Case 1:16-cv-01724 Document 1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 1 of 46

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
WILDEARTH GUARDIANS
516 Alto Street
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501,

)
)
)
)
and
)
)
PHYSICIANS FOR SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY )
1111 14th St. N.W., Ste. 700
)
Washington, D.C. 20005,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
SALLY JEWELL, Secretary
)
U.S. Department of the Interior
)
1849 C Street N.W.
)
Washington, D.C. 20240,
)
)
NEIL KORNZE, Director
)
U.S. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
)
1849 C Street N.W.
)
Washington, D.C. 20240, and
)
)
U.S. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
)
1849 C Street N.W.
)
Washington, D.C. 20240,
)
)
Defendants.
)

Case No. 1:16-cv-01724

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

INTRODUCTION
1.

This lawsuit challenges Federal Defendants’ approval of 397 oil and gas leases

through 10 oil and gas lease sales encompassing 379,950 acres of public lands across three
western states—Colorado, Utah, Wyoming—without properly analyzing, at the programmatic or
project level, the ensuing direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to our climate. It asks this

 Case 1:16-cv-01724 Document 1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 2 of 46

Court to set aside those approvals as violating the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”),
42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4370h, and to ensure that federal oil and gas leasing decisions await Federal
Defendants’ compliance with the law.
2.

In 2014, President Obama described climate change as an “urgent and growing

threat . . . that will define the contours of this century more dramatically than any other.” In that
same year, the U.S. pledged to reduce its greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions 26-28 percent
below 2005 levels by 2020. Since then, the President has also announced a new goal to cut
methane emissions from the oil and gas sector by 40-45 percent below 2012 levels by 2025, and
set standards to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from the electricity sector by 32 percent from
2005 levels by 2030. In December, the President joined with 194 other nations in recognizing
“that climate change represents an urgent and potentially irreversible threat to human societies
and the planet” and reaffirmed prior U.S. commitments toward reducing GHG emissions. In his
final State of the Union address, President Obama again noted the federal government’s
commitment to fighting climate change, vowing “to accelerate the transition away from old,
dirtier energy sources,” and making a powerful promise “to change the way we manage our oil
and coal resources so that they better reflect the costs they impose on taxpayers and our planet.”
3.

The U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s (“BLM’s”) Oil and Gas Leasing

Program contributes vast amounts of GHG pollution to the atmosphere. BLM manages nearly
700 million acres of subsurface minerals, and estimates that about half of this federal mineral
estate contains oil and/or natural gas—two of the primary targets in President Obama’s battle
against climate change. Currently, over 32 million acres of federally managed lands are leased
for oil and gas. From 2008–2010, GHG emissions from onshore federal oil and gas reserves
resulted in the release of 612,309,429 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (“MTCO2e”). By

2

 Case 1:16-cv-01724 Document 1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 3 of 46

comparison, from 2008–2010, the combined GHG emissions from Central American countries
(Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama) resulted in the
release of 549,760,000 MTCO2e. In other words, during these years, BLM’s Oil and Gas Leasing
Program alone contributed more annual GHG pollution to the atmosphere than all of the
approximately 40 million people of Central America combined.
4.

In spite of the President’s commitment to U.S. leadership in moving towards a

clean energy future—and the significant contribution to atmospheric GHG levels made by
BLM’s Oil and Gas Leasing Program—Federal Defendants continue to authorize the sale and
issuance of hundreds of federal oil and gas leases on public lands across the Interior West
without meaningfully acknowledging or evaluating the climate change implications of their
actions.
5.

Since the beginning of 2015, BLM has held 10 oil and gas lease sales across three

states—Colorado, Utah, Wyoming—authorizing the sale and issuance of 397 new leases
encompassing 379,950 acres of public lands. The map on the following page shows the
distribution of the challenged lease authorizations across the Interior West.
6.

Federal Defendants failed to analyze the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of

the sale and resulting development of these lands on the climate, in violation of NEPA.
Specifically, in each of these lease authorizations, BLM: (1) failed to identify the direct GHG
emissions and effects that will result from lease sale and resulting development; (2) failed to
identify indirect, downstream GHG emissions and effects from oil and gas production resulting
from each lease sale and resulting development; and (3) failed to identify cumulative GHG
emissions and effects from each lease sale and resulting development when combined with GHG

3

 Case 1:16-cv-01724 Document 1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 4 of 46

emissions from BLM’s onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Program, which together account for over
200 million MTCO2e emissions each year based on GHG emissions estimates for 2012.

7.

BLM is poised to continue its ongoing pattern of unlawful lease authorization and

issuance without addressing climate impacts for additional lease sales across the U.S.—including
sales in Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming—before the end of 2016.
8.

In contrast, on January 15, 2016, the Department of the Interior announced that it

was initiating a multi-year process to produce a program-wide climate study of the GHG
emissions and climate impacts of its Federal Coal Leasing Program. The Department also
announced that it would cease offering new coal leases during the pendency of that process.

4

 Case 1:16-cv-01724 Document 1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 5 of 46

GHG emissions and climate impacts of BLM’s Oil and Gas Leasing Program have never been
studied at the programmatic level.
9.

Five days after the Department’s announcement on coal, the University of

California Irvine School of Law Environmental Law Clinic and Plaintiff WildEarth Guardians
submitted a petition to the Department of the Interior under the Administrative Procedure Act
calling for similar action for the Federal Oil and Gas Leasing Program. WildEarth Guardians
requested a program-wide climate study of the GHG emissions and climate impacts of federal oil
and gas leasing and a moratorium on new leasing during the pendency of that study. At the time
of filing this Complaint, more than seven months later, the Department still has not responded to
that petition.
10.

Plaintiffs WildEarth Guardians and Physicians for Social Responsibility

(collectively, “Citizen Groups”) hereby bring this civil action for declaratory and injunctive
relief against Sally Jewell, in her official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of the
Interior, Neil Kornze, in his official capacity as Director of the U.S. Bureau of Land
Management (“BLM”), and the BLM (collectively, “Federal Defendants”), for their leasing
authorizations encompassed in 10 separate lease sales in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming in 2015
and 2016, in violation of NEPA and its implementing regulations.
JURISDICTION & VENUE
11.

This action arises under NEPA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4370h, and the Administrative

Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706.
12.

Jurisdiction is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, because the

action raises a federal question. The Court has authority to issue the requested declaratory and
injunctive relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202, and 5 U.S.C. §§ 705, 706.

5

 Case 1:16-cv-01724 Document 1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 6 of 46

13.

This action reflects an actual, present, and justiciable controversy between Citizen

Groups and Federal Defendants within the meaning of the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C.
§ 2201. Citizen Groups’ interests will be adversely affected and irreparably injured if Federal
Defendants continue to violate NEPA as alleged herein, and if they affirmatively implement the
decisions challenged herein. These injuries are concrete and particularized, and fairly traceable to
Federal Defendants’ challenged decisions, providing the requisite personal stake in the outcome
of this controversy necessary for this Court’s jurisdiction.
14.

The requested relief would redress the actual, concrete injuries to Citizen Groups

caused by Federal Defendants’ failure to comply with duties mandated by NEPA and its
implementing regulations.
15.

The challenged agency actions are final and subject to judicial review pursuant to

5 U.S.C. §§ 702, 704, & 706.
16.

Citizen Groups have exhausted any and all available and requested administrative

remedies.
17.

Venue in this Court is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) because officers of

the United States are named as Defendants in their official capacities and reside in this judicial
district, Plaintiff Physicians for Social Responsibility resides in this judicial district, and a
substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims, as well as the underlying
decisionmaking and guidance with respect to BLM’s Oil and Gas Leasing Program as
disseminated to the agency’s field offices, have occurred in this district due to decisions made
here by Federal Defendants.

6

 Case 1:16-cv-01724 Document 1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 7 of 46

PARTIES
18.

Plaintiff WILDEARTH GUARDIANS (“Guardians”) is a non-profit membership

organization based in Santa Fe, New Mexico, with offices throughout the West. Guardians has
168,458 members and activists, some of whom live, work, or recreate on public lands on and
near the leases challenged herein. Guardians and its members are dedicated to protecting and
restoring the wildlife, wild places, wild rivers, and health of the American West. Towards this
end, Guardians and its members work to replace fossil fuels with clean, renewable energy in
order to safeguard public health, the environment, and the Earth’s climate.
19.

Plaintiff PHYSICIANS FOR SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY (“PSR”) is a nonprofit

organization based in Washington, D.C., with chapters across the country and over 30,000
members and activists. PSR works to create a healthy, just, and peaceful world for current and
future generations. PSR uses its medical and public health expertise to reverse the Earth’s
trajectory toward climate change and protect the public from the effects of climate change,
protect the public and the environment from toxic chemicals, and eliminate the use of nuclear
power.
20.

Citizen Groups’ members use and enjoy the cultural resources, wildlands, wildlife

habitat, rivers, streams, and healthy environment on BLM and other public lands in Colorado,
Utah, and Wyoming that include lands in and adjacent to the lease sale parcels that are the
subject of this Complaint, as well as areas outside the lease parcels that are affected by
development of the leases in each lease sale, for hiking, fishing, hunting, camping,
photographing scenery and wildlife, wildlife viewing, aesthetic enjoyment, and engaging in other
vocational, scientific, and recreational activities.

7

 Case 1:16-cv-01724 Document 1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 8 of 46

21.

Citizen Groups’ members frequently use public lands throughout Colorado that

are on, around, or within view of lands affected by the leasing authorizations challenged herein
including lands in the Pawnee National Grasslands in northeastern Colorado 80 miles north of
Denver, BLM-managed lands within the Little Snake Field Office, and lands in the HD
Mountains area of southwestern Colorado.
22.

Citizen Groups’ members frequently recreate on public lands throughout Utah

that include the leases that are the subject of the leasing authorizations challenged herein, or
lands that are around or within view of lands affected by the leasing authorizations challenged
herein. Citizen Groups’ members have recreated on or around lands that are in the Castle Valley
area in Emery County and near Price in Carbon County, lands that are in the Uinta Basin of
northeastern Utah directly south of the Uinta Mountains, lands that are in the Richfield area
(including in the Fishlake National Forest), and lands in the Grand County area north of Arches
National Park.
23.

