| History: |
In March, May, August, and October 2008, various environmental groups protested several of the BLM’s Montana oil and gas lease sales held during 2008. Claiming that upstream oil and gas production emits greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions and thus contributes to global warming and climate change, the groups asserted that the BLM should have addressed global warming issues before issuing the leases. In October 2008, the BLM dismissed the groups’ protests, concluding: the groups “have not alleged . . . nor demonstrated by competent evidence that BLM’s decision . . . violated any law. [] The protest fails to identify any specific effect on global warming or climate change that will result from leasing the protested parcels. Further the protest fails to identify any change in the affected environment in which the action will occur that would alter our analysis of the other effects of the leasing action.”
On December 17, 2008, the groups filed a federal lawsuit challenging the BLM’s April 2008 lease sale, which includes 10 lease parcels totaling 6,050.34 acres; June 2008 lease sale, which includes 24 lease parcels totaling 11,289.77 acres; August 2008 lease sale, which includes 12 of 15 lease parcels totaling 7,957.42 acres; and November 2008 lease sale, which includes 17 leases totaling 14,879.31 acres. The groups seek to set aside the BLM’s actions and void the leases.
On March 20, 2009, MSLF filed a motion to intervene on behalf of IPAMS. On April 7, 2009, the federal defendants filed a motion to dismiss. On April 13, 2009, the Court granted IPAMS permissive intervention. On April 17, 2009, MEIC filed its response to federal defendants' motion to dismiss. On April 24, 2009, federal defendants filed a reply in support of their motion to dismiss. On May 27, 2009, the Court denied federal defendants’ motion to dismiss.
On June 1, 2009, the federal defendants filed the administrative record, and on August 28, 2009, a supplemental record was filed. On March 12, 2010, the plaintiffs and federal defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case, with prejudice, and a proposed settlement agreement between the two sets of parties. On March 18, 2010, Judge Molloy granted the motion to dismiss, incorporating the terms of the settlement agreement in his order.
|
