Case 1:22-cv-01853 Document 1 Filed 06/28/22 Page 1 of 63
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
`
`
`DAKOTA RESOURCE COUNCIL
`720 Burnt Boat Dr., Suite 104
`Bismarck, ND 58503,
`
`CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
`1411 K St. NW, Suite 1300
`Washington, D.C. 20005,
`
`CITIZENS FOR A HEALTHY COMMUNITY
`211 Grand Avenue, Suite 118
`Paonia, CO 81428,
`
`LIVING RIVERS & COLORADO RIVERKEEPER
`120 Arbor Drive
`Moab, UT 84532,
`
`MONTANA ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION
`CENTER
`107 West Lawrence St., Suite N6
`Helena, MT 59601,
`
`RIO GRANDE RIVERKEEPER
`301 N. Guadalupe St., Suite 201
`Santa Fe, NM 87501,
`
`SIERRA CLUB
`2101 Webster Street, Suite 1300
`Oakland, CA 94612,
`
`WATERKEEPER ALLIANCE
`180 Maiden Lane, Suite 603
`New York, NY 10038,
`
`WESTERN WATERSHEDS PROJECT
`126 South Main Street, Suite B-4
`Hailey, ID 83333,
`
`WILDEARTH GUARDIANS
`301 N. Guadalupe Street, Suite 201
`Santa Fe, NM 87501,
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
` v.
`
` 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 1:22-cv-1853
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
` )
`
`
`)
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01853 Document 1 Filed 06/28/22 Page 2 of 63
`
`
`U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
`1849 C Street N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20240,
`
`DEBRA HAALAND, Secretary
`U.S. Department of the Interior
`1849 C Street N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20240,
`
`U.S. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
`1849 C Street N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20240, and
`
`TRACY STONE-MANNING, Director
`U.S. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
`1849 C Street N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20240,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiffs Dakota Resource Council, Center for Biological Diversity, Citizens for
`
`a Healthy Community, Living Rivers and Colorado Riverkeeper, Montana Environmental
`
`Information Center, Rio Grande Waterkeeper, Sierra Club, Waterkeeper Alliance, Western
`
`Watersheds Project, and WildEarth Guardians (collectively, “Conservation Groups”) hereby
`
`challenge Federal Defendants’ decision to approve the sale of 173 oil and gas lease parcels,
`
`encompassing 144,000 acres of public lands across eight western states, through an analysis
`
`contained in seven separate environmental assessments (“EAs”) for violation of the National
`
`Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 et seq., and its implementing
`
`regulations,1 and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (“FLPMA”), 43 U.S.C. §§ 1701
`
`                                                            
`1 On July 16, 2020, the Council on Environmental Quality (“CEQ”) published in the Federal
`Register its final rule to revise the NEPA implementing regulations, which went into effect on
`
` 
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01853 Document 1 Filed 06/28/22 Page 3 of 63
`
`et seq. A list of the challenged lease parcels is included as Appendix A at the end of this
`
`Complaint.
`
`2.
`
`Global climate change is the greatest threat that humanity has ever faced. The
`
`scientific consensus is clear: as a result of greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions, the global
`
`climate is rapidly destabilizing with increasingly catastrophic results. An ever-growing body of
`
`scientific literature, which Federal Defendants acknowledge, demonstrates that increasing GHG
`
`emissions are causing irreparable damage to virtually every ecosystem on the planet. From
`
`rising temperatures, increased drought and wildfires, more chaotic and extreme weather, ocean
`
`acidification, loss of sea and land ice, to rising sea levels, the impacts of climate change are
`
`already being experienced virtually everywhere.
`
`3.
