Coalition Joins Comments on the Wyoming Bureau of Land Management 2024 Second Quarter Competitive Oil & Gas Lease Sale – The Coalition To Protect America's National Parks

THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY
AUDUBON ROCKIES * COALITION TO PROTECT AMERICA’S NATIONAL PARKS
* FRIENDS OF THE EARTH * MONTANA WILDLIFE FEDERATION * NATIONAL PARKS CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION * NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL

November 15, 2023

SUBMITTED VIA E-PLANNING

Andrew Archuleta State Director
Wyoming Bureau of Land Management
5353 Yellowstone Road
Cheyenne, WY 82009

Project Contacts:
Erik Norelius
en******@bl*.gov
(307) 775-6284

Allen Stegeman
as*******@bl*.gov
(307) 775-6259

Katrina Gray
kl****@bl*.gov
(307) 684-1067

Re: Scoping Comments on parcels for the Wyoming Bureau of Land Management 2024 Second Quarter Competitive Oil & Gas Lease Sale (DOI-BLM-WY-0000-2024- 0001-EA).

Dear State Director Archuleta:

Thank you for the opportunity to submit these scoping comments on parcels under consideration for the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM’s) Wyoming 2024 Second Quarter Oil & Gas Lease Sale. Our organizations and members are deeply invested in sound stewardship of public lands and committed to ensuring that public land management prioritizes the health and resilience of ecosystems, equitably benefits the public, addresses environmental justice, protects biodiversity, and mitigates the impacts of climate change.

We appreciate that the Department of the Interior (DOI) has acknowledged the federal oil and gas leasing program’s significant “deficiencies”¹ and is taking strides to address them. In its Report on the Federal Oil and Gas Leasing Program, DOI recognized that, among other issues, the oil and gas program “inadequately accounts for environmental harms to lands, waters, and other resources; fosters speculation by oil and gas companies”; “extends leasing into low potential lands that may have competing higher values”; “leaves communities out of important conversations about how they want their public lands and waters managed”; and “fails to provide a fair return to taxpayers, even before factoring in the resulting climate-related costs.”² The report highlighted the “urgent” need for tackling long “overdue reform” of the program.

We are grateful for both the proposed Fluid Mineral Leases and Leasing Process Rule (Leasing Rule) and the earlier release of several Instruction Memoranda (IMs) beginning to implement program reforms and provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA).³ The IRA addressed only some of the needed reforms. The Leasing Rule would codify the IRA’s reforms, address other needed reforms, and update severely outdated bonding requirements.

We urge the BLM to finalize the Leasing Rule expeditiously to ensure deficiencies in the oil and gas leasing program are addressed. Because important measures such as adequately updated bonding requirements are not yet in place, we encourage the agency to consider not proceeding with additional leasing before finalizing the Leasing Rule.

Our scoping comments thus recommend:

(1) Ensuring that any parcels included in the proposed lease sale comport with the guidance provided in the IMs released on November 21, 2022.

(2) Prioritizing conservation and climate impacts by exercising the agency’s considerable discretion to defer parcels to protect public lands, waters, and wildlife, cultural resources and sacred sites, and community health and safety.

(3) Properly analyzing and mitigating the impacts of leasing.

(4) Finalizing the Leasing Rule before holding the proposed sale.

I. The BLM should ensure that the lease sale comports with the Instruction Memoranda released on November 21, 2022.

The IRA included several important provisions related to the federal onshore oil and gas program, such as long-overdue updates to the fiscal rates and terms for leasing and drilling on public lands and the elimination of noncompetitive leasing. We thank the BLM for issuing IMs to ensure that all onshore oil and gas lease sales are held in accordance with the IRA and other applicable laws. Any leasing decisions made before new regulations for the federal oil and gas program are in place must adhere to these guidance documents so as not to perpetuate program deficiencies. The BLM should ensure that it reviews the proposed parcels – and conducts the lease sale process – in alignment with all updated policy provisions outlined in the IMs released on November 21, 2022. II. The BLM holds substantial discretion over public land management and the onshore leasing program with ample authority to defer leases proposed for this sale. The BLM has substantial discretion over whether to lease agency managed lands for oil and gas development and production. Under the Mineral Leasing Act (MLA), lands “known or believed to contain oil or gas deposits may be leased” by the Interior Department. 30 U.S.C. § 226(a) (emphasis added). If DOI so chooses to lease lands, sales are held only “where eligible lands are available.” Id. § 226(b)(1)(A) (emphases added). For nearly a century, the U.S. Supreme Court and federal circuit courts have consistently recognized this “broad” and “considerable” discretion over the federal onshore leasing program.⁴

Thus, the BLM is not obligated to lease any specific parcel of public land for oil and gas development. The agency retains the authority to defer all lease sale parcels, even after bidding has concluded. See McDonald v. Clark, 771 F.2d 460, 463 (10th Cir. 1985) (holding that the “fact that land has been offered for lease does not bind the Secretary to actually lease the land, nor is the Secretary bound to lease the land when a qualified applicant has been selected”.⁵

III. The BLM should exercise its authority to defer all the parcels in this lease sale, including by using the criteria in IM 2023-007.

We appreciate the BLM implementing a policy of using leasing criteria detailed in IM 2023-007 to consider parcel deferrals. The IM states that the BLM “will defer lease parcels with a low preference value.” An exception to such deferral occurs “[i]f there are no high preference parcels available for the sale,” in which case “the office will select one or more low preference parcels that present the least conflicts based on the criteria.” We strongly encourage following this guidance.

While the IM preferences leasing parcels with “[p]roximity to existing oil and gas development,” some of these areas risk further concentrating and expanding development, exacerbating ongoing and historical degradation to the affected area and the public health of nearby communities. We urge the BLM to prioritize community health and environmental justice, values the Administration has committed to upholding. As such, so long as there is one high leasing preference parcel available for the sale, the BLM should defer all parcels with any low leasing preference designation, pursuant to IM 2023-007.

For the reasons discussed below, we recommend deferring each of the parcels associated with the following conflicts.

a. Defer the parcel in the Rock Springs Field Office.

This sale includes one parcel in the Rock Springs Field Office, which should be deferred (WY-2024-06-1823). Leasing decisions in the Rock Springs Field Office are being made in accordance with an outdated plan from 1997.⁶ BLM is currently revising the RMP for this field office. However, the draft RMP revision has yet to be finalized.⁷ The agency is severely restricting decision space for the updated RMP by leasing parcels in the field office now. As such, we recommend that BLM defer this parcel in the Rock Springs Field Office.

Leasing during an RMP revision undermines public involvement in the RMP process.

