Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-09-05162/USCOURTS-caDC-09-05162-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued April 16, 2010 Decided July 23, 2010

No. 09-5162

THEODORE ROOSEVELT CONSERVATION PARTNERSHIP,

APPELLANT

v.

KENNETH LEE SALAZAR, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE

SECRETARY OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

INTERIOR, ET AL.,

APPELLEES

Consolidated with 09-5193

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia

(No. 1:07-cv-01486)

Sharon Buccino and Thomas R. Wilmoth argued the causes

for appellants. With them on the briefs was Donald G.

Blankenau. Benjamin H. Longstreth entered an appearance.

Robert H. Oakley, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice,

argued the cause for appellees. With him on the brief were

Andrew C. Mergen and Katherine Hazard, Attorneys. R. Craig

USCA Case #09-5162 Document #1256959 Filed: 07/23/2010 Page 1 of 35
2

Lawrence, Assistant U.S. Attorney, entered an appearance.

Michael B. Wigmore and Sandra P. Franco were on the

brief for intervenors Anadarko Petroleum Corporation and

Warren Resources, Inc.

Bruce A. Salzburg, Attorney General, Attorney General's

Office of State of Wyoming, Jay Jerde, Deputy Attorney

General, and David J. Willms, Assistant Attorney General, were

on the brief for intervenor State of Wyoming.

Before: SENTELLE, Chief Judge, ROGERS and GARLAND,

Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed by Chief Judge SENTELLE.

SENTELLE, Chief Judge: In March 2007, the Bureau of

Land Management (BLM or Bureau), an agency within the

Department of the Interior, released a Record of Decision that

established the Atlantic Rim Natural Gas Field Development

Project (Atlantic Rim Project). The project was designed to

manage the resources of more than 270,000 acres of publicly

and privately owned land in south-central Wyoming. Shortly

after issuing the Record of Decision, the Bureau began

authorizing specific applications for permission to drill wells

that accorded with the project. Theodore Roosevelt

Conservation Partnership, Natural Resources Defense Council,

and other environmental organizations filed for declaratory and

injunctive relief in the district court, arguing the Bureau’s

Record of Decision, its accompanying environmental impact

statement, and subsequent drilling permits violated the National

Environmental Policy Act, the Federal Land Policy and

Management Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. The

district court granted summary judgment for the Bureau. The

environmental organizations appeal from the judgment, alleging

USCA Case #09-5162 Document #1256959 Filed: 07/23/2010 Page 2 of 35
3

errors in both the administrative proceedings and the district

court’s evidentiary rulings. We affirm the district court on all

issues.

I. Background

A. Legal Framework

1. National Environmental Policy Act 

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA),

42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq., requires that federal agencies consider

fully the environmental effects of their proposed actions. See

Corridor H Alternatives, Inc. v. Slater, 166 F.3d 368, 374 (D.C.

Cir. 1999) (quoting Citizens Against Burlington, Inc. v. Busey,

938 F.2d 190, 194 (D.C. Cir. 1991)). It is an “essentially

procedural” statute, meant to ensure “a fully informed and wellconsidered decision, not necessarily” the best decision. Vermont

Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc.,

435 U.S. 519, 558 (1978). To ensure a well-considered

decision, NEPA requires that when an agency proposes a “major

Federal action[] significantly affecting the quality of the human

environment,” the agency must prepare and circulate for public

review and comment an environmental impact statement (EIS)

that examines the environmental impact of the proposed action

and compares the action to other alternatives. 42 U.S.C.

§ 4332(2)(C). 

An EIS must be detailed, and it must be prepared in

consultation with other federal agencies with special expertise

relevant to the proposed action’s environmental impact. Id. It

must also assess the impact the proposed project will have in

conjunction with other projects in the same and surrounding

areas — “cumulative impact analysis” — and must include past,

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions of any agency

USCA Case #09-5162 Document #1256959 Filed: 07/23/2010 Page 3 of 35
4

or person. See 40 C.F.R. § 1508.25 (requiring that an EIS

address cumulative impact); 40 C.F.R. § 1508.7 (defining

cumulative impact); see also TOMAC, Taxpayers of Mich.

Against Casinos v. Norton, 433 F.3d 852, 864 (D.C. Cir. 2006)

(describing what a meaningful cumulative impact analysis must

identify). Finally, an EIS must explain in detail “any adverse

environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the

proposal be implemented.” 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C)(ii). Implicit

in this statutory requirement “is an understanding that the EIS

will discuss the extent to which adverse effects can be avoided.” 

Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332,

351–52 (1989). NEPA regulations, therefore, require an agency

to discuss possible mitigation measures in the EIS and Record

of Decision. 40 C.F.R. §§ 1508.25(b)(3), 1502.14(f),

1502.16(h), 1505.2(c). The discussion must include “sufficient

detail to ensure that environmental consequences have been

fairly evaluated.” Methow Valley, 490 U.S. at 352. However,

NEPA “does not require agencies to discuss any particular

mitigation plans that they might put in place,” nor does it

“require agencies — or third parties — to effect any.” Citizens

Against Burlington, 938 F.2d at 206.

Not every decision requires an EIS, however. If it is

unclear whether an action will “significantly affect[] the quality

of the human environment,” 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C), agencies

may prepare an environmental assessment (EA). See 40 C.F.R.

§ 1501.4(a)–(b). An EA is a “concise public document . . . that

serves to . . . [b]riefly provide sufficient evidence and analysis

for determining whether to prepare an [EIS] or a finding of no

significant impact [(FONSI)].” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.9(a)(1). The

Department of the Interior has decided that its agencies,

including the Bureau of Land Management, must prepare an EA

for each proposed federal action, unless it is subject to a

categorical exclusion, covered by an earlier environmental

document, or the relevant bureau has already decided to prepare

USCA Case #09-5162 Document #1256959 Filed: 07/23/2010 Page 4 of 35
5

an EIS. 43 C.F.R. § 46.300(a). 

2. Federal Land Policy and Management Act

Bureau of Land Management actions are guided by the

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA),

43 U.S.C. § 1701 et seq. Under FLPMA, the Bureau must

“manage the public lands under principles of multiple use and

sustained yield.” 43 U.S.C. § 1732(a). Multiple use

management requires balancing various competing uses of land

— “including, but not limited to, recreation, range, timber,

minerals, watershed, wildlife and fish, and [uses serving] natural

scenic, scientific and historical values” — to optimally manage

the land. 43 U.S.C. § 1702(c). The sustained yield principle

“requires BLM to control depleting uses over time, so as to

ensure a high level of valuable uses in the future.” Norton v. S.

Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55, 58 (2004) (citing 43

U.S.C. § 1702(h)).

The Bureau uses a multi-step planning and decisionmaking

process to fulfill this mandate under FLPMA. The Bureau

begins by creating a land use plan for a geographic region. This

plan is called a resource management plan (RMP). A resource

management plan “describes, for a particular area, allowable

uses, goals for future condition of the land, and specific next

steps.” S. Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. at 59. It does not,

however, include a decision whether to undertake or approve

any specific action. 43 C.F.R. § 1601.0-5(n). Specific projects

are reviewed and approved separately, but must conform to the

relevant RMP. 43 C.F.R. § 1610.5-3(a). 

B. Factual Background

The Bureau’s field office in Rawlins, Wyoming oversees

the management of public lands within a 12.5 million acre area

USCA Case #09-5162 Document #1256959 Filed: 07/23/2010 Page 5 of 35
6

in south-central Wyoming that straddles the Continental Divide. 

