2017-05-25_REVISION - C1996083 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CONSERVATION GROUPS’ COMMENTS UNCOMPAHGRE FIELD OFFICE RMP AND DEIS 99 Furthermore, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (“FLPMA”), 43 U.S.C. § 1701 et seq., directs that “the public lands be managed in a manner that will protect the quality of [critical resource] values; that, where appropriate, will preserve and protect certain public lands in their natural condition; that will provide food and habitat for fish and wildlife and domestic animals; and that will provide for outdoor recreation and human occupancy and use.” 43 U.S.C. § 1701(a)(8). This substantive mandate requires that the agency not elevate the development of oil and gas resources above other critical resource values in the planning area, as the UFO has done, here. To the contrary, FLPMA requires that where oil and gas development would threaten the quality of critical resources, that conservation of these resources should be the preeminent goal. A. The UFO Failed to Take a Hard Look at Certain Impacts to Air Quality. 1. Comprehensive Air Resource Protection Protocol In general, the Comprehensive Air Resource Protection Protocol (“CARPP”) proposed for the RMP/EIS is a reactive management tool, as opposed to a proactive one. There is very little required action in the CARPP unless or until an exceedance of a National Ambient Air Quality Standard (“NAAQS”) is recorded, making it ineffective as a tool to ensure air quality protection. And even when an air quality exceedance of the NAAQS is recorded, the BLM has established many opportunities for non-action. The discretionary nature of the CARPP is very concerning, especially if it is relied upon in the draft RMP/EIS as a primary means for protecting air resources and used by BLM to justify not proposing additional management actions to address significant impacts shown in the impact analysis. BLM must establish a comprehensive set of mitigation measures for the RMP/EIS that ensures no significant air quality impacts from the proposed development would occur based on the best currently-available analysis tools, and should then use the CARPP as a means to improve upon and update those measures, as needed, based on periodic and specific monitoring and modeling commitments that the agency agrees to implement. Evaluation of the overarching purpose, scope and responsibilities under the CARPP (Section I) requires analysis of how the CARPP relates to the RMP/EIS and the BLM’s authority under NEPA, which the UFO failed to provide. Of concern is the fact that the CARPP can be modified “without maintaining or amending any specific Field Office RMP”. CARPP Section I.A. Any modifications to the CARPP should include adequate public participation opportunities. Important public notification and participation provisions of the CARPP include: (1) the commitment to make the Colorado Air Resources Management Modeling Study (CARMMS) results and analysis available to the public (Section III.C.3); and (2) the commitment to complete an annual summary report that is made available to public (Section V). The periodic review of the reasonably foreseeable development projections to be conducted every three to five years must also be made available to the public (Section IV.E). It is important to ensure that monitoring data collected as part of the CARPP is also made available to the public. Under the Monitoring Data Transparency provision of the CARPP, BLM states that, “the BLM will ensure that ambient air monitoring data collected as a COA for any BLM authorized activity will be made publicly available within the body or our annual report required under Section V of this protocol”. CARPP Section III.A.4. BLM must work with the