Citizen Groups’ members frequently recreate on public lands throughout

Wyoming that include the leases that are the subject of the leasing authorizations challenged
herein, or lands that are around or within view of lands affected by the leasing authorizations
challenged herein. Citizen Groups’ members have recreated on leased lands in Carbon and
Sweetwater Counties, the Battle Springs Draw area, and the Adobe Town/Kinney Rim area. In
addition, Citizens Groups’ members enjoy wildlife viewing and photography on and around
leased lands in the Red Desert, Bighorn Basin, and BLM’s Lander Field Office. Oil and gas
development in these areas has negatively impacted wildlife by reducing their populations
(making it more difficult to view and photograph wildlife) and causing behavioral shifts in
wildlife that increase their avoidance of roads, resulting in fewer wildlife viewing opportunities.

8

 Case 1:16-cv-01724 Document 1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 9 of 46

24.

Citizens Groups’ members derive recreational, inspirational, scientific,

educational, and aesthetic benefit from their activities on lands that include the leases that are the
subject of the leasing authorizations challenged herein, or on lands that are around or within view
of lands affected by the leasing authorizations challenged herein as well as by subsequent lease
development. The affected lands within or near the lease sale parcels include very popular and
iconic landscapes, including, but certainly not limited to, the Pawnee Buttes on the Pawnee
National Grassland in Colorado, the San Juan Mountains near Colorado’s HD Mountains leases,
the San Rafael Swell near Utah’s Castle Valley leases, the Uinta Mountains near Utah’s Uinta
Basin leases, the Bighorn Mountains near Wyoming’s Bighorn Basin leases, and the Wind River
Range near Wyoming’s Pinedale Field Office leases.
25.

Citizen Groups’ members intend to continue to use and to enjoy BLM and other

public lands in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming that include the leases that are the subject of the
leasing authorizations challenged herein, and lands that are around or within view of lands
affected by the leasing authorizations challenged herein as well as by subsequent lease
development, to enjoy cultural resources, wildlands, wildlife habitat, rivers, streams, and healthy
environments frequently and on an ongoing basis long into the future, including this summer,
fall, and winter.
26.

Citizen Groups’ members’ enjoyment of public lands in and adjacent to the leases

challenged herein will be adversely affected and diminished as a result of Federal Defendants’
leasing actions. Citizen Groups’ members have not only recreated on public lands that include
the lease sale parcels that are the subject of this lawsuit, but they enjoy public lands adjacent to
these parcels. The reasonably foreseeable development of these lease parcels stands to directly
alter the natural state of public lands within the lease areas, produce air pollution that is

9

 Case 1:16-cv-01724 Document 1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 10 of 46

offensive, create noise that disrupts wildlife and recreational enjoyment, and lead to connected
development that will further adversely impact nearby public lands, including road construction,
truck traffic, and the construction of oil and gas processing facilities needed to sustain the
production of oil and gas on the lease parcels that are the subject of this lawsuit.
27.

The development of the oil and gas leases challenged herein will bring not only

new industrial activity into undeveloped landscapes, but will also bring noise, destruction of
wildlife habitat, surface disturbance, air pollution, and water contamination. These impacts can
be far-reaching. For example, air pollution from oil and gas development can create extensive
visible emissions that create haze and smog in large regions. Wyoming’s Red Desert area (where
a number of the leases at issue are located) was nearly pristine 15 years ago but today, on most
days, experiences some degree of smog. The increased number of smoggy days corresponds with
increased oil and gas development over the last decade in the Red Desert area.
28.

A favorable ruling in this case would redress the harms that Citizen Groups and

their members stand to suffer as a result of Federal Defendants’ actions. If Federal Defendants
properly took into account the climate impacts of their actions, they likely would have rejected
offering leases for sale and issuance. This would have eliminated the threat of reasonably
foreseeable oil and gas development, preventing the diminishment of the enjoyment of public
lands used by Citizen Groups’ members. A favorable ruling would ensure that as Citizen
Groups’ members continue to use and enjoy public lands affected by Federal Defendants’
actions, their harms would be reduced, if not eliminated.
29.

Citizen Groups and their members have a procedural interest in Federal

Defendants’ full compliance with NEPA’s planning and decisionmaking processes when
authorizing oil and gas development on public lands in the Interior West, including Colorado,

10

 Case 1:16-cv-01724 Document 1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 11 of 46

Utah, and Wyoming in general, and in and around the lease sale areas in particular, and Federal
Defendants’ attendant duty to substantiate its decisions in the record for these authorizations.
30.

Defendant SALLY JEWELL is sued in her official capacity as the Secretary of

the U.S. Department of the Interior and is responsible for managing the public lands and
resources in the Interior West—and Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming in particular—and, in that
official capacity, is responsible for implementing and complying with federal law, including the
federal laws implicated by this action.
31.

Defendant NEIL KORNZE is Director of the Bureau of Land Management, an

agency within the United States Department of the Interior, and is responsible for managing the
public lands, resources, and public mineral estate of the United States, including lands and
resources in the Interior West, including Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. In his official capacity,
Director Kornze is responsible for implementing and complying with federal law, including the
federal laws implicated by this action.
32.

Defendant UNITED STATES BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT is an

agency within the United States Department of the Interior and is responsible for managing
public lands and resources in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, including federal onshore oil and
gas resources and the leasing program for those resources. In this managerial capacity, BLM is
responsible for implementing and complying with federal law, including the federal laws
implicated by this action.
LEGAL BACKGROUND
I.

National Environmental Policy Act
33.

NEPA is our “basic national charter for the protection of the environment.” 40

C.F.R. § 1500.1(a). It was enacted—recognizing that “each person should enjoy a healthful

11

 Case 1:16-cv-01724 Document 1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 12 of 46

environment”—to ensure that the federal government uses all practicable means to “assure for all
Americans safe, healthful, productive, and esthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings,” and
to “attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to
health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences,” among other policies. 42
U.S.C. § 4331(b), (c).
34.

NEPA regulations explain, in 40 C.F.R. §1500.1(c), that:
Ultimately, of course, it is not better documents but better decisions that
count. NEPA’s purpose is not to generate paperwork – even excellent
paperwork – but to foster excellent action. The NEPA process is intended
to help public officials make decisions that are based on understanding of
environmental consequences, and take actions that protect, restore, and
enhance the environment.

35.

NEPA achieves its purpose through “action forcing procedures. . . requir[ing] that

agencies take a hard look at environmental consequences.” Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens
Council, 490 U.S. 332, 350 (1989) (citations omitted) (emphasis added).
36.

“Agencies shall integrate the NEPA process with other planning at the earliest

possible time to insure that planning and decisions reflect environmental values, to avoid delays
later in the process, and to head off potential conflicts.” 40 C.F.R. § 1501.2.
37.

Federal agencies must comply with NEPA before there are “any irreversible and

irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposed action should it
be implemented.” 42 U.S.C. § 4332(C)(v); see also 40 C.F.R. §§ 1501.2, 1502.5(a).
38.

NEPA requires Federal Defendants to consider “any adverse environmental

effects which cannot be avoided.” 42 U.S.C. § 4332(C)(ii). In so doing, Federal Defendants must
“identify and develop methods and procedures . . . which will insure that presently unquantified
environmental amenities and values may be given appropriate consideration in decisionmaking
along with economic and technical considerations.” Id. § 4332(B).

12

 Case 1:16-cv-01724 Document 1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 13 of 46

39.

To accomplish these purposes, NEPA requires that all federal agencies prepare a

“detailed statement” regarding all “major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the
human environment.” 42 U.S.C. § 4332(C). This statement, known as an Environmental Impact
Statement (“EIS”), must, among other things, rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all
reasonable alternatives, analyze all direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts, and
include a discussion of the means to mitigate adverse environmental impacts. 40 C.F.R. §§
1502.14 and 1502.16. The scope of the analysis must include “[c]umulative actions,” or actions
that “when viewed with other proposed actions have cumulatively significant impacts and should
therefore be discussed in the same impact statement,” and “[s]imilar actions,” or actions that
“when viewed with other reasonably foreseeable or proposed agency actions, have similarities
that provide a basis for evaluating their environmental consequences together.” 40 C.F.R. §§
1508.25(a)(2), (3).
40.

Direct effects include those that “are caused by the action and occur at the same

time and place.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.8(a). Indirect effects include effects that “are caused by the
action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable.”
40 C.F.R. § 1508.8(b). Cumulative effects are “the impact on the environment which results
from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person
undertakes such other actions.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.7. “Effects” are synonymous with “impacts.”
40 C.F.R. § 1508.8.
41.

These effects include “ecological (such as the effects on natural resources and on

the components, structures, and functioning of affected ecosystems), aesthetic, historic, cultural,
economic, social, or health, whether direct, indirect, or cumulative” effects. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.8.

13

 Case 1:16-cv-01724 Document 1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 14 of 46

42.

BLM’s analysis must do more than merely identify impacts; it must also “evaluate

the severity” of effects. Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 352 (1989);
40 C.F.R. § 1502.16(a)-(b) (recognizing that agency must explain the “significance” of effects).
43.

An agency may also prepare an EA to determine whether an EIS is necessary. 40

C.F.R. §§ 1501.3, 1508.9. An EA must include a discussion of alternatives and the
environmental impacts of the action. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.9.
44.

If an agency decides not to prepare an EIS, an EA must “provide sufficient

evidence” to support a Finding of No Significant Impact (“FONSI”). 40 C.F.R. § 1508.9(a)(1).
Such evidence must demonstrate that the action “will not have a significant effect on the human
environment.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.13. An assessment of whether or not an impact is “significant”
is based on a consideration of the “context and intensity” of the impact. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27.
“Context” refers to the scope of the proposed action, including the interests affected. 40 C.F.R. §
1508.27(a). “Intensity” refers to the severity of the impact and must be evaluated with a host of
factors in mind, including but not limited to [u]nique characteristics of the geographic area[,]”
“[t]he degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or
involve unique or unknown risks[,]” and “[w]hether the action threatens a violation of Federal,
State, or local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment.” 40 C.F.R. §
1508.27(b).
45.

NEPA allows an agency to “tier” a site-specific environmental analysis for a

project to a broader EIS for a program or plan under which the subsequent project is carried out.
40 C.F.R. § 1508.28. When an agency tiers a site-specific analysis to a broader EIS, “the
subsequent statement or environmental assessment need only summarize the issues discussed in

14

 Case 1:16-cv-01724 Document 1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 15 of 46

the broader statement and incorporate discussions from the broader statement by reference and
shall concentrate on the issues specific to the subsequent action.” 40 C.F.R. § 1502.20.
46.

