Recently, the Utah Bureau of Land Management
cancelled an oil and gas lease sale, citing the need to further
study the impact of drilling on wildlife habitat. Conservationists
think the cancellation – the first in over 25 years –
sets a national precedent for protecting wildlife habitat from
energy leasing. But the BLM disagrees and public-lands experts say
that isn’t necessarily the case.
The BLM says many
factors, including a recommendation by the Utah Department of
Wildlife to increase the study of wildlife habitat, led to the
cancellation of the 141,717-acre Nov. 13 sale. But an agency
document cites an Interior Department judicial board ruling as a
reason for deferring a majority of the 86 proposed sale parcels. In
November 2006, the Interior Board of Land Appeals, which rules on
Bureau of Land Management policy, ruled on a lease sale appeal
filed in Utah by the Center for Native Ecosystems. The board said
that the appropriate time to consider potential impacts of drilling
is when public land is first proposed for leasing, before sales are
made.
This is the first time an IBLA ruling has had a
hand in parcels being deferred from leasing, and conservationists
were elated. “We view this cancellation as the BLM in Utah
finally seeing the light,” says Josh Pollock, Center for
Native Ecosystems conservation director. “But where the heck
are the rest of the BLM’s offices on this ruling? There are
still violations all around the West.” He and other
environmentalists believe this ruling applies across the entire
Bureau of Land Management, not just to the Utah office.
The big question is whether they’re right. “The short
answer is that all agency offices have to follow IBLA
rulings,” says John Leshy, former solicitor general of the
Interior under Clinton. “But the rulings may be subject to
interpretation by each state agency’s attorneys.” That
gray area is responsible for the rift between
conservationists’ opinion and that of the state offices.
“There is a degree to which the state agency lawyers can feel
free to disagree with IBLA rulings and advise their office
according to their own interpretations,” says Robert Keiter,
Wallace Stegner professor of law at the University of Utah. If the
state offices can’t agree on how to interpret a board ruling,
they can request clarification from the Office of Hearing and
Appeals or the secretary of Interior.
But that’s
not the case here. Other state BLM offices, including Colorado and
Wyoming, agree with the Utah office’s claim that the ruling
is specific only to Utah. That means that it will have no
overarching implication for Bureau of Land Management lease sale
procedures. “We do not view the IBLA decision as a big
procedural change,” says Terry Catlin, energy team leader for
the Utah BLM.
For conservationists concerned about the
sale of leases in critical wildlife habitat, the state
offices’ agreement on interpretation is a setback, albeit a
minor one. “We’ve been raising this exact issue for
years. Regardless of legal interpretations, we believe the ruling
sends a strong message to the BLM,” says Pollock. “We
will continue to examine every lease sale and to protest every
parcel of public land that we believe is endangering critical
wildlife habitat or natural resources.”
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
