Reform Forest Service Wildfire Management- Our Role in Project 2025: Guest Post by Joe Reddan

by

Joe submitted this as a comment, but I thought it was worthy of its own post.  Joe is a guest, so please remember our guidelines.  Whatever is in Project 2025 seems to be the druthers of the chosen authors or their delegatees. Later we’ll look at the Interior section and be able to compare.  When you think about it, Project 2025 is often evoked as a Uniquely Bad Thing, but if you look under the hood (as with so many other documents!) there are a variety of items, which individually we could agree or disagree with.  It seems to depend on who was selected to author that particular section and their unique philosophies, history and points of irritation.  People can wield the term “Project 2025” as a kind of apotropaic magic, but I think it’s worth discussing the relevant individual elements.

Back to Joe:

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

Origins of the Mandate

The Heritage Foundation’s Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise was the organization’s attempt to provide reforms to the whole of the federal government for a new administration—or a retained one—in 2024. Heritage has been providing this service for presidential election years since 1979, predictably offering its agenda to both parties, though only Republicans have employed it over the years.

We know this because we are the two authors of “Reform Forest Service Wildfire Management,” as it appears on Page 308 in Section 3: The General Welfare, #10, The Department of Agriculture, edited by Daren Bakst. My vast network of contacts in Washington led to an invitation in late 2023 to contribute to the document, and what followed was a rigorous process of distilling decades of frustration and analysis into a constrained format.

It was not at all clear at the time that President Trump would win. Along with perhaps every other organization and department, people across the policy landscape were preparing for the transition to whoever came next by documenting aspirational changes and improvements to policies and practices across the government. Our effort was, as far as we knew, a forlorn hope—a chance to register our own and a much broader disaffection with Forest Service management of our shared natural resources in the first quarter of the new century.

Why Fire?

Editor Bakst was allotted approximately twenty pages to succinctly characterize the sprawling Department of Agriculture, in which “nutrition assistance” transfer payment programs account for 79 percent ($161 billion) of all department expenditures, excluding the Forest Service. He was further allocated roughly six and a half pages for references. With a constrained budget of 700 words to characterize the most urgent reform for the Forest Service, we chose the most divergent practice and program: FIRE.

The key point of contention was the dramatic increase in the use of wildfire—or managed fire—as the agency’s principal natural resource management tool following three decades of increasingly onerous lawsuit settlements. The net result since 1996, in our opinion, was that the Office of General Counsel abandoned the forest planning process, leaving the Forest Service defenseless and unsupported against the rising tide of increasingly vociferous environmentalist preferences for public land management. Wildfire, however imperfect a tool, became the Forest Service’s last active management tool, one it could apply without any interference—or input—from anyone.
We identified two themes: wildfire policy, specifically the “managed fire” aspect of fire policy since Chief Tom Tidwell signed the Chevron Deference memo in 2009, and the Forest Service’s transition from multiple-use management to the “all fire is good fire” paradigm being introduced throughout the agency to address the backlog of fire in so-called “fire-depleted ecosystems.”

The Law and Its Abandonment

Since the publication in 2014 of the National Cohesive Strategy, which states the vision for this century as “to safely and effectively extinguish fire, when needed; use fire where allowable; manage our natural resources; and as a Nation, live with wildland fire,” the Forest Service has abandoned its congressionally authorized mission to “make provisions for the protection against destruction by fire.” The abandonment of fidelity to the law—the Organic Administration Act of 1897—by the premier conservation agency of the United States in creating, using, exacerbating, and wreaking havoc and destruction in the forested and grassland ecosystems of the Nation identified itself as the primary reform the Forest Service required.

We called for the agency to abandon its outlaw infatuation with pyro-silviculture and return to the basics of sound forest management on its jurisdictional lands. In invoking the mission statement, a clear contrast emerged with the wanton destructive practices of pyro-silviculture, which left both National Forest System lands and adjoining private lands blackened, denuded, and unable to support human requirements for life, liberty, and property. We know of no one who has ever forfeited their life or home to an “escaped timber sale.”

New Mexico and the Catalyst for Reform

Our drafting of “Reform Forest Service Wildfire Management” occurred in 2023, about one year after the nadir of the Forest Service and its arsonist role in the Hermits Peak/Calf Canyon, Cerro Pelado, and Black Fire conflagrations in New Mexico. Spending time on-the-ground and with people in the vast post-fire environment causes an individual to think hard about whether embracing and employing a “stone-age” mentality to “sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation’s forest and grasslands for present and future generations” is something that should be happening in the twenty-first century.

Frank and I discussed our aspirational outcomes should the opportunity ever arise to see real reform. We wrote our wish list and various thoughts about what could and should happen in the best of all worlds. Our contact at the Foundation was a merciless editor. The end result is the half-page of our thoughts that you find in the Project 2025 document.

What We Did Not Address

We did not address reorganization, the agency’s almost suicidal countenancing of a “resistance” to the Trump administration, the terrified institutional response to COVID, the embrace of work-from-home as a “safety” measure until staff were forced back in early 2025—long after the rest of the world had returned to work—the failure of multiple-use management over forty years, the failure of agency attorneys to back agency decisions rather than settle everything, or the disastrous decisions to “let burn” (wildfire use, managed fire, reintroducing fire, applied wildfire) across millions of acres of the West. All of this deserved scrutiny, but 700 words impose their own discipline.

The Whirlwind

While Project 2025 – Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise was exceptionally limited in scope, the other changes now being implemented at the Forest Service are long overdue and quite deserving. The wholesale abandonment by the Forest Service of bedrock conservation laws and the embrace of destructive, uncontrollable physical forces to manage public natural resources have now reaped the whirlwind of reform.

If the Forest Service would like to take an honest look at how it, and many other departments and agencies, arrived at this appalling point in history, the first clue is the mirror. The opportunity for reform arose, for better or worse, and it did so because the agency’s hubris made it inevitable.

Here is the post in Project 2025 verbatim:

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise

Reform Forest Service Wildfire Management. The United States Forest Service is one of four federal government land management agencies that administer 606 million acres, or 95 percent of the 640 million acres of surface land area managed by the federal government.115 Located within the USDA, the Forest Service manages the National Forest System, which is comprised of 193 million acres.116 As explained by the USDA, “The USDA Forest Service’s mission is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations.”117
The Forest Service should focus on proactive management of the forests and grasslands that does not depend heavily on burning. There should be resilient forests and grasslands in the wake of management actions. Wildfires have become a primary vegetation management regime for national forests and grasslands.118 Recognizing the need for vegetation management, the Forest Service has adopted “pyro-silviculture” using “unplanned” fire,119 such as unplanned human-caused fires, to otherwise accomplish vegetation management.120
The Forest Service should instead be focusing on addressing the precipitous annual amassing of biomass in the national forests that drive the behavior of wildfires. By thinning trees, removing live fuels and deadwood, and taking other preventive steps, the Forest Service can help to minimize the consequences of wildfires.
Increasing timber sales could also play an important role in the effort to change the behavior of wildfire because there would be less biomass. Timber sales and timber harvested in public forests dropped precipitously in the early 1990s and still remain very low. For example, in 1988, the volume of timber sold and harvested by volume was about 11 billion and 12.6 billion board feet (BBF), respectively.121 In 2021, timber sold was 2.8 BBF and timber harvested was 2.4 BBF.
In 2018, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order 13855 to, among other things, promote active management of forests and reduce wildfire risks.122 The executive order stated, “Active management of vegetation is needed to treat these dangerous conditions on Federal lands but is often delayed due to challenges associated with regulatory analysis and current consultation requirements.”123 It further explained the need to reduce regulatory obstacles to fuel reduction in forests created by the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act.124
The next Administration should:

 Champion executive action, consistent with law, and proactive legislation to reduce wildfires. This would involve embracing Executive Order 13855, building upon it, and working with lawmakers to promote active management of vegetation, reduce regulatory obstacles to reducing fuel buildup, and increase timber sales.

