Here’s yesterday’s press release from the plaintiff groups.
DENVER— A federal appeals court today ruled that the U.S. Forest Service illegally approved a loophole allowing the coal industry to despoil unroaded National Forest lands in western Colorado. The decision gives new hope for the protection of Colorado’s North Fork Valley and for the climate.
“The Trump administration can’t sacrifice public lands at the expense of our climate,” said Jeremy Nichols, WildEarth Guardians’ climate and energy program director. “Today’s ruling is another win for the American public over the dirty coal industry and their climate-denying cronies in the federal government.”
“The Forest Service failed to provide a logically coherent explanation for its decision to eliminate the Pilot Knob Alternative,” the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit wrote. The court held the Forest Service illegally refused to protect 4,900 acres in the Gunnison National Forest’s Pilot Knob roadless area when it reopened nearly 20,000 acres to coal leasing and mining.
“The Forest Service can no longer ignore the climate and wildlife benefits of keeping Pilot Knob’s roadless forest free from coal mining,” said Matt Reed, public lands director for High Country Conservation Advocates. “Pilot Knob is an irreplaceable treasure, providing winter range for deer and bald eagles, severe winter range for elk, and historic and potential future habitat for the threatened Gunnison sage grouse. It is the last place we should be tearing up for coal mining.”
Conservation groups sued in December 2017 to protect these pristine wildlands and force the agencies to look at alternatives to minimize climate pollution.
“Colorado roadless areas are a treasure we all share. The U.S. Forest Service long ago decided that these areas needed protection,” said Peter Hart, staff attorney at Wilderness Workshop. “Nonetheless, when the agency implemented the Colorado Roadless Rule, it exempted thousands of acres of pristine roadless lands outside of Paonia from protection to allow for coal mining. Today’s decision vacates that exception and it will, hopefully, ensure that North Fork Roadless Areas, including spectacular Pilot Knob, are properly protected for generations to come.”
“This is a big victory for Colorado’s wildlife and wild places,” said Allison Melton, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity. “Trump officials have been ruthlessly sacrificing our national forests and beautiful wilderness at the behest of polluters. Now they must do their jobs and consider an alternative that would protect important wildlife habitat. It’s encouraging to see the court stand up for bald eagles, mountain lions, mule deer and sage grouse.”
Located in the West Elk Mountains just east of the town of Paonia, the West Elk mine is the single-largest industrial source of methane pollution in Colorado. In 2017 it released more than 440,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide, equal to the annual emissions from more than 98,000 cars.
“While the Trump administration attempts to put our most treasured places in Colorado into the hands of corporate polluters, this victory undermines their blatant disregard for protecting our planet,” said Emily Gedeon, acting director of the Sierra Club’s Colorado chapter. “These are our public lands, and we’re proud to fight for them.”
“This is a victory for the remarkable wild forests of the North Fork Valley,” said Robin Cooley, the Earthjustice attorney who argued the case on behalf of the conservation groups. “The court reversed the Forest Service’s decision to carve out an exception to Colorado’s roadless area protections in order to pave the way for expansion of a dirty and destructive coal mine. As a result of the ruling, the Forest Service must go back to the drawing board and consider whether to protect more of the Valley’s irreplaceable roadless forests.”
In November a federal court in Colorado ruled for conservation groups in a related case and blocked expansion of the West Elk coal mine. The judge ordered the Trump administration to consider limiting methane emissions and address potential harm to water and fish.
Matthew, I strongly disagree with the headline.but maybe you got that from the Press Release?. Forest Service “illegally agreed” also the “Trump Administration” is not accurate, as the North Fork Exception and the rest of the CRR was signed by President Obama.
Reading it, it looks to me like the court agreed with the methane analysis but wanted the FS to analyze one of the plaintiff’s alternatives protecting the Pilot Knob area. In a decision that seems fairly arbitrary and capricious to me, the judge threw out the entire Exception because the FS did not analyse the Pilot Knob alternative, instead of the more logical throwing out of the area in the alternative until a new EIS could be completed.