The agency has previously deferred leasing during RMP revisions, and must do so again now, so that leases are offered in areas identified by an up-to-date RMP informed by the most current, best available science and latest public input.

b. Defer all parcels that do not comport with guidance provided in IM 2023- 008.

Three of the lease parcels in Wyoming were nominated anonymously (WY-2024-06- 1770, WY-2024-06-1771,WY-2024-06-1837). Pursuant to IM 2023-008, the BLM should defer the three parcels.

c. Defer all parcels in priority habitat management areas and general habitat management areas for greater sage-grouse.

This lease sale includes two parcels that overlap with Priority Habitat Management Areas (WY-2024-06-1824, WY-2024-06-7295); and nineteen parcels that overlap with General Habitat Management Areas (WY-2024-06-1770, WY-2024-06-1771, WY-2024-06-1786, WY-2024-06- 1823, WY-2024-06-1825, WY-2024-06-1828, WY-2024-06-1829, WY-2024-06-1832, WY- 2024-06-1833, WY-2024-06-1834, WY-2024-06-1835, WY-2024-06-1836, WY-2024-06-1837, WY-2024-06-1838, WY-2024-06-1840, WY-2024-06-1841, WY-2024-06-7294, WY-2024-06- 7295, WY-2024-06-7296). We urge BLM to defer all parcels that contain some or all acreage designated as a Primary Habitat Management Area (PHMA) and General Habitat Management Area (GHMA) under the 2015 Greater Sage-Grouse Resource Management Plan Amendments (the 2015 Plans). Deferral is required for at least two reasons.

First, a key component of the 2015 Plans requires BLM to prioritize new oil and gas leasing outside of PHMA and GHMA to protect that habitat from future disturbance. In May 2020, BLM’s national policy addressing prioritization, Instruction Memorandum 2018-026, was struck down by a court. Montana Wildlife Federation v. Bernhardt, No. 18-cv-69-GF-BMM, 2020 WL 2615631 (D. Mont. May 22, 2020). BLM has not adopted new national guidance on the prioritization requirement and has represented to the Montana court that the agency’s previous prioritization guidance (adopted in 2016) also is not in effect. As a result, there is currently no national guidance providing direction on how prioritization is to be applied. Second, all parcels in sage-grouse habitat should be deferred in light of BLM’s ongoing consideration of revisions to the 2015 Plans. Instruction Memorandum 2021-027 directs that “affected lease parcels must be withdrawn or deferred from leasing until a plan amendment or revision can be completed at a later date.” BLM’s pending RMP revision process requires deferral of parcels in sage-grouse habitat because the terms and conditions of the 2015 Plans must be strengthened to ensure protection of the grouse and avoid the need for an Endangered Species Act listing. Sage- grouse populations have continued to decline under the 2015 Plans.⁸

Furthermore, in March 2021, U.S. Geological Survey researchers released a report that provides one of the mostcomprehensive population trend modeling efforts ever undertaken for sage-grouse.⁹ The report reveals that since 1965, sage-grouse populations have declined 80% range-wide, including in areas where the decline hasnot been as severe. Since 2002, range-wide populations have declined 37%. Also, 78% of leks have a greater than 50% probability of extirpation in the next 56 years. In September 2022, the U.S. Geological Survey and other federal agencies released a report that found that 1.3 million acres of habitat are transitioning each year from largely intact sagebrush sites to less functioning sagebrush habitat.¹⁰

d. BLM should defer parcels in crucial wildlife habitats and documented big game migration corridors.

This lease sale has two parcels that overlap with mule deer crucial winter range habitat (WY-2024-06-1833, WY-2024-06-1834); and 5 parcels that overlap with crucial pronghorn antelope migratory range (WY-2024-06-1828, WY-2024-06-1833, WY-2024-06-1834, WY-2024-06-1840, WY-2024-06-1841). The BLM is required to manage public lands “in a manner that will provide food and habitat” for all wildlife. 43 U.S.C. § 1701(a)(8). Of notable concern are the parcels that impact crucial winter range of mule deer, elk, and pronghorn used to access seasonal habitats. Peer-reviewed research has been clear: mule deer respond unfavorably to oil and gas development in migratory habitats, often missing out on high-quality forage during the spring migration.¹¹ Offering parcels for lease in these habitats could lead to expanded development in areas already excessively impacted by oil and gas fields.

Therefore, the BLM should not be leasing in crucial big game winter range. Extensive leasing in crucial winter range would have significant adverse impacts on Wyoming’s elk, pronghorn, and mule deer herds. By avoiding leasing in crucial migratory ranges, BLM can uphold its duty to provide food and habitat for these critically important big game species.

e. Defer parcels on low potential lands.

The BLM should review, designate, and defer the ten parcels in this lease sale that are found to have a lowpreference for leasing pursuant to IM 2023-007’s preference criteria. The IM directs the BLM to screen parcels for their “[p]otential for development, giving preference to lands with high potential for development.” and if there are “no highpreference parcels available for the sale,” the field office is to select “one or more low preference parcels.” As discussed above, the presence of a single high value leasing preference parcel urges deferral of all parcels with low value leasing preference designation.

Furthermore, leasing lands with low potential for oil and gas development violates FLPMA’s multiple use mandate. The MLA directs BLM to hold periodic oil and gas lease sales for “lands . . . which are known or believed to contain oil or gas deposits.” 30 U.S.C. § 226(a). DOI has, through its internal administrative review body, recognized this mandate. See Vessels Coal Gas, Inc., 175 IBLA 8, 25 (2008) (“It is well-settled under the MLA that competitive leasing is to be based upon reasonable assurance of an existing mineral deposit.”). Thus, leasing parcels in low potential lands would violate the multiple use mandate, because the purpose of leasing lands for oil and gas development is to provide for production of oil and gas – low potential lands are unlikely to actually produce these resources. In offering the parcels involved in this sale that are in low potential lands, BLM risks precludingmanagement decisions for other resources and uses, such as wilderness, recreation, and renewable energy development. Prioritizing leasing of low potential land would violate FLPMA’s multiple use mandate and improperly elevate oil and gas leasing above other uses.

f. The BLM must consistently track EOIs and acreage pursuant to IM 2023- 006.

IM 2023-006, released on November 21, 2022, explains that the BLM “will create and periodically update a report to track the acreage of submitted EOIs” Further, the IM requires the BLM to “place the [EOI acreage] report on the NFLSS Dashboard from the National-Apps Reporting System.” Id. Therefore, the BLM should consistently trackEOIs and acreage pursuant to IM 2023-006 and make that information available to the public.

