CBD v. Salazar And The Way Forward For Fracking In Federal Minerals

Perkins Coie
Contact

On March 31, 2013, a magistrate judge with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled that the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in issuing several oil and gas leases without first adequately analyzing the impacts of horizontal drilling and multistage hydraulic fracturing (fracking).  Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) v. BLM, No. C 11-06174-PSG (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2013).  Recognizing that land-use planning for public lands has been outpaced by developments in drilling technology, the court held that additional NEPA review of fracking is required before BLM may issue leases that would constrain the agency’s ability to prevent surface disturbance on the leased land. 

The ruling, which remains subject to appeal, is one of the early takes at the thorny legal pathway that lies ahead for parties seeking to develop federal shale oil and gas reserves.  Significantly, while the court ruled against BLM on NEPA and called for further environmental review of fracking, the opinion leaves open several ways forward for parties seeking to drill in federal minerals.

The Multistep Management Process for Oil and Gas Activities on Federal Land

The CBD v. Salazar decision addresses complications that recent advancements in drilling technology raise for BLM’s multistep management process for oil and gas activities on public lands.  The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (MLA) provide for three distinct levels of BLM decision-making that oil and gas interests must navigate before drilling in federal minerals: (1) the planning level; (2) the leasing level; and (3) and the drilling level.[1]    

At the first level, BLM develops a “land use plan”—usually called a Resource Management Plan or RMP—for a geographic region, which establishes broad planning goals.  43 U.S.C. § 1712(a); see generally Norton v. S. Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55, 59, 69–70 (2004) (addressing BLM’s land-use planning process).  Among other things, the RMP typically determines what parts of the planning area will be open to oil and gas leasing, and establishes conditions that apply to drilling within those areas.  43 C.F.R. § 1601.0-5(k).  In developing or revising the RMP, BLM must provide for public participation and generally must prepare a detailed Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under NEPA.  

At the second level, BLM develops, sells, and executes oil and gas leases for parcels within the planning area.  As with all other decisions approving site-specific projects within the planning area, leasing decisions must be consistent with the standards set forth in the governing RMP.  43 C.F.R. § 1610.5-3(a); see generally Pennaco Energy, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, 377 F.3d 1147, 1151 (10th Cir. 2004) (summarizing BLM’s multistep decision-making process for management of federal oil and gas resources).  BLM may impose reasonable measures or stipulations in the lease to minimize impacts to other resources and ensure consistency with the RMP.  See 43 C.F.R. § 3101.1-2; see also id. §§ 3162.1(a), 3162.5, 3164.1.  BLM’s leasing decision requires additional NEPA review, unless the site-specific environmental impacts of the leasing decision were sufficiently analyzed in the EIS that accompanied the RMP, or the lease terms provide BLM with sufficiently broad discretion to deny development of the parcel at the drilling stage.  See Salmon River Concerned Citizens v. Robertson, 32 F.3d 1346, 1356 (9th Cir. 1994); Conner v. Burford, 848 F.2d 1441, 1446 (9th Cir. 1988).        

At the final stage before drilling may proceed, BLM reviews an Application for a Permit to Drill (APD) a well, which it must approve before any “drilling operations” or “surface disturbance preliminary thereto.”  30 U.S.C. § 226(g); 43 C.F.R. § 3162.3-1(c).  BLM may condition its approval of an APD on additional reasonable terms and conditions that ensure consistency with the RMP.  See 43 C.F.R. § 3162.3-1(h).  BLM’s decision to grant an APD typically requires additional environmental review under NEPA and other applicable laws, such as the Endangered Species Act and National Historic Preservation Act.  In some cases the APD will qualify for a Categorical Exclusion under NEPA, but that does not exempt the APD from compliance with other laws.  See 40 C.F.R. §§ 1508.4, 1507.3(b)(2); see also Energy Policy Act of 2005, 42 U.S.C. § 15942 (establishing five statutory categorical exclusions for oil and gas development).