The Department of the Interior’s NEPA regulations for using tiered documents

specify that site-specific EAs “can be tiered to a programmatic or other broader-scope [EIS].” 43
C.F.R. § 46.140(c). As a general rule, an EA that tiers to another NEPA document “must include
a finding that the conditions and environmental effects described in the broader NEPA document
are still valid or address any exceptions.” 43 C.F.R. § 46.140. If the programmatic EIS analyzes
the impacts of the site-specific action, the agency is not required to perform additional analysis
of impacts. 43 C.F.R. § 46.140(a). However, if the impacts analysis in the programmatic EIS “is
not sufficiently comprehensive or adequate to support further decisions,” the agency’s EA must
explain this and provide additional analysis. 43 C.F.R. § 46.140(b).
II.

Legal Framework for Federal Oil and Gas Lease Authorizations
A.

Mineral Leasing Act

47.

Under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (“MLA”), as amended, the Secretary of

the Interior is responsible for managing and overseeing mineral development on public lands, not
only to ensure safe and fair development of the mineral resource, but also to “safeguard[]…the
public welfare.” 30 U.S.C. § 187.
48.

The Secretary has discretion, though constrained by the laws at issue in this case,

to determine where, when, and under what terms and conditions mineral development should
occur. 43 C.F.R. § 3101.1-2. The grant of rights in a federal mineral lease is subject to a number
of reservations of authority to the federal government, including reasonable measures concerning
the timing, pace, and scale of development. Id.

15

 Case 1:16-cv-01724 Document 1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 16 of 46

49.

The MLA regulations provide: “Each proper BLM State office shall hold sales at

least quarterly if lands are available for competitive leasing” and “[l]ease sales shall be
conducted by a competitive oral bidding process.” 43 C.F.R. § 3120.1-2.
50.

BLM does not always hold lease sales on a quarterly basis in any given year. For

example, with respect to the leasing decisions challenged herein, in 2015 BLM held three lease
sales in Colorado and one lease sale in Utah.
51.

Not all of the parcels offered for sale in any given BLM lease sale are awarded

through competitive bidding. For example, for fiscal year 2015 BLM reported that of the 1,286
lease parcels offered for sale, only 690 of the parcels received bids.
52.

The MLA also states that “[t]he authorized officer may suspend the offering of a

specific parcel while considering a protest or appeal against its inclusion in a Notice of
Competitive Lease Sale.” 43 C.F.R. § 3120.1-3.
B.

BLM’s Oil and Gas Planning and Management

53.

BLM manages onshore oil and gas development through a three-phase process.

Each phase is distinct, serves distinct purposes, and is subject to distinct rules, policies, and
procedures.
54.

In the first phase, BLM prepares a Resource Management Plan (“RMP”) in

accordance with 43 C.F.R. §§ 1600-1610.8, along with additional guidance found in BLM’s
Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1601-1) (hereafter, “BLM Handbook”). An RMP envisions
present and future use of public lands and their resources by establishing management priorities,
as well as guiding and constraining BLM’s implementation-stage management. With respect to
fluid minerals leasing decisions, in the RMP, BLM determines which public lands containing
federal minerals will be open to leasing and under what conditions. The basis for such land

16

 Case 1:16-cv-01724 Document 1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 17 of 46

designations is the detailed hard look analysis of the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to
the human environment of predicted implementation-stage development in the RMP’s
corresponding EIS.
55.

A reasonably foreseeable development scenario (“RFDS”) underlies BLM’s

assumptions regarding the pace and scope of fluid minerals development within the RMP
planning area. An RFDS does not include any analysis of environmental impacts and is not a
NEPA document.
56.

In the second phase, BLM identifies the boundaries for lands to be offered for

lease and proceeds to sell and execute leases for those lands through a lease sale and issuance.
Leases are sold in accordance with 43 C.F.R. §§ 3120-3120.7-3, with additional agency guidance
outlined in BLM Instruction Memorandum (“IM”) No. 2010-117 (hereafter, “Leasing
Reforms”). While BLM state offices manage lease sales, the BLM field offices where specific
lease parcels are located conduct NEPA review, solicit public comment, and apply appropriate
site-specific leasing stipulations.
57.

BLM’s Leasing Reforms establish a timeline for public engagement, culminating

in the public’s opportunity to protest the sale of specific parcels. Although BLM may proceed
with a lease sale after a Protest has been filed, BLM must resolve any and all Protests received
prior to issuing a lease parcel to a successful bidder.
58.

Prior to the point BLM sells a lease, BLM may refuse to lease public lands, even

if public lands were made available for leasing pursuant to the RMP. Udall v. Tallman, 85 S.Ct.
792, 795 (1965).
59.

Prior to a BLM lease sale, BLM has the authority to subject leases to terms and

conditions, which can serve as “stipulations” to protect the environment. 43 C.F.R. § 3101.1-3.

17

 Case 1:16-cv-01724 Document 1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 18 of 46

Once BLM issues leases, it may impose conditions of approval (“COAs”) that are delimited by
the terms and conditions of the lease. 43 C.F.R. § 3101.1-2.
60.

Once sold, the lease purchaser has the right to use as much of the leased land as is

necessary to explore and drill oil and gas within the lease boundaries, subject to stipulations
attached to the lease. 43 C.F.R. § 3101.1-2.
61.

The Secretary of the Interior has the authority to cancel leases that have been

“improperly issued.” 43 C.F.R. § 3108.3(d). A lease may be canceled where BLM has not
complied with NEPA prior to lease issuance. Clayton W. Williams, Jr., 103 IBLA 192 (1988).
For example, in the last year alone, BLM has canceled dozens of leases in Colorado and
Montana on the basis of the agency’s failure to complete NEPA analysis.
62.

Oil and gas operations are conducted in accordance with BLM regulations at 43

C.F.R. §§ 3160-3165.4.
63.

The third-phase occurs once BLM issues a lease, wherein the lessee is required to

submit an application for permit to drill (“APD”) to BLM prior to drilling. 43 C.F.R. § 3162.31(c). At this stage, BLM may condition the approval of the APD on the lessees’ adoption of
“reasonable measures” whose scope is delimited by the lease and the lessees’ surface use rights.
43 C.F.R. § 3101.1-2.
C.

Administrative Procedure Act

64.

The Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) provides a right to judicial review for

any “person suffering legal wrong because of agency action.” 5 U.S.C. § 702. Actions that are
reviewable under the APA include final agency actions “for which there is no other adequate
remedy in a court.” 5 U.S.C. § 704.

18

 Case 1:16-cv-01724 Document 1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 19 of 46

65.

Under the APA, a reviewing court shall “hold unlawful and set aside agency

action . . . found to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in
accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). A court must also compel agency action unlawfully
withheld or unreasonably delayed. 5 U.S.C. § 706(1).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
I.

Environmental Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Pollution
66.

Climate change has been intensively studied and acknowledged at the global,

national, and regional scales. Climate change is being fueled by the human-caused release of
greenhouse gas emissions, in particular carbon dioxide and methane. The Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”) is a Nobel Prize-winning scientific body within the United
Nations that reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical, and socio-economic
information relevant to our understanding of climate change. In its most recent report to
policymakers in 2014, the IPCC provided a summary of our understanding of human-caused
climate change. Among other things, the IPCC summarized:1
•

Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic
emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes
have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.

•

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the
observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere
and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea
level has risen.

•

Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have increased since the pre-industrial
era, driven largely by economic and population growth, and are now higher than
ever. This has led to atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and
nitrous oxide that are unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. Their
effects, together with those of other anthropogenic drivers, have been detected

1

IPCC, “Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report, Summary for Policymakers,” available at
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full_wcover.pdf (last
accessed Aug. 23, 2016).
19

 Case 1:16-cv-01724 Document 1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 20 of 46

throughout the climate system and are extremely likely to have been the dominant
cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.

67.

•

In recent decades, changes in climate have caused impacts on natural and human
systems on all continents and across the oceans. Impacts are due to observed
climate change, irrespective of its cause, indicating the sensitivity of natural and
human systems to changing climate.

•

Continued emission of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and longlasting changes in all components of the climate system, increasing the likelihood
of severe, pervasive, and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems. Limiting
climate change would require substantial and sustained reductions in greenhouse
gas emissions which, together with adaptation, can limit climate change risks.

•

Surface temperature is projected to rise over the 21st century under all assessed
emission scenarios. It is very likely that heat waves will occur more often and last
longer, and that extreme precipitation events will become more intense and
frequent in many regions. The ocean will continue to warm and acidify, and
global mean sea level to rise. (emphasis in original)
Carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons,

and sulfur hexafluoride are recognized as the key greenhouse gases contributing to climate
change. In 2009, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) found that these “six
greenhouse gases taken in combination endanger both the public health and the public welfare of
current and future generations.” 74 Fed. Reg. 66,496 (Dec. 15, 2009).
68.

The western U.S. is particularly susceptible to the effects of climate change. The

West is experiencing increasing temperatures and prolonged droughts. The impacts of these
changes are widespread across our forests, wildlife, and human communities, threatening the
West’s resilience in the face of continued warming. These impacts also have significant
importance to local economies that are reliant on consistent precipitation and snowfall for
surface and groundwater recharge, agriculture, recreation, and other uses.
69.

At the time of filing, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (“NOAA”), monthly global temperature records have been broken for every one

20

 Case 1:16-cv-01724 Document 1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 21 of 46

of the last 14 months. The global climate crisis is happening and it may well be accelerating
quickly.
II.

Federal Climate Policy and Initiatives
70.

The Secretary of the Interior stated, in Secretarial Order 3226, Evaluating Climate

Change Impacts in Management Planning (January 19, 2001), that “[t]here is a consensus in the
international community that global climate change is occurring and that it should be addressed
in governmental decision making.” Order 3226 established the responsibility of agencies to
“consider and analyze potential climate change impacts when undertaking long-range planning
exercises, when setting priorities for scientific research and investigations, when developing
multi-year management plans, and/or when making major decisions regarding potential
utilization of resources under the Department’s purview.”
71.

The U.S. Governmental Accountability Office (“GAO”), in a 2007 report entitled

Climate Change: Agencies Should Develop Guidance for Addressing the Effects on Federal
Land and Water Resources, concluded that the Department of the Interior had not provided
specific guidance to implement Secretarial Order 3226, that officials were not even aware of
Secretarial Order 3226, and that Secretarial Order 3226 had effectively been ignored.
72.

