throbber
Case 2:19-cv-00256-DBB Document 73 Filed 03/24/21 PageID.654 Page 1 of 22
`
`
`
`THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF UTAH
`
`
`UTAH PHYSICIANS FOR A HEALTHY
`ENVIRONMENT, SIERRA CLUB,
`NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE
`COUNCIL, NATIONAL PARKS
`CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION, GRAND
`CANYON TRUST, WILDEARTH
`GUARDIANS,
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
`ORDER
`
`Case No. 2:19-cv-00256-DBB
`
`District Judge David Barlow
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`v.
`
`U.S. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT,
`an agency within the U.S. Department of the
`Interior; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE
`INTERIOR, a federal agency; JOSEPH R.
`BALASH, in his official capacity as Assistant
`Secretary for Land and Minerals within the
`Department of the Interior; DAVID
`BERNHARDT, in his official capacity as
`Secretary of the Department of the Interior,
`
`
`Defendants,
`
`and
`
`ALTON COAL DEVELOPMENT LLC, and
`STATE OF UTAH,
`
`
`Intervenor-Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment, Sierra Club, Natural Resources
`
`Defense Council, National Parks Conservation Association, Grand Canyon Trust, and WildEarth
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00256-DBB Document 73 Filed 03/24/21 PageID.655 Page 2 of 22
`
`Guardians (Plaintiffs) challenge1 Defendant U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) analysis
`
`under NEPA of environmental impacts of a proposed coal lease authorizing the expansion of
`
`Intervenor Defendant Alton Coal Development (Alton)’s coal mine onto 2,114 acres of federal
`
`land and mineral estate.
`
`Having considered the parties’ briefing,2 the administrative record,3 and relevant law, the
`
`court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiffs’ requested relief.
`
`I. STANDARD OF REVIEW
`
`In its review of agency action, the court shall “hold unlawful and set aside agency action,
`
`findings, and conclusions found to be . . . arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or
`
`otherwise not in accordance with law.”4 “The duty of a court reviewing agency action under the
`
`‘arbitrary or capricious’ standard is to ascertain whether the agency examined the relevant data
`
`and articulated a rational connection between the facts found and the decision made.”5
`
`An agency’s decision is arbitrary and capricious if the agency (1) entirely failed to
`consider an important aspect of the problem, (2) offered an explanation for its
`decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency, or is so implausible
`that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency
`expertise, (3) failed to base its decision on consideration of the relevant factors, or
`(4) made a clear error of judgment.6
`
`
`
`
`1 Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (Complaint), ECF No. 2, filed April 16, 2019.
`2 The briefing in this case consisted of the following materials: Plaintiff’s Opening Brief, ECF No. 46, filed
`February 26, 2020; Federal Defendants’ Response Brief on the Merits, ECF No. 61, filed April 13, 2020, Alton Coal
`Development LLC’s and State of Utah’s Joint Response to Plaintiffs’ Opening Brief, ECF No. 62, filed April 13,
`2020, and Plaintiffs’ Reply Brief, ECF No. 67, filed May 11, 2020.
`3 Notice of Filing of Administrative Record (AR), ECF No. 44, filed December 20, 2020.
`4 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).
`5 Citizens’ Comm. to Save Our Canyons v. Krueger, 513 F.3d 1169, 1176 (10th Cir. 2008) (citation and internal
`quotation marks omitted).
`6 New Mexico ex rel. Richardson v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 565 F.3d 683, 704 (10th Cir. 2009) (citation and internal
`quotation marks omitted).
