Laserfiche WebLink
CONSERVATION GROUPS’ COMMENTS <br />UNCOMPAHGRE FIELD OFFICE RMP AND DEIS <br />22 <br />C. BLM Must Consider the No Fossil Fuel Leasing Alternative in Response to <br />Threats Posed by Climate Change. <br /> <br />Climate change has fundamentally altered the paradigm of public lands management—a <br />reality reflected in new national policy as well as international commitments—but ignored by the <br />Uncompahgre draft EIS. The business-as-usual approach reflected by BLM fails to meet the <br />needs of present and future generations—the agency’s core mandate in managing public lands <br />and minerals. 43 C.F.R. § 1702(c). Both science and common sense dictate that perpetuating a <br />management approach which has substantially contributed to climate change is no longer <br />sufficient. The agency must consider alternatives that are responsive to this reality, including not <br />leasing fossil fuel minerals. <br /> <br />Every ton of carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere worsens climate change. So any <br />additional oil and gas or coal production permitted on BLM land managed by the Uncompahgre <br />field office and the combustion of those fossil fuels will worsen climate change. Due to the <br />urgent need to protect mankind and federal public lands from the potentially devastating impacts <br />of catastrophic global warming, BLM must consider and analyze an alternative that reduces or <br />eliminates the number of new fossil fuel leases in the Uncompahgre area. <br /> <br />As noted above, an alternative is “reasonable” if it falls within the agency’s statutory <br />mandate, and meets at least a part of the agency’s purpose and need. See supra at II.A. No- <br />leasing and limited leasing alternatives meet both tests. <br />1. BLM Has Legal Authority to Not Issue New Oil and Gas or Coal <br />Leases on Public Lands in the Uncompahgre Area. <br /> <br />The BLM has explicit legal authority under FLPMA, the MLA and NEPA to adopt a no- <br />leasing alternative as necessary to respond to the threats posed by climate change. BLM has <br />broad discretion in determining when, how, and if fossil fuel resources are made available for <br />leasing. <br /> <br />With regard to oil and gas, the MLA states: “All lands subject to disposition under this <br />Act which are known or believed to contain oil or gas deposits may be leased by the Secretary.” <br />30 US.C. § 226(a) (emphasis added); see also Udall v. Tallman, 30 U.S. 1, 4 (1965) (MLA “left <br />the Secretary discretion to refuse to issue any lease at all on a given tract”); Burglin v. Morton, <br />527 F.2d 486, 488 (9th Cir. 1975) (“The permissive word ‘may’ in Section 226(a) allows the <br />Secretary to lease such lands, but does not require him to do so.”); Pease v. Udall, 332 F.2d 62, <br />63 (9th Cir. 1964) (“[T]he Mineral Leasing Act has consistently been construed as leaving to the <br />Secretary, within his discretion, a determination as to what lands are to be leased thereunder.”). <br /> <br />Although the MLA states that, for oil and gas, “[l]ease sales shall be held for each State <br />where eligible lands are available at least quarterly and more frequently if the Secretary of the <br />Interior determines such sales are necessary,” quarterly leasing is not required if no lands are <br />“eligible” and “available” due to factors including withdrawal from the operation of the MLA <br />under FLPMA, allocation decisions under an applicable land management plan, need for <br />additional environmental review, or exercise of Secretarial discretion. 30 U.S.C. § 226(b)(1)(A);