`
`Federal Defendants acknowledge the fundamentally incremental nature of the
`
`climate crisis and the small and shrinking window that remains to avoid the most catastrophic
`
`effects of climate change. Federal Defendants also admit that their Federal Oil and Gas Leasing
`
`Program contributes significantly to the global climate crisis, and that the Lease Sales at issue
`
`here will collectively cause billions of dollars in social and environmental harm to people and
`
`the planet. Federal Defendants nonetheless determined to hold the challenged Lease Sales and
`
`issue seven separate EAs, each of which issued a finding of no significant impact (“FONSI”) to
`
`the environment from the perpetuation of fossil fuel exploitation on federal public lands, a
`
`                                                            
`September 14, 2020 (the “2020 Rule”). The 2020 Rule is the subject of litigation, and CEQ is in
`the process of reviewing and updating the NEPA regulations pursuant to Executive Order 13990
`(Jan. 20, 2021). On April 16, 2021, the Department of Interior directed its agencies to “not apply
`the 2020 Rule in a manner that would change the application or level of NEPA that would have
`been applied to a proposed action before the 2020 Rule went into effect.” Moreover, on May 20,
`2022, the CEQ published its final Phase 1 NEPA Rule to amend the 2020 Rule, restoring core
`regulatory provisions and directing agencies to apply the same meaning as corresponding
`provisions in effect from 1978. 87 Fed. Reg. 23453 (April 20, 2022). Therefore, in this
`Complaint, all citations to NEPA’s implementing regulations are to the pre-2020 CEQ
`Regulations.
`
`3
`
` 
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01853 Document 1 Filed 06/28/22 Page 4 of 63
`
`finding at odds with the voluminous body of scientific evidence discussed in in each of the
`
`challenged EAs.
`
`4.
`
`In January 2021, within days of President Biden taking office, the U.S.
`
`Department of the Interior (“Interior”) suspended the authority of its bureaus and offices to take
`
`a number of actions without approval by Interior leadership, including the authority of the
`
`Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) to take action to implement the Leasing Program,
`
`including actions to issue any onshore or offshore fossil fuel authorization.
`
`5.
`
`One week later, President Biden issued Executive Order 14008, which directed
`
`Interior to “pause” new oil and gas leases:
`
`pending completion of a comprehensive review and reconsideration of Federal oil
`and gas permitting and leasing practices in light of the Secretary of the Interior’s
`broad stewardship responsibilities over the public lands and in offshore waters,
`including potential climate and other impacts associated with oil and gas activities
`on public lands or in offshore waters.
`
`
`6.
`
`In response to litigation filed by pro-fossil fuel interests, the U.S. District Court
`
`for the Western District of Louisiana enjoined the implementation of the nationwide “pause”
`
`contemplated by Executive Order 14008. Louisiana v. Biden, 543 F. Supp. 3d 388, 410 (W.D.
`
`La. 2021). In response, Interior ordered BLM to proceed with the Lease Sales.
`
`7.
`
`On November 27, 2021, Interior released its “Report on the Federal Oil and Gas
`
`Leasing Program Prepared in Response to Executive Order 14008” (the “Interior Oil and Gas
`
`Leasing Report”). Interior characterized the Report as “complet[ing] the review of the federal
`
`oil and gas programs called for in Executive Order 14008.” While the Report recommended a
`
`number of fiscal reforms, it failed to provide any analysis of the Leasing Program’s climate
`
`impacts.
`
` 
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01853 Document 1 Filed 06/28/22 Page 5 of 63
`
`8.
`
`On April 18, 2022, BLM posted lease sale notices for the challenged Lease Sales.
`
`On June 28, 2022, BLM posted the Decision Record and Protest Decision for the Wyoming
`
`lease sale.
`
`9.
`
`BLM’s approval of the Lease Sales is driven by Interior’s decision to proceed
`
`with implementation of its Leasing Program, and each of these sales is plainly part of a larger
`
`national initiative that must be collectively analyzed under NEPA.
`
`10. Federal public lands used for fossil fuel extraction contribute 24% of the United
`
`States’ GHG emissions. If federal lands were their own country, their GHG emissions would be
`
`ranked fifth globally. Moreover, future development of unleased federal minerals represents a
`
`“carbon bomb” that would likely push global climate change to catastrophic levels with
`
`incalculable consequences for the American people, the rest of humanity, and the global
`
`environment. Opening new areas to development is in no way consistent with a carbon budget
`
`aimed at restraining warming below critical thresholds, or with meeting the United States’
`
`commitments to international agreements such as the Paris Accord.
`
`11. BLM manages the majority – nearly 700 million acres – of public minerals.
