THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY
THE COALITION TO PROTECT AMERICA’S NATIONAL PARKS * FRIENDS OF THE EARTH US * ROCKY MOUNTAIN WILD
April 10, 2024
BLM New Mexico State Office
Attention: Melanie Barnes, State Director
301 Dinosaur Trail
Santa Fe, NM 87508
Re: Protest of lease parcels for the New Mexico Bureau of Land Management 2024 Second QuarterOil and Gas Lease Sale (DOI-BLM-NM-P000-2023- 0002-OTHER_NEPA)
Dear State Director Barnes:
The Wilderness Society (TWS), The Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks, Friends of the Earth US, and Rocky Mountain Wild respectfully protest the below-listed parcels in the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) New Mexico Second Quarter 2024 Competitive Oil and Gas Lease Sale. On March 11, 2024, the BLM released the Environmental Assessment (EA)1BUREAU OF LAND MGMT., ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, DOI-BLM-NM-P000-2023-0002 EA (March 11, 2024) [hereinafter EA]. and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)2BUREAU OF LAND MGMT., FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT, DOI-BLM-NM-P000-2023-0002 EA (March 11, 2024) [hereinafter FONSI]. for the lease sale, offering 11 parcels containing 1,600.34 acres.3BUREAU OF LAND MGMT., NOTICE OF COMPETITIVE OIL AND GAS INTERNET LEASE SALE at *14 (Mar. 11, 2024). For the reasons stated below, our groups protest two of the parcels:
- NM-2024-06-452
- NM-2024-06-454
TWS files this protest on behalf of itself and the above-listed organizations. Contact information for each organization filing this protest is as follows:
James Mowdy
Associate Attorney
The Wilderness Society
503 West Mendenhall Ave.
Bozeman, MT 59715
(202) 809-9737
ja*********@tw*.org
Phil Francis Chair
The Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks
2 Massachusetts Ave NE Unit 77436
Washington, DC 20013
ed****@pr********.org
(202) 819-8622
Nicole Ghio
Senior Fossil Fuels Program Manager
Friends of the Earth US
ng***@fo*.org
Matt Sandler
Legal Director
Rocky Mountain Wild
1536 Wynkoop St, Suite 900
Denver, CO 80202
(303) 546-0214
ma**@ro***************.org
I, James Mowdy, have been authorized to file this protest on behalf of the above organizations.
I. INTERESTS OF THE PROTESTING PARTIES
Our organizations have a long-standing interest in the management of BLM lands in New Mexico and engage frequently in the decision-making processes for land use planning and project proposals that affect our public lands and mineral estate, including the oil and gas leasing process and associated lease sales. Our members and staff enjoy myriad recreational, scientific, and other opportunities on BLM-managed public lands, including hiking, biking, nature-viewing, photography, and quiet contemplation in the solitude offered by wild places. We work to protect public lands on behalf of our members and the public.
The Wilderness Society (TWS) is a national non-profit membership organization that works to unite people to protect America’s wild places. Founded in 1935, TWS is headquartered in Washington, D.C., with offices throughout the country and over a million members and supporters. TWS aims to transform federal land management to prioritize climate resilience and biodiversity protection and help develop and advance policies for just and equitable public land conservation on behalf of all people. In working toward our mission, TWS elevates the voices of communities thatmight otherwise be unable to engage in federal processes affecting public lands and waters. For years, TWS has advocated for reform of BLM’s oil and gas leasing program. TWS uses in-house science, policy, and legal expertise to comment on and engage in the oil and gas leasing process.
The Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks (Coalition) is comprised of over 2,600 National ParkService (NPS) retirees, former and current employees, and volunteers, who collectively represent more than 45,000 years of national park management and stewardship experience. The Coalition studies, educates, speaks, and acts for the preservation of America’s National Park System. Our membership includes former Park Service directors, regional directors, superintendents, resource specialists, rangers, maintenance and administrative staff, and a full array of other former employees, volunteers, and supporters. We have advocated for BLM oil and gas leasing reforms and commented on Bureau leasing proposals for a number of years due, in part, to the many adverse impacts that oil- and gas-based carbon emissions are having on irreplaceable natural and cultural resources across America’s National Park System.
