Andrew Wheeler Acting EPA Administrator- and Bears Ears and Uranium

by

(Courtesy of Tim Peterson | LightHawk) Red Canyon on the west side of Cedar Mesa in southern Utah was once a busy uranium mining district. The BLM has approved an expansion for the idled Daneros Mine in Bullseye Canyon, pictured in the middle distance of this aerial photograph. Energy Fuels Resources wants to extract 500,000 tons of uranium ore over 20 years from the mine, just outside the former Bears Ears National Monument, but it says it can’t mine until uranium prices rebound.(from the Salt Lake City Tribune
While EPA isn’t our usual purview, this story is interesting for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the differences between national, Colorado, and interest group coverage. Here’s a piece from PBS Newshour. They note that “In 2009, he became a lobbyist for the firm Faegre Baker Daniels Consulting. While there, one of his main clients was Murray Energy, the largest privately-held coal mining company in the U.S.”

The Center for Western Priorities (a self-proclaimed “nonpartisan” group formed of partisan folks) says in their Twitter feed here:MEMO TO REPORTERS: New EPA head, Andrew Wheeler, lobbied DOI to gut Bears Ears National Monument.

A Colorado Politics piece focuses on Energy Fuel Resources, a uranium company, but also notes “Wheeler also has represented Xcel Energy, Colorado’s largest power utility, which has invested heavily in renewable energy.”

Xcel energy is responsible for the largest wind farm in Colorado at 90,000 acres and 300 turbines, story here.

But back to Energy Fuel Resources. This company first came to my attention because The Denver Post published an editorial about Energy Fuel Resources and Bears’ Ears based on a New York Times story, apparently without speaking directly withe the Energy Fuel folks for their perspective. Google tells me that Energy Fuels headquarters are 9.2 miles from the Denver Post.

Here’s EF’s side of the story as in their op-ed in response to the Denver Post here:

In response to a request for public comments, Energy Fuels sought minor boundary adjustments to create small buffers between the monument and our existing operations. Our proposed buffers would have impacted about 2.5 percent of the total land area of the monument. Trump decided to reduce the land by 85 percent. That was not our request.

Energy Fuels holds no properties or material financial interests inside the monument’s original or existing boundaries. Two years ago, we sold all our claims in the area to a tiny, micro-cap exploration company as part of a larger package of mining properties, mostly in New Mexico. Those claims, which were later included in the monument designation, hold no mineralization of interest to us and have no licenses or permits. No work has been performed on those properties in decades. The company paid us for this package of properties, in part, through the issuance of shares, so we own some shares in that company and have a seat on its board. However, those claims are of no interest to us and played no role in our position on the monument. In fact, the 2.5 percent reduction of the land area that Energy Fuels sought would have left those claims inside the monument.

This is from a letter to the Times:

Uranium is not a partisan Left/Right issue. Energy Fuels has received enormous support in recent years from agencies in both the Obama and Trump Administrations, along with agencies in the states in which we operate. The U.S. generates nearly two-thirds of our non-emitting, zero-carbon electricity from nuclear energy, which is critical to combatting air pollution and climate change. This energy is fueled by uranium.

Here’s what the Times story said:

Yet, two weeks after Mr. Zinke’s visit, Energy Fuels wrote to the Interior Department arguing there were many other known uranium deposits within Bears Ears ‘that could provide valuable energy and mineral resources in the future’ and urging the department to shrink the monument away from any ‘existing or future operations,’ ” Tabuchi wrote, not indicating her source for the email.

Here’s the text of Energy Resources’ public comment letter.

And Energy Fuels’ own interpretation of the sentence they wrote in the letter. “We pointed out the fact that there are uranium and vanadium deposits on some of the land (facts that anyone could find on USGS and other government reports). But, we as a company have no interest in mining the land in the original designated boundaries of the monument.” (from an email to me.)