`
`About half of this federal mineral estate contains oil and/or natural gas, and over 26 million
`
`acres of federally managed lands are currently leased to private companies for oil and gas
`
`development. The BLM’s Leasing Program contributes vast amounts of GHG pollution to the
`
`atmosphere. As the agency acknowledges, almost all ecosystems in the United States are
`
`unraveling as a result of climate change, including the lands administered by the BLM. These
`
`lands are found predominantly in the western half of the continental United States and Alaska.
`
`In particular, lands in the western United States are experiencing a climate change-exacerbated
`
`mega-drought, the likes of which have not been seen in at least 1,200 years, and unprecedented
`
`and severe wildfires.
`
` 
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01853 Document 1 Filed 06/28/22 Page 6 of 63
`
`12. These impacts in many cases appear to be disproportionate, with the western U.S.
`
`home to multiple climate “hot spots,” areas where average warming has already exceeded 2°C.
`
`These and other climate impacts will occur more frequently and grow more severe as additional
`
`GHG pollution occurs, including the pollution directly resulting from Federal Defendants’
`
`Leasing Program and the Lease Sales challenged here.
`
`13. NEPA codifies the common sense and fundamental idea of “look before you leap”
`
`to guide agency decision making. NEPA achieves its purpose through “action forcing
`
`procedures … requir[ing] that agencies take a hard look at environmental consequences.”
`
`Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 350 (1989) (citations omitted)
`
`(emphasis added). Congress “directs that, to the fullest extent possible: [] policies, regulations,
`
`and public laws of the United States shall be administered in accordance with the policies set
`
`forth” in NEPA. 42 U.S.C. § 4332.
`
`14. One of those public laws is FLPMA, which provides Interior with the authority
`
`and responsibility to serve as both the trustee of federal public lands for the benefit of the
`
`American people and the regulator of federal public land uses. These duties require Interior to:
`
`protect public land values, including “air and atmospheric values[;]” “account for the long-term
`
`needs of future generations[;]” prevent “permanent impairment of the productivity of the land
`
`and the quality of the environment[;]” and “take any action necessary to prevent unnecessary or
`
`undue degradation of the lands.” Relative to its Leasing Program, Interior has failed to define
`
`what constitutes unnecessary or undue degradation under FLPMA and failed to take action to
`
`prevent the types of climate degradation that the agency acknowledges are already occurring
`
`and which will grow increasingly severe.
`
`15.
`
`In violation of NEPA and FLPMA, BLM continues to recklessly lease large
`
`swaths of the western United States to oil and gas development without comprehensively
`
` 
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01853 Document 1 Filed 06/28/22 Page 7 of 63
`
`reviewing these connected actions and analyzing the severity of the resulting climate impacts
`
`from the addition of thousands of tons of GHG emissions into the atmosphere.
`
`16. When several projects are pending concurrently “that will have cumulative or
`
`synergistic environmental impact,” NEPA requires cumulative environmental impacts to be
`
`considered together. Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390, 410 (1976). This Court and others
`
`have required BLM to consider the cumulative climate impacts of its leasing decisions together
`
`and in the context of local, regional, and national impacts. WildEarth Guardians v. Zinke, 368
`
`F. Supp. 3d 41, 77 (D.D.C., 2019); see also WildEarth Guardians v. BLM, 457 F. Supp. 3d 880,
`
`894 (D. Mont., 2020) (“if BLM ever hopes to determine the true impact of its projects on
`
`climate change, it can do so only by looking at projects in combination with each other, not
`
`simply in the context of state and nation-wide emissions.”)
`
`17. The Lease Sales challenged here are constituent parts of Interior’s decision to
`
`resume leasing. Yet, by analyzing these Lease Sales in seven distinct EAs – rather than together
`
`in a single, comprehensive environmental impact statement (“EIS”) – BLM violated NEPA by
`
`diluting the impacts of these leases in the context of its Leasing Program while also failing to
`
`take a hard look at the cumulative climate impacts from these sales. In so doing, BLM also
`
`failed to prevent unnecessary and undue degradation of the public lands and resource values –
`
`or even define what “unnecessary or undue degradation” entails in the context of climate change
`
`– in violation of FLPMA.
