WildEarth Guardians
July 10, 2019?BY ELECTRONIC MAIL ANDU.S. CERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED?Tim SpisakState DirectorNew Mexico State OfficeU.S. Bureau of Land Management301 Dinosaur TrailSanta Fe, NM 87508?Re:? Call to Reject FONSIs and Proposed Environmental Assessments, Request for Public Hearings in Response to Tenth Circuit Ruling??Dear Director Spisak:On behalf of our members and supporters, we urge you to reject the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s (“BLM’s”) Findings of No Significant Impact (“FONSI”) and Environmental Assessments (“EAs”), DOI-BLM-NM-F010-2019-0084-EA, DOI-BLM-NM-F010-2019-0085-EA, DOI-BLM-NM-F010-2019-0086-EA, DOI-BLM-NM-F010-2019-0087-EA, developed in response to the Tenth Circuit’s ruling in Diné Citizens Against Ruining Our Environment v. Bernhardt, 923 F.3d 831 (10th Cir. 2019). ? The undersigned also request that the BLM provide a 60-day public comment period and hold public hearings in conjunction with the proposals in question.There, the Tenth Circuit held that BLM violated the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) by failing to include “any analysis of the cumulative impact to water resources from the 3,960 reasonably foreseeable horizontal Mancos Shale wells” in its approval of five sets of oil and gas wells. Id. at 858. Specifically, the Tenth Circuit held as follows:We conclude that the 3,960 horizontal Mancos Shale wells predicted in the 2014 RFDS [reasonably foreseeable development scenario] were reasonably foreseeable after the 2014 RFDS issued. The BLM therefore had to consider the cumulative impacts of all 3,960 wells when it conducted its site-specific EAs [environmental assessments].?Id. at 850.The Tenth Circuit’s ruling directly applied to five environmental assessments (“EAs”) and decision records (“DRs”), id., that collectively authorized the development of 25 oil and gas applications for permits to drill (“APDs”). As to these EAs, the court concluded that the BLM never considered the cumulative impact of the water use associated with the 3,960 reasonably foreseeable horizontal Mancos Shale wells, in violation of NEPA. Id.?Moreover, in March 2019, WildEarth Guardians and Physicians for Social Responsibility received a favorable ruling in a lawsuit challenging BLM oil and gas leasing in the state of Wyoming. The U.S. District Court for the District of D.C. held as follows:Given the national, cumulative nature of climate change, considering each individual drilling project in a vacuum deprives the agency and the public of the context necessary to evaluate oil and gas drilling on federal land before irretrievably committing to that drilling.... Simply put, NEPA required more robust analyses of GHG emissions from oil and gas drilling and downstream use.WildEarth Guardians v. Zinke, 368 F. Supp. 3d 41, 83 (D.D.C. 2019).??In that case, the BLM had prepared multiple environmental assessments for oil and gas lease sales in Wyoming, each of which failed to consider the full cumulative impacts of other lease sales in the region. The court ruled that this segmented approach violated NEPA and that the BLM was required to “quantify the emissions from each leasing decision—past, present, or reasonably foreseeable—and compare those emissions to regional and national emissions, setting forth with reasonable specificity the cumulative effect of the leasing decision at issue.” Id. at 77.BLM’s proposed EAs repeat the same flaws struck down by the Tenth Circuit and D.C. District Court. Here, BLM fails to account for the cumulative impacts of oil and gas development on our water and climate within New Mexico as well as regionally and nationally.? Given this, the BLM’s administrative actions are similarly legally invalid.?With regard to climate, it is indefensible for BLM to continue to claim that its fossil fuel program,? which is responsible for more than ten percent of the nation’s total climate pollution, is “insignificant.” In 2019, there is no denying that continued expansion of oil and gas production and infrastructure is simply incompatible with any reasonable climate mitigation strategy. As you know, a massive and growing body of science, including the Fourth National Climate Assessment and IPCC 2018 Special Report provides overwhelming evidence that climate hazards are more urgent and more severe than previously thought, and that aggressive reductions in emissions within the next decade are essential to avoiding the most devastating climate change harms. The IPCC report concludes that pathways to limit warming to 1.5°C with little or no overshoot require “a rapid phase out of CO2 emissions and deep emissions reductions in other GHGs and climate forcers.”