`
`Case 1:20-cv-03654-RC Document 1 Filed 12/14/20 Page 1 of 36
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
`
`
`Civ. No. _____
`
`
`
`
`SOUTHERN UTAH WILDERNESS
`ALLIANCE
`425 East 100 South
`Salt Lake City, Utah 84111,
`
`NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE
`COUNCIL
`40 West 20th Street, 11th Floor
`New York, New York 10011,
`
`CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
`378 North Main Avenue
`Tucson, Arizona 85701,
`
`LIVING RIVERS
`P.O. Box 466
`Moab, Utah 84532,
`
` Plaintiffs,
`
` v.
`
`DAVID BERNHARDT, Secretary
`U.S. Department of Interior
`1849 C Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20240,
`
`WILLIAM PERRY PENDLEY, Acting
`Director
`Bureau of Land Management
`1849 C Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20240,
`
`KENT HOFFMAN, Deputy State Director
`Bureau of Land Management’s Utah State
`Office
`440 West 200 South, Suite 500
`Salt Lake City, Utah 84101,
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03654-RC Document 1 Filed 12/14/20 Page 2 of 36
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`This lawsuit challenges a decision by the United States Department of the
`
`1.
`
`Interior’s Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) to offer, sell, and issue an oil and gas lease
`
`located within public lands that are now federally protected as the Labyrinth Canyon Wilderness
`
`in southeastern Utah.
`
`2.
`
`BLM sold the lease at issue in this litigation (referred to herein as the “Twin
`
`Bridges Lease”) to Twin Bridges Resources LLC (“Twin Bridges”) at its online December 2018
`
`competitive oil and gas lease sale.
`
`3.
`
`BLM then issued the lease to the company on March 1, 2019, after the John D.
`
`Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act (“Dingell Act”) was passed by both
`
`chambers of Congress and just days before the Dingell Act was signed into law. Pub. L. 116-9,
`
`133 Stat 580 Mar. 12, 2019). Among its provisions, the Dingell Act designated the lands
`
`encompassing the Twin Bridges Lease as the Labyrinth Canyon Wilderness.
`
`4.
`
`The Labyrinth Canyon Wilderness is located in the San Rafael Desert region of
`
`southeastern Utah. This is one of the most sublime and least traveled areas of federal public
`
`lands in the nation. A stunning and remote redrock landscape, it lacks any sign of human
`
`development. The overwhelming silence is broken only by the wind or the call of a circling
`
`raven. There are no buildings or fixed lights to detract from the natural form of the cliffs,
`
`canyons, and plateaus.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03654-RC Document 1 Filed 12/14/20 Page 3 of 36
`
`(Labyrinth Canyon Wilderness. The Twin Bridges Lease is located in the area highlighted by the red box.)
`
`Now, despite congressional Wilderness designation, and with time quickly
`
`5.
`
`
`
`running out on the Trump administration, BLM is racing to authorize development of this lease.
`
`Based upon information and belief, the Office of the Secretary of the Department of the Interior
`
`is directing BLM to expedite the so-called “Twin Bridges Bowknot Bend Helium Project” and
`
`environmental assessment (referred to herein as the “Twin Bridges Drilling Project”) which
`
`involves the drilling of up to seven wells, road construction and widening, and installation of
`
`several pipelines. Further, based on information and belief, Twin Bridges will immediately
`
`commence surface disturbing activities once BLM authorizes the project, on or around
`
`December 23. Initial roadbuilding and well pad construction may only take a day or two, but the
`
`damage from these activities to lands and resources within or immediately adjacent to the newly-
`
`designated Wilderness will be permanent.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03654-RC Document 1 Filed 12/14/20 Page 4 of 36
`
`6.
`
`BLM violated the law when it issued the Twin Bridges Lease; a decision made
`
`possible only by Interior Department policies issued from Washington, D.C. intended to
`
`facilitate the President’s “energy dominance” agenda. The construction and development
`
`activities—including, but not limited to, road construction, well pad construction, drilling, and
`
`production—will result in greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions such as carbon dioxide, methane,
`
`and nitrous oxide. Moreover, activities occurring after production will also result in reasonably
`
`foreseeable GHG emissions through pipeline and infrastructure leaks. BLM failed to analyze and
`
`disclose the environmental impacts of issuing this lease for development, as required by the
`
`National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4347. Instead, the agency
`
`prepared a Determination of NEPA Adequacy (“DNA”) to support the sale and issuance of this
`
`lease, which is not a NEPA document, and does not contain NEPA analysis.