`
`18. Federal Defendants’ process for resuming leasing under the Program and
`
`approving the challenged Lease Sales is a prime example of the fundamental disconnect
`
`between the ongoing climate crisis and Federal Defendants’ management of public lands in a
`
`manner which prioritizes fossil fuel exploitation. Federal Defendants have made no indication
`
`that they intend to meaningfully acknowledge or address this disconnect through a
`
` 
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01853 Document 1 Filed 06/28/22 Page 8 of 63
`
`comprehensive programmatic review. Instead, with the Lease Sales, Federal Defendants
`
`continue their ongoing pattern of unlawfully authorizing and issuing oil and gas leases without
`
`taking a hard look at, or acknowledging the significance of, the accumulating impacts of
`
`rampant oil and gas development and combustion to our climate and the role played by the
`
`Program in the perpetuation of these impacts.
`
`19. Plaintiff Conservation Groups therefore ask this Court to declare Federal
`
`Defendants’ approval of the Lease Sales challenged herein to be unlawful, to vacate or set aside
`
`the approvals, to remand to BLM for further action in accordance with applicable law, and to
`
`enjoin Federal Defendants from approving or otherwise taking action to approve the challenged
`
`sales or any additional oil and gas leases under the agency’s Leasing Program until Federal
`
`Defendants have fully complied with NEPA, its implementing regulations, and the substantive
`
`provisions of FLPMA.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`20. This action arises under NEPA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4370m-11, FLPMA, 43
`
`U.S.C. §§ 1701-1787, and the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706.
`
`21.
`
`Jurisdiction is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. §
`
`1346 because this case arises under the laws of the United States and involves the United States
`
`as a defendant.
`
`22. Venue in this Court is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) because officers of
`
`the United States are named as Defendants in their official capacities and reside in this judicial
`
`district, Plaintiffs Center for Biological Diversity and Sierra Club also maintain offices in this
`
`judicial district, and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims, as
`
`well as the underlying decision making and guidance with respect to the U.S. Department of the
`
`Interior’s management of federal oil and gas resources, as disseminated to the agency’s field
`
` 
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01853 Document 1 Filed 06/28/22 Page 9 of 63
`
`offices, have occurred in this district due to decisions made here by Federal Defendants. Finally,
`
`this litigation challenges Interior’s decision to resume the Oil and Gas Leasing Program through
`
`its approval of the challenged Lease Sales, and Interior is headquartered in this judicial district.
`
`23. The requested relief is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 and 5 U.S.C. §§
`
`705 and 706, and would redress the actual and imminent, concrete injuries to Conservation
`
`Groups caused by Federal Defendants’ failure to comply with duties mandated by NEPA and
`
`FLPMA and their implementing regulations. Conservation Groups’ interests will be adversely
`
`affected and irreparably injured if Federal Defendants continue to violate NEPA and FLPMA as
`
`alleged herein, and if they affirmatively implement the decisions challenged herein. These
`
`injuries are concrete and particularized and fairly traceable to Federal Defendants’ challenged
`
`decisions, providing the requisite personal stake in the outcome of this controversy necessary
`
`for this Court’s jurisdiction.
`
`24. The requested relief would redress the actual, concrete injuries to Conservation
`
`Groups caused by Federal Defendants’ failure to comply with duties mandated by NEPA and
`
`FLPMA, and those statutes’ implementing regulations.
`
`25. The challenged agency actions are final and subject to judicial review pursuant to
`
`5 U.S.C. §§ 702, 704, and 706.
`
`26. Conservation Groups have exhausted any and all available and requested
`
`administrative remedies.
`
`PARTIES
`
`27. Plaintiff DAKOTA RESOURCE COUNCIL (“DRC”), a member of the Western
`
`Organization of Resource Councils, is a grassroots community organizing group whose aim is
`
`to promote sustainable use of North Dakota’s natural resources and family-owned and operated
`
`agriculture by building member-led local groups that empower people to influence the decision-
`
` 
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01853 Document 1 Filed 06/28/22 Page 10 of 63
`
`making processes that affect their lives and communities. Founded by farmers and ranchers in
`
`the 1970s. DRC brings North Dakotans together who want to protect family farms and ranches,
`
`reduce flaring and venting of natural gas, ensure safe and responsible disposal of oilfield waste,
`
`and make oil trains and oil pipelines safe. DRC’s members live near federal public lands and
`
`work and recreate on those lands, including lands containing parcels included in the sales
`
`challenged herein. Fort Berthold Protectors of Water and Earth Rights (Fort Berthold POWER)
`
`is an affiliate of DRC located on the Fort Berthold Reservation, home to the Three Affiliated
`
`Tribes of the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nations, which is one of the most oil-rich
`
`reservations in the United States. With more than 2500 active oil and gas wells, Fort Berthold
`
`Reservation has been disproportionately impacted by oil and gas development. Fort Berthold
`
`POWER’s mission is to conserve and protect the land, water, and air on which all life depends.