Secretarial Order 3289, Addressing the Impacts of Climate Change on America’s

Water, Land, and Other Natural and Cultural Resources (September 14, 2009), reinstated the
provisions of Order 3226, and recognized that “the realities of climate change require us to
change how we manage the land, water, fish and wildlife, and cultural heritage and tribal lands
and resources we oversee,” and acknowledged that the Department of the Interior is “responsible
for helping protect the nation from the impacts of climate change.”

21

 Case 1:16-cv-01724 Document 1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 22 of 46

73.

In Executive Order No. 13514, Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy,

and Economic Performance (Oct. 5, 2009), President Obama called on all federal agencies to
“measure, report, and reduce their greenhouse gas emissions from direct and indirect activities.”
74 Fed. Reg. 52,117 (Oct. 8, 2009). This directive was followed up by Executive Order No.
13693, Planning for Federal Sustainability in the Next Decade (March 25, 2015), which
reaffirmed the federal government’s commitment to reducing GHG emissions. 80 Fed. Reg.
15,871 (March 25, 2015).
74.

Nevertheless, there remains a fundamental disconnect with regard to how our

public lands are managed for energy production and national policies to limit GHG emissions.
Federal Defendants fail to take informed action to address climate change, as required by Order
3226 and Order 3289, because they fail to take a hard look at the climate impacts of oil and gas
leasing and development on our public lands, including the impacts from leasing the specific
parcels in the leasing authorizations challenged herein. As stated in Order 3289, BLM must
“appl[y] scientific tools to increase understanding of climate change and to coordinate an
effective response to its impacts,” and “[m]anagement decisions made in response to climate
change impacts must be informed by [this] science.”
75.

In recognition of the consequences of human-caused climate change, federal

agencies have developed a protocol for assessing the social cost of carbon dioxide emissions.
The social cost of carbon is “an estimate of the monetized damages associated with an
incremental increase in carbon emissions in a given year.”2 Conversely, the social cost of carbon

2

EPA, “The Social Cost of Carbon” (last updated Aug. 9, 2016), available at
https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/EPAactivities/economics/scc.html (last accessed Aug. 23,
2016).
22

 Case 1:16-cv-01724 Document 1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 23 of 46

can represent “the value of damages avoided for a small emission reduction (i.e., the benefit of a
CO2 reductions).” The EPA has explained:
The [social cost of carbon protocol] is meant to be a comprehensive estimate of climate
change damages and includes changes in net agricultural productivity, human health,
property damages from increased flood risk, and changes in energy system costs, such as
reduced costs for heating and increased costs for air conditioning. However, given current
modeling and data limitations, it does not include all important damages.3
76.

A federal Interagency Working Group (“IWG”)—consisting of the EPA, Center

for Environmental Quality, Department of Energy, National Economic Council, Office of
Management and Budget, Department of Agriculture, Department of Commerce, Department of
Transportation, and other agencies—has prepared estimates of the cost that carbon pollution has
on society. The IWG prepared their first Social Cost of Carbon” estimates in 2010, which was
subsequently updated in 2013 and 2015.4
77.

IWG’s Social Cost of Carbon estimates vary according to assumed discount rates

and presumptions regarding the longevity and damages caused by carbon pollution in the
atmosphere, which for 2015 produced a range of between $11 and $105 per metric ton of carbon
dioxide. Accepted practice typically applies the median value ($42 per metric ton) to determine
the social costs of a given project, although the four values provided by the IWG lends itself to a
straightforward alternatives comparison.
78.

In 2009, the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) issued a finding that the

changes in our climate caused by elevated concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere
are reasonably anticipated to endanger the public health and welfare of current and future

3

Id.
Interagency Working Group, “Technical Support Document: Technical Update of the Social
Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866” at 3 (revised July
2015), available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/scc-tsd-final-july2015.pdf (last accessed Aug. 23, 2016).
4

23

 Case 1:16-cv-01724 Document 1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 24 of 46

generations. 74 Fed. Reg. 66496 (Dec. 15, 2009). In 2015, EPA acknowledged more recent
scientific assessments that “highlight the urgency of addressing the rising concentrations of CO2
in the atmosphere.” 80 Fed. Reg. 64661 (Oct. 23, 2015).
79.

The White House Council on Environmental Quality (“CEQ”), the federal agency

tasked with managing the federal government’s implementation of NEPA, recognized the unique
nature of climate change and the challenges it imposed on NEPA compliance. On August 1,
2016, CEQ released Final Guidance for Federal Department and Agencies on Consideration of
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Effects of Climate Change in National Environmental Policy
Act Reviews (hereafter, “Final Guidance”).5 The Final Guidance applies to all proposed federal
agency actions, “including land and resource management actions.” Notably, while CEQ’s final
guidance post-dates the challenged leases (draft guidance was published December 18, 2014), it
is intended to “facilitate compliance with existing NEPA requirements.” In other words, the
Final Guidance is meant to underscore BLM’s existing legal obligations to disclose and consider
the foreseeable effects that, for example, oil and gas leasing has on climate change.
80.

In its Final Guidance, the CEQ recognized that:

Climate change results from the incremental addition of GHG emissions from
millions of individual sources, which collectively have a large impact on a global
scale. CEQ recognizes that the totality of climate change impacts is not
attributable to any single action, but are exacerbated by a series of actions
including actions taken pursuant to decisions of the Federal Government.
Therefore, a statement that emissions from a proposed Federal action represent
only a small fraction of global emissions is essentially a statement about the
nature of the climate change challenge, and is not an appropriate basis for
deciding whether or to what extent to consider climate change impacts under
NEPA. Moreover, these comparisons are also not an appropriate method for
characterizing the potential impacts associated with a proposed action and its
alternatives and mitigations because this approach does not reveal anything
5

Available at
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse/gov/files/documents/nepa_final_ghg_guidance.pdf
(last accessed on Aug. 23, 2016).
24

 Case 1:16-cv-01724 Document 1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 25 of 46

beyond the nature of the climate change challenge itself: the fact that diverse
individual sources of emissions each make a relatively small addition to global
atmospheric GHG concentrations that collectively have a large impact.
81.

CEQ’s Final Guidance also explains the application of NEPA principals and

practices to the analysis of GHG emissions and climate change, including, among others: (1) that
agencies quantify a proposed action’s projected direct and indirect GHG emissions, taking into
account available data and GHG quantification tools; (2) that agencies use projected GHG
emissions as a proxy for assessing potential climate change effects when preparing a NEPA
analysis; (3) where GHG emission tools, methodologies, or data inputs are not reasonably
available, agencies include a qualitative analysis in the NEPA document and explain the basis for
determining that quantification is not reasonably available; (4) analyze foreseeable direct,
indirect, and cumulative GHG emissions and climate effects; (5) consider reasonable alternatives
and the short- and long-term effect and benefits in the alternatives and mitigation analysis; (6)
consider alternatives that would make the actions and affected communities more resilient to the
effects of a changing climate; and (7) assess the broad-scale effects of GHG emissions and
climate change, either to inform programmatic decisions, or at both the programmatic and
project-level.
82.

CEQ’s Final Guidance also states that “[i]n the context of long-range energy,

transportation, and resource management strategies…it would be useful and efficient to provide
an aggregate analysis of GHG emissions or climate change effects in a programmatic analysis
and then incorporate by reference that analysis into future NEPA reviews.” In particular, CEQ
identifies “issuing leases for oil and gas drilling” as a “site-specific action[] that may benefit
from being able to tier to a programmatic NEPA review.”

25

 Case 1:16-cv-01724 Document 1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 26 of 46

III.

Greenhouse Gas Pollution from BLM’s Oil and Gas Management Program
83.

NEPA’s implementing regulations define a “program” as “a group of concerted

actions to implement a specific policy or plan; systematic and connected agency decisions
allocating agency resources to implement a specific statutory program or executive directive.” 40
C.F.R. § 1508.18(b)(3). BLM’s oil and gas leasing activities fall within this definition of a
program because they are “connected agency decisions allocating agency resources to
implement” the MLA for the purpose of exploration or development of oil and natural gas
resources. Id.
84.

All of the leasing authorizations challenged herein are part of BLM’s

comprehensive Oil and Gas Leasing Program to implement the Mineral Leasing Act. BLM
expressly refers to its oil and gas leasing activities as a program. For example, BLM claims that
its “Oil and Gas Management program is one of the most important mineral leasing programs in
the Federal government.” BLM notes that “[d]omestic production from over 96,000 Federal
onshore oil and gas wells accounts for 11 percent of the Nation’s natural gas supply and five
percent of its oil.”6 BLM also states that “[t]he Oil and Gas program also processes applications
for the permits required to develop leased resources. The most common of these is the [APD].”
85.

BLM is responsible for the management of nearly 700 million acres of federal

onshore subsurface minerals. The ultimate downstream GHG emissions from fossil fuel
extraction from federal lands and waters by private leaseholders accounts for approximately 21%

6

BLM, “Oil and Gas” (last updated July 27, 2016), available at
http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/oil_and_gas.html%29 (last accessed Aug. 23, 2016)
26

 Case 1:16-cv-01724 Document 1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 27 of 46

of total U.S. GHG emissions and 24% of all energy-related GHG emissions, based on 2012
figures.7
86.

As of 2015, BLM managed lands contained 44,213 individual oil and gas lease

parcels, covering over 32 million acres of public lands, on which 94,484 active producible wells
are drilled. This is an area larger than the combined acreage of Connecticut, Delaware,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont, and the District of
Columbia, combined.
87.

BLM’s Oil and Gas Leasing Program already contributes vast amounts of GHGs

into the atmosphere, posing a threat to climate, the natural environment, and public health. In a
single year (using 2012 figures), GHG emissions from oil extracted from federal lands resulted
in the release of an estimated 2,999 metric tons of methane (“MTCH4”), 56,346,510 metric tons
of carbon dioxide (“MTCO2”), and 2,985 metric tons of nitrous oxide (“MTN2O”), for a total
release of 57,311,142 MTCO2e.8 That same year, GHG emissions from natural gas extracted
from federal lands resulted in the release of and estimated 12,358 MTCH4, 144,135,798 MTCO2,
and 480 MTN2O, for a total release of 144,587,927 MTCO2e. Accordingly, in a single year
BLM’s Oil and Gas Leasing Program resulted in the release of an estimated 201,899,069
MTCO2e. This is the equivalent of annual greenhouse gas emissions from over 58 coal-fired
power plants.