The CBD v. BLM Decision

The CBD v. BLM decision primarily addresses the second stage of decision-making described above, but its ramifications also reach the planning and drilling stages in unconventional sources like shale.  The case involves a challenge by a coalition of municipal and environmental groups to four oil and gas leases issued by BLM for parcels covering a total of 2,700 acres of land in Monterey County and Fresno County in California, within the Monterey Shale Formation.  BLM prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) under NEPA and made a Finding of No Significant Impact.  BLM concluded that a more detailed review in an EIS was not required at the leasing stage, because a 2006 EIS issued by BLM contained a Reasonable Foreseeable Development Scenario (RFDS) that predicted that fewer than 15 wells would be drilled in the planning area, including just one well on the parcels at issue, during the next 15 to 20 years.  Accordingly, BLM found that “very little (if any) disturbance to the human environment” would occur.  BLM noted that it would conduct additional analysis of the impacts of fracking when and if the lessees submitted APDs for individual wells.  BLM reasoned that analyzing site-specific impacts, including those associated with fracking, would be more feasible at the drilling stage and that it retains sufficient authority to protect sensitive resources even after lease issuance.  

BLM included its “standard” stipulations and two special stipulations related to protection of endangered species and cultural resources in all four leases.  BLM also included a “No Surface Occupancy” (NSO) stipulation in two of the four leases, which precludes the lessee from using the surface of the leased land without additional specific authorization from BLM.  

Reviewing this record of NEPA compliance and evidence related to advancements in drilling techniques, the court held that “BLM violated NEPA in its environment assessment of the leases by unreasonably relying on an earlier single-well development scenario[, which] did not adequately consider the development impact of hydraulic fracturing techniques popularly known as ‘fracking’ when used in combination with technologies such as horizontal drilling.”  Order at 1-2.  The court explained that “it was unreasonable for BLM not to at least consider reasonable projections of drilling in the area that include fracking operations, or else limit its sale to leases with NSO provisions that would permit it to prohibit all surface disturbances until more specific information becomes available.”  Id. at 24.   

In other words, the court found that the BLM’s 2006 prediction of how many wells would be drilled in the area had been outpaced by drilling advancements, which the court indicated have significantly changed the development potential of both the parcels subject to the lease and of the larger Monterey Shale Formation.  According to the court, because these changed conditions were not addressed in the 2006 EIS, postponing detailed NEPA review to the drilling stage was only appropriate for the two NSO leases.  Id. at 17.  The court reasoned that even strict stipulations enabling BLM to deny all surface-disturbing activities if certain resources like endangered species would be adversely impacted are insufficient bases to delay NEPA review if BLM “will not be able to unilaterally deny the permit.”  Id.  Accordingly, the court held NEPA analysis of the foreseeable impacts of fracking was required before issuing the two leases that did not contain the NSO provisions.  See id.[2] 

The Outdated Resource Management Plan/EIS Problem

The decision reflects the fact that recent advancements in fracking appear to have significantly changed the oil and gas development potential of many federal planning areas.  While both horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing have existed for many years, the decision found that the “evidence shows that in just the past few years fracking has been combined with horizontal drilling and other modern technologies to provide access to previously unattainable shale oil such as that in the four parcels of Monterey shale at issue” in the case.  Order at 22; see also id. at 2.[3] 

As a result of these recent advancements, the Resource Management Plans and associated EISs for many federal planning areas—particularly those that include “unconventional” sources like shale—may be outdated.  As the CBD v. BLM case illustrates, many of these RMPs and EISs, most of which were prepared well over five years ago, may have been based on anticipated levels of development that are much lower that the development potentials that now exist.  This issue appears to be widespread.  For example, another pending federal district court case challenges BLM’s and the Forest Service’s management of federal oil and gas reserves in the Fayetteville Shale Formation in Arkansas.  See Ozark Soc’y v. U.S. Forest Serv., No. 4:11CV00782 SWW, 2012 WL 994441 (E.D. Ark. Mar., 2012) (denying the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction).  Like the RMP at issue in CBD v. Salazar, the RFDS that informed the 2005 Plan and EIS at issue in the Ozark Society case predicted that fewer than 15 wells would be drilled across the entire Ozark-St. Francis National Forest during a 10-year planning period.  Id. at *1.  But, just a few years later, BLM issued a new RFDS for this same area that predicted up to 1,730 wells could be drilled during this period—an over 100-fold increase.  Id.