— 308 —

Signed: Joe Reddan, Chief Forester Flexilis Forestry LLC & Frank Carroll, Chief Forester Wildfire Pros., authors of Reform the Forest Service, Project 2025 – Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise [our names appear on pages under contributors on pages XXVI (F. Carroll ProfessionaL Forest Management) and page XXIX (J.Reddan Flexilis Forestry LLC)]

Diving Deeper: How Will USWFS Work With the Bureaus?

by

Many of my retiree colleagues from BLM  are worried about the linkage between the new wildfire organization and the bureaus. So let’s look deeper into what the transition document says about how it will work.

If someone would be willing to write a post to describe the authorization process for prescribed fire (ignition authorization? approve implementation?) it would be great.  How many steps are there, and is it the same for the FS as for BLM?

My view is not that the FS fire folks will be ultimately moved to USWFS, but that WFS will figure out a “way to do things” and the FS will sign on to those things that are important (procurement, hiring, monitoring protocols, etc.). Even back in my time, I recall wildfire folks saying “the FS doesn’t decide what I do, fire is interagency.and they say…”

The possibly great thing to my mind is that the FS can wait to adopt these changes until WFS has worked through implementation and will miss the dead ends.  Of course, I am an optimist.

These tables are copied directly from this THW post.

Not another risk map! Wouldn’t it be great if an NGO would fund a “wildfire risk map” database, so we could keep track of who is doing what, for what reason, with what sources of funding?

Bureaus will lead the development of fuels projects.  For BLM that sounds like “within the context of RMP’s” which the BLM (sometimes with input of political appointees).  And they need to work with fuels specialists and risk maps “to aid in selection”. Conceivably when the fuels specialists worked for the bureaus, the also “aided in selection” or at least I would hope so! So the new thing is these USWFS maps.. perhaps there is more info on those out there somewhere.

Bureaus will do all the NEPA, ESA, NHPA, public involvement, Tribal consultation and all that and USFWS personnel can serve on ID teams.  Interesting, though , that the USWFS “may” fund fuels work.  There’s probably more to dig into here.. like when? What will be their criteria for funding fuels work?

So it sounds like USWFS will be the keeper of the Fuels POW funded by USWFS dollars.  Bureaus will submit POWs and negotiate for targets.  USWFS will also implement with some Bureau support.  So it seems like USWFS has three roles with regard to fuels projects:

1. Providing expertise to bureaus via fuels practitioners.

2. Developing an Interior-wide POW for fuels, funding and tracking accomplishments.

3. Implementing projects (working closely with Bureaus).

This seems to transfer approval and oversight for prescribed fires to the USWFS. It’s also interesting that Bureaus can do PF for non-hazardous fuel projects and ask the USWFS to assist, but the Bureaus must fund it themselves.

I don’t know what “post-fire” means in this context, hopefully someone can help.

Sounds like they will do FTEM.  It does make me wonder because Congress gave universities chunks of change to do something that sounds similar. It makes more sense to me to have one national approach for recording information.. like the ever-popular FIA.  I’m sure the FS could enter their own data using the same template, and perhaps States, Tribes and private folks could also enter their data?

So RMPs need to include wildfire stuff, and USFWS will provide it, but Bureaus are still responsible for RMP’s.  Bureaus will continue to update their Fire Management Plans.  I wonder how different BLM’s Fire Management Plans are from the Forest Service’s?

That’s all I found of interest in the document, what do you think? Did you find anything else of interest?

What Does Project 2025 Say About the Forest Service?: Human, ChatGPT and Grok

by

People keep talking about Project 2025, so I decided to read the Interior and USDA sections.  Following that I decided to ask two AIs… here’s what Grok says, which is basically what I got from reading it:

Project 2025 (formally Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, the Heritage Foundation’s 2025 policy blueprint) addresses the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) only briefly in its Department of Agriculture chapter. The discussion is limited to roughly one page under the subheading “Reform Forest Service Wildfire Management.”

Key Points from the Document

The section criticizes the current approach to wildfire management on national forests and grasslands, arguing that wildfires have effectively become the primary method of vegetation management (including through “unplanned” fires or what it calls “pyro-silviculture”). It states that the agency should shift away from heavy reliance on burning.

Direct recommendations include:

  • “The Forest Service should focus on proactive management of the forests and grasslands that does not depend heavily on burning. There should be resilient forests and grasslands in the wake of management actions.”
  • Address the “precipitous annual amassing of biomass” (fuel buildup) that drives wildfire behavior by thinning trees, removing live fuels and deadwood, and taking other preventive steps.
  • Increase timber sales as a way to reduce biomass and “change the behavior of wildfire.” The document notes that timber harvest volumes on public lands dropped sharply from the late 1980s/early 1990s (around 11–12.6 billion board feet sold/harvested) to much lower levels in recent years (e.g., 2.4–2.8 billion board feet in 2021). It presents ramping up commercial logging as a tool for fuel reduction.

It also calls for embracing and building on prior executive actions (such as Executive Order 13855 from the first Trump administration) and pursuing legislation or executive steps to reduce regulatory obstacles to active vegetation management and boost timber production.

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

But… here’s my experience with Chat GPT, remember there is nothing about reorganizing, decentralizing or shifting authority.

Yes — there is a section that addresses forestry, but not as a standalone, detailed “forestry chapter” in the way you might expect from a technical policy report.

The document you’re referring to, Project 2025 (formally Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise), is organized by federal agencies. Forestry shows up primarily within the section on the U.S. Forest Service, which sits under the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

How forestry is covered

Rather than a single chapter titled “Forestry,” the document discusses forestry policy through:

  • Forest Service management and structure

    • Proposals for reorganizing or decentralizing the agency
    • Shifting authority toward regional or state levels

  • Wildfire policy

    • Expanding active forest management (e.g., thinning, prescribed burns)
    • Increasing timber harvesting as a fuel-reduction tool

  • Timber and land use

    • Encouraging commercial timber production on federal lands
    • Streamlining environmental review processes

  • Regulatory changes

    • Revisiting the role of laws like National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in forest projects

    • Reducing litigation and procedural delays

 

We went through several layers of  my asking “what pages say this?” Then I looked at the pages, which were about another agency entirely.  I told it so. I believe those are called “hallucinations” in AI world. Here’s the final answer.. I thought it was particularly funny that it didn’t honestly say that it was wrong.. it says there was a mismatch of page numbers, which may be true, but does not explain why it made things up that weren’t in the document.

