ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO AMEND THE JUDGMENT AND AMENDED ORDER RE CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND REMEDY

JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge.

Having considered Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend the Judgment (ECF No. 149), Defendants' opposition (ECF No. 152) and Plaintiffs' reply in support of their motion (ECF No. 153) and good cause appearing therefor, the Court hereby GRANTS the Motion to Amend and enters the following Amended Order re Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment and Remedy.

The parties cross-motions for summary judgment were heard on April 19, 2016. After considering the arguments of the parties, the Court issued an oral ruling from the bench granting summary judgment on Plaintiffs' First Cause of Action and ordering the parties to submit additional briefing on other matters taken under submission including the proper remedy. In its original Order (ECF No. 144), this Court intentionally did not opine on the applicability, meaning or interpretation of section 1005(c) or 1005(g), 30 U.S.C. §§ 1005(c) and 1005(g). If, on remand, BLM concludes that the Leases can lawfully be extended under these or any other provision of the Geothermal Steam Act it must first make such a finding and issue a new lease extension based on that finding in accordance with this Amended Order.

The Court recognized that the 2005 Amendments to the Geothermal Steam Act created a further issue as to whether the Amendments should be applied retroactively and, if so, whether BLM would be required to comply with NEPA and NHPA, including by consulting with affected tribes. Upon reconsideration, the Court finds that it erred in ordering that BLM shall apply the current Geothermal Steam Act and its implementing regulations when determining whether the Leases are eligible for or entitled to extensions. The issue of retroactive application only becomes ripe for decision by this Court after BLM has made a final decision to extend the leases and produced a record of such decision for this Court to review. The Court further finds that the issue of the effective date of any lease extension or continuation also is not ripe for decision until after BLM has made a decision to extend or continue the Leases and stated its reasons therefor.

The Court also finds upon reconsideration that it erred in granting Defendants' motion for summary judgment on the Second, Third and Fourth Causes of Action and that the record reflects that the Court concluded that it did not need to reach these claims given its decision on the First Cause of Action.

Accordingly, the Court hereby amends it previous Order Re Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment and Remand (ECF No. 144) and now enters the following orders:

1. The May 18, 1998 decision by the Bureau of Land Management ("BLM") granting continuances of the 26 leases ("Leases) committed to the Glass Mountain Geothermal Unit in the Medicine Lake Highlands for up to 40 years pursuant to former section 1005(a) of the Geothermal Steam Act, 30 U.S.C. § 1005(a), is vacated and set aside. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2).

2. The decision of whether to extend or cancel the 26 Leases is remanded to the BLM. The May 18, 1998 decision vacating prior extensions of 24 of the leases is also remanded to the BLM for further consideration. To the extent that BLM desires to reconsider extension of the Leases it must do so in accordance with this Amended Order and Ninth Circuit's decision in Pit River Tribe v. Bureau of Land Management, 793 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2015).

3. If BLM elects to reconsider extension of the Leases, BLM shall apply the Geothermal Steam Act and its implementing regulations in effect on May 18, 1998 when determining whether the Leases are eligible for or entitled to extensions.

4. If BLM elects to proceed with a new extension decision for the Leases under other provisions of the Geothermal Steam Act, the legal and factual basis for any such decision shall be set forth in a new decision document, with timely notice to Plaintiffs.

5. If BLM grants any lease extension or continuation on remand and believes it is not required to prepare an environmental impact statement under NEPA or to engage in tribal consultation under the NHPA before granting such a lease extension, it shall set forth the legal and factual basis for any such belief in a new decision document with timely notice to Plaintiffs.

6. Any judicial action challenging BLM's actions on remand shall be commenced by filing a new complaint initiating a new case.

7. The continuance of Lease CACA 12372 for up to forty years pursuant to 30 U.S.C. § 1005(a) (AR 18832) is not affected by this Amended Order.

8. Based on the Court's ruling on the First Cause of Action, the Court Need Not and Does Not Reach Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the Second, Third and Fourth Causes of Action, which are rendered moot by vacatur of the May 18, 1998 lease continuance decision.

9. Nothing in this Amended Order addresses or affects any contractual claims and damages between Defendants Calpine Corporation and BLM.

10. Defendants' motion to strike (Doc #132) the Declaration of Deborah Sivas in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc #131-1) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.