Laserfiche WebLink
High Country Conservation Advocates v. United States Forest..., 951 F.3d 1217 (2020) <br />of Transp., 153 F.3d 1122, 1130 (10th Cir. 1998). The <br />agency met its mandate here by considering a reasonable All Citations <br />range of alternatives and "briefly discuss[ing]" its reasons <br />for eliminating others from detailed analysis. 40 C.F.R. § 951 F.3d 1217 <br />1502.14(a); see also 42 U.S.C. § 4332(C). For these reasons, <br />I would affirm the district court's judgment. <br />Footnotes <br />1 After this appeal was filed, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement ("OSM") adopted the Leasing <br />SFEIS and recommended that the Secretary of the Interior approve a mining plan modification proposed by Mountain <br />Coal. Notice of Record of Decision for the West Elk Mining Plan Modification, 84 Fed. Reg. 9554, 9556 (Mar. 15, 2019). <br />The Department of the Interior approved the mining plan modification, and the plaintiffs in this case filed a separate <br />lawsuit challenging OSM's decision. WildEarth Guardians v. Bernhardt, No. 19-CV-001920-RBJ, F.Supp.3d <br />2019 WL 5853870 (D. Colo. Nov. 8, 2019). The district court remanded the decision to OSM and enjoined coal mining <br />pursuant to approval of the mining -plan modification. Id. at , at *15. <br />2 The dissent attempts to distinguish Richardson because in that case, BLM "took oil and gas development of Otero Mesa <br />as a foregone conclusion and should have analyzed an alternative that would have precluded development," whereas the <br />Forest Service in this case did evaluate such an alternative—Alternative A. But Richardson is not limited to cases in which <br />the proposed action would prohibit development. The Forest Service's consideration of a no -action alternative in this case <br />does not excuse the unreasonableness of its explanation for excluding the Pilot Knob Alternative from detailed study. <br />3 The dissent would hold that the inclusion of findings with respect to the Elk Creek Mine in a different part of the North <br />Fork SFEIS shows that the agency dismissed the Pilot Knob Alternative from detailed analysis because of the presence <br />of the Elk Creek Mine. This is inconsistent with the administrative record. In the Forest Service's explanation of why it <br />eliminated the Pilot Knob Alternative from detailed study, the agency mentions access to coal "over the long term," "future <br />coal exploration and development," and "the stability of local economies." It does not mention the Elk Creek Mine or <br />compare the potential of the Elk Creek Mine with the long-term coal mining opportunities foreclosed by Alternative C. <br />4 This, too, is a post -hoc rationalization not mentioned in the agency's discussion of why it eliminated the Pilot Knob <br />Alternative from detailed study. <br />5 The dissent correctly notes that some of these ecological features occur in other parts of the state outside of the three <br />roadless areas at issue in this case. But this is irrelevant; our inquiry is whether the ecological consequences of the Pilot <br />Knob Alternative would be significantly distinguishable from those of the other alternatives. We therefore consider whether <br />the Pilot Knob Roadless Area is ecologically unique with respect to the areas protected under the other alternatives, not <br />with respect to the entire state. <br />6 The Leasing SFEIS states that the engineering designs would become available during the state and OSM mine - <br />permitting processes. In reviewing the OSM decision issued after the filing of this appeal, the district court vacated the <br />approval of the mining -plan modification partly because OSM did not rigorously explore and objectively evaluate methane <br />flaring. WildEarth Guardians v. Bernhardt, — F.Supp.3d — 2019 WL 5853870, at *9-10. <br />7 After this appeal was filed, Mountain Coal submitted to MSHA a proposal for a methane flaring system at the active West <br />Elk Mine. W l_dEarth Guardians v. Bernhardt, F.Supp.3d n.4, 2019 WL 5853870, at *14 n.4. Mountain Coal <br />represents that MSHA has approved the proposed flaring system and that the Assistant Secretary of Land and Minerals <br />Management has authorized it. The Colorado state permitting process for the system, however, is not yet complete. <br />These recent developments are not relevant to our analysis of whether the Leasing SFEIS complied with NEPA. <br />8 When promulgating the North Fork SFEIS earlier in the mine -permitting process, the Forest Service declined to study <br />methane flaring in detail, stating that "methane flaring is best considered at the leasing stage when there is more <br />information on the specific minerals to be developed and the lands that would be impacted by a flaring operation." Plaintiffs <br />contend this statement is inconsistent with the agencies' present position that the leasing stage is too early to study <br />the Methane Flaring Alternative in detail. Although this factor weighs against concluding that it was reasonable for the <br />agencies to eliminate the Methane Flaring Alternative, we must address the reasonableness of the agencies' actions <br />based on the reasons provided in the Leasing SFEIS. Further, the other reason the Forest Service declined to study <br />methane flaring in detail in the North Fork SFEIS is that MSHA could decide not to allow flaring, resulting in contradictory <br />agency rules. This reason is consistent with the Leasing SFEIS. <br />WESTLAW <br />