Holiday edition …
Update: The “featured case” last time involved the validity of the Council on Environmental Quality’s regulations governing NEPA compliance for all federal agencies. It was unusual because neither party in the lawsuit raised that issue. Adding to the unique nature of this case, both parties have now filed petitions for rehearing en banc (by the full D. C. Circuit Court), both of them opposing the 2-1 appeals panel ruling that the CEQ regs are invalid.
FOREST SERVICE
TRO denied in American Whitewater v. U. S. Corps of Engineers (W.D. North Carolina)
On November 22, the district court denied a temporary restraining order against actions by CSX Transportation approved by the Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Corps of Engineers to reconstruct its railroad line through the Nolichucky River Gorge in North Carolina, which was severely damaged by the catastrophic flooding from Hurricane Helene. The court held, “The Plaintiffs have failed to establish a harm so immediate and irreparable that temporary injunctive relief must issue before all parties can be heard on the Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction request.”
New lawsuit: Friends of the Bitterroot v. Haaland (D. Montana)
On December 3, Friends of the Bitterroot, Friends of the Clearwater, Native Ecosystems Council, and WildEarth Guardians challenged the Forest Service’s 2023 Programmatic Amendment 40 to the Land Management Plan for the Bitterroot National Forest, which eliminated restrictions on roads open to motorized use. The amendment was developed to reduce these requirements for elk habitat. Plaintiffs argue that the Forest Service and Fish and Wildlife Service did not adequately consider effects on threatened grizzly bears and bull trout, which would violate NEPA and ESA. They also allege violations of the NFMA diversity provisions of the 2012 Planning Rule requiring consideration of habitat connectivity for these species. Here’s a local article.
Court decision in Freres Timber, Inc. v. U. S. (D. Oregon)
On December 6, the district court dismissed a $33 million negligence claim filed by Freres Timber because it challenges discretionary firefighting decisions for which the government can’t be held liable. Though the Forest Service was operating under an official directive to fully suppress the Beachie Creek Fire, the exact methods were still up to the agency, the judge said. “Specific choices regarding the implementation of that directive are left to the firefighters,” he said. “No language in the decision prescribes a specific method of suppression, imposes a specific time constraint in which to accomplish full suppression, or, more pointedly, compels the Forest Service to make a specific number of drops with a specified number of helicopters.” The plaintiffs have a “lack of any proof” the agency had improperly allowed the Beachie Creek Fire to burn for “natural resource purposes,” he said. Plaintiffs have said, “Our purpose bringing this litigation was to change the Forest Service’s behavior toward extinguishing fire.” The article has a link to the opinion.
Court decision in Wilderness Watch v. Jackson (D. Idaho)
On December 10, the district court approved a settlement agreement that would clarify and reiterate that four airstrips in the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness would be for emergency use only. Plaintiffs had alleged that the Forest Service has acted contrary to the directives of the Wilderness Act and the Central Idaho Wilderness Act by allowing frequent private aircraft landings at these airstrips.
The State of Idaho and users intervened and filed cross-claims. The court dismissed these claims because they failed to articulate a non-discretionary duty the Forest Service must undertake related to the maintenance of the airstrips. The court also found that Central Idaho Wilderness Act’s prohibition against closing the airstrips does not prevent the Forest Service from limiting them to emergency use. “The fact the Forest Service desires to change course vis-à-vis the settlement agreement is therefore consistent with the discretionary authority granted to the agency by the CIWA, and by the 2003/2009 Plan.”
BLM
New lawsuit: Center for Biological Diversity v. Carey (D. Montana)
On December 3, the Center for Biological Diversity, Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Native Ecosystems Council, Council on Wildlife and Fish, and Yellowstone to Unitas Connection sued the BLM over its Clark Fork Face Forest Health and Fuels Reduction Project in the Garnet Mountain Range, east of Missoula. The Decision Notice authorizes logging on 8,283 acres and burning on another 4,600 acres of forest within and near the wildland-urban interface. Another 2,146 acres are authorized for “fuels management treatments,” and the total treated area is about 70% of the BLM lands. The complaint alleges the EA violates NEPA, in particular not adequately addressing how the Project will impact grizzly bear, lynx, and wolverine and habitat connectivity, and failure to adequately consider climate impacts. It also alleges violations of FLPMA due to the Project not complying with standards in the RMP, and due to the Project and the RMP not properly mapping Canada lynx habitat. The article includes a link to the complaint. A notice of intent to sue under the ESA has also been sent to the Fish and Wildlife Service.
