Groups Challenge CEs for Apiaries

E&E News has an article this afternoon about a Center for Biological Diversity petition calling on the USFS to “stop granting streamlined permits to people who want to place honeybee hives in national forests.” Excerpt below. The agency has legal authority for using CEs to approve the use of apiaries. CBD’s petition states that “The science is clear that honey bees can present a serious threat to native bees, thus having significant environmental impacts. Therefore, requests to place honey bees on federal public lands cannot be categorically excluded from NEPA analysis.”

Anyone here have insights as to how much of a threat honeybees are? Do honeybees have beneficial effects and well as negative impacts?

From E&E:

An environmental group pressed the Forest Service today to scale back the placement of commercial honeybee hives on land it manages, calling the nonnative bees a potential harm to other pollinators.

In a formal petition to the agency, the Center for Biological Diversity said the Forest Service should stop granting streamlined permits to people who want to place honeybee hives in national forests.

“The science is clear that honeybees can present a serious threat to native bees, thus having significant environmental impacts,” the group, joined by three other organizations, said in the petition to Forest Service Chief Vicki Christiansen and Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue.

The Forest Service allows the placement of apiaries on its lands through special use permits. Covered by categorical exclusions from the National Environmental Policy Act, the beekeeping permits don’t require an environmental impact statement, which might shed light on competition among species and potential diseases the European-derived bees could spread to native bees.

During the past decade, the agency has approved permits for about 900 hives. Officials are considering an application for as many as 4,900 hives on national forests in Utah, the petitioners said they learned through documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.

Nationwide coalition sues to defend the people’s environmental law

I noticed this press release on Twitter. I thought the quote from WE ACT for Environmental Justice was particularly interesting, timely, and spot on. – mk

A nationwide coalition of organizations from the environmental justice, outdoor recreation, and conservation communities filed a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s attack on the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) this afternoon.

The administration finalized its rules that will eviscerate core components of NEPA in mid-July. Under new regulations put forth by the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), polluting projects of all kinds will be exempt from basic environmental reviews, and the public will be cut out of one of its best tools to prevent dangerous, shortsighted projects.

“It has been more than 30 years since the passage of the National Environmental Policy Act and environmental justice communities continue to live with the impacts of decisions that precipitated its need,” said  Kerene N. Tayloe, Esq., Director of Federal Legislative Affairs at WE ACT for Environmental Justice. “The changes made to this bedrock environmental law will further undermine basic protections, including the public’s right to participate in decision making and the obligation of the government to fully and thoroughly study the cumulative impacts of health hazards on overburdened communities. They also reflect a disregard of Black, Brown and poor communities and the unwillingness of this administration to execute laws in a way that benefits all Americans. WE ACT for Environmental Justice is committed to pursuing every option available to preserve and strengthen NEPA for the betterment of everyone.”

“NEPA matters,” said Tricia Cortez, Executive Director of the Rio Grande International Study Center. “Here on the border, we know what a world without NEPA looks like because of what we’ve experienced with the border wall. The U.S. government has waived NEPA and dozens of other federal laws to rush construction for a politically motivated and destructive wall project. We would not wish this on any other community in this country. The feeling is like having a train barreling at you with nothing to stop it. To protect our environment and our health, we the people must save NEPA.”

“We will not allow the Trump administration to compromise our rights to protect our communities and public health from the harms associated with unscrupulous and destructive industrial developments such as mining, oil and gas, and military operations,” said Pamela Miller, executive director of Alaska Community Action on Toxics. “This is a grave environmental injustice and we aim to prevent this attack on one of our most fundamental environmental laws.”

“We have consistently defeated this administration’s relentless, vicious dismantling of safeguards for people and the environment, and we will do so again for this critically important law,” said Susan Jane Brown, Western Environmental Law Center co-counsel. “A thriving economy is not at odds with worker protections and a healthy environment – it depends on both.”

“The Trump administration picked the wrong fight,” said Kristen Boyles, an Earthjustice attorney serving as co-counsel on the case. “They want to make it easier to silence people’s voices and give polluters a free pass to bulldoze through our neighborhoods. That’s why we’re taking them to court.”

Read what all 20+ clients on the case have to say about the importance of defending NEPA: https://earthjustice.org/documents/reference/nepa-ceq-rulemaking-lawsuit-quote-sheet

Read the complaint: https://westernlaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/2020.07.29-CEQ-NEPA-Complaint.pdf

Additional Resources:

How “Freeway Revolts” Helped Create the People’s Environmental Law (Earthjustice)

6 Places Where the National Environmental Policy Act Made the Difference (Earthjustice)

Trump Wants to Undo the People’s Environmental Law (Earthjustice)

Protect the People’s Environmental Law (Earthjustice)

Safe and accessible Missoula recreation areas free of dangerous traps proposed

Note: A number of these seven recreation hot spots in the greater Missoula area include public lands administered by the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, in addition to state of Montana public lands and city of Missoula public lands and open space. The proposal to make these seven recreation hot spots off-limits to trapping was sent to Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks by Footloose Montana, WildEarth Guardians, Western Watersheds Project, Humane Society of Western Montana and The Mountain Lion Foundation. Missoula Mayor John Engen also offered his support, saying “prohibiting trapping in these high-traffic public lands seems nothing but reasonable to me.” Below is the full press release and link to the letter to Montana FWP.

Conservation and animal groups propose safe and accessible Missoula recreation areas

Archaic trapping rules currently put people and pets at risk in the outdoors

MISSOULA—Today, local and regional advocacy groups sent a list of recreation hot spots to the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks that would benefit from being free of dangerous traps. The seven areas comprise some of the most popular places to visit in the Missoula wildland-urban interface. Indiscriminate and cruel traps are allowed in and around Missoula’s most popular recreation spots even as the region’s economy increasingly relies on outdoor recreation. A global pandemic has made safe and accessible public lands more critical to communal well-being than ever before, and a slew of high-profile incidents involving domestic animals has highlighted the need for safer recreation areas.

Areas proposed for safer access include Kelly Island, Lolo Trails, Council Grove State Park, Jonsrud Park, Marshall Canyon, and important fishing areas along the Clark Fork River and Rock Creek. Along with concentrated public recreation use, these areas are critical for wildlife and biodiversity. Their closure represents a very small fraction of land available to trappers in the Missoula area. Closures would help prevent tragedies like the death of Betsy who was killed in a trap near the Clark Fork River in December, 2019.

“Residents of the City of Missoula and Missoula County have invested for decades in open space and public lands to support habitat and recreation and have expectations that those public spaces are safe for humans and companion animals,” said Missoula Mayor, John Engen. “Prohibiting trapping in these high-traffic public lands seems nothing but reasonable to me.”

“Closing these areas to trapping is baseline common sense for conservation and public safety,” said Sarah McMillan, conservation director of WildEarth Guardians and a longtime Missoula resident. “These areas are not only some of our favored getaways as Missoulans, but are also critical to the wildlife and biodiversity that makes our home such a wonderful place.”

“The time has come to end trapping around communities in Montana,” said Stephen Capra, executive director of Footloose Montana. “It’s not just an issue of safety, but reclaiming the lands that belong to the vast majority that own these public lands and want to utilize them for recreation without fear for their family or pets.”

“Indiscriminate traps present serious risks to endangered species as well as humans and dogs. They have no place in public recreation spaces,” said Michelle Blake, western region coordinator for the Mountain Lion Foundation. “We hope FWP commissioners will seriously consider this common-sense proposal to protect public safety.”

The Montana Fish and Wildlife Commission has indicated that they are open to hearing from the public about areas that may not be appropriate for trapping. Every year, the commission and the Department review furbearer and wolf trapping regulations. The commission is slated to meet on August 15th to review proposed regulation changes. Conservation advocates, animal welfare enthusiasts, and outdoor recreators hope the commission will consider safe access areas.

A copy of the list sent to MT FWP is here: http://pdf.wildearthguardians.org/support_docs/FWP_Proposal_7.28.20.pdf

Background: Trapping on public lands is legal in Montana. The law does not require trap locations to be marked, signed, or for any warnings to be present. No penalties exist for trappers who unintentionally trap non-target species including endangered species, protected species, domestic animals, pets, humans, or livestock.

No database or official record is kept by any public entity and no requirement exists that trappers report when they have captured a dog in their traps. The pattern these incidents follow is usually similar; dogs screaming and frantically biting at the person desperately trying to rescue them. Veterinary and even human medical treatment along with associated expenses can result, as can long-lasting psychological trauma. Neither the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks nor trappers are liable for the damages that are caused by traps.