FLPMA does not require RMPs to be amended or replaced due to the increased development potential of planning areas resulting from drilling advancements.  See id. at *3; S. Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. at 59, 69–70.  Nonetheless, additional hurdles are raised under NEPA to the extent that technological advancements have rendered many RFDSs obsolete.  As the CBD v. Salazar decision held, because “the emergence of fracking raises potential concerns that were not considered by the 2006 [EIS],” BLM could not “tier” to or rely on the 2006 EIS for NEPA compliance.  Order at 23.  These “potential concerns that were not considered” at the planning level trigger several of NEPA’s “significance factors,” the presence of which can require detailed review in an EIS rather than in an EA or through a Categorical Exclusion.  Id. at 20, 24–27.[4]

Some Ways Forward for Fracking in Federal Minerals

While the CBD v. Salazar decision ruled against BLM and indicated the need for more detailed and up-to-date NEPA review of fracking, the opinion allows for various ways forward for parties seeking to drill federal shale formations.  

First, the decision held that BLM may issue oil and gas leases without further environmental review so long as the lease includes an NSO stipulation or “absolute right to deny exploitation of [the] resources.”  Order at 17.  Following Ninth Circuit precedent, the court found that such leases do not mark “irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources,” and thus NEPA review can wait until the drilling stage.  Id. (citing Conner, 848 F.2d at 1448–49).[5]  The court was not convinced by plaintiffs’ argument that even leases with NSO stipulations should be considered “irreversible commitments of resources” requiring NEPA review due to advancements in horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing.  Order at 16–18; see also Conner, 848 F.2d at 1447.  Securing NSO leases, however, likely only postpones NEPA requirements until the drilling stage.  Accordingly, at least to the extent that surface disturbance of the leased land is necessary to develop the NSO lease, a lessee would likely not be able to move forward before BLM completes further NEPA analysis of the potential effects of fracking.

Second, to the extent a lessee with an NSO lease can horizontally drill into the leased federal minerals from nearby state or private land, and thus avoid surface disturbance of the leased federal land, drilling may be allowed without additional NEPA review.  Under existing regulations, no further federal approval triggering NEPA would likely be needed to drill from state or private lands.  

Third, consistent with CBD v. Salazar and Conner v. Burford, NSO lessees may be able to enter into “unitization” or “communitization agreements” with nearby federal lessees and thereby directionally drill into the leased federal minerals from other leased land that is not encumbered by an NSO provision.  See 43 C.F.R. § 3217.11 (describing communitization agreements); id. § 3180 (describing unitization agreements).  BLM’s approval of an APD for a well on the nearby federal lease, however, would be subject to NEPA and would face some litigation risk to the extent an adequate environmental review of fracking has not yet been completed for the larger area.                        

Finally, the oil and gas industry could work with BLM (and, where applicable, the Forest Service) to expedite more comprehensive and current NEPA reviews of fracking, and thus remedy the outdated RMP/EIS issue discussed above.  Such a review may be more efficiently conducted at the regional level and address multiple RMPs than piecemeal at the leasing or drilling levels.  These NEPA reviews likely would take the form of a programmatic EIS on fracking or new or supplemental EISs analyzing proposed RMP amendments specific to mineral management.  Given tight federal budgets, industry may need strong support from Congress and agency leadership to move this process forward.[6]  As long as NEPA’s conflict-of-interest provisions are not violated, industry may also be able to help fund independent contractors to complete the EIS process under the supervision of agency staff and decision-makers.

Conclusion

The CBD v. Salazar decision illustrates the thorny agency decision-making process that may lie ahead for parties interested in drilling in unconventional federal oil and gas reserves.  While additional, updated NEPA analyses of fracking may ultimately be necessary before fracking on federal public lands hits full steam, the oil and gas industry may be able to tap into federal shale formations now by drilling horizontally from nearby leases.