New lawsuit: Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility v. U. S. Department of the Interior (D. D.C.)
On December 9, PEER, Coalition to Protect America’s Parks, Basin and Range Watch, and two individuals sued USDI, the National Park Service and the BLM, alleging that the federal government has failed to protect the Old Spanish National Historic Trail, which runs from Santa Fe to Los Angeles, by not creating a required management plan for the trail. This has resulted in development threats, including from oil and gas. This article includes a map of the trail.
New lawsuit: Wyoming v. Haaland (D. Wyoming)
On December 11, the states of Wyoming and Montana sued the BLM over alleged FLPMA, NEPA and Mineral Leasing Act violations in conjunction with recently issuing its resource plan amendments that prohibit any new coal leasing in the Powder River Basin, which provides the bulk of the nation’s coal. The BLM cited climate change as the main reason. The article includes a link to the complaint.
ENDANGERED SPECIES
Settlement in Flathead-Lolo-Bitterroot Citizen Task Force v. Montana (D. Montana)
On November 21, the district court agreed to dismiss this case against the State of Montana’s wolf and coyote trapping season regulations, which would have allowed activities that could harm grizzly bears. The State had adopted new regulations that addressed plaintiffs’ concerns about grizzly bear denning periods. The article includes a link the court order and settlement terms.
New lawsuit: Center for Biological Diversity v. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (D. Arizona)
On November 25, plaintiffs sued the Fish and Wildlife Service over its failure to issue timely 12-month findings on the Center’s petition to list the southern bog turtle DPS and the roughhead shiner in violation of the Endangered Species Act’s statutory deadlines. The listing petitions for these species illustrate the role that national forests may play in decisions to list threatened and endangered species. The petition to list the bog turtle specifically addresses national forests and NFMA:
“Even with the additional provisions of the 2012 planning rule, this law is inadequate for the conservation of the bog turtle because most bog turtle sites occur on private lands, and bog turtle sites on national forest lands remain vulnerable to the impacts of timber harvests, mining, pipelines, oil and gas drilling, and road construction.
The U.S. Forest Service manages some southern bog turtle sites, but under its multiple use mandate, the agency has flexibility in weighing the impacts of timber projects on bog turtle habitat. The U.S. Forest Service’s draft Environmental Impact Statement and Forest Plan for the Nantahala-Pisgah National Forest—which shelters the most southern bog turtle habitat— proposes quadrupling the timber harvests across the forest and reducing the size of buffers for intermittent and ephemeral streams, which will further jeopardize bog turtle habitat.”
Two populations of bog turtles were also noted on the Chattahoochee National Forest. The roughhead shiner is found in western Virginia, on the Jefferson National Forest, where plaintiffs believe it is also inadequately protected (and have brought it up during project development):
“Because the roughhead shiner is not a federally protected species, its habitat is vulnerable to disturbance by activities on the Jefferson National Forest. As a federal species of concern, the shiner is on the forest’s sensitive species list, but this classification does not provide on-the-ground protection from habitat disturbing activities on the forest.”
What if forest plans did provide the needed protection, and such projects could not occur? (The article includes a link to the complaint and the petitions.)
Court decision in Wyoming v. Haaland (D. Wyoming)
On December 6, in response to Wyoming’s petition to enforce the same 12-month requirement for the Fish and Wildlife Service to determine whether grizzly bears still warrant listing as a threatened species or should be delisted, the district judge gave the agency 45 days to complete its process (January 20). The court did criticize the State for its “pointless musings” in its brief like “demanding public apologies from federal officials.” The article includes a link to the court’s order.
New lawsuit.
On December 11, Defenders of Wildlife sued the Fish and Wildlife Service for failing to make a finding on their petition to list the pinyon jay within the 12-month required timeframe. The petition was filed in April, 2022. Pinyon jays occur on many national forests and BLM lands where pinyon-juniper woodlands are found across New Mexico, northern Arizona, Nevada, Utah, and Colorado, but their population has dropped by 80% since 1967 due to long term drought, climate change, and habitat conversion, according to the Forest Service.
