Powder River Basin Resource Council v. U.S. Department of the Interior

Two environmental groups filed a motion in the federal district court for the District of Columbia for leave to file a second amended and supplemental complaint challenging recent U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) decisions reaffirming a 2020 final EIS for the Converse County Oil and Gas Project in Wyoming’s Powder River Basin and authorizing new Applications for Permits to Drill (APDs) oil and gas wells. The plaintiffs alleged that the new APD decisions were “closely related factually, legally, and procedurally” to challenges already before the court, including because the NEPA analysis for the new decisions relied on supplemental groundwater analysis conducted by BLM in response to the court’s 2024 decision finding that earlier analysis was deficient. The plaintiffs asserted that BLM violated NEPA, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the Mineral Leasing Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. The plaintiffs’ NEPA allegations included that the final EIS did not adequately analyze the project’s cumulative impacts with other oil and gas development or greenhouse gas emissions of other reasonably foreseeable future projects and also that the analysis failed to consider reasonable alternatives that would reduce key impacts such as greenhouse gas and other air pollutant emissions. In addition, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants erroneously claimed that BLM did not have legal authority to require mitigation of air pollution emissions.

In a lawsuit challenging the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM’s) approval of the Converse County Oil and Gas Project, the federal district court for the District of Columbia ruled that BLM’s consideration of groundwater impacts in the environmental impact statement for the project was inadequate. The project covers approximately 52,667 acres of BLM-administered surface and federal mineral estate in Wyoming and would result in the drilling of approximately 5,000 wells over 10 years. The court’s decision did not address the plaintiffs’ arguments regarding deficiencies in the analysis of impacts on cumulative greenhouse gas emissions and the failure to consider all reasonable alternatives, including a greenhouse gas reduction alternative. The court ordered additional briefing on remedy and enjoined approvals of applications for permits to drill until a ruling on remedy.

The federal district court for the District of Columbia concluded that two conservation organizations had standing to challenge the U.S. Department of the Interior’s record of decision for the Converse County Oil and Gas Project, which authorized 5,000 new oil wells in the Powder River Basin. The court also concluded, however, that the organizations lacked standing to challenge separately approved applications for permit to drill (APDs). The court denied the organizations’ motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that they did not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of any of the claims, including claims that the Bureau of Land Management’s analysis of cumulative effects was deficient because it did not quantify greenhouse gas emissions from other projects in the region. In addition, the court found that the organizations failed to demonstrate imminent and irreparable harm and that the equities weighed against preliminary equitable relief. The court also denied a request by private intervenors’ motion to transfer the lawsuit to the District of Wyoming.

Two environmental groups filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the District of Columbia challenging the Converse County Oil and Gas Project, which the plaintiffs alleged would involve development of 5,000 oil and natural gas wells in Wyoming’s Powder River Basin over a period of 10 years. The plaintiffs asserted claims under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), the Mineral Leasing Act (MLA), and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The complaint alleged that the defendants violated the MLA, FLPMA, and APA by failing to mitigate greenhouse gas and other air pollutant emissions. The complaint also alleged that the environmental review for the project violated NEPA by, among other things, failing to quantify the project’s cumulative greenhouse gas emissions and climate change impacts when combined with other reasonably foreseeable future actions and failing to consider reasonable alternatives that would reduce key impacts such as greenhouse gas emissions.