You’re right to push back — the page numbers I gave earlier were off, and the reason is that the document’s pagination is easy to misread.

Here’s what’s actually going on in Project 2025:

The key issue: two different “page numbers”

The PDF has:

  • Printed page numbers (inside the document)
  • PDF page index numbers (what your viewer shows)

Those are not the same, and that’s what caused the mismatch.

Where the Forest Service content actually is

The real forestry / Forest Service material appears in:

📍 USDA chapter (Chapter 10: Department of Agriculture)

  • Starts around PDF page ~290–300 (viewer page number)
  • Not ~270 in most versions

Within that chapter, the Forest Service discussion is not a long standalone section — it’s short and embedded, which is why it’s easy to miss.

A concrete anchor point (verified text)

Here is a direct excerpt from the USDA chapter:

“Reform Forest Service Wildfire Management. The United States Forest Service…”

That language appears inside the Agriculture chapter, not in a long dedicated forestry section.

What you’ll notice when you go there

When you scroll to the correct spot (around PDF page ~295+):

  • The Forest Service is discussed briefly, mainly in the context of:
    • wildfire management
    • vegetation management
  • It is not a multi-page, detailed forestry policy section
  • There is no long sequence of pages (like 10–15 pages) focused only on forestry

Bottom line (correcting my earlier answer)

  • ❌ There is not a continuous Forest Service section spanning pages ~270–285
  • ✅ The actual content is shorter and appears later, embedded in the USDA chapter (~PDF 290s)
  • ✅ It focuses mainly on wildfire and management philosophy, not a full forestry framework

 

Ownership of Uranium Mine Operations on Federal Land

by

I could keep going.. with strategic minerals or potash or whatever.. but I thought I finish for now with uranium. I had never heard of the federal uranium leasing program.

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

Here’s a concrete list of the main currently operating or recently active uranium mines/projects on federal land (or involving federal mineral estate)—along with who runs them and whether they’re U.S.-owned.

I’ll separate (1) confirmed active/producing, (2) permitted/standby but ready, and (3) federal leasing tracts so you can see the real picture.

1) ACTIVE uranium mines on federal land (very small number)

Wyoming (core of U.S. production — mostly BLM land)

These are primarily in-situ recovery (ISR) operations, which are usually on federal mineral estate managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).

🔹 Lost Creek ISR Project (Wyoming)

  • Operator: Ur-Energy
  • Status: Active production
  • Land: Mix of federal mineral estate + private surface
  • Ownership:
    • 🇺🇸 Public company, but Canadian-listed (foreign-controlled capital)

🔹 Smith Ranch–Highland (Wyoming)

  • Operator: Cameco
  • Status: Historically largest U.S. uranium producer (intermittent production)
  • Land: Includes federal mineral estate
  • Ownership:
    • 🇨🇦 Canadian company

🔹 Nichols Ranch ISR (Wyoming)

  • Operator: Energy Fuels
  • Status: Production-ready / intermittent
  • Land: Includes federal mineral estate
  • Ownership:
    • 🇺🇸 U.S.-based company (one of the few major domestic ones)

🔹 Ross ISR Project (Wyoming)

  • Operator: Ur-Energy
  • Status: New satellite mine feeding Lost Creek
  • Ownership: same as above (foreign-listed)

👉 Reality check:

  • These Wyoming ISR projects account for most U.S. uranium production
  • Wyoming has “almost a dozen authorized uranium mines”, but only a few are actually producing at any given time

2) PERMITTED / STANDBY mines on federal land (can restart quickly)

These matter because they’re often counted in “active operations” even when idle.

🔹 Pinyon Plain Mine (Arizona) (formerly Canyon Mine)

  • Operator: Energy Fuels
  • Land: U.S. Forest Service (federal land)
  • Status: Recently restarted production (2024–2025 timeframe)
  • Ownership: 🇺🇸 U.S.-based

🔹 La Sal / Beaver / Pandora mines (Utah–Colorado)

  • Operator: Energy Fuels
  • Land: Mix of BLM + private
  • Status: standby / intermittent
  • Ownership: 🇺🇸 U.S.

🔹 Reno Creek Project (Wyoming)

  • Operator: Peninsula Energy
  • Status: permitted ISR (restart planned)
  • Ownership: 🇦🇺 Australian company

🔹 Lance Projects (Wyoming)

  • Operator: Peninsula Energy
  • Status: restart underway
  • Ownership: 🇦🇺 foreign

👉 These “standby” mines are why counts sometimes show ~7–15 “active” operations—even though only a few are producing at once.

3) FEDERAL URANIUM LEASING PROGRAM (Colorado, etc.)

This is a special category of 100% federal land leased to companies.

  • 31 lease tracts currently exist in the program
  • ~29 are actively held by companies (not necessarily producing)

Typical operators (vary by tract):

  • Energy Fuels (U.S.)
  • Small private leaseholders
  • Exploration-stage firms

👉 Key point:

  • These are explicitly federal-owned lands leased to private companies
  • Most are not currently producing, but could be reactivated

4) Ownership breakdown (this is the important takeaway)

❗ None of these mines are “owned” by corporations in the usual sense

  • Land = U.S. federal government (BLM, Forest Service, DOE)
  • Companies = hold leases, claims, or permits

US Ownership of Copper Mines on Federal Land: Another Round with ChatGPT

by
Bingham Canyon Copper Mine (Rio Tinto Kennecott- foreign owned)

In case you are visiting Utah..

Rio Tinto Kennecott Visitor Experience

The Rio Tinto Kennecott Visitor Experience is dedicated to educating the public about Kennecott’s key role in modern life, safe mining practices, and responsible environmental stewardship. Learn about our history and see first-hand the gigantic scale of our operation, vehicles, and artifacts. Discover how ore gets processed and refined to become 99.99% copper, an essential element in today’s infrastructure, manufacturing, and technology.

Our Kennecott mine has operated for 120 years, providing domestically -sourced copper to the United States and beyond. As we look towards the energy transition, Kennecott will continue to play an important role by responsibly mining and smelting this critical mineral for our electric vehicles, our renewable energy, and numerous other vital applications.

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

Another ChatGPT question: how many copper mines are currently operating on federal land in the US and are they owned by US corporations? When I do ChatGPT I will (from now on) post the whole thing with the summary at the top who aren’t into the details.  It’s Chat’s summary and not mine. I’d be interested in whether in the future, you all would prefer I just post the summary items and link to the rest.  Here’s the link to this one. Hopefully you don’t need to pay for ChatGPT to read it, if you do, let me know.

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

📊 What this shows (pattern)

Count (realistic, production-weighted)

  • ~8 major copper mines clearly involve federal land
  • These account for the majority of U.S. copper output

Key insight

Even where mines are “U.S.-owned”:

  • They often operate under the 1872 Mining Law framework
  • They rely on federal mineral rights (public land)
  • And they may involve:
    • foreign partners (Morenci)
    • global supply chains and financing

🧭 Bottom line

  • The U.S. likely has ~8–10 major copper mines operating on (or partly on) federal land
  • Most are operated by a U.S. company (Freeport-McMoRan)
  • But:
    • At least one of the largest is fully foreign-owned
    • And joint ventures are common

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

Here’s the rest of the info.

Short answer: there is no single official count of “copper mines on federal land”, but we can triangulate a reasonable picture from federal data and industry sources—and the ownership is mostly not U.S.-only.

1) How many copper mines are operating (total vs. federal land)

  • The U.S. Geological Survey reports roughly ~25 operating copper mines in the U.S. in recent years (with ~17 producing nearly all output).
  • Meanwhile, the U.S. Government Accountability Office found 872 active mining operations of all types on federal land (hardrock + others), but does not break them down by commodity (e.g., copper).

👉 The key complication:
Most large U.S. copper mines are not purely “on federal land”—they typically sit on a patchwork of land ownership:

  • patented private mining claims
  • federal (BLM or Forest Service) land
  • state or private surface land

Congressional testimony notes many major copper mines have “mixed ownership (private and U.S.)” and are often adjacent to or partially on federal land rather than entirely on it.

2) Realistic estimate of copper mines on federal land

Because of that mixed ownership structure:

  • Only a subset of the ~25 U.S. copper mines operate on (or partly on) federal land.
  • Based on known major mines and land status (Arizona, Utah, New Mexico, Nevada), a reasonable estimate is:

👉 ~10–15 major copper mines have some operations on federal land
(not necessarily 100% of their footprint)

Examples include:

  • Morenci Mine (partly on federal land)
  • Sierrita Mine (BLM/Forest interface)
  • Bingham Canyon Mine (mixed ownership)
  • Safford Mine

These few account for the vast majority of U.S. copper production.

3) Are they owned by U.S. corporations?

Mostly no—ownership is heavily international.

Major operators of U.S. copper mines:

  • Freeport-McMoRan (U.S.-based)
  • Rio Tinto
  • BHP
  • Sumitomo Group

What that means in practice:

  • Some mines are majority U.S.-owned (e.g., Freeport-McMoRan operations)
  • Many are joint ventures with foreign firms
  • Some are primarily foreign-owned

 

Major U.S. copper mines on / involving federal land

1) Morenci Mine (Arizona)

  • Owner: Freeport-McMoRan (U.S., 72%) + Sumitomo (Japan, 28%)
  • Federal land presence: Yes (significant unpatented claims on federal mineral estate)
  • Ownership type: Mixed (U.S. + foreign JV)

👉 One of the clearest examples of:

  • Direct federal land use
  • Mixed corporate ownership

2) Bingham Canyon Mine (Utah)

  • Owner: Rio Tinto (UK/Australia)
  • Federal land presence: Yes (historic federal claims + large public land footprint)
  • Ownership type: Foreign-owned

👉 This is the largest open-pit copper mine in the world and a key example where:

  • Production occurs partly on federal land
  • Ownership is entirely non-U.S.

3) Safford Mine (Arizona)

  • Owner: Freeport-McMoRan (U.S.)
  • Federal land involvement: Yes (land exchanges with BLM; adjacent federal land)
  • Ownership type: U.S.-owned

4) Sierrita Mine (Arizona)

  • Owner: Freeport-McMoRan (U.S.)
  • Federal land presence: Yes (BLM + Forest Service region)
  • Ownership type: U.S.-owned

5) Bagdad Mine (Arizona)

  • Owner: Freeport-McMoRan (U.S.)
  • Federal land presence: Yes (BLM land and claims)
  • Ownership type: U.S.-owned

6) Miami Mine (Arizona)

  • Owner: Freeport-McMoRan (U.S.)
  • Federal land presence: Partial (mixed private + federal claims)
  • Ownership type: U.S.-owned

7) Chino Mine (New Mexico)

  • Owner: Freeport-McMoRan (U.S.)
  • Federal land presence: Yes (BLM + Forest Service interface)
  • Ownership type: U.S.-owned

8) Tyrone Mine (New Mexico)

      • Owner: Freeport-McMoRan (U.S.)
      • Federal land presence: Yes (significant federal land use)
      • Ownership type: U.S.-owned

Ownership breakdown

U.S.-owned (dominant operator)

  • Safford
  • Sierrita
  • Bagdad
  • Miami
  • Chino
  • Tyrone

👉 6 of ~8 are primarily U.S.-owned

Mixed ownership (U.S. + foreign)

  • Morenci

Foreign-owned

  • Bingham Canyon (Rio Tinto)

Complexities of US Business Ownership of Projects on Federal Land II. Mining

by

My question was “what mines currently permitted on federal land are owned by US corporations?” It was kind of a test because I wanted to see if Chat GPT understood permitting and the 1872 Mining Act.

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

There isn’t a single clean, public list of “all currently permitted mines on federal land owned by U.S. corporations.” That’s not because it’s secret—it’s because the U.S. doesn’t track or publish mining data that way. Federal agencies like the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Forest Service oversee hundreds of individual plans, notices, and leases, but ownership, permitting status, and land tenure are fragmented across systems.

That said, you can identify major active or permitted mines on federal land and who owns them. Below is a grounded snapshot of prominent examples—focusing on U.S.-based corporations or companies with major U.S. ownership stakes (some are joint ventures with foreign firms).

Major active/permitted mines on federal land (examples)

Gold (primarily Nevada – largely on BLM land)

These are among the clearest examples because Nevada gold mining heavily overlaps federal land.

  • Cortez Gold Mine
    • Owners: Barrick Gold (operator) & Newmont Corporation
    • Status: Active large-scale open pit + underground
    • Notes: Part of a huge federal-land mining district
  • Carlin Trend operations (includes Goldstrike, Gold Quarry, etc.)
    • Owners: Barrick + Newmont (via Nevada Gold Mines JV)
    • Status: Active, multiple mines and processing facilities
    • One of the largest gold-producing complexes in the world
  • Goldstrike Mine
    • Owner: Barrick Gold
    • Status: Long-running active mine on federal land
  • Turquoise Ridge Mine
    • Owners: Barrick + Newmont
    • Status: Active underground mine (federal land)
  • Phoenix Mine
    • Owners: Barrick + Newmont
    • Status: Active

👉 These Nevada operations are part of Nevada Gold Mines, which includes 10 underground and 12 surface mines on largely federal land.

Other metals (U.S.-linked companies on federal land)

  • Bald Mountain Mine
    • Owner: Kinross Gold
    • Status: Active open-pit mine (BLM land)
  • Rochester Mine
    • Owner: Coeur Mining
    • Status: Active (notably U.S.-based company)
  • Round Mountain Mine
    • Owner: Kinross Gold
    • Status: Active
  • Robinson Mine
    • Owner: KGHM (foreign-controlled)
    • Status: Active

Coal (federal leasing system – mostly U.S. companies)

Coal is different: mines operate under federal leases with royalties rather than mining claims.

Examples (Wyoming Powder River Basin, largely federal land):

  • North Antelope Rochelle Mine
    • Owner: Peabody Energy
  • Black Thunder Mine
    • Owner: Arch Resources

Coal mining on federal land accounts for a large share of U.S. production and is dominated by U.S.-based firms.