New lawsuit: Center for Biological Diversity v. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (D. D.C.)
On December 12, plaintiffs sued to reverse the decision by the Fish and Wildlife Service to not list the striped newt as threatened or endangered. The newt occurs only in north-central Florida and southern Georgia in longleaf pine forests, sandhills, and xeric hammocks. Per the plaintiff’s news release, “The newt’s habitat has been severely degraded and fragmented by logging, agriculture, fire suppression and urban development… The species is declining even on public lands that are protected from development.” They cite logging on the Ocala National Forest, and decline to one site on the Appalachicola National Forest. Off road vehicles are also considered threats. The news release includes a link to the complaint.
Settlement in Center for Biological Diversity v. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (D. Arizona)
On December 18, the court approved settlement of a case involving delay by the Fish and Wildlife Service in determining whether to list four species of bees. Under the agreement’s terms, the Service must decide whether to protect American bumblebees and variable cuckoo bumblebees by 2027; blue calamintha bees by 2028; and Southern Plains bumblebees by 2029.
OTHER
New lawsuit.
On November 26, the Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against a group of persons for unlawfully placing fencing on federal lands near Mancos, Colorado. These actions allegedly violate the Unlawful Inclosures Act of 1885. The Free Land Holders claim ownership of the 1460 acres.
New lawsuit: Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Cox (Salt Lake County District Court)
On December 18, SUWA sued the governor of Utah over his petition to the Supreme Court that seeks to remove BLM lands from federal ownership. SUWA argues that the state’s legal challenge violates the state constitution. The Utah Constitution states “the people inhabiting this State do affirm and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries hereof …”
A foreign seasonal worker for tree thinning work within the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest is seeking $42 million in damages from his former timber industry employer. According to the complaint, he was using a chainsaw and was injured by a falling limb, and it argues that the company should be found negligent for a litany of safety violations including not providing proper training and protective equipment.
On December 18, the Montana Supreme Court affirmed a lower court decision 6-1, finding that a state law that prohibited consideration of effects on climate change in environmental reviews violated the Montana Constitution’s requirement that the state provide for a “clean and healthful environment.” While few states have similar constitutional provisions, this case has attracted national attention as a possible precedent; we discussed it previously here.
Great as always, Jon! A couple of observations:
o Law geeks should definitely click on the second link in Jon’s post. I don’t think I’ve ever seen this before: opposing parties in federal appellate court seeking en banc review for exactly the same reason.
o Re: Freres Timber: I understand those who wish to see an immediate suppression mandate applied to federal lands. I don’t understand why they continue to try to use the Federal Tort Claims Act to get there. This approach is the Washington Generals of federal land management litigation.
Re: Freres Timber . . . Washington Generals with Frank Carroll at quarterback. 🤯
Frank was Freres’ expert witness in this doomed-from-the-outset lawsuit: “The testimony of retired Forest Service worker Frank Carroll, who reviewed the record and derived the ‘opinion that, more likely than not, the Beachie Creek Fire was not extinguished because the Forest Service chose to use it as a natural resource management tool,’ similarly fails to meet Plaintiffs’ burden.”
OK I’ll apply some non-lawyer thinking here. I sympathize with Freres and maybe that’s a different way of looking at the case than the broader issue of tactics.
(1) Innocent landowners were harmed.
(2) Who is responsible for wildfire damage? Ignition source? Suppression folks’ potentially less effective firefighting choices? Climate change sources?
(3) Did the fire folks have choices that would have worked better? We don’t know for sure. We do know that we don’t want firefighting decisions to end up in court.. so far I don’t think that much has improved, and many things have gotten worse, by involving courts in such technical discussions.
*****************
Another piece of non-lawyer thinking..
We have the case in which wildfire went from Sierra Pacific to FS land and Sierra Pacific was liable and had to pay mega-sums to the FS for negligence.
I don’t know what the answer is, but I feel as a human being, that Freres is getting the short end of the stick.
