Laserfiche WebLink
CONSERVATION GROUPS’ COMMENTS <br />UNCOMPAHGRE FIELD OFFICE RMP AND DEIS <br />24 <br /> <br />withholding an area of Federal land from settlement, sale, location, or entry, under some <br />or all of the general land laws, for the purpose of limiting activities under those laws in <br />order to maintain other public values in the area or reserving the area for a particular <br />public purpose or program . . . <br /> <br />43 U.S.C. § 1702(j). FLPMA further provides that Congress declares that it is the policy of the <br />United States that “the public lands [shall] be managed in a manner that will protect the quality <br />of … air and atmospheric … values.” 43 U.S.C. § 1701(a)(8). <br /> <br />Under FLPMA’s “multiple use and sustained yield” management directive, id. <br />§ 1701(a)(7), the federal government must manage public lands and resources in a manner that <br />“takes into account the long-term needs of future generations for renewable and nonrenewable <br />resources, including, but not limited to, recreation, range, timber, minerals, watershed, wildlife <br />and fish, and natural scenic, scientific and historical values; and harmonious and coordinated <br />management of the various resources without permanent impairment of the productivity of the <br />land[,]” id. § 1702(3). Further, “[i]n managing the public lands the Secretary shall … take any <br />action necessary to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the lands.” Id. § 1732(b). <br /> <br />Under these authorities, BLM is required not only to evaluate the impacts of federal coal <br />leasing to public lands, water, and wildlife resources, but to avoid harm to those resources <br />whenever possible. <br /> <br />Accordingly, the MLA and FLPMA provide BLM the legal authority to either decide not <br />to lease particular lands, or to withdraw large tracts from leasing.73 <br />2. No-Leasing or Limited Leasing Alternatives Meet the RMP’s Purpose <br />and Need. <br /> <br />Alternatives that prohibit or strictly limit new fossil fuel leasing meet the proposed <br />action’s purpose and need. BLM defines the RMP’s purpose and need as follows: <br /> <br /> 73 Even if BLM concludes that the agency lacks authority to bar new oil, gas, and coal leasing <br />throughout the planning area, it should still consider such an alternative because it is otherwise <br />reasonable. Federal courts hold that agencies have the duty to consider reasonable alternatives <br />that are outside the jurisdiction of the agency or that require a change of law to implement. See <br />40 C.F.R. § 1502.14(c) (an EIS “shall” “[i]nclude reasonable alternatives not within the <br />jurisdiction of the lead agency”); Council on Environmental Quality, Executive Office of the <br />President, Publication of Memorandum to Agencies Containing Answers to 40 Most Asked <br />Questions on NEPA Regulations, 46 Fed. Reg. 18,026–01 at 18,027 (1981) (“An alternative that <br />is outside the legal jurisdiction of the lead agency must still be analyzed in the EIS if it is <br />reasonable. A potential conflict with local or federal law does not necessarily render an <br />alternative unreasonable”); Muckleshoot Indian Tribe v. U.S. Forest Serv., 177 F.3d 800, 814 <br />(9th Cir. 1999) (setting aside EIS for failure to address alternative requiring Congressional <br />action).