N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
M ONTANA ENVIR ONM ENTAL INFORM ATION C ENTER ; EAR THW ORKS’ OIL AND GAS AC C OUNTAB ILITY PR OJEC T; W ILDEAR T H GUAR

D IANS, Plaintiffs - Appe lla nts,
v. UNITED STATES B UREAU OF LAND M ANAGEM ENT, a

n a g e nc y in the U.S. De pa rtm e nt of Inte rior; SALLY JEWELL, in he r offic ia l c a

pa c ity a s Se c re ta

ry of the Inte rior; JAM IE C ONNELL, in he r offic ia l c a pa c i ty a s Stat e Dire c tor of the B ure a u of Land M ana ge m e nt’ s M o nta na State Offic e ; THERESA M . HANLEY, in he r offic ia l c a pa c ity a s De puty

State Dire c tor of the B ure a

u of La nd M ana ge m e nt’ s M onta na State Offic e , De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s, AM E R IC AN PETR OLEUM INSTITUTE; M ONTANA PETR OLEUM ASSOC IATION; M ONTANA C HAM B ER OF C OM M E R C E ; No. 13-35688 D.C . No. 4:11-c v-00015-SEH
M EM O R ANDUM * 

# FIL ED

AUG 31 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S

. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.W ESTER

N ENER GY ALLIANC E, Interve nor-De fe nda nts - Appe lle e s. Appe a l from the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of M o nta

na Sam E. Ha ddon, Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Argue d and Subm itte d June 2, 2015 Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : O’ SC A

NNLAIN, TASHIM A, a

n d M c KEOW

N , C irc u i t Judge s. Appe lla nts a ppe a l from

the distric t c ourt’ s gra

nt of sum m ary judgm e nt
a ga inst the m

in the ir proc e dura l c ha lle nge to the U.S. B ure a u of La nd M an a g e m e nt’ s de c ision to se ll oil a nd ga s le a se s in M onta

na . At issueis whe the r the d istric t c o urt c orre c tly c onc lude d

tha t Appe lla nts ha ve not shown a

c onc re te
and re dre ssa

ble injury suffic ie nt to e sta

blish sta nding. As the

fa c t s a re known to the p artie s, we re p e at the m only a s ne c e ssa

ry to e xpla in our de c ision. To e s ta blish sta nding, Appe l la

nts m ust show tha

t the y : (1) a

re unde r a c tua l or im m ine nt thre at of suffe ring a c onc re te an d pa

rtic ula riz e d injury , (2) whic h is fa irly tra c e a ble to the c ha lle nge d a c tion, a nd (3) whic h is like ly

to be pre ve nte d or
re dre sse d by a favora ble judic ia l de c ision. S

umme rs v . Earth Island Inst. , 555 U.S. 488, 493 (2009). In the ir proc e dura l c ha lle nge , onc e Appe lla nts ha ve shown a c tua l
2injury , “ the c a usation a nd re dre ssa

bility re q uire m e nts a

re re laxe d.” W

. W ate rshe d s Proje c t v
. K

raay e nbrink

, 632 F.3d 472, 485 (9th C ir. 2011) (inte rna l quota t ion
m arks om itte d). I The re c re ationa l a

nd a e sthe tic inte re sts a sse rte d by Appe lla

nts’ m e m be rs 1
m ay e sta blish a c tua l injury

to the e xte nt suc h inte re sts would be c onc re t e ly

ha rm e d by the c ha lle nge d gove rnm e nta l a c tion. Se e Frie n ds of the Earth, Inc . v . Laidlaw Env tl. Se rv

s. (TOC ), Inc

. , 528 U.S. 167, 181–83 (2000). In a na ly z ing the se c la im s of injury , the distric t c ourt e rre d by fa iling to c onside r surfa c e ha rm s c a u s e d by de ve lopm e nt of the c ha lle n ge d le a se s a n d inste a d foc using only

