Court decision: The 9th Circuit held that the Olympic National Forest decision to grant a special use permit to the Navy for electronic warfare training was consistent with the forest plan, after allowing documents outside of the administrative record that showed they had considered the availability of private land.
Court decision: The 9th Circuit upheld the Lostine Project on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. The use of a categorical exclusion was proper under HFRA, the project met its requirements for collaboration, and it was consistent with the forest plan. (The court did not review the facts of the case, but they were discussed here.)
- Oil & gas fracking
New lawsuit: The State of California and several environmental groups have filed lawsuits against a BLM decision that removed a moratorium on fracking on lands in central California, including some adjacent to national forests. (The second link includes a map.)
New lawsuit: Environmental groups have challenged EPA’s failure to complete plans to address smog related to fracking in 11 states. “Sensitive tree species at risk from ozone pollution include black cherry, quaking aspen, cottonwood and ponderosa pine, which provides critical habitat for threatened species such as the Mexican spotted owl and Pawnee montane skipper.”
Settlement implementation: The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service has formally announced a 5-year review of the status of grizzly bears, as agreed to in a partial settlement of litigation mentioned here. This is part of a lawsuit which “ultimately aims to build a plan to eventually bring grizzly bears to more places, including the Sierra Nevada” according to this article.
Notice of Intent: The Alliance for the Wild Rockies and Yellowstone to Uintas Connection sent a required 60-day notice to sue to the U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They argue that 18 miles of pipeline on national forest land may affect grizzly bears and other listed species. The application of the Idaho Roadless Rule is also involved.
Update: The D. C. Court of Appeals heard arguments in a lawsuit filed by Solenex LLC to reverse its lease cancellation on the Lewis and Clark National Forest. Environmental groups and the Blackfeet Nation have appealed on the side of the government.
Update: The Quiet Title Act claim was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because there is insufficient evidence that the Forest Service has asserted ownership in plaintiff’s land adjacent to the Sawtooth National Recreation Area as part of constructing a trail on an easement across plaintiff’s land. (Other claims remain pending.)
Been there with the pipeline in Roadless. “That means motorized vehicles will use this corridor in perpetuity to maintain and inspect the pipeline and remove vegetation,” said Mike Garrity, executive director of the Alliance for the Wild Rockies.”
Note 1. There is no requirement against “motorized vehicles” in Roadless. The question is whether a pipeline ROW is a “road” .
Note 2. Bull Mountain Pipeline case in Colorado was about that. Big discussion if a construction zone, linear because pipelines are linear, are in fact “roads”. Court found that they weren’t.
Note 3. That’s why there are specific parts of the Colorado Roadless Rule dealing with LCZ’s or Linear Construction Zones. Here’s what’s in the Colorado Rule:
Ҥ 294.44 Prohibition on linear construction zones.
(a) General. A linear construction zone may not be authorized in Colorado Roadless Areas except as provided in paragraph (b) and (c) of this section and § 294.48 (a).
(b) Upper Tier Acres. Notwithstanding the prohibition in paragraph (a) of this section, a linear construction zone may only be authorized within Colorado Roadless Area upper tier acres if the Regional Forester determines the LCZ is needed:
(1) Pursuant to reserved or outstanding rights, or as provided for by statute or treaty.
(2) For the construction, reconstruction, or maintenance of an authorized water conveyance structure which is operated pursuant to a pre-existing water court decree (see § 294.43(c)(1)(iv));
(c) Non-Upper Tier Acres. Notwithstanding the prohibition in paragraph (a) of this section, a linear construction zone may only be authorized within Colorado Roadless Area non-upper tier acres if the Regional Forester determines the LCZ is needed:
(1) Pursuant to reserved or outstanding rights, or as provided for by statute or treaty.
(2) For the construction, reconstruction, or maintenance of an authorized water conveyance structure which is operated pursuant to a pre-existing water court decree (see § 294.43(c)(1)(iv));
(3) For the construction, reconstruction, or maintenance of existing or future authorized electrical power lines or telecommunication lines. Electrical power lines or telecommunication lines within Colorado Roadless Areas will only be authorized if there is no opportunity for the project to be implemented outside of a Colorado Roadless Area without causing substantially greater environmental damage; or
(4) For the construction, reconstruction or maintenance of a pipeline associated with operation of an oil and gas lease that allows surface use within a Colorado Roadless Area or the construction, reconstruction or maintenance of a pipeline needed to connect to infrastructure within a Colorado Roadless Area from outside a Colorado Roadless Area where such a connection would cause substantially less environmental damage than alternative routes. The construction of pipelines for the purposes of transporting oil or natural gas through a Colorado Roadless Area, where the source(s) and destination(s) of the pipeline are located exclusively outside of a Colorado Roadless Area, shall not be authorized.
(d) Proposed Linear Construction Zones. If a proposed linear construction zone meets one of the above exceptions, then the following must be determined:
(1) Motorized access, without a linear construction zone, is not feasible;
(2) A linear construction zone is consistent with the applicable land management plan direction;
(3) A linear construction zone is no wider than its intended use;
(4) Within a native cutthroat trout catchment or identified recovery watershed, a linear construction zone will not diminish, over the long-term, conditions in the water influence zone and the extent of the occupied native cutthroat trout habitat;
(5) Reclamation of a linear construction zone will not diminish, over the long-term, roadless area characteristics; and
(6) That watershed conservation practices will be applied to all projects occurring in catchments with occupied native cutthroat trout habitat.
(e) Linear construction zone decommissioning. Where a linear construction zone is authorized in a Colorado Roadless Area, installation of the linear facility will be done in a manner that minimizes ground disturbance, including placement within existing right-of-ways where feasible. All authorizations approving the installation of linear facilities through the use of a linear construction zone shall include a responsible official approved reclamation plan for reclaiming the affected landscape while conserving roadless area characteristics over the long-term. Upon completion of the installation of a linear facility via the use of a linear construction zone, all areas of surface disturbance shall be reclaimed as prescribed in the authorization and the approved reclamation plan and may not be waived.” link https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/36/294.44
It seems like this Colorado language would prevent the Idaho situation: “The construction of pipelines for the purposes of transporting oil or natural gas through a Colorado Roadless Area, where the source(s) and destination(s) of the pipeline are located exclusively outside of a Colorado Roadless Area, shall not be authorized.” But it looks like there was a lot less concern in Idaho for oil and gas pipelines – from the Federal Register Notice: “As identified in the FEIS, there is low potential for oil and gas development in Idaho … The Western Energy Corridor study was also considered during development of this rule and no corridors have been identified in IRAs.” Even with the Colorado Roadless Rule as a model, they did not include language for “linear construction zones” (prohibiting them or otherwise). “For now, the final rule prohibits new road construction or reconstruction within any theme for post-rule oil and gas, and geothermal leasing,” which leaves the same question – what is a road? Here’s the Idaho definition: “As defined at 36 CFR 212.1, the term means a motor vehicle route over 50 inches wide, unless identified and managed as a trail.”
Seems like the national marine fisheries, forest service, BLM, fish and wildlife, have all signed off on the Pacific connector pipeline. They will be exporting natural gas at a new terminal in Coos Bay, through a hundred fifty mile 36″ diameter pipeline that goes through critical habitat, riparian reserves, and forest reserves.
Strange how a Canadian company gets to do things that any local entity could never dream of doing and would get arrested for.
FERC gives their opinion this month. After being turned down twice I am pretty sure we know what their opinion will be.