However, while the DOI has stated that it is proceeding with new lease sales “to comply with congressionaldirection on oil and gas leasing through the [IRA],” it has not established how the proposed oil and gas lease sales align with plans to issue rights-of-way (ROWs) for wind and solar development. IM 2023-006 details how the BLM will determine the acreage it must offer for oil and gas leasing in order to issue wind or solar ROWs pursuant to the IRA and defines the period for calculating the acreage requirement as the “year before the wind or solar energy right- of-way is issued.” However, if the DOI is going to conduct lease sales to comply with the IRA’s tethering provisions, it should do so as part of a clearly articulated and concerted national strategy rather than holding lease sales piecemeal, state office by state office. Any leases offered as part of this lease sale or related lease sales in the one-year period should indeed be part of a plan to issue wind or solar permits. We urge the BLM to offer for lease the minimum amount of acreage necessary under the IRA to enable it to issue renewables ROWs.

The BLM has significant discretion to determine which EOIs have been properly submitted and, ultimately, to determine whether and how much acreage to lease at all. The agency should offer no more acreage than necessary tocomply with the IRA’s requirements for allowing issuance of rights-of-way for responsible and appropriately sited wind and solar development on public lands following these oil and gas lease sales.

IV. The BLM should adhere to recently released Instruction Memorandum 2023- 010 and exercise its discretion to limit leasing because the respective Resource Management Plans are outdated and inadequately account for or address climate change impacts.

IM 2023-010, released on November 21, 2022, explains that “state and field offices will examine resource management decisions to determine whether the RMPs adequately protect important resource values in light of changing circumstances, updated policies, and new information.” When an RMP is deemed in need of updating, “the BLM will exercise its discretion regarding whether to defer any oil and gas leasing parcels from lease sales.” See id. The BLM should adhere to this approach for this sale and carefully examine associated land use plans to determine whether it should defer parcels based on the need to update the respective plans.

Indeed, four of the RMPs covering the nominated lease parcels are in desperate need of revision to account for climate and otherenvironmental impacts. The RMPs covering the Rock Springs Field Office, Casper Field Office, Buffalo Field Office, and Pinedale Field Office parcels under consideration for this lease sale do not adequately account for or addresses the environmental impacts on resources and land uses due to climate change:

BLM Rock Springs Field Office, Approved RMP (1997): No discussion of climate change or GHG emissions;additionally, this RMP is currently being revised.¹² The Approved RMP is outdated and provides no concrete actions to address or mitigate climate change.¹³
BLM Casper Field Office, Approved RMP (Dec. 2007): no discussion of climate change or GHG emissions.¹⁴ The approved RMP is outdated and provides no concrete actions to address or mitigate climate change.¹⁵
BLM Buffalo Field Office, Approved RMP (Sep. 2015): Lacks any discussion on reducing local GHGemissions and observing climate¹⁶. The Approved RMP provides no concrete actions to address or mitigate climate change.¹⁷
BLM Pinedale Field Office, Approved RMP (Aug. 2008): Lacks any discussion on reducing local GHG emissions andobserving climate change.¹⁸ The approved RMP is outdated and provides no concrete actions to address or mitigate climate change. The approved RMP is outdated and provides no concrete actions to address or mitigate climate change.¹⁹

Given the paucity of climate change analysis and lack of substantive measures to address climate impacts in the RMP covering the parcels listed for this lease sale, the BLM should exercise its discretion to substantially limit oil and gas leasing in these resource areas.

V. The BLM should provide robust public participation and Tribal consultation as part of the lease sale process.

Public participation and Tribal consultation are critical to an informed NEPA process. DOI has rightfully committed to providing robust and “enhance[d] opportunities for Tribal and environmental justice community engagement in the NEPA and decision-making process.” Secretarial Order 3399, at *3 (Apr. 16, 2021). To honor its commitment to enhanced public participation and Tribalconsultation, BLM should consider providing, in addition to this scoping comment period, one or more listening sessions beforeissuing any draft NEPA document. Then, BLM should give the public at least 60 days to review and comment on any draft NEPA document. Doing so would help ensure that the public has an adequate “opportunity to comment upon . . . and participate in, the preparation and execution of” this lease sale, as required by FLPMA and NEPA. 43 U.S.C. § 1738(e); 42 U.S.C. § 4332(C).

The Department must also fully consult and engage Tribal nations, both those recognized by the United States as sovereign nations aswell as those not recognized. The United States must recognize the right of Indigenous Peoples to give or withhold “free, prior and informed consent” to projects and policies affecting their lands and people, as stated in the United Nations Declaration on the Rightsof Indigenous Peoples, which the United States has supported for more than a decade. The incorporation of these bottom-up principles in this federal process is an important and needed step as we address the history of public lands in the United States.

VI. The BLM must take a hard look under NEPA and FLPMA at the environmental and cultural effects of this lease sale and the combined environmental impacts of the related 2023 and 2024 lease sales announced as part of this national decision.

Pursuant to NEPA, the BLM must properly analyze and quantify the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts that would result from all aspects of leasing, along with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable federal and non-federal oil and gas development and production decisions. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.1 (2022). This includes but is not limited to analyzing the impacts to BLM resources and to global warming due to associated greenhouse gas emissions, the human environment, cultural resources, environmental justice, and wildlife. Court decisions clearly establish that NEPA²⁰ NEPA mandates consideration and analysis of the indirect and cumulative climate impacts of BLM fossil fuel production decisions, including at the leasing stage.²¹

a. BLM must take a hard look at the impacts of the lease sale on climate change and the impacts of climate change on the lease sale.

On January 9, 2023, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) released updated guidance on how agencies should consider and analyze GHG emissions and climate change in NEPA reviews.²² To that end, the BLM should follow this guidance, including quantifying the reasonably foreseeable GHG emissions – both direct and indirect – of the lease sale under each alternative.²³ Further, the BLM must “[d]isclose and provide context for the GHG emissions and climate impacts associated with the lease sale and alternatives.”²⁴ Further, the BLM must “[d]isclose and provide context for the GHG emissions and climate impacts associated with the lease sale and alternatives.” As part of its analysis, the BLM must also consider the effects of climate change on reasonably foreseeable oil and gas activities that will result from the sale. This requires evaluating how climate disruption will affect the resources, ecosystem, communities, and oil and gas infrastructure, making it more vulnerable to adverse impacts and stranded assets.²⁵ Finally, the BLM must analyze reasonable alternatives, “including those that would reduce GHG emissions relative to baseline conditions, and identify available mitigation measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for climate effects.”²⁶

The climate guidance instructs the BLM not to fractionalize GHG emissions from this lease sale so as to appear insignificant compared to global or national emissions. The BLM’s climate effects analysis “must give a realistic evaluation of the total impactsand cannot isolate a proposed project, viewing it in a vacuum.” Grand Canyon Trust v. Fed. Aviation Admin. , 290 F.3d 339, 342 (D.C. Cir. 2002).²⁷ Further, the BLM must place emissions and climate damages “in the context of relevant climate action goals and commitments, . . .summarizing and citing to available scientific literature to help explain real world effects.”²⁸ Recent analysis finds that for developed nations, including the United States, in order to maintain a 67% chance of avoiding 1.5°C of warming, the United States must end oil and gas production by 2031.²⁹ Leases and resulting application for permits to drill (APDs) covering hundreds of thousands of acres that would extendwell beyond 2031, including in terms of production, quite clearly have an impact that must not be disregarded.

