Mining

Uranium Mine on Forest Service Splits Arizona Governor and Attorney General

by

Thanks to the Center for Western Priorities for this one!  It reminds me a bit of other projects that people don’t want.  For some reason, the discussion occurs at the legal level, not the practice level.   A better conversation, to my mind, would be “what restrictions or practices would you like to see implemented that are not in place currently?” The cites in the Mayes letter all go back to the Grand Canyon Trust, who don’t want the mine to continue operating. I don’t think more analysis is going to help this issue, because in this case the legal system is a tool to get the desired policy outcome.

Arizona’s attorney general is at odds with the state’s governor over the safety of the controversial Pinyon Plain uranium mine near the Grand Canyon. Last week, Attorney General Kris Mayes asked the U.S. Forest Service to conduct an environmental review of the mine, which had been dormant for decades before production restarted last December.

Mayes’ letter notes that the Forest Service last reviewed the mine 38 years ago—a review that “is based on an outdated, inaccurate understanding of the risks” that the mine poses to the water supply of Tribal communities in northern Arizona.

Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs, however, insists the mine is safe and is regularly inspected by state officials. Hobbs’s office told the Arizona Capitol Times in June that Pinyon Plain is “one of the most closely regulated mines in the country.”

The governor’s office is currently holding talks between uranium company Energy Fuels Resources, which owns Pinyon Plain, and the Navajo Nation over transportation of uranium ore from the mine across Navajo land.

Mayes told KNAU radio that while she’s hopeful the Forest Service will conduct the environmental review, her office is “evaluating all of our legal options right now” in case the agency doesn’t respond.

I like how the Governor supports her own employees and regulatory structure.

I don’t suppose that there’s a way for the Forest Service to get out of this one? Seems like it’s really a conversation involving trade-offs; concerns of Tribes about water, concerns of the Grand Canyon Trust about uranium mining at all based on past history, concerns of our country for domestic energy production, and concerns of Energy Fuels and its workers.  This seems way above the Forest Service’s or USDA’s pay grade. Who wins and who loses seems to me ultimately a political question, which should be made by elected officials, more or less accountable to the elecorate,  and an EIS just another distraction.  If these decisions were rational, then we would have a national programmatic EIS on all the uranium opportunities and compare the social, economic, and environmental pros and cons of each, including relying on foreign countries for supply.

Pinyon Plain Uranium Mine on the Kaibab

by
A uranium ore pile is the first to be mined at the Energy Fuels Inc. uranium Pinyon Plain Mine Wednesday, Jan. 31, 2024, near Tusayan, Ariz. The mine began operation in January in the heart of northern Arizona after decades of regulatory battles. | Ross D. Franklin, Associated Press

For those of you not following the energy-climate biz, the fact that tech folks want to do bigtime AI means that they are thinking they need nuclear.  Our Northern Virginia TSW folks can attest to the growth of data centers. And many folks think that depending on other countries for supply is suboptimal.   So here’s an op-ed by a fellow who visited such a mine on the Kaibab National Forest.  I was surprised by the 17 acre footprint.  There’s no doubt that the footprint of nuclear is smaller than wind and solar, plus new transmission also happening on federal lands. Meanwhile, the Admin is “protecting” more land from energy development of all kinds. I think energy needs a cohesive strategy..

Uranium mines, which provide the fuel for nuclear power, were plentiful in the American Southwest until the late 20th century. Once most American uranium mines closed due to heavy regulation, we began exporting uranium mining and production to Russia and Kazakhstan, among other countries with lower environmental standards.

But recently, Congress passed a bipartisan bill banning Russian uranium imports — which is good news for those who want to expand uranium mining in the U.S. at sites such as the Pinyon Plain Mine, which began operation in January in Arizona after decades of regulatory battles. The mine’s ore is processed at the White Mesa Mill in Blanding, Utah.

Unfortunately, Pinyon Plain is still battling environmental groups that have substantially delayed projects like these through intense litigation. They’ve claimed the mine is too close to the Grand Canyon and that it poses serious threats to the people and environment nearby. They are pressuring Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs to close the mine even though Hobbs has called it “probably the most regulated mine in the entire country.”

We discussed Energy Fuels in this post.  The Grand Canyon Trust folks are not fans of uranium mining nor the White Mesa Mill’s recycling or waste disposal (depending on your point of view) efforts. From this story:

For years, the Energy Fuels White Mesa Mill in Blanding was the only operating uranium mill in the United States. Last week, the company announced it has commenced production at the facility and at two other locations in Utah and/or Arizona. Energy Fuels is also preparing two mines in Colorado and Wyoming to begin uranium production within one year. The company stated it has commenced production due to increased prices, supportive government policies from the Biden Administration, and an enhanced interest in securing domestic supply.

And

Irina Tsukerman, a member of the American Bar Association, Section of Environment, Energy, and Resources (SEER), said she believes domestic interest in uranium mining may now have bipartisan support due to increased trust in our country’s ability to regulate the industry and ongoing wars in Ukraine and the Middle East.

“Utah is one of the few states that harbors most of the uranium in the US,” she said. “It aligns with the goals of both parties: environmental concerns, energy independence, and support for United States security… It simply works, and when something simply works there won’t be much room for political bickering.”

Maybe not, but I think there will be plenty of room for litigation, as always ;).

Anyway, back to the op-ed.

Driving up to the mine on a warm June afternoon, I was struck by what a small area the mine occupies. The mine sits in a natural clearing of trees in the Kaibab National Forest, occupying a 17-acre plot of land. I wondered how this blip on a map could hold enough energy to power the state of Arizona for a full year with carbon-free energy, as the mine’s owner, Energy Fuels, claims.

After a safety briefing, two of the 35 miners who work at Pinyon Plain accompanied me on an elevator descending 1,400 feet below the surface. (That’s roughly equivalent to the height of the Empire State Building.) Once underground, I saw how information about the mine shared by some environmental groups was wildly exaggerated or, in some cases, flat-out wrong. What I saw was an operation that had countless measures in place to protect the safety of those working there and to prevent harm to the surrounding environment.

Underground, I spoke with many of the miners, who were immensely proud to provide clean energy for the country and ensure its production in and for America. I learned the truth about uranium’s radioactivity: that a lifelong uranium miner is exposed to less radiation than an airline pilot, and I even held uranium in my hand. I saw how the mine’s natural geological protections have been supplemented with carefully crafted technological systems to prevent any opportunity for water contamination.

But most of all, I was struck by how small-scale an operation it was, especially when compared to the immense size of the Grand Canyon, which itself is a 40-minute drive from the mine.