Tyler Welti, who recently joined Perkins Coie’s Washington, D.C. office, was the fracking litigation lead for the U.S. Department of Justice, Environment and Natural Resources Division’s Natural Resources Section.



[1]  BLM manages public lands pursuant to FLPMA, 43 U.S.C. §§ 1701–1785, while the Forest Service administers the National Forest System pursuant to the National Forest Management Act,16 U.S.C. §§ 1600–1687 (NFMA).  NFMA similarly requires the Forest Service to issue “land and resource management plans” for units of the national forest system.  16 U.S.C. § 1604.  Under the MLA, 30 U.S.C. §§ 181 et seq., BLM has authority to manage oil and gas resources on both BLM-managed public lands and Forest Service-managed national forests.  30 U.S.C. § 226.  This discussion focuses on BLM’s management of public lands but applies equally to management of national forest lands.

[2]  The decision is unclear whether all four leases are deficient under NEPA because all four relied on the same EA, or whether the holding is limited to the two leases without NSO stipulations.  The court requested further briefing on the remedy. 

[3]  The court pointed out that a 2010 U.S. House of Representatives Appropriation Conference Committee noted that recent advancements in fracking have resulted in a significant spike of natural gas production and that an EPA study predicted that by 2020 shale gas would comprise over 20% of the total U.S. gas supply.  Order at 22–23.

[4]  The court found that the degree of controversy regarding fracking, potential effects of fracking on public health and safety (especially water pollution), and level of uncertainty regarding the impacts of fracking all supported the need for an EIS.  Order at 25–27. 

[5]  Other circuit courts have held similarly.   See N.M. ex rel. Richardson v. BLM, 565 F.3d 683, 718 (10th Cir. 2009) (ruling that in oil and gas leasing, “assessment of all ‘reasonably foreseeable’ impacts must occur at the earliest practicable point, and must take place before an ‘irretrievable commitment of resources’ is made”); Sierra Club v. Peterson, 717 F.2d 1409, 1411-12 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (finding an “irreversible, irretrievable commitment of resources” when leases “d[id] not authorize the [agency] to preclude any activities which the lessee might propose”) (emphasis in original).

[6]  Further complicating budget concerns is the fact that in areas where BLM manages the mineral estate and a different agency analyzes the surface estate, there may be disagreement between agencies about who should fund and staff the analyses.  The line between “down-hole” impacts managed by BLM and surface impacts managed by other agencies can be unclear, particularly with respect to resources like water.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Perkins Coie | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Perkins Coie
Contact
more
less

Perkins Coie on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide

JD Supra Privacy Policy

Updated: May 25, 2018:

JD Supra is a legal publishing service that connects experts and their content with broader audiences of professionals, journalists and associations.

This Privacy Policy describes how JD Supra, LLC ("JD Supra" or "we," "us," or "our") collects, uses and shares personal data collected from visitors to our website (located at www.jdsupra.com) (our "Website") who view only publicly-available content as well as subscribers to our services (such as our email digests or author tools)(our "Services"). By using our Website and registering for one of our Services, you are agreeing to the terms of this Privacy Policy.

Please note that if you subscribe to one of our Services, you can make choices about how we collect, use and share your information through our Privacy Center under the "My Account" dashboard (available if you are logged into your JD Supra account).

Collection of Information

Registration Information. When you register with JD Supra for our Website and Services, either as an author or as a subscriber, you will be asked to provide identifying information to create your JD Supra account ("Registration Data"), such as your:

  • Email
  • First Name
  • Last Name
  • Company Name
  • Company Industry
  • Title
  • Country

Other Information: We also collect other information you may voluntarily provide. This may include content you provide for publication. We may also receive your communications with others through our Website and Services (such as contacting an author through our Website) or communications directly with us (such as through email, feedback or other forms or social media). If you are a subscribed user, we will also collect your user preferences, such as the types of articles you would like to read.

Information from third parties (such as, from your employer or LinkedIn): We may also receive information about you from third party sources. For example, your employer may provide your information to us, such as in connection with an article submitted by your employer for publication. If you choose to use LinkedIn to subscribe to our Website and Services, we also collect information related to your LinkedIn account and profile.