This Labor Day fire had multiple ignition sources. Freres chose to sue the Forest Service over its firefighting of the first-in-time ignition, which was a lightning strike in a wilderness area. Even this atheist calls that ignition an “Act of God.” Subsequent ignitions occurred from power line failures caused by the Santa Ana-type east wind that blew downslope on Labor Day. Who’s to blame for those ignitions? Figuring out which ignition caused which acres to burn has proven all but impossible.
Hi Andy: I have long argued — unsuccessfully, mostly — that the source of ignition is irrelevant. Wherever people are cooking, smoking, using electricity, or committing arson there is a source of ignition and it is constant.
The problem is fuel. That is where the USFS has miserably failed its purpose, mission, and public credibility.
These catastrophic wildfires of the past 35 years have been clearly predicted by me and by many others based entirely on USFS adoption of passive management, let-it-burn, and “boxing” wildfires. Those abrupt changes in management decisions were quickly and clearly predicted to produce major wildfires if adopted. And when the predictable took place, we were told “Global Warming,” and then “a century of fire suppression,: and then “ecological benefit.”
All crap, all deadly, all ugly, and all extremely costly to the clueless taxpayers that made it all possible. Personal opinion, based on observation and documentation. This should have been stopped long ago. More opinion.
So what was the deal with the Tillamook catastrophic fires 70-90 years ago? Regardless of ignition source, and in an era of limited logging due to a lack of modern mechanization, >350k acres burned.
Then, in modern times, multiple ignition sources during a *climate* induced catastrophic wind event burned trees as well. During a historic drought.
“Opinion” indeed, short on facts, contrary to what is in peer reviewed science. There is an obvious climate signal, seasonal yes, that relates to wildfires (vapor pressure deficit, wind events, etc) that is only recently showing up. Forestry plays an important role in reducing fire severity on public lands; it is one of many objectives. Public lands, however, are more at risk from industrial aggressive clearcutting and a lack of proactive fuel treatment within those plantations, which then pose a risk to communities and natural resources.
https://forestpolicypub.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Frontiers-in-Ecol-Environ-2022-Levine-Higher-incidence-of-high%E2%80%90severity-fire-in-and-near-industrially-managed.pdf
I understand why you hide your identity. If I ever need to learn how “climate signals” affect wildfires in relation to “aggressive clearcutting,” I know who to contact. Sort of.
If you’d like to learn about Tillamook fire history, you might want to buy (or at least read) one of my books on the topic.
Anon, I don’t think that’s true. (1) For one thing “aggressive” clearcutting isn’t a scientific word. Then there’s the fact that sometimes people disagree as to what a clearcut actually is https://forestpolicypub.com/2019/11/15/what-do-people-mean-when-they-say-clearcut-colville-example/
(2) federal lands aren’t managed the same way as industry (so I’d argue that the paper you cite is not relevant). Specific practices may be the same or different, within the cluster of what some people call “industrial forestry” depending on where you are talking about.
(3) clearcuts I’ve observed on federal land have been where the overstory is dead and fuels are removed to facilitate regeneration (and that regeneration not burning up).
(4) sometimes young plantations burn and sometimes they don’t. See photos taken by Derek Weidensee. https://forestpolicypub.com/2010/10/23/impacts-of-fire-disturbance-on-anthropogenically-induced-vegetation-mosaics/
I would submit that generalities like “Public lands, however, are more at risk from industrial aggressive clearcutting and a lack of proactive fuel treatment within those plantations, which then pose a risk to communities and natural resources ” may be valid in some places but not in others. Let’s talk about where you have seen what you term “industrial aggressive clearcutting” and lack of proactive fuel treatment on federal lands, and then maybe we could have a more in-depth discussion.
In the 19th century a lot of forest fires were caused by trains throwing sparks onto dry brush. An early case (in Idaho, I think) involved two fires ignited by two different trains that merged into a large and damaging blaze. The court, unable to determine which train was “more” responsible for the fire held that both railroad companies were liable for the full amount of damages. It was up to them, in subsequent litigation, to figure out the exact allocation of responsibility.
This is called “joint and several liability” (a concept that the Superfund law would later make famous). It didn’t come up in the Freres case because, as we’ve been discussing, the federal government is different from the other kids.