Uranium (recent restart example)

  • Pinyon Plain Mine (near Grand Canyon)
    • Owner: Energy Fuels
    • Status: Recently active under existing federal claims (controversial location)
    • Notable as a modern example of a U.S.-owned company mining federal land

Key reality check (important context)

  • There were ~500+ approved hardrock mining operations on federal land since 2000, with hundreds active at any time.
  • As of ~2023, Interior reported ~500 active plans of operation plus hundreds of smaller notices.
  • Ownership is mixed:
    • Many mines are run by foreign-headquartered firms (Barrick, Kinross, etc.)
    • Even “U.S.” mines are often joint ventures
  • The U.S. system (Mining Law of 1872) allows both individuals and corporations to hold claims on federal land.

Bottom line

  • There is no authoritative public list of “currently permitted mines on federal land owned by U.S. corporations.”
  • But in practice:
    • The largest active federal-land mines are concentrated in Nevada (gold) and Wyoming (coal)
    • A subset are owned or co-owned by U.S. companies, especially:
      • Newmont Corporation
      • Coeur Mining
      • Peabody Energy
      • Energy Fuels

If you want, I can build a more exhaustive dataset (e.g., all BLM “plans of operation” tied to corporate ownership and flag which are U.S.-controlled vs foreign). That’s doable, but it requires stitching together multiple federal datasets.

Complexities of US Business Ownership of Projects on Federal Land I. Solar and Wind

by

I thought the discussion of “copper from US lands only for US residents and profits only from US companies.”   For example, my understanding is that the Forest Service is only allowed to export logs internationally from the Tongass  (surely there is someone out there who knows more than I do.)  But to be fair, wouldn’t that apply to all corporations that make money from federal land or offshore?   The problem with that, though, is that many corporations are international. So what exactly would that mean and how far does it go?

I know very little about corporations, but when folks don’t want something,  foreign ownership becomes a talking point, and, as it happens, I noticed that offshore wind tends to be foreign-owned. So I asked my new friend Chat GPT:

what wind and solar installations on federal land are owned by US corporations?

Short answer: many—probably most—utility-scale wind and solar projects on U.S. federal land are owned (at least partly) by U.S. corporations or U.S.-based subsidiaries—but the ownership structures are often mixed, with foreign investors, tax-equity partners, and infrastructure funds involved.

Below is a grounded, example-based breakdown so you can see what’s actually on federal land and who owns it.

1) First, what “on federal land” means

Most projects you’re asking about are authorized by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) or, for offshore wind, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.

  • These are not federal-owned power plants
  • They are typically private projects on federal leases/right-of-way
  • As of recent counts, dozens of wind and solar projects are approved on public lands, totaling thousands of MW

2) Major wind & solar projects on federal land with U.S. corporate ownership

Solar (BLM land, mostly Southwest)

Gemini Solar Project (Nevada, BLM land)

  • Owner/developer: Primergy Solar
  • Backing: Quinbrook Infrastructure Partners (global, but major U.S. operations)
  • Status: One of the largest U.S. solar projects (~690 MW)

👉 Ownership takeaway: U.S.-based developer, but financed by international capital.

Copper Mountain Solar (Nevada, BLM land)

  • Owner: Sempra Infrastructure (part of Sempra)

👉 Clear U.S. corporate ownership

Desert Sunlight Solar Farm (California, BLM land)

  • Owners (various stakes over time):
    • NextEra Energy Resources
    • GE Energy Financial Services

👉 Primarily U.S.-owned (though ownership stakes have shifted)

Topaz Solar Farm (California, near federal land interfaces / rights-of-way)

  • Owner: Berkshire Hathaway Energy

👉 Fully U.S.-owned

Wind (BLM land or federal nexus)

Alta Wind Energy Center (California, federal land interconnections/approvals)

  • Owner: Terra-Gen
  • Financing partners include U.S. institutional investors

Western Spirit Wind (New Mexico, BLM land)

  • Developer: Pattern Energy

👉 Note: Pattern has had Canadian pension fund ownership, so not purely U.S.-owned.

Chokecherry & Sierra Madre Wind Project (Wyoming, BLM land)

  • Developer: Power Company of Wyoming

👉 Clear U.S. ownership (Anschutz is a U.S. billionaire-owned firm)

Offshore wind (federal waters—important edge case)

These are federally leased but often not U.S.-owned:

  • US Wind → partly owned by Italian firm Renexia + U.S. investment funds
  • Many others (Ørsted, Equinor, Avangrid) are European-controlled

👉 Offshore wind is much less U.S.-owned than onshore.

3) Big U.S. companies that commonly own projects on federal land

These firms frequently appear across BLM project lists:

  • NextEra Energy Resources
  • Berkshire Hathaway Energy
  • AES Corporation
  • Clearway Energy
  • Invenergy

👉 These are core U.S. owners/operators of projects on federal land.

4) The key reality: ownership is often hybrid

Even when a project is “U.S.-owned,” it usually involves:

  • Tax equity from U.S. banks (e.g., JPMorgan, Bank of America)
  • Infrastructure funds (often global)
  • Joint ventures

So you’ll often see:

  • U.S. developer + foreign capital
  • U.S. utility + pension fund investor
  • Foreign developer + U.S. financing

5) Bottom line

  • Yes—many wind and solar installations on federal land are owned by U.S. corporations, especially:
    • Solar in the Southwest
    • Onshore wind in the West
  • But:
    • Ownership is frequently shared or layered
    • Offshore wind is largely foreign-led
  • The federal government:
    • leases land—it does not own the projects

If you want, I can build you a comprehensive table of every BLM-approved project with ownership breakdown (U.S. vs foreign)—that’s doable but takes a bit of structured compilation.”

 

Breaking news – Republicans break federal land management

by

 

(from Inside Higher Ed)

FUTURE LITIGATION?

On April 16, the U. S. Senate voted 50-49 to invoke the Congressional Review Act to overturn a 20-year ban on mining on more than 225,000 acres of the Superior National Forest upstream of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness.  The President is expected to sign it.  Under the CRA, federal agencies must submit new regulations to Congress before they can take effect.  If Congress disapproves by a simple majority, the agency can never issue another rule “in substantially the same form.”

This is the first time Congress has used the CRA to overturn a management decision on national forest land, although the ban on mining was in a public land order mineral withdrawal. by the Secretary of the Interior. The title of the joint resolution is:

“H.J.Res.140 – Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management relating to Public Land Order No. 7917 for Withdrawal of Federal Lands; Cook, Lake, and Saint Louis Counties, MN.”

While this resolution describes the Secretarial Order as a “rule,” federal land management agencies have never considered their land management decisions to be regulations, and so have never submitted them for congressional review, apparently leaving them vulnerable to review now.   Last year, Congress employed the CRA to invalidate several BLM resource management plans.  We discussed that here.