?Additionally, when analyzing oil and gas development proposals to assure compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act, the BLM has only narrowly assessed adverse impacts to historical sites in the Greater Chaco Landscape.? The Greater Chaco region is more than a handful of iconic ruins. Rather, the region is an interconnected fabric of Ancestral Puebloan cultural influence and impact. As such, preservation of the historical values of this region requires a landscape-level approach to analysis and conservation. Unfortunately, the BLM is not assuring landscape-level cultural protections in the Greater Chaco region. Rather, the agency is addressing only direct impacts to isolated ruins and/or discrete archaeological sites that have been previously identified. Worse, in spite of a commitment to analyze more than 5,000 cultural sites in the region, the agency has yet to follow through with this analysis.Furthermore, the short 10-day public comment period provided for these environmental assessments once again signals to the public that the agency does not intend to provide adequate time for the public to meaningfully comment on its cumulative impacts analysis for these EAs. The BLM has provided a deadline for comments on these proposals by Wednesday, July 10, 2019.? Given the immense environmental controversy surrounding the agency’s proposal, as well as substantial public interest, we request the agency do more than provide a 10-day comment period that ultimately only includes seven work days. We request the BLM bring a higher level of respect and consideration to its public process.?There is no doubt that a deeper public process is required. In accordance with White House Council on Environmental Quality NEPA regulations, the BLM is required to “[m]ake diligent efforts to involve the public in preparing and implementing [its] NEPA procedures.” 40 C.F.R. § 1506.6(a). To this end, the BLM is obligated to “[h]old or sponsor public hearings or public meetings whenever appropriate[.]” Id. § 1506.6(c). It is appropriate to hold public hearings or meetings whenever there is “[s]ubstantial environmental controversy concerning the proposed action or substantial interest in holding the hearing.” Id. § 1506.6(c)(1). The agency’s duty to hold public hearings around its actions is also set forth in the BLM’s NEPA Handbook H-1790-1 at Section 6.9.1.?Given the massive climate, public health, cultural impact, and pollution costs of oil and gas drilling in the Greater Chaco Landscape, there is no denying that there is substantial environmental controversy around the agency’s proposal. The proposal will impact lands, resources, and communities in the Greater Chaco region, which supports Navajo residents, irreplaceable cultural values, and invaluable public lands and outdoor recreational opportunities.?There is also substantial interest in a comment period public hearings. The undersigned, which represent 15 organizations with more than 1.2 million members and supporters are extremely interested in having a public forum within which to engage the BLM and to voice concerns and comments. Coupled with the level of controversy and interest in oil and gas development issues in the Greater Chaco region, this demonstrates there is an enormous amount of public interest in a comment period and in public hearings.?We request the BLM hold at least three hearings around these Environmental Assessments, including one in Farmington, NM, one within the Tri-Chapter region of the Eastern Agency of the Navajo Nation (the Tri-Chapters include Ojo Encino, Torreon, and Counselor), and one in Santa Fe where the New Mexico State Office of the BLM is located. Absent a sufficient comment period and public hearings, approval of these APDs will stand as an affront to the American public interest and our right to due process.?The BLM should take the necessary steps to ensure compliance with the Tenth Circuit’s May 7, 2019 opinion and federal law.? We request the BLM respond in writing to our request as soon as possible. Thank you in advance.??Sincerely,Jeremy Nichols, Climate and Energy Program Director WildEarth Guardians 301 Guadalupe Street, Suite 201 Santa Fe, NM 87505 jnichols@ Daniel Tso, Council Delegate Navajo NationLittlewater, Pueblo Pintado, Torreon, Whitehorse Lake, Baca/Brewitt, Casamero Lake, Ojo Encino, Counselor, New Mexico danieltso@navajo- Counselor Chapter, Navajo Nation?Samuel Sage, Community Services CoordinatorP.O. Box 93Counselor, NM 87108counselor@?Jennifer K. Falcon, Communications CoordinationIndigenous Environmental NetworkSan Antonio, TXjennifer@Laurie Weahkee, Executive DirectorNative American Voters Alliance Education ProjectAlbuquerque, NM NAVA.EducationProject@?Julia Bernal, Environmental Justice DirectorPueblo Action AllianceAlbuquerque, NM?julia.f.bernal@?Terry Sloan, DirectorSouthwest Native Cultures8205 Spain Rd NE Suite 204Albuquerque, NM 87109tas@?Beata Tsosie-Pe?a and Kathy Sanchez, Environmental Health and Justice ProgramTewa Women UnitedEspanola, NMbeata@ and kathy@?Mario Atencio, Executive Director Torreon Community Alliance Torreon, NM mpatencio@ Anson Wright, CoordinatorChaco AlliancePortland, ORansonw@?Nomi Green, CofounderEarth Holder CommunitySanta Fe, NMnomipgreen@?Eleanor Bravo, Southwest DirectorFood & Water Watch1616 P St. NW Ste. 300Washington D.C. 20036ebravo@Shelley Silbert, Executive DirectorGreat Old Broads for WildernessP.O. Box 2924Durango, CO 81302Shelley@Julia Maldonado, Associate DirectorLivelihoods Knowledge Exchange NetworkGoleta, CAjkmaldo@?Susan Gordon, CoordinatorMulticultural Alliance for a Safe EnvironmentAlbuquerque, NMsgordon@Mitch Buszek MoveOn New Mexico Santa Fe, NM mitchb@ Mariel Nanasi, Executive DirectorNew Energy Economy343 East AlamedaSanta Fe, NM 87501mariel@?Mike Eisenfeld, Energy and Climate Program ManagerSan Juan Citizens AllianceFarmington, NM?mike@??Cc: ? U.S. Senator Tom Udall????????U.S. Senator Martin Heinrich????????U.S. Representative Ben Ray Luján????????U.S. Representative Debra Haaland????????New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham? ................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.