Plus the federal government didn’t ignite the wilderness fire. There’s a culpability difference between Nature’s ignitions and those caused by trains and power lines.
Hi Andy: No, but the federal government created the Wildernesses and are responsible for their management. I still think the Kalmiopsis should be turned into a National Park focused on its pre-WW II mining history, rather than an inaccessible, dangerous, weed-filled firebomb that goes off every so often. If the feds are going to maintain a “let it burn” philosophy for our Wilderness areas and so-called “wildlands” (formerly, “the woods”), then they should be held responsible for their management decisions and failures in my opinion. Based on precedent.
You’ve argued that fire is natural anywhere humans are, regardless of arson, accident, or power lines, or natural like lightning. That it is all about fuel.
That same line of argument can be seen as:
– People live the woods, and it is on them to protect their personal property, homes, etc, by fire proofing them and their landscape.
– Private timberlands in large contiguous units, are on the hook to fireproof their land, create fuel breaks, thin commercial evened plantations, and take actions to reduce fire susceptibility and potential intensity
– Private timberlands within checkerboard ownerships, a reflection of turn of the century (20th century) actions, are a bad position to be in amongst public federal lands subject to multiple use and multiple public opinions. As such, they are either subject to natural, or as you argue, human caused fires because those are also perfectly acceptable and normal, and it is either the price of playing the game, or those checkerboard ownerships need to go above and beyond to protect their resources (like how large industrial farms in the midwest rely on Round Up Ready crops for their own good, and to feed the population).
– Is it the responsibility of the US government to fund rural areas via resource extractions? Literally everyone I have ever spoken to, from WA, OR, CA, MT, ID, CO, has said that the timber boom of the 60s-80s was highly unsustainable, and they knew it. It was a broken system. You’ve argued against ideas that are more sustainable forestry such as proposed by Franklin, also known as variable retention or messy clearcuts.
– Is it important that wilderness areas cease to exist, and instead we develop them as much as possible for a small subset of individuals?
– Public lands are just that – public. So if we remake them as locals want them, what is locals say, “We want no Robert Zybachs in our forests in Montana”, or “We refuse to allow PhDs into our community and forests”? It’s extreme, but also not by the same level of logic?
I don’t think so, no.
See “sovereign immunity.” https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/sovereign_immunity
“The king can do no wrong.” (Where else have we heard that recently?)
And yet the USG is sued all the time, for negligence, for not doing things they are required to do, and so on. Maybe one of our legal friends can point us to a document that tells us “what agencies can be sued for.”
Most litigation that comes up on this blog involves administrative law: a federal agency takes an action (or, less frequently, omits taking an action) and the question is whether that action, or inaction is consistent with applicable laws and regs,
The Freres case involved a tort claim against the federal government. As Jon indicated, the federal government cannot be sued without its consent. The Federal Tort Claims Act constitutes Congress’ consent for the government to be sued in tort (that is, to be sued for damages, including property damages). It balances the desire to give wronged citizens an attempt to right the wrong in court with the desire to avoid converting every policy disagreement and potential financial loss into a court case.
Many plaintiffs in a situation similar to Freres have sought to recover for fire-related damage under the FTCA. These suits routinely fail, because the FTCA states that discretionary federal functions cannot be challenged in court. Most/all courts have held that fire management decisions fall within this exception. (This would not cover intentional wrongdoing.)
There are practical reasons most judges resolve fire FTCA cases in this manner: no judge wants to get into the game of second guessing how fires are fought. They are (well, most of them, anyway) well aware of their own ignorance in these matters, and no judge wants to publish an opinion that ends up in the chain of causation of the next a Hermit Peak-type disaster (“Forest Service officials argue they would have fought the fire that claimed dozens of lives differently, but the opinon by Judge Rich prevented them from doing so.”)
This is certainly an interesting area. I found this article about another fire https://wyomingtruth.org/forest-service-cant-be-sued-over-2018-wildfire-court-rules/
Rhoades and Booke point in part to the Interagency Standards for Fire and Fire Aviation Operations, known as the Red Book, which states: “Human caused fires and trespass fire must be suppressed safely and cost effectively and must not be managed for resource benefits.”