During the CRA’s first 20 years of existence, it was used only once. But President Trump and Republicans have worked to dramatically expand and weaponize the CRA.  It appears the current Congress sees no limits to what kinds of agency decisions it may review and reverse.  It’s not hard to imagine the chaos this could cause for federal land management, especially with regard to land management plans.  Plans revised (and presumably amendments) after the passage of the CRA in 1996 would be vulnerable.  Another example, Republican Senator Mike Lee of Utah has proposed a CRA resolution to eliminate the resource management plan for the Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument.

Potential litigants are circling, one referring to the situation as “extraordinarily legally questionable.” Our prior discussion touched on the question of how a lawsuit might arise.

“The U.S. Forest Service is 100 percent opposed to mining in this watershed,” said Marc Fink, director of the Public Lands Law Center and a senior attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity. In 2016, the Forest Service determined that a sulfide-ore copper mine, such as the one Twin Metals is proposing, could cause “extreme” and “serious and irreplaceable harm” to the area. “This clearly goes against the science and the administration’s own agencies,” Fink said.

 

Federal Lands Litigation – update through March 31, 2026

by

 

It almost looks like there is some kind of quarterly incentive for plaintiffs to file cases and courts to decide them, resulting in a pile-up at the end of March that may take me a while to catch up from. See also separate posts on recent land management planning litigation and Endangered Species Act litigation.

FOREST SERVICE

Case dismissed: Mahler v. U. S. Forest Service (S.D. Indiana)

On March 25, the district court dismissed this case involving the Paoli Tornado Response and Research Project on the Hoosier National Forest: 138 acres of salvage logging, debris removal, deer fencing, and tree planting.  The Forest employed three categorical exclusions.  The court earlier rejected two motions for preliminary injunctions, and then dismissed the case as moot after logging was completed.  This case did not meet the mootness exception for actions “capable of repetition but evading review.”  While it may be difficult for plaintiffs to show harm with the limited administrative record for a CE, the court said “plaintiffs did not request evidence regarding irreparable harm in expedited discovery, did not prepare affidavits about irreparable harm, consult with third-party witnesses, or elicit testimony from any witnesses about irreparable harm at oral argument.”  There was also, “no reasonable expectation that these Plaintiffs will again be subjected to the same challenged action.”

Case dismissed:  Green Climate v. Rollins (D. D.C.)

On March 27, the district court found that Plaintiffs did not have standing to litigate the designation of national forests as being in an “emergency situation” through Secretary’s Memorandum 1078-006.  Such designations authorize various “emergency actions” to respond to emergency situations.  Green Climate alleged that its “mission will be directly harmed by significant additional harvesting of [National Forest Service] land that will result from” the Memo.  according to the court, Green Climate’s allegations did not explain how the Memo “directly affected and interfered with” Green Climate’s “core business activities,” nor did it provide any indication that the Memo will harm specific members of the organization (emphasis by the court).

Court decision in Chattooga Conservancy v. U. S. Department of Agriculture (D. D.C.)

On March 30, the district court determined that annual national, regional, and unit timber targets established by the USDA are “not a discrete agency action subject to review under the Administrative Procedure Act,” but are considered high-level policy directives or performance indicators.  While the court recognized the coercive effect of the targets on management, it characterized it as “a high-level policy directive to have a timber program” (court’s emphasis) that was then used for budgeting and subject to change at the agency’s discretion.  We previously discussed this case here.

The court also upheld NEPA compliance for disclosing effects on carbon emissions of three specific timber projects: the Forest Health Initiative Project on the Mark Twain National Forest, the Buck Project on the Nantahala-Pisgah National Forest and the White Pine Management Project located on the Francis Marion/Sumter National Forest.  The project analyses did discuss carbon emissions, and the court deferred to the agency’s “judgment call about how to undertake a cumulative impact analysis,” citing the Supreme Court’s recent Seven County opinion on NEPA indirect effects.

New lawsuit:  Cabinet Resource Group v. U. S. Forest Service (D. Montana)

On March 31, Cabinet Resource Group, Clark Fork Coalition, Earthworks, Montana Environmental Information Center, Save our Cabinets and Yaak Valley Forest Council sued the Forest Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service for approving a copper and silver mining exploration project beneath the Cabinet Mountains Wilderness on the Kootenai National Forest. Exploration began here in the 1980s and it has had a history of litigation. The Libby Exploration Project would last 16 years, would extend an existing underground tunnel and construct additional tunnels, and would expand the existing storage area and build a second site.  Plaintiffs are concerned about effects on grizzly bears, wolverines and bull trout, water quality and temperature, and the Wilderness.  They argue that the EA, which was fast-tracked under the FAST Act, a 2015 law originally passed to streamline transportation projects, should have been an EIS.  Plaintiffs also allege violations of the Endangered Species Act, as well as NFMA  from violating a forest plan standard for grizzly bear core area.  The complaint may be downloaded from the article.

Court decision in Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Mulholland (D. Montana)

On March 31, the district court enjoined the Round Star Project on the Flathead National Forest (after previously denying a preliminary injunction).  The project would include 580 acres of clearcuts and up to 6,324 acres of commercial logging.  The court found that it could not determine compliance with forest plan requirements for lynx because of confusion as to which definition of the WUI boundary the Flathead National Forest used to determine compliance with the Lynx Amendment — the boundary defined in the local community wildfire protection plan or a WUI buffer as defined by the Healthy Forest Restoration Act.  The court noted, “At worst, the agency relied on the Community Plan and a WUI boundary that was not compliant with HFRA.”  The Project also violated NEPA by failing to consider cumulative effects of a nearby project that had not yet been approved.  The court rejected some other claims, and enjoined but did not vacate the decision.  The opinion may be downloaded from the article.

Court decision in Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Anderson (D. Montana)

On March 31, the district court enjoined the Gold Butterfly Project on the Bitterroot National Forest.  The Project would include 5,281 acres of commercial harvest treatments including 567 acres of old growth forest.  The court determined that a December 2024 supplemental information report by the Forest Service, wasn’t sufficient because it had misrepresented some of the conclusions in the agency’s record of decision related to recent sightings of grizzly bears in the area.  It concluded that, “The (Forest Service’s) determination that supplemental NEPA analysis was not necessary was premised on apparently inaccurate information.”  The court found in favor of the Forest Service on several other issues.  It enjoined but did not vacate the decision.  The order is here.

BLM

Preliminary injunction denied in Grandmothers Growing Goodness v. Burgum (D. Alaska)

On March 18 the district court denied a motion for a preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs could not demonstrate the irreparable harm required for an injunction.  Because the court in another case involving the same leases in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska has stated an intention to reach a decision in that case by October 2026, this court stated the same intent and only looked at activities that might occur before then.  This excluded the winter activities of concern to the plaintiffs, and the court found that the effects of summer helicopter activities on caribou in a petroleum reserve did not rise to a level of irreparable harm to the plaintiff’s interests.

New lawsuit:  Eagle County, Colorado v. U. S. Department of the Interior (D. D.C.)

On March 26, Eagle County filed a second lawsuit seeking to limit oil-train traffic along the Colorado River.  Their challenge to the proposed Uinta Basin Railway led to the Supreme Court decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado, which narrowed the NEPA obligations to consider indirect effects (discussed here).

