2020-06-16_ENFORCEMENT - C1980007

Home Browse Search

High Country Conservation Advocates v. United States Forest.... 951 F.3d 1217 (2020) 2100 fewer acres—nearly 30% less land. This 2100 -acre difference represents more than 10% of the entire North Fork Coal Mining Area. The difference in accessible tons of coal is even greater. Alternative C would allow access to 95 million short tons of coal, whereas the Pilot Knob Alternative would allow access to 128 million short tons of coal. This represents 33 million short tons, which is approximately 35% more coal than Alternative C and 19% of the total amount of coal recoverable in the entire North Fork Coal Mining Area. Further, the Pilot Knob Alternative is significantly distinguishable from Alternative C because it would affect entirely separate coal resources. The record indicates that if the North Fork Exception were reimplemented, mining would be less likely to occur in the areas protected under the Pilot Knob Alternative than in the areas protected under Alternative C. The Pilot Knob Alternative would foreclose mining on land adjacent to the idle Elk Creek Mine, which has not produced any coal since December 2013. The mine does not appear likely to resume production, as its operator has auctioned off mining equipment and demolished mining infrastructure within the mine. In contrast, Alternative C would foreclose mining in the Flatirons and Sunset Roadless Areas adjacent to an active coal mine—the West Elk Mine. The operator of the West Elk Mine, moreover, has applied for lease modifications that would extend the mine into areas that would be protected under Alternative C. In short, the Pilot Knob Alternative would foreclose mining only if production at the Elk Creek Mine resumed, whereas Alternative C would foreclose expansion of coal leases already sought by the operator of the West Elk Mine. Moreover, the two alternatives would result in significantly different environmental impacts because the Pilot Knob Roadless Area is geographically separate from, and has habitat features dissimilar to, the Sunset and Flatirons Roadless Areas. We have recognized, albeit in a different context, that "location, not merely total surface disturbance, affects" environmental impacts and that "the location of development greatly influences the likelihood and extent of habitat preservation." Richardson, 565 F.3d at 706, 707. Of the three roadless areas, only the Pilot Knob Roadless Area contains a winter range for deer and bald eagles, a severe winter range for elk, and a historic and potential future habitat for the Gunnison sage -grouse. See Balt. Gas, 462 U.S. at 97, 103 S.Ct. 2246 (NEPA requires agencies to "consider every significant aspect of the environmental impact of a proposed action"). *1227 In sum, we conclude that the Pilot Knob Alternative and Alternative C are significantly distinguishable because they differ in acreage of protected land, amounts of recoverable coal, likelihood of coal mining activity, and environmental impacts. We recognize that agencies must engage in line -drawing and are due deference in that exercise. See %omine, 661 F.3d at 1250. "By necessity, an agency must select a certain number of [alternatives] for serious study and eliminate the rest without detailed analysis," Prairie Band Pottawatomie Nation v. Fed. Highway Admin., 684 F.3d 1002, 1012 (10th Cir. 2012). Nevertheless, NEPA and the APA require agencies to act reasonably in eliminating alternatives from detailed study. In this case, the Forest Service failed to provide a logically coherent explanation for its decision to eliminate the Pilot Knob Alternative. That alternative was not "remote, speculative, or impractical or ineffective" as judged against the Forest Service's statutory mandate and the project goals. Richardson, 565 F.3d at 708 (quotation omitted). And it was "significantly distinguishable from the alternatives already considered." Id. at 708-09. We thus conclude that the Forest Service's elimination of the Pilot Knob Alternative from detailed study in the North Fork SFEIS was arbitrary and capricious. B Plaintiffs also challenge the elimination from detailed study of the Methane Flaring Alternative in the agencies' promulgation of the Leasing SFEIS. The Leasing SFEIS's stated purpose was to "facilitate recovery of federal coal resources in an environmentally sound manner." It provided two bases for the agencies' decision to eliminate the Methane Flaring Alternative from detailed study. First, the Forest Service and BLM included a section on their elimination from detailed study of alternatives requiring Mountain Coal to use methane -mitigation measures. They noted that assessing any potential methane -mitigation measure requires "site-specific exploration data" and "resultant engineering designs," which would be part of the mine -permitting process conducted by state agencies, OSM, and the federal Mine Safety and Health Administration ("MSHA"). And the agencies found that the effectiveness of portable methane flares in the lease modification area is uncertain because the effectiveness of a flare depends on a is i•'f