CEQ guidance also includes accounting for national climate policy in the analysis for the sale. The CEQ climate guidance directs agencies “to discuss whether and to what extent the proposal’s reasonably foreseeable GHG emissions are consistent with GHG reduction goals, such as those reflected in the U.S. nationally determined contribution under the Paris Agreement.”³⁰ The BLM should conduct this consistency evaluation with U.S. climate commitments and targets.

Relatedly, BLM’s NEPA analysis must address the social and economic costs resulting from development of any leases it offers andexplain what benefits warrant incurring those costs. The CEQ climate guidance instructs agencies to use social cost of greenhouse gases (SC-GHG) estimates, which can “assist in assessing the significance of climate impacts.”³¹ The BLM should focus on SC-GHG estimates consistent with the best available science, employing low discount rates that properly consider the considerable harm to future generations.³²

b. The BLM must take a hard look at impacts to groundwater from well construction practices and hydraulic fracturing.

NEPA requires the BLM to assess all the potential environmental impacts from oil and gas leases before itoffers those leases to operators. That responsibility includes taking a “hard look” at how ensuing development could impact groundwater. WildEarth Guardians v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 457 F. Supp. 3d 880, 886–89 (D. Mont. May 1, 2020).

Groundwater is a critical resource that supplies many communities, particularly rural ones, with drinking water. Protecting theseresources is imperative to protect human health and the environment, especially because groundwater will become more important as increased aridity and higher temperatures due to climate change alter water use, quality, and availability. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has noted that existing drinking water resources “may not be sufficient in some locations to meet future demand” and that future sources of fresh drinking “will likely be affected by changes in climate and water use.”³³ As a result, the BLM must protect aquifers currently used for drinking water and deeper and higher- salinity aquifers that may be needed in coming decades.

Oil and gas drilling involves boring wells to depths thousands of feet below the surface, often through or just above groundwateraquifers. Without proper well construction and vertical separation between aquifers and fractured formations, oil and gasdevelopment can contaminate underground sources of water.³⁴ However, federal rules and regulations do not provide specific direction for the BLM and operators to protect all usable water. Even rules that purport to do so, like Onshore Order No. 2’s requirement to “protect and/or isolate all usable water zones,” are inconsistently applied and often disregarded in practice.³⁵

Moreover, industry has admitted that it often does not protect usable water in practice. Western Energy Alliance and the Independent Petroleum Association of America have told the BLM that the “existing practice for locating and protecting usable water” does not measure the numerical quality of water underlying drilling locations, and thereforedoes not consider whether potentially usable water would be protected during drilling.³⁶ For example, a report studying a sample of existing oil and gas well records in Montana confirms industry admissions that well casing and cementing practices do not always protect underground sources of drinking water³⁷. Similarly, a study of hydraulic fracturing in Pavillion, Wyoming, confirmed that oil and gas drilling had contaminated underground sources of drinking water in that area due to lack of vertical separation between the aquifer and target formation.³⁸

Given these risks to a critical resource, the BLM must evaluate potential groundwater impairment. As a threshold matter, the BLM must provide a detailed account of all regional groundwater resources that could be impacted, including usable aquifers that may not currently be used as a drinking water supply. The accounting must include, at minimum, all aquifers with up to 10,000 parts per million total dissolved solids, and it cannot substitute existing drinking water wells or any other incomplete proxy for a full description of all usable or potentially usable groundwater in the region.

Second, the BLM must use that accounting to assess how new oil and gas wells might impact these resources. That evaluation must assess the sufficiency of protective measures that will be employed, including wellbore casing and cementing and vertical separation between aquifers and the oil and gas formations likely to be hydraulically fractured. In assessing these protections, the BLM cannot presume that state and federal regulations will protectgroundwater, because of the shortcomings and industry noncompliance described above.

The BLM may not defer this analysis of groundwater impacts to the APD stage. WildEarth Guardians, 457 F. Supp. 3d at 888. Failure to conduct this analysis would violate NEPA. See id.

c. BLM Must analyze impacts related to wastewater production & disposal for leases offered in the Moneta Divide Area.

There are six parcels being offered in this lease sale that overlap with the Moneta Divide Area (WY-2024-06-1828, WY-2024-06-1829, WY-2024-06-1832, WY-2024-06-1834, WY-2024-06-1840, WY-2024-06-1841) and should be deferred. The BLM must address the long- standing concerns andissues related to wastewater production and disposal in the Moneta Divide oil and gas field. The current operator of the field, Aethon Energy, operates a wastewater disposal system with discharge to tributaries of Boysen Reservoir and the Class I Wind River, a river with cultural and economic importance to the tribal governments of the Wind River Reservation. This wastewater disposal system has impaired these tributaries and there are outstanding obligations under a state discharge permit to bring a wastewater treatment system into operation. Aethon has violated the permit effluent limits for dissolved iron, dissolved zinc, oil and grease, and pH. The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WYDEQ) itself has identified instances where Aethon violated its permit and water quality criteria for the presence of black sediment deposits, water surface foams, mineral deposits, and free oil accumulations in Alkali and Badwater Creeks. Current wastewater discharges are dangerous to aquatic life in these tributary streams.

Further leasing and development in the area will only exacerbate these concerns and others that produced watercontaining total dissolved solids (TDS) concentrations well above the maximum limit specified in WYDEQ regulations would not be of good enough quality for livestock and wildlife watering, impacting the ability to put discharged water to beneficial use.

Aethon’s solution to these wastewater discharge issues has been to seek an aquifer exemption for disposal of wastewater into the Madison Formation. This aquifer exemption is opposed by conservation organizations because the water in the Madison Formation is of such quality that it is a viable future drinking water source for nearby communities, including communities on the Wind River Reservation. This aquifer exemption request is currently pending with EPA’s Region 8 Office in Denver and until such time as it is approved, or until Aethon secures another method of adequate and environmentally protective wastewater disposal, such as a water treatment plant, future wastewater disposal will impactstreams and wildlife in the Moneta Divide area. The BLM must consider these impacts and give them a hard look before authorizing additional oil and gas leasing in the area.

