Recent Projects

Last year, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) repealed its Waste Prevention Rule, undoing crucial regulations that reduce natural gas waste from venting, flaring, and leaks. We submitted an amicus brief focusing on the problematic aspects of the repeal: BLM’s false understanding of its role in waste prevention and its faulty analysis of climate impacts.

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) issued its environmental assessment of the Evans McCurtain coal lease in Oklahoma, which includes 3.28 million tons of recoverable coal. BLM quantifies around 9.6 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions from direct, upstream, and downstream sources over about eight years. The agency, however, does not provide a monetized estimate of the climate damages those emissions will produce. We submitted joint comments asking that BLM use the social cost of greenhouse gases to better weigh the real-world impacts of potential coal leasing.

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) recently issued an Environmental Assessment (EA) for its decision to lift the Obama administration’s pause on the federal coal leasing program. We submitted comments explaining how the EA provides flawed and incomplete analysis of BLM’s legal authority, alternatives to resuming leasing, and environmental effects.

We recently submitted joint comments to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) about environmental assessments for three planned oil and gas lease sales in Oklahoma and New Mexico. BLM estimates and quantifies some direct, upstream, and downstream greenhouse gas emissions from the leasing plans, but fails to include a monetized estimate or meaningful assessment of the real-world climate damages those emissions will cause.

In response to a District Court order, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) recently prepared a Supplemental Environmental Assessment (EA) for five federal oil and gas leasing decisions issued in 2015 and 2016. We submitted comments that focus on the agency’s failure to adequately quantify greenhouse gas emissions and monetize their climate impacts.

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) recently prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for an oil and gas leasing plan within the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) Coastal Plain. We submitted comments explaining how fossil fuel extraction in ANWR would pose serious threats to a delicate ecosystem and would contribute significantly to climate change. Our criticism of the DEIS focuses on the methodological flaws in BLM’s analysis and their failure to consider viable leasing alternatives.

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is considering amending Resource Management Plans for the Miles City and Buffalo field offices in the Powder River Basin. The agency will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the proposal. We submitted comments at the scoping phase urging BLM to provide analysis that quantifies the external costs of fossil fuel development in the region and evaluates critical land management alternatives.

A proposed expansion of the Foidel Creek Mine in Colorado would allow Peabody Energy to recover nearly five million additional tons of federal coal, extending the mine’s life by an additional two years. We submitted joint comments that critique the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) environmental assessment of the expansion, which miscalculates downstream emissions and fails to monetize the climate damages those emissions will produce.

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) recently released an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Grand Staircase-Escalante Monument and Kanab-Escalante Planning Area. We submitted comments explaining why the agency should analyze the impacts of each land management alternative using Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases estimates.

The Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service recently released a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on their land management proposal for the Bears Ears National Monument. The EIS does not consider the environmental impacts of shrinking the monument’s boundaries. We submitted comments explaining why the agencies are responsible for providing detailed environmental analysis of their proposal to alter the Bears Ears planning area.