2017-05-25_REVISION - C1996083 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CONSERVATION GROUPS’ COMMENTS UNCOMPAHGRE FIELD OFFICE RMP AND DEIS 50 The draft EIS does not appear to acknowledge the existence of the Clean Power Plan or the Paris Agreement—hardly surprising given that the climate analysis appears to have been completed in 2010. The Draft EIS therefore fails to acknowledge any conflict between the alternative plans and the CPP or the nation’s commitments under the Paris accord. However, it is clear that each alternative, which projects up to 27 million tons of CO2 emissions from coal mined in the plan area for the foreseeable future, totaling up to half a billion tons over 20 years, may conflict with the CPP, which intends to limit pollution from power plants that is predicted and cut coal combustion in the U.S. by nearly a quarter by 2030. The potential conflict with the Paris Agreement, which pledges the U.S. to reduce GHG emissions by 26-28% from 2005 levels by 2025, on a path to reduce those emissions by 80% by 2050, is also readily apparent. BLM’s failure to acknowledge this conflict is arbitrary and capricious, in violation of NEPA and Executive Order 12,866. B. The Draft EIS Relies on Outdated Data Concerning Climate Change. NEPA mandates that EISs contain “high quality” information and “[a]ccurate scientific analysis” sufficient to “help public officials make decisions that are based on understanding environmental consequences.” 40 C.F.R. § 1500.1(b), (c). Moreover, agencies have a duty to “insure the professional integrity, including scientific integrity, of the discussions and analyses in environmental impact statements.” 40 C.F.R. § 1502.24. NEPA therefore prohibits BLM from relying on outdated data. Federal courts have long held that agency reliance on data that is stale or inaccurate invalidates environmental review. See, e.g., Northern Plains Resource Council, Inc. v. Surface Transp. Bd., 668 F.3d 1067, 1085-86 (9th Cir. 2011) (ten-year old survey data for wildlife “too stale” thus reliance on it in EIS was arbitrary and capricious); Lands Council v. Powell, 395 F.3d 1019, 1031 (9th Cir. 2005) (six year-old survey data for cutthroat trout was “too outdated to carry the weight assigned to it” and reliance on that data violated NEPA); Seattle Audubon Soc. v. Espy, 998 F.2d 699, 704-05 (9th Cir. 1993) (reliance on “stale scientific evidence” regarding owl population data without adequate discussion of scientific uncertainty violated NEPA). Yet, in several important respects that relate to climate and socioeconomic impacts, the draft EIS uses stale, outdated evidence. BLM must rely on the latest information on climate change, coal mining, and economics in any subsequently prepared NEPA document. The understanding of, and scientific literature concerning, the climate crisis, and the steps necessary to prevent catastrophic warming, have evolved dramatically since 2010. Since then, the IPCC has revised its assessment of climate change, the Paris Agreement has been signed, the Clean Power Plan adopted (and temporarily stayed by the Supreme Court), and numerous studies have demonstrated that significant additional measures will be required to achieve the United States’ goals of reducing greenhouse gases from 2005 levels by 26-28% by 2025 and set the United States on the pathway to achieve reductions of 80 percent or more by 2050.148 148 White House, Fact Sheet: U.S. Reports its 2025 Emissions Target to the UNFCCC (Mar. 21, 2015) (attached as Exhibit 99), available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-