WYOMING – Federal land managers have rejected protests filed by coal mining interests — including the state of Wyoming and representatives of two of its counties — that tried to …
This item is available in full to subscribers.
To continue reading, you will need to either log in to your subscriber account, below, or purchase a new subscription.
Please log in to continue |
WYOMING – Federal land managers have rejected protests filed by coal mining interests — including the state of Wyoming and representatives of two of its counties — that tried to convince the U.S. Bureau of Land Management to abandon or alter course on its proposal to end coal leasing in the prolific Powder River Basin, a bulwark to Wyoming’s economy for the past 50 years.
The agency published its response to procedural protests on Sept. 20, rebutting claims by the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, National Mining Association and others that its proposal violates the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and would do little to protect environmental and human health from human-caused climate change.
“I am extremely disappointed — but not surprised — with what has become characteristic disregard for proper process or simple respect by the Biden-Harris Administration’s BLM,” Gov. Mark Gordon said in a prepared statement last week. “The BLM has doubled down on their contempt for our local economies and the hard-working men and women who provide the clean, dispatchable and reliable energy that many take for granted.”
The federal agency in May issued its final supplemental environmental impact statement and proposed amendment to land use plans directing its Buffalo and Miles City, Montana field offices, selecting a “no future coal leasing alternative.” If the ban is implemented, mining companies could still develop existing federal coal leases in the region that extends from northeastern Wyoming into Montana. Existing leases would allow for the region’s current rate of production to continue through 2041, according to the agency’s estimates.
The agency was court-ordered to rework its proposed Resource Management Plan updates in the region after conservation groups sued, arguing it had not fully considered environmental, climate and human health impacts resulting from further coal leasing in the region.
Next, the BLM is expected to issue a Record of Decision in December, one of the final steps in implementing the policy and opening the door to potential litigation.
Gordon has promised to sue the BLM in the matter — an action that Campbell County officials, and others, say can’t come soon enough.
“Wyoming will not stop fighting to defend our industries from the federal government’s heavy hand and their attempts to gut Wyoming’s ability to develop our resources from every angle,” Gordon said.
Protest arguments
Parties that filed formal protests to the BLM argued the agency’s proposal to ban new coal leases violates the Federal Land Policy and Management Act.
“A complete ban fails to balance multiple uses by simply elevating a single use or resource value over all other uses,” Navajo Transitional Energy Company representatives wrote. Navajo Transitional Energy Company operates the Antelope and Cordero Rojo mines in the Powder River Basin. “It is antithetical to principles of ‘multiple use and sustained yield’ to impose a complete ban on the most significant revenue generating use of federal lands within the Powder River Basin like further coal leasing.”
Protesters also argued that weighing the climate impacts of leasing Powder River Basin coal doesn’t align with federal resource policy, nor would a ban on leasing guarantee that Powder River Basin coal customers would turn to more climate-friendly sources of energy.
“BLM’s conclusion that eliminating coal mining in the [Powder River Basin] will protect the climate change resource is arbitrary,” Navajo Transitional Energy Company representatives wrote. “The elimination of coal leasing will not ‘protect other resource values’ such as air quality and public health impacts from greenhouse gas emissions and/or climate change.”
The multiple-use policy under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act “does not require that all uses be allowed on all areas of the public lands,” the BLM responded. “Rather, the BLM has discretion to allocate the public lands to particular uses, and to employ the mechanism of land use allocation to protect for certain resource values, or, conversely, develop some resource values to the detriment of others, short of unnecessary and undue degradation.”
“No changes [to the proposal] were necessary,” the agency concluded.
WyoFile is an independent nonprofit news organization focused on Wyoming people, places and policy.