7

Stratus Consulting, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Fossil Fuel Energy Extracted from
Federal Lands and Waters: An Update” at 10. (2014). Available at:
http://wilderness.org/sites/default/files/Stratus-Report.pdf (last accessed Aug. 23, 2016).
8
Id. at 11.
27

 Case 1:16-cv-01724 Document 1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 28 of 46

IV.

BLM’s Oil and Gas Leasing Program and Individual Leasing Decisions Fail to
Consider Climate Change
88.

BLM made the leasing decisions challenged herein for three western states—

Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming—and included separate administrative processes for each lease
sale. The NEPA process for each sale followed the framework of BLM’s Leasing Reforms, and
included: a scoping period, a comment period on the draft environmental assessment (“EA”), and
a protest period before the sale was held. Plaintiff WildEarth Guardians participated in the
comment and protest periods of the administrative process for each of the decisions challenged
herein.
89.

A list of the challenged site-specific leasing decisions is included in Table A at

the end of this Complaint. Deficiencies in BLM’s NEPA analysis concerning the direct, indirect,
and cumulative GHG emissions resulting from each sale, and the impacts of these emissions on
climate change, are common amongst each of the challenged decisions.
90.

BLM has never analyzed the vast contribution of GHG emissions or climate

impacts of its Oil and Gas Leasing Program at the programmatic level. Likewise, BLM has not
done so in the Resource Management Plans to which the challenged lease authorizations
respectively tier. This failure is carried forward to the agency’s site-specific leasing decisions,
including the decisions challenged herein, which fail to sufficiently quantify or analyze the
direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts of foreseeable GHG emissions that will result from
BLM’s leasing authorizations and the impact of these emissions on the environment, human
health, and our climate. Finally, the NEPA analyses performed on subsequent applications for
permit to drill under the challenged leases similarly fail to quantify or analyze direct, indirect, or
cumulative GHG emissions or climate impacts.

28

 Case 1:16-cv-01724 Document 1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 29 of 46

A.

Direct Impacts of Oil and Gas Leasing.

91.

Although some variation exists among challenged individual leasing EAs, each

challenged EA includes the same two fundamental deficiencies regarding BLM’s treatment of
direct impacts of GHG emissions and resulting oil and gas development: (1) BLM failed to
quantify reasonably foreseeable GHG emissions from the lease sale by failing to estimate the
total number of projected wells and then applying available per-well GHG emissions estimates to
determine the direct, production-level GHG emissions levels that were reasonably foreseeable
from each lease sale; and (2) BLM failed to consider the reasonably foreseeable effects of those
GHG emissions on resource values in the relevant planning area.
92.

In the challenged leasing EAs, BLM limits its discussion of direct GHG emissions

to disclosing the CO2 and methane emissions from a single well, even though each sale includes
multiple individual lease parcels upon which multiple individual wells could be drilled.
93.

In its leasing EAs, BLM asserts that it is not possible to estimate production-level

GHG emissions at the leasing stage or analyze the effects of these emissions until lessees submit
parcel-specific development plans at the subsequent permitting stage. This is incorrect. Each
BLM field office has available a reasonably foreseeable development scenario, which is applied
at the resource management planning stage, that projects reasonably foreseeable oil and gas well
development across the planning area. In other words, the relevant data is available to project
reasonably foreseeable well development from each lease sale. BLM has simply refused to apply
that information and disclose the resulting effects to the public.
94.

In many of its leasing EAs, BLM admits: “future development of these leases will

result in emissions of . . . GHG pollutants.” BLM also recognizes that “leasing is considered to
be an irretrievable commitment of resources.” After foregoing climate analysis at the

29

 Case 1:16-cv-01724 Document 1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 30 of 46

programmatic level and deferring site-specific climate analysis at the RMP stage, BLM again
postpones estimating and analyzing the scale of these GHG emissions until the permitting stage
when it receives an application to drill. Critically, at this final stage, BLM’s authority is limited
to imposing mitigation measures consistent with the terms of the lease, and BLM can no longer
prevent development altogether. Thus, BLM’s shell-game approach condemns the public to
certain GHG emissions and resulting effects without ever analyzing, or considering alternatives
to, this development of public lands across the Interior West, as required by NEPA.
B.

Indirect Impacts of Oil and Gas Leasing.

95.

None of the EAs for the challenged decisions analyzes the reasonably foreseeable

downstream GHG emissions and climate impacts resulting from oil and gas leasing and
subsequent development. In one or more of the EAs, BLM admits that its EA “does not account
for the ultimate use or consumption of any produced minerals.”
96.

In all of the leasing EAs, BLM dismisses estimating and analyzing GHG

emissions from use and consumption of leased oil and gas by claiming such an analysis would be
“highly speculative.” This approach ignores reasonably foreseeable development and effectively
assumes zero downstream GHG emissions resulting from the challenged decisions. This
assumption is not supported by the reality of oil and gas development. Transmission, processing,
and combustion of oil and gas produced from the 397 leases challenged herein inevitably result
in GHG emissions. As recognized by CEQ’s Final Guidance, “the end-use of the fossil fuel
being extracted would be the reasonably foreseeable combustion of that [resource].”
97.

Because downstream impacts caused by the oil and gas extracted from the leases

are reasonably foreseeable, NEPA requires BLM to analyze the impacts of downstream GHG
emissions resulting from its leasing decisions. BLM’s failure to do so here violates NEPA.

30

 Case 1:16-cv-01724 Document 1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 31 of 46

C.

Cumulative Impacts of Oil and Gas Leasing.

98.

The issuance of 397 leases resulting from the ten lease authorizations challenged

herein will result in new oil and gas development on 379,950 acres of public lands across three
states in the Interior West. BLM must consider the cumulative impacts of these new leases in the
context of ongoing oil and gas production across our public lands, as necessary to understand
both the contribution the GHG emissions from these leasing decisions, as well as the
contribution of BLM’s Oil and Gas Leasing Program to state, national, and global GHG
emissions and their associated effects.
99.

BLM data for fiscal year 2015 shows almost 14 million acres (of the 32.1 million

total acres) of public lands already leased for oil and gas development are in Colorado, Utah, and
Wyoming. More than 6.6 million of these leased acres on public lands in Colorado, Utah, and
Wyoming were actively producing oil and gas in fiscal year 2015.
100.

Although BLM provides a generalized discussion of anticipated climate impacts

within the region encompassing a given lease sale, none of the leasing EAs estimated the
contribution of GHG emissions from lease authorizations to cumulative GHG emissions from
past, present, and reasonably foreseeable GHG-emitting oil and gas activities on public lands.
Nor did BLM analyze the climate impacts of cumulative GHG emissions from these activities.
Instead, in all of the leasing EAs, BLM declined to analyze cumulative impacts of GHG
emissions at the leasing stage on the basis that “it is not currently possible to associate any of
these particular actions [referring to GHG-emitting activities] with the creation of any specific
climate-related environmental effects.”
101.

In its leasing EAs, BLM consistently cites state, national, and global emission

levels to conclude emissions from a particular lease sale represent only a small fraction of these

31

 Case 1:16-cv-01724 Document 1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 32 of 46

emissions, and are therefore insignificant. Notably, BLM makes this assertion without actually
estimating resulting emissions. In so doing, however, BLM is defining the cumulative impacts
area with respect to GHG emissions at a state, national, and global scale. Using this baseline,
then the appropriate scope of the agency’s cumulative analysis must similarly be at this scale,
which would include disclosing and considering the cumulative emissions from BLM’s Oil and
Gas Leasing Program—including emissions from all active producible wells managed by
BLM—and the incremental contribution to these emissions from a challenged lease sale. BLM
must not only disclose and quantify these emissions, but also consider the effect that these
emissions will have to resource values and communities across the planning areas, and to our
nation as a whole.
102.

BLM’s estimates in its leasing EAs of direct GHG emissions from a single well

do not provide the decisionmaker or the public with a context for understanding the effects to
climate from BLM’s leasing authorizations either individually or in the aggregate. Climate data
and GHG quantification tools and methodologies, such as the Social Cost of Carbon, are readily
available to BLM, easy to apply, and are already in widespread use throughout the Federal and
private sectors, state and local governments, and globally. The Social Cost of Carbon estimates
the cost to society of each additional ton of GHG pollution emitted into the atmosphere, thereby
providing a fairly comprehensive estimate of climate change damage resulting from a project’s
GHG emissions.
103.

None of the lease authorizations challenged herein employ a Social Cost of

Carbon protocol, or any other economic or scientific tools, for assessing the potential impacts of
leasing decisions on climate. Yet, in several EAs, BLM provides extensive descriptions of
project benefits of its leasing decisions, stating: “the social and economic environment of [the

32

 Case 1:16-cv-01724 Document 1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 33 of 46

local county] would be positively affected by the proposed project.” BLM’s focus on the
economic benefits of leasing coupled with the agency’s failure to address the climate costs of
leasing and subsequent development undermines NEPA’s purpose of informed decisionmaking
“based on [an] understanding of environmental consequences.” 40 C.F.R. § 1500.1(c).
V.

Background on Specific Leasing Decisions
A.

Colorado Lease Sales.

104.

In February, May, and November 2015, and May 2016 BLM held oil and gas

lease sales in Colorado. Pursuant to these sales, BLM sold and issued 24 parcels in the February
12, 2015 sale; 45 parcels in the May 14, 2015 sale; 77 parcels in the November 12, 2015 sale;
and six parcels in the May 2016 sale—for a combined total of 152 oil and gas leases
encompassing 110,841.71 acres of federal minerals across six counties in Colorado.
105.

Plaintiff WildEarth Guardians commented on each consecutive Leasing EA on the

following dates: September 5, 2014; December 15, 2014; June 8, 2015; December 18, 2015.
Guardians commented on the Forest Service EIS on October 14, 2014, and filed an Objection to
the Draft Record of Decision and Final EIS on January 20, 2015.
106.

On December 15, 2014, Plaintiff WildEarth Guardians filed a timely protest of

BLM’s February 12, 2015, oil and gas lease sale. On February 11, 2015, BLM denied Guardians’
protest of the February lease sale. BLM held the lease sale the day after it denied Guardians’
protest, and issued sold leases to Lessees on March 5, 2015.
107.

On March 16, 2015, Plaintiff WildEarth Guardians filed a timely protest of

BLM’s May 14, 2015, oil and gas lease sale. On May 13, 2015, BLM denied Guardians’ protest
of the May lease sale. BLM held the lease sale the same day it issued its denial of Guardians’
protest, and issued sold leases to Lessees on July 1, 2015.