During the decisionmaking at issue in this case, the area was

governed by a land use plan called the Great Divide Resource

Management Plan.1 Released in 1990 as part of the Bureau’s

FLPMA planning and decisionmaking process, the Great Divide

RMP set forth long-term goals and objectives for the use and

management of resources in the approximately four million

acres of public land and additional one million acres of federal

mineral estate that constitute the BLM-administered land within

the Great Divide Resource Area. BUREAU OF LAND

MANAGEMENT, RAWLINS DISTRICT OFFICE, GREAT DIVIDE

RESOURCE AREA RECORD OF DECISION AND APPROVED

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN 3 (November 1990) (“Great

Divide RMP”). Under the RMP, the entire Great Divide

Resource Area was open to oil and gas leasing, subject to

restrictions around certain areas such as historic trails, sage

grouse breeding grounds, and winter range for big game. Id. at

30, 32. 

Within the Great Divide Resource Area sits the Atlantic

Rim Project Area, which encompasses over 270,000 acres of

publicly and privately owned land in Carbon County, Wyoming. 

Theodore Roosevelt Conservation P’ship v. Salazar, 605 F.

Supp. 2d 263, 270 (D.D.C. 2009) (“TRCP”). The area contains

valuable oil and natural gas deposits, provides habitat to many

species of wildlife, supplies grazing land for local ranchers’

herds, and supports various human endeavors such as big game

hunting and wildlife observation. Already the project area hosts

a number of oil and gas wells, which account for more than five

percent of Wyoming’s total natural gas production. Id.

1

 The Great Divide RMP has been revised and is now called

the Rawlins RMP. See BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, RAWLINS

FIELD OFFICE, RECORD OF DECISION AND APPROVED RAWLINS

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN (December 2008).

USCA Case #09-5162 Document #1256959 Filed: 07/23/2010 Page 6 of 35
7

In 2001, the Bureau began the review and approval process

for the Atlantic Rim Natural Gas Field Development Project

(Atlantic Rim Project). See BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT,

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE ATLANTIC

RIM NATURAL GAS FIELD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, CARBON

COUNTY,WYOMING, at 1-1 (November 2006) (“FEIS”); Notice

of Intent, 66 Fed. Reg. 33,975 (June 26, 2001). Because the

project would have a substantial environmental impact, the

Bureau released a draft EIS in December 2005 as required under

NEPA. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, DRAFT

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE ATLANTIC RIM

NATURAL GAS FIELD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, CARBON

COUNTY, WYOMING (December 2005) (“DEIS”). The Bureau

finalized the EIS in November 2006. FEIS (introductory letter). 

In March 2007, the Bureau released its Record of Decision

explaining, based on its analysis in the EIS, the action it decided

to undertake. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, RECORD OF

DECISION, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE

ATLANTIC RIM NATURAL GAS FIELD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT,

CARBON COUNTY, WYOMING (March 2007) (“ROD”); see also

Notice of Availability, 72 Fed. Reg. 28,518 (May 21, 2007).

The Atlantic Rim Project’s Record of Decision anticipates

the Bureau approving approximately 2000 new natural gas wells

in the project area over the span of 30 to 50 years. ROD at 1–3. 

This drilling is expected to cause surface disturbance to

approximately 13,600 acres during the life of the project. That

disruption will impair certain human activities, decrease soil

quality, encourage erosion, diminish grazing land, and release

various gases that contribute to ground-level ozone pollution.

The project will also affect the population of the greater sage

grouse, a species listed as a “Sensitive Species” by the Bureau. 

FEIS at 3-94. According to the Bureau’s Manual on Special

Status Species, such as sensitive species, the Bureau shall work

“to improve the condition of special status species and their

USCA Case #09-5162 Document #1256959 Filed: 07/23/2010 Page 7 of 35
8

habitats to a point where their special status recognition is no

longer warranted.” BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, BLM

MANUAL 6840 - SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES MANAGEMENT, at .01

(2001). The manual further states that any actions or projects

“authorized by BLM shall further the conservation of . . . special

status species.” Id. at .12. Currently, the Atlantic Rim Project

Area is abundantly covered with sage brush — habitat well

suited for the greater sage grouse’s nesting and breeding. 

However, because the Atlantic Rim Project will disturb so much

surface area, the greater sage grouse may be expected to suffer

a long-term decline in population, precluding the improvement

of the sage grouse’s Sensitive Species status. See FEIS at 4-69,

4-83.

To mitigate the environmental damage the project will

cause, the Record of Decision and final EIS outline conditions

of approval for any proposal to drill. Overall surface

disturbance in the project area cannot exceed 7600 acres at any

given time, and total surface disturbance over the life of the

project is capped at 13,600 acres. ROD at B-4. The decision

also outlines conditions of approval designed to protect plant

species, wildlife, and human activities. For example, drilling

may not occur with a 0.25 mile radius of sage grouse breeding

grounds, and drilling and other human activity is forbidden in

certain areas at certain times of the year. Id. at B-16. The

Bureau also included in the Record of Decision an adaptive

management plan, which identifies various goals for continued

monitoring and mitigation of the project’s adverse impacts on

wildlife and other resources during the life of the project.

Though the Atlantic Rim Project outlined the basic

conditions of approval for drilling applications in the area, the

Record of Decision left many specific resource management

decisions for a case-by-case determination in each drilling

application submitted over the life of the project. While public

USCA Case #09-5162 Document #1256959 Filed: 07/23/2010 Page 8 of 35
9

involvement in these applications is less substantial than in the

preparation of an EIS, the Bureau stated in the Atlantic Rim

Record of Decision that it would post public notice of each

application to drill. Also, as required by regulation, the Bureau

would conduct an environmental assessment (EA) before

approving any specific application. See 43 C.F.R. § 46.300(a). 

Shortly after releasing the Record of Decision in March

2007, the Bureau approved some applications for permission to

drill. When an application is approved, by itself or in concert

with other applications, the Bureau’s approval is known as a

plan of development, or POD. These plans of development

specify where and how a well may be drilled, where supporting

infrastructure such as roads may be built, and the precise

mitigation measures that must be followed. On June 28, 2007,

the Bureau approved two PODs in the Catalina unit of the

project area for a total of 39 new wells. The approvals were

accompanied by EAs with findings of no significant impact. On

August 16, 2007, the Bureau approved two PODs in the Sun

Dog unit for a total of 51 new wells. Again, the approvals were

accompanied by EAs with findings of no significant impact.

C. Procedural Background

In June 2007, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership

(TRCP) and various other environmental groups filed appeals to

the Interior Board of Land Appeals within the Department of the

Interior, pursuant to 43 C.F.R. § 4.410(a) (“Any party to a case

who is adversely affected by a decision of an officer of the

Bureau of Land Management . . . shall have a right to appeal to

the Board [of Land Appeals] . . . .”). See also 43 C.F.R.

§ 4.1(b)(3). Their appeals challenged the validity of the Atlantic

Rim Project Record of Decision and final EIS. TRCP also

petitioned the Board to stay the effect of the Record of Decision

during the pendency of the appeals. The Board denied the

USCA Case #09-5162 Document #1256959 Filed: 07/23/2010 Page 9 of 35
10

petition. Theodore Roosevelt Conservation P’ship, IBLA 2007-

208 (Sept. 5, 2007) (order). TRCP later dismissed its appeal

before the Board.