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00256-DBB Document 73 Filed 03/24/21 PageID.656 Page 3 of 22
`
`II. STATUTORY SETTING
`
`Congress enacted the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) recognizing
`
`the “profound impact” of human activity on the natural environment, “particularly the profound
`
`influences of population growth, high-density urbanization, industrial expansion, resource
`
`exploitation, and new and expanding technological advances.”7 “The centerpiece of
`
`environmental regulation in the United States, NEPA requires federal agencies to pause before
`
`committing resources to a project and consider the likely environmental impacts of the preferred
`
`course of action as well as reasonable alternatives.”8 “NEPA has two aims . . . , it places upon an
`
`agency the obligation to consider every significant aspect of the environmental impact of a
`
`proposed action” and “it ensures that the agency will inform the public that it has indeed
`
`considered environmental concerns in its decisionmaking process.”9 It is “strictly a procedural
`
`statute” and does not require substantive results.10
`
`NEPA requires that “[b]efore embarking upon any ‘major federal action,’ an agency must
`
`conduct an environmental assessment (EA) to determine whether the action is likely to
`
`‘significantly affect the quality of the human environment.’”11 Where the proposed action is not
`
`likely to significantly affect the environment, the agency may issue a “[f]inding of no significant
`
`impact” (FONSI), a document explaining the findings and the reasons why an environmental
`
`impact statement (EIS) will not be prepared.12 By contrast, an EIS is required for all “major
`
`
`
`7 42 U.S.C. § 4331(a).
`8 Richardson, 565 F.3d at 703.
`9 Wyoming v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 661 F.3d 1209, 1236–37 (10th Cir. 2011) (citation and internal quotation marks
`omitted).
`10 Id.
`11 Richardson, 565 F.3d at 703 (brackets omitted) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C)).
`12 40 C.F.R. § 1508.13.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00256-DBB Document 73 Filed 03/24/21 PageID.657 Page 4 of 22
`
`Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.”13 An EIS must
`
`“provide full and fair discussion of significant environmental impacts and . . . inform
`
`decisionmakers and the public of the reasonable alternatives which would avoid or minimize
`
`adverse impacts or enhance the quality of the human environment.”14 “[I]nherent in NEPA and
`
`its implementing regulations is a ‘rule of reason,’ which ensures that agencies determine whether
`
`and to what extent to prepare an EIS based on the usefulness of any new potential information to
`
`the decisionmaking process.”15
`
`In reviewing agency action for NEPA compliance, courts look to determine whether
`
`agencies have taken a “hard look” at the environmental consequences of their decisions.16
`
`Ultimately, the “role of the courts is simply to ensure that the agency has adequately considered
`
`and disclosed the environmental impact of its actions and that its decision is not arbitrary or
`
`capricious.”17 “This standard of review is ‘very deferential’ to the agency's determination, and a
`
`presumption of validity attaches to the agency action such that the burden of proof rests with the
`
`party challenging it.”18
`
`III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`The focus of this case is the BLM’s approval of a lease expansion application by Alton.
`
`The application sought to more than double the size of Alton’s Coal Hollow Mine in southern
`
`
`
`13 42 U.S.C. § 4332(C).
`14 40 C.F.R. § 1502.1.
`15 Dep’t of Transp. v. Pub. Citizen, 541 U.S. 752, 767 (2004).
`16 Sierra Club v. U.S. Dep’t of Energy, 867 F.3d 189, 196; Grand Canyon Trust v. FAA, 290 F.3d 339, 340–41 (D.C.
`Cir. 2002).
`17 Balt. Gas & Elec. Co. v. NRDC, 462 U.S. 87, 97–98 (1983).
`18 Kobach v. United States Election Assistance Comm'n, 772 F.3d 1183, 1197 (10th Cir. 2014).
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00256-DBB Document 73 Filed 03/24/21 PageID.658 Page 5 of 22
`
`Utah.19 Alton’s operations would expand onto federal land and implicate federal mineral rights.20
`
`In 2004, Alton filed a Lease by Application seeking to obtain a lease for the Mine expansion.21
`
`In 2011, BLM published a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) concerning the
`
`proposed Lease by Application.22
`
`During the comment period for the DEIS, BLM received more than 154,000 comments.23
`
`Many of the comments were critical of the BLM’s analysis and urged the BLM to select the “no
`
`action” alternative regarding the proposed expansion.24 Subsequent to this comment period,
`
`BLM published a supplemental DEIS (SDEIS) in 2015.25 BLM received more than 39,000
`
`comments on the SDEIS, including comments from Plaintiffs.26 Plaintiffs, in their comments,
`
`also argued that the analytical information contained in the SDEIS was inadequate.27
`
`BLM published its Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) in July 2018.28 BLM
`
`then issued the Record of Decision (ROD) approving the Lease Application for the Mine on
`
`August 29, 2018.29 The ROD incorporated by reference the alternatives and analysis set forth in
`
`
`
`19 AR 162245.
