Dumbocrats love picking those "tree-huggers" money tree clean of campaign contributions.
Posted on 09/16/2003 7:38:18 AM PDT by BOBTHENAILER
U.S. District Court Judge Paul G. Cassell ruled last month in favor of the Bureau of Land Management in the matter of Veritas DGC Land Inc's 2-D geophysical exploration project in the Uinta Basin of northeastern Utah. The ruling affirmed BLM on all counts brought before the court, the agency said.
In his decision, according to the BLM's Utah State Office, Judge Cassell wrote, "The Environmental Analysis and its suggested mitigation methods show that the BLM gave adequate consideration to the environmental effects, both in terms of direct recovery time and residual effects of the project."
In October 2002, after nearly 13 months of review and environmental analysis, the BLM authorized Veritas to conduct geophysical exploration in an area of the Uinta Basin about 30 miles south of Vernal. Subsequently, the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance filed suit in federal district court, including a request for a preliminary injunction to block the project. After the court set aside the request for an injunction, the company began work. In March 2003, Veritas suspended work, having completed 11 of the 17 seismic lines, or approximately 65 percent of the project that was originally proposed. The company has until October 2004 resume work under the terms of its permit.
The court's ruling affirmed that the BLM considered a reasonable range of alternatives; fully analyzed the environmental impacts of the project, the reasonable foreseeable indirect effects, and the cumulative effects; and appropriately developed mitigation measures. Specifically the ruling upheld the agency's consideration of - and mitigation for - off-highway vehicle usage, soils, vegetation, archeological resources, wildlife and sensitive or threatened and endangered species. The court also found against the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance's allegation that the decision of a Finding of No Significant Impact was "arbitrary and capricious."
Howard Cleavinger, assistant field manager for mineral resources for the BLM's Vernal Field Office, praised the efforts of both BLM resources professional staff and the seismic company's crews. "The BLM's analysis and mitigations were right on target and the company's follow-through execution has been exemplary," Cleavinger said.
According to chief compliance officer Byron Tolman, who is in charge of overall monitoring for the project, the geophysical exploration work conducted between October 2002 and March 2003 has left a "minimal" footprint on the landscape. "In many areas it's nearly impossible to trace the path followed by the seismic trucks, let alone find any discernable impacts," Tolman said. "Contrary to allegations lodged in the suit, new roads have not developed and staging areas are reclaiming nicely," Tolman added. "Impacts analyzed in the environmental document were never predicted to be significant and were negligible on the ground."
Veritas' non-exclusive 2-D geophysical survey is being carried out over a large (3,168 square miles) area of the Uinta Basin in southeastern Uintah County.
These lawsuits have only one thing in common; they are designed to slow, obstruct or stop ALL EXPLORATION wherever, whenever, and however possible.
Where time allows I'm going to attempt to post each obstructionist lawsuit that I can. Please keep this FACT in mind when contemplating, complaining, griping, bemoaning the current high natural gas prices, which are only going to get higher until America wakes up and puts an end, ONCE AND FOR ALL, THIS ENVIRONMENTAL OBSTRUCTIONISM.
Dumbocrats love picking those "tree-huggers" money tree clean of campaign contributions.
BBWWWWWWAAAAaaaahahahahahahahaha
Dream on, oh windy one. I'm going to start an environmental group entitled WIND, an acronym for Work Indignantly to Impede Development. Then I'm going to SUE to obstruct every proposed wind project.
Easy to do because they are a permanent BLIGHT on the landscape, are extremely inefficient, kill migratory birds and raptors and create noise pollution.
Ten years ago I researched why the enviro's were so successfull at halting the federal timber sale program. I talked to my congressman Wally Herger (R-CA) and asked him for help. What we got was known as the "salvage logging rider". I told him then that the basic laws have been re-interpreted by the courts, and that congress needed to revise the ESA, NEPA, Wild & Scenic Rivers Act etc. He then asked me "What sections of these laws need to be revised?" I will post that next.
REASONS FOR SUCCESSFUL LITIGATION - Court Interpretations
NEPA requires preparation of an EIS if the proposed project may significantly degrade some human environmental factor. Sierra Club, supra, slip op. at 4060; Foundation for North American Wild Sheep v. USDA, supra, 681 F. 2d at 1178; City of Davis v. Coleman, 521 F. 2d 661, 673 (9th Cir. 1975). A determination that significant effects on the environment will in fact occur is not essential. Foundation for North American Wild Sheep, supra, 681 F. 2d at 1178. If substantial questions are raised whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment, an EIS must be prepared. Id. (Italics added for emphasis.)
"A showing that significant effects on the human environment will in fact occur is not necessary. Rather, '(i)f substantial questions are raised whether a project may have a significant effect upon the human environment, an EIS must be prepared.'" (citations omitted) National Audubon Society v. United States Forest Service, No. 90-811-MA (D. Or. Nov. 21, 1990). (Italics added for emphasis.)
Appellants (ie enviro) Arguments
*Fails to analyze... *No mention of.... *Contains no data on... *Subjective discussion of... *No long term assessment *Does not consider... *No assessment of... *Does not indicate... *Fails to adequately discuss... *Does not identify... *Fails to show how... *Lack of information... *Lack of assessment.. *Does not adequately analyze *No justification... *Inadequate assessment... *...must be considered *No evidence of... *Should have been... *Fails to document... *Does not evaluate... *Disguises impacts... *Undervalues... *Inappropriate tests.. *Does not provide a basis... *Fails to explore... *Does not properly disclose *Does not properly inform... *Did not document... *Inadequate analysis... *Misleads the public... *Fails to adequately disclose *Does not adequately address *Fails to include... *Lack of any discussion... *Violated the requirements of *Fails to identify... *No reference to justify... *Without adequate analysis... *An EIS is required... *Does not contain any evaluation... *Based on incorrect and insufficient information... *Require additional environmental analysis... *Inadequate and inconsistant with NEPA... *Does not take a "hard look" *Not been adequately assessed...
Yessiree boss. They'll oppose development, oppose refinery construction, oppose drilling ANWR, then scream bloody murder when econ 101 shows why the prices rise.
Then they'll spend a couple million of our tax dollars for the OBLIGATORY Congressional Investigations that invariably show NOTHING and NOBODY is a fault, other than their sacred policies.
What a great post. It encapsulates perfectly the enviros specious arguments that get rubber stamped on each and every suit, especially the KEY phrases.
What a clean post. LOL
Oh, oh, there they go again.
Yass... you'll huff, and you'll puff, and you'll blow our gas prices down, right?
Yass... you'll huff, and you'll puff, and you'll blow our gas prices down, right?
Er, that would be "WIID."
But, at least you tried.
Right you are! Coal is better than gas.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.