That policy was violated because, the plaintiffs argued, the Forest Service initially tried to manage the fire for resource benefits. They highlighted a Sept. 16, 2018 article from the Jackson Hole News & Guide in which Bridger-Teton spokeswoman Mary Cernicek was quoted as saying the Roosevelt Fire was “being used on the landscape to reintroduce fire in its natural role.”
But Judge Johnson noted the forest’s official plan logged in the Wildland Fire Decision Support System gave no indication of the fire being managed for resource benefits. Further, the fact that the Forest Service was managing multiple fires in the region with limited equipment and personnel “shows why discretion is necessary,” he wrote.
So, not being a lawyer, it seems that the judges might have left the question alone of choosing to manage for resource benefits, based on conflicting info from the Forest and WFDSS.
Which seems to leave us in the interesting place that some escaped prescribed fires lead to compensation from FEMA, some don’t, and no escapes from “managed for resource benefits.” But I think the above case begs the question if it was listed in WFDSS as for resource benefits.
Finally, BLM retirees tell me that landowners file tort claims (there’s a form) from prescribed fire slopovers and the landowners get reimbursed for fences, houses and trees (stumpage value).
so as a non-lawyer it appears that the FS should always use WFU and not prescribed fire.. no apparent legal liability and no NEPA!
What do you think the chance is that Trump’s DOJ will switch sides? In any case, it seems to me that the next time any environmental complaint cites the CEQ regs, either the Trump government or an intervenor will challenge the CEQ regs, so this case will affect future NEPA litigation regardless. I haven’t heard anything about a CEQ chair nominee, but I could see it being someone who would not be supportive of CEQ authority.
I’m guessing that even many anti-NEPA folks will not support the simple elimination of the regs. That could in theory call into question any existing permit or authorization for which a NEPA document has been prepared. But the coming admin is already showing a tendency to sail close to the wind, so I certainly would not rule out a switch.
Again, a great job, Jon! The way you explained these, I have no questions -and the Colorado Sun story link was excellent on the barbed wire folks. So I’ll just go off on a pet peeve about “it’s great for climate change to shut down domestic fossil fuels production.”
The “no domestic coal mining because of climate change” seems to go back to the old idea that somehow reducing domestic supply will magically “help climate change”. Without prices increasing, which is disproportionately bad for poor people. Then there are union jobs, taxes, and so on. Meanwhile..China and India are cranking up coal. I think the next Admin will be more realistic about decarbonization, the world needs to do it, not just us, and we need to help the world have lower-energy carbon, not just make life more difficult for our own people. Because any amount of climate virtue-signalling won’t have an impact on other countries who have their own problems.
See Reuters https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/china-has-more-than-1-bln-tonsyear-new-coal-mines-pipeline-report-says-2024-09-10/
https://www.mining-technology.com/news/coal-india-to-open-five-new-mines-expand-others/
Here’s another article I looked at – the broader picture to me is not just “shut it down because of climate change:” https://www.wyomingpublicmedia.org/natural-resources-energy/2024-12-12/wyoming-and-montana-sue-over-blms-end-to-new-coal-leases-in-the-powder-river-basin
“But even before this decision, no coal companies have bought a new coal mining lease in Wyoming since 2012.
Electricity companies have also been drifting away from coal long before the BLM’s decision. This includes Rocky Mountain Power, the main utility in Wyoming. Its parent company, PacifiCorp, has indicated a shift to renewables and nuclear.
In the U.S., coal consumption has dropped by about half since 2010. Economic experts say it’s because of market conditions that have existed under Presidents Biden, Trump and Obama. As technologies develop and climate change becomes more of a concern to the consumer, other forms of energy are cheaper and lower risk.
If the BLM’s decision for the Powder River Basin is held up, current coal production will still continue, likely through 2040.”
Jon, you pointed to an interesting thing about Wyoming; I follow both Wyofile and the Cowboy State Daily. Wyofile tends to have a certain perspective, which I can’t put my finger on, but many stories seem to imply that what Wyoming folks think and do is messed up.
