Laserfiche WebLink
CONSERVATION GROUPS’ COMMENTS <br />UNCOMPAHGRE FIELD OFFICE RMP AND DEIS <br />23 <br />see also 43 C.F.R. § 3120.1-1; U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Oil and Gas Leasing Reform, <br />Instruction Memorandum No. 2010-117 (“Eligible lands include those identified in 43 C.F.R. § <br />3120.1-1 as being available for leasing (BLM Manual 3120, Competitive Leases). They are <br />considered available for leasing when all statutory requirements have been met, including <br />compliance with the NEPA, appropriate reviews have been conducted, and lands have been <br />allocated for leasing in the RMP (BLM Handbook H-3101-1, Issuance of Leases).”) (emphasis <br />added). Thus, a decision to allocate an area as ineligible for leasing through the planning process <br />is contemplated by BLM’s regulations, contradicting any perceived requirement that BLM must <br />lease the area. <br /> <br />The Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act (“FOOGLRA”)—while not <br />altering the fundamental leasing structure of the MLA—imposed a competitive bidding <br />requirement on all offered leases. 30 U.S.C. §§ 188, 195, 226. Critically, FOOGLRA did not <br />repeal or alter Secretarial discretion of whether to offer any particular lands for lease. See <br />Western Energy Alliance v. Salazar, 709 F.3d 1040, 1044 (10th Cir. 2013) (“Before the MLA <br />was amended by the [FOOGLRA]…it was well established that the Secretary had extremely <br />broad discretion and was not obligated to issue any lease on public lands…. The MLA, as <br />amended by the Reform Act of 1987, continues to vest the Secretary with considerable discretion <br />to determine which lands are ‘to be leased’ under § 226(b)(1)(A).”). As held by the Court of <br />Appeals in Bob Marshall Alliance v. Hodel: <br /> <br />the Mineral Leasing Act gives the Interior Secretary discretion to determine <br />which lands are to be leased under the statute. 30 U.S.C. §226(a) (1982); see <br />Mountain States, 499 F.Supp. at 391-92. We have held that the Mineral Leasing <br />Act “allows the Secretary to lease such lands, but does not require him to do so.... <br />[T]he Secretary has discretion to refuse to issue any lease at all on a given tract.” <br />Burglin v. Morton, 527 F.2d 486, 488 (9th Cir. 1975) (citing Udall v. Tallman, <br />380 U.S. 1, 4 (1965), cert denied, 425 U.S. 973 (1976)). <br /> <br />852 F.2d 1223, 1230 (9th Cir. 1988). <br /> <br />For coal, the Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act (“FLCAA”) provides that the <br />Interior Secretary “is authorized” to identify tracts for leasing and thereafter “shall, in his <br />discretion … from time to time, offer such lands for leasing ….” 30 U.S.C. § 201. See also <br />WildEarth Guardians v. Salazar, 859 F. Supp. 2d 83, 87 (D.D.C. 2012) (“Under the [FLCAA], <br />the Secretary is permitted to lease public lands for coal mining operations after conducting a <br />competitive bidding process” (emphasis added)). This discretion has been consistently upheld by <br />the courts. See, e.g., Krueger v. Morton, 539 F.2d 235, 238-40 (D.C. Cir. 1976); NRDC v. <br />Hughes, 437 F.Supp. 981, 983-85 (D.D.C. 1977). Further, the Secretary has discretion to reject <br />lease applications on the grounds that “leasing of the lands covered by the application, for <br />environmental or other sufficient reasons, would be contrary to the public interest.” 43 C.F.R. <br />§ 3425.1-8(a)(3). <br /> <br /> The Secretary of the Interior also has authority under FLPMA to “withdraw” an area of <br />federal land from oil, gas or coal leasing to “maintain . . . public values” or for a “particular <br />public purpose.” FLPMA defines a withdrawal as: