BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION ALLIANCE ET AL.

183 IBLA 97 Decided January 8, 2013

United States Department of the InteriorOffice of Hearings and Appeals

Interior Board of Land Appeals801 N. Quincy St., Suite 300

Arlington, VA 22203

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION ALLIANCE ET AL.

IBLA 2012-208 & 2012-209 Decided January 8, 2013

Appeal from a decision of the Deputy State Director, Minerals and Lands,Wyoming State Office, Bureau of Land Management, denying protests of BLM’sproposal to offer 49 parcels at the May 1, 2012, Competitive Oil and Gas Lease Sale. WY-1205-4 (WYW-180796), et al.

Appeal in IBLA 2012-209 dismissed in part; decision affirmed; petitions forstay denied as moot.

1. Oil and Gas Leases: Generally--Rules of Practice: Standingto Appeal

Under 43 C.F.R. § 4.410(a), in order to have standing toappeal a BLM decision dismissing protests to acompetitive oil and gas lease sale of various parcels ofland, the appellant must be a party to the case and have alegally cognizable interest that is adversely affected by theBLM decision. A party may establish it is adverselyaffected through evidence of use of the land in questionor by setting forth interests in resources or in other landor its resources affected by the decision and showing howthe decision has caused or is substantially likely to causeinjury to those interests.

2. Environmental Quality: EnvironmentalStatements--National Environmental Policy Act of 1969:Environmental Statements--Federal Land Policy andManagement Act of 1976: Land Use Planning--FederalLand Policy and Management Act of 1976:Wilderness--Oil and Gas Leases: CompetitiveLeases--Wilderness Act

When parcels nominated for inclusion in a competitive oiland gas lease sale encompass lands that were not

183 IBLA 97

IBLA 2012-208 & 2012-209

included in a wilderness study area, BLM may administerthose lands for other purposes, including oil and gasleasing, even though the lands were asserted to havewilderness characteristics in a citizens’ group wildernessproposal and were included in an area proposed forwilderness designation in legislation introduced inCongress.

3. Environmental Quality: Environmental Statements--

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969: Finding ofNo Significant Impact--Oil and Gas Leases: CompetitiveLeases

When an agency prepares an EA to determine whetheran EIS is necessary, it must consider all relevant mattersof environmental concern and take a hard look atpotential environmental impacts so that it can makean informed decision about whether the environmentalimpacts will be significant or whether any significantimpacts will be reduced to insignificance by mitigationmeasures. A BLM decision dismissing a protest to acompetitive oil and gas lease sale will be affirmed whenthe appellant fails to demonstrate with objective proofthat the decision is based on a clear error of law ordemonstrable error of fact, or that the analysis failed toconsider a substantial environmental question of materialsignificance to the proposed action.

APPEARANCES: John Persell, Esq., Laramie, Wyoming, for Biodiversity ConservationAlliance; Mike Chiropolos, Esq., Boulder, Colorado, for National Audubon Societyand Audubon Wyoming; Tamara L. Stevenson, Esq., Shawn T. Welch, Esq., Salt LakeCity, Utah, for Wexpro Company (Intervenor); Robert C. Mathes, Esq., Denver,Colorado, for Baseline Minerals, Inc. (Intervenor); Hadassah M. Reimer, Esq.,Jackson, Wyoming, and John F. Shepherd, Esq., Denver, Colorado, for QEP EnergyCompany (Intervenor); James C. Kaste, Esq., Cheyenne, Wyoming, for the State ofWyoming (Intervenor); and Danielle DiMauro, Esq., Office of the Regional Solicitor,U.S. Department of the Interior, Lakewood, Colorado, for the Bureau of LandManagement.

183 IBLA 98

IBLA 2012-208 & 2012-209

OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE ROBERTS

Biodiversity Conservation Alliance (BCA) and National Audubon Society andAudubon Wyoming (Audubon) (collectively, appellants) have separately appealed 1

from and petitioned for a stay of the effect of an April 30, 2012, decision of theDeputy State Director, Minerals and Lands, Wyoming State Office, Bureau of LandManagement (BLM), denying their separate protests of BLM’s proposal to offer49 parcels at the May 1, 2012, Competitive Oil and Gas Lease Sale (Lease Sale).2

In a Decision Record (DR) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), alsoissued on April 30, 2012, the Director of BLM’s Wyoming State Office decided to offera total of 148 parcels, including the 49 parcels now at issue, at the Lease Sale. TheDR and FONSI were based on a November 2011 EA (DOI-BLM-WY-040-EA11-213),3

which was prepared pursuant to section 102(2)(C) of the National EnvironmentalPolicy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C) (2006).