In fact, based on the same logic that the FS decision was illegal, then possibly the prior court decision was also illegal, and in fact the concurring and dissenting opinion by Judge Kelly was also illegal.
You can almost hear Judge Kelly saying “please stop torturing these people with requesting more analysis, because you and us all know by now that no matter how they analyze, we will be back in court here when they get done.
In fact, if we look at a 3-judge panel, it’s only 66% “illegal.” But this is a terrific example of why people refer to litigation as a “crapshoot.”
I’d also like to give express my appreciation for those poor folks behind the scenes who have been working on this for the last 10 years or so (many of the same people) and who have gotten this far.. and I’m thinking will be perfectly capable, once again, of adding another alternative and starting the process again.
Sharon,
The headline I wrote doesn’t say ” Forest Service ‘llegally agreed.'” The headline I wrote (which is clearly visable) says “Forest Service illegally approved loophole allowing coal industry expansion into roadless area in Colorado.”
I got the words “Forest Service illegally approved” directly from the first sentence of the press release from the plaintiff groups, which clearly reads: “A federal appeals court today ruled that the U.S. Forest Service illegally approved a loophole allowing the coal industry to despoil unroaded National Forest lands in western Colorado.”
Finally, I also clearly provided a link to the actual press release in the blog post.
Please re-read if you need to.
Finally, if we’re going to go with “only 66% ‘illegal'”….
We might as well say that “Citizens United” is only 55.5% the law of the land, right? Wonder how that might change this Super Tuesday and the upcoming November general election?
I said I disagreed with the headline, and even supposed that you got it from the press release.
You are correct – I should have said “illegally approved” rather than “illegally agreed.” In this context I’m not sure it makes a difference since it was a decision to select an alternative, not an agreement.
“I strongly disagree with the headline.but maybe you got that from the Press Release?. Forest Service “illegally agreed” also the “Trump Administration” is not accurate, as the North Fork Exception and the rest of the CRR was signed by President Obama.”
So given that, here’s what I disagree with about the press release headline:
“illegally approve”- didn’t examine a plaintiff-proposed alternative. We all have seen different cases where judges have said yes or no to agencies being required to analyze an external proposal.
“loophole” that was what we might call the results of a seven or more year collaborative effort with at least four rounds of public involvement (can’t remember).
Sharon: “I said I disagreed with the headline, and even supposed that you got it from the press release. You are correct – I should have said “illegally approved” rather than “illegally agreed.”
===
Wow, the last or bottom link from Earth Guardians actually used the expression, “illegally ignored” – how does one illegally ignore something ??? And how would you know that if they did ignore something it was illegal ??? Could really use some emoticons here!
I admit to having a very hard time following what you’re saying Kevin, or even what you and Sharon are trying to get at.
But, for whatever it’s worth, here’s the link to the Federal Judge R. Brooke Jackson’s ruling: https://pdf.wildearthguardians.org/support_docs/Opinion%20Order_West%20Elk%20Doc%2044.pdf
And here’s what the federal judge wrote in that ruling:
“In light of the direct contradiction it presented, OSM’s decision to ignore the new information and find the SFEIS adequate in the NARF was arbitrary and capricious.”
I can understand the Roadless questions and exemption for the mining but as a former NEPA coordinator, I would be looking at alternatives to the road access. Can the mine be expanded without roads through other venting? How wide of a road is needed? Can ventilation be provided without roads, (helicopter equipment to sites)? Etc. How much does this activity really affect the roadless and other values? How much this mining will affect climate change is probably very minor.
It seems like this analysis goes on forever.
David, perhaps we can hear directly from current FS folks now that it’s out of litigation. Yes, the analysis is going on forever. As soon as one part of the court-required NEPA is done, it is explored for other weaknesses, taken back to court and so on..