Carter County seeks formal role with BLM as carbon‑sequestration talks proceed

Carter County commissioners moved Monday to send a formal letter and resolution to the Bureau of Land Management asking to be included in future planning related to a proposed carbon‑sequestration project and associated right‑of‑way proposals.

The county heard a lengthy presentation from Nathan Desermarco of Landmark Resource Firm, who urged the board to seek cooperating‑agency or at least formal coordination status so the county’s land‑use policy would be considered during NEPA review. "Get your land‑use policy on their desk at the outset," Desermarco told the commissioners, saying early engagement gives the county more leverage than reactive comments later in the process.

Why it matters: a cooperating‑agency relationship can afford local governments earlier access to draft documents and greater opportunity to ensure federal analyses consider local policies on private property rights, setbacks, emergency planning and financial protections. Presenters flagged that the environmental assessment (EA) for the project cites executive guidance and CEQ materials that, they said, may be subject to legal or administrative change; commissioners were told those weaknesses could be the basis for substantive comment or legal challenge if the EA fails to assess Carter County’s land‑use policy.

What the county decided: Commissioner Speaker 2 moved to adopt resolution O131‑2025 (dash O1) pending technical edits supplied by county counsel and outside advisers; the motion was seconded and carried by voice vote. The resolution and the letter will be circulated to the board for final review and transmitted to the Miles City BLM field office after staff attaches the county’s land‑use policy and cited authorities.

Details and next steps: advisers recommended including references to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and relevant Code of Federal Regulations citations, and suggested following up with a separate, project‑specific letter on the sequestration pipeline once BLM responds. Commissioners discussed possible county actions beyond the letter, including asking for reverse‑royalty provisions or other compensation mechanisms and exploring bonding or emergency‑response funding tied to project permitting.

What was said: Desermarco, the consultant who attended in person, urged the county to aim for cooperating status: "My anticipation is that initially there'll be some resistance and they'll try to call it anything else but a cooperating agreement," he said. County officials also asked staff to prepare a scope for an on‑call continuing‑services agreement so the county can access technical and procedural support during comment periods.

Procedural note: the board scheduled further discussion for its next regular meeting to consider how to staff or contract a liaison for ongoing engagement with BLM and potential developers. The resolution was adopted as moved and seconded; staff will circulate the edited version for final signoff before transmission.