High Country Conservation Advocates v. U.S. Forest Service

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with a district court that the U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) did not have to conduct a detailed study of a “Methane Flaring Alternative” in an environmental impact statement (EIS) for coal lease modifications. The Tenth Circuit concluded that the agencies had taken a sufficiently hard look at the alternative, given the lack of information available at the time concerning flaring’s feasibility and impacts and given uncertainty regarding whether the Mine Safety and Health Administration would approve methane flaring at an active coal mine. But the appellate court held that in its EIS for a Colorado Roadless Rule exception, the Forest Service arbitrarily and capriciously excluded an alternative that would foreclose coal mining in one area where there were no active mines. The court therefore vacated the entire exception.