Friends of the Earth (FoE) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit, membership-based organization with offices located in Berkeley, California and Washington, DC. FoE currently has over 4.7 million activists and over 290,000 members, located across all 50 states and the District of Columbia. FoE is also a member of Friends of the Earth-International, which is a network of grassroots groups in 74 countries worldwide. FoE’s primary mission is to defend theenvironment and champion a more healthy and just world by collectively ensuring environmental and social justice, human dignity, and respect for human rights and peoples’ rights. FoE is dedicated to fighting climate change and advocating for clean energy alternatives. FoE’s Climate & Energy program directly engages in administrative and legal advocacy to protect the environment and society from climate change, pollution, and industrialization associated with fossil fuel development on public lands and associated greenhouse gas emissions. Key to this work is fighting to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and domestic reliance on fossil fuels, and advance justly sourced, renewable energy.
Rocky Mountain Wild (RMW) is a non-profit conservation non-profit works to protect, connect, and restore wildlife and wild lands in the Southern Rocky Mountain region. RMW envisions a biologically healthy future for our region – one that includes a diversity of species and ecosystems, thriving populations of wildlife, and a sustainable coexistence between people and nature. Using research, community science, legal action, and advanced geospatial analysis, we offer solutions for conserving our most at-risk animal and plant species and landscapes. We review and engage in BLM oil and gas lease sales with a goal of reducing the impacts of oil and gas leasing on wildlife and wildlands.
II. STATEMENT OF REASONS IN SUPPORT OF THE PROTEST OF THE JUNE 2024 COMPETITIVE OIL AND GAS LEASE SALE PARCELS
We protest two of the parcels in this sale for the following reasons:
- Both parcels overlap priority wildlife
- Both parcels contain low oil and gas development
We appreciate that the BLM has already deferred several parcels with a low preference for leasing designation in this lease sale. However, these two parcels also received a low- preference designation and should have likewise been deferred. IM 2023-007 directs deferral of parcels that receive a “low” value leasing preference. Specifically, IM2023-007 instructs: “The BLM will generally conduct environmental analysis for lease parcels with a high preference value first for potential inclusion in a lease sale and will defer lease parcels with a low preference value.” The IM 2023-007 further instructs that “[i]f there are no high preference parcels available for the sale,” the office is guided to select “one or more low preference parcels that present the least conflicts based on the criteria.” Indeed, this lease sale lacks any high preference value parcels in New Mexico. The BLM assigned a low leasing preference for all 11 parcels based on habitat conflicts, recreation and other resource conflicts, or cultural resource conflicts—meaning all 11 parcels received a low value leasing preference. Since the BLM is already leasing nine other low preference parcels in New Mexico, it need not lease, and should instead defer, these two parcels that received both low habitat and low development potential preference designations under IM 2023-007, with parcel NM-2024-06-454 also receiving a low-preference designation for “Recreation/Other Resources.”
a. The BLM should defer these two parcels because they are in priority wildlife habitat and big game migration corridors.
The EA acknowledges that there are known ungulate populations overlapping the offered parcels.4See EA at 54. The underlying Resource Management Plan (RMP) was approved prior to the appropriate identification and mapping ofungulate habitats and corridors.5BLM CARLSBAD FIELD OFFICE, APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN (September 1988). On August 03, 2018, BLM released a Draft EIS for the RMP revision. The BLM cannot tier to and rely on an outdated RMP that lacks the appropriate analyses without adequately updating the analysis in the relevant NEPA document for the lease sale. Wilderness Soc’yv. U.S. Dep’t of [the] Interior, No. 22-cv-1871 (CRC), 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51011, at *60 (D.D.C. Mar. 22,
2024). If the RMP to which the BLM is tiering contains stale information, the BLM must apply new studies to current conditions. Id. at *65–*67 (rejecting the BLM’s attempt to “appear to assess the effects on [ungulate] populations anew” but “concluding that the impacts from the lease sale will be akin to those described in the [outdated] RMPs” thatlacked any such analysis).