The true toll that trapping takes on native wildlife is difficult to know. Reporting requirements exist for some species, but not for many, including coyotes, red foxes, badgers, weasels, and raccoons. The accuracy of reporting is unverifiable, and numbers do not adequately articulate the suffering and carnage that traps wreak on bobcats, foxes, endangered wolves, coyotes, and other animals.

The existence of trapping by a minuscule subset of the population using Montana’s public lands is in direct conflict with one of the state’s most valuable economic strengths: outdoor recreation. Outdoor recreation generates $7.1 billion in consumer spending and $2.2 billion in wages and salary in Montana. 71,000 jobs are directly tied to the industry. This economy is not bolstered by piles of dead animals discarded by public roadways or by the thousands of wild animals taken from Montana’s diverse public landscapes for personal profit.

# # #

GAO: Trump administration has been underestimating costs of carbon pollution

According to a new report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office—which provides fact-based, nonpartisan information to Congress—the Trump administration has been systematically underestimating the damage caused by carbon pollution in order to justify a host of environmental rollbacks, many of which impact federal public lands and federal public land-management agencies.

In fact, the GAO wrote in its report that “The current federal estimates, based on domestic climate damages, are about 7 times lower than the prior federal estimates.”

Rebecca Beitsch reports for The Hill.

Of Toddlers, Wolves, and Public Lands Ranchers


The following guest blog post was written by Samantha Bruegger, the Wildlife Coexistence Campaigner for WildEarth Guardians.

As I sit here thinking about wolves, my child is now peacefully sleeping in his room. I know he will awake tomorrow and much of his toddler fury will have subsided, creating a time for us to interact with each other positively. I can’t help but think of the parallels between some bad-acting livestock producers, grazing on public lands across the West, and my raging pre-bedtime toddler. The evening meltdown ritual is full of entitlement, irrational beliefs, and a lot of whining. It is now in these precious hours of silence that I understand why these tantrums are so familiar. I hear the same chorus from stock growers all week while working on carnivore coexistence.

The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, further bolstered by the Multiple Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960, authorized cattlemen and sheep growers to use public land across the West to grow their personal businesses. Now, nearly a century later, the same law has enabled corporate cattleman to profit from some of America’s most picturesque forests, grasslands, and deserts. Where we hike, bike, raft, hunt and fish, cows and sheep are permitted to freely roam.

In the 193 million acre National Forest System, grazing is authorized for 6,260 permit holders at the low cost of $1.35 per month for a cow/calf pair or five sheep, on over 102 million acres public land across 29 states. Unattended cows and sheep trample valuable wildlife habitat, graze on forage intended for deer and elk, and literally defecate all over the trails and water we explore with our families and friends, or find solace in alone. Yes, much like my child during witching hour, there is poop involved, a mess made, and complete chaos. However, this is not my private living room, these are the invaluable ecosystems of the Gila National Forest in New Mexico, the Colville National Forest of Washington, and the Arapaho National Forest of the Rocky Mountains, areas in which cows and sheep are invasive species. The aforementioned legislation is the parent that caves, gives toddlers what they are screaming for, in this case we’ll say a lollipop, and hopes for the best.

As many parents know, sugar before bedtime rarely ends well. Livestock producers were given a taste of the good stuff and, emboldened, have now picked up the toddler refrain of “more, more, more!” Being permitted to profit from public land was not enough for the hypocritical heifer owners. Soon, funding from the Animal Damage Control Act was funneled to grazing permit holders across the West, in a misguided attempt to appease the industry. In fact, a federal wildlife killing program was created with these funds, equipped to destroy all wildlife that stood in the way of cattle takeover. Armed with traps, poisons, cyanide bombs, snares, airplanes, and firearms, the United States Department of Agriculture’s “Wildlife Services” program took to treasured public lands to kill all things wild.

So far, the program’s indiscriminate and cruel tactics have accidentally killed numerous wild animals, including endangered species, domestic dogs, and even poisoned a child. The program still kills over a million animals annually, largely at the behest of agricultural interests. Bears and beavers are killed for timber damage, coyotes are massacred before grazing season, wolves are shot from the sky, and prairie dogs gassed in their burrows. The sugar- loaded, unhappy toddler was gifted a toy; the toy in this story is Wildlife Services.

