Montana Wildlife Federation v. Montana Board of Oil & Gas Conservation
2012 MT 128
Mont.2012Background
- MWF and NWF sued the MBOGC, Fidelity, and MPA challenging 23 gas-well permits in the Cedar Creek Anticline (CCA) under MEPA.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants, applying § 82-11-144, MCA, and allowing outside-record evidence.
- MBOGC issued the 23 permits after reliance on the 1989 PEIS and the 2003 FEIS, using a checklist environmental assessment format for each well.
- The CCA is a large, long-standing oil and gas development area with sage grouse habitat and known leks near several proposed wells.
- Federations argued the EAs were inadequate, lacked hard-look analysis, and failed to consider cumulative impacts or require a programmatic EIS.
- The court concluded the EAs were adequate under MEPA, tiered appropriately to older EISs, and that no programmatic EIS was required at that time.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 82-11-144, MCA governs MEPA challenges and permits outside-record evidence | Federations: section inappropriate for MEPA; records-only review. | Appellees: § 82-11-144 applies to oil/gas permit actions and permits outside-record evidence is permissible. | District court properly applied § 82-11-144 and considered outside-record evidence. |
| Whether the 23 MEPA environmental assessments were adequate for sage grouse impacts | Federations: EAs fail hard look, tiering, and cumulative impacts analysis. | Appellees: EAs tier to prior EISs; sufficient hard look and local site-specific evaluation. | EAs were adequate; MEPA hard look satisfied and cumulative impacts addressed within record. |
| Whether a programmatic environmental impact statement was required for oil and gas in the Cedar Creek Anticline | Federations: ongoing programmatic review required given development in CCA. | Appellees: infill development in an existing field not a major state action; no programmatic EIS needed now. | Not a major state action requiring a programmatic EIS at that time; future review possible. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ravalli County Fish & Game Ass'n v. Mont. Dept. of State Lands, 273 Mont. 371 (Mont. 1995) (MEPA/arbitrary-and-capricious standard of review; agency must show hard look)
- North Fork Preservation Ass'n v. Dept. of State Lands, 238 Mont. 451 (Mont. 1989) (MEPA review required; cumulation and data must be considered)
- Village of False Pass v. Watt, 565 F. Supp. 1123 (D. Alaska 1983) (documented tiering and reliance requirements for EIS/EA references)
- Neighbors of Cuddy Mt. v. USFS, 137 F.3d 1372 (9th Cir. 1998) (MEPA/NEPA hard-look standards; general statements insufficient)
- Barnes v. U.S. Dep't of Transportation, 655 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2011) (binding nature of EA/NEPA tiering and site-specific analysis)
- Westside Property Owners v. Schlesinger, 597 F.2d 1214 (9th Cir. 1979) (ongoing actions and MEPA/NEPA triggers for major actions)
- Southern Oregon Citizens v. Clark, 720 F.2d 1475 (9th Cir. 1983) (duty to update analysis with new information in tiering context)