`
`7.
`
`Consequently, BLM did not analyze the direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts of
`
`the GHG emissions from its leasing decision to climate change. BLM’s failure to take the
`
`required “hard look” at these impacts violated NEPA, the Administrative Procedure Act
`
`(“APA”), 5 U.S.C. §§ 551-559, 701-706; and the regulations and policies that implement these
`
`laws.
`
`8.
`
`Plaintiffs seek a declaration that BLM’s decision to sell and issue the Twin
`
`Bridges Lease was “arbitrary, capricious, . . . or otherwise not in accordance with law,” or that
`
`the decision was issued “without observance of procedure required by law.” 5 U.S.C. §
`
`706(2)(A), (D). Plaintiffs also seek injunctive relief and an order vacating the issuance of this
`
`lease.1
`
`
`1 Plaintiffs anticipate they will amend this Complaint to challenge development activities
`undertaken pursuant to the lease once BLM authorizes the Twin Bridges Drilling Project. As
`discussed above, this will likely occur on or around December 23, 2020.
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03654-RC Document 1 Filed 12/14/20 Page 5 of 36
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`9.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
`
`1331 (federal question). This Court also can provide relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2201 (declaratory
`
`judgment), 28 U.S.C. § 2202 (injunctive relief), and 5 U.S.C. §§ 553, 702 and 706 (APA).
`
`10.
`
`The challenged agency actions are final and subject to judicial review pursuant to
`
`5 U.S.C. §§ 702, 704, & 706.
`
`11.
`
`Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) because Defendants
`
`David Bernhardt and, on information and belief, William Perry Pendley reside in Washington,
`
`D.C. Additionally, Plaintiffs Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, Natural Resources Defense
`
`Council, and Center for Biological Diversity each maintain an office in Washington, D.C.
`
`PARTIES
`
`12.
`
`Plaintiff SOUTHERN UTAH WILDERNESS ALLIANCE (the “Alliance”) is a
`
`non-profit environmental membership organization dedicated to the preservation of outstanding
`
`wilderness found throughout Utah, including in the San Rafael Desert and Labyrinth Canyon
`
`Wilderness, and the management of wilderness-quality lands in their natural state for the benefit
`
`of all Americans. The Alliance has long maintained an office in Washington, D.C. in light of the
`
`fact that many agency decisions that affect public lands in Utah are actually made in the nation’s
`
`capital, where the Department of Interior is headquartered.. The Alliance has roughly 16,000
`
`members across the nation, including members in Washington, D.C. The Alliance’s members use
`
`and enjoy federal public lands in and around the Labyrinth Canyon Wilderness for a variety of
`
`purposes, including solitude, wildlife viewing, cultural appreciation, hiking and backcountry
`
`recreation, and aesthetic appreciation. The Alliance promotes national recognition of the region’s
`
`unique character through research and public education and supports administrative and
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03654-RC Document 1 Filed 12/14/20 Page 6 of 36
`
`legislative initiatives to permanently protect the federal public lands in Utah’s wildest places.
`
`The Alliance brings this action on its own behalf and on behalf of its members.
`
`13. Plaintiff NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL (“NRDC”) is a non-
`
`profit environmental membership organization that uses law, science, and the support of more
`
`than two million members and activists throughout the United States to protect wildlife and wild
`
`places and to ensure a safe and healthy environment for all living things. NRDC has long
`
`maintained an office in Washington, D.C. NRDC has a long-established history of working to
`
`protect public lands in Utah including the Labyrinth Canyon Wilderness and San Rafael Desert.
`
`NRDC members use and enjoy the public lands affected by BLM’s decision to offer, sell and
`
`issue the Twin Bridges Lease. Such use and enjoyment has been and will continue to be
`
`adversely affected by BLM’s decision. NRDC brings this action on its own behalf and on behalf
`
`of its members.
`
`14.