Expansion of the Wildcat Loadout Facility would also facilitate greater oil-train traffic. This lawsuit alleges a “400% increase in the amount of oil transloaded from trucks to trains each day at the Facility.  The complaint argues that both the DOI’s issuance of a ‘National Energy Emergency’ and the BLM’s approval of the Wildcat facility expansion violate FLPMA, NEPA, and the APA.  According to the County’s attorney, “The county challenges BLM’s decision to approve the facility’s expansion using emergency procedures that bypass standard environmental review and public input requirements,” (a 14-day review) and, “The county is also challenging [the Interior Department’s] alternative procedures that allow the agency to fast-track approval of oil-related projects under the pretext that there is an ‘energy emergency’.”  The lawsuit also alleges a violation of the Freedom of Information Act.  The article includes a link to the complaint.

Court decision in Center for Biological Diversity v. Stone-Manning (D. Nevada)

On March 30, the district court rejected a motion for summary judgment by the plaintiffs, and allowed a lithium-boron mine to proceed on BLM land.  The court held that the government complied with FLPMA, NEPA, and with regard to the endangered Tiehm’s buckwheat, the ESA.  With regard to ESA, the court deferred to the Fish and Wildlife Service’s interpretation of conflicting scientific information.  The opinion is here.  On April 8, plaintiffs appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  Meanwhile, the BLM is proposing to implement their Tiehm’s Buckwheat Outplanting Program to further ongoing conservation efforts for this species.

Court decision in Center for Biological Diversity v. U. S. Bureau of Land Management (D. Arizona)

On March 31, the district court ruled that the BLM and the Fish and Wildlife Service violated the Endangered Species Act by failing to take proper action to prevent unauthorized grazing by BLM-permitted cattle in the Agua Fria National Monument.  This grazing results from ineffective fencing to prevent livestock from damaging critical habitat for the Gila chub and the yellow-billed cuckoo.  The court found that the USFWS letters of concurrence that reissuance of grazing permits would not adversely affect the species were arbitrary and capricious, and ordered the agencies to reinitiate consultation on one allotment (four others are under separate litigation).  The court’s order is linked to the news release.

New lawsuit

The Applegate Siskiyou Alliance and Klamath Forest Alliance  have filed a lawsuit claiming the BLM has violated the National Environmental Policy Act by failing to examine the impacts of firewood cutting.  The complaint alleges the BLM is implementing the Ashland Strategic Operations for Safety, or Ashland SOS project, in a “materially different manner” than was spelled out in its environmental assessment.  Hardwood trees were supposed to be “promoted and retained” under the Ashland SOS project except where their removal was required for “safety or operational purposes.”  ““Despite these restrictions,  the BLM has permitted the contractors who purchased the Apple Saws and Holcomb Hollow timber sales to cut and remove hardwoods of all sizes and age classes across the Project area and sell these hardwoods commercially,” the lawsuit said

New lawsuit

A wireless infrastructure company is suing Rio Arriba County and the Board of County Commissioners for denying a Special Use Permit to build a communications tower on private land.  They allege that it met all county requirements, and that denial violated the Telecommunications Act of 1996.  Parties had suggested that BLM land in the area would be more appropriate, and they allegedly contacted the BLM, which the lawsuit says failed to respond to several telephone and email inquiries.

ENDANGERED SPECIES

Motion to dismiss denied in National Wildlife Federation v. National Marine Fisheries Service (D. Oregon)

On March 26, the district court denied the government’s motion to dismiss a case that has been ongoing for a “quarter-century.”  The court rejected the government’s arguments that BPA’s involvement in the Columbia River dam system triggered the application of statutes that removed the district court’s jurisdiction to hear the case.  (BPA is not a party to the lawsuit and its actions are not contested.)

Court decision in Center for Biological Diversity v. Haaland (D. Arizona)

On March 27, the district court upheld the Fish and Wildlife Service’s determination of critical habitat for the northern Mexican gartersnake and narrow-headed gartersnake.  The final designation had reduced the amount of critical habitat by around 95% and 90% respectively from what had initially been proposed.  Plaintiffs had objections to several specific scientific conclusions by the FWS, but the court held, “FWS relied upon the best available evidence and its critical habitat designation was not arbitrary or capricious. The court noted that, The 2021 final critical habitat designation “relied on approximately 200 studies and documents related to the gartersnakes,” and considered Plaintiff’s concerns, and all comments.

Case dismissed in Northwest Environmental Defense Center v. Federal Emergency Management Agency (D. Oregon)

On March 30, the district court found that a claim that FEMA is operating the National Flood Insurance Program in violation of the ESA, because the National Marine Fisheries Service has determined in a Biological Opinion that the Program, as operated, would jeopardize the continued existence of 16 species of anadromous fish and orca whales, was not ripe for judicial review.  NMFS provided FEMA with “reasonable and prudent alternantives” (RPA) to avoid jeopardy, some of which would require NEPA procedures.  Plaintiffs object to the process taking more than seven years, and assert that FEMA is failing to act by ignoring interim implementation deadlines in the RPA.  However, according to the court, a “departure from the suggestions in the [BiOp] does not by itself constitute a violation of the ESA.”

Court decision in Friends of the River v. National Marine Fisheries Service (E.D. California)

On March 31, the district court addressed challenges to NMFS’ letter of concurrence for the Englebright Dam and biological opinion for the Daguerre Point Dam on the Yuba River, with regard to effects on Central Valley Spring Chinook Salmon, Central Valley Steelhead, and North American Green Sturgeon.  These species depend on headwaters found on several national forests for critical spawning and rearing habitat,  which has been disturbed by logging.  The court upheld the ESA consultation process except for FWS’ failure to explain in its biological opinion why it failed to include a diversion structure as part of the agency action.

OTHER

Court decision in BASE Access v. Burgum (S.D. Texas)

On March 26, the district court dismissed a lawsuit against the “Aerial Delivery Rule,” which prohibits BASE jumping in national parks.  The judge ruled that the BASE jumpers lacked the legal standing to pursue the challenge, finding that even if the ban was lifted, the jumpers still would not be able to legally BASE jump in national parks due to other regulations.  The opinion and order is here.

Court decision in Center for Biological Diversity v. Mullin (D. Arizona)

On March 26, the district court affirmed the Secretary of Homeland Security’s authority under § 102(c) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act to facilitate the Arizona Border Wall Project by waiving all legal restrictions on construction of the border wall.  The court rejected two claims that this law violated the U. S. constitution.  Plaintiffs have documented that “a minimum of 93 species at risk of extinction will be further imperiled by construction of Trump’s border wall,” which could directly or indirectly affect federal land management.

Preliminary injunction denied in U. S. A. v. State of California (E.D. California)

On March 31, the federal district court upheld a state law that prohibits the approval of new oil or gas wells, or reworking existing wells within 3,200 feet of residences, schools and hospitals.  The federal government argued that the state law interfered with federal land-use policy and wasn’t an environmental regulation as California claimed, but the judge found no conflict that would have allowed federal preemption of the state law.  The opinion is linked to the article.

