Sage-Grouse Continue to Ruffle Feathers

We previously discussed the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service determination that the Greater Sage-Grouse does not require protection under the Endangered Species Act ("ESA").
United States Environment

We previously discussed the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service determination that the Greater Sage-Grouse does not require protection under the Endangered Species Act ("ESA").  Many thought that the species was out of the headlines at that point.  We were mistaken – the Greater Sage-Grouse continues to ruffle feathers.

Reportedly on the heels of the Fish & Wildlife decision, the State of Nevada, several Nevada counties and a few mining companies have sued the U.S. Department of the Interior in connection with a Bureau of Land Management ("BLM") and U.S. Forest Service ("USFS") decision for Land Use Plan Amendments impacting 23 million acres with Greater Sage-grouse habitat.  The case is styled Western Exploration LLC, et al. v. U.S. Department of Interior, Case No. 3:15-cv-00491 filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada.

The Plaintiffs are alleging that the BLM violated the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") in several ways. For example, by inadequately disclosed its scientific methodologies, failing to complete a proper economic impact analysis regarding mining activities and disregarding public involvement in comments.  The process the BLM took in this situation has been referred to as "lawless" – and according to Law360, reportedly included "preparing form responses to reviews from state governors before even receiving the reviews themselves, and making cookie-cutter responses to public and county protests that were identical regardless of the issues raised, the plaintiffs said."

According to Law360, "Elko County estimated that the government's plan for sage-grouse habitat will result in a yearly loss of $31 million in agricultural productivity and substantial losses from severely restricted exploration and development for minerals, oil and gas, as well as development for wind energy and other natural resources." Eureka County is reported to have expressed similar concerns.

The Plaintiffs are seeking that the Records of Decisions ("RODs") be vacated and remanded to the agencies to prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement ("SEIS") and mineral potential report ("MPR") for use in the NEPA process.

We will keep you posted as to the outcome of this case.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More