You may have guessed by now, but the federal and state governments play the role of the exhausted and weary parents in this story. In an effort to appease the tyrannical demands of the worst in the grazing industry, the government doles out more gifts. Producers can receive compensation when cattle deaths are attributed to wolves, at twice the market value, but still demand the blood of those carnivores on public land. Producers receive free technical assistance when there are threats of coyotes, cougars, wolves, and bears, but still demand the blood of carnivores on public land. Producers claim it’s too hard to attend to cattle and sheep on public land, that there’s no way they can possibly keep an eye on them, but still demand the blood of carnivores on public land.

One cattleman, whose cows wander across 78,000 acres of the Colville National Forest in northeastern Washington, has even had 26 state-endangered wolves killed, including the Wedge Pack, Profanity Peak Pack, and the Old Profanity Territory Pack, to “protect” beef cows already destined for slaughter. Even as I write this, Washington has a kill order out for two members of the Togo Pack whose crime was eating the cows, wandering unattended, in the National Forest.  Parents are trying everything they can to appease the now spoiled child, who will never be satisfied until that child can act however he or she wants, damn the interests of anyone else in the house. Such unfettered kowtowing is, quite simply, bad parenting, and we should expect much more from the government whose job it is to consider the interests of stock-growers, anglers, hikers, and other non-consumptive users, as well as wildlife and ecosystems, in protecting public lands.

In order to protect the interests of the whole household, maybe it is bedtime for public lands grazing. Perhaps the great burden that the bad apples of the livestock industry perceive for tending to their responsibility would be lifted if they lost the privilege. Perhaps, if they got a little rest, they would wake up and understand that using the shared rivers, forests, deserts, and grasslands for their business gains is a privilege, not a right.

I think it’s about time we put livestock grazing on public lands, and the killing of so many wild animals for the benefit of cows and sheep, to bed. I hope to join you in a new dawn of coexistence, one where the toddler is a little more respectful and, perhaps, enjoyable.

Familiar Story in California: Clearcuts and Wildfire


Like Morrissey said in the late 1980s…”Stop Me If You Think You’ve Heard This One Before.”
A familiar story in playing out California. The 12,000 acreHog Fire in California is ripping across clearcut lands owned by Sierra Pacific Industries and racing east towards the city of Susanville. From the website of Sierra Pacific Industries:

Fires are a part of the forest ecosystem. Plants and animals have evolved in the presence of fires but after decades of fire suppression and “hands-off” management policies, public land has unnaturally dense forests, which are prone to catastrophic wildfires. These crowded forests contribute to fires that race through the crowns of the trees making them nearly impossible to fight, worsen the soil due to the higher than normal heat intensity, and unnecessarily put human lives, animal habitats and water quality at risk.

At Sierra Pacific Industries (SPI), we use modern forest management techniques to reduce the risk of wildfire without damaging the health of the forest. The key to effective fire prevention is removal of dry brush and careful thinning of overgrown forests.

We prepare ahead of time to reduce the threat of fire and to specifically:

Sierra Pacific makes a special effort to give our forests defensible fire space. Our foresters intentionally thin out the forest in strategic spots to help stop wildfires. Typically, these spots are along ridges, near towns, and along major roads – areas where firefighters can make a stand against a raging wildfire. These thinned areas usually have some trees, and are called “shaded fuel breaks.”

SPI actively works with our neighbors, conservation agencies, and fire fighters to make fire awareness a community issue. We curtail our woods operations on high fire danger days. We train all of our woods workers in the use of fire fighting equipment. And we fund and maintain a private road system that is mapped and accessible for fire fighting agencies

After a fire, SPI quickly moves in to restore the forest and prevent environmental degradation. SPI analyzes the fire site to determine impact on soil erosion, water quality, and plant and wildlife habitat. Then, professional foresters develop and implement a plan to replant the forest and restore environmental balance often using a technique known as “subsoiling” to break up the fire-hardened surface and create furrows to catch water before it flows downhill. This allows the water to soak into the furrows and stay on the land.

SPI maintains an extensive “seed bank” that stores seeds collected from the conifers growing on Sierra Pacific lands. After a major fire, we use these seeds to replant the burned area with trees native to the site.

We’ve talked about Sierra Pacific Industries, their clearcuts and (their?) wildfires before.