The Colorado Politics story refers to “Fortune magazine says that “while working as a lobbyist, Wheeler worked, along with Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, to open part of Utah’s Bears Ears National Monument for uranium mining.” Which assumes, I guess, that at the lobbying meeting, Energy Resources lobbied for something they did not say in their letter. How would anyone know that? How could it be proven one way or another? I guess we have to wait and see if any applications come in to the BLM.

Why We Disagree About Forest Carbon. II. Objectivity, Peer Review, Predictions and Funding Sources

by

In the quest to understand Why People Disagree About Forest Carbon (if last year summer was the Summer of Fuel Treatments, this summer can be the Summer of Forest Carbon), I’ve been thinking that this would be a great topic to explore from two angles. The first is what scientists have to say about it, and why they disagree. But what I’ve found out by exploring around the edges is that it can also be a case study in the sociology of science. Looking at what’s out there can help people understand how scientific research is produced and used in policy or management. This includes the unimaginably complicated and preternaturally vitriolic field of climate science/policy.

Fergus McLean, in a previous comment here, raised four points that can add to this discussion. First, he mentioned that Law’s paper is objective and peer-reviewed.

1. Peer review.
Without reviewing the literature on peer review in detail, I can only say here that if people think something is important, it’s not usually a volunteer activity in the sense that people aren’t paid to do it. Let’s use an analogy. We think wildland firefighting is important. We pay people to do it. We even pay them overtime and hazard pay. Doing peer review well is time-consuming and, if done well, may have hazards like falling behind in what you are being paid to do, and critical reviews, if not completely blind, have risks of irritating your colleagues. They can retaliate in a variety of unpleasant ways. People who are close enough to the topic are probably not objective (is Professor A objective when Professor C models the same phenomenon as she does, using different techniques and coming to different conclusions?). People who are far away enough to be objective usually don’t know the topic as well. We are asking for a quality product with incentives that run against the basic principles of human nature. These problems are well known in the literature, and a variety of tweaks to the process have been proposed (e.g. this Lancet paper has quite a round-up of approaches).

2. Objectivity
But don’t believe me about objectivity here’s an article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Through the dense fog of academic philosophy lingo, we can see the vague outlines of observations within our own experiences.

3. Handling uncertainty
When Fergus said “Choosing to regard existing export arrangements as permanent is a political, rather than a scientific judgement, and deserving of in-depth and critical analysis.” I agree but I would tend to take a different approach. I would imagine that I had crossed disciplinary thresholds into the world of economics.
Economists have a long history of making projections about imports, exports, demand, supply, prices, and so on. Even now, I suspect there are cadres somewhere (in the US and Canada) working on today’s installment of the Softwood Lumber Agreement. One of the tools economists use is “sensitivity analysis”. When you make many assumptions about things that are unpredictable, this tool helps you figure out which ones are really meaningful to the end you are studying. Let me restate, rather than arguing about which predictions will be more accurate based on whatever criteria (after all, how good have we really been about predicting the future?), they include a range of for each unknown and it helps them understand which assumptions are more important to the outcome. I think that this is important to consider, because we rely on models so much these days, and some disciplines use sensitivity analysis much more than others.

4.How much research on carbon does forest industry fund? Does funding source matter?
“Another relevant point that can be drawn from the Atkins article is the much greater scale of resources backing research oriented to the industry point of view about forest carbon (including TreeSource itself) in contrast to Law who, since Harmon’s recent retirement, essentially works alone. “
The idea that industry backs more carbon research than NSF, the Forest Service, EPA and so on is interesting, and possible to investigate. I’m not much of an industry person but I believe there was some corporate restructuring at some point that led to them pretty much getting out of the research business. Many of my industry colleagues lost their jobs. Has that changed?

Judge calls for review of bicycle ban inside national forest

by

An article in the Missoulian summarized on Greenwire:

Judge calls for review of bicycle ban inside national forest

A district judge has ruled to keep motorized vehicles out of remote parts of Bitterroot National Forest but decided officials need to hear from bicyclists who believe they’ve been unfairly shut out from trails.

…

“It’s a pretty good result for the Bitterroot Backcountry Cyclists,” plaintiffs’ attorney Paul Turcke said yesterday. “The court declared the agency decision to close the areas unlawful as far as bicycles are concerned. For snowmobiles, not so much” (Rob Chaney, Missoulian, July 2).

