2017-05-25_REVISION - C1996083 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CONSERVATION GROUPS’ COMMENTS UNCOMPAHGRE FIELD OFFICE RMP AND DEIS 17 Critically, FLPMA does not mandate that every use be accommodated on every piece of land; rather, delicate balancing is required. See Norton v. S. Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55, 58 (2004). “‘Multiple use’ requires management of the public lands and their numerous natural resources so that they can be used for economic, recreational, and scientific purposes without the infliction of permanent damage.” Public Lands Council v. Babbitt, 167 F.3d 1287, 1290 (10th Cir. 1999) (citing 43 U.S.C. § 1702 (c)). As held by the Tenth Circuit, “[i]f all the competing demands reflected in FLPMA were focused on one particular piece of public land, in many instances only one set of demands could be satisfied. A parcel of land cannot both be preserved in its natural character and mined.” Rocky Mtn. Oil & Gas Ass'n v. Watt, 696 F.2d 734, 738 n. 4 (10th Cir.1982) (quoting Utah v. Andrus, 486 F.Supp. 995, 1003 (D.Utah 1979)); see also 43 U.S.C. § 1701(a)(8) (stating, as a goal of FLPMA, the necessity to “preserve and protect certain public lands in their natural condition”); Pub. Lands Council, 167 F.3d at 1299 (citing § 1701(a)(8)). As further provided by the Tenth Circuit: It is past doubt that the principle of multiple use does not require BLM to prioritize development over other uses… BLM’s obligation to manage for multiple use does not mean that development must be allowed on [a particular piece of public lands]. Development is a possible use, which BLM must weigh against other possible uses—including conservation to protect environmental values, which are best assessed through the NEPA process. Thus, an alternative that closes the [proposed public lands] to development does not necessarily violate the principle of multiple use, and the multiple use provision of FLPMA is not a sufficient reason to exclude more protective alternatives from consideration. New Mexico ex rel. Richardson, 565 F.3d at 710. Accordingly, the RMP revision must consider, on equal footing, the value of permanent protection and preservation of public lands in the planning area, along with industry pressure to lease and develop public lands for fossil fuel resources. It is incumbent on the UFO to re-evaluate these competing resources and give suitable weight to FLPMA’s mandate to preserve and protect public lands in their natural condition. See 43 U.S.C. § 1701(a)(8). This is, after all, the agency’s statutory mandate. See New Mexico ex rel. Richardson, 565 F.3d at 709. The second factor in considering the reasonableness of alternatives is judged by the RMP’s purpose and need. As stated by BLM: The purpose of the Uncompahgre RMP is to provide broad-scale direction for the management of public lands and resources administered by the BLM Uncompahgre Field Office that are within the planning area. The RMP presents desired outcomes, which are expressed in terms of goals and objectives for resource conditions and uses… BLM regulations require that existing land use plans be revised when necessary to address current resource conditions, changes in circumstances (e.g., evolving demands on resources), and new or revised national-level policy.