The Cowboy State Daily seems to be much more “here it is, here’s what people say about it.” That being said, here’s the coverage in CSD. https://cowboystatedaily.com/2024/12/12/wyoming-suing-blm-over-narrow-minded-plan-to-end-coal-in-powder-river-basin/
“2022 federal order in the lawsuit Western Organization of Resource Councils et al. v. Bureau of Land Management directed the BLM to redo its environmental analysis and include both no-leasing and a limited coal leasing alternatives.
As a result of that analysis, the BLM determined that additional federal leasing of coal would not be necessary, based on its analysis in the final supplemental EIS. The analysis indicated that operating mines in the Powder River Basin have existing leases with sufficient coal reserves to maintain project mine production levels into 2041.”
So they redid the analysis for a no-leasing option at the behest of WORC. litigation. Who is supporting WORC, a “grassroots group.”. If you look at funders of WORC, it seems to go to Rockefeller, the New Venture Fund (D dark money) https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/new-venture-fund/ and you can track it further through layers to Goldman Sachs and Bloomberg philanthropies. https://www.causeiq.com/organizations/climateworks-foundation,262303250/
https://www.causeiq.com/organizations/climateworks-foundation,262303250/
https://www.causeiq.com/organizations/western-organization-of-resource-councils-edu-proj,841123481/
https://www.causeiq.com/organizations/western-organization-of-resource-councils,450356819/
We could find out more, but Cause IQ is $199 a month for 501c3’s which we aren’t, because we can’t afford it, so we would have to pay $299 a month.
Anyway, I question all this, because if you believe that coal is on the way out, then you don’t have to worry about future leasing, because no one will want the leases. So by thinking it’s important to not have leases, it seems to me that these folks must also think someone will want them out there in the future. It seems internally inconsistent to me.
The fact that someone is suing tells me that someone wants to at least preserve the option of leasing. But that doesn’t really tell us a lot about whether leasing is actually likely to occur in the future. So let’s just plan on not doing that (until further notice – amendment.)
I tend to read multiple articles on the same issue, and it is interesting how they are spun differently. And it’s not always “spin” – I think it’s often more like emphasizing the facts that they think their audience would be interested in (as supposed to “should” be interested per a media bias).
(I tend to prioritize 1) those with links to source documents, 2) more local reporting, 3) amount and relevance of content.)
But why even do all the work now about the future? Why not wait to decide until the point in time the decision is made? This would save the work of 1) making the decision (surely the BLM has other things they could be doing, they said they were down 40% in employees at one point) and 2) amending it in the future with more work by BLM. And the latest science will be later.. maybe carbon capture technology will exist and be cost-effective by then?
That approach would conflict with the idea that plans should be kept current. (Not that I think that is why BLM did this.) They have also saved the work they would have to do on a future permit if the prohibition were not in place. No doubt politics is a factor; it’s harder to undue formal plan amendments.
That San Juan story clicked so had to look for more.
At the courthouse in a South Dakota county named for a war criminal Patrick Pipkin and members of a religious splinter group bought a 140 acre compound for a fraction of its value in 2021 that was built in 2005 by now-jailed polygamist Warren Jeffs. The cult was not delinquent on property taxes but the acreage was sold at a sheriff’s auction to settle a $2.1 million judgment against the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints or FLDS and the towns of Hildale, Utah and Arizona City, Colorado. In 2023 the parcel sold for $5,237,475 to SDR Training Center, a nonprofit church registered in South Dakota.
Pipkin is manager of Blue Mountain Ranch of Colorado—a summer camp for at risk adolescents but he and his co-owners transferred title to it to a Nevada trust in 2023 although he recently stated he still lives there.
Earlier this month an FLDS member in Arizona was sentenced to fifty years in prison after being convicted of trafficking girls as young as 12 for sex slaves.
According to a comment at a Faceberg page the real owner of the compound near Pringle and mostly surrounded by the Black Hills National Forest is Paul Elden Kingston, a polygamist believed to have some 40 wives, over 300 kids and preaches “bleeding the beast.” Kingston is an accountant and attorney who has served as the Trustee-in-Trust of the Davis County Cooperative Society (DCCS), a Mormon fundamentalist denomination and part of the Latter Day Church of Christ with assets in the $150 million range.