Michael Rains Interviews II. How Could I Have Missed This?

by

Here is another in a series of interviews with Michael Rains by Evergreen Magazine.

A couple of my thoughts..if 70% of the women in the FS have been harassed at some point, I think that would not be as meaningful for working on change as “how many women have been harassed in the last 10 years?”. For women my age, some of whom are not retired, we started in a Forest Service in which smoking was allowed in the office, we may have been the first women professionals on a unit, and so on. Those were different times for sure. I’d zero in in the last ten years and figure out what was going on. Unlike Michael, I also think it needs to be joint Int/Ag. If I were to ask Michael he would probably say “interagency can be an “out” for taking responsibility as an agency.” While I agree with that, if the data suggest that Fire is the organization with the greatest probability of harassment, and Fire is managed as an interagency effort.. well.. IMHO, even if a joint approach leads to specific FS suggestions and problems compared to the other agencies, then those would be the responsibility of the FS to investigate and fix.

Here’s his idea for an independent investigator:

RAINS: Were I Chief, I would immediately call for a third-party, Independent Diagnostic and Evaluation (IDE) regarding all aspects of discrimination, sexual harassment and retaliation at all levels of the Forest Service. The key is “independent, third-party.” The IDE will include key recommendations for immediate and lasting change to ensure the Forest Service becomes a more effective and contemporary public service agency, now and ahead. The IDE shall include a review and evaluation of the entire executive-level leadership of the Forest Service. An IDE Lead Evaluator, not from the Forest Service, will be named and approved by the Secretary of Agriculture.

EVERGREEN: Like separating the business of church from state.

RAINS: In a manner of speaking, yes. A suitable IDE could identify the need for what I have often called “Chief Worrier.” Someone, not from the Forest Service who possesses the skill and sanction to create lasting change, so the phrase, “zero tolerance in all aspects of discrimination, sexual harassment and retaliation becomes a dominating core value in the Forest Service.” This is the chief responsibility of the Ambassador for Inclusion.

Here’s some of his ideas on culture:

EVEERGREEN: Might this mess somehow be related to the fact that the Forest Service has been a “man’s” organization for most of its history?

RAINS: Maybe. Recently, an associate and I were talking about this very thing and the discussion between us went, in part, like this:

“From the outset in 1905, the Forest Service has been a “macho” organization. And let’s face it. We can often be real jerks. Assertiveness inside the agency and with the public served was always rewarded. They wanted strength of character, ability to deal assertively with any situation, and do it alone if necessary. One was expected to hit the ground running. And, if you want to make it around here, you will do whatever it takes.”

I think that this idea is really worth talking about. I started in NFS in timber in 1979, and also worked in Programs and Legislation, R&D, and then back to NFS. I found quite the opposite, that assertiveness by me and some other women were sometimes taken as quite reprehensible. When I worked in Region 2 I would definitely say that assertiveness was not as valued among our line officers as ability to work with the public.
Looking back, it did seem to be a cultural norm that it was best to work things out yourself with individuals with jerky behavior. And that value might, indeed, lead to a lack of reporting of harassment. Anyway, it would be interesting to hear a variety of perspectives on what Michael said here. It might help to give the timeframe and general location of your experiences.

Why we need coordinated planning for habitat connectivity

by

The Bridger-Teton National Forest amended its forest plan in 2008 to designate the portion of the “Path of the Pronghorn” migration corridor in Wyoming for special management to protect this historic 90-mile route with a northern terminus in Grand Teton National Park used for summer range.  It’s probably the most significant action taken by the Forest Service to plan for wildlife connectivity.

The BLM chose to not play along at the southern end where major oil and gas fields are found in the species’ winter range, and the migration route lacks recognition, and protection, through BLM lands along its southern reaches.  Now they have issued an EIS for oil and gas development there.  Ideally, the EIS will disclose the effects on pronghorn migration and on the national park (using the best available science), which could include exterminating this migration and its pronghorn herd.  But I wanted to comment on the planning aspect of this problem.  BLM blames the State of Wyoming:

“It would help us out if the [Wyoming] Game and Fish were to formally designate something in there,” said Caleb Hiner, who manages the BLM’s Pinedale Field Office.

