WildEarth Guardians v. Zinke
368 F. Supp. 3d 41 (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Federal agencies must quantify aggregate reasonably foreseeable greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and adequately consider downstream GHG emissions and their cumulative impacts within regional and national contexts when authorizing oil and gas leases on federal land, as such leasing constitutes an irrevocable commitment to future drilling under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Facts:
- The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages mineral development on public lands under the Mineral Leasing Act (MLA) and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) through a three-stage process: land use planning, leasing, and drilling.
- BLM approved and issued 473 oil and gas leases, covering over 460,000 acres of federal land in Wyoming, Utah, and Colorado, through eleven different lease sales.
- Specifically, the litigation centered on five BLM oil and gas lease sales held in Wyoming between May 2015 and August 2016, which resulted in 282 leases encompassing approximately 303,000 acres.
- For these Wyoming Lease Sales, BLM prepared Environmental Assessments (EAs) and issued Findings of No Significant Impact (FONSIs), concluding that full Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) were not required.
- The EAs acknowledged that oil and gas drilling on leased parcels would emit greenhouse gases (GHGs) but stated that the total amount of increased emissions could not be quantified at that time due to uncertainties regarding future drilling activity, equipment, and technology.
- The EAs concluded that, compared to total national or global emissions, the GHG emissions from potential production on the proposed lease tracts would not have a measurable effect or would represent only an “incremental contribution.”
Procedural Posture:
- Between May 2015 and August 2016, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) conducted five oil and gas lease sales in Wyoming, issuing 282 leases covering approximately 303,000 acres.
- For each lease sale, BLM prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) and issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), determining that a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was not required.
- WildEarth Guardians and Physicians for Social Responsibility (Plaintiffs) filed a complaint against BLM, alleging that the EAs and FONSIs failed to sufficiently account for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from oil and gas development on the leased parcels, violating NEPA.
- The Western Energy Alliance and Petroleum Association of Wyoming, American Petroleum Association of Wyoming, the State of Wyoming, the State of Utah, and the State of Colorado intervened as defendants.
- The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, with the initial round of briefing focused on the Wyoming leasing decisions.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) violate NEPA by failing to adequately quantify greenhouse gas emissions and assess their cumulative and downstream impacts when authorizing oil and gas leases on federal land in Wyoming?
Opinions:
Majority - Rudolph Contreras
Yes, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by failing to adequately quantify greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and assess their cumulative and downstream impacts when authorizing oil and gas leases on federal land. The court found that the leasing stage represents an "irrevocable commitment" to allow some GHG emissions from oil and gas drilling, requiring BLM to fully analyze the reasonably foreseeable impacts at this stage, citing precedents like Sierra Club v. Peterson and Conner v. Burford. BLM possessed sufficient data, including historical development rates, per-well emissions, and regional forecasts, to reasonably quantify the aggregate drilling-related GHG emissions from the leased parcels. BLM's assertion that such quantification would be overly speculative was unreasonable given the available information. Furthermore, the court held that downstream GHG emissions resulting from the consumption of oil and gas extracted from the leased parcels are reasonably foreseeable indirect effects that BLM must consider. Unlike in cases like Public Citizen, BLM had the authority to decline lease sales based on environmental impacts, making these emissions a "legally relevant cause" that could influence its decision. The court did not mandate quantification of downstream emissions but required BLM to strengthen its discussion and assess the possibility of quantification. Finally, BLM's cumulative impact analyses were deemed inadequate because the agency failed to quantify GHG emissions and provide a data-driven comparison of emissions from the leased parcels to regional and national emissions, thus lacking context for its "incremental contribution" conclusions. The court clarified that while BLM must quantify and compare emissions, it was within the agency's discretion to decline the use of the "social cost of carbon" or "global carbon budget" protocols, as its explanations for doing so were reasoned and not arbitrary or capricious. Consequently, the EAs' deficiencies rendered the Findings of No Significant Impact (FONSIs) inadequate, as BLM could not make a convincing case for no significant impact without a proper "hard look" at the GHG emissions.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the 'hard look' requirement under NEPA for federal agencies, particularly concerning climate change impacts from resource extraction projects. It clarifies that agencies cannot defer comprehensive climate impact analyses past the leasing stage, as this constitutes an 'irrevocable commitment' to future development. The decision compels agencies to quantify aggregate foreseeable greenhouse gas emissions and consider downstream impacts when they have the regulatory authority to influence the underlying activity. This prevents agencies from segmenting projects to avoid holistic environmental review and underscores the judiciary's increasing scrutiny of federal agencies' compliance with NEPA in the context of climate change.