`20 Id.
`21 AR 159487.
`22 AR162253–54.
`23 AR 162254.
`24 See AR 013068–69, 075611–6, 075543–609, and 075763–73.
`25 AR 159487.
`26 AR 162256.
`27 See AR 094950–5000.
`28 AR 156641.
`29 AR 162243.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00256-DBB Document 73 Filed 03/24/21 PageID.659 Page 6 of 22
`
`the FEIS.30 On April 16, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a complaint in this court challenging BLM’s
`
`approval of the lease sale.31
`
`IV. DISCUSSION
`
`Plaintiffs argue that BLM violated NEPA in three ways. First, BLM quantified the
`
`greenhouse gases (GHGs) that would be generated directly and indirectly by the mine expansion,
`
`but failed to analyze the impact of that pollution, all while promoting the economic benefits of
`
`the mine and refusing to use the Social Cost of Carbon analysis to quantify the costs.32 Second,
`
`BLM failed to analyze the cumulative impacts of all Department of Interior coal mining projects
`
`under review, instead limiting its review to climate impact sources in two counties.33 Finally,
`
`BLM failed to properly analyze the impact of mercury emissions despite the information
`
`available to it.34
`
`A. The FEIS’ Handling of GHGs, Climate Change, and Socioeconomics Is Deficient.
`
`Plaintiffs argue that BLM violated NEPA by failing to disclose the indirect impact of
`
`GHGs.35 Specifically, Plaintiffs contend that BLM simply performed a “bare arithmetic
`
`emissions calculation” and “reduced to dollar amounts a project’s purported benefits,” but failed
`
`“to do the same for the social and economic costs associated with GHG emissions.”36
`
`The FEIS addresses GHG emissions two ways. First, it performs a quantification of the
`
`amount of GHGs that will be released from the direct and indirect effects of the proposal and
`
`
`
`30 AR 162246.
`31 See Complaint.
`32 Plaintiffs’ Opening Brief at 9.
`33 Id.
`34 Id.
`35 Plaintiffs’ Opening Brief at 14.
`36 Id. at 16.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00256-DBB Document 73 Filed 03/24/21 PageID.660 Page 7 of 22
`
`then contextualizes the emissions globally. The FEIS notes that GHGs will be produced by the
`
`combustion of the coal and by the project’s vehicles and equipment.37 It explains that “[t]he CO2
`
`emissions for the Proposed Action or Alternative C would be 58,984 tons (53,510 metric
`
`tons)[.]”38 and notes that “[t]his total includes all on-site emissions, as well as off-site emissions
`
`from employee travel, haul truck traffic, cars and light duty trucks, and heavy duty diesel
`
`vehicles.”39 As for the selected alternative (Alternative K1), BLM explained that direct
`
`emissions “would be equal to or less than those reported for the Proposed Action and Alternative
`
`C,” i.e., 58,984 tons of CO2 emissions.40
`
`As to indirect emissions, the FEIS states that the selected alternative is estimated to
`
`produce approximately two million tons of coal. It then uses “EPA’s default emission factor of
`
`4,810 pounds per ton of subbituminous coal (EPA 1998b) . . . to approximate annual CO2
`
`emissions from combusting the 2 million tons of coal that would be produced from the tract.”41
`
`BLM ultimately concluded that, “[b]ased on this emission factor, the end user(s) of the coal
`
`produced from the tract would emit 4.8 million tons of CO2 per year (4.4 million metric tons).”42
`
`Based on this information, BLM provided benchmarks against which to compare the mine
`
`expansion’s anticipated emissions, with BLM explaining that coal from the tract would
`
`contribute approximately 0.022% of total worldwide annual production and combustion of the
`
`coal would constitute 0.013% of the total CO2 emissions from 2014 global fossil fuel
`
`
`
`37 AR 159821.