During the pendency of TRCP’s stay petition before the

Board, TRCP filed in the district court a complaint requesting

injunctive relief against the Department of the Interior and the

Bureau. Shortly thereafter, Natural Resources Defense Council

and other environmental groups (collectively, NRDC) filed a

similar complaint. Three energy companies that planned to drill

in the Atlantic Rim Project Area — Anadarko Petroleum Co.,

Warren Resources, Inc., and Double Eagle Petroleum Co. —

successfully moved to intervene as defendants in both cases, as

did the state of Wyoming. In 2007, the district court denied a

motion by NRDC for preliminary injunctive relief. Natural Res.

Def. Council v. Kempthorne, 525 F. Supp. 2d 115, 117 (D.D.C.

2007). 

The court declined to consolidate TRCP and NRDC’s cases,

but issued a single decision granting summary judgment in both

cases in favor of the Department of the Interior, the Bureau, and

the intervenors. TRCP, 605 F. Supp. 2d at 269. The groups

separately appealed the district court’s grant of summary

judgment, citing, inter alia, the court’s decision to exclude

certain evidence that was not part of the administrative record. 

This court consolidated the appeals. Later, we granted the

motion of Double Eagle Petroleum to withdraw as a party to the

appeal.

II. Analysis 

As a threshold matter, we address the issue of standing. 

Though neither appellant asserted the required elements for

standing in their joint brief in this court, both TRCP and NRDC

did supply to the district court declarations that were sufficient

USCA Case #09-5162 Document #1256959 Filed: 07/23/2010 Page 10 of 35
11

to establish standing. Accordingly, we hold that Appellants

have standing to bring their claims before us. 

To establish standing, a party must, as a constitutional

minimum, show that (1) it suffers an “injury in fact” that is

concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent, (2) there is a

causal relationship between the injury and the conduct

complained of, and (3) it is likely that the injury will be

redressed by a favorable decision. Lujan v. Defenders of

Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). Each organization in this

case relies on associational standing, whereby a group brings

suit on behalf of its members. Associational standing requires

an organization to show that “(1) at least one of its members

would have standing to sue in his own right, (2) the interests the

association seeks to protect are germane to its purpose, and (3)

neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires that

an individual member of the association participate in the

lawsuit.” Sierra Club v. EPA, 292 F.3d 895, 898 (D.C. Cir.

2002). 

Before the district court, TRCP and NRDC submitted

declarations from members of their organizations that

established those members’ past and intended future use of the

land governed by the Atlantic Rim Project, and the particular

harm to that activity posed by the Atlantic Rim Project and

approved PODs. The injuries asserted satisfy the Lujan

requirements, giving the individuals standing to sue in their own

right. Because TRCP and NRDC’s claims and requested relief

are germane to their organizational purposes and do not require

any individual member to participate in the lawsuit, the

organizations have standing to sue on behalf of those members. 

We note that only NRDC’s declarations establish standing for

the Catalina and Sun Dog PODs in particular. However, only

NRDC argued that those PODs violated NEPA, and so the

relevant party established the necessary standing.

USCA Case #09-5162 Document #1256959 Filed: 07/23/2010 Page 11 of 35
12

Turning to the merits of TRCP’s and NRDC’s arguments,

we review de novo the district court’s grant of summary

judgment. Am. Wildlands v. Kempthorne, 530 F.3d 991, 998

(D.C. Cir. 2008). As for the disputed evidentiary rulings, this

court reviews the “district court’s refusal to supplement the

administrative record for abuse of discretion.” Novartis

Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Leavitt, 435 F.3d 344, 348 (D.C. Cir.

2006).

Neither NEPA nor FLPMA provides a private right of

action, so the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) supplies the

applicable vehicle for review of the Bureau’s actions. By the

terms of the APA, a reviewing court shall set aside any agency

action, finding, or conclusion that is “arbitrary, capricious, an

abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 

5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).

On appeal to this court, TRCP and NRDC share some

arguments, but not all. However, because each group

established standing for the claims it makes, and because the

relief sought is not affected by which group made which

argument, for the sake of simplicity we will not distinguish

between their arguments. Instead, we refer collectively to TRCP

and NRDC as “Appellants” and credit all arguments to them

jointly. Those arguments are as follows: 

(1) the scope of the Atlantic Rim Project exceeded the

scope of the Great Divide RMP, violating both FLPMA and

NEPA; 

(2) the Bureau’s reliance on the “Scheffe method” to

estimate ozone concentrations violated NEPA and was

arbitrary and capricious; 

(3) the Bureau’s exclusion of certain possible future

projects from its cumulative impact analysis in the Record

of Decision was arbitrary and capricious and a violation of

USCA Case #09-5162 Document #1256959 Filed: 07/23/2010 Page 12 of 35
13

NEPA, and the district court erred when it excluded extrarecord evidence about the cumulative impact analysis;

(4) the adaptive management plan and other mitigation

efforts in the Record of Decision were too vague to satisfy

NEPA; 

(5) the Atlantic Rim Project violated the multiple use and

sustained yield goals of FLPMA; and 

(6) the Bureau failed to provide sufficient public notice and

opportunity for public comment on the environmental

assessments for the PODs as required by NEPA. 

We address each argument in turn.

A. The Atlantic Rim Project’s Conformity with the Great

Divide RMP

When the approval process for the Atlantic Rim Project

began in 2001, the Great Divide RMP was more than a decade

old. In February 2002, the Bureau published a notice of intent

to revise the Great Divide RMP. 67 Fed. Reg. 8701 (Feb. 25,

2002). The Bureau completed the Atlantic Rim Project Record

of Decision in March 2007 before making the RMP revision

available for public comment the following January. 73 Fed.

Reg. 881 (Jan. 4, 2008) (announcing availability of the draft of

the revised RMP). Appellants argue this violated the Council on

Environmental Quality’s regulations implementing NEPA. 

Section 1502.1 of 40 C.F.R. sets forth the purpose of an

EIS: ensuring that NEPA’s policies and goals “are infused into

the ongoing programs and actions of the Federal Government.” 

Section 1502.2(f) specifies that, to achieve that purpose,

agencies preparing an EIS “shall not commit resources

prejudicing the selection of alternatives before making a final

decision.” Further, § 1506.1(a) provides that “[u]ntil an agency

USCA Case #09-5162 Document #1256959 Filed: 07/23/2010 Page 13 of 35
14

issues a record of decision . . . no action concerning the proposal

shall be taken which would . . . [l]imit the choice of reasonable

alternatives.” According to Appellants, the Atlantic Rim Project

improperly precommitted the RMP revision to approve at least

as much new development as the Atlantic Rim Project had

already approved.

This argument presupposes that the Atlantic Rim Project

exceeded the existing 1990 RMP because the restriction on

precommitting resources can apply only if the project was “not

covered by an existing program statement.” 40 C.F.R. § 1506.1. 

Appellants’ argument therefore turns on whether the Atlantic

Rim Project was covered by the existing RMP. If the RMP

covered the Atlantic Rim Project, the Bureau did not improperly

precommit resources as it revised the Great Divide RMP. If,

however, the RMP did not cover the project, Appellants argue,

the Bureau not only precommitted resources in violation of

NEPA regulations, but also violated FLPMA and its

implementing regulations by not managing the area in

accordance with the RMP. See 43 U.S.C. § 1732(a) (“The

Secretary shall manage the public lands . . . in accordance with

the land use plans developed by him . . . .”); 43 C.F.R. § 1610.5-

3 (“All future resource management authorizations and actions

. . . shall conform to the approved plan.”). 