`
`Plaintiff CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY (“the Center”) is a non-
`
`profit environmental organization with over 81,000 members. The Center maintains an office in
`
`Washington D.C. The Center uses science, policy, and law to advocate for the conservation and
`
`recovery of species on the brink of extinction and the habitats they need to survive. The Center
`
`has advocated and continues to advocate for increased protections for species and their habitats
`
`in Utah. The Center regularly comments on and protests oil and gas lease sale decisions by BLM,
`
`including the sale at issue here. The Center brings this action on its own behalf and on behalf of
`
`its members.
`
`15.
`
`Plaintiff LIVING RIVERS is a non-profit environmental membership
`
`organization, based in Moab, Utah. Living Rivers promotes river restoration and seeks to revive
`
`natural habitat and the spirit of rivers by undoing the extensive damage done by dams,
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03654-RC Document 1 Filed 12/14/20 Page 7 of 36
`
`diversions, and pollution on the Colorado Plateau. Living Rivers articulates a conservation ethic
`
`of achieving ecological restoration balanced with meeting human needs. Living Rivers regularly
`
`comments on and protests proposed BLM activities, including oil and gas lease sales including
`
`the sale at issue in this litigation. Living Rivers’ members benefit from BLM’s compliance with
`
`federal laws, including NEPA and the APA. Living Rivers brings this action on its own behalf
`
`and on behalf of its members.
`
`16.
`
`17.
`
`Plaintiffs are collectively referred to herein as “SUWA.”
`
`SUWA members frequently visit and enjoy the Labyrinth Canyon Wilderness and
`
`San Rafael Desert region, the federal public lands at issue in this case. For decades, Mr. Ray
`
`Bloxham, an employee and member of the Alliance, as well as a member of NRDC, the Center,
`
`and Living Rivers has visited and enjoyed the public lands encompassed by and surrounding the
`
`Twin Bridges Lease. Specifically, Mr. Bloxham first visited this area in 1999 and has continued
`
`to do so dozens of times over the next twenty years. His most recent visit was in October 2020.
`
`Mr. Bloxham has plans to return to this area within the next six months, and intends to continue
`
`to visit the Labyrinth Canyon Wilderness and San Rafael Desert for years to come. Mr. Bloxham
`
`particularly enjoys the scenic views and largely untrammeled nature of the area, including its
`
`clean air, natural quiet, untrammeled vistas, and solitude. Mr. Bloxham also appreciates and
`
`enjoys the area’s abundant wildlife and cultural and archaeological resources.
`
`18.
`
`SUWA’s and its members’ interests have been impaired and irreparably harmed,
`
`and continue to be affected and permanently harmed, by BLM’s decisions to illegally offer, sell,
`
`and issue the Twin Bridges Lease. SUWA’s members also have a substantial interest in ensuring
`
`that BLM complies with its procedural and substantive legal obligations and policies. SUWA’s
`
`members benefit from BLM’s compliance with federal laws, including NEPA. SUWA’s
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03654-RC Document 1 Filed 12/14/20 Page 8 of 36
`
`members expect that BLM will comply with all federal environmental laws including NEPA and
`
`its action forcing mechanisms in order to make informed decisions. SUWA’s members’ interests
`
`will also be affected and irreparably harmed by BLM’s imminent approval of the Twin Bridges
`
`Drilling Project which will authorize permanent, irreparable harm to the federal public lands
`
`surrounding and immediately adjacent to the Labyrinth Canyon Wilderness. These development
`
`activities include, but are not limited to, clearing and construction of access roads and well pads,
`
`long-term if not permanent destruction of native soils and vegetation, noise and GHG emissions
`
`from vehicles and drill rigs, and industrialization of this remote area that will cause immediate,
`
`as well as sustained and prolonged damage to the environment. This will impair SUWA’s
`
`members’ use and enjoyment of this area, as well as adjacent public lands. The relief sought
`
`herein will redress these resulting harms.
`
`19.
`
`Defendant DAVID BERNHARDT is sued in his official capacity as Secretary of
`
`the United States Department of the Interior. In that capacity, he is responsible for ensuring that
`
`the agencies within the Department, including BLM, comply with all applicable laws and
`
`regulations, including NEPA and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (“FLPMA”), 43
`
`U.S.C. §§ 1701-1787. Based on information and belief, direction to expedite approval of the
`
`Twin Bridges Drilling Project and development of the Twin Bridges Lease, is coming from
`
`Secretary Bernhardt himself or from his assigns at his direction. Secretary Bernhardt is
`
`ultimately responsible for the decision challenged here.