`38 AR 159821.
`39 Id.
`40 Id.
`41 Id.
`42 Id. See also AR 159820 (discussing indirect impacts of mercury), AR 159916 (Table 4.14.2 addressing indirect
`GHG emissions from rail transport of mined coal).
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00256-DBB Document 73 Filed 03/24/21 PageID.661 Page 8 of 22
`
`combustion.43 As for national emissions, the FEIS states that “[g]lobally, the United States
`
`accounted for approximately 16% of the CO2 added to the atmosphere through the combustion of
`
`fossil fuels in 2014,” and provided the percentage of national emissions from other sources,
`
`including coal mines.44
`
`
`
`Second, the FEIS qualitatively describes the effects of GHGs on the environment. In the
`
`section on climate change, the FEIS states that “GHG emissions, which contribute to climate
`
`changes, do not remain localized but become mixed with the general composition of the earth’s
`
`atmosphere.”45 The FEIS quotes repeatedly from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
`
`Change (IPCC), stating that “‘[w]arming of the climate system is unequivocal,’” that “most of
`
`the temperature increases since the middle of the twentieth century ‘[are] very likely due to the
`
`observed increase in anthropogenic [GHG] concentration.’”46 The FEIS further relies on the
`
`IPCC to state that most of the “CO2 [is] coming from the combustion of fossils.”47
`
`
`
`The FEIS then describes the environmental impact of climate change as: “more frequent
`
`heat waves, droughts, and fires; rising sea levels and coastal flooding, melting glaciers, ice caps,
`
`and polar ice sheets; more severe hurricane activity and increases in frequency and intensity of
`
`severe precipitation; spread of infectious diseases to new regions; loss of wildlife habitats; and
`
`heart and respiratory ailments.”48 The FEIS describes some of these and others as
`
`
`43 See AR 159822; see also AR 159821 (discussing that emissions from other sources are included in the global
`scale emissions and explaining that “33,733 million metric tons of CO2 were added to the atmosphere through the
`combustion of fossil fuels in 2014”).
`44 AR 159603.
`45 AR 160064.
`46 AR 160065.
`47 AR 160066.
`48 Id.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00256-DBB Document 73 Filed 03/24/21 PageID.662 Page 9 of 22
`
`“socioeconomic costs.”49 The FEIS further states that “average surface temperatures in the
`
`United States have increased, with the last decade being the warmest in more than a century of
`
`direct observations.”50 It further identifies climate change environmental impacts in North
`
`America as including “extended periods of high fire risk and large increases in burned areas;
`
`increased intensity, duration, and frequency of heat waves; decreased snowpack, increased
`
`winter and early spring flooding potentials, and reduced summer stream flows in the western
`
`mountains; and increased stress on biological communities and habitat in the coastal areas.”51
`
`Finally, the FEIS observes that “Emissions of GHGs resulting from both the production and
`
`combustion of the tract coal would increase the atmosphere’s concentration of GHGs, and in
`
`combination with past and future emissions from all other sources, they would contribute
`
`incrementally to the global warming that produces the adverse effects of climate change
`
`described previously.”52
`
`Between the FEIS’ quantification of the GHGs that will be emitted and its qualitative
`
`discussion of the effects of GHGs, it is clear that Plaintiffs’ claim that BLM only performed a
`
`“bare arithmetic emissions calculation” of GHGs is not correct.53 BLM applied a “proxy
`
`methodology:” it calculated direct and downstream greenhouse gas emissions from the proposed
`
`action and then analyzed them within the context of national and global projections.54 As noted
`
`previously, BLM also qualitatively discussed the environmental impacts of GHGs.
`
`
`
`49 Id.
`50 Id.
`51 Id.
`52 Id.
`53 Plaintiffs’ Opening Brief at 16.