The draft EIS for the Great Divide RMP anticipated

approximately 1440 oil and gas wells being drilled between

1987 and 2007. See BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, DRAFT

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

STATEMENT FOR THE MEDICINE BOW AND DIVIDE RESOURCE

AREAS,RAWLINS DISTRICT, WYOMING 220 (April 1987). Over

the next two decades, however, the Bureau approved projects in

the Great Divide that authorized wells far in excess of that

original estimate. By the time the Atlantic Rim Project was

approved, the Bureau had approved more than 3600 wells in the

USCA Case #09-5162 Document #1256959 Filed: 07/23/2010 Page 14 of 35
15

Great Divide Resource Area. The Atlantic Rim Project itself

authorized another 2000. Appellants argue that the Atlantic Rim

Project approved development so far in excess of the RMP

projection that it rendered the project inconsistent with the RMP,

violating NEPA and FLPMA. 40 C.F.R. §§ 1502.2(f), 1506.1

(NEPA regulations); 43 U.S.C. § 1732(a) (FLPMA statute). But

while the Bureau’s various projects did far exceed the projection

of 1440 wells described in the draft EIS for the Great Divide

RMP, there was no NEPA or FLPMA violation. 

The final EIS and Record of Decision for the Great Divide

RMP did not include the 1440 well estimate. Instead, they

simply said that the entire planning area was available for oil

and gas leasing subject to certain environmental restrictions. 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, PROPOSED RESOURCE

MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

STATEMENT FOR THE GREAT DIVIDE RESOURCE AREA 52 (June

1988); Great Divide RMP at 30. Even if the 1440 well estimate

were incorporated in the final decision, the estimate would not

impose a hard cap on the actual number of wells that can be

drilled in the Great Divide Resource Area. Appellants concede

this point, which is consistent with the Interior Board of Land

Appeals’ interpretation of reasonably foreseeable development

scenarios in RMPs. According to the Board, a projection like

the one in the Great Divide draft EIS serves as an analytical

baseline for evaluating environmental impacts, not “a point past

which further exploration and development is prohibited.” Wy.

Outdoor Council, 164 IBLA 84, 99 (2004); see also Biodiversity

Conservation Alliance, 174 IBLA 1, 9 (2008). 

Moreover, while Appellants claim that “vastly” more than

1440 wells have been drilled in the lands covered by the Great

Divide RMP, they do not cite evidence demonstrating that the

environmental impact of that drilling has exceeded the impact

contemplated by the Great Divide RMP. As the Director of the

USCA Case #09-5162 Document #1256959 Filed: 07/23/2010 Page 15 of 35
16

BLM explained, “exceeding the number of wells projected . . .

may not result in exceeding the predicted level of environmental

effects.” Instruction Memorandum No. 2004-089 from the BLM

Director to all State Directors, at Attachment 1-2 (Jan. 16,

2004). A 2004 analysis found “about 3,700 acres of long term

disturbance as yet unallocated under the Great Divide RMP,”

despite the existence of “about 3000 active wells in the

[Rawlins] Field Office.” Bureau of Land Management, Draft

Briefing Paper, Interim Development Program at the Atlantic

Rim EIS Project Area (June 7, 2004). By April 2005, a BLM

official observed: “While originally it appeared we were

completely constrained by the RMP revision . . . , today we are

recognizing that there is still some [long term disturbance] acres

available under the Great Divide RMP . . . , thus making the

EISs we’ve been working on the limiting factor instead of the

RMP revision.” Email from D. Simons, BLM Rawlins Field

Office, to M. Storzer, BLM Rawlins Field Office (Apr. 26,

2005).

Under these circumstances it was reasonable for the Bureau

to decide that the existing Great Divide RMP encompassed the

development proposed by the Atlantic Rim Project. Therefore,

the Bureau’s decision does not violate the NEPA prohibition of

precommitting resources. 

B. The Scheffe Method

The drilling activities and associated development

anticipated by the Atlantic Rim Project will emit pollution,

including nitrous oxides and volatile organic compounds that

can raise ground-level ozone concentrations. As part of the

project’s EIS, the Bureau estimated the effect the proposed

development would have on ozone concentrations using a

mathematical model developed in 1988 called the “Scheffe

method.” Appellants maintain that the Scheffe method was

USCA Case #09-5162 Document #1256959 Filed: 07/23/2010 Page 16 of 35
17

outdated by the time it was used in the Atlantic Rim Project’s

EIS. Therefore, argue Appellants, the Bureau violated NEPA

because using an outdated method meant the agency could not

take a sufficiently “hard look” at the project’s impact on ozone

concentrations. See Methow Valley, 490 U.S. at 350 (explaining

that NEPA’s procedures require agencies to take a “hard look”

at environmental consequences). In addition, Appellants argue

that using the Scheffe method violated 40 C.F.R. § 1502.24,

which requires that an agency ensure the scientific integrity of

their environmental impact statements. We reject both

arguments.

One of the comments for the Atlantic Rim Project EIS

argued that the Scheffe method was obsolete because of its

deficiencies compared with newer models. In response to this

comment and related comments on other projects, the Bureau

produced a memorandum that in effect admitted the Scheffe

method used outdated measurements and assumptions. The

Bureau therefore adopted a newer method for future air quality

assessments. However, it continued to use estimates derived

using the Scheffe method for the Atlantic Rim Project EIS. See

BLM, Information Memorandum for State Director, Ozone

Issue and BLM-WY Response, at 1 (Aug. 31, 2006) (“Ozone

Issue Letter”). 

In the Atlantic Rim Project’s final EIS and Record of

Decision, the Bureau justified its decision to keep the estimates

derived by the Scheffe method, explaining that it is an “overly

conservative” screening level modeling tool, FEIS at 4-12; see

id. App’x F, 44 (noting that problems with the Scheffe model

were likely to result in “overestimates of the actual [ozone]

impacts that would occur”), and was an acceptable method at the

time the air quality analysis was conducted, ROD at 7. The

Record of Decision also established that the Bureau will require

monitoring of ozone and other pollutants and use adaptive

USCA Case #09-5162 Document #1256959 Filed: 07/23/2010 Page 17 of 35
18

management to mitigate impacts if needed. Id.

When the Bureau decided in August 2006 to use a different

methodology for future air quality analyses, the Atlantic Rim

Project’s air quality analysis had been completed one month

earlier. Compare Ozone Issue Letter with FEIS at App’x F. 

Going back to recalculate ozone impacts would have delayed the

Atlantic Rim Project schedule. And because a still newer

method could have been developed during that re-analysis, the

process could have been endless. See W. Coal Traffic League v.

ICC, 735 F.2d 1408, 1411 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (declining to require

an agency to “behave like Penelope, unraveling each day’s work

to start the web again the next day”). Given the Bureau’s

conclusion that the Scheffe method was an acceptable and

conservative method when the analysis was carried out, the

Bureau reasonably decided to retain the old estimates rather than

undertake a new air quality analysis. On these facts, as noted by

the district court, “an agency’s reliance on outdated data is not

arbitrary or capricious, ‘particularly given the many months

required to conduct full [analysis] with the new data.’” TRCP,

605 F. Supp. 2d at 273 (quoting Village of Bensenville v. FAA,

457 F.3d 52, 71 (D.C. Cir. 2006)).

 The Record of Decision explains that the Scheffe method

was an acceptable method at the time the air quality analysis

was completed. ROD at 7, E-8. Before undertaking the

analysis, the Bureau contacted various interested agencies,

including the Environmental Protection Agency, the National

Park Service, and the Wyoming Department of Environmental

Quality. None objected to using the Scheffe method. In

addition, the final EIS discusses the weaknesses of the Scheffe

method, but notes that those weaknesses likely resulted in

“overestimates of the actual [ozone] impacts that would occur.” 