The Forest Service didn’t wait for state action to protect national forest lands.  As an environmental activist said, “The BLM has all the authority it needs to protect what it wants to protect in a site-specific document,… The BLM could decide tomorrow that it doesn’t want to lease or develop any of the NPL.”

The 220-square-mile project has major economic potential, and could generate 950 jobs and produce somewhere in the range of 3 trillion cubic feet to 5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, Hiner said. It would add up to 350 wells to the landscape annually for the next 10 years, a level of development that equals the number of wells permitted for drilling in the BLM’s entire Pinedale Field Office during 2017.

The argument by the proponent seems to be that they can figure out mitigation well-by-well, but at that point there is little opportunity to develop an effective strategy for pronghorn to navigate the system of wells, especially with no plan-level requirement to do so.

It is important for federal land managers be leaders in coordinating connectivity conservation planning, if for no other reason that that may be what is necessary to provide for viable populations of migrating species to continue to use federal lands.  The absence of a plan based on an overarching strategy for the full extent of the herd’s range could now be fatal to a ecological phenomenon that has been occurring, in part on national forest lands, for thousands of years.

 

Why We Disagree About Forest Carbon. I. Atkins Article on Oregon Wild Assertions

by

I am extremely appreciative of David Atkins’ effort to delve into the complicated area of forest carbon in this piece at TreeSource. I actually asked several scientists if they knew of a paper that outlined the different assumptions and conclusions, and discussed the area of disagreements.. maybe someone out there knows of one? Otherwise, you have to wonder why that would not be the most important kind of paper to write..Here are the areas of disagreement, here is why, and here is what we need to do to find out more. If we are going to use science in policy, wouldn’t that be the most important kind of investigation to conduct?
It’s not the universities’ job though, here’s what Acting Dean Davis of OSU says:

“Researchers often explore extremes of a subject on purpose, to help define the edges of our understanding; or other studies might only examine one aspect of an issue which in reality does not occur in a vacuum. It is important to look at the whole array of research results around a subject rather than using those of a single study or publication as a conclusion to a field of study.”

That might be difficult for policy makers to do unassisted, and I wouldn’t blame them for throwing up their hands at what appears to be an arena of scientist gladiators.

I think it falls to government to address these policy questions, through research designed as Peter Gluckman describes here.

But how could researchers come to such wildly different conclusions on the carbon effect of wood products? This led me to a series of interviews and multiple other sources to sort through a rabbit warren of questionable assumptions and conclusions in the OSU researchers’ paper.

Make assumptions with care

Did the scientific process break down in the review – or lack of review – given this paper and its assumptions and conclusions?

The problems that surfaced in the Law paper include:

* The quote used by Oregon Wild can’t be found in the references cited.
* The calculation used to justify doubling forest rotations assumes no leakage. Leakage is a carbon accounting term referring to the potential that if you delay cutting trees in one area, others might be cut somewhere else to replace the gap in wood production, reducing the supposed carbon benefit.
* The paper underestimates the amount of wildfire in the past and chose not to model increases in the amount of fire in the future driven by climate change.
* It assumes a 50-year half-life for buildings instead of the minimum 75 years the ASTM standard calls for, which reduces the researchers’ estimate of the carbon stored in buildings.
* It assumes a decline of substitution benefits, which other LCA scientists consider as permanent.
* It models just one species of insect to account for tree mortality when there are a variety of insect and diseases which impact forest carbon capture and storage. And the insect mortality modeled was unrealistic.
* The OSU scientists assumed wood energy production is for electricity production only. However, the most common energy systems in the wood products manufacturing sector are combined heat and power (CHP) or straight heat energy production (drying lumber or heat for processing energy) where the efficiency is often two to three times as great and thus provides much larger fossil fuel offsets than the modeling allows.
* The researchers claim to conduct a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), but fail to use the international standards for conducting such analyses, without explaining this difference in methods.
* The peer reviewers did not include an LCA expert.
* The claimed significance of substantial carbon savings from delaying harvest and the large emission numbers from the forest products sector are undermined by all of the above.