Clearcutting and Fuel Treatment in California: Will the California Forestry Association Call out Sierra Pacific’s Clearcuts?

A Billion-Dollar Fortune From Timber and Fire

A Wildfire of Corruption

Of course, we all know how this familiar story will end. The timber industry and politicians will blame these wildfires on environmentalists (or “environmental terrorist groups” or “environmental radicals” as Trump’s (disgraced) Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke did in 2018. And this familiar blame game will be followed by more calls to “fast track” logging on national forests by categorically excluding timber sales from the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (even though pretty much the entire U.S. Forest Service timber sale could be logged via Categorical Exclusions to NEPA right now). As the Talking Heads said in the early 1980s…”Same as it ever was. Same as it ever was. Same as it ever was.”

UPDATE: The 14,500 acre Gold Fire, burning just north of the Hog Fire, has now made it to this nice patch of “forest.”

“Climate scientists increasingly ignore ecological role of Indigenous peoples”

From Penn State. I question the “increasingly ignoring” bit, but we ought to consider what we can learn and do, based on “the profound role that Indigenous peoples played in fire and vegetation dynamics.” Some foresters have advocated that view for many years. Bob Zybach, for example.

UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa. — In their zeal to promote the importance of climate change as an ecological driver, climate scientists increasingly are ignoring the profound role that Indigenous peoples played in fire and vegetation dynamics, not only in the eastern United States but worldwide, according to a Penn State researcher.

“In many locations, evidence shows that Indigenous peoples actively managed vast areas and were skilled stewards of the land,” said Marc Abrams, professor of forest ecology and physiology. “The historical record is clear, showing that for thousands of years Indigenous peoples set frequent fires to manage forests to produce more food for themselves and the wildlife that they hunted, and practiced extensive agriculture.” 

Responding to an article published earlier this year in a top scientific journal that claimed fires set by Native Americans were rare in southern New England and Long Island, New York, and played minor ecological roles, Abrams said there is significant evidence to the contrary.

Guest Post: Let the Santa Fe National Forest Heal

Photo of the Santa Fe watershed that was thinned in the early 1990’s and subsequently had prescribed fire applied twice. According to Sarah Hyden, you can see from the photo that the understory has not been allowed to return except for a few grasses, and the ecosystem does not appear to be healthy at all. Photo by Dee Blanco

The following guest post was written by Sarah Hyden.  Sarah is the editor of a new website in development, focused on protection of the Santa Fe National Forest called The Forest Advocate. Sarah describes herself as “one of a growing number of citizen advocates deeply concerned about the severity of fuel treatments in our national forests and the very bad ecological effects of such treatments.” – mk

A transformation is taking place in our forest.

It’s changing by the year as the climate becomes warmer and dryer. Existing vegetation in many areas is becoming more marginal. Those of us who live by and with the forest can see it happening. Some years we wonder if the trees will even make it, and then the rains come and they look healthy again. But they don’t seem to be able to tolerate even relatively small impacts.

The forest is resilient in its own way when left free of human interventions. It’s evolving into the healthiest forest possible given current conditions, even if it doesn’t always look that way to us after natural forest processes such as wildfire and bark beetle outbreaks. There will likely be major shifts in vegetation types.

It appears to be difficult, or even impossible for our forest to recover ecological balance and function after fuel treatment projects — extensive thinning followed by periodic prescribed burns. We can see this in the Santa Fe watershed which was thinned and first burned two decades ago. Many treated areas still look like a forest wasteland, not functional forest.

Thinning prescriptions normally call for the vast majority of trees to be removed from large areas of forest. This can involve heavy machinery, damage to trees left behind both above the soil and below, and roads built or improved out in the forest which can cause erosion and wildlife fragmentation. These roads carry the impacts of the public further out into the forest — including increased fire risk. Thinning slash creates increased fire and insect outbreak risk.

Existing research from the US Forest Service and its partners estimates that our local forest historically burned every 5 to 15 years, and prescribed fire regimens often follow that general framework. Newer studies by independent researchers estimate that fire came to our forest much less frequently — one study (W. Baker, 2017) estimates it came at an average of every 55 years for dry mixed conifer and ponderosa pine in the Santa Fe watershed. The too-frequent prescribed fire is not allowing a healthy understory to return, and along with too-intensive thinning, is in many cases leaving our forests too open, barren, dry and ecologically brittle. And sometimes prescribed fire actually causes fires, such as the Cerro Grande Fire.

