guardians v. B......