`54 See AR 159821–22.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00256-DBB Document 73 Filed 03/24/21 PageID.663 Page 10 of 22
`
`However, Plaintiffs are correct that BLM quantified the project’s socioeconomic benefits,
`
`but did not quantify the costs of GHG emissions.”55 In the socioeconomics section, the FEIS
`
`forecasts the number of jobs that will be created, the income from those jobs, the economic
`
`contribution from Utah-produced coal, federal royalties, tax revenue, and downstream economic
`
`benefits.56 The same section discusses possible declines in some housing values, limited effects
`
`on recreation, increases in traffic and noise, night sky impacts, decreases in air quality, the
`
`prospects of blasting damage, the possibility of underground coal fires, and environmental justice
`
`issues.57 But nowhere are the economic costs of GHGs quantified. Plaintiffs contend that since
`
`the economic benefits were quantified, BLM should have used the Social Cost of Carbon
`
`(“SCC”) to forecast the economic costs, which Plaintiffs contend would have shown economic
`
`damages between “$24.6 million to as much as $7 billion annually.”58
`
`For its part, BLM argues that it is not required to perform a cost-benefit analysis and that
`
`it did not perform one.59 It contends that some effects are more easily assessed and understood
`
`quantitatively, while others are better described qualitatively.60 BLM further asserts that NEPA
`
`simply does not require it to monetize all of a proposal’s effects.61 BLM also argues that is not
`
`required to use the SCC, and that it adequately explained its reasons for not using it.62
`
`
`
`55 Plaintiffs’ Opening Brief at 16.
`56 AR 159876–159882.
`57 AR 159882–159890.
`58 Plaintiffs’ Opening Brief at 20. Plaintiffs also argue that 40 C.F.R. § 1502.22(b)(4) requires use of the SCC in the
`FEIS because it is “generally accepted in the scientific community.” Id. at 24-25. Plaintiffs do not develop their
`argument and provide no caselaw, persuasive or otherwise, that has read that regulation to require use of the SCC.
`59 Federal Defendants’ Response at 9–10. Plaintiffs agree that a cost-benefit analysis is not required and was not
`performed. Plaintiff’s Opening Brief at 26.
`60 Federal Defendants’ Response at 10.
`61 Id.
`62 Id. at 8–9.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00256-DBB Document 73 Filed 03/24/21 PageID.664 Page 11 of 22
`
`Plaintiffs rely on three district court cases in support of using the SCC to monetize GHG
`
`emissions. In the first of these, defendants argued “[s]tandardized protocols designed to measure
`
`factors that may contribute to climate change, and to quantify climatic impacts, are presently
`
`unavailable. . . .”63 The court rejected this claim, noting that defendants in fact used the SCC in
`
`its Draft Environmental Impact Statement (“DEIS”), but then removed it in the FEIS.64 The court
`
`noted that the “agencies, of course, may have been able to offer non-arbitrary reasons why the
`
`protocol should not have been included in the FEIS. They did not.” As a result, the court found
`
`that the FEIS violated NEPA. Here, BLM did not include the SCC in its DEIS, only later to
`
`exclude it. It also explained why it decided not to use the SCC.65
`
`In another case, the court accepted plaintiffs’ argument that it was arbitrary and
`
`capricious to quantify economic benefits without also quantifying the costs imposed by GHGs.66
`
`However, the court there found that the defendants had concluded “not that the specific effects of
`
`greenhouse emissions from the expansion would be too uncertain to predict, but that there would
`
`in fact be no effects from those emissions, because other coal would be burned in its stead.”67
`
`Here, the FEIS makes no such claim, instead calculating the direct and indirect GHGs that will
`
`result from the proposal.68 Later, in a follow up case involving the same project, the court
`
`
`63 High Country Conservation Advocs. v. United States Forest Serv., 52 F. Supp. 3d 1174, 1190 (D. Colo. 2014).
`64 Id. at 1191.
`65 Id. at 1191–92.
`66 Montana Env’t Info. Ctr. v. U.S. Off. of Surface Mining, 274 F. Supp. 3d 1074, 1098 (D. Mont. 2017), amended in
`part, adhered to in part sub nom. Montana Env't Info. Ctr. v. United States Off. of Surface Mining, 2017 WL
`5047901 (D. Mont. Nov. 3, 2017).
