High Country Conservation v. United States Forest Service, 951 F.3d 1217

In 2012 the U.S. Forest Service adopted the Colorado Roadless Rule, which included a North Fork Coal Mining Area exception permitting temporary road construction for coal exploration/development in three roadless areas (Pilot Knob, Sunset, Flatirons).
Earlier litigation (High Country I & II) found NEPA violations and vacated the original North Fork Exception and related BLM lease modifications, prompting new agency analyses.
The Forest Service prepared a Supplemental Final EIS (North Fork SFEIS) and reissued the Exception; conservation groups asked the agency to study a “Pilot Knob Alternative” (protect Pilot Knob but allow mining in the other two areas), which the agency excluded from detailed study.
Separately, Mountain Coal sought lease modifications; the Forest Service and BLM issued a Leasing SFEIS and declined to study a proposed “Methane Flaring Alternative” in detail, citing lack of site-specific engineering data and unresolved MSHA approval.
The district court upheld both SFEISs; on appeal the Tenth Circuit held the Forest Service’s elimination of the Pilot Knob Alternative arbitrary and capricious (violating NEPA) and remanded with instructions to vacate the North Fork Exception, but upheld the agencies’ decision to omit the Methane Flaring Alternative from detailed study.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Forest Service unreasonably eliminated the Pilot Knob Alternative from detailed study under NEPA	Pilot Knob fits the project objectives, is not remote/speculative, is significantly distinguishable from alternatives, so it required detailed analysis	Agency rejected it because it would foreclose long‑term coal access and undermine state/local economic interests; alternatives reviewed provide a reasonable range	Court: elimination arbitrary and capricious; Pilot Knob should have been studied in detail; vacate North Fork Exception and remand
Whether agencies unreasonably excluded the Methane Flaring Alternative from detailed study in the Leasing SFEIS	Agencies had sufficient existing data (e.g., West Elk operations) to evaluate flaring now	Premature: analysis requires site‑specific exploration/engineering data and MSHA approval, which occur later in permitting	Court: elimination reasonable; NEPA did not require detailed study at leasing stage; challenge denied
Proper remedy / severability: can relief be limited to Pilot Knob only?	Plaintiffs sought vacatur of the entire Exception; Mountain Coal urged severing Pilot Knob only	Agency/Coal argued Court should modify/regulate only Pilot Knob area rather than vacating entire Exception	Court: North Fork Exception not severable as to Pilot Knob; vacatur of entire Exception is appropriate remedy

Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (standard for arbitrary and capricious review under the APA)
Wyoming v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 661 F.3d 1209 (10th Cir.) (agency discretion in defining project objectives and NEPA alternatives analysis)
N.M. ex rel. Richardson v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 565 F.3d 683 (10th Cir.) (agency must analyze alternatives that legitimately achieve project purpose and not treat development as foregone)
Utahns for Better Transp. v. U.S. Dep't of Transp., 305 F.3d 1152 (10th Cir.) (rule‑of‑reason for scope of alternatives and required discussion)
Colo. Envtl. Coal. v. Dombeck, 185 F.3d 1162 (10th Cir.) (agencies must give legitimate consideration to mid‑range alternatives)
Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332 (NEPA’s action‑forcing procedures and need for a hard look)
Balt. Gas & Elec. Co. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 462 U.S. 87 (NEPA’s twin aims: consider environmental impacts and facilitate public involvement)
Olenhouse v. Commodity Credit Corp., 42 F.3d 1560 (10th Cir.) (courts may affirm only on the grounds articulated by the agency)