Your interactions with our Website and Services: As is true of most websites, we gather certain information automatically. This information includes IP addresses, browser type, Internet service provider (ISP), referring/exit pages, operating system, date/time stamp and clickstream data. We use this information to analyze trends, to administer the Website and our Services, to improve the content and performance of our Website and Services, and to track users' movements around the site. We may also link this automatically-collected data to personal information, for example, to inform authors about who has read their articles. Some of this data is collected through information sent by your web browser. We also use cookies and other tracking technologies to collect this information. To learn more about cookies and other tracking technologies that JD Supra may use on our Website and Services please see our "Cookies Guide" page.

How do we use this information?

We use the information and data we collect principally in order to provide our Website and Services. More specifically, we may use your personal information to:

  • Operate our Website and Services and publish content;
  • Distribute content to you in accordance with your preferences as well as to provide other notifications to you (for example, updates about our policies and terms);
  • Measure readership and usage of the Website and Services;
  • Communicate with you regarding your questions and requests;
  • Authenticate users and to provide for the safety and security of our Website and Services;
  • Conduct research and similar activities to improve our Website and Services; and
  • Comply with our legal and regulatory responsibilities and to enforce our rights.

How is your information shared?

  • Content and other public information (such as an author profile) is shared on our Website and Services, including via email digests and social media feeds, and is accessible to the general public.
  • If you choose to use our Website and Services to communicate directly with a company or individual, such communication may be shared accordingly.
  • Readership information is provided to publishing law firms and authors of content to give them insight into their readership and to help them to improve their content.
  • Our Website may offer you the opportunity to share information through our Website, such as through Facebook's "Like" or Twitter's "Tweet" button. We offer this functionality to help generate interest in our Website and content and to permit you to recommend content to your contacts. You should be aware that sharing through such functionality may result in information being collected by the applicable social media network and possibly being made publicly available (for example, through a search engine). Any such information collection would be subject to such third party social media network's privacy policy.
  • Your information may also be shared to parties who support our business, such as professional advisors as well as web-hosting providers, analytics providers and other information technology providers.
  • Any court, governmental authority, law enforcement agency or other third party where we believe disclosure is necessary to comply with a legal or regulatory obligation, or otherwise to protect our rights, the rights of any third party or individuals' personal safety, or to detect, prevent, or otherwise address fraud, security or safety issues.
  • To our affiliated entities and in connection with the sale, assignment or other transfer of our company or our business.

How We Protect Your Information

JD Supra takes reasonable and appropriate precautions to insure that user information is protected from loss, misuse and unauthorized access, disclosure, alteration and destruction. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. You should keep in mind that no Internet transmission is ever 100% secure or error-free. Where you use log-in credentials (usernames, passwords) on our Website, please remember that it is your responsibility to safeguard them. If you believe that your log-in credentials have been compromised, please contact us at privacy@jdsupra.com.

Children's Information

Our Website and Services are not directed at children under the age of 16 and we do not knowingly collect personal information from children under the age of 16 through our Website and/or Services. If you have reason to believe that a child under the age of 16 has provided personal information to us, please contact us, and we will endeavor to delete that information from our databases.

Links to Other Websites

Our Website and Services may contain links to other websites. The operators of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using our Website or Services and click a link to another site, you will leave our Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We are not responsible for the data collection and use practices of such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of our Website and Services and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Information for EU and Swiss Residents

JD Supra's principal place of business is in the United States. By subscribing to our website, you expressly consent to your information being processed in the United States.