`67 Id. at 1098.
`68 AR 159821–22.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00256-DBB Document 73 Filed 03/24/21 PageID.665 Page 12 of 22
`
`accepted the decision not to use the SCC because the agency had found it to be “too uncertain
`
`and indeterminate to be useful to the analysis.”69
`
`The final case cited by Plaintiffs found that because the agency “quantified the benefits of
`
`the proposed action, it must also quantify the associated costs or offer non-arbitrary reasons for
`
`its decisions not to.”70 The court then examined the agency’s reasons for not using the SCC and
`
`found them arbitrary. Here, BLM explained its concerns with the SCC, including fundamental
`
`technical issues, significant variations in results, as well as concerns that including it would be
`
`unbalanced and potentially inaccurate.71 Decisions that implicate an agency’s technical or
`
`scientific expertise are entitled to “especially strong” deference.72 Whether to use a particular
`
`tool or methodology, like the SCC, is a decision that implicates agency expertise.73 The court
`
`does not find that BLM violated NEPA by not using the SCC to calculate costs from the
`
`project’s GHGs.74
`
`However, the FEIS’ treatment of GHGs and their costs is still problematic. The
`
`“Greenhouse Gases” subsection calculates the volume of projected GHGs from the proposal and
`
`contextualizes it in terms of total global emissions, but it says nothing about the environmental
`
`effects and socioeconomic costs of GHGs.75 The “Climate Change” subsection, which appears
`
`
`69 Montana v. Bernhardt, 443 F. Supp. 3d 1185, 1196 (D. Mont. 2020).
`70 WildEarth Guardians v. Zinke, 2019 WL 2404860, at *11 (D. Mont. Feb. 11, 2019), report and recommendation
`adopted sub nom. WildEarth Guardians v. Bernhardt, 2021 WL 363955 (D. Mont. Feb. 3, 2021).
`71 AR 160371–37.
`72 Utah Envtl. Cong. v. Bosworth, 443 F.3d 732, 739 (10th Cir. 2006).
`73 See Silverton Snowmobile Club v. U.S. Forest Serv., 433 F.3d 772, 785 (10th Cir. 2006)
`74 See EarthReports, Inc. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 828 F.3d 949, 956 (D.C. Cir. 2016); WildEarth
`Guardians v. Zinke, 368 F. Supp. 3d 41, 78–79 (D.D.C. 2019); Wilderness Workshop v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 342
`F. Supp. 3d 1145, 1159–60 (D. Colo. 2018); W. Org. of Res. Councils v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., CV 16-21-GF-
`BMM, 2018 WL 1475470, at *14 (D. Mont. Mar. 26, 2018).
`75 AR 159821–22.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00256-DBB Document 73 Filed 03/24/21 PageID.666 Page 13 of 22
`
`nearly 250 pages after the “Greenhouse Gases” subsection, qualitatively discusses the effects of
`
`GHGs on the climate generally, but does not include or even reference the quantities of GHGs
`
`the project will generate.76 Finally, the “Socioeconomics” section, which contains the income,
`
`taxes, royalties, and related economic data to which Plaintiffs refer, says nothing about the
`
`socioeconomic costs of GHGs—qualitatively or otherwise—even though the “Greenhouse
`
`Gases” subsection, which appears 200 pages later, acknowledges that the “socioeconomic costs”
`
`and “socioeconomic impacts” from climate change are many.77 These three sections, which
`
`should be working together to paint a clear picture for decisionmakers and the public78 of the
`
`impacts of the GHGs that will result from the project, instead end up being ships passing in the
`
`night.
