Opinion ID: 151425
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Atlantic Rim Project's Conformity with the Great Divide RMP

Text: When the approval process for the Atlantic Rim Project began in 2001, the Great Divide RMP was more than a decade old. In February 2002, the Bureau published a notice of intent to revise the Great Divide RMP. 67 Fed.Reg. 8701 (Feb. 25, 2002). The Bureau completed the Atlantic Rim Project Record of Decision in March 2007 before making the RMP revision available for public comment the following January. 73 Fed.Reg. 881 (Jan. 4, 2008) (announcing availability of the draft of the revised RMP). Appellants argue this violated the Council on Environmental Quality's regulations implementing NEPA. Section 1502.1 of 40 C.F.R. sets forth the purpose of an EIS: ensuring that NEPA's policies and goals are infused into the ongoing programs and actions of the Federal Government. Section 1502.2(f) specifies that, to achieve that purpose, agencies preparing an EIS shall not commit resources prejudicing the selection of alternatives before making a final decision. Further, § 1506.1(a) provides that [u]ntil an agency issues a record of decision... no action concerning the proposal shall be taken which would ... [l]imit the choice of reasonable alternatives. According to Appellants, the Atlantic Rim Project improperly precommitted the RMP revision to approve at least as much new development as the Atlantic Rim Project had already approved. This argument presupposes that the Atlantic Rim Project exceeded the existing 1990 RMP because the restriction on precommitting resources can apply only if the project was not covered by an existing program statement. 40 C.F.R. § 1506.1. Appellants' argument therefore turns on whether the Atlantic Rim Project was covered by the existing RMP. If the RMP covered the Atlantic Rim Project, the Bureau did not improperly precommit resources as it revised the Great Divide RMP. If, however, the RMP did not cover the project, Appellants argue, the Bureau not only precommitted resources in violation of NEPA regulations, but also violated FLPMA and its implementing regulations by not managing the area in accordance with the RMP. See 43 U.S.C. § 1732(a) (The Secretary shall manage the public lands ... in accordance with the land use plans developed by him. ...); 43 C.F.R. § 1610.5-3 (All future resource management authorizations and actions ... shall conform to the approved plan.). The draft EIS for the Great Divide RMP anticipated approximately 1440 oil and gas wells being drilled between 1987 and 2007. See BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE MEDICINE BOW AND DIVIDE RESOURCE AREAS, RAWLINS DISTRICT, WYOMING 220 (April 1987). Over the next two decades, however, the Bureau approved projects in the Great Divide that authorized wells far in excess of that original estimate. By the time the Atlantic Rim Project was approved, the Bureau had approved more than 3600 wells in the Great Divide Resource Area. The Atlantic Rim Project itself authorized another 2000. Appellants argue that the Atlantic Rim Project approved development so far in excess of the RMP projection that it rendered the project inconsistent with the RMP, violating NEPA and FLPMA. 40 C.F.R. §§ 1502.2(f), 1506.1 (NEPA regulations); 43 U.S.C. § 1732(a) (FLPMA statute). But while the Bureau's various projects did far exceed the projection of 1440 wells described in the draft EIS for the Great Divide RMP, there was no NEPA or FLPMA violation. The final EIS and Record of Decision for the Great Divide RMP did not include the 1440 well estimate. Instead, they simply said that the entire planning area was available for oil and gas leasing subject to certain environmental restrictions. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE GREAT DIVIDE RESOURCE AREA 52 (June 1988); Great Divide RMP at 30. Even if the 1440 well estimate were incorporated in the final decision, the estimate would not impose a hard cap on the actual number of wells that can be drilled in the Great Divide Resource Area. Appellants concede this point, which is consistent with the Interior Board of Land Appeals' interpretation of reasonably foreseeable development scenarios in RMPs. According to the Board, a projection like the one in the Great Divide draft EIS serves as an analytical baseline for evaluating environmental impacts, not a point past which further exploration and development is prohibited. Wy. Outdoor Council, 164 IBLA 84, 99 (2004); see also Biodiversity Conservation Alliance, 174 IBLA 1, 9 (2008). Moreover, while Appellants claim that vastly more than 1440 wells have been drilled in the lands covered by the Great Divide RMP, they do not cite evidence demonstrating that the environmental impact of that drilling has exceeded the impact contemplated by the Great Divide RMP. As the Director of the BLM explained, exceeding the number of wells projected ... may not result in exceeding the predicted level of environmental effects. Instruction Memorandum No.2004-089 from the BLM Director to all State Directors, at Attachment 1-2 (Jan. 16, 2004). A 2004 analysis found about 3,700 acres of long term disturbance as yet unallocated under the Great Divide RMP, despite the existence of about 3000 active wells in the [Rawlins] Field Office. Bureau of Land Management, Draft Briefing Paper, Interim Development Program at the Atlantic Rim EIS Project Area (June 7, 2004). By April 2005, a BLM official observed: While originally it appeared we were completely constrained by the RMP revision ..., today we are recognizing that there is still some [long term disturbance] acres available under the Great Divide RMP ..., thus making the EISs we've been working on the limiting factor instead of the RMP revision. Email from D. Simons, BLM Rawlins Field Office, to M. Storzer, BLM Rawlins Field Office (Apr. 26, 2005). Under these circumstances it was reasonable for the Bureau to decide that the existing Great Divide RMP encompassed the development proposed by the Atlantic Rim Project. Therefore, the Bureau's decision does not violate the NEPA prohibition of precommitting resources.