  • Our Legal Basis for Processing: Generally, we rely on our legitimate interests in order to process your personal information. For example, we rely on this legal ground if we use your personal information to manage your Registration Data and administer our relationship with you; to deliver our Website and Services; understand and improve our Website and Services; report reader analytics to our authors; to personalize your experience on our Website and Services; and where necessary to protect or defend our or another's rights or property, or to detect, prevent, or otherwise address fraud, security, safety or privacy issues. Please see Article 6(1)(f) of the E.U. General Data Protection Regulation ("GDPR") In addition, there may be other situations where other grounds for processing may exist, such as where processing is a result of legal requirements (GDPR Article 6(1)(c)) or for reasons of public interest (GDPR Article 6(1)(e)). Please see the "Your Rights" section of this Privacy Policy immediately below for more information about how you may request that we limit or refrain from processing your personal information.
  • Your Rights
    • Right of Access/Portability: You can ask to review details about the information we hold about you and how that information has been used and disclosed. Note that we may request to verify your identification before fulfilling your request. You can also request that your personal information is provided to you in a commonly used electronic format so that you can share it with other organizations.
    • Right to Correct Information: You may ask that we make corrections to any information we hold, if you believe such correction to be necessary.
    • Right to Restrict Our Processing or Erasure of Information: You also have the right in certain circumstances to ask us to restrict processing of your personal information or to erase your personal information. Where you have consented to our use of your personal information, you can withdraw your consent at any time.

You can make a request to exercise any of these rights by emailing us at privacy@jdsupra.com or by writing to us at:

Privacy Officer
JD Supra, LLC
10 Liberty Ship Way, Suite 300
Sausalito, California 94965

You can also manage your profile and subscriptions through our Privacy Center under the "My Account" dashboard.

We will make all practical efforts to respect your wishes. There may be times, however, where we are not able to fulfill your request, for example, if applicable law prohibits our compliance. Please note that JD Supra does not use "automatic decision making" or "profiling" as those terms are defined in the GDPR.

  • Timeframe for retaining your personal information: We will retain your personal information in a form that identifies you only for as long as it serves the purpose(s) for which it was initially collected as stated in this Privacy Policy, or subsequently authorized. We may continue processing your personal information for longer periods, but only for the time and to the extent such processing reasonably serves the purposes of archiving in the public interest, journalism, literature and art, scientific or historical research and statistical analysis, and subject to the protection of this Privacy Policy. For example, if you are an author, your personal information may continue to be published in connection with your article indefinitely. When we have no ongoing legitimate business need to process your personal information, we will either delete or anonymize it, or, if this is not possible (for example, because your personal information has been stored in backup archives), then we will securely store your personal information and isolate it from any further processing until deletion is possible.
  • Onward Transfer to Third Parties: As noted in the "How We Share Your Data" Section above, JD Supra may share your information with third parties. When JD Supra discloses your personal information to third parties, we have ensured that such third parties have either certified under the EU-U.S. or Swiss Privacy Shield Framework and will process all personal data received from EU member states/Switzerland in reliance on the applicable Privacy Shield Framework or that they have been subjected to strict contractual provisions in their contract with us to guarantee an adequate level of data protection for your data.

California Privacy Rights

Pursuant to Section 1798.83 of the California Civil Code, our customers who are California residents have the right to request certain information regarding our disclosure of personal information to third parties for their direct marketing purposes.

You can make a request for this information by emailing us at privacy@jdsupra.com or by writing to us at:

Privacy Officer
JD Supra, LLC
10 Liberty Ship Way, Suite 300
Sausalito, California 94965

Some browsers have incorporated a Do Not Track (DNT) feature. These features, when turned on, send a signal that you prefer that the website you are visiting not collect and use data regarding your online searching and browsing activities. As there is not yet a common understanding on how to interpret the DNT signal, we currently do not respond to DNT signals on our site.

Access/Correct/Update/Delete Personal Information

For non-EU/Swiss residents, if you would like to know what personal information we have about you, you can send an e-mail to privacy@jdsupra.com. We will be in contact with you (by mail or otherwise) to verify your identity and provide you the information you request. We will respond within 30 days to your request for access to your personal information. In some cases, we may not be able to remove your personal information, in which case we will let you know if we are unable to do so and why. If you would like to correct or update your personal information, you can manage your profile and subscriptions through our Privacy Center under the "My Account" dashboard. If you would like to delete your account or remove your information from our Website and Services, send an e-mail to privacy@jdsupra.com.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Privacy Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our Privacy Policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use our Website and Services following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this Privacy Policy, the practices of this site, your dealings with our Website or Services, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: privacy@jdsupra.com.

