## Facts

- A federal land area in western Wyoming, largely managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), contains a major natural-gas field and wildlife habitat used for recreational hunting.
- In 2000, BLM issued a Record of Decision (ROD) governing an initial phase of natural-gas development.
- In 2008, after further study and environmental review, BLM issued a new ROD authorizing expanded development with mitigation measures aimed at reducing impacts on wildlife and hunting.
- The 2008 mitigation program included directional drilling from fewer well pads, remote well monitoring to reduce onsite human presence, and a monitoring/mitigation fund for adaptive management.
- A conservation organization representing hunters challenged the 2008 ROD and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), asserting that mitigation was inadequate and that greater buffers and protections were required.
- The organization also alleged violations tied to BLM’s past non-enforcement of restrictions in the 2000 ROD.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the federal defendants and industry intervenors.

## Issues

1. Whether the 2008 EIS evaluated a reasonable range of alternatives for expanded natural-gas development as required by NEPA.
2. Whether the 2008 EIS took the required “hard look” at impacts on recreational hunting.
3. Whether the administrative record supported BLM’s determination under FLPMA that the 2008 ROD would prevent “unnecessary or undue degradation.”
4. Whether claims based on alleged non-enforcement of the superseded 2000 ROD were moot.

## Decision

- The court affirmed summary judgment for the federal defendants and intervenors.
- The court held the 2008 EIS considered a reasonable range of alternatives under NEPA.
- The court held the 2008 EIS sufficiently analyzed impacts on recreational hunting.
- The court held the record supported BLM’s conclusion that the 2008 ROD would prevent unnecessary or undue degradation under FLPMA.
- The court held claims premised on alleged non-enforcement of the 2000 ROD were moot because the 2008 ROD superseded it and no continuing legal effect was shown.

## Legal Principles

- NEPA is procedural and requires an EIS to evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives in light of the project’s purpose and need, not every specific mitigation measure urged by commenters.
- NEPA’s “hard look” standard is satisfied by a reasonably thorough discussion of environmental and related recreational effects; NEPA does not mandate particular quantitative methodologies.
- Under FLPMA, a court applies arbitrary-and-capricious review to BLM’s “unnecessary or undue degradation” determination and generally defers to technical judgments supported by record evidence, including mitigation and monitoring plans.
- When an agency replaces a challenged governing decision with a superseding decision, claims seeking prospective relief against the prior decision are typically moot absent concrete, ongoing legal consequences.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit upheld BLM’s expanded-development approval for the project area, concluding that the EIS met NEPA’s alternatives and impact-analysis requirements, that FLPMA’s anti-degradation determination was supported by the record, and that challenges tied to enforcement of the superseded 2000 ROD no longer presented a live controversy.


Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership v. Salazar, 661 F.3d 66 (D.C. Cir. 2011)