I think the pros and cons of the different assumptions might be an interesting conversation to have on this blog. And we could perhaps use this blog, if scientists were interested, as a forum for extended peer review.

Separating Science from Non-Science– Or Not, by Daniel Sarewitz

by
Simulation of a Higgs boson decaying into four muons
Science & Society Picture Library / Getty

When we talk about “science tells us” and so on, sometimes it’s good to reflect on the abstraction of “science” and what makes any human activity “science.”
Dan Sarewitz looked at a couple of different perspectives, from theoretical physics to improving antifreeze formulations in this piece..

What, then, joins Hossenfelder’s field of theoretical physics to ecology, epidemiology, cultural anthropology, cognitive psychology, biochemistry, macroeconomics, computer science, and geology? Why do they all get to be called science? Certainly it is not similarity of method. The methods used to search for the subatomic components of the universe have nothing at all in common with the field geology methods in which I was trained in graduate school. Nor is something as apparently obvious as a commitment to empiricism a part of every scientific field. Many areas of theory development, in disciplines as disparate as physics and economics, have little contact with actual facts, while other fields now considered outside of science, such as history and textual analysis, are inherently empirical. Philosophers have pretty much given up on resolving what they call the “demarcation problem,” the search for definitive criteria to separate science from nonscience; maybe the best that can be hoped for is what John Dupré, invoking Wittgenstein, has called a “family resemblance” among fields we consider scientific. But scientists themselves haven’t given up on assuming that there is a single thing called “science” that the rest of the world should recognize as such.

The demarcation problem matters because the separation of science from nonscience is also a separation of those who are granted legitimacy to make claims about what is true in the world from the rest of us Philistines, pundits, provocateurs, and just plain folks. In a time when expertise and science are supposedly under attack, some convincing way to make this distinction would seem to be of value. Yet Hossenfelder’s jaunt through the world of theoretical physics explicitly raises the question of whether the activities of thousands of physicists should actually count as “science.” And if not, then what in tarnation are they doing?

When Hossenfelder writes about “science” or the “scientific method” she seems to have in mind a reasoning process wherein theories are formulated to extend or modify our understanding of the world and those theories in turn generate hypotheses that can be subjected to experimental or observational confirmation—what philosophers call “hypothetico-deductive” reasoning. This view is sensible, but it is also a mighty weak standard to live up to. Pretty much any decision is a bet on logical inferences about the consequences of an intended action (a hypothesis) based on beliefs about how the world works (theories). We develop guiding theories (prayer is good for you; rotate your tires) and test their consequences through our daily behavior—but we don’t call that science. We can tighten up Hossenfelder’s apparent definition a bit by stipulating that hypothesis-testing needs to be systematic, observations carefully calibrated, and experiments adequately controlled. But this has the opposite problem: It excludes a lot of activity that everyone agrees is science, such as Darwin’s development of the theory of natural selection, and economic modeling based on idealized assumptions like perfect information flow and utility-maximizing human decisions.

Of course the standard explanation of the difficulties with theoretical physics would simply be that science advances by failing, that it is self-correcting over time, and that all this flailing about is just what has to happen when you’re trying to understand something hard. Some version of this sort of failing-forward story is what Hossenfelder hears from many of her colleagues. But if all this activity is just self-correction in action, then why not call alchemy, astrology, phrenology, eugenics, and scientific socialism science as well, because in their time, each was pursued with sincere conviction by scientists who believed they were advancing reliable knowledge about the world? On what basis should we say that the findings of science at any given time really do bear a useful correspondence to reality? When is it okay to trust what scientists say? Should I believe in susy or not? The popularity of general-audience books about fundamental physics and cosmology has long baffled me. When, say, Brian Greene, in his 1999 bestseller The Elegant Universe, writes of susy that “Since supersymmetry ensures that bosons and fermions occur in pairs, substantial cancellations occur from the outset—cancellations that significantly calm some of the frenzied quantum effects,” should I believe that? Given that (despite my Ph.D. in a different field of science) I don’t have a prayer of understanding the math behind susy, what does it even mean to “believe” such a statement? How would it be any different from “believing” Genesis or Jabberwocky? Hossenfelder doesn’t seem so far from this perspective. “I don’t see a big difference between believing nature is beautiful and believing God is kind.”

