ELR Citation: ELR 21036
No(s). C85-0208-B (D. Wyo. Jul 25, 1985)

The court holds that defendants' issuance of an oil and gas lease and approval of an application for a permit to drill a test well in the Shoshone National Forest complied with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The court initially denies plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. Turning to the merits, the court rules that plaintiffs' claim that defendants should have prepared an environmental impact statement (EIS) instead of an environmental assessment (EA) on the entire lease is barred by the 90-day statute of limitations in the Mineral Lands Leasing Act. Plaintiffs filed no administrative or judicial challenge to the decision until well over 90 days after the last possible date on which they became aware of the lease decision, and there is no exception to the limitation period for NEPA challenges. Alternatively, the court rules that laches or failure to exhaust administrative remedies would bar plaintiffs' claim. The court holds that plaintiffs' challenge to the failure to issue an EIS on the lease would fail on the merits. The EA reasonably concluded that issuance of the lease alone would have no significant environmental impacts.

The court holds that the EIS issued for the test well was adequate. The EIS considered a variety of environmental impacts of the proposed action, discussed a full range of alternatives, and included a worst-case analysis. Defendants gave proper consideration to the effect of the drilling on endangered species. The court rules that defendants properly considered the effects only of the test well, because development of an oil or gas field at the site would require additional analysis. Indeed, the EIS did discuss full development in as much detail as was possible prior to completion of testing. The court holds that the EIS's discussion of a possible blowout at the test well satisfied the worst-case analysis requirement of NEPA.

Finally, the court holds that defendants complied with the ESA in considering the impacts of the proposed drilling on grizzly bears. Defendants consulted with both state and federal wildlife agencies and imposed such restrictions on the permit as those agencies recommended. The only evidence in the record indicated there would be no harm to bears as a result of the test drilling.

Counsel for Plaintiffs
Patrick J. Marley
Cole & Marley
1900 Ave. of the Stars, Los Angeles CA 90067
(213) 557-2288

Don W. Riske
Riske, Edmonds & Darrow
Suite 600, Rocky Mtn. Plaza, 2020 Carey Ave., P.O. Box 1617
Cheyenne WY 82003
(307) 634-8871

Counsel for Defendants
Richard A. Stacy, U.S. Attorney
P.O. Box 668, Cheyenne WY
(307) 772-2124