on the c lim ate c ha nge e ffe c ts of suc h de ve l opm e nt. Although Appe lla nts’ c la im s of proc e dura l
e rror re late to the gove rnm e nt’ s a lle ge d fa ilure to c onside r c lim ate -c ha nge e ffe c ts, Appe l la n ts’ injurie s whic h re

sulte d from tha

t e rror ne e d not. Se e Duk e Pow e r C

o.
v . C arolina Env tl. Study

Grp., Inc
. , 438 U.S. 59, 78–79 (1978) (re j e c ting ne e d to
e sta blish “ subje c t-m atte r ne xus be t we e n the right a s se rte d

and the injury

a lle ge d” ); Bd. of N at. Re s. v . Brow n , 992 F.2d 937, 945 (9th C i r. 1993) (sa m e ). For sta

nding,

1 Appe lla

nts m ay have sta nding to bring suit on be

ha lf of the ir m e m

be rs, whose inte re sts a

re ge rm ane to Appe lla

nts’ orga n iz ationa l purpose s, provide d tha t suc h m e m be rs would otherwise have sta nding to sue

in the ir own right. Frie nds of the E arth , 528 U.S. a

t 181. 3it m atte rs only whe the r the c ha lle nge d gove rnm e nta l a c tion would c a use the pla i ntiff a c onc re t e and re dre ssa

ble injury
. Se e De

se r t C i tize n s Against Pollution v

. Bisson , 231 F.3d 1172, 1176–78 (9th C ir. 2000). Onc e suc h injury is e sta b lishe d, the p la intiff m ay

se e k to inva lida

te the a c tion tha

t c a use d it “b y

ide ntify ing a ll grounds on whic h the a ge nc y m ay have fa ile d to c om

p ly with its sta

tutory
m andate .” Daimle rC

hry sle r C orp. v . C u no , 547 U.S. 332, 353 n.5 (2006) (inte rna l quota t ion m arks om itte d); se e also De se rt C i tize ns , 231 F.3d a

t 1177 (“ If, by
e xc ha nge , public la

nds a re lost to those

who use and e njoy

the la nd, the y are
c e rta inly e ntitle d unde r the APA to file suit to a ssure tha t no e xc ha

nge ta ke s pla c e unle ss the gove rning fe de ra l sta tute s a nd re gula tions a re followe d . . . .” ). II The re fore , Appe lla

nts m ay have sta nding to c ha l le nge the gove rnm e nt’ s sa le of oil a nd ga s le a s e s on theba sis of a ny c onc re te injury that is c a

use d by suc h sa le
and whic h would like ly

be re m e die d by the sa le ’ s inva l idation. This a na l y s is
re quire s c onside ration of w h i c h of the num e rous le a se s, if de ve l ope d, would ha rm the s pe c ific are a s of la

nd e njoy e d by

Appe lla nts’ m e m be rs. Se e W

. W ate rshe ds Proje c t , 632 F.3d a

t 485 (re quiring ge ogra

phic a l ne xus be twe e n pla i ntiffs’ inte re sts
and a re a a lle ge dly suffe ring e nvironm e nta l im pa c t ). Give n the c om

ple xity of the fa c t ua l re c o rd be fore us, we de c line to unde rtake suc h a na ly sis on a

ppe a l . Inste a d, 4we re m and to a llow thedistric t c ourt to de te rm ine , in the first insta nc e , whic h le a se s the Appe lla

nts ha ve sta nding to c ha lle nge . Wh e n doing so, the

distric t c ourt should inc lude c o nside ration of a ny a c tua l injury

ste m m ing from

surfa c e ha

rm s fa irly tra c e a ble to the c ha lle nge d a c tion. 2 V ACAT E D and RE M ANDE D . Ea c h pa rty sha ll be ar its own c osts on
a ppe a l.

2 Fe de ra l Appe lle e s’ Sugge stion of Pa rtia l M ootne s s, file d with this c ourt on June 6, 2014, is DENIED without pre judic e to re n e wa l in thedistric t c ourt. 5