33

 Case 1:16-cv-01724 Document 1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 34 of 46

108.

On September 11, 2015, Plaintiff WildEarth Guardians filed a timely protest of

BLM’s November 12, 2015, oil and gas lease sale. On November 12, 2015, BLM denied
Guardians’ protest of the November lease sale. BLM held the lease sale the same day it issued its
denial of Guardians’ protest, and issued sold leases to Lessees on December 15, 2015.
109.

On March 14, 2016, Plaintiff WildEarth Guardians filed a timely protest of

BLM’s May 12, 2016, oil and gas lease sale. On May 11, 2016, BLM denied Guardians’ protest
of the May lease sale. BLM held the lease sale the day after it issued its denial of Guardians’
protest, and issued sold leases to Lessees on June 1, 2016.
B.

Utah Lease Sales.

110.

On May 19, 2015, and February 16, 2016, BLM held oil and gas lease sales for

federal minerals in Utah. Pursuant to these sales, BLM sold and issued 11 leases in the Richfield
Field Office; three leases in the Cedar City Field Office; three leases in the Vernal Field Office;
seven leases in the Fillmore Field Office; five leases in the Moab Field Office; and eight leases
in the Price Field Office—for a combined total of 37 oil and gas leases encompassing 45,933.5
acres of federal minerals across Utah.
111.

Guardians commented on the various Leasing EAs on the following dates:

January 23, 2015; April 27, 2015; July 9, 2015; and October 19, 2015.
112.

On March 16, 2015, Guardians filed a timely protest of BLM’s May 19, 2015, oil

and gas lease sale. On July 30, 2015, BLM issued two decisions denying Guardians’ protest of
the May lease sale. BLM issued the sold leases on August 3, 2015—four days after it denied
Guardians’ Protest.
113.

On January 11, 2016, Guardians filed a timely protest of BLM’s February 16,

2016, oil and gas lease sale. On February 12, 2016, BLM denied Guardians’ protest of the

34

 Case 1:16-cv-01724 Document 1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 35 of 46

February lease sale. BLM sold the leases on February 16, 2016—four days after it denied
Guardians’ Protest. BLM issued the sold leases to lessees between April 15-19, 2016.
C.

Wyoming Lease Sales.

114.

BLM held four oil and gas lease sales in Wyoming between May 2015 and May

2016. Pursuant to these sales, BLM sold and issued 30 parcels in the May 5, 2015 sale; 60
parcels in the August 4, 2015 sale; 38 parcels in the November 3, 2015 sale; and 74 parcels in the
May 3, 2016 sale—for a combined total of 202 oil and gas leases encompassing 219,223.6 acres
of federal minerals across eight counties in Wyoming.
115.

Guardians commented on the various Leasing EAs on the following dates:

November 19, 2014; February 23, 2015; May 22, 2015; August 19, 2015; and December 2, 2015.
116.

On March 4, 2015, Guardians filed a timely protest of BLM’s May 5, 2015, oil

and gas lease sale. On May 4, 2015, BLM denied Guardians’ protest of the May lease sale. BLM
held the lease sale the day after it denied Guardians’ protest, and issued the sold leases to Lessees
on June 24, 2015.
117.

On June 5, 2015, Guardians filed a timely protest of BLM’s August 4, 2015, oil

and gas lease sale. On July 29, 2015, BLM denied Guardians’ protest of the August lease sale.
BLM held the lease sale on August 4, 2015, and issued the sold leases to Lessees on September
16, 2015.
118.

On September 4, 2015, Guardians filed a timely protest of BLM’s November 3,

2015, oil and gas lease sale. On November 2, 2015, BLM denied Guardians’ protest of the
November lease sale. BLM held the lease sale on the same day that it denied Guardians Protest,
and issued the sold leases to Lessees on December 15, 2015.

35

 Case 1:16-cv-01724 Document 1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 36 of 46

119.

On March 4, 2016, Citizen Groups filed a timely protest of BLM’s May 3, 2016,

oil and gas lease sale. On May 2, 2016, BLM denied Citizen Groups’ protest of the May lease
sale. BLM held the lease sale the day after it dismissed Citizen Groups’ Protest and issued the
sold leases to Lessees on June 24, 2016.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Failure to Take a Hard Look at the Severity of Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative
Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Pollution
(Violation of NEPA)
120.

Citizen Groups incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs and Table A

121.

Pursuant to NEPA and NEPA’s implementing regulations, Federal Defendants

below.

must take a hard look at the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental consequences of their
proposed actions. 42 U.S.C. §§ 4332(2)(C)(i)-(v); 40 C.F.R. §§ 1502.14(a), 1502.16, 1508.7,
1508.8, and 1508.14.
122.

For all of the leasing authorizations identified in Table A, BLM failed to take the

required hard look at the direct, indirect, and cumulative GHG emissions and the impacts of
those emissions on climate change. BLM failed to sufficiently quantify and account for direct
GHG emissions, and failed to analyze the effect of those emissions on other resource values.
BLM failed to address the foreseeable indirect impacts from downstream combustion of oil and
gas resources leased and developed from the challenged lease authorizations. BLM also failed to
discuss the cumulative effects of these emissions across federal public lands managed through
BLM’s Oil and Gas Leasing Program.
123.

For all of the leasing authorizations identified in Table A, BLM also failed to

analyze the similar environmental effects of the leasing authorizations challenged herein, even

36

 Case 1:16-cv-01724 Document 1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 37 of 46

though the lease authorizations are similar in terms of their climate impacts, timing, and
geography. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.25(a)(3).
124.

To comply with NEPA, BLM was required to take a hard look at the direct,

indirect, and cumulative GHG emissions and the severity of the impacts of those emissions on
climate change for the leasing authorizations identified in Table A. BLM has never taken a
comprehensive hard look at the climate impacts of its Oil and Gas Leasing Program at the
programmatic level, therefore BLM’s leasing EAs cannot tier to a broader programmatic analysis
in lieu of doing a comprehensive analysis of climate impacts at the leasing stage. BLM is
required to provide a hard look analysis of these impacts before there are “any irreversible and
irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposed action should it
be implemented.” 42 U.S.C. § 4332(C)(v); see also 40 C.F.R. §§ 1501.2, 1502.5(a).
125.

Combined, it is reasonably foreseeable that the lease sales could result in

thousands of new wells across public lands in the Interior West, adding significant levels of
GHG emissions to the atmosphere and further endangering the Earth’s climate.
126.

Where information relevant to foreseeable adverse impacts is unavailable,

agencies must nonetheless evaluate “such impacts based upon theoretical approaches or research
methods generally accepted in the scientific community.” 40 C.F.R. § 1502.22(b)(4).
127.

One generally accepted approach to evaluating the impact of GHG emissions is to

estimate the costs of those emissions to society. The federal Interagency Working Group on the
Social Cost of Carbon has developed estimates of the present value of the future costs of carbon
dioxide emissions as a proxy for the magnitude and severity of those impacts.
128.

BLM failed to take a hard look at the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to

the climate from GHG emissions, and failed to discuss the severity of these impacts, when

37

 Case 1:16-cv-01724 Document 1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 38 of 46

authorizing hundreds of new oil and gas leases through the challenged leasing decisions. More
broadly, BLM has demonstrated a systemic failure to account for these impacts in the agency’s
Oil and Gas Leasing Program affecting federal lands across the Interior West. Federal
Defendants’ systemic and site-specific failures are “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion,
or otherwise not in accordance with law,” in violation of NEPA, 42 U.S.C.§ 4332(C)(ii), its
implementing regulations at 40 C.F.R. §§ 1508.7, 1508.8, 1508.25, 1508.27, and the APA at 5
U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Failure to Prepare an EIS (Violation of NEPA)
129.

Citizen Groups incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs.

130.

Federal Defendants’ authorizations and issuance of the leases sold through the

leasing authorizations challenged herein constitute major federal actions under NEPA.
131.

Federal Defendants do not have to prepare an EIS where they have demonstrated

that the proposed action “will not have a significant effect on the human environment.” 40
C.F.R. § 1508.13. To assess whether or not an impact is significant, Federal Defendants must
consider the “context and intensity” of the impact. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27.
132.

Federal Defendants failed to evaluate the context and intensity of the

environmental impacts resulting from its leasing authorizations challenged herein, and in
particular effects to climate change, as required by NEPA. Federal Defendants also failed to
provide convincing statements of reasons justifying their decisions to forgo an EIS analyzing the
impacts of the leasing authorizations challenged herein, as required by NEPA.
133.

Federal Defendants’ leasing authorizations will result in high levels of GHG

emissions that could significantly impact climate. NEPA requires Federal Defendants to identify

38

 Case 1:16-cv-01724 Document 1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 39 of 46

such impacts and assess their context and intensity, and to support their decisions to forego an
EIS, which BLM failed to do.
134.

Federal Defendants’ assertion, in all of the leasing EAs, that they will estimate

GHG emissions and analyze the significance of those emissions at the subsequent drilling stage
does not forego the obligation to consider the significance of those emissions at the leasing stage,
the point at which Federal Defendants make an irretrievable commitment of federal resources.
135.

Federal Defendants violated NEPA by failing to prepare an EIS before approving

the leasing authorizations challenged herein. Federal Defendants’ failure was arbitrary,
capricious, an abuse of discretion, in excess of statutory authority and limitations, short of
statutory right, and not in accordance with the law and procedures required by law. 5 U.S.C. §§
706(2)(A), (C), (D).
RELIEF REQUESTED
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Citizen Groups respectfully request that this Court:
A.

Declare that Federal Defendants’ leasing authorizations challenged herein violate

NEPA and its implementing regulations;
B.

Vacate Federal Defendants’ leasing authorizations and void the issued leases

challenged herein;
C.

Enjoin Federal Defendants from approving or otherwise taking action on any

applications for permits to drill on the leases included in the lease sales challenged herein until
Federal Defendants have fully complied with NEPA and its implementing regulations, and
prepared an EIS analyzing the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the leasing
authorizations challenged herein and of the agency’s Oil and Gas Leasing Program;

39

 Case 1:16-cv-01724 Document 1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 40 of 46

D.

Retain continuing jurisdiction of this matter until Federal Defendants fully

remedy the violations of law complained of herein, in particular to ensure Federal Defendants
take a meaningful hard look at the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of climate change
relative to BLM’s Oil and Gas Leasing Program;
E.

Award the Citizen Groups their fees, costs, and other expenses as provided by

applicable law;
F.