FEIS at App’x F, 44. See also Wy. Outdoor Council, 176 IBLA

15, 33 (2008) (quoting the original 1988 paper establishing the

USCA Case #09-5162 Document #1256959 Filed: 07/23/2010 Page 18 of 35
19

Scheffe method, which said the estimates produced “should be

interpreted as conservative predictions which would exceed

ozon[e] formation produced by actual episodic events”). This

was a substantive response to the criticisms of the Scheffe

method that satisfied both NEPA’s “hard look” requirement and

the APA arbitrary and capricious standard. See Methow Valley,

490 U.S. at 350; 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).

The Bureau’s discussion of the Scheffe method’s validity

also explains why, contrary to Appellants’ contention, 40 C.F.R.

§ 1502.24 was not violated. That regulation requires agencies

to ensure the scientific integrity of their environmental impact

statements. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.24. It does not require that an

agency employ the best, most cutting-edge methodologies. In

this case, the Bureau reasonably concluded that the estimates

derived by the Scheffe method were adequate and did not need

to be recalculated using a different method.

Appellants further contend that even if retaining the

Scheffe-derived estimates in the final EIS was not arbitrary and

capricious or a violation of NEPA, drafting environmental

assessments for the PODs necessitated the recalculation of the

proposed wells’ likely effects on ozone concentrations. When

the Bureau conducted environmental assessments for the PODs

in the Catalina and Sun Dog units, it referred back to the ozone

concentration estimates in the Atlantic Rim Project’s EIS that

were produced using the Scheffe method, at a time when the

Bureau had already decided not to use the Scheffe method any

longer. Therefore, argue Appellants, the Bureau should have

gone back to “fill in any holes” in the original ozone impact

assessment when it carried out the drilling permit environmental

assessments. Appellants Br. at 40 (citing Kern v. U.S. Bureau

of Land Mgmt., 284 F.3d 1062, 1078 (9th Cir. 2002)). 

USCA Case #09-5162 Document #1256959 Filed: 07/23/2010 Page 19 of 35
20

This argument is also unavailing. In general, an agency

preparing an environmental assessment for a drilling permit is

not required to reevaluate the analyses included in the relevant

project’s EIS. Instead, NEPA regulations allow “tiering,” which

permits site-specific environmental analyses to incorporate by

reference the general discussions of prior, broader

environmental impact statements. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.28. The

regulations expressly provide that “[t]iering is appropriate when

the sequence of statements or analyses is . . . [f]rom a program,

plan, or policy environmental impact statement to a program,

plan, or policy statement or analysis of lesser scope or to a sitespecific statement or analysis.” § 1508.28(a) (emphasis added). 

While courts have required environmental assessments to

analyze certain impacts for the first time when the broader

analysis did not address the impact in question at all, see, e.g.,

Kern, 284 F.3d at 1078, this is not such a case. The Atlantic

Rim Project did address the impact drilling would have on ozone

concentrations. Tiering a POD’s environmental assessment to

that analysis in compliance with the governing regulation is

hardly arbitrary and capricious. Appellants’ objection that a

method used in the earlier analysis had been surpassed by

superior technology by the time of the tiered analysis does not

invalidate the later assessment. Projects like the Atlantic Rim

Project are designed to span several decades, and it is not

surprising that scientific conventions and protocols develop and

change in that time (though here they did so sooner rather than

later). NEPA does not limit tiering to analyses still on the

scientific cutting edge. Nothing in the law requires agencies to

reevaluate their existing environmental analyses each time the

original methodologies are surpassed by new developments. 

C. Cumulative Impact Analysis

Appellants next argue that the Bureau erred in its

assessment of the cumulative impact of the Atlantic Rim Project. 

USCA Case #09-5162 Document #1256959 Filed: 07/23/2010 Page 20 of 35
21

Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 1508.25, the EIS for the Atlantic Rim

Project must reflect not only the direct impact of the project

itself, but the “cumulative effects” on the environment of the

project “incorporating the effects of other projects into the

background ‘data base’ of the project at issue.” Grand Canyon

Trust v. FAA, 290 F.3d 339, 342 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (quoting

Coalition on Sensible Transp. v. Dole, 826 F.2d 60, 70–71 (D.C.

Cir. 1987)). “Cumulative effect” is defined in the applicable

regulations as 

the impact on the environment which results from the

incremental impact of the action when added to other past,

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions

regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or

person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts

can result from individually minor but collectively

significant actions taking place over a period of time. 

40 C.F.R. § 1508.7.

Appellants assert that in light of its obligation to include

cumulative impact, and the regulatory description of what that

encompasses, the Bureau was arbitrary and capricious in not

including within the environment impact statement for the

Atlantic Rim Project the environmental effects of two other

potential development projects near the Atlantic Rim area: the

Hiawatha Regional Energy Development Project and the

Continental Divide–Creston Natural Gas Project. Those two

projects began years after the Bureau began its analysis on the

Atlantic Rim Project in 2001, but, at least in conceptualization,

overlapped in time with the Bureau’s consideration of its EIS for

the Atlantic Rim Project. More specifically, the Bureau began

its analysis of the Atlantic Rim Project in 2001 with the

publication of a notice of intent to prepare an EIS. 66 Fed. Reg.

33,975 (June 26, 2001). Unrelated to that development, in April

USCA Case #09-5162 Document #1256959 Filed: 07/23/2010 Page 21 of 35
22

and November 2005, energy companies submitted proposals to

the Bureau to drill wells in the Continental Divide–Creston area

in Carbon and Sweetwater Counties, Wyoming. See Notice of

Intent, 71 Fed. Reg. 10,989 (March 3, 2006). In December

2005, the Bureau finished the Atlantic Rim Project draft EIS. 

DEIS (introductory letter). On March 3, 2006, the Bureau

published in the Federal Register a notice of intent to prepare an

EIS for the Continental Divide–Creston Natural Gas Project,

incorporating both the April and November 2005 proposals. 

Notice of Intent, 71 Fed. Reg. 10,989. Also in March 2006,

various natural gas development companies submitted a

proposal to drill wells in parts of Sweetwater County, Wyoming

and Moffat County, Colorado. The Bureau named the proposed

project the Hiawatha Regional Energy Development Project and

on September 6, 2006, published a notice of intent to prepare an

EIS. Notice of Intent, 71 Fed. Reg. 52,571. The Bureau

completed the Atlantic Rim final EIS in November 2006, and

the Record of Decision in March 2007. FEIS (introductory

letter); ROD (title page). In short, by the time the Bureau

completed the Atlantic Rim Project Record of Decision, the

Hiawatha and Continental Divide–Creston projects were still in

the early stages of development, with only notices of intent to

mark their progress. Or, as the district court put it, “the

Continental Divide–Creston and Hiawatha projects had only

begun to work their way through the NEPA approval process

when the FEIS was compiled.” TRCP, 605 F. Supp. 2d at 278

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

We agree with the district court that the incipient notion of

the two projects expressed in notices of intent to prepare an EIS

for each did not establish reasonable forseeability of the

incremental impact of those projects in connection with the

Atlantic Rim Project for purposes of § 1508.7. The history of

the Atlantic Rim Project itself demonstrates that projects in their

infancy have uncertain futures. In early 2000, a company

USCA Case #09-5162 Document #1256959 Filed: 07/23/2010 Page 22 of 35
23

proposed drilling 96 wells in three areas within what would

become the Atlantic Rim Project Area. The Bureau began an

environmental assessment of the proposed project in February

2000, but before the analysis was completed, the proposing

company sold its leasehold. The new owners withdrew the 96-

well project application in May 2001. Later that month, the new

owners submitted a much larger proposal encompassing more

land, which proposed drilling up to 3880 coalbed methane wells.

