THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY
COALITION TO PROTECT AMERICA’S NATIONAL PARKS
NATIONAL PARKS CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION
ROCKY MOUNTAIN WILD
November 25, 2024
SUBMITTED VIA E-PLANNING
Melanie Barnes
State Director
Bureau of Land Management, New Mexico
(505) 954-2222
Project Contact:
David I. Alderman
da*******@bl*.gov
(208) 478-6369
Catherine Brewster
cb*******@bl*.gov
(505) 954-2170
Angelica Varela
av*****@bl*.gov
(505) 954-2040
Re: Comments on the New Mexico Bureau of Land Management 2025 Second Quarter Competitive Oil & Gas Lease Sale Draft Environmental Assessment and Draft Finding of No Significant Impact (DOI-BLM-NM-P000-2024-0002-EA)
Dear State Director Barnes:
Thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments on the Draft Environmental Assessment (Draft EA) and Draft Finding of No Significant Impact (Draft FONSI) analyzing the three nominated lease parcels involving 1,261.44 acres under consideration for the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) New Mexico 2025 Second Quarter Oil and Gas Lease Sale. We recommend deferring at least two of these parcels for the reasons discussed below: NM-2025-05- 0472 and NM-2025-05-6849. 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 are grateful for both the recently released final Fluid Mineral Leases and Leasing Process Rule (Leasing Rule) and the earlier release of several Instruction Memoranda (IMs) implementing program reforms and provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA).1See Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, H.R. 5376, 117th Cong. §§ 50262–63 (2022). We appreciate the BLM’s attention to properly applying the Leasing Rule’s provisions and the IMs for this lease sale.
I. The BLM should exercise its authority to defer parcels in this lease sale that do not comport with the guidance provided in IM 2023-007.
We appreciate the BLM screening the parcels in the Draft EA’s Table C.1 in accordance with IM 2023-007’s preference criteria.2U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, Draft Environmental Assessment for New Mexico Second Quarter Competitive Lease Sale, App. C at 141, Table C.1 (October 2024) [hereinafter Draft EA].
For the reasons discussed below, we recommend deferring at least two of the lease parcels.
The final Leasing Rule states that the agency will continue to apply the preference criteria consistent with IM 2023-007.389 Fed. Reg. at 30,921. The IM states that the BLM “will defer lease parcels with a low preference value.”4Bureau of Land Mgmt., Evaluating Competitive Oil and Gas Lease Sale Parcels for Future Lease Sales, IM 2023-007 (Nov. 21, 2022) (emphasis added). 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.”5Id. (emphasis added). 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.
a. The BLM should designate as low preference for leasing and defer parcels in areas with low oil and gas development potential, along with other low-preference designations.
The BLM will preference lands with “high potential” for oil and gas development.643 C.F.R. § 3120.32(e). 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.”730 U.S.C. § 226(a); 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.”). Offering parcels on low potential lands precludes management for other uses. The BLM itself has reiterated this point, explaining that the preference criteria are meant to “ensure that oil and gas leasing on public lands focuses development where there is the most potential for recovery and allows the agency to manage public lands for other uses.”889 Fed. Reg. at 30,956.
The BLM designated parcels 0472 and 6849 as having low preference for leasing based on their development potential. While these two parcels are near existing development, they also received low preference based on habitat, cultural resources, and recreation/other resources. Accordingly, we urge the BLM to defer leasing these parcels.
II. The BLM must factor greenhouse gas emissions and related climate impacts stemming from this lease sale into its leasing decision-making.
We appreciate the BLM’s analysis and discussion of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions likely to result from this lease sale. However, the BLM fails to factor GHG emissions into leasing decision-making.9BLM, Quarter 2 2025 Competitive Oil and Gas Lease Sale, Environmental Assessment: DOI-BLM-NM- P000-2024-0002-EA, Draft Finding of No Significant Impact, at 4, Table 1. The BLM claims that it “lacks the data and tools to estimate specific, climate-related effects from the sale” and that
there are no established thresholds, qualitative or quantitative, for NEPA analysis to assess the GHG emissions or social cost of an action in terms of the action’s effect on the climate, incrementally or otherwise. There is also no scientific data in the record, including scientific data submitted during the comment period for this lease sale, that would allow the BLM, in the absence of an agency carbon budget or similar standard, to evaluate the significance of the GHG emissions from this proposed lease sale. These methodological shortcomings prevent the BLM from qualitatively comparing alternatives, and the BLM has therefore not exercised its discretion to tailor this lease sale to account for global climate change.10Id.
Yet, the BLM does have tools to ascertain the potential climate impacts of its leasing decisions for this sale, which it deploys in the Draft EA: the social cost of greenhouse gas emissions. Earlier this year, a court held that “the complexity of the task does not give the [BLM] a free pass to avoid making these tough decisions by asserting that GHG emissions did not factor into its decision-making.”11Wilderness Soc’y v. United States DOI, No. 22-cv-1871 (CRC), 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124730, at *10 (D.D.C. July 16, 2024) While we appreciate the analysis of GHG emissions in the Draft EA, the BLM must take the further step of “explain[ing] how its GHG analysis inform[s] the decision to select” lease parcels.12Id.
The Draft EA explains that this sale could incur costs exceeding $400 million.13 Draft EA at 93, Table 3.24. But the BLM fails to explain how leasing justifies these enormous costs. The NEPA analysis must offer this explanation.
III. Conclusion.
We appreciate your consideration of these comments. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Respectfully submitted,
Ben Tettlebaum (on behalf of the below-listed parties)
Director & Senior Staff Attorney
The Wilderness Society
1801 Pennsylvania Ave NW, 2nd Floor
Washington, D.C. 20006
be************@tw*.org
(720) 647-9568
Phil Francis
Chair
Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks
Maude Dinan
New Mexico Program Manager
National Parks Conservation Association
Alison Gallensky
Conservation Geographer, Leadership Team
Rocky Mountain Wild