Diné Citizens Against Ruining Our Environment v. Jewell
839 F.3d 1276
| 10th Cir. | 2016Background
- The BLM adopted a 2003 Resource Management Plan (RMP) and accompanying EIS for the New Mexico portion of the San Juan Basin, projecting ~9,942 new wells over 20 years and analyzing cumulative impacts.
- Operators later began using horizontal drilling and multi-stage hydraulic fracturing in the Mancos Shale, producing more oil per well and prompting more APDs than the 2003 RMP specifically anticipated for Mancos oil wells.
- From ~2010–2015 the BLM approved numerous APDs, tiering site-specific EAs to the 2003 RMP/EIS; the agency later prepared a new RFDS and began amending the RMP to account for increased Mancos development.
- Plaintiffs sued under NEPA challenging 260 APDs (seeking interim relief for 142 approved-but-not-drilled APDs) and moved for a preliminary injunction to halt drilling pending litigation.
- The district court denied the preliminary injunction, finding Plaintiffs showed irreparable harm but failed to prove likelihood of success on the merits, that harms outweighed those to defendants, or that the public interest favored injunctive relief.
- On appeal the Tenth Circuit affirmed: it held the district court did not abuse its discretion, concluding Plaintiffs failed to show a substantial likelihood of prevailing on arbitrary-and-capricious NEPA claims about tiering to the 2003 RMP/EIS.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Standard for preliminary injunction | Plaintiffs: court should apply the "serious questions"/sliding-scale test (modified standard) when other factors tip strongly in Plaintiffs’ favor | BLM: Supreme Court’s Winter requires the ordinary four-factor test; no relaxed standard | Court: Applied Winter; district court did not err in using the likelihood-of-success standard |
| 2. Magnitude of impacts (quantitative increase) | Plaintiffs: horizontal/multi-stage fracking increases development and per-well impacts beyond 2003 EIS estimates, so tiering is arbitrary and capricious | BLM: total basin impacts remain within 2003 projections; site-specific EAs addressed emissions and cumulative impacts | Court: Plaintiffs failed to show total impacts exceeded RMP/EIS projections; no likelihood of success |
| 3. Qualitatively different impacts | Plaintiffs: new techniques cause different types of environmental harms not contemplated in 2003 EIS | BLM: alleged differences are not shown to be qualitatively distinct from impacts analyzed; site-specific EAs cover well-level effects | Court: Plaintiffs offered insufficient evidence that harms are qualitatively different; burden not met under deferential review |
| 4. Limiting agency alternatives during RMP amendment | Plaintiffs: approving APDs while amending RMP impermissibly limits reasonable alternatives and violates NEPA regs | BLM: no authority shows 40 C.F.R. §1506.1 bars interim approvals tiered to an in-force RMP/EIS when actions remain within its scope | Court: No evidence that continuing approvals will impermissibly limit alternatives; amendment does not invalidate reliance on existing RMP/EIS |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (Supreme Court reaffirming that plaintiffs seeking preliminary injunctions must show likelihood of success and likelihood of irreparable harm)
- Wilderness Workshop v. Bureau of Land Management, 531 F.3d 1220 (10th Cir. 2008) (standard of review for district court’s preliminary injunction decision is abuse of discretion)
- Davis v. Mineta, 302 F.3d 1104 (10th Cir. 2002) (describes the "serious questions" sliding-scale formulation for preliminary injunctions)
- Citizens’ Committee to Save Our Canyons v. Krueger, 513 F.3d 1169 (10th Cir. 2008) (plaintiff bears burden to show agency action was invalid under the arbitrary-and-capricious standard)
- Continental Oil Co. v. Frontier Refining Co., 338 F.2d 780 (10th Cir. 1964) (classic statement of the ‘‘serious questions’’ test for interim equitable relief)