- Climate Litigation Database
- /
- Search
- /
- Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Bureau of Land Management
Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Bureau of Land Management
Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Bureau of Land Management ↗
2:20-cv-11334United States Central District of California (C.D. Cal.)3 entries
Filing Date
Document
Type
08/15/2022
Stipulation of dismissal granted.
The federal district court for the Central District of California granted a stipulation of dismissal of a lawsuit filed in 2020 to challenge the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s approval of an application for a permit (APD) to drill within the Carrizo Plain National Monument. The challenged APD expired in May 2022, and the plaintiffs agreed to dismiss with prejudice their claims under the National Environmental Policy Act, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, and the 2010 Carrizo Plain National Monument Resource Management Plan. A fourth claim alleging failure to timely plug and abandon idle wells was dismissed without prejudice based on the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s commitment to take the necessary steps to order and monitor the completion of well abandonment operations.
Decision
08/12/2022
Settlement agreement filed.
Settlement Agreement
12/15/2020
Complaint filed.
Center for Biological Diversity and Los Padres ForestWatch filed a lawsuit challenging the U.S. Bureau of Land Management's (BLM’s) approval of an application for a permit to drill in connection with a new well and pipeline within the Carrizo Plain National Monument. The plaintiffs alleged that the project was the first oil well and pipeline approved within the monument since its establishment in 2001. The plaintiffs asserted claims under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the Administrative Procedure Act. Claims under NEPA included that BLM failed to adequately consider the project’s climate change impacts by “downplaying” its greenhouse gas emissions and “failing to consider the significance of the emissions as direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts.” The plaintiffs also contended that the failure to adequately evaluate the project’s climate change impacts violated BLM’s resource management plan for the monument and therefore the FLPMA.
Complaint