Wilderness Society v. U.S. Department of the Interior

–

The federal district court for the District of Columbia remanded without vacatur a case challenging an oil and gas lease sale in Wyoming. The court previously found that the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) erred in its assessment of groundwater and wildlife impacts and in its explanation of how its analysis of greenhouse gas emissions influenced its leasing decisions. The court found that there was “ample reason to believe” that BLM would be able to cure the deficiencies in its NEPA analysis and justify its decisions to issue a finding of no significant impact and approve the lease sale. The court also concluded that the disruptive consequences of vacatur “might not be catastrophic” but were “far from nil.” The court concluded, however, that it was appropriate to enjoin BLM from approving new drilling permits on the lease parcels or authorizing new surface-disturbing activities until the supplemental NEPA review was completed within 180 days.

In a separate case challenging only BLM’s approval of the Wyoming oil and gas lease sale, the court ruled in part for conservation groups that challenged the NEPA review for the sale. The court noted that it had addressed challenges to the climate analysis for all six lease sales in <a href="https://climatecasechart.com/case/dakota-resource-council-v-us-department-of-the-interior/">Dakota Resource Council v. U.S. Department of Interior</a> and that this decision addressed the “fuller suite of challenges to BLM’s environmental analysis and its authorization” of the Wyoming lease, which was “the largest by far” of the six sales (122 parcels totaling 119,654 acres). The court found that BLM had erred in its assessments of impacts on groundwater and wildlife and in its explanation of how its analysis of greenhouse gas emissions influenced its leasing decisions. The court rejected a challenge to BLM’s alternatives analysis. With respect to greenhouse gas emissions, the court concluded that BLM “did not adequately explain how it considered the environmental effects of GHG emissions that, in its own telling, carry a hefty price tag in terms of social costs.” Although the court agreed with BLM that NEPA did not require it to perform a full cost-benefit analysis, the court said NEPA regulations counseled that BLM should “assess the merits and demerits of the proposed action in qualitative terms and provide a reasoned explanation for the basis of its decision.” The court was not convinced by conservation groups’ contention that BLM acted arbitrarily and capriciously be failing to square its authorization of the Wyoming lease sale with Biden administration climate policy directives.