Center for Biological Diversity v. Bernhardt

The federal district court for the District of Colorado granted federal respondents’ motion for voluntary remand of a case challenging the Resource Management Plan (RMP) and Environmental Impact Statement for the Grand Junction Field Office. The case was similar to a prior <a href="https://climatecasechart.com/case/wilderness-workshop-v-us-bureau-land-management/">case</a> in which the court held in 2018 that the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) violated the National Environmental Policy Act by failing to take a hard look at indirect emissions from oil and gas development and to consider reasonable alternatives to making lands available for oil and gas leasing. Based on the 2018 decision, BLM determined that it would prepare a supplemental analysis for the Grand Junction RMP. The court denied the petitioners’ request that the court define the scope of analysis on remand, as well as their request that the court order the respondents not to hold oil and gas lease sales until a new decision document was released.

The plaintiffs in the Grand Junction RMP case objected to the “vague and open-ended terms” of the proposed voluntary remand and asked the court to require, among other things, that the additional analysis be prepare in an supplemental environmental impact statement and that its scope include indirect and cumulative emissions.

The U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) moved for voluntary remand without vacatur of its decision approving the Grand Junction Resource Management Plan (RMP) so that it could prepare additional analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act. BLM said it intended to prepare supplemental analysis based on review of a 2018 decision in another case—<a href="https://climatecasechart.com/case/wilderness-workshop-v-us-bureau-land-management/">Wilderness Workshop v. BLM</a>—that involved a planning area with resource similarities. The court in the other case found that BLM failed to take a hard look at the RMP’s indirect impacts, and the parties subsequently agreed to partial remand without vacatur. The plaintiffs in the Grand Junction RMP case objected to the “vague and open-ended terms” of the proposed voluntary remand and asked the court to require, among other things, that the additional analysis be prepare in an supplemental environmental impact statement and that its scope include indirect and cumulative emissions.