`
`20.
`
`Defendant WILLIAM PERRY PENDLEY is sued in his official capacity as de
`
`facto Acting Director of BLM.2 In that capacity, he is responsible for managing publicly owned
`
`
`2 In 2020, the United States District Court for the District of Montana held that Mr. Pendley has
`been unlawfully serving as the agency’s acting Director. See Bullock v. U.S. Bureau of Land
`Mgmt., No. 4:20-cv-00062-BMM, ECF No. 25 (D. Mont. Sept. 25, 2020). In response, Mr.
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03654-RC Document 1 Filed 12/14/20 Page 9 of 36
`
`lands and minerals in accordance with federal law. BLM is the agency that manages and leased
`
`the public lands in Utah at issue in this case. Acting Director Pendley is ultimately responsible
`
`for the decision challenged here.
`
`21.
`
`Defendant KENT HOFFMAN is sued in his official capacity as Deputy State
`
`Director, Division of Lands and Minerals, of BLM’s Utah State Office. Deputy State Director
`
`Hoffman is responsible for overseeing Utah BLM’s minerals program, including the oil and gas
`
`leasing decision at issue in this lawsuit. He signed the Decision Record (“DR”) and Protest
`
`Decision denying the Alliance’s protest of the leasing decision at issue. Deputy State Director
`
`Hoffman is ultimately responsible for the decision challenged here.
`
`LEGAL FRAMEWORK
`
`I.
`
`Administrative Procedure Act
`
`22.
`
`The APA is a limited waiver of sovereign immunity and authorizes judicial
`
`review of agency action. It provides that courts “shall . . . hold unlawful and set aside agency
`
`action, findings, and conclusions found to be[] arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or
`
`otherwise not in accordance with law; . . . in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or
`
`limitations, or short of statutory right; . . . [or] without observance of procedure required by law.”
`
`5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), (C), (D).
`
`II.
`
`National Environmental Policy Act
`
`23.
`
`NEPA “is our basic national charter for protection of the environment.” 40 C.F.R.
`
`§ 1500.1(a). NEPA has two primary objectives: (1) to foster informed decisionmaking by
`
`requiring agencies to consider the environmental impacts of their proposed actions, and (2) to
`
`
`Pendley changed his job title, but not his duties. Nominally, Mr. Pendley is now BLM’s “Deputy
`Director, Policy and Programs.” However, Mr. Pendley in fact continues to serve—unlawfully—
`as BLM’s Acting Director.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03654-RC Document 1 Filed 12/14/20 Page 10 of 36
`
`ensure that agencies inform the public that they have considered environmental concerns in their
`
`decisionmaking. See id. § 1500.1(c).
`
`24.
`
`NEPA achieves its purpose through action forcing procedures requiring agencies
`
`to take a hard look at environmental consequences of their actions and authorizations.
`
`25.
`
`The Council on Environmental Quality (“CEQ”) regulations implementing
`
`NEPA3 require agencies to “integrate the NEPA process with other planning at the earliest
`
`possible time to insure that planning and decisions reflect environmental values, to avoid delays
`
`later in the process, and to head off potential conflicts.” Id. § 1501.2.
`
`26.
`
`Federal agencies must comply with NEPA before there are “any irreversible and
`
`irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposed action should it
`
`be implemented.” 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C)(v); see also 40 C.F.R. §§ 1501.2, 1502.5(a). “In the
`
`fluid minerals program, this [irreversible] commitment occurs at the point of lease issuance.”
`
`BLM, H-1624-1 Planning for Fluid Mineral Resources § I.B.2, at I-2 (Jan. 28, 2013).
`
`27.
`
`To accomplish these purposes, NEPA requires that all federal agencies prepare a
`
`“detailed statement” regarding all “major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the
`
`human environment.” 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C). This statement, known as an environmental
`
`impact statement (“EIS”) must, among other things, rigorously explore and objectively evaluate
`
`all reasonable alternatives, analyze all direct, and indirect, and cumulative environmental
`
`impacts, and include a discussion of the means to mitigate adverse environmental impacts. 40
`
`C.F.R. §§ 1502.14, 1502.16.