`
`This is not mere flyspecking. NEPA has two aims: “it places upon an agency the
`
`obligation to consider every significant aspect of the environmental impact of a proposed action”
`
`and “it ensures that the agency will inform the public that it has indeed considered environmental
`
`concerns in its decisionmaking process.”79 It is one thing for BLM to find that, as a matter of
`
`agency expertise, it should not use a particular tool to monetize the impacts from GHGs and
`
`climate change. But it is unacceptable for the information and analysis that is included on the
`
`topic to be spread out and disjointed in such a way that the public is unlikely to find the related
`
`pieces and put them together or to have confidence that the agency considered the interrelated
`
`qualitative and quantitative information as a whole. It is in the analysis of the GHGs from the
`
`proposed action with the climate change effects that the agency shows that it has taken a hard
`
`
`
`76 AR 160065–67.
`77 AR 159875–159901.
`78 See Citizens’ Comm. to Save Our Canyons, 513 F.3d at 1178.
`79 Wyoming v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 661 F.3d 1209, 1236–37 (10th Cir. 2011) (citation and internal quotation marks
`omitted).
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00256-DBB Document 73 Filed 03/24/21 PageID.667 Page 14 of 22
`
`look at the indirect effects of the project. This is particularly true on this record, where there are
`
`multiple pages laying out the significant economic benefits in the “Socioeconomics” subsection,
`
`but no discussion there at all about the socioeconomic costs from GHGs and climate change. The
`
`socioeconomics section may not lay out the economic benefits from the proposal without
`
`analyzing the socioeconomic costs of GHGs together with climate change.
`
`
`
`The agency is owed some deference on the tools it uses. And the court will not adopt a
`
`categorical test that if economic benefits are quantified then economic costs always must be too,
`
`because, among other things, some costs may not accurately be reduced to numbers. However,
`
`agencies must present their relevant quantitative and qualitative information and analyses in a
`
`way that the court and the public can be confident that the agency has taken the requisite “hard
`
`look.”
`
`
`
`B. BLM Failed to Take a Sufficiently Hard Look at the Cumulative Impact of GHG
`Emissions.
`
`Plaintiffs also challenge the BLM’s analysis of the cumulative impact of the GHG
`
`emissions from the expanded Alton Mine.80 Plaintiffs fault BLM for failing to analyze the
`
`cumulative impacts of all Department of Interior coal mining projects under review and limiting
`
`its review to climate impact sources in two counties.81 Plaintiffs contend that the size of the
`
`Cumulative Impacts Assessment AREA (CIAA) was too limited and that the proposed action’s
`
`“downstream GHG emissions should have been considered together with other contemporaneous
`
`
`80 Plaintiffs’ Opening Brief at 28–32.
`81 Id.
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00256-DBB Document 73 Filed 03/24/21 PageID.668 Page 15 of 22
`
`federal coal mine approvals.”82 Plaintiffs urge the court to follow two recent district court
`
`decisions imposing this requirement.83
`
`For its part, BLM notes that the cases Plaintiffs cite are non-binding. BLM argues that the
`
`needed impacts analysis and information are present and contends that 40 C.F.R. § 1508.7 and
`
`40 C.F.R. § 1508.25 indicate no such “all federal” or “all DOI or BLM” mine approvals
`
`approach is required or permitted.84
`
`The applicable regulation defines cumulative impact as “the impact on the environment
`
`which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and
`
`reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or
`
`person undertakes such other actions.”85 The plain language of the regulation does not permit the
`
`agency to limit its analysis to federal sources. But the question is not whether the considered
`
`actions involve the federal government generally or the Department of Interior or BLM
`
`specifically, but rather whether all “the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions”
`
`are sufficiently addressed.
`
`Reviewing the sufficiency of a cumulative-impacts analysis, the court “must examine the
`
`administrative record, as a whole, to determine whether the [agency] made a reasonable, good
`
`faith, objective presentation of those impacts sufficient to foster public participation and
`
`informed decision making.”86 “A meaningful cumulative impact analysis” must address:
`
`
`
`82 Plaintiffs’ Opening Brief at 30.
`83 See WildEarth Guardians v. Zinke, 368 F. Supp. 3d 41, 77 (D.D.C. 2019); Indigenous Envtl. Network v. U.S.
`Dep’t of State, 347 F. Supp. 3d 561 (D. Mont. 2018), order amended and supplemented, 369 F. Supp. 3d 1045 (D.