There have been many detrimental human impacts to our forest ecosystem over the years — logging, livestock grazing, off-road vehicle use, mining, road-building, excessive fire suppression, and human caused fires. The forest needs to heal. Another massive intervention in the form of widespread thinning and prescribed fire is just another man-made solution to a man-made problem. Is it really going to work this time?

The forest has its own intelligence. It can heal itself, in time, likely much better than any treatment we humans can apply. Natural fires in our forest of all intensities help the forest to renew itself and promote biodiversity.

We know how to protect our homes in the wildland/urban interface — fireproof structures and land 100 feet surrounding homes. This has been proven, including by US Forest Service researcher Jack Cohen.

There are careful forest restoration projects we can undertake — to de-commission roads, restore riparian areas, build earthen dams to reduce flooding risk and to re-introduce beavers. Some very limited and light-handed thinning and burning may be needed, but only for strategic and site-specific reasons. This requires open-minded utilization of newer forest and fire ecology research. It also requires new local research that is not based on the assumption that widespread thinning and burning are necessarily a benefit in the cost/benefit analysis. And it requires just slowing down the process.

It’s time to embrace a new paradigm for the forest. Instead of imposing the framework of our limited ecological understanding and perspective onto the forest, let’s be allies of the forest, to help support its inevitable transformation. Let’s respect and honor life. First do no harm.

Forest Service Stories: Bruce and the Handheld

I couldn’t find any photos of archaeology crews with handhelds from the 90’s; but here’s Central Oregon Initial Attack Crew 4 Crew Boss Trainee Kira Santulli Leads Training Simulation at the Deshka Landing Fire on August 30. Photo: Mike McMillan – DNR from Alaska 2019.

This story comes to us from Steve Marsh, then (1997) Archaeologist on the Groveland Ranger District of the Stanislaus National Forest.
From: Steve Marsh:R05F16A
Date: ## 03/18/97 11:44 ##

There are certainly joys and heartbreak about working with seasonal crews. I had a summer archaeological survey crew that included Bruce, a good hearted guy but who sometimes did not quite have a firm grasp on life’s details. One day we were surveying a mountainside. The crew was spread out in a line on the slope below me, with Bruce at the far end. When we reached the drainage at which we were going to end the survey line, I called Bruce on the H.T. (handy talkie, hand held radio) to tell him to stop at the drainage and wait for me there. I headed downhill, gathering other members of the crew, going toward Bruce.

This hillside was covered with thick brush, and I could not see Bruce. During surveys, our habit was to locate each other by yelling, “YO!”, so when I got to where I thought Bruce should be, I called out, “YO, BRUCE!”

He answered back, on the radio, “I’m over here, Steve”.

Even after working with Bruce for awhile, this dumbfounded me. Thinking he’d get the idea, I called out again, louder, “YO! BRUUUUCE!”.

Again he answered back on the radio, “I’m over here, Steve”.

Although the rest of the crew was giggling wildly, I was very calm as I got on the radio and told Bruce, “I can’t find you….I need you to YELL to me”.

To my chagrin, Bruce yelled back, on the radio, “I’M OVER HERE, STEVE!”

By this time, the crew is rolling on the ground, and I’m red faced and spluttering. I was still very calm, though, as I got back on the radio (praying that nobody anywhere was also receiving these transmissions) and said, “Bruce, I need you to turn off your radio, and yell to me with your voice, so that we can find you”.

Needless to say, it was hard to be mad because the whole episode was just hilarious, and when we finally did find Bruce, he had realized what he was doing, and was giggling, too. Also, needless to say, someone else carried the radio after that.

Suit filed to overturn sale of nearly 41,000 acres of public lands for fracking

This is sort of a counterpoint post to the one below about “Renewable Energy on Federal Lands.” Consider it an example of “Non-Renewable Energy on Federal Lands.” It’s a press release from a coalition of Tribal, grassroots, environmental and public health advocates.

Santa Fe, NM–A coalition of Tribal, grassroots, and environmental and health advocates today filed suit to overturn the sale of nearly 41,000 acres of public lands in the Greater Chaco region of northwest New Mexico for fracking.

