443 F.Supp.3d 1185
D. Mont.2020Background
- The Bull Mountains Mine (Signal Peak Energy) sought an underground coal-mine expansion; a 2015 EA was enjoined for NEPA defects and remanded. The Enforcement Office issued a new EA in 2018 and approved the expansion.
- Plaintiffs (environmental organizations) sued under NEPA and the ESA, challenging the 2018 EA and the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). Key claims: failure to prepare an EIS; inadequate analysis of coal-rail transportation impacts (wildlife, public health, derailments, cumulative effects); inadequate greenhouse gas (GHG) analysis; and erroneous ESA "no effect" findings for grizzly bears and northern long-eared bats.
- Administrative record shows train traffic rising from ~2.1 to 3.6 trains/day and that mined coal ships to a BC export terminal; past litigation addressed GHG and transport issues.
- Cross-motions for summary judgment were fully briefed and heard; review is under the APA arbitrary-and-capricious standard.
- The Court granted summary judgment to Plaintiffs only on the NEPA claim that the EA failed to analyze the risk of coal-train derailments; the EA was vacated and remanded. All other NEPA and ESA claims were denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Grizzly-bear collisions from increased train traffic | EA failed to analyze collision risk to grizzlies along rail routes | Collisions are too speculative/attenuated to require NEPA/ESA analysis | Denied — collisions were too speculative; agency decision not arbitrary under NEPA and ESA |
| Public health from rail emissions (PM2.5, cancer risk, baseline air quality, cumulative effects) | EA wrongly treated emissions as transitory, failed to quantify cancer risk, misread baseline PM2.5, and omitted cumulative analysis | Emissions are transient per record; EPA data show compliance; fewer trains than big export projects; analysis adequate | Denied — agency took a sufficient "hard look"; no EIS required |
| Risk of train derailments and severe downstream effects | EA omitted derailment risk despite foreseeable quantifiable accident rates and severe consequences | Derailments are not a normal operation and effects are speculative | Granted (to Plaintiffs) — agency should have analyzed derailment risk; EA vacated and remanded |
| Greenhouse-gas impacts / Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) | EA must quantify downstream combustion GHG costs (use SCC) because benefits were quantified | SCC/modeling results are too indeterminate/unhelpful; agency rationally declined to apply SCC | Denied — agency reasonably declined SCC use; NEPA does not compel it here |
| FONSI / whether an EIS was required (context, intensity, controversy, uncertainty, cumulative impacts, statutory compliance) | Substantial questions exist (controversy, uncertainty, cumulative/global GHG effects, ESA/ Clean Water Act risks) | Agency adequately considered context/intensity and relevant factors; no substantial questions except derailments | Denied overall — FONSI upheld except remand required for derailment analysis |
| ESA "no effect" determinations (grizzly bear; northern long-eared bat) | Agency failed to consider indirect effects (rail impacts) and wrongly concluded species/habitat absence | Grizzly collisions not reasonably certain; bat presence/habitat analysis supported by Montana-specific data | Denied — ESA claims rejected; agency reasonably found no effect and no formal consultation required |
Key Cases Cited
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (arbitrary-and-capricious standard for agency action)
- Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332 (agency must describe consequences of remote but potentially severe impacts)
- Neighbors of Cuddy Mountain v. Alexander, 303 F.3d 1059 (NEPA requires a "hard look")
- Great Basin Mine Watch v. Hankins, 456 F.3d 955 (conclusory air-emissions statements insufficient under NEPA)
- Barnes v. U.S. Dep't of Transp., 655 F.3d 1124 (plaintiff must raise "substantial questions" to force an EIS)
- WildEarth Guardians v. Provencio, 923 F.3d 655 (what constitutes a "substantial dispute" and when uncertainty requires an EIS)
- Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 (judicial review generally limited to the administrative record)
- EarthReports, Inc. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 828 F.3d 949 (courts may uphold agency decision declining to use contested modeling tools like SCC)
- Sierra Club v. BNSF Ry. Co., 276 F. Supp. 3d 1067 (district court discussion of coal dust discharges and Clean Water Act liability)