1 The appeals were docketed, respectively, as IBLA 2012-208 (BCA) andIBLA 2012-209 (Audubon).2 BCA and Audubon challenge inclusion of the following parcels in the Lease Sale,denoted by their parcel number at the time of the Sale (each of which starts with theprefix WY-1205), with a parenthetical reference to the corresponding lease number: 41 (WYW-180828), 42 (180829), and 49 through 53 (WYW-180836 throughWYW-180840) (BCA); 4 through 12 (WYW-180796 through WYW-180804), 14(WYW-180805), 15 (WYW-180806), 20 (WYW-180808), 21 (WYW-180809), 24through 26 (WYW-180812 through WYW-180814), 28 (WYW-180815), 30(WYW-180817), 31 (WYW-180818), 35 (WYW-180822), 36 (WYW-180823), 43(WYW-180830), 44 (WYW-180831), 48 (WYW-180835), 56 (WYW-180843), 59through 61 (WYW-180846 through WYW-180848), 75 (WYW-180862), 95(WYW-180878), 108 (WYW-180888), 109 (WYW-180889), 116 (WYW-180896), 117(WYW-180897), 120 (WYW-180900), 122 (WYW-180902), 125 (WYW-180905), 126(WYW-180906), 128 (WYW-180908), 133 (WYW-180913), 134 (WYW-180914), and153 (WYW-180926).

We will refer to the individual parcels by the parcel number identified in theSale notice, rather than the preliminary parcel number identified in theEnvironmental Assessment (EA), using the last two numbers of the parcel number(e.g., Parcel 41 for WY-1205-41).3 Citations herein to the EA are to “Version 3” of the document, which appears asdigital and hard copies in the administrative record.

183 IBLA 99

IBLA 2012-208 & 2012-209

For the following reasons, we dismiss Audubon’s appeal in part for lack ofstanding, affirm BLM’s decision, and deny the petitions for stay as moot.4

I. BACKGROUND

BLM proposed offering 252 parcels of public land in Wyoming for competitiveoil and gas leasing pursuant to the Mineral Leasing Act, 30 U.S.C. §§ 181-287 (2006). Before offering any of the lands, however, BLM reviewed the applicable land-useplans to determine whether the lands were available for leasing. All of the publiclands now at issue were determined to be available for oil and gas leasing anddevelopment, since they had been designated for multiple-use management. See EAat 2-4; Kemmerer Record of Decision (ROD) and Approved Resource ManagementPlan (RMP), dated May 24, 2010, at 2-26, Map 3 (Mineral Resources Leasable - Oiland Gas); Rawlins ROD and Approved RMP, dated Dec. 24, 2008, at 2-22, Map 2-38(Oil and Gas Classifications); Green River (Rock Springs) ROD and RMP, datedAug. 8, 1997, at 12, 89 (Map 13 (No Lease Areas)).

BLM also determined whether the proposed parcels were appropriate forleasing. In doing so, BLM screened the parcels for the presence of various resourcevalues, including the presence of wilderness characteristics and the Greatersage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) and its habitat. In 2011, BLM undertook,in accordance with Instruction Memorandum (IM) No. 2011-154, Requirement toConduct and Maintain Inventory Information for Wilderness Characteristics and toConsider Lands with Wilderness Characteristics in Land Use Plans (July 25, 2011) (nowcodified at BLM Manual 6310 (Rel. 6-129 (Mar. 25, 2012)), to update its wildernessinventory for the purpose of determining whether the public lands at issue are

4 By orders dated June 12, 14, and 25, 2012, we granted motions to intervenein IBLA 2012-208 (BCA) by Wexpro Company (Wexpro), Baseline Minerals, Inc.(Baseline), and the State of Wyoming. By orders dated June 14, and 25, 2012, wegranted motions to intervene in IBLA 2012-209 (Audubon) by QEP Energy Company(QEP) and the State of Wyoming. Wexpro and Baseline were the successful highbidders, respectively, for Parcels 41, 42, and 49 through 53. QEP was the successfulhigh bidder for Parcel 59. Baseline, which was also the successful high bidder forParcels 108, 109, 120, 122, 125, 126, and 128, also moves to intervene inIBLA 2012-209, and, for good cause shown, the motion is granted. None of thesuccessful high bidders for the other 34 parcels challenged by BCA and Audubonhave sought to intervene in the present appeals.