`Mont. 2018), and appeal dismissed and remanded sub nom. Indigenous Envtl. Network v. U.S. Dep't of State, No.
`18-36068, 2019 WL 2542756 (9th Cir. June 6, 2019).
`84 Federal Defendants’ Response at 14–18.
`85 40 C.F.R. § 1508.7.
`86 Wyoming v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 661 F.3d 1209, 1251–52 (10th Cir. 2011) (citation and internal quotation marks
`omitted).
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00256-DBB Document 73 Filed 03/24/21 PageID.669 Page 16 of 22
`
`(1) the area in which the effects of the proposed project will be felt; (2) the
`impacts that are expected in that area from the proposed project; (3) other
`actions—past, present, and proposed, and reasonably foreseeable—that have had
`or are expected to have impacts in the same area; (4) the impacts or expected
`impacts from these other actions; and (5) the overall impact that can be expected
`if the individual impacts are allowed to accumulate.87
`
`
`
`Here, the cumulative impacts section in the FEIS accomplishes much of this, but still falls
`
`short. The FEIS takes two different approaches in its cumulative impacts section: one that
`
`applies to GHGs and one that applies to all other impacts. First, the FEIS discusses GHGs and
`
`climate change generally. As noted earlier, this includes statements that “GHG emissions, which
`
`contribute to climate changes, do not remain localized but become mixed with the general
`
`composition of the earth’s atmosphere.”88 The FEIS notes that most of the “CO2 [is] coming
`
`from the combustion of fossils.”89 The FEIS lists numerous global environmental impacts90 and
`
`national impacts as well.91 The FEIS then states that regionally “natural variability in climate
`
`parameters . . . .makes it difficult to attribute particular environmental impacts to climate
`
`change.”92 But the cumulative impacts section provides no data or substantive discussion about
`
`GHGs from other present “and reasonably foreseeable future actions.” And while GHG data
`
`from the Alton mine project is calculated elsewhere,93 it is never discussed or even referenced in
`
`the cumulative impacts analysis.94
`
`
`87 San Juan Citizens All. v. Stiles, 654 F.3d 1038, 1056 (10th Cir. 2011) (quoting TOMAC, Taxpayers of Michigan
`Against Casinos v. Norton, 433 F.3d 852, 864 (D.C. Cir. 2006)).
`88 AR 160064.
`89 AR 160066.
`90 Id.
`91 Id.
`92 Id.
`93 AR 159822–23.
`94 AR 160064–67.
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00256-DBB Document 73 Filed 03/24/21 PageID.670 Page 17 of 22
`
`Second, the cumulative impacts section also defines a CIAA for purposes of discussing
`
`cumulative impacts. The FEIS defines the CIAA as “the BLM-KFO, approximately 2.85 million
`
`acres of lands in Kane and Garfield counties, and the reasonably foreseeable coal haul
`
`transportation route (Map 4.6).”95 The FEIS explains that the CIAA is a reasonable area of
`
`analysis because “there is a reasonable degree of data available” for it, it is large enough to take
`
`into account certain far-reaching impacts, and “it is small enough that analyses do not become
`
`unreasonably cumbersome to complete with an acceptable degree of accuracy and precision.”96
`
`The FEIS then inventories reasonably foreseeable actions and developments in the CIAA for the
`
`next twenty years; identifies likely coal, oil, and gas development in the CIAA; and discusses
`
`cumulative impacts involving sound, views, pollution, cultural resources, fire management, land
`
`use, livestock, paleontology, recreation, vegetation, water resources, and wildlife.97 While
`
`present and “reasonably foreseeable future” fossil fuel developments in the CIAA are identified,
`
`no quantitative or qualitive discussion is provided for the CIAA regarding GHG emissions,
`
`though data regarding other emissions are provided.98
`
`In short, while the cumulative impacts section accomplished much of its NEPA-required
`
`mandate, on GHGs it failed to meaningfully describe and discuss relevant information regarding
`
`other present and reasonably foreseeable future GHG sources. While NEPA “does not require the
`
`impossible,”99 the cumulative

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket