502 F.Supp.3d 237
D.D.C.2020Background
- Plaintiffs WildEarth Guardians and Physicians for Social Responsibility challenged BLM’s issuance of 473 oil-and-gas leases (282 parcels in Wyoming covering ~304,000 acres from 2015–2016 sales) for failure to comply with NEPA’s requirement to take a “hard look” at greenhouse gas (GHG) and climate-change impacts.
- In a prior decision the court held BLM’s original EAs and FONSIs for the Wyoming leases inadequate and remanded for supplementation, while enjoining issuance of APDs pending correction.
- BLM produced a single Supplemental Environmental Assessment (EA) and a new FONSI that quantified emissions using per‑acre annual rates (drawing on RFDS, EPA, USGS, and EIA data) and concluded no EIS was required.
- Plaintiffs challenged the Supplemental EA as still arbitrary and inadequate: complaining about (inter alia) failure to analyze reasonably foreseeable regional/national lease sales, reliance on annual rather than lifetime emissions, an unreasonable per‑acre denominator, incomplete carbon‑budget treatment, and numerous calculation errors.
- The court found the Supplemental EA deficient in multiple respects, granted Plaintiffs’ motion in part, denied Defendants’ cross‑motions, again remanded the EA/FONSI, and enjoined BLM from issuing APDs for the Wyoming leases until BLM corrects the deficiencies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiffs' Argument | Defendants' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cumulative‑impacts scope | BLM ignored reasonably foreseeable lease sales outside Wyoming and used an arbitrary short ‘‘currently under internal review’’ cutoff, understating cumulative GHGs. | BLM said global/regional aggregation is appropriate and RFDS projections are too uncertain; deference to methodology decisions. | Court: BLM failed to analyze reasonably foreseeable regional and national BLM lease sales and did not justify its foreseeability cutoff; remand required. |
| Annual vs. lifetime emissions | Annual emission rates obscure total climate effect; NEPA requires disclosure of total expected emissions over project life. | Annual framing is reasonable given available data and court did not prohibit annual presentation; methodological discretion. | Court: Annual rates alone are inadequate for direct emissions; failure to calculate/consider totals undermines the ‘‘hard look.’' Remand to address totals. |
| Per‑acre emission calculation | BLM diluted estimated emissions by dividing by all acreage open to leasing (large denominator) rather than acreage reasonably expected to be leased, underestimating per‑acre impacts. | BLM’s per‑acre approach is a reasonable averaging method and within agency expertise. | Court: Method may be reasonable alone but BLM used inconsistent denominators across analyses; internal inconsistency makes analysis arbitrary; remand for consistent, justified method. |
| Carbon‑budget analysis | BLM was inconsistent and failed to disclose whether it used or declined to use a global carbon budget or explain why it need not; record is confused. | BLM need not use a carbon‑budget approach; methodology choice is within agency discretion. | Court: BLM failed either to conduct a clear carbon‑budget assessment or to explain why such a method would not aid decisionmaking; remand to assess or explain. |
| Calculation/errors & FONSI adequacy | Numerous arithmetic, table, and characterization errors (some acknowledged) and remaining EA deficiencies render the FONSI unsupported. | Errors are minor/flyspecks and do not change conclusions; defer to agency expertise. | Court: Errors, taken together with methodological defects, undermine confidence in the EA/FONSI; BLM must correct errors and reassess; FONSI cannot stand until EA is remedied. |
Key Cases Cited
- WildEarth Guardians v. Zinke, 368 F. Supp. 3d 41 (D.D.C. 2019) (court previously held BLM’s EAs insufficient on GHG and remanded)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29 (1983) (arbitrary-and-capricious standard for agency action)
- Pub. Citizen v. Dep’t of Transp., 541 U.S. 752 (2004) (EA must provide sufficient evidence and analysis to decide whether an EIS is required)
- Grand Canyon Trust v. FAA, 290 F.3d 339 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (requirements for cumulative‑impacts analysis)
- WildEarth Guardians v. Jewell, 738 F.3d 298 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (permissible omission of speculative future projects from cumulative analysis)
- Sierra Club v. FERC, 827 F.3d 36 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (do not ‘‘flyspeck’’ agency analyses; apply NEPA rule of reason)
- Allied‑Signal, Inc. v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 988 F.2d 146 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (factors guiding vacatur vs. remand)
- Theodore Roosevelt Conservation P’ship v. Salazar, 616 F.3d 497 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (agency discretion regarding NEPA procedures and public involvement)