183 IBLA 100

IBLA 2012-208 & 2012-209

suitable for designation as wilderness pursuant to the Wilderness Act, 16 U.S.C.§§ 1131-1136 (2006).5 See EA at 9, 85, 124; IM No. 2011-154.

On March 3, 2010, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) determinedthat listing the Greater sage-grouse as a threatened or endangered species underthe Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-1543 (2006), waswarranted, but that such listing was precluded by higher priority listing actions.6 See 75 Fed. Reg. 13910, 13988 (Mar. 23, 2010). In addition to being a candidatespecies, the sage-grouse remained a BLM-designated sensitive species. BLMcontinued to be required, by its Manual, to ensure that its actions conserve the sage-grouse and its habitat, promote removal of the sage-grouse from the list of sensitivespecies, and avoid contributing to the need to list the sage-grouse as a threatened orendangered species. See BLM Manual, §§ 6840.01, 6840.02, 6840.06, 6840.12, and6840.22 (Rel. 6-121 (1/19/01)); EA at 82.

For the purpose of promoting a sustainable sage-grouse population andsufficient suitable habitat pending development of a comprehensive long-term,region-wide management strategy for conserving and restoring sage-grouse andtheir habitat on Federal and non-Federal lands across the western United States,both BLM and the State of Wyoming promulgated interim management policiesregarding the use and disposition of Federal and non-Federal lands in Wyoming. See generally IM No. 2012-043, Greater Sage-Grouse Interim Management Policiesand Procedures (Dec. 22, 2011); Executive Order No. 2011-5, Greater Sage-GrouseCore Area Protection (June 2, 2011). BLM’s interim management policy wasdesigned to be consistent with the State’s interim management policy and wasintended to be applicable until BLM approved revisions of its existing RMPs.7 See

5 The results of the wilderness screening by the Kemmerer, Rawlins, and RockSprings Field Offices are disclosed in Appendix D (Wilderness Review Checklists forOil and Gas Lease Parcels) of the EA.6 In Western Watersheds Project v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, No. 4:10-CV-229-BLW,2012 WL 369168 (D. Idaho Feb. 2, 2012), at *9, FWS agreed to reconsider, bySept. 30, 2015, the warranted but precluded status of the sage-grouse by issuingeither a proposed listing rule or a not-warranted finding.7 In May 2010, BLM began the process of revising existing RMPs in the westernUnited States for the purpose of devising a comprehensive long-term region-widemanagement strategy for conserving and restoring the sage-grouse and its habitat onpublic lands. See Charter, BLM National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy(Charter), dated Aug. 23, 2011, at 1; IM No. 2012-044, National Greater Sage-GrouseLand Use Planning Strategy (Dec. 27, 2011), at 1; EA at 121. BLM formed a National

(continued...)

183 IBLA 101

IBLA 2012-208 & 2012-209

IM No. WY-2012-019, Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Management Policy (Feb. 10,2012), at 1-2, 22-23; Decision at 4-5. BLM sought to defer parcels that shouldproperly be excluded from leasing and development, in order to preserve its optionsfor conserving and restoring sage-grouse and their habitat in the adoption of revisedRMPs, thereby avoiding any FWS decision listing the species as threatened orendangered. See Decision at 6.

On August 1, 2008, the Governor of the State of Wyoming issued ExecutiveOrder No. 2008-2 that adopted an interim management strategy for sage-grouseand their habitat. That strategy involved the designation of Core Population Areas(Core Areas),8 which contained over 83 percent of the sage-grouse population in theState, and adopted management prescriptions designed to preclude or restrictresource uses in the Core Areas. The strategy sought to maintain and enhancesage-grouse and their habitat, while allowing resource uses to occur outside suchareas.9 See Executive Order No. 2011-5 at 2, 3, 8-10, 12, 13. Generally, newdevelopment and other land uses can be authorized in a Core Area where they do notcause declines in sage-grouse populations, provided they do not, on average, disturbthe surface of more than 5% of suitable habitat or consist of more than one disruptiveactivity for a given 640-acre area, and satisfy other prescriptions for maintaining and