`
`
`3 On September 14, 2020, the Council on Environmental Quality’s revised NEPA regulations
`went into effect. See generally 85 Fed. Reg. 43304 (July 16, 2020). However, the Lease Sale
`DNA and accompanying DR were signed in February 2019 and are subject to the NEPA
`regulations in effect at that time.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03654-RC Document 1 Filed 12/14/20 Page 11 of 36
`
`28.
`
`An agency may also prepare an environmental assessment (“EA”) to determine
`
`whether an EIS is necessary. Id. §§ 1501.3, 1508.9. An EA must include a discussion of
`
`alternatives and the environmental impacts of the action. Id. § 1508.9.
`
`29.
`
`If an agency decides not to prepare an EIS, an EA must “provide sufficient
`
`evidence” to support a Finding of No Significant Impact. Id. § 1508.9(a)(1). Such evidence must
`
`demonstrate that the action “will not have a significant effect on the human environment.” Id. §
`
`1508.13.
`
`30.
`
`NEPA requires agencies to take a hard look at the direct, indirect, and cumulative
`
`impacts of a proposed action to inform its decision about whether the agency must prepare an
`
`EIS because a proposed action significantly impacts the environment. Id. §§ 1502.16(a)-(b),
`
`1508.7, 1508.8.
`
`31.
`
`Direct impacts are those impacts “caused by the action and [that] occur at the
`
`same time and place.” Id. § 1508.8(a).
`
`32.
`
`Indirect impacts are “caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed
`
`in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable.” Id. § 1508.8(b).
`
`33.
`
`Cumulative impacts are “the impact[s] on the environment which result[] from the
`
`incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable
`
`future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such
`
`other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant
`
`actions taking place over a period of time.” Id. § 1508.7.
`
`34.
`
`NEPA allows an agency to “tier” a site-specific environmental analysis for a
`
`project to a broader EIS or EA for a program or plan under which the subsequent project is
`
`carried out. Id. § 1508.28. When an agency tiers a site-specific analysis to a broader EIS or EA,
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03654-RC Document 1 Filed 12/14/20 Page 12 of 36
`
`“the subsequent statement or environmental assessment need only summarize the issues
`
`discussed in the broader statement and incorporate discussions from the broader statement by
`
`reference and shall concentrate on the issues specific to the subsequent action.” Id. § 1502.20.
`
`35.
`
`The Department of the Interior’s NEPA regulations contemplate that BLM may
`
`consider whether existing EISs or EAs “adequately assess[] the environmental effects of the
`
`proposed action and reasonable alternatives.” Id. § 46.120(c). If so, BLM may rely on a DNA to
`
`fulfill its NEPA obligations. See id. To rely on a DNA, an agency must evaluate “whether new
`
`circumstances, new information or changes in the action or its impacts not previously analyzed
`
`may result in significantly different environmental effects.” Id. BLM must explain why “any
`
`previously unanalyzed effects are not significant.” Id. § 46.140(c). See generally 43 C.F.R. §
`
`46.20 (explaining that Department of the Interior’s NEPA regulations “supplement[], and is to be
`
`used in conjunction with, the CEQ regulations except where it is inconsistent with other statutory
`
`requirements.”).
`
`36.
`
`DNAs are not NEPA documents, do not contain NEPA analysis, and are not
`
`expressly identified in CEQ’s NEPA regulations. They are instead an administrative convenience
`
`created by the Department of the Interior. As such, BLM’s decision to rely on a DNA must rise
`
`or fall solely on the analyses contained in the existing EISs and EAs, to which BLM is tiering in
`
`a particular instance.
`
`III. Oil and Gas Development on Public Lands
`
`37.
`
`BLM manages onshore oil and gas development through a three-stage process: (1)
`
`land use planning, (2) leasing, and (3) approval of drilling proposals.
`
`38.
`
`First, pursuant to FLPMA, BLM develops a programmatic land use plan, known
`
`as a Resource Management Plan (“RMP”), specifying which lands will be open and which will
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03654-RC Document 1 Filed 12/14/20 Page 13 of 36
`
`be closed to oil and gas leasing, and stipulations and conditions that may be placed on any such
`
`development. See 43 U.S.C. § 1712(a). An RMP does not mandate leasing any specific lands for
`
`oil and gas development.
`
`39.