Study: Forest restoration as a strategy to mitigate climate change impacts

by

Study from Northern Arizona University “found the negative effects of climate change and wildfire, although significant and worrisome, could be mitigated by targeted forest restoration, thus reducing undesirable outcomes for multiple ecosystem services.”

…

“Although this study did not recommend courses of action, there are suggestions for forest managers. Flatley said managers from the U.S. Forest Service and National Parks Service can use the study to help decide whether to allocate limited resources to frequent restoration of smaller areas or less frequent restoration of larger areas.”

Forest Service Seeks Applicants For SW Forest Restoration Program Panel

by

FYI, folks. I just received this announcement from the USFS….

 

Forest Service Seeks Applicants For Forest Restoration Program Panel
 
The Southwestern Region of the Forest Service is seeking applicants for membership on the Collaborative Forest Restoration Program Technical Advisory Panel.  This 12 to15 member panel will evaluate proposals for federal grant funding to conduct forest restoration treatments on public land and utilize small diameter trees.  Panel applications are due to the Forest Service by July 18, 2018.   
 
The panel includes: a New Mexico natural resources official; at least two representatives from federal land management agencies; at least one tribal and/or pueblo representative; at least two independent scientists experienced in forest ecosystem restoration; and equal representation from conservation, local communities, and commodity interests.  The Forest Service is currently seeking applications to represent commodity interests, local communities, tribal and pueblo interests, federal land management agencies, and independent scientists.
 
The Technical Advisory Panel will review project proposals for: wildfire threat reduction; ecosystem restoration, including non-native tree species reduction; reestablishment of historic fire regimes; reforestation; small diameter tree use; and the creation of forest-related local employment.  The grant proposals must include a broad and diverse group of stakeholders and may occur on federal, tribal, state, county, or municipal forest land.
 
Meetings will be held one to two times per year in Albuquerque.   Selected panel members will not receive compensation, however, they may be reimbursed for travel and per diem costs.  Panel selection procedures and meetings will be conducted under the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
 
Walter Dunn is the Designated Federal Officer and will serve as the point of contact for information on the nomination process as well as for the Technical Advisory Panel.  His phone number is 505-842-3425.
 
Application materials and other information on the Collaborative Forest Restoration Program can be found on the program website at http://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/r3/cfrp .
 
Completed application packets should be sent to the following address by July 18, 2018:
 
Walter Dunn
Cooperative and International Forestry
USDA Forest Service
333 Broadway SE
Albuquerque, NM 87102
Fax (505) 842-3165
 
Background Information on Collaborative Forest Restoration Program:
 
Title VI of Public Law 106-393 creates a mechanism for local community collaboration with federal land managers by establishing a cooperative forest restoration program in New Mexico.   The law provides cost-share grants to stakeholders for experimental forest restoration projects to be designed through a collaborative process (the Collaborative Forest Restoration Program).
 
Projects can occur on federal, tribal, state, county, or municipal land and must address specified objectives.  These objectives include wildfire threat reduction; ecosystem restoration, including non-native tree species reduction; reestablishment of historic fire regimes; reforestation, including preservation of old trees; small diameter tree use enhancement; creation of forest-related local employment; and stakeholder diversity.
 