 

 

Is The Wilderness Society Becoming Overtly Partisan?

by

Just to be clear, I’ve done much work with TWS and TWS people and have a high degree of respect for them, so these are just questions about the governance and not so much the people.

Funny story.. a representative  of TWS worked with us on Colorado Roadless, and argued for various improvements to his way of thinking.  One issue was that TWS and others had different WUI maps based on different assumptions (some things never change).  When he told us, “it doesn’t matter what you agree to with me, national will never support it.”  I just sighed, and wondered if there is a definition somewhere for “good faith negotiations.”

If I were the board of an ENGO, I probably wouldn’t select as President of my organization, a former political appointee.  If it were an elected organization, they’d probably want to have members in a broad tent. However if we look at their funding, we see that the Wyss Foundation provides substantial support.

Now, if you don’t follow this stuff, you might not have seen this in Nebraska..

Atop the scheme is Swiss billionaire Hansjörg Wyss. Wyss contributed large sums to two nonprofits, the Wyss Foundation and the Berger Action Fund. Those nonprofits, in turn, contributed to two other nonprofits, the New Venture Fund and the Sixteen Thirty Fund. Those nonprofits then contributed to several other nonprofits, including three Nebraska entities: Nebraska Appleseed, Civic Nebraska, and Nebraska Abortion and Reproductive Justice Fund Inc. Besides the Wyss Foundation and Berger Action Fund, all the other nonprofits in the web also contributed directly to Nebraska ballot question committees.

Now I am not within a light year of being an attorney, and I assume the best about everyone, so I’m sure this alignment between a D dark money donor and the hiring of Stone-Manning is simply an interesting coincidence.

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

I was mildly surprised when I read this piece in High Country News.. (I was actually wondering why The Folks Who Decide What’s Important were so focused on the FS and not BLM.. more on that later).

Lee introduced his measure in June as an amendment to Trump’s so-called “big, beautiful” budget bill and pitched it as a common-sense solution to America’s housing crunch. Many treated Lee as a lone actor pushing an extremist public lands privatization agenda, though the Trump administration launched a task force months earlier to study selling off as much as 400,000 acres of federal land for housing development.

As public backlash to Lee’s proposal reached a boiling point, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum attempted to distance the Trump administration from Lee’s effort.

“I don’t think anybody is really spending much time thinking about it up there,” Burgumtold Scripps News in front of the White House in late June, adding that “it doesn’t matter to me at all if it’s part of this bill because that wasn’t part of the president’s agenda to be part of the bill in the first place.”

Rep. Ryan Zinke (R-Mont.), a former Trump Interior secretary who was widely credited with helping block a House effort to sell off federal lands weeks prior, applauded Burgum’s comments in a June 27 post to the social media platform X, writing “the great Interior Secretary Doug Burgum says public land sales are not part of the Trump agenda.”
OK, so far Trump Admin probably doesn’t care that much.

But two weeks earlier, Burgum’s team provided Lee’s committee with technical data about the impact of his proposal and offered feedback that Lee ultimately used to downplay the significance of his proposal.

On June 10, Chris Prandoni, Lee’s legislative assistant on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, emailed two Interior staffers with draft language for their review.

“This is the quote I’ve been working up with your guys to accurately reflect your research: ‘The Department of the Interior estimates that the Bureau of Land Management has about 1.2 million acres of land within 1 mile of a population city center and another 800,000 acres within 1-5 miles of a population center. Much of this land may qualify for disposal under this section,’” Prandonic wrote. “We also are going to dedicate five percent of the revenue to maintenance backlog.”

The subject of the email — “[EXTERNAL] DRAFT / PRE-DECISIONAL RE: land disposal for housing–new question” — suggests Interior’s engagement with Lee’s staff went beyond what is detailed in the exchange.

Greg Wischer, a former critical minerals consultant who was tapped last year to serve as Interior’s deputy assistant secretary for land and minerals management, signed off on the quote later that evening.

“Good to go on the quoted content. Thanks for running it by us!” Wischer wrote.

That talking point appeared verbatim at the top of an FAQ that Lee released the following day alongside his public land sell-off proposal.

In that same email chain, Jeremy Arendt, Interior’s deputy assistant secretary of natural resources and infrastructure, encouraged Lee’s staff to “include a % of total acres this represents for BLM, which is about 0.7% of the total, or about 30% of lands within 5 miles of population centers.”

The committee’s FAQ dismissed the idea that the proposal is “a massive sell-off of federal land,” noting that it “requires disposal of only 0.5%-0.75% of the [Bureau of Land Management] and [Forest Service] estates. It leaves the remaining 99.25% untouched.”

The communications also indicate that several Interior employees were scheduled to meet with Lee’s staff on June 11, the day Lee unveiled his proposal.

“Thanks, guys. See some of you all tomorrow,” Prandoni wrote after Wischer approved the draft quote.

“Thanks Chris, looking forward to it!” replied Matt Schafle, a former National Rifle Association employee and current congressional and legislative affairs director at Interior.

The Wilderness Society, an environmental organization, obtained the emails through a public records request related to the Trump administration’s housing task force and shared them with Public Domain.

Michael Carroll, the BLM campaign director for the Wilderness Society, said the documents “paint a troubling picture.”

“Rather than engaging the public or pursuing real housing solutions, the administration appears to have spent that time coordinating messaging with the same members of Congress who pushed large-scale public land sell-offs last summer,” he said in an email. “That’s not problem-solving — it’s laying the political groundwork to sell off America’s public lands.”

If I were in Congress, I would want to make sure that my numbers were correct by checking with the agency (!).   Somehow I’m not shocked that politicals in Admins talk to their counterparts on the Hill.  We know that D’s do the same.

The amazing stretch in this piece is from underlings sharing (helpful info) to…  “the Admin really wants to sell off federal lands.”  But what’s really interesting to me is that TWS is doing FOIAs as well as interpreting them for us.  Note that in this “news article” we are given the picture TWS wants us to hear.  Historically, HCN has not been particularly skeptical of claims from ENGO’s so this is not surprising.

The article says that the report was produced by a Substack called Public Domain.

We practice non-partisan adversarial journalism — providing hard-hitting reporting on a critical beat that is too often ignored by mainstream news outlets. We aggressively cover threats to America’s great conservation tradition. We push hard for government transparency and shine light on the inner workings of environmental agencies. We dig into the powerful interests that influence policy from the shadows. And we strive to earn and keep the trust of our readers.

Hmm. Non-partisan. OK then.

You probably won’t be surprised as to who funds the Substack:  The Wilderness Society and The Fund for Investigative Journalism. The three reporters seem to work preferentially in outlets with a certain point of view. We know the Wilderness Society and the Park Foundation, a major funder of the Fund for Investigative Journalism. The Park Foundation funds a variety of interesting things (including “keep it in the ground” and Earthjustice and the Tides Foundation, which is itself a big funder so why give them money?)  All very confusing.

One good thing about AI is that it’s much easier to track funding for those of us who don’t want to pour through 990’s.

Maybe the real story is that the Trump Admin as a whole never really supported Lee’s proposal.  As I said at the time, despite desperate efforts to resurrect the issue, that dog won’t hunt.