7 (...continued)Technical Team (NTT), composed of representatives of BLM, FWS, State wildlifeagencies, and other Federal agencies, which would serve “as an independent,technical and science-based team to ensure the best information related to greatersage-grouse management is fully reviewed, evaluated and provided to the BLM forconsideration in the land use planning process.” Charter at 2. The NTT issued AReport on National Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures (NTT Report) onDec. 21, 2011.8 The State-designated Core Areas correspond with BLM-designated key habitatareas, termed Preliminary Priority Habitat (PPH) and Preliminary General Habitat(PGH), which contain high-density breeding, brood rearing, and other seasonalhabitats for the sage-grouse. The Core Areas are currently set forth on the followingmap, which also reflects the sections, townships, and ranges of the United Statespublic-land survey system: http://gf.state.wy.us/web2011/Departments/Wildlife/pdfs/SG_LANDOWNER_RANGESECLINES0000660.pdf (last visited Aug. 16, 2012).9 FWS concurred in the State’s management strategy, noting that it represents “asound framework for a policy by which to conserve greater sage-grouse in Wyoming,”which, if fully implemented on non-Federal and Federal lands, would preclude theneed to list the species as threatened or endangered. Letter to State from FWS, datedMay 7, 2008, at 1; see 75 Fed. Reg. at 13974, 13975; Decision at 4.

183 IBLA 102

IBLA 2012-208 & 2012-209

enhancing sage-grouse habitat. Otherwise, such development and uses are precludedor restricted.

On December 29, 2009, BLM’s Wyoming State Office issuedIM Nos. WY-2010-012, Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Management Policy, andWY-2010-013, Oil and Gas Leasing Screen for Greater Sage-Grouse, adopting aninterim management policy regarding resource uses on Federal lands designed to beconsistent with the management prescriptions of the State’s Executive Order.10 BLMOpposition (Audubon) at 12; see IM No. WY-2012-019 at 1-2; Decision at 4, n.11, 34.

Because all of the proposed parcels encompassed lands actually orpotentially occupied and/or used by sage-grouse, BLM screened the parcels for thepresence of sage-grouse or their habitat, in accordance with IM No. WY-2010-013,and later IM No. WY-2012-019.11 See EA at 9, 82-83, 121; EA, Appendix F (PublicComments and Agency Response), at unpaginated (unp.) 36; Decision at 4, 5. BLM determined whether each of the parcels was, wholly or partially, situatedwithin a State-designated Core Area. See IM No. WY-2012-019 at 13, 14;IM No. WY-2010-013 at 2. Even if all or part of a parcel was within a Core Area,BLM provided that such parcels or parts of parcels could be offered for leasewhere they were, for whatever reason, not part of at least 11 square miles ofcontiguous, manageable, unleased Federal mineral estate, and thus could not beeffectively managed as key sage-grouse habitat. See IM No. WY-2012-019 at 14;IM No. WY-2010-013 at 2; Opposition (Audubon) at 3; 14; Letter to AudubonRockies from BLM State Director, dated June 4, 2012, at 2.

Where BLM determined that, although situated within a Core Area, a parcel ofpublic land cannot be effectively managed for key sage-grouse habitat, such landsmay be offered for leasing. See IM No. WY-2012-019 at 14; IM No. WY-2010-013 10 Later, on Dec. 22, 2011, BLM Headquarters in Washington, D.C., issuedIM No. 2012-043 to adopt an interim policy for managing public lands forsage-grouse pending the promulgation of revised RMPs, and to provide that BLMState offices could, by issuing their own IMs, adopt State-approved interim policies,with the concurrence of FWS. See IM No. 2012-043 at 1. Wyoming BLM had alreadydone so with IM Nos. WY-2010-012 and WY-2010-013, which were later replaced byIM No. WY-2012-019. See IM No. WY-2012-019 at 1; Decision at 39 n.74.11 The results of the screening by the Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Rock Springs FieldOffices are disclosed in Appendix C (Greater Sage-grouse Screen for the May 2012Lease Parcels) of the EA. In addition, a summary of the screening results forsage-grouse, including whether the parcel is situated in a Core Area, lek (struttingground), nesting habitat, or winter concentration area, for all of the parcels in theLease Sale appears at pages 11 through 65 of the EA.

183 IBLA 103

IBLA 2012-208 & 2012-209

at 2. Further, the resulting development of such lands may be subject to morestringent restrictions than presently found in the RMPs, including those adopted inRMP revisions, as well as reasonable measures intended to minimize adverse impactsof development, including siting, facility design, and timing restrictions. See43 C.F.R. § 3101.1-2; Yates Petroleum Corporation, 176 IBLA 144, 155-56 (2008);EA at 121; EA, Appendix F, at unp. 39, 51-52, 56; Decision at 9-10, 36.