Issue such relief as Citizen Groups subsequently request or that this Court may

deem just, proper, and equitable.

Respectfully submitted on the 25th day of August 2016,
/s/ Samantha Ruscavage-Barz
Bar No. CO0053
WildEarth Guardians
516 Alto Street
Santa Fe, NM 87501
(505) 401-4180
sruscavagebarz@wildearthguardians.org

/s/ Kyle Tisdel
CO Bar No. 42098
Western Environmental Law Center
208 Paseo del Pueblo Sur, Ste. 602
Taos, NM 87571
(575) 613-8050
tisdel@westernlaw.org
(Pro Hac Vice application pending)

Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Table A of challenged agency actions on next page.

40

 Case 1:16-cv-01724 Document 1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 41 of 46

Table A. List of Agency Actions Challenged Herein.
Colorado Leases
Lease Parcel
COC 076792
COC 076795
COC 076796
COC 076797
COC 076798
COC 076799
COC 076801
COC 076802
COC 076803
COC 076804
COC 076805
COC 076806
COC 076807
COC 076809
COC 076810
COC 076811
COC 076812
COC 076814
COC 076815
COC 076816
COC 076817
COC 076818
COC 076819
COC 076821
COC 076920
COC 076921
COC 076923
COC 076924
COC 076935
COC 076936
COC 076937
COC 076939
COC 076940
COC 076944
COC 076955
COC 076956
COC 076957
COC 076958
COC 076959
COC 076961
COC 076962

EA No.
CO-N010-2014-0031-EA
CO-N010-2014-0031-EA
CO-N010-2014-0031-EA
CO-N010-2014-0031-EA
CO-N010-2014-0031-EA
CO-N010-2014-0031-EA
CO-N010-2014-0031-EA
CO-N010-2014-0031-EA
CO-N010-2014-0031-EA
CO-N010-2014-0031-EA
CO-N010-2014-0031-EA
CO-N010-2014-0031-EA
CO-N010-2014-0031-EA
CO-N010-2014-0031-EA
CO-N010-2014-0031-EA
CO-N010-2014-0031-EA
CO-N010-2014-0031-EA
CO-N010-2014-0031-EA
CO-N010-2014-0031-EA
CO-N010-2014-0031-EA
CO-N010-2014-0031-EA
CO-N010-2014-0031-EA
CO-N010-2014-0031-EA
CO-N010-2014-0031-EA
CO-F020-2014-049-EA
CO-F020-2014-049-EA
CO-F020-2014-049-EA
CO-F020-2014-049-EA
CO-F020-2014-049-EA
CO-F020-2014-049-EA
CO-F020-2014-049-EA
CO-F020-2014-049-EA
CO-F020-2014-049-EA
CO-F020-2014-049-EA
CO-F020-2014-049-EA
CO-F020-2014-049-EA
CO-F020-2014-049-EA
CO-F020-2014-049-EA
CO-F020-2014-049-EA
CO-F020-2014-049-EA
CO-F020-2014-049-EA

Lease Parcel
COC
COC
COC
COC
COC
COC
COC
COC
COC
COC
COC
COC
COC
COC
COC
COC
COC
COC
COC
COC
COC
COC
COC
COC
COC
COC
COC
COC
COC
COC
COC
COC
COC
COC
COC
COC
COC
COC
COC
COC
COC
41

076971
076973
076974
076975
076976
076978
076979
076982
076983
076984
076985
076986
076987
076988
076989
076990
076991
076992
076993
076994
076995
076996
076997
077027
077250
077251
077252
077253
077255
077256
077257
077258
077260
077261
077262
077264
077265
077266
077267
077268
077270

EA No.
CO-F020-2014-049-EA
CO-F020-2014-049-EA
CO-F020-2014-049-EA
CO-F020-2014-049-EA
CO-F020-2014-049-EA
CO-F020-2014-049-EA
CO-F020-2014-049-EA
CO-F020-2014-049-EA
CO-F020-2014-049-EA
CO-F020-2014-049-EA
CO-F020-2014-049-EA
CO-F020-2014-049-EA
CO-F020-2014-049-EA
CO-F020-2014-049-EA
CO-F020-2014-049-EA
CO-F020-2014-049-EA
CO-F020-2014-049-EA
CO-F020-2014-049-EA
CO-F020-2014-049-EA
CO-F020-2014-049-EA
CO-F020-2014-049-EA
CO-F020-2014-049-EA
CO-F020-2014-049-EA
CO-F020-2014-049-EA
CO-F020-2015-0021-EA
CO-F020-2015-0021-EA
CO-F020-2015-0021-EA
CO-F020-2015-0021-EA
CO-F020-2015-0021-EA
CO-F020-2015-0021-EA
CO-F020-2015-0021-EA
CO-F020-2015-0021-EA
CO-F020-2015-0021-EA
CO-F020-2015-0021-EA
CO-F020-2015-0021-EA
CO-F020-2015-0021-EA
CO-F020-2015-0021-EA
CO-F020-2015-0021-EA
CO-F020-2015-0021-EA
CO-F020-2015-0021-EA
CO-F020-2015-0021-EA

 Case 1:16-cv-01724 Document 1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 42 of 46

COC 076963
COC 076966
COC 076967
COC 076968
COC 077276
COC 077281
COC 077282
COC 077283
COC 077284
COC 077285
COC 077287
COC 077288
COC 077294
COC 077297
COC 077298
COC 077299
COC 077303
COC 077304
COC 077305
COC 077306
COC 077307
COC 077308
COC 077309
COC 077310
COC 077311
COC 077312
COC 077315
COC 077320
COC 077321
COC 077322
COC 077324
COC 077325
COC 077326
COC 077327
COC 077328
COC 077329
COC 077330
COC 077333
COC 077334
COC 077335
COC 077336
COC 077338
COC 077339
COC 077340
COC 077341

Colorado Leases (cont.)
CO-F020-2014-049-EA
COC 077271
CO-F020-2014-049-EA
COC 077273
CO-F020-2014-049-EA
COC 077274
CO-F020-2014-049-EA
COC 077275
CO-F020-2015-0021-EA
COC 077350
CO-F020-2015-0021-EA
COC 077354
CO-F020-2015-0021-EA
COC 077361
CO-F020-2015-0021-EA
COC 077362
CO-F020-2015-0021-EA
COC 077363
CO-F020-2015-0021-EA
COC 077676
CO-F020-2015-0021-EA
COC 077677
CO-F020-2015-0021-EA
COC 077678
CO-F020-2015-0021-EA
COC 077679
CO-F020-2015-0021-EA
COC 077680
CO-F020-2015-0021-EA
COC 077681
CO-F020-2015-0021-EA
COC 077247
CO-F020-2015-0021-EA
COC 077249
CO-F020-2015-0021-EA
COC 077263
CO-F020-2015-0021-EA
COC 077352
CO-F020-2015-0021-EA
COC 077359
CO-F020-2015-0021-EA
COC 077344
CO-F020-2015-0021-EA
COC 077345
CO-F020-2015-0021-EA
COC 077346
CO-F020-2015-0021-EA
COC 077342
CO-F020-2015-0021-EA
COC 077343
CO-F020-2015-0021-EA
CO-F020-2015-0021-EA
CO-F020-2015-0021-EA
CO-F020-2015-0021-EA
CO-F020-2015-0021-EA
CO-F020-2015-0021-EA
CO-F020-2015-0021-EA
CO-F020-2015-0021-EA
CO-F020-2015-0021-EA
CO-F020-2015-0021-EA
CO-F020-2015-0021-EA
CO-F020-2015-0021-EA
CO-F020-2015-0021-EA
CO-F020-2015-0021-EA
CO-F020-2015-0021-EA
CO-F020-2015-0021-EA
CO-F020-2015-0021-EA
CO-F020-2015-0021-EA
CO-F020-2015-0021-EA
CO-F020-2015-0021-EA

42

CO-F020-2015-0021-EA
CO-F020-2015-0021-EA
CO-F020-2015-0021-EA
CO-F020-2015-0021-EA
CO-F020-2015-0021-EA
CO-F020-2015-0021-EA
CO-F020-2015-0021-EA
CO-F020-2015-0021-EA
CO-F020-2015-0021-EA
CO-N050-2015-0092-EA
CO-N050-2015-0092-EA
CO-S010-2016-0012-DNA
CO-S010-2016-0012-DNA
CO-S010-2016-0012-DNA
CO-S010-2016-0012-DNA
CO-F020-2015-0061DN
CO-F020-2015-0061DN
CO-F020-2015-0061DN
CO-F020-2015-0061DN
CO-F020-2015-0021-EA
CO-F020-2015-0021-EA
CO-F020-2015-0021-EA
CO-F020-2015-0021-EA
CO-F020-2015-0021-EA
CO-F020-2015-0021-EA

 Case 1:16-cv-01724 Document 1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 43 of 46

Utah Leases
Lease Parcel
UTU 091055
UTU 091056
UTU 091057
UTU 091058
UTU 091059
UTU 091060
UTU 091064
UTU 091065
UTU 091066
UTU 091067
UTU 091068
UTU 091197
UTU 091199
UTU 091267
UTU 091268
UTU 091269
UTU 091270
UTU 091271
UTU 091272
UTU 091273
UTU 091310
UTU 091311
UTU 091479
UTU 091302
UTU 091303
UTU 091304
UTU 091305
UTU 091306
UTU 091308
UTU 091334
UTU 091340
UTU

091344

UTU
UTU
UTU
UTU
UTU
UTU
UTU

091346
091342
091343
091540
091541
091593
091594

EA No.
UT-C020-2014-036-EA
UT-C020-2014-036-EA
UT-C020-2014-036-EA
UT-C020-2014-036-EA
UT-C020-2014-036-EA
UT-C020-2014-036-EA
UT-C020-2015-0009-EA
UT-C020-2014-036-EA
UT-C020-2014-036-EA
UT-C020-2014-036-EA
UT-G010-2014-093-EA
UT-C020-2015-0009-EA
UT-C020-2015-0009-EA
UT-W020-2015-0004-EA
UT-W020-2015-0004-EA
UT-W020-2015-0004-EA
UT-W020-2015-0004-EA
UT-W020-2015-0004-EA
UT-W020-2015-0004-EA
UT-W020-2015-0004-EA
UT-G010-2015-089-EA
UT-G010-2015-089-EA
UT-G010-2015-089-EA
UT-G021-2015-0031-EA
UT-G021-2015-0031-EA
UT-G021-2015-0031-EA
UT-G021-2015-0031-EA
UT-G021-2015-0031-EA
UT-G021-2015-0031-EA
UT-G021-2015-0031-EA
UT-G021-2015-0031-EA
BLM Adopted Fishlake
National Forest EIS in
ROD
BLM Adopted Fishlake
National Forest EIS in
ROD
UT-G010-2015-089-EA
UT-G010-2015-089-EA
UT-C020-2016-0002-EA
UT-C020-2016-0002-EA
UT-G010-2015-089-EA
UT-G010-2015-089-EA