Enough protection for the environment and worker safety? I don’t know. I don’t think Benji Backer (the author) knows.  Grand Canyon Trust folks don’t want it to exist, so they may know but will always tell us that it’s not enough.  I guess we have to depend on the regulators, both the state and feds, and unions.

CBD FOIA Finds BLMers Disagree About Lithium Mine Analysis Process

by

Interesting story from E&E News, and no paywall on this one (perhaps because it came as a link from Center for Western Priorities).  When groups disagree about a project, it seems like once again the BLM is darned if it does and darned if it doesn’t..in the interests of fair use, I can’t post the whole thing, but there are good parts I am leaving out.

 

A senior Bureau of Land Management official warned the federal government might be rushing the review of a controversial lithium mine in Nevada that’s at the center of a raging fight over an endangered wildflower, according to an internal email.

“This is a very aggressive schedule that deviates from other project schedules on similar projects completed recently and concurrently at the District and State,” said Scott Distel, a supervisory project manager, in a Dec. 21, 2023, email.

Distel told Douglas Furtado, a BLM district manager in central Nevada, the review of Ioneer’s Rhyolite Ridge project was poised to move forward with limited input. “The groundwater model is approved on 12/26/2023, without any edits or comments that need to be addressed,” he wrote in the email, which was also sent to officials at Ioneer.

Check out the email yourself.  I don’t know what the right way to go about it is, but in my experience agreement about processes, analysis and documents is difficult to get.  There are naturally forces to “move it along” versus forces to analyze more.  Sometime different specialists disagree about the same topic (e.g. fish bios and hydrologists). Someone has to make a call at some point.  Or maybe agencies will just give up on trying to do things.

The email illuminates the challenges federal regulators face in complying with legally required deadlines for completing environmental reviews of complicated projects under the National Environmental Policy Act. BLM and its parent, the Interior Department, declined to comment on the email, which the Center for Biological Diversity obtained under the Freedom of Information Act and shared with E&E News.

BLM’s ongoing environmental review of Ioneer’s proposed Rhyolite Ridge lithium mine has drawn national attention because of the sprawling mine’s potential impact on the habitat for an endangered desert flower, Tiehm’s buckwheat. The project is in the Silver Peak Range, about 40 miles southwest of Tonopah.

The CBD cited Distel’s email in an unsuccessful request asking BLM to extend the comment period on a draft environmental impact statement the agency released in April. That draft review concluded the mine — through fencing, locked gates and dust-tampering measures — would not drive the endangered wildflower to extinction.

Currently, BLM appears poised to make a decision on the mine in October. Once a record of decision (ROD) is issued, the project is expected to receive a conditional loan of up to $700 million from the Department of Energy.

According to Distel’s email, the revised schedule under NEPA shows BLM approving a “camera ready” final EIS in August along with a briefing at the agency’s headquarters, followed by a final ROD in October.

************

The timing, duration and intensity of environmental reviews have become an issue both within agencies and on Capitol Hill, as regulators review projects needed to produce minerals like lithium while protecting pristine areas and critical habitat.

Distel’s email illuminates the tensions.

Kevin Minoli, a partner at the law firm Alston & Bird and a former career EPA lawyer who served during the Clinton, Bush, Obama and Trump administrations, said the language Distel used about the “very aggressive” schedule is not incredibly unusual for federal officials. But Minoli said it does appear to reflect a federal employee’s concern with the time frame.

“What appears to be the case is the person expressing that they wish they had more time … to do something like this,” said Minoli, who also advises clients on complying with NEPA.

Minoli said the email appears to show BLM complying with revisions to NEPA that came into effect fairly recently through amendments that set two-year time frames for agencies to complete EISs. BLM confirmed the agency is complying with the Fiscal Responsibility Act (FRA) amendment to NEPA, which includes a two-year timeline for EISs.

“What I expect is happening is you’re seeing an agency midaction having to comply with that deadline and some concern about that being expressed,” said Minoli.

But Minoli cautioned against equating longer NEPA reviews with better work, noting that regulators can do good work quickly. He also noted that while some have been pushing for deeper reviews, especially for contentious projects, others have been long fighting to reach a final decision more quickly.

“People are probably unhappy on both sides, it’s a timing question,” he said.

******************

Pat Parenteau, emeritus professor and senior fellow for climate policy at the Vermont Law and Graduate School, said amendments in the FRA don’t change the legal requirements for NEPA reviews. Any issues raised in the email will need to be addressed, said Parenteau, including those tied to the groundwater model, which was highlighted in Distel’s email.

“If this is, in fact, someone within BLM in a position to know, who’s raising questions about the process … if these are not corrected by the time the ROD is issued, it’ll be grounds for a lawsuit,” said Parenteau.

There is language in the law, Parenteau noted, that allows agencies to take more time to conduct reviews and EISs, but that will ultimately be up to BLM. He also emphasized that BLM isn’t alone in facing the pressure caused by artificial deadlines.

“We’re going to see a lot of these cases, a lot of these issues,” he said. “Any time you put artificial deadlines in the law, you run into this problem because it denies the reality of the way the world works.”

****************

Bernard Rowe, managing director of Ioneer, said in a statement last week as the public comment period for the draft EIS closed, that the company has engaged with federal, state and tribal officials, as well as community members, for more than five years, and sought a “new standard for domestic lithium project development.” Added Rowe: “Listening has made our project stronger, and we look forward to addressing feedback to the Bureau of Land Management from the public comment period.”

Conservation groups and tribes disagree and are warning the draft EIS doesn’t give a full picture of just how much water the mine will use. The critics contend the mine could drive the Tiehm’s buckwheat to extinction. The plant was listed as endangered in December 2022.

Currently, eight subpopulations of the plant have been mapped and extensively studied within the mine’s project area. The most recent population census was conducted last May and June and counted 24,916 plants.

In the draft EIS, BLM concluded that while the plant’s desert habitat would be disturbed by construction of the Rhyolite Ridge project, the agency also pointed to steps that Ioneer would take to minimize and mitigate the potential damage. The company also modified its original plan to reduce the environmental impact.

A coalition of groups including the CBD, the Western Shoshone Defense Project, the Sierra Club and Earthworks argued in comments to BLM that the draft EIS is insufficient and fails to fully consider the effect on groundwater and cultural resources

**************

I have much sympathy for the BLM,  and wonder whether the FRA timelines are retroactive for ongoing projects.   The BLM is definitely “darned if they do and darned if they don’t”. Also,  I wonder what the weight of one employee’s concern should be, when the complete array of tedious details of substance and process will no doubt be part of future litigation.

9th Circuit Appeals and the Inyo Exploratory (12 Hole) Drilling Case: Did The Forest Service Ask Them to “Do Violence to” NEPA? Updated

by

NOTE: This post has been updated with information from Dan Farber of UC Berkeley Law. Thanks, Dan!  I’ve added his thoughts in red below.