`
`Second, BLM may offer leases for the development of specific tracts of public
`
`lands. See 43 C.F.R. § 1610.5-3; id. §§ 3120-3120.7-3. BLM has considerable discretion to
`
`determine which lands will be leased and is not obligated to offer any particular tract of public
`
`land that has been nominated by industry for leasing. The issuance of a surface occupancy lease
`
`gives the lessee a right to use some of the land for oil and gas development. Id. § 3101.1-2.
`
`Pursuant to a change made in the Dingell Act, an oil and gas lessee can drill for and develop
`
`helium and continue to hold an oil and gas lease without also producing paying quantities of oil
`
`and gas. Pub. L. 116-9, 133 Stat 580, Section 1109.
`
`40.
`
`Third, lessees must submit, and BLM must approve, applications for permits to
`
`drill before a lease may be developed. Id. § 3162.3-1(c). If a lease is issued without non-waivable
`
`no-surface occupancy stipulations, then BLM cannot outright prohibit surface development on
`
`that lease. Id. § 3101.1-2. A lessee must obtain a right-of-way or other appropriate authorization
`
`from BLM to conduct off-lease activities related to development of its lease, such a road or drill
`
`pad construction, 43 C.F.R. Part 2800, or drill through unleased lands. Id. Subpart 2920.
`
`41.
`
`A lessee intending to drill for and produce helium submits the same application to
`
`BLM for a permit to drill as for conventional oil and gas.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`I.
`
`The Climate Crisis
`
`42.
`
`Helium extraction entails the same processes as natural gas extraction. Though
`
`helium gas is not used for energy production, the gas exists in natural gas deposits and must be
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03654-RC Document 1 Filed 12/14/20 Page 14 of 36
`
`extracted with, and separated from, other hydrocarbons. Moreover, an oil and gas lease—even if
`
`intended to be used for helium development—also allows a developer to extract oil and gas from
`
`the same lands. For these reasons, helium development can contribute to climate change in the
`
`same manner as energy development.
`
`43.
`
`The climate crisis has been intensively studied at global, national, and regional
`
`scales. The scientific evidence is clear and compelling—climate change is being fueled by the
`
`human-caused release of GHG emissions, in particular carbon dioxide and methane.
`
`44.
`
`Carbon dioxide is the leading cause of climate change and the most emitted GHG
`
`in the United States. According to a 2019 United States Environmental Protection Agency
`
`(“EPA”) report, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks, 1990-2018, carbon
`
`dioxide comprised 81.3 percent of total U.S. GHG emissions, or 5.424 billion metric tons.4 “The
`
`largest source of [carbon dioxide], and of overall [GHG] emissions, was fossil fuel combustion.”
`
`Id. at ES-9. “Within the United States, fossil fuel combustion accounted for 92.8 percent of
`
`[carbon dioxide] emissions in 2018.” Id. at ES-11. Carbon dioxide emissions “from fossil fuel
`
`combustion has accounted for approximately 76 percent of [global warming potential]-weighted
`
`total U.S. gross emissions” since 1990.” Id.
`
`45.
`
`The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”) is a Nobel Prize-
`
`winning scientific body within the United Nations that reviews and assesses the most recent
`
`scientific, technical, and socio-economic information relevant to our understanding of climate
`
`change. The IPCC has identified the heat-trapping effect—or global warming potential—of
`
`
`4 Report available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-04/documents/us-ghg-
`inventory-2020-main-text.pdf (last visited Dec. 11, 2020).
`14
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03654-RC Document 1 Filed 12/14/20 Page 15 of 36
`
`methane as 36 times more potent than carbon dioxide over a 100-year period and 87 times more
`
`potent over a 20-year period.
`
`46.
`
`In a 2014 summary to policymakers, the IPCC discussed our understanding of
`
`human-caused climate change. Among other things, the IPCC stated:
`
`• Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic
`emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes
`have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.
`
`• Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the
`observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere
`and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea
`level has risen.
`
`• Anthropogenic GHG emissions have increased since the preindustrial era, driven
`largely by economic and population growth, and are now higher than ever. This
`has led to atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous
`oxide that are unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. Their effects,
`together with those of other anthropogenic drivers, have been detected throughout
`the climate system and are extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of
`the observed warming since the mid-20th century.
`
`•
`
`In recent decades, changes in climate have caused impacts on natural and human
`systems on all continents and across the oceans. Impacts are due to observed
`climate change, irrespective of its cause, indicating the sensitivity of natural and
`human systems to changing climate.
