## Facts

- Environmental organizations challenged federal approvals supporting expanded natural gas development on federal lands in western Colorado involving BLM-administered lands and the Gunnison National Forest.
- The agencies approved a master development plan analyzed in a project-level EIS with multiple action alternatives, ultimately selecting an option authorizing development centered on 146 new gas wells, four water-disposal wells, and 33 well pads over a long project life.
- The agencies also approved additional project implementation steps, including an initial drilling permit and later approvals for a separate “25-well project” with related roads and pipelines.
- In their NEPA documents, the agencies used projected production volumes to evaluate economic effects and benefits.
- The agencies did not quantify, and only minimally discussed, greenhouse gas emissions and climate effects from downstream combustion of the produced oil and gas, asserting uncertainty about where and how the resources would be used.
- Plaintiffs sought review under the APA, alleging NEPA violations for inadequate analysis of indirect and cumulative climate impacts; the matter was decided on cross-motions for summary judgment based on the administrative record.

## Issues

1. Whether NEPA required BLM and the Forest Service to evaluate reasonably foreseeable indirect and cumulative impacts from downstream combustion of oil and gas produced under the approved development.
2. Whether the agencies acted arbitrarily and capriciously by relying on production forecasts for economic analysis while dismissing the same forecasts as too uncertain to inform downstream GHG and climate analysis.
3. Whether the NEPA documents’ generalized climate discussion satisfied the “hard look” requirement for a fossil-fuel production project.

## Decision

- The court granted summary judgment in part for plaintiffs, concluding the agencies’ NEPA analysis was arbitrary and capricious under the APA to the extent it failed to adequately analyze downstream combustion emissions and associated climate effects.
- The court treated downstream combustion emissions as a reasonably foreseeable indirect effect of approving oil and gas development intended to produce hydrocarbons for sale and use.
- The court found the agencies’ explanation for not quantifying downstream emissions insufficient, particularly given their use of production estimates in other parts of the analysis.
- The court remanded the challenged approvals to the agencies for additional NEPA analysis consistent with the decision, rather than ordering vacatur.

## Legal Principles

- NEPA requires agencies to take a “hard look” at environmental consequences, including reasonably foreseeable indirect and cumulative effects of the proposed action.
- Under the APA, a NEPA analysis may be set aside when the agency’s reasoning is arbitrary and capricious, including where it rests on internal inconsistency or conclusory assertions.
- Where an agency has production projections and accepted tools (such as emissions factors), it must either reasonably estimate downstream GHG emissions or provide a reasoned, non-conclusory explanation why quantification is not feasible or would be misleading.
- Generalized discussion of climate change does not satisfy NEPA when the agency fails to connect climate impacts to the specific project and its expected production-related emissions.

## Conclusion

The court held that approving federal oil and gas development without a project-specific, reasoned assessment of foreseeable downstream combustion greenhouse gas emissions and climate effects violated NEPA’s hard-look requirement, and it remanded the approvals for further analysis.


Citizens for a Healthy Cmty. v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 377 F. Supp. 3d 1223 (D. Colo. 2019)