It’s a bit hard to keep track of what’s in the statutory amendments of last year and what’s in the new NEPA regs that Jon covered yesterday. I think this is a fascinating story that illustrates the confusion that can result when Congress and Admins mess around with the NEPA statute and regs..but this is only the tip of a future iceberg of glacial progress as the courts redo NEPA case law with the new NEPA regs. It reminds me a bit of the Paul Simon song:

Slip slidin’ awaySlip slidin’ awayYou know the nearer your destinationThe more you’re slip slidin’ away

The basic story of this case  is that there is a request for a permit for exploratory drilling which will be completed in a year as per an existing CE.  But the FS wanted them to do habitat restoration and monitoring, which would take longer.  So they used the habitat restoration CE for that. Here are the details of the project according to Courthouse News:

Kore Mining Ltd. wants to drill 12 holes, 600 feet deep, to try to find gold on federally owned land — which is legal, so long as it applies for a permit. The federally owned land in question is, as Mueller describes it, “a wide and gently sloping expanse of 1,848 shrubby acres” pocked with hundreds of holes bored by mining companies in the 1980s and 1990s. At the time, technical limitations meant that those holes couldn’t go deeper than a few hundred feet. But Kore Mining believes there might be gold up in them there hills and that deeper drilling might be possible today.

Kore’s proposal would require clearing vegetation and building about a 1/3-mile temporary access roads. The U.S. Forest Service concluded in 2020 that the project “was unlikely to have any significant effects on the environment” since it would take less than a year and require less than a mile of new roads.

During the public comment period that followed, numerous environmental groups, nearby towns and government agencies objected to the project. Of particular concern was the bi-state sage grouse, an iconic bird famous for its extravagant mating dances — “Picture a spike-tailed, puff-chested small turkey in a brown tuxedo, shaking and strutting in the brush,” Mueller wrote.

The Forest Service then said it would not allow Kore Mining to undertake any “disturbance activity” between March and June, the sage grouse’s mating season. It also said Kore would have take a number of steps to restore the land after its exploratory drilling, including returning the land to its original slope and sowing native seeds. And a biologist would have to monitor the area for three years after the drilling stopped.

Four groups — the Center for Biological Diversity, the Western Watersheds Project, Friends of the Inyo, and the Sierra Club — filed a lawsuit in October 2021 against the U.S. Forest Service and Kore Mining to halt the project.

“This drilling project will cause exactly the kind of noise and commotion that make bi-state sage grouse abandon their habitat,” said Ileene Anderson, a senior scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity, in a statement at the time. “It’s appalling that the Forest Service is willing to push these beautiful dancing birds closer to extinction for a toxic mine.” Environmentalists also worried about the impact the drilling would have to the groundwater in the area that feeds into the Owens River, which supplies water for Los Angeles.

So basically, some groups don’t want the project.  The court case seems to have focused on the two-CE issue;that is, they used two CEs instead of an EA.

Here’s what the Judge Mueller  said about this when finding for this in March of 2023.

While the mining operation was covered under the second exception, the habitat restoration, and in particular the three-year monitoring period, would of course take longer than a year, and would those need to be covered by that first exception.

“It is undisputed that all drilling, grading and construction will finish within a year; Kore will regrade the pads and roads and cap its wells within a year; revegetation is a nonherbicidal wildlife improvement for sage grouse; and Kore will construct less than a mile of new access roads,” Mueller wrote. The question, then, was: “Can a project be approved in two or more parts, each covered by a different exclusion?”

Mueller decided yes — though it may not be ideal, “a patchwork of individually-insufficient-but-collectively-sufficient exclusions can cover a single project or action.” Or: “Zero plus zero is zero.”

I do think that restoration is a different kettle of fish than other CEs, the whole point is to improve the environment.

Now as Dan Farber of Berkeley Law said in an interesting post today,  the (so-called) Fiscal Responsibility Act was signed in June 2023 (after the court decision), saying that

After the 2023 amendments, Section 111(1) of NEPA now defines a CE as “a category of actions that a Federal agency has determined normally does not significantly affect the quality of the human environment within the meaning of section.”  And section 106(a)(2) says that an agency doesn’t need an environmental assessment “if the proposed agency action is excluded pursuant to one of the agency’s categorical exclusions.”  It seems clear that the action  — a combination of drilling and restoration — does not fit “one of the agency’s categorical exclusions.”

However, that was after Judge Mueller made her decision.  So that changed the statutory landscape. Ah… but there was an appeal.

Dan says in his piece:

But what’s most striking isn’t what the court did discuss but what it didn’t mention : the fact that last year’s NEPA amendments  speaks directly to one of those issues. Apparently the word that NEPA was extensively amended a year ago hasn’t yet reached the federal courts.

So I asked Dan whether the statutes and regs for the original decision applied, here’s his emailed response:

The general rule is that an appeals court applies the law as it exists at the time of the appeal. The NEPA amendments were effective immediately, and there’s no indication in the statute that they apply only to agency decisions occurring after the amendments. So the Ninth Circuit should have considered them (or at least given some reason for refusing to apply them).  I don’t think that judges are really aware of the new law, to tell the truth, since they’re so used to operating in a setting where the statute itself is very vague and thinking all the rules come from the CEQ regs or the courts.

This is of concern (unless the goal of government is a full employment program for lawyers) for two reasons. Agencies can’t predict the future regulatory environment or future case law.  Also the idea that judges aren’t aware of this law.. this seems problematic.  Can lawyers make recommendations for topics for them to cover in their next training? Back to Dan’s original post.

The majority  said that the agency’s justification for avoiding the NEPA process was wrong, and that refusing to do an environmental assessment was such a basic violation of NEPA that it could not be considered harmless.   The dissent, on the other hand, says that the Forest Service had plainly taken as close a look at the environmental issues as it would have in an environmental assessment.  (If that’s true, one wonders, why didn’t the Service just do an environmental assessment in the first place?) For that reason, the dissent argues, any procedural error by the agency was harmless.

********

This is an example of why  Forest Service people sometimes think “litigation is a crapshoot”, as my colleague JR was known to say.  From a Sierra Club piece:

The Court held that “The Forest Service asks us to adopt a view of categorical exclusions that will swallow the protections of NEPA. We decline to do such violence to NEPA’s procedural safeguards.” (Court decision at p. 25). As the Court explained: “when an agency applies CEs in a way that circumvents NEPA’s procedural requirements and renders the environmental impact of a proposed action unknown, the purpose of the exclusions is undermined. That is the case here.” (Court decision at p. 24).