The BLM must address the best available science on ungulate species and thoroughly consider the implications of that research. New studies are shaping understanding of how ungulates adapt or fail to adapt to oil and gasdevelopment and other anthropogenic disturbances. For example, recent peer-reviewed studies indicate that migratory behavior is not the same across ungulate species, and that mule deer differ from other herbivores because they have very high fidelity to their migration routes with little to no adaptability as to where they migrate.6Sawyer et al., Migratory plasticity is not ubiquitous among large herbivores, Journal of Animal Ecology 88(3) (Nov 17, 2018) [References at 2–13]. Mule deer alter their rate and timing of movement through stopovers in response to development, diminishing the benefits of migratory foraging.7Teal Wyckoff et al., Evaluating the influence of energy and residential development on the migratory behavior of mule deer, Ecosphere 9(2) (Feb 23, 2018) [References at 15–27]. Disturbance from energy development causes not only direct habitat loss but also has a multiplicative effect through avoidance behavior resulting in indirect habitat loss 4.6 times greater than direct habitat loss from roads, well pads, and other infrastructure.8Samantha Dwinnell et al., Where to forage when afraid: Does perceived risk impair use of the foodscape?, Ecological Applications 29(7) (June 2019) [References at 28–44].
Here, the analysis in the associated RMP predates this wealth of significant new science, much of it specifically concerning the impacts of energy development on the relevant ungulate species. The BLM should not lease oil and gas parcels that overlap with migratory corridors when the lease stipulations derive from an RMP that did not analyze impacts to or management for the functionality of the habitats and corridors. Regardless, the BLM itself has designated these parcels as having a low preference for leasing based on these habitat conflicts. The agency should defer the two parcels overlapping priority wildlife habitat and corridors in accordance with IM 2023-007.
b. The BLM should defer parcels on low development potential lands.
Leasing lands with low potential for oil and gas development further contravenes guidance in IM 2023-007 and undermines the agency’s obligation in the Mineral Leasing Act (MLA). The MLA directs the 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). The Interior Board of Land Appeals has 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 mineraldeposit.”). Leasing land with low development potential violates the BLM’s statutory direction.
In its “Report on the Federal Oil and Gas Leasing Program,” the Interior Department specifically recognizedthat leasing land with low and no development potential is flawed and wasteful. The report found that it is “commonpractice” for the BLM “to leave the majority of Federal lands open for leasing,” which:
allow[s] industry to drive decisions on what areas will be nominated for oil and gas leasing. The burden and expense then fall on BLM to process those parcels which often ignites local community concerns (particularly since low- potential lands are more likely to be in areas that are not accustomed to local oil and gas development) and result in protests that are time-consuming and resource- intensive to adjudicate.9U.S. DEP’T OF THE INTERIOR, REPORT ON THE FEDERAL OIL AND GAS LEASING PROGRAM 12 (Nov. 2021) [References at 46–63].
Accordingly, the report directed the BLM to “evaluate operational adjustments to its leasing program that will avoid nomination or leasing of low potential lands and instead focus on areas that have moderate or high potential for oiland gas resources and which are in proximity to existing oil and gas infrastructure.”10Id. at 13. The BLM should comply with this directive by deferring lands with low or no development potential.
For this lease sale, the two protested parcels contain very low development potential according to data fromBLM’s Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenarios. Leasing these parcels runs counter to the purpose of leasing lands for oil and gas development because low potential lands are unlikely to actually produce these fluid mineral resources. Leases in low potential areas generate minimal to no revenue but can carry significant cost in terms of resource use conflicts. Leases in low potential areas are most likely to be sold at or near the minimum bid and are least likely to produce oil or gas and generate royalties. Worse, those lands will stand encumbered by leases, limiting BLM’s ability to manage for other uses and resources. The BLM should defer both of these parcels because of their low development potential pursuant to IM 2023-007.
III. Conclusion
For the reasons stated herein, we protest parcels NM-2024-06-452 and NM-2024-06-454. We appreciate your consideration of this protest.
Respectfully,
/s/ James Mowdy
Associate Attorney
The Wilderness Society
503 West Mendenhall Street
Bozeman, MT 59715
(202) 809-9737
Ja*********@tw*.org
Protested Parcels
BLM Pecos District Office, New Mexico
NM-2024-06-452 Split Estate
NM, Carlsbad Field Office, BLM, PD
T. 14 S., R. 38 E., NEW MEXICO PRINCIPAL
Sec. 6 SW1/4.
Lea County 160 Acres
EOI# NM00018813
NM-2024-06-045
NMNM106355469
NM, Carlsbad Field Office, BLM, PD
20 S., R. 33 E., NEW MEXICO PRINCIPAL
Sec. 4 NE1/4SW1/4.
Lea County
40 Acres
EOI #NM00018816