Laserfiche WebLink
CONSERVATION GROUPS’ COMMENTS <br />UNCOMPAHGRE FIELD OFFICE RMP AND DEIS <br />75 <br />(emphasis added). BLM’s oil and gas decisions, including UFO’s RMP/EIS, are thus <br />contemplated by and subject to section 3 of the Order. <br /> <br />These authorities and responsibilities can be properly exercised through effective use of <br />NEPA. To comply with NEPA, the BLM must take a hard look at direct, indirect, and <br />cumulative impacts, as discussed above. 40 §§ C.F.R. 1502.16(a), (b); 1508.25(c). In evaluating <br />impacts, the UFO must discuss “[e]nergy requirements and conservation potential of various <br />alternatives and mitigation measures,” “[n]atural or depletable resource requirements and <br />conservation potential of various alternatives and mitigation measures,” and “[m]eans to mitigate <br />adverse environmental impacts (if not fully covered under 1502.14(f)).” 40 C.F.R. §§ <br />1502.16(e), (f), (h). <br /> <br />We emphasize, here, the “heart” of the NEPA process: BLM’s duty to consider <br />“alternatives to the proposed action” and to “study, develop, and describe appropriate <br />alternatives to recommended courses of action in any proposal which involves unresolved <br />conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources.” 42 U.S.C. §§ 4332(2)(C)(iii), <br />4332(2)(E); 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14(a). Alternatives, discussed above, are critical because, <br />“[c]learly, it is pointless to ‘consider’ environmental costs without also seriously considering <br />action to avoid them.” Calvert Cliffs’ Coordinating Comm., Inc. v. U.S. Atomic Energy Commn., <br />449 F.2d 1109, 1128 (D.C. Cir. 1971). Operating in concert with NEPA’s mandate to address <br />environmental impacts, BLM’s fidelity to alternatives analysis helps “sharply defin[e] the issues <br />and provid[e] a clear basis for choice among options by the decision maker and the public.” 40 <br />C.F.R. § 1502.14. An agency must, accordingly, “[r]igorously explore and objectively evaluate <br />all reasonable alternatives” and specifically “[i]nclude the alternative of no action.” 40 C.F.R. §§ <br />1502.14(a), (d). Even where impacts are “insignificant,” BLM must still consider alternatives. <br />Bob Marshall Alliance v. Hodel, 852 F.2d 1223, 1229 (9th Cir. 1988) (agency’s duty to consider <br />alternatives “is both independent of, and broader than,” its duty to complete an environmental <br />analysis); Greater Yellowstone Coalition v. Flowers, 359 F.3d 1257, 1277 (10th Cir. 2004) (duty <br />to consider alternatives “is ‘operative even if the agency finds no significant environmental <br />impact’”). <br />3. BLM Must Strengthen Its Approach to Methane Mitigation. <br /> <br />If the BLM does not adopt a no-leasing alternative, it must strengthen its approach to <br />methane mitigation. While the draft RMP/EIS recognizes methane as a source of GHG emissions <br />from the proposed action and acknowledges the significant impact of methane on climate, the <br />BLM fails to provide a detailed analysis of measures that could be employed to mitigate these <br />emissions. The CEQ has identified “lower GHG-emitting technology” and “capturing or <br />beneficially using GHG emissions such as methane” as two broad categories of mitigation <br />measures that “should” be considered in NEPA reviews. CEQ Final Climate Guidance at 19. At <br />the RMP stage, it is appropriate and advisable for the agency to identify required methane <br />mitigation measures that must be included either (1) as stipulations in future lease sales, or (2) as <br />conditions of approval (“COAs”) for all future APD or MLP approvals or other authorizations <br />for implementation when activities are conducted or equipment is installed. Colorado’s <br />Comprehensive Air Resource Protection Protocol (“CARPP”), provided in Appendix H to the <br />RMP/EIS, is a tool that can provide an important state-of-the-art resource to guide the agency’s