Nevada Attorney General Adam Laxalt has filed what he is calling his final brief in the lawsuit challenging the Interior Department?s economically crippling land use restrictions under the guise of protecting greater sage grouse, perhaps signaling that the case is nearing culmination.
As with previous filings Laxalt accuses the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Land Management, divisions of the Interior Department, of violating the law and ignoring scientific evidence when it concocted a 341-page pronouncement in September that 10 million acres of public land in 16 Western states ? nearly a third of that in Nevada ? would be taken out of consideration for future mining claims, as well as oil and gas drilling near breeding grounds and that there would be additional reviews on grazing permits. The plan envisions restrictions on grazing, resource development, solar and wind energy, and public access on more than 16 million acres of public land in Nevada altogether. This is being done even though the government declined to list the sage grouse under the Endangered Species Act.
The legal challenge in federal court is being pressed by the state, nine rural counties, two mining companies and a ranch.
?Along with a majority of Nevada counties, my Office has been pushing back against the federal government?s overreaching sage grouse land plan for almost a year,? Laxalt is quoted as saying in a press release accompanying the court filing. ?As our latest brief again demonstrates, the Bureau of Land Management?s rushed, one-size-fits-all sage grouse plan not only violates multiple federal laws, but also the agency?s own regulations. The BLM blatantly disregarded the many Nevada experts and stakeholders, and failed to consider how its plan would impact Nevadans. This approach to regulation is as dismissive to our State as it is illegal, and I remain dedicated to protecting the interests of Nevada and ensuring that agencies follow the law and take the State?s concerns and interests into account.?
In the brief, the state argues that the plaintiffs have standing to bring the suit, a matter disputed by the government, because of the harm that will befall the state and county governments, as well the private businesses. The BLM?s own Economic Impact Summary, prepared by BLM economist Josh Sidon in 2015, ?estimates a loss of $31 million and 493 jobs annually for livestock, oil and gas, geothermal and wind in Nevada, stating that Nevada bore the largest impact from reduced wind energy development, with Elko and White Pine Counties hit the hardest.?
But that low balls the impact because it does not take into account the loss of revenues due to minerals being left in the ground. Laxalt argues that the BLM ignored or misrepresented in its analysis the impact of lost mining claims on 2.8 million acres in Nevada, including the loss of $32 million in investments by one mining company.
A previous brief pointed out that the land use plan jeopardizes development of a mine that could be worth $3 billion ? 1.4 million ounces of gold and 21 million ounces of silver.
The current brief notes, ?Defendants ignore the importance of discussing how mining claims in the SFA (sagebrush focal areas) will be impacted by the proposed withdrawal. Defendants mischaracterize the emails discussing this very issue,which criticize the agencies? failure to disclose that half of all U.S. mining claims are located in Nevada: ?? it is a serious omission not to include mining claim data. How can impacts to locatable minerals be adequately addressed if this data is not known??? That last quote is from an internal BLM email discussing the failings of their own analysis.
The court should grant the relief sought by the plaintiffs to force the Interior Department to start over with a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, one that accurately reflects the economic and scientific facts instead of being crafted to fit a predetermined political agenda. ? TM