## Facts

- Environmental organizations challenged federal actions facilitating coal mining expansion in the Sunset Roadless Area within national forest lands in western Colorado.
- The challenged actions were: (1) a state-specific roadless rule exception allowing temporary roads in the North Fork Coal Mining Area; (2) federal coal lease modifications adding acreage beneath the roadless area; and (3) approval of a mine exploration plan involving road construction and drilling.
- The approvals were expected to increase coal production and associated greenhouse gas emissions, including methane from underground mining and emissions from downstream combustion of the mined coal.
- Plaintiffs sought review under the Administrative Procedure Act, alleging violations of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in an environmental impact statement (EIS) supporting the roadless-rule exception and lease modifications and in an environmental assessment (EA) and finding of no significant impact (FONSI) supporting the exploration plan.
- A coal company operating the mine intervened in support of the federal defendants.

## Issues

1. Whether the plaintiffs had Article III standing to challenge alleged NEPA deficiencies related to greenhouse gas emissions and climate impacts.
2. Whether the EIS supporting the roadless-rule exception took a “hard look” at reasonably foreseeable indirect and cumulative greenhouse gas impacts, including emissions from downstream combustion.
3. Whether the EIS supporting the lease modifications adequately analyzed greenhouse gas and methane emissions and whether it arbitrarily presented economic benefits while omitting available tools for monetizing climate costs.
4. Whether the exploration plan EA and FONSI adequately evaluated environmental impacts and reasonably concluded that an EIS was unnecessary.
5. Whether agencies could minimize climate analysis by asserting that coal not produced from the project would be replaced by coal produced elsewhere (“perfect substitution”).

## Decision

- The court found plaintiffs had standing based on members’ recreational and aesthetic interests in the affected area and the claim that inadequate environmental review increased the risk of harm from agency decisionmaking.
- The court held that the EIS for the roadless-rule exception violated NEPA by failing to adequately disclose and analyze greenhouse gas emissions and climate effects tied to the facilitated mining activity.
- The court held that the leasing EIS violated NEPA by inadequately analyzing greenhouse gas and methane emissions and by arbitrarily excluding available monetized climate-cost information (after using it in earlier analysis) while retaining monetized economic benefits.
- The court held that the exploration plan EA and FONSI were inadequate and that preparation of an EIS was required.
- The court rejected the agencies’ “perfect substitution” rationale as speculative and insufficient to avoid project-specific evaluation of incremental greenhouse gas impacts.
- In a later remedy order, the court vacated the roadless-rule exception as applied to the challenged area, the lease modifications, and the exploration plan approval.

## Legal Principles

- NEPA requires informed, non-arbitrary decisionmaking through a “hard look” at reasonably foreseeable environmental effects, including indirect and cumulative effects.
- For federal actions enabling increased coal production, downstream combustion emissions and mining-related methane emissions can be reasonably foreseeable effects that must be disclosed and analyzed.
- An agency’s presentation of economic analysis may be arbitrary and capricious when it selectively quantifies benefits while omitting available, scientifically supported methods for quantifying climate-related costs.
- A FONSI is improper when the EA does not adequately analyze potentially significant impacts; significant on-the-ground disturbance in a roadless area and climate implications of enabling future production may warrant an EIS.
- Agencies may not rely on generalized market assertions that emissions will occur elsewhere to avoid evaluating the incremental climate impacts of the specific action.

## Conclusion

The court sustained key NEPA challenges to federal approvals enabling coal expansion in a Colorado roadless area, requiring more complete analysis of greenhouse gas and methane impacts and rejecting “perfect substitution” as a basis to downplay climate effects; the challenged actions were vacated and remanded for further agency decisionmaking consistent with NEPA.


High Country Conservation Advocates v. United States Forest Service, 52 F. Supp. 3d 1174 (D. Colo. 2014)