WildEarth Guardians v. United States Office of Surface Mining Reclamation & Enforcement , 652 F. App'x 717 ( 2016 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT June 17, 2016
_________________________________
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
WILDEARTH GUARDIANS,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. Nos. 15-1186 and 15-1236
(D.C. No. 1:13-CV-00518-RBJ)
UNITED STATES OFFICE OF (D. Colo.)
SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION
AND ENFORCEMENT; AL KLEIN, in
his official capacity as Western Regional
Director of the Office of Surface Mining,
Reclamation and Enforcement, Denver,
Colorado; S.M.R. JEWELL, in her official
capacity as U.S. Secretary of the Interior,
Defendants,
v.
COLOWYO COAL COMPANY, L.P.,
Intervenor Defendant - Appellant,
and
TRAPPER MINING, INC.,
Intervenor Defendant - Appellant.
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of
these appeals. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not
binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and
_________________________________
Before McHUGH, EBEL, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
WildEarth Guardians brought suit against the United States Office of Surface
Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM), challenging OSM’s approval of
certain mining plan modifications for mines owned by intervenor-defendants
Colowyo Coal Company, L.P., and Trapper Mining, Inc. Specifically, WildEarth
alleged that OSM violated the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) by
failing to involve the public in its approval processes and by failing to take a hard
look at the modifications’ environmental impacts. The district court agreed and
remanded the matters to OSM with directions to comply with NEPA.1 Colowyo and
Trapper initiated separate appeals, which we later consolidated.
While the appeals were pending, however, OSM completed its remedial NEPA
analyses and reapproved both mining plan modifications. WildEarth thus argues the
appeals are now moot, depriving this court of subject-matter jurisdiction. See Rio
Grande Silvery Minnow v. Bureau of Reclamation, 601 F.3d 1096, 1109-10 (10th Cir.
2010). Colowyo and Trapper disagree. They allege that OSM’s subsequent approvals
reset the statute of limitations for third-party attacks, and that OSM imposed
collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value. See
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1; 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
1
The district court initially took no remedial action regarding the Trapper
Mine in light of the court’s mistaken belief that Trapper already mined all of the coal
covered under its mining plan modification. Trapper later corrected this
misunderstanding, and the district court subsequently approved the parties’ joint
proposal indicating that OSM would conduct a remedial NEPA analysis for the
Trapper Mine as well.
2
conditions during the reapproval processes that adversely affect their lease rights and
require them to fund downstream studies. Thus, they argue they suffer a “concrete
ongoing injury” as a result of the reapproved modifications and that the appeals are,
therefore, not moot. Id. at 1112.
But the only issue before us in these appeals is whether OSM violated the
prescribed NEPA procedure in approving the now-superseded mining plan
modifications. And “any determination we might make as to the procedural
foundations of the old [mining plan modification approvals]” would have no real-
world effect “because the analytical and procedural aspects of the [old approvals]
have been superseded by the new analysis and procedure underlying the new
[approvals].” Wyoming v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 674 F.3d 1220, 1230 (10th Cir.
2012) (citing Rio Grande Silvery Minnow, 601 F.3d at 1112); see Wyoming v. U.S.
Dep’t of Agric., 414 F.3d 1207, 1212 (10th Cir. 2005) (concluding that appeal was
moot because (1) agency promulgated a rule superseding challenged rule and thus the
“portions of the [original rule] that were substantively challenged by [the appellant]
no longer exist[ed]”; and (2) original rule’s alleged procedural deficiencies were
“irrelevant because the replacement rule was promulgated in a new and separate
rulemaking process”).
Nor do these appeals fall into the “capable of repetition, yet evading review
exception” to our general mootness rule. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 674 F.3d at 1229.
Under that “narrow” exception, see Jordan v. Sosa, 654 F.3d 1012, 1034-35 (10th
Cir. 2011), we may exercise jurisdiction over a seemingly moot appeal if the party
3
asserting that the exception applies establishes that “(1) the challenged action was in
its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration, and
(2) there [is] a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party would be
subjected to the same action again,” Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 482 (1982)
(emphasis added) (quoting Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 149 (1975)); see
Jordan, 654 F.3d at 1035.
Here, Colowyo and Trapper fail to establish even the first of these two
requirements. Specifically, they fail to demonstrate that the nature of their
challenge—i.e., an appeal during the pendency of a remedial NEPA review—is
“necessarily of short duration,” U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 674 F.3d at 1229 (quoting
Jordan, 654 F.3d at 1036), or that it is one that “by its very nature could not, or
probably would not be able to be adjudicated while fully ‘live,’” id. (quoting Dow
Chem. Co. v. EPA, 605 F.2d 673, 678 n.12 (3d Cir. 1979)). Although OSM
completed both of its remedial NEPA analyses rather expediently here, there is
nothing inherent about NEPA analyses that “makes them necessarily of short
duration.” Id. We thus decline to apply this narrow exception here.
Because we lack subject-matter jurisdiction over these appeals, Rio Grande
Silvery Minnow, 601 F.3d at 1109; U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 414 F.3d at 1212, we dismiss
both appeals as moot and vacate the district court’s May 8, 2015 Order (Doc. 78),
and its May 8, 2015 Final Judgment (Doc. 79). See Alvarez v. Smith, 558 U.S. 87, 94
(2009) (explaining that “we normally . . . vacate the lower court judgment in a moot
case because doing so ‘clears the path for future relitigation of the issues between the
4
parties’” (quoting United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36, 40 (1950))); Dine
Citizens Against Ruining Our Env’t v. U.S. Office of Surface Mining Reclamation &
Enf’t, No. 15-1126, 2016 WL 1237955, at *1 (10th Cir. Mar. 20, 2016) (unpublished)
(vacating judgment below after dismissing appeal as moot when OSM conducted
remedial NEPA analysis and reapproved mine’s permit revision while appeal was
pending).
Entered for the Court
Nancy L. Moritz
Circuit Judge
5