Wildearth Guardians v. Jewell - 407 U.S. App. D.C. 309, 738 F.3d 298 (2013)

Rule:

A Court applies the arbitrary and capricious standard of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.S. § 551 et seq., to the merits of National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C.S. § 4321 et seq., and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C.S. § 1701 et seq., challenges and reviews de novo a district court's grant of summary judgment. 5 U.S.C.S. § 706(2)(A). In doing so, the Court is mindful that its role is not to "flyspeck" an agency's environmental analysis, looking for any deficiency no matter how minor. Rather, it 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. In short, an agency must take a "hard look" at the environmental effects of its proposed action.

Facts:

Antelope Coal LLC ("Antelope Coal") filed an application with the Bureau of Land Management ("BLM"), an agency within the U.S. Department of the Interior ("Interior"), requesting that a tract of federal land adjacent to Antelope Coal's existing mine in the Wyoming Powder River Basin be offered for competitive lease sale to interested parties. Subsequently, the BLM issued a Record of Decision ("ROD"), dividing the land into two tracts ("the West Antelope II tracts") and offering them for lease through separate competitive bidding processes. WildEarth Guardians, Defenders of Wildlife, the Sierra Club (collectively, "WildEarth") and the Powder River Basin Resource Council ("PRBRC" and, collectively with "WildEarth", Appellants) challenged the BLM’s decision to approve the West Antelope II tracts for lease. Appellants argued that the Final Environmental Impact Statement ("FEIS") supporting the ROD was deficient in several respects. The District Court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding that the appellants lacked standing to challenge the alleged deficiencies in the FEIS, and that their remaining arguments under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C.S. § 4321 et seq., failed on the merits. Appellants challenged the trial court’s decision.

Issue:

1. Did the appellants lack standing to challenge the alleged deficiencies in the FEIS?
2. Did the BLM fail to satisfy its obligations under the NEPA?

Answer:

1) No. 2) No.

Conclusion:

The Court held that the appellants had Article III standing to challenge the procedural inadequacy of the BLM's decision because, inter alia, the local pollution that caused their members' aesthetic and recreational injuries followed inexorably from the decision to authorize leasing on the tracts. However, the Court concluded that the BLM satisfied its obligations under NEPA. According to the Court, the BLM was not required to identify specific effects on the climate in order to prepare an adequate environmental impact statement. Moreover, the Court held that the BLM satisfied its obligations under NEPA regarding the effect the lease developments would have on local ozone levels. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court was affirmed.