`
`Badlands Area Resource Council is an affiliate of DRC with members from the Belfield,
`
`Dickenson, and Medora area in Western North Dakota. Agriculture, coal mines, and oil and gas
`
`development are all areas of concern for members working to promote DRC’s mission and
`
`preserve the health and well-being of the land and its people.
`
`28. Plaintiff CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY (“the Center”) is a non-
`
`profit conservation organization headquartered in Tucson, Arizona, with offices in Washington,
`
`D.C., a number of states, and Mexico. 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 and continues to advocate actively for increased protections for species
`
`and their habitats across the United States. The Center has over 81,000 members and 1.7 million
`
`online members and activists. The Center’s board, staff, and members observe wildlife for
`
`recreation, scientific research, aesthetic pursuits, and spiritual renewal, including climate-
`
`imperiled species harmed by GHG emissions caused by oil and gas development on BLM lands,
`
` 
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01853 Document 1 Filed 06/28/22 Page 11 of 63
`
`and recreate on public lands across the United States as well as public lands in the states that
`
`will be affected by the drilling permits challenged herein. The Center brings this action on its
`
`own behalf and on behalf of its adversely affected members.
`
`29. Plaintiff CITIZENS FOR A HEALTHY COMMUNITY (“CHC”) is a 500-
`
`member nonprofit organization located in Paonia, Colorado. CHC was founded in 2010 for the
`
`purpose of protecting the Delta County region’s air, water, and foodsheds from the impact of oil
`
`and gas development. CHC’s members and supporters include farmers, ranchers, vineyard and
`
`winery owners, and other concerned citizens impacted by oil and gas development, who
`
`currently live in, and plan to continue to live in, use, and enjoy the communities and landscapes
`
`affected by the challenged BLM action. CHC members live and work in the middle of the
`
`nation’s climate hotspot, which has already warmed an average of 2.1°C. The headwaters upon
`
`which CHC members depend originate on federal lands that have already warmed 1.9°C, and
`
`CHC members are experiencing the extreme drought, low soil moisture, higher and extreme
`
`temperatures, wildfire risk, and wildlife habitat loss associated with this level of local warming.
`
`CHC brings this action on its own behalf and on behalf of its adversely affected members.
`
`30. Plaintiff LIVING RIVERS AND COLORADO RIVERKEEPER (“Living
`
`Rivers”) is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that empowers a movement to instill a new ethic
`
`of achieving ecological restoration, balanced with meeting human needs. Living Rivers works
`
`to restore inundated river canyons, wetlands and the delta, repeal antiquated laws which
`
`represent the river's death sentence, reduce water and energy use and their impacts on the river,
`
`and recruit constituents to aid in reviving the Colorado River. Living Rivers has an interest in
`
`protecting the Colorado River from impacts due to development of federal fossil fuels. Living
`
`Rivers’ members use and enjoy federal public lands, including lands on which the sales
`
` 
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01853 Document 1 Filed 06/28/22 Page 12 of 63
`
`challenged herein are to occur, on a regular basis and would suffer harm as a result of the sales
`
`challenged herein.
`
`31. Plaintiff MONTANA ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION CENTER
`
`(“MEIC”) is a nonprofit organization founded in 1973 with approximately 5,000 members and
`
`supporters throughout the United States and the State of Montana. MEIC is dedicated to the
`
`preservation and enhancement of the natural resources and environment of Montana and to the
`
`gathering and disseminating of information concerning the protection and preservation of the
`
`environment through education of its members and the general public concerning their rights
`
`and obligations under local, state, and federal environmental protection laws and regulations.