Just think about it.. Judge A says “0 plus 0 equals zero”; I say restoration is by definition positive, so the sum is >0, and the Appeals judges- I think do a bit of over-hyping (is that their usual kind of language?)- “do violence to NEPA’s procedural safeguards,””swallowing the protections”- I’d argue that using the restoration CE might regurgitate a protection or two.

Do they think Mueller was “doing violence” by agreeing with the FS? Or was she just “promoting” violence?

Anyway, back to Farber’s piece:

The dissent doesn’t have a bad argument, but there are some differences between what the agency did and the environmental assessment process that could be significant. The Service did solicit public input, but the regulations governing environmental assessments require fuller opportunities to participate. Instead, “agencies shall involve the public, State, Tribal, and local governments, relevant agencies, and any applicants, to the extent practicable in preparing environmental assessments.” Asking the public whether it agrees with use of a CE isn’t the same as involving them along with governments at all levels in the preparing an assessment.

Yet according to the Courthouse News article,

During the public comment period that followed, numerous environmental groups, nearby towns and government agencies objected to the project.

It sounds like the public involvement process was similar to that of an EA in that respect (without looking at the documents).  Here’s what Dan brought up in his email:

In terms of the harmless error doctrine, the idea is that you violated the proper procedure but that it didn’t affect the outcome — no harm, no foul.  The question I raised is whether we can be sure of that. In response to one of your other questions, we do know (as I said in the post) that there were a lot of comments filed. But were they as detailed as the commenters would have offered in an environmental assessment?  After all, they were really only designed to get the Forest Service to agree to at least consider the environmental consequences rather than doing a categorical exclusion.  If there had done an environmental assessment, would the state or federal fish & wildlife people have been consulted?

That’s a really interesting take. Every CE public comments I’ve read (that being, when people don’t like the project) have been more general than “does this CE fit”? I’ve appended the summary of the response to comments below.

In fact, the agency did originally say an environmental assessment was needed, but the company complained and the agency quickly reversed itself.  (Is it a coincidence that this was the Trump Administration?) Maybe the agency should have stuck with its original position rather than shortcutting the process in its haste to approve the mining project.

Remember the 9th Circuit judge (appointed by Obama) agreed with the FS that it was a  legitimate approach.  I’m calling “unnecessary invoking of Trump” here.

In addition, an environmental assessment would have required a  Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), which would also have had to discuss alternatives to the proposal.  None of the judges cites any discussion of alternatives by the agency.  We don’t know if there were other, less sensitive, locations that might have been used. If there had been an environmental assessment, the agency would have had to discuss that.

This is exploration.. not a final plan.  It could well not be economic to extract there or there might not be any gold.  It makes sense to me to look at alternatives when an actual mine is proposed.  Exploration to me is mostly collecting information that is useful in preparing environmental documents and .. there is a CE for that.

***********

I think this illustrates a couple of things.. how judges can disagree, how some of them might not be able to keep up with NEPA at this point in time. My own experience with industry is that they did not want us to use available CEs because if it’s going to be litigated, then there’s better documentation and it’s safer. Or so the timber industry individual said, and so our OGC folks told us. If it hadn’t been for the appeal, the two CEs would have worked.

I also think Dan’s comment here is of interest, when do the facts of the case matter, and when is the idea that applying the law to this case would lead to some kind of generic CE-piling

In terms of piling up CEs, if the Forest Service’s theory was right, it wouldn’t just apply to this case.  It could potentially give agencies the power to use a bunch of CEs, shortcut the normal procedures for environmental assessment, and then claim that even though they didn’t used the required process, it was all o.k. in the end.

But of course all this is moot with the new amendments to NEPA.

You may be right that this is a situation where there couldn’t possibly have been an environmental impact, but then you wonder why there was so much opposition from the Sierra Club and others. 

My experience is that slowing a project, step by laborious legal step, is a strategy to stopping it.  I’d guess that this isn’t about the exploratory wells at all but about making an inhospitable environment for the developers.  I doubt that if the FS does an EA, that there will be no further litigation.  The company can look uphill to possible litigation on the EA, an EIS for the mine, litigation, appeal court rulings,  and so on.  Maybe the next Admin will refuse to defend the FS for some reason, who knows? With current interest rates, this degree of uncertainty would make companies (and investors) wary.

If we project this onto renewable energy projects, solar, wind and transmission may be better off because there is no exploratory stage, as with geothermal. Anything mining related will have trouble, I predict, even strategic minerals.

*******************************

Here’s the response to comments:

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
This action was originally listed as a proposal on the Inyo National Forest Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) and updated periodically during the analysis. The project was first published in the SOPA on January 1, 2021. Public scoping was opened on April 8, 2021 and closed on May 13, 2021, which included a one-week extension of the original scoping period. Scoping letters were mailed to one address and electronic delivery was made to another 37 project subscribers through GovDelivery. Comments were collected online in the Comment Analysis and Response Application as well as through hardcopy, and email. In response to public requests, the Responsible Official decided to extent the scoping period by one week, and notified the public with a news release and email to the original email list.
The comments received expressed concerns on a number of subjects that included potential impacts to tourism, wildlife, cultural resources, water quality and recreation which was primarily about the fishery on Hot Creek. Comments also addressed geothermal and seismic activity, air quality, noise and light pollution. Technical studies completed in response to comments include KORE Long Valley Exploration Sage‐Grouse Lek Baseline Noise Monitoring and Drilling Noise Analysis; and Hydrogeologic Evaluation. Additional project design features and/or mitigations measures were also added to the plan of operation. These include:
• Sound barriers for equipment to reduce noise that might affect sage grouse.
• Shielded and directed lighting to limit potential light pollution.
• Air quality permits, if required, to be obtained through the Great Basin Air Quality
Management District
• Operator is responsible for immediate repairs of any, and all damages to roads, structures,
and improvements, which result from the operations.
• Noxious weeds will be controlled.

Most of the public comments associated this exploration drilling project with the development of a  long-term open pit mine and processing facility, which has not been proposed. The purpose of a  mineral exploration project is to assess the potential for mineral concentration at a volume that would be economically feasible to produce and does not automatically lead to an actual mine. An application has not been submitted or proposed for a mineral extraction project and if that were to occur, that application would be processed as a separate project.

 

COP Nuclear Pledge and Federal Land Choices

by

 

For those of you not following the COP, the US signed a Declaration to Triple Nuclear Energy. The Department of Energy posted it here.

