Court Opinion

ID: 9565839
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:28:55.171481+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:54.640792
License: Public Domain

SCHROEDER, Chief Judge,
dissenting:
We all agree that the district court correctly held that the Bureau of Land Management violated NEPA when it drafted an environmental impact statement considering several alternatives for large scale exploration and development of coal bed methane mining in the Powder River Basin, but did not consider an alternative that would have phased exploration and development on a more gradual basis. We also agree that the district court correctly ordered the agency to comply with NEPA by preparing a supplemental environmental impact statement that studied this “phased development” alternative.
Instead of entering an injunction to preserve the status quo pending the agency’s compliance with NEPA, however, the District Court entered an injunctive order that put into effect the very alternative the BLM had failed to study. It is here that I part company with the majority’s affirmance, because the district court’s order allows major new activity to be introduced into the area, potentially involving mining, road construction, and water usage affecting precious underground aquifers, before NEPA has been satisfied. Allowing this activity to take place before completion of the EIS is contrary to the core purpose of NEPA, which is to ensure consideration of all alternatives before major government action is taken. See High Sierra Hikers Ass’n v. Blackwell, 390 F.3d 630, 639 (9th Cir.2004) (stressing NEPA’s mandate that “an EIS be prepared for all major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment”); Idaho Watersheds Project v. Hahn, 307 F.3d 815, 831 (9th Cir.2002) (agency required to “conduct environment studies required by law [to] properly determine ... what measures should be implemented permanently”); Middle Rio Grande Conservancy Dist. v. Norton, 294 F.3d 1220, 1226 (10th Cir.2002) (approving injunction where agency “failed to consider important aspects of the problem before” it); Davis v. Mineta, 302 F.3d 1104, 1110 (10th Cir.2002) (requiring injunction pending determination of project’s “potential effects on the environment, parkland and historic structures”). We have never allowed new federal action to take place before the agency has complied with NEPA. Yet the majority affirms the district court’s order doing precisely that.
The result here is also contrary to fundamental injunction principles, which stress avoiding undue hardship and maintaining the status quo pending completion of agency or other legal proceedings. Indeed, a motions panel of this court entered an order granting an emergency motion to enjoin all projects, drilling and new construction pending resolution of this appeal. We have repeatedly emphasized the importance of maintaining the status quo pending compliance with NEPA. Se. Alaska Conservation Council v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 479 F.3d 1148, 1151 (9th Cir.2007) (“the whole point of the injunction” is to maintain the status quo pending evaluation). Ironically, the cases on which the majority relies make exactly *847this point. See High Sierra Hikers Ass’n, 390 F.3d 630; Idaho Watersheds Project, 307 F.3d 815. They both affirmed injunctive orders that permitted, on a limited basis, activities that were already taking place, but enjoined any new activity pending study. In High Sierra Hikers Ass’n, we enjoined issuance of new commercial packstock special-use permits, while allowing packstock operators to continue to use the special-use permits that already had been issued. 390 F.3d at 642-42. In Idaho Watersheds Project, we enjoined issuance of new grazing permits that had not been lawfully authorized prior to the proposed changes in the regulation at issue in that case. 307 F.3d at 827.
The majority says in note 30 that courts are required to “apply the usual equitable factors” in determining the scope of injunctive relief, suggesting .that advocates seek a different test. Of course we do not abandon the usual standard for determining whether injunctive relief is warranted when we decide an environmental case. We are, however, bound by NEPA, and allowing the agency to take new action without adequate environmental study creates a serious threat of irreparable harm under NEPA.
The whole point of NEPA is' to study the impact of an action on the environment before the action is taken. See Conner v. Burford, 848 F.2d 1441, 1452 (9th Cir.1988) (NEPA requires that agencies prepare an EIS before there is “any irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources”). Where “[ijnterim action prejudices the ultimate decision on the program[,]” NEPA forbids it. 40 C.F.R. § 1506.1(c)(1)-(3). Action prejudices the outcome “when it tends to determine subsequent development or limit alternatives.” Id. In this case, once coal bed methane development is allowed, the impact on the environment cannot be undone, which is exactly the situation NEPA disallows — allowing new activity that limits alternatives in the future.
The majority speaks in terms of “blanket” and “partial” and “limited” injunctions, but such terminology is not used in environmental injunction cases. Our cases require that all available options be preserved, pending full environmental review. See Se. Alaska Conservation Council, 479 F.3d at 1151; see also California v. Block, 690 F.2d 753, 763 (9th Cir.1982) (“the promise of site-specific EIS’s in the future is meaningless if later analysis cannot consider wilderness preservation as an alternative to development”). We have never spoken of “limited” or “partial” injunctions in the NEPA context. Use of this new and confusing terminology puts this case even more out of synch with the law.
I understand the desire of the district court to try to find a middle ground, but with respect to NEPA’s requirements for full study of alternatives prior to implementation of new, major federal action, there is no alternative. There must be compliance. I therefore respectfully dissent.