Description: Challenge to BLM’s approval of a resource management plan in western Colorado that applied to 1,061,400 acres of BLM-administered surface land and 1,231,200 acres of BLM-managed federal mineral estate and made 935,600 acres available for oil and gas.
-
Center for Biological Diversity v. Bernhardt
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 03/26/2021 Order Download Motion for voluntary remand granted. Colorado Federal Court Granted BLM’s Request for Remand of Resource Management Plan to Conduct Additional Analysis. The federal district court for the District of Colorado granted federal respondents’ motion for voluntary remand of a case challenging the Resource Management Plan (RMP) and Environmental Impact Statement for the Grand Junction Field Office. The case was similar to a prior case in which the court held in 2018 that the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) violated the National Environmental Policy Act by failing to take a hard look at indirect emissions from oil and gas development and to consider reasonable alternatives to making lands available for oil and gas leasing. Based on the 2018 decision, BLM determined that it would prepare a supplemental analysis for the Grand Junction RMP. The court denied the petitioners’ request that the court define the scope of analysis on remand, as well as their request that the court order the respondents not to hold oil and gas lease sales until a new decision document was released. 04/29/2020 Response Download Response filed by intervenors-respondents in support of federal respondents' motion for voluntary remand. 04/28/2020 Response Download Response filed by petitioners to federal respondents' motion for voluntary remand. The plaintiffs in the Grand Junction RMP case objected to the “vague and open-ended terms” of the proposed voluntary remand and asked the court to require, among other things, that the additional analysis be prepare in an supplemental environmental impact statement and that its scope include indirect and cumulative emissions. 04/08/2020 Motion Download Motion for voluntary remand filed by federal respondents. BLM Asked Court for Voluntary Remand to Conduct Additional Analysis for Grand Junction Resource Management Plan. The U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) moved for voluntary remand without vacatur of its decision approving the Grand Junction Resource Management Plan (RMP) so that it could prepare additional analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act. BLM said it intended to prepare supplemental analysis based on review of a 2018 decision in another case—Wilderness Workshop v. BLM—that involved a planning area with resource similarities. The court in the other case found that BLM failed to take a hard look at the RMP’s indirect impacts, and the parties subsequently agreed to partial remand without vacatur. The plaintiffs in the Grand Junction RMP case objected to the “vague and open-ended terms” of the proposed voluntary remand and asked the court to require, among other things, that the additional analysis be prepare in an supplemental environmental impact statement and that its scope include indirect and cumulative emissions. 10/08/2019 Petition for Review Download Complaint filed. Environmental Groups Challenged BLM’s Failure to Consider Colorado Resource Management Plan’s Climate Impacts. Center for Biological Diversity and two other groups filed a lawsuit in federal court in Colorado challenging the U.S. Bureau of Land Management's (BLM’s) approval of a resource management plan in western Colorado that applied to 1,061,400 acres of BLM-administered surface land and 1,231,200 acres of BLM-managed federal mineral estate. The plaintiffs alleged that the plan made 935,600 acres available for oil and gas leasing and that BLM projected that 3,940 wells would be drilled. They asserted that BLM violated NEPA by failing to address foreseeable indirect impacts from downstream combustion of oil and gas resources and by failing to consider cumulative effects to the climate caused by foreseeable oil and gas production under the plan in combination with BLM’s nationwide public lands oil and gas program. The plaintiffs also said BLM’s failure to consider alternatives to oil and gas leasing and development violated the National Environmental Policy Act.