Commit to supporting the development and construction of nuclear reactors, such as small modular and other advanced reactors for power generation as well as wider industrial applications for decarbonization, such as for hydrogen or synthetic fuels production;

Recognize the importance of promoting resilient supply chains, including of fuel, for safe and secure technologies used by nuclear power plants over their full life cycles;

When it comes to federal lands and various energy forms, I’m not surprised that some folks who are physically close to the new infrastructure, be they mines, solar arrays, turbine fields or geothermal do not want them (this differs by area and kind of infrastructure), and many times folks like our friends at CBD are against them for biodiversity reasons.  It’s problematic and a ripe field for litigation.

These different energy forms also differ by the need for new power lines. Power lines being both sources of wildfire and wildfires causing danger to them.  Meanwhile our current power line infrastructure is in bad shape, and power companies can go bankrupt for damages from inadequately managing the power lines.  As far as I can tell, the cost of constructing and maintaining these new power lines is not taken into account when accounting is done for new energy sources. And permitting issues will slow down any build-out of new transmission lines.

Enter C2N . The Breakthrough Institute wrote a piece on a strategy for coal to nuclear (C2N).

The Breakthrough Institute proposes a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)-led program aimed at alleviating regulatory uncertainty. This program would assess retiring CPP sites nationwide, categorizing and prioritizing them based on local need for power, remediation, viability of existing infrastructure, and demand for workforce transition. Under the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the DOE can apply for an ESP to conduct site-specific evaluations of a location with potential for a nuclear power plant before the actual construction and operation of the facility begin. This process allows the DOE to assess the suitability of the site and address any potential safety and environmental concerns in advance. The proposed program targets eligible sites with transferable workforces and essential infrastructure, helping to facilitate a seamless transition for C2N projects. In the proposed program, the DOE’s role will be to mass-acquire ESPs for multiple eligible C2N sites and subsequently to transfer those permits to utility companies and developers to recover the costs.

You could add environmental justice concerns of various kinds and community support to the list of criteria.  It might be a better “workforce transition” than many; involving high-skilled union jobs. Best of all, from the federal lands perspective, and the cost perspective,  the transmission structure already exists.

**************************************

The other story is called History of U.S. Uranium Industry: Decoupling Past Practices from Future Endeavors

Side story: I did my Ph.D. dissertation so long ago that the Forest Service had only the Data General and PCs were not around.  Because the Forest Service determined that I had done my graduate work without their funding, I was not allowed to use the FS computer for my dissertation.   I worked at the Supervisor’s Office in Lakeview, Oregon.  So I found a woman in town that could type it for me.  She worked at the Lakeview Lumber mill, so my little Mazda hatchback would wait in line with the log trucks so I could get to the window and hand her my drafts.  Now I wish someone had taken a photo of my tiny car amid the trucks, but.. cameras on cell phone were a long way away.  Some of you might wonder “what on earth does that story have to do with uranium”? But former and current Lakeview folks know that Lakeview Lumber was/ is? located on the former uranium processing site. The Fremont had two uranium mines, the White King and the Lucky Lass, which apparently went into the nuclear weapons program.

Anyway, back to the Breakthrough story..

Past uranium mining practices loom over the future of U.S. prospects. Beyond question, the uranium mining industry of the late 1940s through the early 1980s has inflicted significant harm upon workers and local communities, particularly Navajo and Hopi people who continue to face environmental and health risks from un-remediated uranium mines that still lie abandoned across their ancestral homelands. The American people and the U.S. federal government must take responsibility by compensating citizens exposed to pollution and redoubling public funding and agency efforts to clean up abandoned mine sites.

Weaponizing mining misrepresents nuclear power efforts. At the same time, rhetorical efforts to frame Cold War-era tragedies as the unforgiving, original sin of the domestic uranium mining industry and by extension the civil power sector are undeniably misrepresenting history and do little to contextualize the past, present, and future of uranium mining for nuclear fuel production. Addressing unquestioned perceptions is vital for the advancement of low-carbon nuclear power during the industry’s decades-long period of inactivity.

The analysis presented herein investigates the timeline of the U.S. uranium industry during the Cold War era to delineate causes of the historical malpractices, emphasizing the following major points:

  • Environmental impacts from uranium mining arose from the absence of environmental laws and regulations from the late 1940s to the early 1980s, an issue common to the overall U.S. mining sector with uranium mines constituting only a fraction of abandoned mine lands. The vast majority of historic domestic uranium production occurred during this period of accelerated nuclear weapons and defense-related production, before the federal government enacted even the most basic safeguards in place today;

  • Federal agencies undeniably could have been more proactive in mitigating impacts of radiological health hazards to laborers. Instead, they engaged in willful complacency, presumably influenced by the need to maintain uranium supply chains for national defense purposes and weapons programs. To a lesser degree, state agencies and mine operators were in similar positions motivated by their own respective interests;

  • Despite low rates of production, the domestic uranium mining industry has operated responsibly since the end of the Cold War with the establishment of environmental and health standards as part of regulatory reform efforts targeting the overall mining sector;

  • The majority of growth in uranium demand for U.S. civilian nuclear fuel supplies for energy production occurred following these key reforms, suggesting that arguments framing the expansion of the U.S. civil nuclear sector as irrevocably synonymous with legacy uranium mining impacts are selectively misstating the historical record.

Nevertheless, the future of uranium mining is not impervious to the potential occurrence of new injustices. In the broken checkerboard of Navajo Nation lands near the site of the 1979 Church Rock uranium tailings dam failure and other uranium industry superfund sites (EPA Church Rock; EPA Homestake; EPA Jackpile), Canadian firm Laramide Resources’ recent quiet commencement of uranium exploration activities (NMPR, 2023) highlights the risk that the mining sector could continue to aggravate tensions with local communities by failing to engage deeply and demonstrate a strong commitment to sharing benefits and reducing risks. While on paper, Laramide may be proceeding in line with regulations, this illustrates a case where Laramide’s social license to operate depends critically upon its willingness to undertake outreach efforts and make community guarantees well above and beyond the requirements of written law.

*******

When President Biden was working on the new Grand Canyon National Monument, E&E had this story.

Most monument proclamations since 1996 have barred new mineral leases, mining claims, prospecting or exploration activities, while carving out protections for valid, existing rights, according to a recent report from the Congressional Research Service.

Legal experts say it could also throw existing claims into question unless companies can show they can mine the claim at a profit.

“It’s frankly very unlikely that any existing claims would be valid,” said John Leshy, who served as Interior’s solicitor during the Clinton administration and is now an emeritus professor at the University of California College of the Law in San Francisco. “But that’s a fact question, and you’d have to go claim by claim.”

Companies eager to mine in the area have argued they have valid and existing rights. What’s more, mining advocates say a national monument designation would throw Biden’s own climate and national security strategy into question.

They’re quick to note that the U.S. currently relies on Russia for a share of its low-enriched uranium. And with the war in Ukraine pushing up prices, they argue the need for advancing extraction and rebooting idled mines has only grown in importance.

