Wildearth Guardians v. Sally Jewell
407 U.S. App. D.C. 309
| D.C. Cir. | 2013Background
- Antelope Coal applied in 2005 to the BLM for competitive leases on West Antelope II coal tracts in the Powder River Basin.
- BLM prepared an FEIS and issued a Record of Decision in March 2010, dividing land into two tracts to be leased competitively.
- WildEarth Guardians and PRBRC challenged the FEIS as deficient under NEPA, FLPMA, and MLA.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants, finding standing issues and merits lacking.
- On appeal, the D.C. Circuit held appellants have standing based on procedural injury to members’ aesthetic/recreational interests from local pollution, and the merits arguments fail.
- Leases to Antelope Coal were awarded and became effective in 2011; IBLA affirmed the ROD in full.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge FEIS adequacy | WildEarth/PRBRC members suffer aesthetic injuries from local pollution | Appellants lack injury-in-fact or causation linking FEIS to injuries | Appellants have standing to challenge FEIS deficiencies |
| Global climate change analysis under NEPA | BLM failed to take a hard look at climate impacts and cumulative effects | BLM discussed climate consensus and used GHG as a proxy; cumulative effects adequately considered | FEIS sufficiently examined climate effects and did not require more precise global linkage |
| Local pollution analysis under NEPA | FEIS inadequately addressed local ozone/NOx impacts from leasing | NOx/NO2 proxies used; ozone modeling not mandated given data limitations | BLM satisfied NEPA requirements for local pollution analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- Summer v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488 (2009) (standing limits and procedural injury concepts in NEPA)
- Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 563 F.3d 466 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (upholding standing where certain injuries are tied to agency action and not solely to climate effects)
- Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 462 U.S. 87 (1983) (NEPA’s hard-look requirement; need to consider environmental impacts)
- Vt. Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 435 U.S. 519 (1978) (NEPA feasibility and alternatives; not self-defining and must be feasible)
- DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332 (2006) (standing tied to the injury in fact and redressability; narrow holdings on public interest)