JD Supra Cookie Guide

As with many websites, JD Supra's website (located at www.jdsupra.com) (our "Website") and our services (such as our email article digests)(our "Services") use a standard technology called a "cookie" and other similar technologies (such as, pixels and web beacons), which are small data files that are transferred to your computer when you use our Website and Services. These technologies automatically identify your browser whenever you interact with our Website and Services.

How We Use Cookies and Other Tracking Technologies

We use cookies and other tracking technologies to:

  1. Improve the user experience on our Website and Services;
  2. Store the authorization token that users receive when they login to the private areas of our Website. This token is specific to a user's login session and requires a valid username and password to obtain. It is required to access the user's profile information, subscriptions, and analytics;
  3. Track anonymous site usage; and
  4. Permit connectivity with social media networks to permit content sharing.

There are different types of cookies and other technologies used our Website, notably:

  • "Session cookies" - These cookies only last as long as your online session, and disappear from your computer or device when you close your browser (like Internet Explorer, Google Chrome or Safari).
  • "Persistent cookies" - These cookies stay on your computer or device after your browser has been closed and last for a time specified in the cookie. We use persistent cookies when we need to know who you are for more than one browsing session. For example, we use them to remember your preferences for the next time you visit.
  • "Web Beacons/Pixels" - Some of our web pages and emails may also contain small electronic images known as web beacons, clear GIFs or single-pixel GIFs. These images are placed on a web page or email and typically work in conjunction with cookies to collect data. We use these images to identify our users and user behavior, such as counting the number of users who have visited a web page or acted upon one of our email digests.

JD Supra Cookies. We place our own cookies on your computer to track certain information about you while you are using our Website and Services. For example, we place a session cookie on your computer each time you visit our Website. We use these cookies to allow you to log-in to your subscriber account. In addition, through these cookies we are able to collect information about how you use the Website, including what browser you may be using, your IP address, and the URL address you came from upon visiting our Website and the URL you next visit (even if those URLs are not on our Website). We also utilize email web beacons to monitor whether our emails are being delivered and read. We also use these tools to help deliver reader analytics to our authors to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

Analytics/Performance Cookies. JD Supra also uses the following analytic tools to help us analyze the performance of our Website and Services as well as how visitors use our Website and Services:

  • HubSpot - For more information about HubSpot cookies, please visit legal.hubspot.com/privacy-policy.
  • New Relic - For more information on New Relic cookies, please visit www.newrelic.com/privacy.
  • Google Analytics - For more information on Google Analytics cookies, visit www.google.com/policies. To opt-out of being tracked by Google Analytics across all websites visit http://tools.google.com/dlpage/gaoptout. This will allow you to download and install a Google Analytics cookie-free web browser.

Facebook, Twitter and other Social Network Cookies. Our content pages allow you to share content appearing on our Website and Services to your social media accounts through the "Like," "Tweet," or similar buttons displayed on such pages. To accomplish this Service, we embed code that such third party social networks provide and that we do not control. These buttons know that you are logged in to your social network account and therefore such social networks could also know that you are viewing the JD Supra Website.

Controlling and Deleting Cookies

If you would like to change how a browser uses cookies, including blocking or deleting cookies from the JD Supra Website and Services you can do so by changing the settings in your web browser. To control cookies, most browsers allow you to either accept or reject all cookies, only accept certain types of cookies, or prompt you every time a site wishes to save a cookie. It's also easy to delete cookies that are already saved on your device by a browser.

The processes for controlling and deleting cookies vary depending on which browser you use. To find out how to do so with a particular browser, you can use your browser's "Help" function or alternatively, you can visit http://www.aboutcookies.org which explains, step-by-step, how to control and delete cookies in most browsers.

Updates to This Policy

We may update this cookie policy and our Privacy Policy from time-to-time, particularly as technology changes. You can always check this page for the latest version. We may also notify you of changes to our privacy policy by email.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about how we use cookies and other tracking technologies, please contact us at: privacy@jdsupra.com.

- hide

This website uses cookies to improve user experience, track anonymous site usage, store authorization tokens and permit sharing on social media networks. By continuing to browse this website you accept the use of cookies. Click here to read more about how we use cookies.