 FEIS at 1-1. When the Bureau published its notice of intent to

prepare an EIS for the Atlantic Rim Project in June 2001, the

notice reflected the new proposal. 66 Fed. Reg. 33,975 (June

26, 2001); see TRCP, 605 F. Supp. 2d at 270. By the time the

Bureau completed the draft EIS in December 2005, well

operators had revised their original estimate to 2000 wells. 

DEIS at S-1. In other words, the proposed size of the Atlantic

Rim Project varied widely over time, and the Bureau did not

necessarily know the actual scope of the project, much less its

environmental impact, until several years after the Bureau

published its notice of intent to prepare an EIS.

Granted, a project need not be finalized to be “reasonably

foreseeable” under 40 C.F.R. § 1508.7. But neither was it

arbitrary and capricious for the Bureau to omit from its

cumulative impact analysis other projects for which nothing had

been completed except notices of intent, each published after the

Atlantic Rim Project’s draft EIS had been released. The Bureau

did not violate NEPA by concluding that these projects were too

preliminary to meaningfully estimate their cumulative impacts

in the Atlantic Rim Project EIS.

Appellants argue that under Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S.

390 (1976), agencies must consider the cumulative impact of all

concurrently pending proposals, including proposals with

uncertain futures. However, contrary to Appellants’ assertion,

Kleppe does not mandate that a cumulative impact analysis

USCA Case #09-5162 Document #1256959 Filed: 07/23/2010 Page 23 of 35
24

include all existing proposals. Appellants’ Br. at 42 (citing 427

U.S. at 406, 410). In Kleppe, the Court considered, among other

issues, whether the Department of the Interior was required to

prepare a single EIS for all proposed coal projects in a region. 

427 U.S. at 409–10. While agreeing that NEPA “may require a

comprehensive impact statement in certain situations where

several proposed actions are pending at the same time,” id. at

409 (citing § 102(2)(C) of NEPA, 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C)), the

Court held the Department of the Interior did not act arbitrarily

when it decided not to prepare a single EIS for all the proposed

actions in the region, id. at 414.

It is true that under 42 U.S.C. § 4332, “when several

proposals for [] related actions that will have cumulative or

synergistic environmental impact upon a region are pending

concurrently before an agency, their environmental

consequences must be considered together.” Kleppe, 427 U.S.

at 410. But as this court has explained, the purpose of the

cumulative impact requirement “is to prevent agencies from

dividing one project into multiple individual actions ‘each of

which has an insignificant environmental impact, but which

collectively have a substantial impact.’” Natural Res. Def.

Council, Inc. v. Hodel, 865 F.2d 288, 297–98 (D.C. Cir. 1988)

(quoting Thomas v. Peterson, 753 F.2d 754, 758 (9th Cir.

1985)). An agency need not revise an almost complete

environmental impact statement to accommodate new proposals

submitted to the agency, regardless of the uncertainty of

maturation. 

 Before the district court, Appellants also sought to

introduce evidence about a draft EIS from September 2002 that

discussed wind energy development on Bureau-administered

lands in the western United States. Appellants planned to use

the evidence to argue the Atlantic Rim Project’s cumulative

impact analysis arbitrarily and capriciously failed to consider the

USCA Case #09-5162 Document #1256959 Filed: 07/23/2010 Page 24 of 35
25

impact of certain wind energy development projects. The district

court, however, excluded the evidence which was not a part of

the administrative record. See 605 F. Supp. 2d at 278 n.10. The

court therefore also refused to entertain Appellants’ claims

based on that evidence that the cumulative impact analysis was

deficient for failing to consider the wind projects. Id. We hold

that the district court’s decision was not an abuse of discretion.

The APA limits judicial review to the administrative record

“except when there has been a ‘strong showing of bad faith or

improper behavior’ or when the record is so bare that it prevents

effective judicial review.” Commercial Drapery Contractors,

Inc. v. United States, 133 F.3d 1, 7 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (quoting

Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402,

420 (1971)). True, “it may sometimes be appropriate to resort

to extra-record information” to determine whether an

administrative record is deficient. Esch v. Yeutter, 876 F.2d

976, 991 (D.C. Cir. 1989). But this is the exception, not the

rule. Appellants offer nothing to convince us that the district

court abused its discretion by following the general rule for

review of administrative records.

“Persons challenging an agency’s compliance with NEPA

must ‘structure their participation so that it . . . alerts the agency

to the [parties’] position and contentions.’” Dep’t of Transp. v.

Pub. Citizen, 541 U.S. 752, 764 (2004) (alteration in original)

(quoting Vermont Yankee, 435 U.S. at 553). In this case,

Appellants had ample opportunity to submit the evidence of the

environmental impact of wind energy development to the

Bureau as it crafted the Atlantic Rim Project EIS, but they did

not. Appellants had ample opportunity to seek to introduce the

evidence before the Interior Board of Land Appeals, but they did

not. The district court was entirely within its discretion,

therefore, to conclude it was unnecessary to let Appellants

introduce evidence in court that they had never sought to

USCA Case #09-5162 Document #1256959 Filed: 07/23/2010 Page 25 of 35
26

introduce to the agency.

Appellants hint at agency impropriety when they cite

Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Blum, 458 F. Supp. 650

(D.D.C. 1978), for their argument. There, the court explained

that an agency may not “skew the record for review in its favor

by excluding from that record information in its own files which

has great pertinence to the proceeding in question.” Id. at 661

(internal quotation mark omitted). However, the extra-record

evidence in that case was highly (and obviously) pertinent

material, much of which “was not the subject of adversarial

comment because it remained unknown to the plaintiff and was

considered without plaintiff’s knowledge.” Id. at 660. That is

not the case here. While it is true the wind energy documents

were created by the Bureau itself, they were also available to

Appellants. Nor is there anything to suggest the Bureau actually

considered those documents without Appellants’ knowledge. 

An agency does not “skew” the administrative record when it

does not include agency documents that were not used in

making its decision but were available to commenters.

D. Adaptive Management Plan

Appellants next argue that the Atlantic Rim Project’s

mitigation measures, and specifically its adaptive management

plan, violate NEPA’s mandate to discuss possible mitigation

measures in its EIS and Record of Decision. See 40 C.F.R.

§§ 1508.25(b)(3), 1502.14(f), 1502.16(h), 1505.2(c); see also

supra at 4. They also claim that the adaptive management plan

violates NEPA’s requirement to evaluate environmental impacts

before actions are taken. See 40 C.F.R. § 1500.1(b) (explaining

that the purpose of NEPA’s procedures is to make information

available before decisions are made). Again, we reject both

arguments. 

USCA Case #09-5162 Document #1256959 Filed: 07/23/2010 Page 26 of 35
27

According to Appellants, the Atlantic Rim Project’s

adaptive management plan is the “lynchpin” of the project’s

mitigation and monitoring efforts. They argue this court

therefore should look only at the adaptive management plan to

determine whether the Bureau satisfied the requirements of

NEPA. This argument misunderstands the requirements of

NEPA. Nothing in that act or its implementing regulations

restricts a court’s review to only the primary mitigation effort in

a project rather than the project’s entire response. We will not

restrict our analysis to the adaptive management plan alone.

The Atlantic Rim Project’s Record of Decision and EIS

contemplate several mitigation techniques. As described above,

supra at 8, surface disturbance is limited to 7600 acres at any

time, and 13,600 acres over the life of the project. ROD at B-4. 

Disturbance is also limited to certain areas to protect wildlife

and plant species. For example, to mitigate disturbance of the

greater sage grouse, surface disturbance or occupancy is

completely prohibited within one-quarter mile of occupied sage

grouse breeding grounds, and within two miles of those grounds

during the breeding season between March 1 and July 15. FEIS

at 3-96, E-7. Permanent high-profile structures are limited

within one mile of sage grouse breeding grounds. Id. at E-7. 

Generator noise must be muffled in order to minimize

disturbance to mating calls. Id. See also NRDC, 525 F. Supp.

2d at 121–22 (outlining these and other measures protective of

sage grouse). 

The project’s adaptive management plan endeavors to

monitor the development’s effects on the environment and

mitigate those effects as necessary. The plan outlines various

performance goals for the Bureau to strive for in collaboration

with other state and federal agencies. ROD at 19. For example,

the Bureau will attempt to “maintain functional migration

routes,” “provide an adequate amount of suitable, undisturbed

USCA Case #09-5162 Document #1256959 Filed: 07/23/2010 Page 27 of 35
28

crucial winter range for big game animals,” “provide welldispersed sage-grouse” habitats, “maintain adequate water

quality” for sensitive populations of fish, and “minimize deaths

and injuries of livestock due to development.” Id. The wildlife

monitoring and protection measures developed to fulfill these

goals are not fixed, but flexible. The Bureau may modify them

“as allowable and as deemed appropriate by BLM in

consultation with other agencies, [well] Operators and interested

parties.” ROD at B-15 (speaking specifically of wildlife

protection measures); see id. at E-1, E-3 (explaining that

mitigation measures will be evaluated annually or more

frequently, and the monitoring plan may be modified annually

as necessary). 

The adaptive management plan relies on a review team that

includes representatives from the Bureau and other interested

parties. This team will develop specific quantifiable criteria to

evaluate the project’s adherence with the adaptive management

performance goals. ROD at 3. The plan specifies a short-term

disturbance goal for each well of no more than 6.5 acres and

less in areas with sensitive populations or crucial or unique

habitats. Id. at 12. The Record of Decision also discusses

adapting monitoring efforts in response to observed trends, and

outlines how funding will be obtained for said monitoring. Id.

at 20. 

While the exact application of mitigation measures will be

determined on a site-specific basis, the adaptive management

plan also incorporates a detailed, thirteen-page list of specific

protective measures that the review team is to consider for each

drill plan. Id. at 21 (referencing FEIS App’x L). Those

measures include requiring operators to surround the areas

around drill pads with hay or mulch to reduce hillslope erosion,

FEIS at L-2, erecting signs near livestock pastures and corrals to

warn vehicle operators, id. at L-4, limiting short-term surface

USCA Case #09-5162 Document #1256959 Filed: 07/23/2010 Page 28 of 35
29

disturbance around sage grouse and Columbian sharp-tailed

grouse habitats and big game crucial winter range, id. at L-4,

and measures developed specifically for certain regions within

the Atlantic Rim Project Area, id. at L-6–L-13. The list also

provides reasons and explanations for all of the suggested

measures. 

As this description shows, the Atlantic Rim Project’s EIS

and Record of Decision outlined relatively detailed mitigation

measures. In addition, these details were accompanied by

discussions of environmental studies supporting the Bureau’s

decisions. See, e.g., FEIS at 5-17–5-18 (citing external studies

about the protection required for sage grouse habitats, along

with the Bureau’s own data about the number of sage grouse

habitats in the Atlantic Rim Project Area and how many would

be affected by the proposed development). We agree with the

district court that “although the plaintiffs are dissatisfied with

the level of protection provided under the current mitigation

plan, the record clearly reflects that BLM analyzed and

considered various alternatives and put in place measures far

more stringent than those included in the original proposal.” 

TRCP, 605 F. Supp. 2d at 275 (quoting NRDC, 525 F. Supp. 2d

at 122). By setting forth both fixed mitigation measures and an

adaptive management plan, the Record of Decision amply

fulfills NEPA’s mandate to discuss mitigation measures. We

can require no more. See Vermont Yankee, 435 U.S. at 525.

Nor did the adaptive management plan violate NEPA’s

requirement to take a hard look at environmental impacts before

actions are taken. See 40 C.F.R. § 1500.1(b). The procedural

requirements of NEPA do not force agencies to make detailed,

unchangeable mitigation plans for long-term development

projects. Through the adapative management plan, the Bureau

plans to monitor the real effects of the development it

authorizes, and adapt its mitigation measures to specific drilling

USCA Case #09-5162 Document #1256959 Filed: 07/23/2010 Page 29 of 35
30

proposals in response to trends observed. Allowing adaptable

mitigation measures is a responsible decision in light of the

inherent uncertainty of environmental impacts, not a violation of

NEPA. It is certainly not arbitrary or capricious.

Appellants also argue the district court abused its discretion

in excluding extra-record evidence regarding the adaptive

management plan. Some of the excluded evidence allegedly

supported Appellants’ argument that a similar adaptive

management plan in another project area was unworkable. As

we discussed above, supra at 25, a court generally restricts its

review to the administrative record. The district court did not

abuse its discretion in maintaining that default position for the

evidence in question. As with the wind project evidence, see

supra at 26, the proper time for Appellants to introduce this

evidence would have been in the notice and comment period

before the agency, not before the district court. The district

court did not abuse its discretion in excluding that evidence.

Appellants also sought to introduce a letter from the Bureau

that allegedly showed that the Bureau was not actually

implementing the Atlantic Rim adaptive management plan as

outlined in the Record of Decision. Appellants’ Br. at 55 (citing

Letter from R. Bennett to T. Wilmoth (May 13, 2008)). In a

subsequent mailing, however, the Bureau told Appellants that

the statement in question was a mistake and that the process had

already begun at the time of the first letter. The Bureau

provided Appellants documentation for this contention. Given

the Bureau’s convincing and unrebutted explanation for the

statement in its first letter, the district court did not abuse its

discretion in refusing to consider this evidence either. 

USCA Case #09-5162 Document #1256959 Filed: 07/23/2010 Page 30 of 35
31

E. Multiple Use and Sustained Yield

As explained above, see supra at 5, FLPMA requires the

Bureau to “manage the public lands under principles of multiple

use and sustained yield.” 43 U.S.C. § 1732(a). Appellants

assert that the Atlantic Rim Project violated these mandates. 

Even though the Record of Decision stated that the Bureau

factored in objectives other than maximizing natural gas

recovery, ROD at 10, Appellants insist that provisions in the

Atlantic Rim Project that envision some natural gas

development to the permanent detriment of other uses “do[] not

reflect FLPMA’s intent to balance resource uses on the public

lands.” Appellants’ Br. at 67.

But while the Bureau was to conform with the principles of

multiple use and sustained yield, the chosen development

alternative did not have to protect all current and possible uses. 

As the Bureau’s decisions become more granular, the uses

maximized by each project necessarily become more limited. 

Yet those decisions may still be part of the Bureau’s overall

management under the principles of multiple use and sustained

yield. That is, while the Great Divide RMP must reflect a wide

range of uses, the Atlantic Rim Project Area deals with a smaller

area of land and can optimize a narrower range of uses. Each

plan of development for the drilling of specific wells will

optimize still fewer uses in that plan’s limited acreage. As the

district court stated, “each individual project and parcel of land

need not, and cannot, reflect all FLPMA’s purposes.” TRCP,

605 F. Supp. 2d at 282. See also S. Utah Wilderness Alliance

Utah Chapter, Sierra Club, 122 IBLA 165, 172 (1992)

(“Multiple use is generally considered in the context of BLM’s

land-use planning [i.e., RMPs].”).

The Bureau has substantial discretion to decide how to

achieve the multiple use and sustained yield objectives. In

USCA Case #09-5162 Document #1256959 Filed: 07/23/2010 Page 31 of 35
32

Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55

(2004), the Supreme Court considered the Bureau’s obligation

under FLPMA to maintain wilderness study areas — roadless

lands of at least 5000 acres that possess certain “wilderness

characteristics” — “in a manner so as not to impair the

suitability of such areas for preservation as wilderness.” Id. at

59 (quoting 43 U.S.C. § 1782(c)). The Court explained that the

Bureau has “a great deal of discretion in deciding how to

achieve” the goal of § 1782(c), even though the section “is

mandatory as to the object to be achieved.” 542 U.S. at 66. The

same applies to the goals listed in § 1732(a). Though the

Bureau must manage the Atlantic Rim Project Area under the

principles of multiple use and sustained yield, 43 U.S.C.

§ 1732(a), the Bureau has wide discretion to determine how

those principles should be applied. We are satisfied the Atlantic

Rim Project reflects those principles. The 2000 well alternative

the Bureau ultimately adopted is clearly a product of

compromise among competing goals, and encompasses less

drilling and more protection of other resources than the original

proposal. See generally ROD at 11–12 (comparing the proposal

with other alternatives, including the “preferred alternative” that

the Bureau adopted). FLPMA the Bureau fulfilled its mandate

under FLPMA. 

F. Notice and Comment on the PODs

Appellants’ final argument is that the Bureau did not

adequately involve the public when it developed environmental

assessments (EAs) and approved plans of development (PODs)

for various applications to drill within the Atlantic Rim Project

Area. Under NEPA, agencies must permit the public to “play a

role in the decisionmaking process and the implementation of

that decision.” Methow Valley, 490 U.S. at 349. When a

decision requires only an EA, rather than an EIS, agencies must

still involve the public in the EA process “to the extent

USCA Case #09-5162 Document #1256959 Filed: 07/23/2010 Page 32 of 35
33

practicable,” 40 C.F.R. § 1501.4(b). Even when the agency

makes a finding of no significant impact, as the Bureau did for

the PODs in question, it must “[m]ake diligent efforts to involve

the public in preparing and implementing their NEPA

procedures,” 40 C.F.R. § 1506.6(a); id. § 1501.4(e)(1). We hold

that the Bureau adequately fulfilled these mandates in this case.

Between September 2005 and August 2006, the Bureau

posted notice of the Catalina and Sun Dog drilling permit

applications in the public reading room of the Bureau’s regional

office. See NRDC, 525 F. Supp. 2d at 120. In June and July

2007, the Bureau also posted on its website that it was preparing

environmental assessments (EAs) for those sites. See id.

However, none of the public notices supplied any specific

environmental information about those applications. Nor did the

Bureau ever release for public notice and comment any draft

EAs on the PODs. Instead, information about site-specific

environmental impacts was made public for the first time in June

2007 for the two Catalina PODs and August 2007 for the two

Sun Dog PODs — when the Bureau released the final EAs

simultaneously with the PODs’ approval. In other words, the

public was not informed about the environmental impacts of a

specific plan to drill until the POD was already approved.

Yet the Bureau need not include the public in the

preparation of every EA. In TOMAC, Taxpayers of Michigan

Against Casinos v. Norton, 433 F.3d 852 (D.C. Cir. 2006), we

opined that “the agency has significant discretion in determining

when public comment is required with respect to EAs.” Id. at

861. Appellants argue that the Bureau abused this discretion

because the Atlantic Rim Project EIS postponed site-specific

environmental analysis until the POD approval process. They

contend that by averting public comment at the EIS stage, then

inhibiting public comment at the EA stage, the Bureau failed to

USCA Case #09-5162 Document #1256959 Filed: 07/23/2010 Page 33 of 35
34

make “diligent efforts to involve the public.” 40 C.F.R.

§ 1506.6(a). Appellants point out that the Bureau has posted

draft EAs for public comment in the past. But the fact that the

Bureau has provided draft EAs for public comment in some

instances does not compel them to do so in every instance. 

When an agency prepares an EA accompanied by a finding of no

significant impact, it must make the finding available for public

review and comment only if the action would normally require

the preparation of an EIS, or if “[t]he nature of the action is one

without precedent.” 40 C.F.R. § 1501.4(e)(2)(i)–(ii). See also

43 C.F.R. § 46.305(b) (“Publication of a ‘draft’ environmental

assessment is not required.”). Appellants never argued that

either of those conditions is present in this case. 

In addition, the fact that the Bureau did not publish draft

EAs did not foreclose Appellants’ opportunity to comment on

the projects. When the district court denied preliminary

injunctive relief to NRDC, the court highlighted the length of

time between the Bureau’s publication of notice of the

applications (September 2005 and August 2006) and its release

of the EAs and approval of the PODs (June and August 2007). 

Accordingly, the court found that Appellants “clearly had a

substantial opportunity to comment on the proposals before they

were approved.” NRDC, 525 F. Supp. 2d at 120–21. They did

not need to await the publication of a draft EA. The Appellants

could have asked individually for the draft EAs when the Bureau

posted the public notice, but they have pointed to no evidence

that they did so. When the BLM posted public notices of later

applications to drill, the Appellants did make requests to the

BLM and the BLM did provide them with draft EAs. Indeed,

Appellants commented on later draft EAs in the Sun Dog unit,

and the Bureau responded to those comments in its subsequent

EA. The Bureau gave public notice that it was considering the

applications to drill and was preparing draft EAs, and did not

foreclose public input or refuse to provide draft EAs upon

USCA Case #09-5162 Document #1256959 Filed: 07/23/2010 Page 34 of 35
35

request even though it did not publish draft EAs for specific

public comment. Cf. Am. Bird Conservancy, Inc. v. FCC, 516

F.3d 1027, 1035 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (noting that the environmental

petitioner “stated that [it] would address their NEPA notice

claim” if the FCC would “update its website when it receives

individual tower applications”). In sum, the Bureau acted within

its discretion to afford public participation in EA drafting. It did

not violate NEPA’s prescription to include the public “to the

extent practicable.” 40 C.F.R. § 1501.4(b).

III. Conclusion

Though Appellants raise claims of both procedural and

substantive inadequacies in the Bureau’s decisions concerning

the Atlantic Rim Project, they have failed to show that any of

those decisions were “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of

discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C.

§ 706(2)(A). Nor did the district court abuse its discretion when

it excluded extra-record evidence from its evaluation. 

Accordingly, the district court’s decision is 

Affirmed.

USCA Case #09-5162 Document #1256959 Filed: 07/23/2010 Page 35 of 35