Groups challenge Trump’s ’emergency’ orders that allow a Bull Mountain Mine expansion
A sign near the entrance of Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 which is operated by Signal Peak Energy in Roundup, Montana (Photo by Darrell Ehrlick of the Daily Montanan).
A lawsuit filed Tuesday in federal district court in Billings challenges the “emergency” orders issued by President Donald Trump that have allowed the Department of the Interior to bypass oversight and public comment and expand coal mining in the Bull Mountains.
The lawsuit claims that emergency conditions don’t remotely match the temporary definitions of what constitutes an emergency in federal law. Furthermore, nearly all of the coal mined at the Bull Mountains Mine heads to Asian countries, not even being used for domestic energy production, undercutting nearly all of the Trump administration’s rationale for an emergency court documents say simply doesn’t exist.
Moreover, the lawsuit says that a group of five organizations has gone to court repeatedly and won judgments that halted the mine from expanding because of environmental concerns, including dewatering sensitive grazing lands near or atop the underground mine.
The groups that filed the lawsuit are Earthjustice, The Montana Environmental Information Center, Center for Biological Diversity, Western Environmental Law, and WildEarth Guardians.
The suit claims that the Office of Surface Mining as well at the Department of the Interior rushed approval of the project, illegally skipping a draft environmental impact statement, which would have raised environmental concerns, as well as “ignoring related public comments.”
“The mine has a long history involving criminal and corrupt actions, and it has devastated the ecology and ranching community of the Bull Mountains,” the lawsuit said.
The Department of the Interior does not comment on pending litigation.
The Bull Mountains Mine, owned by Signal Peak Energy, has been involved in a number of lawsuits — from challenging the expansion of the mine, to landowners suing for dewatering sensitive springs that fed livestock, to criminal corruption charges that involved mining accidents, drug trafficking and falsified safety reports.
The lawsuit also claims that despite the emergency declaration from the Trump administration, that America is producing record amounts of energy, and that demand for coal continues to drop domestically. The lawsuit said that more than 99% of the coal mined in the Bull Mountains is transported across the ocean to Asian countries, negating a plausible claim that the mine expansion is being done for domestic energy.
“Relying on a supposed energy emergency that has no basis in reality, the Office of Surface Mining’s actions make a mockery of the required environmental review process,” the lawsuit said.
The lawsuit claims that in the agency’s rush to approve an expansion of the mine, they intentionally disregarded the rules for a “detailed environmental impact statement,” which would outline the risks to the environment that are “reasonably foreseeable,” as well as other alternative actions, including steps that can be taken to lessen the impacts.
When an emergency isn’t an emergency
Throughout the lawsuit, the court documents challenge the use of the “emergency” — claiming that federal statute limits the use of such orders, while arguing applying the label to coal production in the Bull Mountains won’t pass legal muster.
The lawsuit said that federal agencies have the ability to temporarily circumvent the review process, but those cases are short-term, and have been created for officials responding to immediate threats, like sudden disasters. The groups argue in the lawsuit that even those temporary protocols require the federal government and its agencies to complete many of the environmental assessments as soon as possible. They say the federal government doesn’t have the ability to ignore laws and rules completely in the name of a federal emergency.
“The authority (to declare an emergency) is highly circumscribed, applying only to ‘those actions necessary to control the immediate impacts of the emergency that are urgently needed to mitigate harm to life, property, or important natural, cultural or historic resources,” the lawsuit said.
For example, a BLM handbook describes emergencies as, for example, hazardous waste spills or ongoing woodland fires.
Water problems (again)
The lawsuit also claims that the emergency declaration has allowed the Bull Mountain Mine to escape any kind of challenge, including a long-standing and protracted fight over the sensitive water in the area.
While both coal mining and cattle ranching has occurred in the Bull Mountains for more than a century, the land that straddles Yellowstone and Musselshell counties is particularly dry, depending on a delicate network of underground springs. Multiple lawsuits have been filed about the damage the underground mining has caused to water, leading to the group allegations that Signal Peak has run ranchers away from the property.
“The subsidence causes splitting and depression of the surface land above the mining operation,” the lawsuit said. “Cave-ins and land subsidence from Bull Mountains Mine can — and do — fracture perched aquifers and cause springs and wells to go dry, as predicted by OSM’s early hydrology analysis. In fact, a significant number of springs undermined by the Bull Mountain Mine have already been dewatered or contaminated.”
The government has previously said that even if the shallow aquifers are impacted, the surrounding ranching community can draw from a deeper aquifer. But the groups say that aquifer cannot produce water at the same rate and that its salt content is so high that it is unsuitable for livestock or human consumption.
“It is doubtful, however, that the deep aquifer has enough high quality water that it’s physically and legally available to replace impacted water sources,” the lawsuit said. “Median sodium levels in the deep aquifer exceed the upper limits for sodium in livestock watering guidelines used by the State of Montana.”
The lawsuit also points to a number of studies, including one commissioned by Signal Peak itself, concluding that there was not enough water to replace the groundwater that could be impacted by mining activities. In fact, one study said that an aquifer would need to produce at least 100 gallons per minute, while studies showed “the deep aquifer could not support sustained withdrawals of even 6 gallons per minute.”
Back to court (again)
The court filing also outlines a history of litigation between various land owners and conservation organizations against the coal mine. For example, in 2020, a federal court found that OSM’s revised plan was invalid — a ruling supported by the U.S. Ninth Circuit of Appeals.
In a volley of activity in court, the federal court has also found that Signal Peak’s mining operations continued to hurt the ranching community.
“Signal Peak’s subsistence mining has harmed local ranching interests by creating fissures in the ranch land. Additionally, Signal Peak’s mining operation causes damage to local ranchers’ water resources, including in one instance, damaging working water wells. Local ranchers fear that Signal Peak’s long walls have already caused potentially irreversible damage to ranching in Bull Mountains,” the suit claimed.
Now, the organizations say the “emergency” order has created a false pretext for the federal government to short-circuit the review process.
“Simply put there is not truth in the assertion that the United States is not producing enough energy to meet its domestic needs. In fact, the opposite is true: The nation has more energy that it needs and is exporting large amounts. There is no evidence of a near-term global supply shortage of coal that will impact Japan or South Korea. To the contrary, global coal production has flatline and is predicted to decline through 2030.”
The groups also point out that in 2024, the U.S. exports of crude oil topped 4.1 million barrels per day.
“Exports of thermal coal (like the coal from the Bull Mountains) are expected to decline because of a persistent oversupply and lower coal prices,” the court documents said. “In short, domestic fossil fuel production is projected to fall because of excessive — not inadequate — supplies.”
The Bull Mountain Mine’s impact to eastern Asia is also small: The court documents reveal that its coal only makes up 0.07% of the market.
The lawsuit asks the federal court to set aside the mine expansion, and halt re-issuing or approving the future mining plans until the mine has complied with the National Environmental Policy Act, which includes environmental impact and assessments as well as responding to public comments and concerns.
“It was well known by both miners and regulators that a longwall mine would dewater the Bull Mountains, driving generational ranching families off their land to enrich three out-of-state corporations sending coal overseas,” said Pat Thiele, a landowner in the Bull Mountains and member of the plaintiff organizations. “Nobody with any authority cares.”
Comments ()