We have attached a series of letters and references to these comments explaining the myriad issues surroundingwastewater production and disposal in the Moneta Divide field.³⁹ BLM must consider these impacts and give them a hard look before authorizing additional oil and gas leasing in the area.

d. The BLM should thoroughly analyze the socioeconomic impacts of oil and gas leasing.

The BLM must analyze the socioeconomic impacts of oil and gas leasing. The best available SC-GHG estimates provide an appropriate measure of the anticipated costs of the BLM’s leasing decisions.⁴⁰ While NEPA does not require a straight cost-benefit analysis,⁴¹ the BLM may include the analysis to assist the agency and the public in weighing thechoice among different alternatives and “as an aid in evaluating the environmental consequences.”⁴²

Generating an estimate of estimated economic benefits from each lease sale is feasible. For example, previous lease sale EAs have forecast the bonus and rental payments resulting from that proposed sale.⁴³ It is also realistic to forecast potential oil and gas production (and thus royalties and other economic benefits) from the proposed leases. The BLM has prepared reasonably foreseeable development estimates in Colorado and other states, ⁴⁴that can be used for a forecast of future production. Moreover, the BLM’s estimate of GHG impacts further illustrates that the agency can make such projections. While recognizing uncertainties, the agency used “estimated well numbers based on State data for past lease development combined with per-well drilling, development, and operating emissions data from representative wells in the area. For purposes of estimating production and end-use emissions, reasonably foreseeable wells are assumed to produce oil and gas in similar amounts as existing nearby wells.” ⁴⁵ A similar methodology could be used to estimate production royalty and related economic benefits from the leases.

One recent example illustrates how a comparison of costs and benefits bear on environmental impacts can be vital. In an assessment finalized in January 2021, the BLM declined to apply SC-GHG for a proposed coal mineexpansion, deeming the project’s emissions insignificant upon limited examination. ⁴⁶ Annual greenhouse gas emissions for that project totaled approximately 11.4 million metric tons. ⁴⁷ Using the current central estimate of climate damages of $51 permetric ton, this quantity of emissions translates to roughly $581 million in annual climate damages. Yet, according to the BLM’s own analysis, the entire project was expected to produce only $254 million in total revenue⁴⁸ – less than half of its annual climate cost. Had the BLM monetized key impacts, it should have determined not to proceed with the harmful project because the climate costs alone (not even including other substantial environmental and public-health costs) clearly outweighed the project’s economic benefits.

The need to adequately consider the environmental costs and benefits (if any) of its leasing decisions is also part of the BLM’s obligation under FLPMA’s multiple-use mandate. FLPMA requires striking a balance between conflicting uses, such as oil and gas development and climate (and numerous other uses). As the Supreme Court has noted, “multiple use” describes the enormouslycomplicated task of striking a balance among the many competing uses to which land can be put, “including, but not limited to, recreation, range, timber, minerals, watershed, wildlife and fish, and [uses serving] natural scenic, scientific and historical values.”Norton v. SUWA, 542 U.S. 55, 58 (2004) (quoting 43 U.S.C. § 1702(c)). The BLM cannot strike that balance without even considering what it is balancing.

e. The BLM should thoroughly analyze the impacts of oil and gas leasing on public health.

The Biden Administration has committed to “promot[ing] and protect[ing] public health and the environment” and “advanc[ing] environmental justice.” ⁴⁹ The BLM must acknowledge foreseeable direct, indirect, and cumulative human health impacts resulting from fossil fuel development should these lease sales proceed. Protecting public health is fundamental to the underlying purpose of NEPA, which was enacted in part to “stimulate the health and welfare of man,” and mandates that agencies consider the degree to which their proposed actions affect public health or safety. 42 U.S.C § 4321; 40 C.F.R § 1508.27(b)(2).

We urge taking a hard look not only at direct health impacts and proximity-related health impacts of oil and gas development, but also at cumulative health risks and impacts. See 40

C.F.R. § 1508.1(g)(3). Cumulative health risks and impacts can arise not only from multiple pollutant exposures, andcumulative pollution exposures over time, but also from compounding structural, social, and economic factors, many of which are rooted in systemic inequities and injustices. However, to adequately analyze human health impacts, the BLM should incorporate findings from regionally relevant health impact assessments. ⁵⁰

f. The BLM should thoroughly analyze the impacts of oil and gas leasing on environmental justice.

The BLM must take a hard look at environmental justice – not just in relation to health, but also in its own right. As defined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “environmental justice” means “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people, regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, in the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” ⁵¹ Executive Order (EO) 12898 requires each Federal agency to “make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low- income populations.” ⁵² As the court stated in Standing Rock v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, “NEPA creates, through the Administrative Procedure Act, a right of action deriving from Executive Order 12898.⁵³” Even more recently, President Biden’s January 27, 2021, “Executive Order on Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad” explicitly recognizes the inexorable links among climate, health, and environmental justice (which includes social and economic justice), and the corresponding need to address all of them in concert, with a whole-of- government approach. ⁵⁴ Environmental Justice is a “relevant factor” for which federal agencies must take a hard look under NEPA.⁵⁵

g. The BLM must properly analyze methane emissions that would result from the lease sales.

The BLM must take the requisite hard look at the impacts of methane emissions that will result from development of and production on these leases, including the economic, public health, and public welfare impacts of venting and flaring. ⁵⁶ In 2019 alone, venting or flaring accounted for roughly 150 billion cubic feet of methane, resulting in the loss of over $50 million in federal royalty revenue. This waste also means lost royalty revenues for taxpayers and Tribes. A recent analysis conducted by Synapse Energy Economics determined the value of lost gas in the form of: (1) lost royalties; (2) lost state revenue from taxes; and (3) lost revenue from wasted natural gas that could be used for other purposes. The study found that $63.3 million in royalties, $18.8 million in state revenue from taxes (from the top six states), and $509 million in gas value was lost due to venting, flaring, and leaks on federal and Tribal lands. ⁵⁷ The report found that, in 2019, leaks accounted for 46% and flaring for 54% of lost gas. ⁵⁸ Wyoming had among the highest volumes of gas lost from federal and Tribal lands⁵⁹.

Venting and flaring on Tribal and federal public lands has significant health impacts on frontline and fence line communities. ⁶⁰ Proximity to oil and gas infrastructure creates disproportionate adverse health risks and impacts on Indigenous communities in particular. ⁶¹ According to an Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) analysis, roughly 1,100adults with asthma, 800 adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 700 adults with coronary heart disease, and 400 adults who have experienced a stroke live within a half mile of a flaring well. ⁶² Another study links flaring to shorter gestation and reduced fetal growth. ⁶³ Reducing waste from flaring on federal and Tribal lands would lessen these harms and would be consistent with the Administration’s environmental justice commitments. Therefore, the BLM should not issue additional oil and gas leases until the agency addresses waste on Tribal and federal public lands.