`
`• Continued emission of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and long-
`lasting changes in all components of the climate system, increasing the likelihood
`of severe, pervasive, and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems. Limiting
`climate change would require substantial and sustained reductions in GHG
`emissions which, together with adaptation, can limit climate change risks.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`• Surface temperature is projected to rise over the 21st century under all assessed
`emission scenarios. It is very likely that heat waves will occur more often and last
`longer, and that extreme precipitation events will become more intense and
`frequent in many regions. The ocean will continue to warm and acidify, and
`global mean sea level will continue to rise.5
`
`5 IPCC AR5, Summary for Policymakers (March 2014),
`https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf (last visited Dec.
`11, 2020).
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03654-RC Document 1 Filed 12/14/20 Page 16 of 36
`
`
`47. More recently, the IPCC reaffirmed the severe impacts from the climate crisis and
`
`that rapid action away from fossil fuels is needed if we are to limit the impacts of climate
`
`change:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`• Human activities are estimated to have caused approximately 1.0°C of global
`warming above pre-industrial levels, with a likely range of 0.8°C to 1.2°C. Global
`warming is likely to reach 1.5°C between 2030 and 2052 if it continues to
`increase at the current rate.
`
`• Warming from anthropogenic emissions from the pre-industrial period to the
`present will persist for centuries to millennia and will continue to cause further
`long-term changes in the climate system, such as sea level rise, with associated
`impacts but these emissions alone are unlikely to cause global warming of 1.5°C.
`
`• Climate models project robust differences in regional climate characteristics
`between present-day and global warming of 1.5°C, and between 1.5°C and 2°C.
`These differences include increases in: mean temperature in most land and ocean
`regions, hot extremes in most inhabited regions, heavy precipitation in several
`regions, and the probability of drought and precipitation deficits in some regions.
`
`• Climate-related risks to health, livelihoods, food security, water supply, human
`security, and economic growth are projected to increase with global warming of
`1.5°C and increase further with 2°C.
`
`• Pathways limiting global warming to 1.5°C with no or limited overshoot would
`require rapid and far-reaching transitions in energy, land, urban and infrastructure
`(including transport and buildings), and industrial systems (high confidence).
`These systems transitions are unprecedented in terms of scale, but not necessarily
`in terms of speed, and imply deep emissions reductions in all sectors, a wide
`portfolio of mitigation options and a significant upscaling of investments in those
`options (medium confidence).6
`
`
`48.
`
`The western United States is particularly susceptible to the effects of climate
`
`change. The West is already experiencing increasing temperatures, prolonged droughts and
`
`catastrophic wildfires, with widespread impacts across its forests, wildlife, and human
`
`communities. Local economies, which are reliant on consistent precipitation and snowfall for
`
`
`6 SR 15, Global Warming of 1.5°: Summary for Policy Makers (Oct. 2018),
`https://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdf (last visited Dec. 11, 2020).
`16
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03654-RC Document 1 Filed 12/14/20 Page 17 of 36
`
`surface and groundwater recharge, agriculture, recreation, and other uses, have also seen
`
`significant adverse impacts.
`
`49.
`
`Additionally, the United States Global Change Research Program, a collaboration
`
`of thirteen federal agencies including BLM, has prepared a series of National Climate
`
`Assessments. With particular regard to the Southwest Region—which includes Utah—the Third
`
`National Climate Assessment7 provided the following overview:
`
`• Snowpack and streamflow amounts are projected to decline in parts of the
`Southwest, decreasing surface water supply reliability for cities, agriculture, and
`ecosystems.
`
`• The Southwest produces more than half of the nation’s high-value specialty crops,
`which are irrigation-dependent and particularly vulnerable to extremes of
`moisture, cold, and heat. Reduced yields from increasing temperatures and
`increasing competition for scarce water supplies will displace jobs in some rural
`communities.
`
`•
`
`Increased warming, drought, and insect outbreaks, all caused by or linked to
`climate change, have increased wildfires and impacts to people and ecosystems in
`the Southwest. Fire models project more wildfire and increased risks to
`communities across extensive areas.
`
`• Projected regional temperature increases, combined with the way cities amplify
`heat, will pose increased threats and costs to public health in southwestern cities,
`which are home to m