Northern Plains Resource Council, Inc. v. Surface Transportation Board, 668 F.3d 1067

TRRC seeks to build a 130-mile coal-hauling railroad in southeastern Montana; TRRC I was approved in 1986, TRRC II approved in 1996 using the Four Mile Creek Alternative, and TRRC III approved in 2007 for a Western Alignment.
Petitioners (NPRC, Native Action, UTU-GCA, and others) challenge TRRC II and III on NEPA grounds and public convenience/necessity analyses.
The Board’s environmental analysis for TRRC II/III relied on a five-year cumulative effects frame and incorporated programmatic data (CBM/Methane EIS) that covered future coal-bed methane development.
Petitioners argue the Board failed to perform a hard NEPA look, especially for cumulative impacts, baseline data, and the inclusion of reasonably foreseeable CBM and Otter Creek mines.
The district court reviews under APA arbitrary-and-capricious standard; the court defers to agency expertise but requires a reasoned analysis with reliable data.
The Ninth Circuit reverses in part and remands for NEPA deficiencies (cumulative impacts, baseline data adequacy, stale data) but affirms other environmental findings and related railroad determinations except for one remand ground on TRRC III’s analysis of new safety/operational concerns.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the Board fail the NEPA hard look on cumulative impacts?	NPRC/Native Action/UTU argue CBM and Otter Creek impacts were not adequately analyzed.	Board relied on existing programmatic data and limited five-year window as reasonable.	Yes, inadequate hard look; remand on cumulative CBM/Otter Creek impacts.
Was baseline data for pallid sturgeon, sage grouse, fish, wildlife, and plants sufficient?	Baseline data were missing or deferred to mitigation; data not available pre-approval.	Mitigation measures and post-approval surveys could supplement baselines.	No, baseline data insufficient; remand for adequate pre-approval data.
Did reliance on stale data undermine the NEPA analysis?	Older aerials (1985–1997) and outdated info cannot support current impacts.	Historical data provide useful context; not inherently improper.	Yes, reliance on stale data was arbitrary and capricious; remand.
Was the geographic scope and tiering of analyses proper under NEPA?	Impact analysis should uniformly cover broader areas beyond ROW; tiering improper.	Board appropriately scoped studies and properly tiered where lawful.	Geographic scope accepted for some resources; tiering improper in others; remand on scoping issues.

Te-Moak Tribe of W. Shoshone of Nev. v. U.S. Dep't of Interior, 608 F.3d 592 (9th Cir. 2010) (cumulative impacts analysis required under NEPA)
Ocean Advocates v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, 402 F.3d 846 (9th Cir. 2005) (NEPA requires a hard look with quantifiable information)
Selkirk Conservation Alliance v. Forsgren, 336 F.3d 944 (9th Cir. 2003) (reasonableness and forecasting in cumulative effects analysis)
Lands Council v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 537 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2008) (need for reliable data and explanation of methodology in NEPA analyses)
Mid States Coalition for Progress v. Surface Transportation Board, 345 F.3d 520 (8th Cir. 2003) (timing and method of cumulative impact assessment)
Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390 (1976) (agency discretion in ecological and land-use analyses; NEPA scope)
Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332 (1989) (NEPA's purpose and institutional consideration of environmental information)