`
`MEIC is also dedicated to assuring that federal officials comply with and fully uphold the laws
`
`of the United States that are designed to protect the environment from pollution. MEIC and its
`
`members have intensive, long-standing recreational, aesthetic, spiritual, scientific, and
`
`professional interests in the responsible production and use of energy; the reduction of GHG
`
`pollution as a means to ameliorate the climate crisis; and the land, air, water, and communities
`
`impacted by fossil fuel development. MEIC members live, work, and recreate in areas that will
`
`be adversely impacted by approval of the Lease Sales. MEIC brings this action on its own
`
`behalf and on behalf of its adversely affected members.
`
`32. Plaintiff RIO GRANDE WATERKEEPER is an independent organization
`
`operating under the fiscal sponsorship of Plaintiff WildEarth Guardians, that works to safeguard
`
`clean water and healthy flows in the Rio Grande from its headwaters in the San Juan Mountains
`
`of Colorado through Southern New Mexico. The program was formed out of a partnership
`
`between Guardians and Waterkeeper Alliance, a global movement united with more than 300
`
`Waterkeeper Organizations and Affiliates around the world, and shares the Alliance’s interest in
`
`protecting lands and waters that could be impacted as a result of the challenged lease sales. Rio
`
` 
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01853 Document 1 Filed 06/28/22 Page 13 of 63
`
`Grande Waterkeeper’s members regularly use and enjoy federal public lands, including some
`
`lands included within the Lease Sales challenged herein and would suffer harm as a result of the
`
`development of those lands for oil and gas, particularly in the absence of appropriate
`
`environmental review by BLM.
`
`33. Plaintiff SIERRA CLUB is one of the country’s largest and oldest environmental
`
`organizations. Sierra Club was founded in 1892 and now has over 800,000 members. Sierra
`
`Club is dedicated to exploring, enjoying, and protecting the wild places of the earth; to
`
`practicing and promoting the responsible use of the earth’s ecosystems and resources; to
`
`educating and encouraging humanity to protect and restore the quality of the natural and human
`
`environment; and to using all lawful means to carry out these objectives. Sierra Club and its
`
`members advocate for management of public lands that promotes conservation and continued
`
`enjoyment of outdoor spaces. Sierra Club has state chapters in all of the states containing lease
`
`sales challenged herein and is one of the largest grassroots environmental organization in the
`
`state. Sierra Club’s members use and plan to continue to live in, use, and enjoy the communities
`
`and landscapes, including public lands, affected by the Lease Sales. Sierra Club brings this
`
`action on its own behalf and on behalf of its adversely affected members.
`
`34. Plaintiff WATERKEEPER ALLIANCE (“Waterkeeper”) is a global not-for-profit
`
`environmental organization dedicated to protecting and restoring water quality to ensure that the
`
`world’s waters are drinkable, fishable, and swimmable. Waterkeeper comprises more than 350
`
`Waterkeeper Member Organizations and Affiliates working in 48 countries on 6 continents. In
`
`the United States, Waterkeeper represents the interests of more than 160 U.S. Waterkeeper
`
`Member Organizations and Affiliates, including in seven of the eight states containing the sales
`
`challenged herein, as well as the collective interests of approximately 15,000 individual
`
`supporting members that live, work, and recreate in and near waterways across the country.
`
` 
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01853 Document 1 Filed 06/28/22 Page 14 of 63
`
`Waterkeeper, through its Clean and Safe Energy campaign, engages in public advocacy,
`
`administrative proceedings and litigation aimed at reducing the water quality, water quantity,
`
`and climate change impacts of fossil fuel extraction, transport and combustion, including from
`
`BLM-controlled lands, throughout the United States. Waterkeeper has members, supporters and
`
`staff who visit public lands in many states in which the sales challenged herein will occur,
`
`including lands and waters that would be affected by the challenged lease sales, for recreational,
`
`scientific, educational, and other pursuits, and who would be injured if these lands are
`
`developed for oil and gas, particularly in the absence of an appropriate environmental review by
`
`BLM. Waterkeeper brings this action on its own behalf and on behalf of its adversely affected
`
`Members, Organizations and Affiliates and all of its individual members and supporters.