***************

I don’t know how all this will turn out.. it seems like one way would be to estimate how much and what kind of uranium the US would need to live up to its COP commitment, considering recycling and whatever today’s current technologies are. Then assume we can still import from Canada and the Aussies. Then figure out how much we need, and do a programmatic EIS comparing different strategies/places the uranium could be mined and processed.

Yes, whose ox gets gored will always be a political decision. But at least the public would know the pros and cons of the choices.  Which might increase public trust.

Recent developments in mining and energy litigation and policy – July 2023

by

I only recently started specifically looking for BLM cases, so I may be catching up late on some of them.  Most seem to involve mining and energy.  (This summary includes one Forest Service case.)

New lawsuit:  Center for Biological Diversity v. Haaland (D. Nev.)

On July 7, CBD and Amargosa Conservancy challenged the BLM’s authorization of the Let’s Go Lithium mineral exploration project on federal lands in BLM’s Pahrump Planning Area, in the vicinity of springs in the Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, and two BLM Areas of Critical Environmental Concern.  Lithium mining requires a lot of water.  The project would involve up to 30 exploratory drillholes.  The proposal allegedly violates FLPMA, NEPA and indirectly ESA (with regard to consultation on 12 species).  On July 17 plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary injunction.  The article includes a link to the complaint.  Also, according to this article, “under federal law, most exploratory projects on public land are not required to submit a plan of operation, complete an environmental analysis, or solicit public comment.” A representative of the Conservancy was quoted:

“We are collectively witnessing what is inarguably the greatest transformation of public lands in our nation’s history, and western Nevada’s Amargosa Desert is at the epicenter of this change.  Renewable energy development and lithium extraction are the twin priorities driving this transformation forward at an unprecedented scale and pace.”

His reference to renewable energy was probably to the Interior Department’s recent sale of leases for solar development on 23,675 acres in or near the Amargosa Valley Solar Energy Zone, a designated solar leasing area with high solar potential and what the Bureau of Land Management in a 2012 analysis characterized as an area of low resource conflict.  The BLM identified the Amargosa valley as one of 17 nationwide solar energy zones wherein solar energy projects are encouraged.  (The BLM is currently processing 74 utility-scale solar, wind and geothermal projects on public lands in the western United States.  An additional 150 solar and wind development applications are undergoing preliminary reviews.)

“Utility-scale solar does not have a huge annual consumption of water during operation, but construction activities can use thousands of acre-feet of water for a single facility. If BLM is going to develop tens of thousands of acres of solar in this area, it could potentially take tens of thousands of acre feet of water,” said Patrick Donnelly, the Great Basin director of the Center for Biological Diversity.  He contrasted the lack of a plan for this area with the BLM California’s Desert Renewable Energy and Conservation Plan.

This article also summarizes a number of lawsuits over renewable energy proposals.

Court decision in Western Watersheds Project v. McCullough (9th Cir.)

On July 17, the 9th Circuit affirmed a district court holding that the Bureau of Land Management had not violated the National Environmental Policy Act and other federal laws when it approved the Thacker Pass lithium mine.  This did not address the district court’s order that the BLM complete additional analysis of how the mine will handle waste and tailings in accordance with the 1872 mining law, and it means the mine development can continue while that analysis occurs.  The court also ruled the BLM acted “reasonably and in good faith” in its consultation with tribes.  “This is the first time in public land history that we have a major project violating a number of provisions but is allowed to go forward,” Roger Flynn, the director of the Colorado-based Western Mining Action Project, told the 9th Circuit panel during oral arguments in Pasadena on June 27.  (The article includes a link to the opinion, and here is further background.)

Here is an interesting perspective from “The Voice of the Automotive World.”

In other news, the mining company has sued protesters for what they deemed “nonviolent prayer” protests at the mine site. Lithium Americas was forced to call the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office when protesters got “dangerously close” to construction equipment.

Notice of intent to sue under ESA

On June 20, eight environmental groups challenged the Coronado National Forest’s approval of the Sunnyside and Flux Canyon exploratory mineral drilling projects in the Patagonia Mountains for copper, lead, zinc and silver (discussed here).  On July 13, they gave the Forest Service and Fish and Wildlife Service a 60-day notice of intent to sue for Endangered Species Act violations affecting Mexican spotted owls, yellow-billed cuckoos, jaguars, and ocelots.  On July 14 they asked for a preliminary injunction on their existing claims.  We also discussed another mine in the same area that was being fast-tracked for its rare metals by the Biden Administration.  From this article, it does not sound like there will be litigation on the Hermosa Project.

Update

In September 2020, a coalition of conservation groups including Friends of the Floridas, New Mexico Wild, WildEarth Guardians, Gila Resources Information Project, and Amigos Bravos sued BLM to reverse the agency’s simultaneous approvals of construction and operation of a dolomite mine, and the exploration activity required to prove the value of the mineral claim in the Florida Mountains in southwest New Mexico.  On July 12, 2023, the Federal District Court for the District of New Mexico heard oral arguments involving violations of NEPA and FLPMA.

Update

As discussed here, the lawsuit against the BLM’s decision to allow Ormat Technologies to develop geothermal resources in Dixie Meadows east of Reno in habitat for the recently listed Dixie Valley toad has been on hold at the request of the developer.  BLM has now decided, “As a result of its ESA consultation efforts and new information it has determined that it would be prudent to revisit the environmental review underlying the project.  BLM does not intend to authorize any such new construction until the conclusion of the environmental review.”  Ormat supports the delay.

 

Two Exploratory Mining Projects in Arizona: One Litigated, One Streamlined with FAST-41

by
This photo claims to be an exploration drilling rig for mining. Any better photos, please submit!

