AZL General Discussion, page-1755

Thanks SPOF. I just took a very very cursory look at the EA and Appendix E. (It’s late here, and I’m just about to hit the light switch.)

A couple of quick and preliminary observations that I will make without really knowing anything much about the Big Sandy Project, but based on my legal experience.

* As I had suspected, that language in 1.4 refers to the scope of the BLM’s discretion with respect to the Plan of Operations.

* The Environmental Assessment is pretty cursory and indicates that the BLM is not too concerned about the impacts associated with the expanded exploration project. Of course, somebody else with standing to litigate might be concerned.

* The BLM did not include the US Fish and Wildlife Service on the list of consulted parties, indicating that the BLM believes that the expanded exploration project will have “no effect” on the tortoise. Again, however, some other interested party may disagree and litigate that matter. (This is where some nuance comes in. Even in cases where an agency concludes that a project “may effect” a listed species, it must engage in communications with the FWS. In this case, the BLM can make a “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” determination, and if the US Fish and Wildlife Service agrees with that determination, that is the end of the matter insofar as ESA compliance is concerned. It surprises me a little that the BLM did not make an NLAA determination here, given its concession that there might be some minimal impacts on tortoise habitat and given that this truncated sort of ESA compliance - called “informal consultation” - is very fast if the BLM biologist’s conclusions are correct. But again the caveat: I’m not really familiar with the history of the project and I’ve spent all of 5 minutes reviewing the documents.)