Description: Challenge to approval of an application for a permit to drill in connection with a new well and pipeline within the Carrizo Plain National Monument in California.
Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Bureau of Land Management
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 08/15/2022 Order Download Stipulation of dismissal granted. Parties Stipulated to Dismissal of Lawsuit Challenging Now-Expired Drilling Authorization in Carrizo Plain National Monument. The federal district court for the Central District of California granted a stipulation of dismissal of a lawsuit filed in 2020 to challenge the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s approval of an application for a permit (APD) to drill within the Carrizo Plain National Monument. The challenged APD expired in May 2022, and the plaintiffs agreed to dismiss with prejudice their claims under the National Environmental Policy Act, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, and the 2010 Carrizo Plain National Monument Resource Management Plan. A fourth claim alleging failure to timely plug and abandon idle wells was dismissed without prejudice based on the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s commitment to take the necessary steps to order and monitor the completion of well abandonment operations. 08/12/2022 Settlement Agreement Download Settlement agreement filed. 12/15/2020 Complaint Download Complaint filed. Environmental Groups Challenged Oil Well and Pipeline in Carrizo Plain National Monument. Center for Biological Diversity and Los Padres ForestWatch filed a lawsuit challenging the U.S. Bureau of Land Management's (BLM’s) approval of an application for a permit to drill in connection with a new well and pipeline within the Carrizo Plain National Monument. The plaintiffs alleged that the project was the first oil well and pipeline approved within the monument since its establishment in 2001. The plaintiffs asserted claims under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the Administrative Procedure Act. Claims under NEPA included that BLM failed to adequately consider the project’s climate change impacts by “downplaying” its greenhouse gas emissions and “failing to consider the significance of the emissions as direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts.” The plaintiffs also contended that the failure to adequately evaluate the project’s climate change impacts violated BLM’s resource management plan for the monument and therefore the FLPMA.