Gunnison Energy LLC v. Haaland

A company that in 2022 submitted two applications for permit to drill (APDs) wells on lands under BLM jurisdiction in Colorado filed a joint stipulation of dismissal of its action seeking to compel BLM to process the APDs. The parties filed the stipulation one day after <a href="https://www.blm.gov/press-release/blm-issues-decision-north-fork-mancos-master-development-plan">BLM issued</a> a final supplemental environmental assessment (SEA) for the North Fork Mancos Master Development Plan (MDP), affirmed prior approvals of the MDP, and approved the two APDs. The SEA contained analysis of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change impacts that BLM conducted after a district court in a <a href="https://climatecasechart.com/case/citizens-for-a-healthy-community-v-us-department-of-interior/">case</a> filed in 2021 granted BLM’s request for remand to conduct additional analysis and vacated the prior approvals of the MDP.

A company that in March and April 2022 submitted two applications for permit to drill (APDs) for wells on lands under U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley Field Office jurisdiction filed a lawsuit asking a federal court in Colorado to order BLM to immediately process the APDs. The company asserted that BLM’s refusal to process the APDs was contrary to BLM’s obligations under the Mineral Leasing Act. The company also contended that BLM’s reason for delaying the processing of the APDs—its desire to first conduct supplemental environmental analysis of the North Fork Mancos Master Development Plan (MDP)—was arbitrary and capricious. The complaint alleged that BLM was conducting the supplemental analysis after the federal district court for the District of Colorado remanded the MDP at BLM’s request in a case in which the plaintiffs alleged BLM’s consideration of climate change impacts of anticipated development under the MDP was inadequate. The company alleged that there was no legal requirement that the MDP had to be complete before operations could commence. The company also asserted a claim that BLM had unlawfully withheld action it was required to take.