342 F. Supp. 3d 1145
D. Colo.2018Background
- BLM revised the Glenwood Springs (CRVFO) Resource Management Plan (RMP)/EIS, covering ~505,200 acres of surface and 701,200 acres of federal mineral estate in western Colorado; Record of Decision signed June 12, 2015.
- BLM evaluated four alternatives (A no-action, B mixed-use — selected, C conservation, D resource-use) that left varying acreage open/closed to fluid mineral leasing; Alternative B chosen.
- RMP is a programmatic land-use plan (first stage of the three-step oil & gas decision process under FLPMA); site-specific leasing and APD approvals are tiered to later NEPA review.
- Plaintiffs (environmental NGOs) sued under the APA claiming NEPA violations: inadequate consideration of (1) indirect GHG emissions (combustion), (2) cumulative climate impacts and monetized climate costs, (3) methane emissions science and estimates, (4) human-health impacts, and (5) failure to consider reasonable alternatives limiting leasing.
- Court reviewed whether BLM took the requisite "hard look" (arbitrary-and-capricious standard) and whether the range of alternatives satisfied NEPA's rule-of-reason.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Indirect GHG emissions from downstream combustion | BLM must quantify reasonably foreseeable combustion emissions from hydrocarbons produced under the RMP; qualitative treatment insufficient | RMP gave qualitative analysis and explained forecasting at programmatic stage is speculative; quantitative estimates could be misleading | Held for Plaintiffs: BLM acted arbitrarily by not quantifying and analyzing indirect combustion emissions and must reanalyze them |
| Cumulative climate-change impacts (regional/national/global) | BLM failed to aggregate CRVFO emissions with past, present, and foreseeable BLM-managed emissions to analyze cumulative impacts | BLM provided a qualitative cumulative analysis across scales and had a rational methodology; quantitative projection would be speculative at programmatic stage | Held for BLM: cumulative impacts analysis was adequate (qualitative approach reasonable at RMP stage) |
| Monetized climate costs / social cost of carbon | BLM should have used the Social Cost of Carbon (Protocol) or otherwise monetize GHG harms if it monetized benefits | BLM not required to perform cost-benefit analysis; Protocol targeted rulemakings and post-dates some analyses; BLM reasonably declined to monetize harms | Held for BLM: no NEPA violation for declining to monetize incremental climate costs |
| Methane potency and emissions estimates | BLM used outdated GWP/timeframe and unreliable operator-reported emission assumptions, understating methane impacts | BLM used EPA-consistent 100-year GWP and documentation; EPA updated GWP after BLM's analysis; agency methodology and data assumptions are entitled to deference | Held for BLM: BLM took a sufficient hard look at methane potency and emissions estimates |
| Human-health impacts of oil & gas | RMP fails to disclose or meaningfully analyze general (non-site-specific) health risks and overlooks studies and resident reports | Programmatic RMP was appropriately tiered; site-specific health analyses deferred to leasing/APD-level NEPA and monitoring measures; RMP included air/water/health discussions and adaptive measures | Held for BLM: RMP took a sufficient hard look at human-health impacts (site-specific analysis appropriately deferred) |
| Range of alternatives (limits on leasing) | BLM unreasonably omitted alternatives that would close moderate/low-potential lands to leasing; must consider alternatives between extremes | BLM argued most high-potential lands already leased and a no-leasing alternative at plan-level is effectively similar; multiple-use mandate limits full-closure alternatives | Held for Plaintiffs: BLM violated NEPA by failing to consider a reasonable alternative closing low/medium potential lands to leasing (significantly distinguishable alternative required) |
Key Cases Cited
- Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council, 490 U.S. 360 (establishes NEPA's purpose and requirement of informed agency decisionmaking)
- Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332 (EIS necessary to ensure agency considers significant environmental impacts)
- New Mexico ex rel. Richardson v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 565 F.3d 683 (10th Cir. 2009) (programmatic RMP must consider alternatives that are significantly distinguishable)
- High Country Conservation Advocates v. United States Forest Service, 52 F.3d 1174 (D. Colo. 2014) (agencies cannot quantify benefits while refusing reasonably possible cost quantification)
- WildEarth Guardians v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 870 F.3d 1222 (10th Cir. 2017) (agencies cannot selectively rely on portions of reports while ignoring other portions)
- San Juan Citizens Alliance v. Stiles, 654 F.3d 1038 (10th Cir. 2011) (tiering and cumulative impact analysis principles)
- Diné Citizens Against Ruining Our Env't v. Jewell, 839 F.3d 1276 (10th Cir. 2016) (permissible deferral of site-specific analysis to later NEPA steps)
- Kern v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 284 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2002) (agency may not avoid analyzing foreseeable environmental consequences at RMP stage)