The law also provides that a review panel be formed to evaluate proposals for funding.  The Secretary of Agriculture chartered this panel under the Federal Advisory Committee Act.  Panel nominees will be evaluated based on their familiarity with forest management issues in New Mexico, including:
 
  • experience working with the government planning processes,
  • knowledge and understanding of the various cultures and communities in New Mexico,
  • ability to actively participate in diverse team settings;
  • demonstrated skill in working toward mutually beneficial solutions to complex issues,
  • respect and credibility in local communities; commitment to attending Panel meetings, and
  • their contribution to the balance and diversity of the Panel.
 
Equal opportunity practices, in line with USDA policies, shall be followed in all membership appointments to the Panel.  To ensure that the recommendation of the Panel have taken into account the needs of the diverse groups served by the Department, membership shall include, to the extent practicable, individuals with demonstrated ability to represent minorities, women, and persons with disabilities.
 
Thank you,
Walter
 
USDA USFS
Walter Dunn, Program Manager
Collaborative Forest Restoration/Southwest Ecological Restoration Institutes
Forest Service
Cooperative & International Forestry, Southwestern Region
p: 505-842-3425
c: 505-301-1291
f: 505-842-3165
[email protected]
333 Broadway Blvd., SE
Albuquerque, NM 87102
www.fs.fed.us
TwitterFacebook
Caring for the land and serving people

 

NFS Litigation Weekly June 22, 2018

by

Litigation Weekly June 22

The Forest Service and BLM violated NEPA when they issued leases for 13 parcels of land on the Santa Fe National Forest and failed to adequately consider their effects on greenhouse gas emissions and the effects of water use (D.N.M.)

  • 2 Bar Ranch Limited Partnership v. USFS

(New case.)  The ranch challenges a 20% suspension of season of use under its grazing permit on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest.  (The complaint exceeded the size limits for this site.  Oddly, I noted that the final appeal decision letter by the Forest Service reviewing officer stated “Your requested relief will be granted.”)  (D. Mont.)

(New case.)  Conservation Congress challenges the adjacent Lassen 15 and Joseph Creek projects on the Modoc National Forest.  (E.D. Cal.)

(New case.)  Environmental plaintiffs challenged a decision by the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement to allow the Kayenta Coal Mine to continue until 2020 on Navajo Nation Lands in northeastern Arizona.  (D. Ariz.)

(New case.)  Nine environmental groups are challenging the EPA and Corps of Engineers interpretation of the Clean Water Act requirements for identifying “waters of the United States” in their decisions to adopt regulations in 2015 and 2018.  (N.D. Cal.)

(Viewing the opinion requires a Lexis account.)  The circuit court held that the BLM did not have to supplement its programmatic environmental impact statement for the Federal Coal Management Program based on new climate change information because the Program was a completed federal action (however, they could challenge the sufficiency of the PEIS through challenges to specific leases and projects).  (D. C. Cir.)

 

Blogger’s bonus

Recreation businesses sue Trump administration over mining near Boundary Waters Canoe Area I

“In 2016, then-chief of the U.S. Forest Service Thomas Tidwell wrote to the Bureau of Land Management, warning of “the inherent potential risk that development of a regionally-untested copper-nickel sulfide ore mine within the same watershed as the BWCAW might cause serious and irreparable harm to this unique, iconic, and irreplaceable wilderness area.””

“President Donald Trump endorsed mining in Superior National Forest in a visit to northern Minnesota on Wednesday, saying his administration is taking steps to roll back an Obama administration policy to protect hundreds of thousands of acres in the national forest from mining and other industry.”

“The lawsuit by the business owners against the U.S. Department of the Interior — filed the day after Trump’s visit — illustrates the increasingly well-organized opposition to the proposed Twin Metals project. Environmental groups are incensed that the proposal would mean ore processing less than a half mile from Birch Lake, which feeds directly into the Boundary Waters.”

USFS prevails in Lostine Corridor lawsuit

At least in the proceedings before the magistrate judge, who makes recommendations to the district court.  This project is on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest.

“The ruling stated the USFS followed federal law in the development of the Lostine River project designed to reduce the number of standing dead trees and forest density along the narrow corridor, improves egress and safety for visitors and firefighters, and provides a safe landing spot for helicopters employed for firefighting and search and rescue.”