VII. The BLM must consider a range of reasonable alternatives, including a conservation and climate alternative.

The BLM must evaluate a range of reasonable alternatives in the NEPA document prepared for this lease sale. The range of alternatives is the heart of a NEPA document because “[w]ithout substantive, comparative environmental impact information regarding other possible courses of action, the ability of [a NEPA analysis] to inform agency deliberation and facilitate public involvement would be greatly degraded.” New Mexico ex el. Richardson, 565 F.3d at683, 708. NEPA analysis must cover a reasonable range of alternatives so that an agency can make an informed choice from the spectrum of reasonable options. An environmental review offering a choice between leasing every parcel nominated, and leasing nothing at all, fails to present a reasonable range of alternatives.

The BLM should consider at least one conservation and climate alternative. The CEQ climate guidance directsagencies to “evaluate reasonable alternatives that may have lower GHG emissions, which could include technically and economically feasible clean energy alternatives to proposed fossil fuel-related projects.” ⁶⁴ Importantly,

agencies should explain how the proposed action and alternatives would help meet or detract from achievingrelevant climate action goals and commitments, including Federal goals, international agreements, state or regional goals, Tribal goals, agency-specific goals, or others as appropriate…………….. [A]gencies should identify the alternative with the lowest net GHG emissions or the greatest net climate benefits among the alternatives they assess. And they should use the NEPA process to make informed decisions grounded in science that are transparent with respect to how Federal actions will help meet climate change goals and commitments, or alternately, detract from them.⁶⁵

NEPA analysis must compare “relevant GHG emissions, GHG emission reductions, and carbon sequestration potential across reasonable alternatives, assessing trade-offs with other environmental values, and evaluating the risksfrom or resilience to climate change inherent in a proposed action and its design.” ⁶⁶ Because of the “urgency of the climate crisis,” the BLM “should use the information provided through the NEPA process to help inform decisions that align with climate change commitments and goals.” Therefore, for this lease sale, the BLM should consider a protective alternative in line with U.S. climate commitments.

VIII. The BLM must properly evaluate mitigation measures.

NEPA requires BLM to include a discussion of possible mitigation measures in an environmental assessment. See WildEarth Guardians v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 784 F.3d 677, 698 (10th Cir. 2015) (ruling that an EA must “explore mitigation measures where it acknowledges the possibility that the agency action will cause environmental harm”). CEQ’s climate guidance explains that mitigation “plays a particularly important role in how agencies should assess the potential climate change effects of proposed actions and reasonable alternatives.” ⁶⁷ The guidance emphasizes that “[a]gencies should consider mitigation measures that will avoid or reduce GHG emissions.”⁶⁸ Because of the “urgency of the climate crisis, CEQ encourages agencies to mitigate GHG emissions to the greatest extent possible,” including in terms of the alternatives analyzed. ⁶⁹

IX. Conclusion.

We appreciate your consideration of the information, recommendations, and concerns in this scoping comment letter, including the appendix and attached references. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Respectfully submitted,

James Mowdy, on behalf of the undersigned parties
Associate Attorney
The Wilderness Society
503 West Mendenhall
Bozeman, MT 59715
ja*********@tw*.org

Daly Edmunds
Policy and Outreach Director
Audubon Rockies

Mike Murray
Chair
The Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks

Nicole Ghio Sr.
Fossil Fuels Program Manager
Friends of the Earth

Garrett Titus
Conservation Policy Specialist
Montana Wildlife Federation

Beau Kiklis Sr.
Program Manager – Energy & Landscape Conservation
National Parks Conservation Association

