Case Summary
Issue:
Whether, and, if so to what extent, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) must consider, analyze, and/or mitigate the global warming impacts of so-called greenhouse gases when issuing oil and gas leases on federal lands?
Plaintiff:
Amigos Bravos: Amigos Bravos; Common Ground United; Natural Resources Defense Council; Oil and Gas Accountability Project; San Juan Citizens Alliance; Southwest Environmental Center. WildEarth Guardians: WildEarth Guardians; Dine Care; Carson Forest Watch
Defendant:
Amigos Bravos: U.S. Bureau of Land Management; Linda S.C. Rundell, New Mexico State Director, BLM; Ken Salazar, Secretary of the Interior. WildEarth Guardians: U.S. Bureau of Land Management; U.S. Forest Service
Intervenor:
Amigos Bravos and WildEarth Guardians: Independent Petroleum Association of New Mexico (IPANM)
Join the Fight
Since 1977, MSLF has fought to protect private property rights, individual liberties, and economic freedom. MSLF is a nonprofit public interest legal foundation. We represent clients pro bono and receive no government funding. Make your 100% tax deductible contribution today and join the fight.
Case History
In March 2008, various environmental groups protested the BLM’s New Mexico oil and gas lease sale of April 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.
On July 11, 2008, the BLM dismissed the groups’ protest, 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 January 14, 2009 the groups filed a federal lawsuit, Amigos Bravos, challenging the BLM April 2008 lease sale, which included 43 lease parcels totaling 28,729.51 acres, and the July 2008 sale, which included 49 lease parcels totaling 39,946.12 acres. The groups seek to set aside the BLM’s actions and void the leases. On March 23, 2009, on behalf of IPANM, MSLF filed a motion to intervene as defendant in Amigos Bravos.
In April 2009 other environmental groups filed suit, WildEarth Guardians v. BLM, alleging that those agencies violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Federal Land Policy and Management Act, (FLPMA), and National Forest Management Act (NFMA) in issuing federal oil and gas leases in New Mexico at the April, July, and October 2008 lease sales. They claim that the BLM failed to analyze the cumulative effects of ozone and failed to include “reasonable alternatives” or to use technological controls to reduce ozone emissions. They also assert that the sales will likely result in ozone emissions that exceed federal air quality standards and thus result in increased ozone levels that would have significant adverse public health impacts.
The IPANM asserts that the BLM addressed ozone emissions through its air quality analyses, as well as best management practices developed to mitigate adverse impacts to air quality. Specifically, the 2003 Farmington Resource Management Plan Amendment contains an extensive discussion on air quality and establishes specific mitigation measures to control emissions. Plus, current ozone levels in New Mexico and Oklahoma are lower than previously forecast, and, thus, the impact of ozone on air quality and human health is well within forecasts in the Resource Management Plans used by BLM.
On May 26, 2009, the federal defendants filed a motion to dismiss inAmigos Bravos, and on June 9, 2009, in WildEarth Guardians, they filed a motion to consolidate that suit with Amigos Bravos. IPANM’s motions to intervene were granted on August 4, 2009, in Amigos Bravos and on September 14, 2009, in WildEarth Guardians. On September 10, 2009, the cases were consolidated.
On February 9, 2010, the Court denied the federal defendants’ motion to dismiss in WildEarth Guardians and granted the federal defendants’ motion to dismiss in Amigos Bravos only as to the Mineral Lands Leasing Act claim relating to the April lease sale and the July 11, 2008, protest decision and their eighth cause of action and denied the remainder of the motion.
On February 22, 2010, the IPANM filed its answer to the first amended complaint in WildEarth Guardians. On March 9, 2010, the federal defendants lodged the consolidated administrative record.
On June 3, 2010, the plaintiffs filed opening briefs on the merits inAmigos Bravos and WildEarth Guardians. On September 9, 2010, the federal defendants and the IPANM filed response briefs. On October 8, 2010, plaintiffs filed their reply briefs.
On January 26, 2011, Wildearth Guardians filed a motion for judicial notice of a recent ozone study, as to which the IPANM filed an opposition on February 9, 2011. On February 24, 2011, Amigos Bravosfiled a motion to supplement the administrative record with a 2010 General Accounting Office report. On March 25, 2011, the federal defendants and the IPANM filed an opposition to the motion to supplement the administrative record. On April 8, 2011, Amigos Bravosfiled a reply.
On August 3, 2011, the district court entered a judgment dismissing Amigos Bravos for lack of standing. On that same day, the district court dismissed all claims in WildEarth Gaurdians for lack of merit.
