|
CONSERVATION GROUPS’ COMMENTS
<br />UNCOMPAHGRE FIELD OFFICE RMP AND DEIS
<br />16
<br />League of America v. Marsh, 655 F.2d 346, 371 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (citing Kleppe v. Sierra Club,
<br />427 U.S. 390, 410 n. 21 (1976)).
<br />
<br />When determining whether an EIS analyzed sufficient alternatives to allow BLM to take
<br />a hard look at the available options, courts apply the “rule of reason.” New Mexico ex rel.
<br />Richardson v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 565 F.3d 683, 709 (10th Cir. 2009) (citing Westlands
<br />Water Dist. v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, 376 F.3d 853, 868 (9th Cir. 2004)). The reasonableness
<br />of the alternatives considered is measured against two guideposts. First, when considering
<br />agency actions taken pursuant to a statute, an alternative is reasonable only if it falls within the
<br />agency’s statutory mandate. Westlands, 376 F.3d at 866. Second, reasonableness is judged with
<br />reference to an agency’s objectives for a particular project.57 See Dombeck, 185 F.3d at 1174–75;
<br />Simmons v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 120 F.3d 664, 668–69 (7th Cir. 1997); Idaho
<br />Conservation League v. Mumma, 956 F.2d 1508, 1520 (9th Cir. 1992).
<br />On the first point, FLPMA is BLM’s organic act and delegates authority to the agency to
<br />create and amend land use plans. FLPMA’s congressional declaration states:
<br />It is the policy of the United States that … the public lands be managed in a
<br />manner that will protect the quality of scientific, scenic, historical, ecological,
<br />environmental, air and atmospheric, water resource, and archeological values;
<br />that, where appropriate, will preserve and protect certain public lands in their
<br />natural condition; that will provide food and habitat for fish and wildlife and
<br />domestic animals; and that will provide for outdoor recreation and human
<br />occupancy and use;
<br />
<br />43 U.S.C. § 1701(a)(8) (emphasis added). Indeed, BLM is duty bound to develop and
<br />revise land use plans according to this congressional mandate, so as to “observe the
<br />principles of multiple use.” 43 U.S.C. § 1712(c)(1). “Multiple use” means “a combination
<br />of balanced and diverse resource uses that takes into account the long-term needs of
<br />future generations for renewable and nonrenewable resources, including, but not limited
<br />to, recreation, range, timber, minerals, watershed, wildlife and fish, and natural scenic,
<br />scientific and historical values.” 43 U.S.C. § 1702(c).
<br />
<br />The RMP revision process, undertaken pursuant to FLPMA, requires BLM to engage in
<br />the type of foundational land use planning that is intended to give context to the agency’s
<br />multiple use mandate. Accordingly, FLPMA provides specific criteria for land use plan
<br />revisions, requiring consideration of things such as: observation of the principles of multiple use
<br />and sustained yield; integrated consideration of physical, biological, economic, and other
<br />sciences; reliance on public lands resources and other values; consideration of present and future
<br />uses of the public lands; consideration of the relative scarcity of resource values; and weighing
<br />the long-term benefits to the public against the short-term benefits. See 43 U.S.C. § 1712(c)(1)-
<br />(9). Consideration of these criteria must drive the RMP revision.
<br />
<br />57 While an agency may restrict its analysis to alternatives that suit the “basic policy objectives”
<br />of a planning action, Seattle Audubon Soc’y v. Moseley, 80 F.3d 1401, 1404 (9th Cir. 1996), it
<br />may do so only as long as “the statements of purpose and need drafted to guide the
<br />environmental review process ... are not unreasonably narrow,” Dombeck, 185 F.3d at 1175.
|