Joshua Axelrod
Senior Policy Advocate
Natural Resources Defense Council

1
U.S. DEP’T OF THE INTERIOR, REPORT ON THE FEDERAL OIL AND GAS LEASING PROGRAM 3 (Nov. 2021) [hereinafter DOI REPORT].
2
Id.
3
See Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, H.R. 5376, 117th Cong. §§ 50262–50263 (2022).
4
4 Udall v. Tallman, 380 U.S. 1, 4 (1965) (“The Mineral Leasing Act [MLA] of 1920 . . . left the Secretary discretion to refuse to issue any lease at all on a given tract.”); United States ex rel. McLennan v. Wilbur, 283 U.S. 414, 419 (1931) (ruling that the Interior Secretary possesses “general powers over the public lands as guardian of the people,” which include the authority to deny oil and gas lease applications); W. Energy Alliance v. Salazar, 709 F.3d 1040, 1044 (10th Cir. 2013) (“The MLA, as amended by the Reform Act of 1987, continues to vest the Secretary with considerable discretion to determine which lands will be leased.”); New Mexico ex rel. Richardson v. BLM, 565 F.3d 683, 710 (10th Cir. 2009) (“It is past doubt that the principle of multiple use does not require BLM to prioritize development over other uses. Development is a possible use, which BLM must weigh against other possible uses including conservation to protect environmental values. . . .”); Bob Marshall Alliance v. Hodel, 852 F.2d 1223, 1230 (9th Cir. 1988) (“[T]he Mineral Leasing Act gives the Interior Secretary discretion to determine which lands are to be leased under the statute. . . . Thus refusing to issue the . . . leases would constitute a legitimate exercise of the discretion granted to the Interior Secretary under that statute.”); McDonald v. Clark, 771 F.2d 460, 463 (10th Cir. 1985) (“It is clear that the Secretary has broad discretion in this area. While the statute gives the Secretary the authority to lease government lands under oil and gas leases, this power is discretionary rather than mandatory.”); Burglin v. Morton, 527 F.2d 486, 488 (9th Cir. 1975) (“The permissive word ‘may’ in Section 226(a) allows the Secretary to lease such lands, but does not require him to do so. Although Section 226(c) requires the Secretary to issue the lease to the first qualified applicant if the land is leased, the Secretary has discretion to refuse to issue any lease at all on a given tract.”).
5
See also Justheim Petroleum v. Dep’t of Interior, 769 F.2d 668, 671 (10th Cir. 1985) (language in 30 U.S.C. § 226 mandating that “lands to be leased shall be leased to the highest responsible qualified bidder” did not require issuing a lease, but only required awarding lease to that bidder “if [the Secretary] is going to lease at all”); Western Energy All. v. Salazar, No. 10–cv–0226, 2011 WL 3737520, *3–6 (D. Wyo. June 29, 2011) (holding that BLM is not required to issue leases after offering them at auction; it only needs to make a decision within 60 days on whether to issue the leases). The permanent injunction on the leasing “Stop” issued by the District Court for the Western District of Louisiana does not alter this vast discretion. The scope of the injunction does not cover “Lease Sales cancelled or postponed after March 24, 2021, and as to any lease sales involving non-plaintiff states, which precludes Wyoming, New Mexico, Colorado, and Nevada, among others. See Louisiana v. Biden, No. 2:21- CV-00778, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148570, at *42 (W.D. La. Aug. 18, 2022). Further, the order enjoins the Administration only from implementing “a Stop . . . as set forth in Section 208 of Executive Order 14008.” Id. The injunction thus poses no obstacle to Interior deferring parcels or completely canceling a lease sale for other reasons.
6
See supra note 12 and accompanying text.
7
Id.
8
See, e.g., Angus Thuermer, Jr, Wyo sage grouse counts fall again, marking a 5-year trend, Wyo File (Sept. 14, 2021) (noting that “Wyoming’s 2021 count of male greater sage grouse declined 13% compared to 2020”), https://www.wyofile.com/wyo-sage-grouse-counts-fall-again-marking-a-5-year-trend/.
9
Peter S. Coates et al., Range-wide Greater Sage-Grouse Hierarchical Monitoring Framework: Implications for Defining Population Boundaries, Trend Estimation, and a Targeted Annual Warning System (March 2021), https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20201154.
10
Doherty, K., Theobald, D.M., Bradford, J.B., Wiechman, L.A., Bedrosian, G., Boyd, C.S., Cahill, M., Coates, P.S., Creutzburg, M.K., Crist, M.R., Finn, S.P., Kumar, A.V., Littlefield, C.E., Maestas, J.D., Prentice, K.L., Prochazka, B.G., Remington, T.E., Sparklin, W.D., Tull, J.C., Wurtzebach, Z., and Zeller, K.A., 2022, A sagebrush conservation design to proactively restore America’s sagebrush biome: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2022–1081, 38 p.
11
Aikens, E.O., Wyckoff, T.B., Sawyer, H. et al. Industrial energy development decouples ungulate migration from the green wave. Nat Ecol Evol (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-022-01887-9.
12
BLM ROCK SPRINGS FIELD OFFICE, APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN (1997).
13
Id.
14
BLM CASPER FIELD OFFICE, APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN (DEC. 2007).
15
Id.
16
BLM BUFFALO FIELD OFFICE, APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN (Sep. 2015).
17
Id.
18
BLM PINEDALE FIELD OFFICE, APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN (Aug. 2008).
19
Id.
20
On April 16, 2021, the Department of the Interior Secretary Deb Haaland issued Secretarial Order 3399, Department-Wide Approach to the Climate Crisis and Restoring Transparency and Integrity to the Decision-Making Process, directing all Interior bureaus and offices “not [to] apply the 2020 [NEPA] Rule in a manner that would change the application or level of NEPA that would have been applied to a proposed action before the 2020 Rule went into effect Bureaus/Offices will continue to follow the Department’s NEPA regulations at 43 C.F.R. Part 46, Department Manual procedures (516 DM Ch. 1-15), and guidance and instruction from the Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance.” SO 3399 at *3–4.
21
See Sierra Club v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm’n, 867 F.3d 1357, 1374 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (requiring quantification of indirect greenhouse gas emissions); Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Nat’l Highway Transp. Safety Admin., 538 F.3d 1172, 1215–16 (9th Cir 2008) (requiring assessment of the cumulative impacts of climate change); WildEarth Guardians v. Zinke, 368 F. Supp. 3d 41, 77 (D.D.C. 2019) (invalidating nine BLM NEPA analyses in support of oil and gas lease sales because “BLM did not take a hard look at drilling-related and downstream [greenhouse gas] emissions from the leased parcels and, it failed to sufficiently compare those emissions to regional and national emissions”); 40 C.F.R. § 1508.1 (2022).
22
National Environmental Policy Act Guidance on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change, 88 Fed. Reg. 1196 (Jan. 9, 2023).
23
Id. at 1200.
24
Id. at 1201.
25
Id. at 1208.
26
Id. at 1200–02.
27
See also Great Basin Mine Watch v. Hankins, 456 F.3d 955, 973–74 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding agency’s cumulative impacts analysis insufficient based on failure to discuss other mining projects in the region); Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project v. Blackwood, 161 F.3d 1208, 1214-16 (9th Cir. 1998) (overturning Forest Service EA that analyzed impacts of only one of five concurrent logging projects in the same region); Kern v. BLM, 284 F.3d 1062, 1078 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding that BLM arbitrarily failed to include cumulative impacts analysis of reasonably foreseeable future timber sales in the same district as the current sale); San Juan Citizens All. v. United States BLM, 326 F. Supp. 3d 1227, 1248 (D.N.M. 2018) (holding that BLM failed to take an hard look at the cumulative impact of GHG emissions (citing Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Nat’l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., 538 F.3d 1172, 1217 (9th Cir. 2008) (concluding that an agency “must provide the necessary contextual information about the cumulative and incremental environmental impacts” because even though the impact might be “individually minor,” its impact together with the impacts of other actions would be “collectively significant”))).