`
`35. Plaintiff WESTERN WATERSHEDS PROJECT (“WWP”) is a is a nonprofit
`
`conservation organization founded in 1993, with more than 12,000 members and supporters,
`
`and has staff and field offices in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, Oregon,
`
`and California. WWP works throughout the West, including in many of the states containing the
`
`lease sales challenged herein, to influence and improve public lands management throughout
`
`the West with a primary focus on the negative impacts of livestock grazing on 250 million acres
`
`of western public lands, including harm to ecological, biological, cultural, historic,
`
`archeological, scenic resources, wilderness values, roadless areas, Wilderness Study Areas and
`
`designated Wilderness. WWP’S individual members regularly uses public lands in for
`
`recreational, aesthetic purposes and other purposes including areas on or adjacent to parcels
`
`included in the Lease Sales. Those individual members would experience injury should those
`
`parcels be developed for oil and gas, particularly in the absence of an appropriate environmental
`
`review by BLM.
`
` 
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01853 Document 1 Filed 06/28/22 Page 15 of 63
`
`36. Plaintiff WILDEARTH GUARDIANS (“Guardians”) is a non-profit membership
`
`organization based in Santa Fe, New Mexico, with offices throughout the West. Guardians has
`
`168,458 members and activists, some of whom live, work, or recreate on public lands on and
`
`near the leases challenged herein. Guardians and its members are dedicated to protecting and
`
`restoring the wildlife, wild places, wild rivers, and health of the American West. Towards this
`
`end, Guardians and its members work to replace fossil fuels with clean, renewable energy in
`
`order to safeguard public health, the environment, and the Earth’s climate.
`
`37. Conservation Groups’ members and supporters regularly use and enjoy the
`
`cultural resources, wildlands, wildlife habitat, rivers, streams, and healthy ecosystems on and
`
`adjacent to the federal public lands where the challenged leases are located in Nevada,
`
`Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, Montana, North Dakota, and Wyoming. Specifically,
`
`Conservation Groups’ members and supporters use the lands and areas affected by Federal
`
`Defendants’ lease sales for camping, fishing, hiking, hunting, photographing scenery and
`
`wildlife, wildlife viewing, aesthetic enjoyment, and engaging in other vocational, scientific, and
`
`recreational activities. Conservation Groups’ members derive recreational, inspirational,
`
`scientific, educational, and aesthetic benefit from their activities on lands within the Lease Sales
`
`challenged herein, and on nearby lands that affected by the lease sales challenged herein.
`
`38. Conservation Groups’ members and supporters intend to continue to use and
`
`enjoy the lands affected by the challenged lease sales. Conservation Groups’ members and
`
`supporters also intend to continue to use and enjoy lands that are around or within view of lands
`
`affected by the lease sales challenged herein, as well as federal public lands impacted by
`
`subsequent lease development. Conservation Groups’ members and supporters intend to use
`
`these lands to enjoy cultural resources, wildlands, wildlife habitat, rivers, streams, and healthy
`
` 
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01853 Document 1 Filed 06/28/22 Page 16 of 63
`
`environments frequently and on an ongoing basis long into the future, including in 2022 and in
`
`subsequent years.
`
`39. Conservation Groups’ members’ enjoyment of public lands on and adjacent to the
`
`leases challenged herein will be adversely affected and diminished as a result of Federal
`
`Defendants’ leasing actions. Conservation Groups’ members have not only recreated on public
`
`lands that include the lease sale parcels that are the subject of this lawsuit, but they also enjoy
`
`public lands adjacent to these parcels. The reasonably foreseeable development of these lease
`
`parcels will industrialize these treasured landscapes, produce air pollution that is offensive and
`
`threatening to health and safety, create noise that disrupts wildlife and recreational enjoyment,
`
`and will lead to connected development that will further adversely impact nearby public lands,
`
`including road construction, truck traffic, and the construction of oil and gas pipelines and
`
`processing facilities needed to sustain the production of oil and gas on the lease parcels that are
`
`the subject of this lawsuit.
`
`40. Conservation Groups and their members have a procedural interest in Federal
`
`Defendants’ full compliance with NEPA’s planning and decision-making processes when
`
`authorizing oil and gas development on public lands in the western United States and in and
`
`around the lease sale areas in particular, as well as Federal Defendants’ attendant duty to
`
`substantiate their decisions in the record for these authorizations.
`
`41. The developme