43

 Case 1:16-cv-01724 Document 1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 44 of 46

Lease Parcel
WYW 184215
WYW 184216
WYW 184217
WYW 184218
WYW 184219
WYW 184220
WYW 184221
WYW 184222
WYW 184223
WYW 184224
WYW 184225
WYW 184226
WYW 184227
WYW 184228
WYW 184229
WYW 184230
WYW 184231
WYW 184232
WYW 184233
WYW 184234
WYW 184235
WYW 184236
WYW 184237
WYW 184238
WYW 184239
WYW 184240
WYW 184241
WYW 184242
WYW 184243
WYW 184244
WYW 184245
WYW 184246
WYW 184345
WYW 184346
WYW 184347
WYW 184348
WYW 184349
WYW 184350
WYW 184351
WYW 184352
WYW 184353
WYW 184354
WYW 184355
WYW 184356

Wyoming Leases
EA No.
Lease Parcel
WY-040-EA14-141
WYW 184358
WY-040-EA14-141
WYW 184359
WY-040-EA14-141
WYW 184360
WY-040-EA14-141
WYW 184361
WY-040-EA14-141
WYW 184362
WY-040-EA14-141
WYW 184363
WY-040-EA14-141
WYW 184364
WY-040-EA14-141
WYW 184365
WY-040-EA14-141
WYW 184366
WY-040-EA14-141
WYW 184367
WY-040-EA14-141
WYW 184368
WY-040-EA14-141
WYW 184369
WY-040-EA14-141
WYW 184370
WY-040-EA14-141
WYW 184371
WY-040-EA14-141
WYW 184372
WY-040-EA14-141
WYW 184373
WY-040-EA14-141
WYW 184374
WY-040-EA14-141
WYW 184375
WY-040-EA14-141
WYW 184376
WY-040-EA14-141
WYW 184377
WY-040-EA14-141
WYW 184378
WY-040-EA14-141
WYW 184379
WY-040-EA14-141
WYW 184380
WY-040-EA14-141
WYW 184381
WY-040-EA14-141
WYW 184382
WY-040-EA14-141
WYW 184383
WY-040-EA14-141
WYW 184384
WY-040-EA14-141
WYW 184385
WY-040-EA14-141
WYW 184386
WY-040-EA14-141
WYW 184387
WY-040-EA14-141
WYW 184388
WY-070-EA15-30
WYW 184389
WY-070-EA15-30
WYW 184390
WY-070-EA15-30
WYW 184391
WY-070-EA15-30
WYW 184392
WY-070-EA15-30
WYW 184393
WY-070-EA15-30
WYW 184394
WY-070-EA15-30
WYW 184395
WY-070-EA15-30
WYW 184396
WY-070-EA15-30
WYW 184397
WY-070-EA15-30
WYW 184398
WY-070-EA15-30
WYW 184399
WY-070-EA15-30
WYW 184400
WY-070-EA15-30
WYW 184401

44

EA No.
WY-070-EA15-30
WY-070-EA15-30
WY-070-EA15-30
WY-070-EA15-30
WY-070-EA15-30
WY-070-EA15-30
WY-070-EA15-30
WY-070-EA15-30
WY-070-EA15-30
WY-070-EA15-30
WY-070-EA15-30
WY-070-EA15-30
WY-070-EA15-30
WY-070-EA15-30
WY-070-EA15-30
WY-070-EA15-30
WY-070-EA15-30
WY-070-EA15-30
WY-070-EA15-30
WY-070-EA15-30
WY-070-EA15-30
WY-070-EA15-30
WY-070-EA15-30
WY-070-EA15-30
WY-070-EA15-30
WY-070-EA15-30
WY-070-EA15-30
WY-070-EA15-30
WY-R000-2015-0001-EA
WY-R000-2015-0001-EA
WY-R000-2015-0001-EA
WY-R000-2015-0001-EA
WY-R000-2015-0001-EA
WY-R000-2015-0001-EA
WY-R000-2015-0001-EA
WY-R000-2015-0001-EA
WY-R000-2015-0001-EA
WY-R000-2015-0001-EA
WY-R000-2015-0001-EA
WY-R000-2015-0001-EA
WY-R000-2015-0001-EA
WY-R000-2015-0001-EA
WY-R000-2015-0001-EA
WY-070-EA15-30

 Case 1:16-cv-01724 Document 1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 45 of 46

Lease Parcel
WYW 184357
WYW 184403
WYW 184404
WYW 184247
WYW 184532
WYW 184533
WYW 184534
WYW 184535
WYW 184536
WYW 184537
WYW 184538
WYW 184539
WYW 184540
WYW 184541
WYW 184542
WYW 184543
WYW 184544
WYW 184545
WYW 184546
WYW 184547
WYW 184548
WYW 184549
WYW 184550
WYW 184551
WYW 184552
WYW 184553
WYW 184554
WYW 184555
WYW 184556
WYW 184557
WYW 184558
WYW 184559
WYW 184560
WYW 184561
WYW 184562
WYW 184563
WYW 184564
WYW 184565
WYW 184566
WYW 184567
WYW 184568
WYW 184569
WYW 185132
WYW 185109

Wyoming Leases (cont.)
EA No.
Lease Parcel
WY-070-EA15-30
WYW 184402
WY-070-EA15-30
WYW 185122
WY-070-EA15-30
WYW 185129
WY-040-EA15-70
WYW 185130
WY-040-EA15-70
WYW 185298
WY-040-EA15-70
WYW 185299
WY-040-EA15-70
WYW 185300
WY-040-EA15-70
WYW 185301
WY-040-EA15-70
WYW 185302
WY-040-EA15-70
WYW 185303
WY-040-EA15-70
WYW 185135
WY-040-EA15-70
WYW 185136
WY-040-EA15-70
WYW 185137
WY-040-EA15-70
WYW 185138
WY-040-EA15-70
WYW 185139
WY-040-EA15-70
WYW 185140
WY-040-EA15-70
WYW 185141
WY-040-EA15-70
WYW 185142
WY-040-EA15-70
WYW 185143
WY-040-EA15-70
WYW 185144
WY-040-EA15-70
WYW 185145
WY-040-EA15-70
WYW 185147
WY-040-EA15-70
WYW 185148
WY-040-EA15-70
WYW 185098
WY-040-EA15-70
WYW 185099
WY-040-EA15-70
WYW 185100
WY-040-EA15-70
WYW 185101
WY-040-EA15-70
WYW 185102
WY-040-EA15-70
WYW 185103
WY-040-EA15-70
WYW 185104
WY-040-EA15-70
WYW 185105
WY-040-EA15-70
WYW 185106
WY-040-EA15-70
WYW 185107
WY-040-EA15-70
WYW 185108
WY-040-EA15-70
WYW 185110
WY-040-EA15-70
WYW 185111
WY-040-EA15-70
WYW 185112
WY-040-EA15-70
WYW 185113
WY-040-EA15-70
WYW 185114
WY-040-EA15-70
WYW 185115
WY-040-EA15-70
WYW 185116
WY-040-EA15-70
WYW 185117
WY-070-EA15-225
WYW 185118
WY-070-EA15-225
WYW 185119

45

EA No.
WY-070-EA15-30
WY-070-EA15-225
WY-070-EA15-225
WY-070-EA15-225
WY-040-EA15-130
WY-040-EA15-130
WY-040-EA15-130
WY-040-EA15-130
WY-040-EA15-130
WY-040-EA15-130
WY-R000-2015-0002-EA
WY-R000-2015-0002-EA
WY-R000-2015-0002-EA
WY-R000-2015-0002-EA
WY-R000-2015-0002-EA
WY-R000-2015-0002-EA
WY-R000-2015-0002-EA
WY-R000-2015-0002-EA
WY-R000-2015-0002-EA
WY-R000-2015-0002-EA
WY-R000-2015-0002-EA
WY-R000-2015-0002-EA
WY-R000-2015-0002-EA
WY-070-EA15-225
WY-070-EA15-225
WY-070-EA15-225
WY-070-EA15-225
WY-070-EA15-225
WY-070-EA15-225
WY-070-EA15-225
WY-070-EA15-225
WY-070-EA15-225
WY-070-EA15-225
WY-070-EA15-225
WY-070-EA15-225
WY-070-EA15-225
WY-070-EA15-225
WY-070-EA15-225
WY-070-EA15-225
WY-070-EA15-225
WY-070-EA15-225
WY-070-EA15-225
WY-070-EA15-225
WY-070-EA15-225

 Case 1:16-cv-01724 Document 1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 46 of 46

Wyoming Leases (cont.)
Lease Parcel
EA No.
WYW 185120 WY-070-EA15-225
WYW 185121 WY-070-EA15-225
WYW 185123 WY-070-EA15-225
WYW 185124 WY-070-EA15-225
WYW 185126 WY-070-EA15-225
WYW 185127 WY-070-EA15-225
WYW 185296 WY-040-EA15-130
WYW 185297 WY-040-EA15-130
WYW 185275 WY-040-EA15-130
WYW 185276 WY-040-EA15-130
WYW 185277 WY-040-EA15-130
WYW 185278 WY-040-EA15-130
WYW 185279 WY-040-EA15-130
WYW 185280 WY-040-EA15-130
WYW 185281 WY-040-EA15-130
WYW 185282 WY-040-EA15-130
WYW 185283 WY-040-EA15-130
WYW 185287 WY-040-EA15-130
WYW 185284 WY-040-EA15-130
WYW 185285 WY-040-EA15-130
WYW 185286 WY-040-EA15-130
WYW 185287 WY-040-EA15-130
WYW 185288 WY-040-EA15-130
WYW 185289 WY-040-EA15-130
WYW 185290 WY-040-EA15-130
WYW 185291 WY-040-EA15-130
WYW 185292 WY-040-EA15-130
WYW 185293 WY-040-EA15-130
WYW 185294 WY-040-EA15-130
WYW 185295 WY-040-EA15-130

46