28
Id.
29
D. Calverley and K. Anderson, Phaseout pathways for fossil fuel production within Paris-compliant carbon budgets, Tyndall Centre, University of Manchester (2022).
30
88 Fed. Reg. at 1203.
31
Id. at 1202–03.
32
See Id.
33
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Hydraulic Fracturing for Oil and Gas: Impacts from the Hydraulic Fracturing Water Cycle on Drinking Water Resources in the United States, EPA/600/R-16/236F, at 2–18 (Dec. 2016) [hereinafter EPA 2016 Report], www.epa.gov/hfstudy.
34
See, e.g., Gayathri Vaidyanathan, Fracking Can Contaminate Drinking Water, at 8, Sci. Am. (Apr. 4, 2016); Dominic C. DiGiulio & Robert A. Jackson, Impact to Underground Sources of Drinking Water and Domestic Wells from Production Well Stimulation and Completion Practices in the Pavillion, Wyoming Field, 50 AM. CHEM. SOCIETY, ENVTL. SCI. & TECH. 4524, 4532 (Mar. 29, 2016); EPA 2016 Report.
35
See BLM, Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Rule to Rescind the 2015 Hydraulic Fracturing Rule, at 44–45 (Dec. 2017), https://beta.regulations.gov/document/BLM-2017-0001-0464.
36
Western Energy Alliance and the Independent Petroleum Association of America, Sept. 25, 2017 comments Re: RIN 1004-AE52, Oil and Gas; Hydraulic Fracturing on Federal and Indian Lands; Rescission of a 2015 Rule (82 Fed. Reg. 34,464) (2017 WEA comments), at 59, https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=BLM- 2017-0001-0412.
37
37 Rebecca Tisherman, et al., Examination of Groundwater Resources in Areas of Wyoming Proposed for the June 2022 BLM Lease Sale (May 12, 2022); Dominic Digiulio, Examination of Selected Production Files in Southcentral Montana to Support Assessment of the March 2018 BLM Lease Sale (December 22, 2017), https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/nepa/87551/136880/167234/Earthjustice_Protest_1-12-2018.pdf (Exhibit D to David Katz and Jack and Bonnie Martinell’s protest of the March 13, 2018 BLM Montana-Dakotas oil and gas lease sales).
38
DiGiulio, supra note 34, at 4532.
39
See generally Memorandum regarding the Meyer-Bergman Comments on Aethon Draft Permit WY0002062-Major Modification (Nov. 10, 2021) (on file with author); Letter from Kevin Frederick, Water Quality Administrator, Wyoming Dept. of Environmental Quality, to Andrea Taylor, Aethon Energy (Aug. 7, 2020) (on file with the Wyoming Dept. of Environmental Quality); Letter from Lloyd Googles, Chairman, Northern Arapaho Business Council, to Darcy O’Connor, Director, U.S. EPA Region 8, Water Division (Aug. 18, 2023) (on file with the U.S. EPA Region 8 Office); Robert S. Raucher et al., Economic Arguments for Denying an Aquifer Exemption Request for the Madison Formation, Wind River Basin, WY, (Mar. 15, 2021) (On file with U.S. EPA Region 8 Water Division); Memorandum from Harold Bergman et al., regarding the Meyer-Bergman FINAL Comments on Aethon Draft 2 Permit WY0002062-Renewal (Feb. 18, 2020) (on file with the author); Comments from The Wilderness Society et al., to Ben Kniola, BLM Project Manager, regarding the Moneta Divide Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Jul. 18, 2019) (on file with The Wilderness Society); Letter from Powder River Basin Resource Council et al., to Ronald Steg, Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, regarding the Comments on Public Review Draft of Wyoming’s 202 Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report (Feb. 20, 2020) (on file with the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality); Letter from Kevin Frederick, Administrator, Water Quality Division, to Andrea Taylor, Regulatory & HSE Manager, Aethon Energy, regarding the WYPDES Permit No. WY0002062 Violation Response (Apr. 16, 2020) (on file with Wyoming Dept. of Environmental Quality, Water Division).
40
See 88 Fed. Reg. at 1202.
41
Id. at 1211.
42
Id.
43
See, e.g., Bureau of Land Mgmt., First Quarter 2022 Oil and Gas Lease Parcel Sale DOI-BLM-MT-0000- 2021- 0006-EA 72 & tbl. 28 – 74 & tbl. 29 (Oct. 27, 2021).
44
Bureau of Land Mgmt., Draft Environmental Assessment for the 2022 First Quarter Competitive Oil & Gas Lease Sale Parcels in the BLM Kremmling, Little Snake, Royal Gorge, and White River Field Offices and Parcels in the USDA Forest Service Pawnee National Grassland Office 22–24 (Nov. 2021).
45
See Bureau of Land Mgmt., Environmental Assessment, DOI-BLM-WY-0000-2021-0003-EA 8 (Oct. 27, 2021).
46
46 Bureau of Land Mgmt., Lila Canyon Mine Lease Modifications Environmental Assessment 38–39 & tbl. 3-12 (DOI-BLM-UT-G020-2018-0039-EA) (2021).
47
Id. at 38 tbl. 3-12.
48
Id. at 54.
49
Executive Order 13990, Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis, sec. 1.
50
See K. Lock, Health impact assessment, BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL 320 (2000).
51
See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Justice, www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice.
52
52 Exec. Order No. 12,898, 59 Fed. Reg. 32 (Feb. 11, 1994), https://www.archives.gov/files/federal- register/executive-orders/pdf/12898.pdf.
53
440 F. Supp. 3d 1, 9 (D. D.C. 2020), vacated by, in part, affirmed by, in part, Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. United States Army Corp of Eng’rs, 985 F.3d 1032 (D.C. Cir. 2021).
54
See Executive Order 14008, 86 Fed. Reg. 7619-7633, Tackling the climate crisis at home and abroad (January 27, 2021), https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/27/executive-order- ontackling-the-climate-crisis-at-home-and-abroad/.
55
See Latin Ams. for Social & Econ. Dev. v. Fed. Highway Admin., 756 F.3d 447, 465 (6th Cir. 2014); Coliseum Square Ass’n, Inc. v. Jackson, 465 F.3d 215, 232 (5th Cir. 2006); Cmtys. Against Runway Expansion, Inc. v. FAA, 355 F.3d 678, 689 (D.C. Cir. 2004); Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 440 F. Supp. 3d 1, 9 (D. D.C. 2020), vacated by, in part, affirmed by, in part, Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. United States Army Corp of Eng’rs, 985 F.3d 1032 (D.C. Cir. 2021); Friends of Buckingham v. State Air Pollution Control Bd., 947 F.3d 68, 87 (4th Cir. 2020).
56
See, e.g., EDF, Flaring Aerial Survey Results (2021), https://www.permianmap.org/flaring-emissions/.
57
Olivia Griot et al., Onshore Natural Gas Operations on Federal and Tribal Lands in the United States: Analysis of Emissions and Lost Revenue, Synapse Energy Economics Inc., 3 (Jan. 20, 2023), https://blogs.edf.org/energyexchange/files/2023/01/EMBARGOED_EDF-TCS_Public_Lands_Analysis.pdf.
58
Id. at 23.
59
Id. at 24
60
E.g., Jeremy Proville et al., The demographic characteristics of populations living near oil and gas wells in the USA, 44 Population and Environment 1 (2022), https://doi.org/10.1007/s11111-022-00403-2.
61
See, e.g., id. at 2–5.
62
Olivia Griot et al., supra note 57.
63
Lara J. Cushing et al., Flaring from Unconventional Oil and Gas Development and Birth Outcomes in the Eagle Ford Shale in South Texas, 128 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES, 077003 (2020).
64
88 Fed. Reg. at 1204.
65
Id. at 1203–04.
66
Id. at 1203.
67
National Environmental Policy Act Guidance on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change, 88 Fed. Reg. 1196, 1206 (emphasis added) (Jan. 9, 2023).
68
Id. at 1204, 1206.
69
69 Id. at 1206 (emphasis added); id. at 1204.