In a complaint filed in federal court, Diné Citizens Against Ruining Our Environment, WildEarth Guardians, San Juan Citizens Alliance, the Sierra Club, and the Western Environmental Law Center confronted the Trump administration’s disregard for health, environmental justice, and the climate.  The case challenges a December 2018 sale of public lands for fracking in northwest Sandoval County, which is part of the Greater Chaco region of New Mexico.

“This lease sale will have a direct impact on the Diné communities of Ojo Encino, Torreon and others,” said Wendy Atcitty with Diné C.A.R.E. “Within the nearly 41,000 acres of lease sale parcels are four to five municipal wells that provide water to Ojo Encino, Torreon, Pueblo Pintado, and White Horse Lake. So far, the Bureau has failed to address health concerns, air and water quality concerns, or provide opportunities for meaningful public participation in this whole process. The health of our communities needs to come first.”

The Greater Chaco region has been under siege by fracking for years. With Chaco Canyon at its heart, the region is home to Navajo communities and Pueblo people today hold strong ties to the region.

In spite of its cultural significance, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management has approved hundreds of new oil and gas wells in the region, many near Chaco Culture National Historical Park. Even after a federal appeals court held in 2019 that the Bureau illegally approved hundreds of drilling permits, the Bureau has continued to approve more fracking.

“The Bureau of Land Management continues to run roughshod over the Greater Chaco landscape by sanctioning an unprecedented amount of industrialized fracking having never analyzed the impacts of these activities on communities or the climate,” said Rebecca Sobel with WildEarth Guardians. “In the midst of a pandemic, we are forced back to court to defend Diné communities that continue to suffer from oil and gas impacts and related COVID-19 morbidity–more victims of the administration’s ‘energy dominance’ agenda.”

Today’s lawsuit targets the sale of lands for fracking in northwest Sandoval County, which is part of the Bureau of Land Management’s Rio Puerco Field Office. The suit challenges the failure of the Bureau to address the health, climate, and environmental justice impacts of fracking in the Greater Chaco region.

The Bureau of Land Management sidestepped its public involvement process and also failed to take a hard look at environmental justice impacts. The Bureau also failed to adequately analyze the effects of oil and gas drilling on the health of nearby residents. The agency ignored the disproportionate health and safety risks of fracking and drilling–especially cumulative impacts–to Navajo people and communities in the lease sale area.

“It is both unethical and unlawful for the agency to ignore the inequities and injustices inherent to its oil and gas program,” said Ally Beasley with the Western Environmental Law Center. “These inequities and injustices are not incidental–they are structural, systemic, and part of a historical, ongoing pattern and practice of environmental racism, colonialism, and treatment of the Greater Chaco as an energy sacrifice zone. It has to stop.”

The suit also targets the fact that the management plan for the Rio Puerco Field Office, which was adopted in 1986, never authorized fracking. In 2019, a coalition called on the Bureau of Land Management to halt the sale of lands for fracking in the Field Office.  The agency never responded.

“The Bureau continues irresponsible oil and gas leasing that cuts out public participation and any comprehensive analysis of what would transpire on the landscape and in communities when oil and gas development would occur,” said Mike Eisenfeld of San Juan Citizens Alliance. “We appreciate the commitment of organizations associated with this litigation to address inequities and agency indifference to upholding their responsibilities.”

“Today’s filing underscores the need to hold to account the Trump administration’s Bureau of Land Management for its repeated illegal actions that bypass thorough environmental reviews and cultural resource assessments, ignore public input, and sideline meaningful Tribal consultation in its oil and gas leasing program,” said Miya King-Flaherty with the Sierra Club – Rio Grande Chapter. “The Greater Chaco landscape continues to be desecrated, and the environmental injustices perpetrated in this region must stop.”

A 2018 U.S. Geological Survey report found that oil and gas produced from public lands and waters contributes to 10 percent of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. And a 2018 report by the Stockholm Environmental Institute confirmed that ending public lands fossil fuel production could significantly reduce nationwide greenhouse gas emissions.

Ending the sale of public lands for fracking would also yield enormous health benefits. In addition to the industry’s climate impacts, the fracking science compendium released in June 2019 by Physicians for Social Responsibility and Concerned Health Professionals of New York confirmed extensive health risks associated with oil and gas extraction, including cancer, asthma, pre-term birth, and more.