From E&E News:

Environmental groups are suing the Forest Service to halt mineral exploration in Arizona’s remote and biologically diverse
Patagonia Mountains.
The legal fight is playing out in close proximity to a separate mineral project the Biden administration hopes to fast-track. Groups including the Arizona Mining Reform Coalition, the Center for Biological Diversity and Earthworks filed a lawsuit Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, challenging the agency’s approval of the Sunnyside and Flux Canyon exploratory mineral drilling projects.
The legal challenge zeroes in on the Forest Service’s approval earlier this month of exploratory drilling in an area of the Coronado National Forest that the groups say contains nesting and foraging sites for the threatened Mexican spotted owl and Western yellow-billed cuckoo, as well as habitat for endangered jaguars and ocelots. The Forest Service said it does not comment on ongoing litigation and referred questions about the lawsuit to the Department of Justice, which did not immediately respond to a request for comment. According to the lawsuit, Arizona Standard LLC, a subsidiary of Barksdale Capital Corp., a Canadian metals exploration company, would be able to drill up to 30 new well pads to look for copper, lead, zinc and silver. Separately, the agency approved the Flux Canyon project, which would allow Arizona Minerals Inc., a Nevada-based corporation held by South32 Ltd., an Australian mining and metals company, to develop more well pads to identify silver, lead and zinc deposits.
*****
The lawsuit also says that the cumulative impacts of such drilling projects would “transform this mostly undeveloped landscape with a constant disruption of noise, lights, dust, human activity, and vehicle traffic for the foreseeable future.” The Forest Service’s conclusion that the Sunnyside project didn’t require a full environmental impact study and that Flux Canyon required no environmental assessment is “arbitrary and unlawful,” the groups said.
“These oversights, omissions, misreadings, and failures violated NEPA,” attorneys for the groups wrote in the lawsuit. The Patagonia Mountains are also home to a separate mining project that the federal government is fast-tracking, which environmental groups say adds to the cumulative impacts on vulnerable species.
The Biden administration in May announced it is moving to expedite the review and approval of a manganese and zinc mine in southern Arizona, South32 Hermosa’s $1.7 billion underground mine and processing plant. “It’s clear these cumulative impacts will be significant for wildlife,” said Laiken Jordahl, an advocate with the Center for Biological Diversity.

Here’s a link to the description of the FAST-41 for the South32 Hermosa mine.

Does anyone know whether the litigation process is different for Fast-41 projects?

Biden Admin Via Forest Service Approves Land Swap for Rio Tinto’s Arizona Mine

by
Copper core samples at Resolution’s processing facility. Photo by the NY Times.

Sometimes the Biden Admin goes with the interests of Indigenous groups and other times it seems to go against them. I wonder what we can see if we examine the pattern of what one might call the “flouts and touts” of various policies and reverse-engineer what interests might be calling the shots at what point in time. When- what kinds of projects, where, do they flout? When do they tout? Can we see flouting and touting in stories of various media outlets? And of course, if Indigenous groups disagree, how is that considered and reported? How does the Admin consider the opinions of elected Tribal officials versus other Tribal groups when they seem to be in conflict?

We can’t be sure that the Rio Tinto case is a flout, since we’re not sure whether the President could do anything differently.

Another interesting thing about this case is that the opponents are a group called Apache Stronghold, “a nonprofit group comprised of members of the San Carlos Apache Tribe and others” and they are supported by people for religious liberty (the Becket Fund), which is another interesting twist on the issue. For those interested, that group is a conservative nonprofit, according to the NY Times.

Here’s a link to yesterday’s Reuters story.

– The U.S. Forest Service plans to re-publish an environmental report before July that will set in motion a land swap between the U.S. government and Rio Tinto (RIO.L)(RIO.AX), allowing the mining giant to develop the controversial Resolution Copper project in Arizona.

The move would be the latest blow to Native Americans who have long opposed the mine project, which would destroy a site of religious importance but supply more than a quarter of U.S. copper demand for the green energy transition.

The complex case centers around a land swap approved by Congress in 2014 that required an environmental report to be published, something the Trump administration did shortly before leaving office. President Joe Biden then unpublished that report in March 2021 to give his administration time to review the Apache’s concerns, though he was not able to permanently block the mine.

Meanwhile, Apache Stronghold, a nonprofit group comprised of members of the San Carlos Apache tribe and others, sued to prevent the transfer of the federally-owned Oak Flat Campground, which sits atop a reserve of more than 40 billion pounds of copper, a crucial component of electric vehicles. Several courts have ruled against the group.

Joan Pepin, an attorney for the Forest Service, told an en banc hearing of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday that “the prediction for that (new environmental report) is to be ready this spring.”

The Forest Service is not waiting for the court’s ruling to publish the new report, Pepin said, adding that the agency does not believe an 1852 treaty between the U.S. government and Apaches gives Native Americans the right to the land containing the copper.

“This particular treaty is just a peace treaty. It doesn’t settle any rights to land and it doesn’t create any land rights,” Pepin told the court.

The 11 judges at the hearing questioned all sides about the legal concept of substantial burden and whether the government can do what it want with federal land, even if it prevents some citizens from fully exercising their religious beliefs. A full ruling is expected in the near future.

Wendsler Nosie, who leads the Apache Stronghold, said at a rally after the hearing that Pepin’s statements showed Biden – who controls the Forest Service – has not made opposition to the mine a “priority” for his administration.

“It’s not over. It’s just made us stronger, tougher, and deeply committed to our prayers,” Nosie said.

A Rio spokesperson said the company is closely following the case and respects the legal process, but believes “that settled precedent supports” the rejection of Apache Stronghold’s claims by a lower court. Rio has said it will smelt copper from the project inside the United States.

Representatives for the San Carlos Apache tribe were not immediately available to comment, nor were representatives for BHP, which is helping Rio develop the mine.

One wonders whether the Tribe itself has a position, or whether they are staying out of it. If individual members don’t agree what does that mean? As an earlier New York Times story reported

There are differing opinions on the merits of mining even on the San Carlos Apache reservation. Some people view the mine as an affront to their traditions, while others consider it an economic opportunity and a source of employment.

. There’s a lot of detailed context in that story.

I think this is also an interesting angle.. “President Joe Biden then unpublished that report in March 2021 to give his administration time to review the Apache’s concerns, though he was not able to permanently block the mine.”

Despite some organizations that blame Biden for not shutting down oil and gas leasing aka “living up to his promises” he does have to operate within legal boundaries.
Perhaps he can’t due to something related to the 1872 Mining Law. Does anyone know?

Finally, a shout out to all the FS employees working on this project!

Tribal “Stewardship” But Not Agreement? The Thacker Pass Lithium Case

by

I think we’re all for Tribal consultation and co-stewardship (depending on exactly what that means). Here’s a quote from Interior Department Guidance to Strengthen Tribal Co-Stewardship of Public Lands and Waters:

said Secretary Deb Haaland. “By acknowledging and empowering Tribes as partners in co-stewardship of our country’s lands and waters, every American will benefit from strengthened management of our federal land and resources.”

Of course, federal authorities stay the same, that is, to consult and not go with what Tribes want. It seems to be a focus on the process (consultation) rather than the product (decisions that Tribes agree with). This sounds like a bit of an echo of ordinary public involvement. We can have a great process and not decide the way any particular group wants. But the term “co-management” to me implies more than “we listen to your opinion more carefully than other groups”. But if the Admin can still overrule Tribes, are they any more “empowered” than before an enhanced consultation process?

