ELR Citation: 49 ELR 20011
No(s). 3:17-CV-553-LRH-WGC (D. Nev. Jan 15, 2019) (Hicks, J.)

A district court denied environmental groups' motion for summary judgment against BLM for lease sales in 2017. The groups argued that BLM failed to fully consider numerous and foreseeable environmental impacts of the leases as required under NEPA. But the court found that BLM's analysis in general terms of what could happen if a lessee decided to drill and construct ground-disturbing infrastructure satisfied the "hard look" standard. The groups also argued that BLM's decision to use water resource stipulations was arbitrary and capricious because the stipulations did not avoid all significant impacts to wetlands and associated species in the lease area. But the court found that BLM was only tasked with describing its mitigation efforts with "sufficient detail" to ensure that environmental consequences were fairly evaluated, and did so in this instance. Finally, the groups argued that BLM violated NEPA because the fact that it sold oil and gas leases mandated that it also prepare an EIS. But the court found that BLM had not irreversibly committed its resources towards oil and gas development because it retained authority to deny a permit to drill outright, and thus was not required to prepare an EIS. The court therefore denied the groups' motion for summary judgment.