Many thanks Okeido for finding this. Well done.

I have reviewed the judgment, particularly as it relates to the Polar Bears. I don’t see any precedent here. Polar Bears are an endangered species (Greater Sage Grouse are neither endangered nor threatened). The issue in this case was that the National Maritime Fisheries Service (FWS) issued a report (Biological Opinion) that was found to contravene the Endangered Species Act (by not including the mitigation measures, as it was specifically required to do under law). Because the BLM relied on the FWS report, the ROD was vacated. This was simply a matter of law, not a judicial position on the protection of Polar Bears. The only similarity I see here is that the FWS may have taken a short cut, due to time pressure from Washington.

The Court also found fault with the BLM’s “Alternatives Analysis” in the EIS – again for reasons that are not similar or relevant to the TP EIS.

There were several other arguments where the Court found in favour of the BLM (impacts on caribou, impacts on water, hard look, cumulative effects etc).

I am biased, but not so naïve to believe this case could not be decided in favour of the Plaintiffs due to a legal technicality or error(s), as with this case. I’m just trying to have an informed opinion as to the risk of project delay.

Another aspect that I found interesting was the discussion on pages 106 to 108 where the Judge considered whether to vacate the ROD, or consider other remedies. In the end she decided to vacate because “… the errors found by the Court, they are serious”. But it does raise the possibility that for TP, the judgment might not be binary.

Interested as always to hear what others think.