There’s also the scale thing. For example, when DOI had their public session on oil and gas regulations, that I covered here, Tribes and Native Alaskans said they were for “all of the above” and yet this did not seem to transfer directly to DOI policy. Perhaps the scale is the problem, and Tribes should be consulted on the overall decarbonization- climate- energy policy in its entirety. Because the solar-wind-minerals-uranium under all scenarios would occur on federal lands. To the extent that it does, maybe the USG should back up and consult on the broader-scale policy- both energy and climate. Perhaps have an elected Tribal representative in all White House climate discussions?

Anyway, here’s a story from “This is Reno” on Tribes suing the BLM:

Three Native American tribes filed this week a new lawsuit against the Bureau of Land Management over Lithium Americas planned Thacker Pass lithium mine.

The lawsuit comes after federal Judge Miranda Du mostly ruled against the plaintiffs seeking to stop the project near the Nevada-Oregon border. It was filed Thursday by the Reno-Sparks Indian Colony, Burns Paiute Tribe and Summit Lake Paiute Tribe in Federal District Court.

The tribes are alleging BLM withheld information from the state “and lied about the extent of tribal consultation in order to secure legally required concurrence about historic properties” at Thacker Pass. They are also alleging BLM lied and misled the tribes about other aspects of the mining project.

“The new lawsuit is also strengthened by the addition of the Summit Lake Paiute Tribe, one of the Tribes that the BLM claims to have consulted with prior to issuing the [record of decision],” they said in a press statement. “Summit Lake and both other tribes the BLM claims to have consulted (the Winnemucca Indian Colony and Fort McDermitt Paiute-Shoshone Tribe) have disputed BLM’s assertion that any consultation took place.”

The Winnemucca Indian Colony, they said, was unable to intervene in the case for not filing soon enough.

“When the decision was made public on the previous lawsuit last week, we said we would continue to advocate for our sacred site PeeHee Mu’Huh,” said Arlan Melendez, chair of the Reno-Sparks Indian Colony. “It is also the very same place where our people were massacred (never laid to rest properly) by the U.S. Calvary. It’s a place where all Paiute and Shoshone people continue to pray, gather medicines and food, honor our non-human relatives, honor our water, honor our way of life, honor our ancestors.

“The Thacker Pass permitting process was not done correctly. BLM contends they have discretion to decide who to notify or consult with,” he added. “They only contacted 3 out of the 22 tribes who had significant ties to Thacker Pass.”

There’s also a good comprehensive story on E&E News that is open to everyone. They took a political slant to it..

“Democrats and Republicans are both pro-development in this state and always have been,” Lokken said.

Some Democrats are more likely to be concerned about the environmental impact of mining and about ensuring that the state gets tax revenue from the industry, added Lokken, but development has ultimately won out.

“The party decided a long ago that this kind of development is fine,” he said.

Where Biodiversity, Tribal Views and Climate Mitigation Meet -And Disagree.. The Thacker Pass Lithium Mine Case

by
State Route 293, seen on April 27, 2021, is a lightly-trafficked one-lane road that crosses U.S. 95 and leads from Orovada to Thacker Pass on the other side of the valley. (David Calvert/The Nevada Independent)

 

Here’s  one of those blanket statements being made that sound vaguely plausible at some scale in this recent article in Discover, called  “Debunking Climate Myths”. (Personally if I never heard the word “debunking” again in this lifetime, I would be quite happy.)

Action to mitigate climate change and adapt to its risks and impacts is already happening. Efforts to reduce carbon emissions, switch to renewable energy sources, rewild natural areas and more are ongoing and often occur at the local level.

And here we go.. how would “rewilding” actually work to reduce carbon emissions, or perhaps it’s adaptation, or a “natural climate solution”? So what is the role of “unnatural climate solutions”?  It seems that in physical world, as opposed to word world, there is some tension between rewilding and climate mitigation.  And while folks can write they want about it in various media outlets.. it’s at the local level where the renewable rubber meets the biodiversity/rewild road, and where, according to the IUCN, indigenous and local rights are to be protected.

In that light, let’s go to an interesting piece today from the Nevada Independent via the Center for Western Priorities.. I think it’s a really good detailed piece, with lots of legal stuff.  It’s one of those examples of projects where people honestly disagree, and the way it goes into court it makes it sound like “the BLM did it wrong” as if there were a way they could have analyzed it that would be.. right.. and come to the “wrong” conclusion.

The interpretation of a 150-year-old mining law could be a part of whether a U.S. District Court judge upholds the federal government’s approval of a massive lithium mine — a project that has faced challenges from a local rancher, environmental groups and Native American tribes.

In legal briefs over the past two years, the mine’s opponents have challenged federal permitting of the planned Thacker Pass mine north of Winnemucca. Federal land managers, they argued, fast-tracked the project and did not adequately consider a number of issues in its environmental review — the mine’s footprint on wildlife habitat, groundwater, air quality and Indigenous sites.

On Thursday, the project’s opponents had their first opportunity to fully lay out the merits of their case challenging the mine’s federal environmental review. Yet much of the arguments centered around a broader question that has wide-ranging implications for mines across the West: What is the federal government’s proper role when approving and regulating mines on public land?

Policymakers from across the state, and the country, have pushed for developing Thacker Pass, touted as the largest known lithium source in the United States, arguing that it is needed to help fuel an economy less reliant on fossil fuels and more on lithium-ion batteries. Although the plan was approved at the end of the Trump administration, the Biden White House has continued to focus on procuring a domestic supply of “critical minerals,” and has defended the mine in court. …

Debate over the Thacker Pass mine has become a focal point in a national conversation about how the administration should balance sometimes competing priorities — bolstering the supply chain for an energy transition away from fossil fuels, protecting biodiversity and advocating for environmental justice.

….

Plaintiffs in the case have challenged the mine on several other grounds, alleging that federal land managers did not adequately consider air quality standards, groundwater concerns or fully evaluate the potential impact on wildlife, such as Greater sage-grouse and pronghorn antelope.

On Thursday, attorneys for the Reno-Sparks Indian Colony and the Burns Paiute Tribe argued that federal land managers did not conduct government-to-government consultation with them, when in fact they had a responsibility to do so. In the environmental review process, federal land managers did consult with three tribal governments, relying on geographic proximity, affirmative expressions of interest and historic ties to the area as factors for guiding its consultation plans.

But Rick Eichstaedt, an attorney for the Burns Paiute Tribe, said the federal government should have broadened its reach by consulting the Burns Paiute Tribe in Oregon and the Reno-Sparks Indian Colony — and giving more consideration to how tribal nations currently view the land.

“Tribes still exist,” he said. “And they care about this area. That’s why we’re here.”

Anyway, I thought it was an informative article on a very complex issue.