Based on the results of the wilderness and sage-grouse screening, BLM initiallyexcluded a total of 90 parcels and portions of 19 other parcels from the Sale. See EAat Appendix A (Recommended Parcel Deferrals). In deciding which parcels to offerfor leasing, BLM conferred with FWS and the Wyoming Game and Fish Department(WGFD), which either supported the proposed action or offered no objection thereto. See EA at 144; EA, Appendix F, at unp. 11-12; DR at 2; Decision at 2, 28, n.60; BLMOpposition (Audubon) at 18, 19.

In its November 2011 EA, using an interdisciplinary team (IDT) of resourceexperts, BLM assessed the likely environmental impacts of the proposed leasing of153 parcels of public land, including the 49 now at issue (Alternative B (ProposedAction)), as well as the proposed leasing of the 243 parcels of public land deemedavailable for leasing, including the 49 now at issue (Alternative C (MaximumParcels Offering)), and a no action alternative (Alternative A), under which noneof the 243 parcels deemed available for leasing would be offered for leasing.12 Alternative C included all of the 243 parcels, totaling 416,173.80 acres, deemedavailable for leasing, regardless of whether or not they met the criteria for exclusionfor sage-grouse or other reasons, while Alternative B included only 153 parcels,including portions of 19 parcels, totaling 231,777.52 acres, after excluding 90 parcelsand portions of 19 parcels for sage-grouse or other reasons.

BLM issued its Notice of Competitive Oil and Gas Lease Sale (Sale Notice) onFebruary 1, 2012 (as modified February 22 and again on March 5, 2012), notifyingpotential bidders and other members of the public that it was, pursuant to 43 C.F.R.Part 3120, offering a total of 148 parcels of public land for competitive oil and gasleasing.13

12 The EA was tiered to the Final Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) prepared inconnection with promulgation of the three applicable land-use plans (May 2010Kemmerer, December 2008 Rawlins, and August 1997 Green River (Rock Springs)RMPs).13 Following initial promulgation of the Sale Notice, BLM excluded 5 parcels(Parcels 13, 16-18, and 27) and portions of 2 parcels (Parcels 14 and 15) from the

(continued...)

183 IBLA 104

IBLA 2012-208 & 2012-209

According to the Sale Notice, almost all of the 49 parcels currently at issuewere to be leased subject to various lease stipulations, including a timing leasestipulation (TLS) and/or a controlled surface use (CSU) stipulation, both of whichplaced restrictions on surface use associated with oil and gas exploration anddevelopment designed to protect the Greater sage-grouse.14 The TLS provided that,in order to protect nesting sage-grouse in areas delineated by BLM, no surface usecould occur during the period from March 1 to July 15 of any year.15 See, e.g.,Sale Notice at 3, 120. The CSU, which applied to all 49 parcels except Parcel 75,provided, inter alia, that, since sage-grouse or their habitat might now or hereafter befound within the leased area, BLM may recommend modifications to exploration anddevelopment proposals so as to avoid contributing to the need to designate thespecies and/or its habitat under the ESA. See, e.g., id. at 3, 121.

BCA and Audubon filed protests on February 27 and March 2, 2012,respectively. BCA challenged the inclusion of a total of 65 parcels, including the 7which are now at issue in IBLA 2012-208. Audubon challenged the inclusion of the42 parcels now at issue in IBLA 2012-209. Five other parties also filed protests.

In his April 2012 decision, the Deputy State Director denied all 7 protests,including the protests by BCA and Audubon, and authorized offering the disputedparcels for leasing at the Lease Sale.16

13 (...continued)original parcels proposed for leasing, using the revised sage-grouse screening criteriain IM No. WY-2012-019. See DR at 2, 3. The Sale Notice was thus modified.14 Leasing of each of the 49 parcels was also subject to Lease Notice No. 3, whichprovided that, since all or part of the leased area might now or hereafter encompassimportant sage-grouse habitat identified by BLM, BLM may, as part of the approvalprocess for applications for permits to drill (APD), require the lessee/operator toimplement specific measures to reduce adverse impacts of oil and gas operations tosage-grouse population and habitat. Such measures must be “consistent with thelease rights granted.” Sale Notice at 115.15 The TLS applied to all of the parcels except Parcels 61, 75, 109, 126, and 134. BLM also imposed, in the case of Parcels 59, 108, 122, 125, and 128, a TLS thatprecluded exploration and development during the period from November 15 toMarch 14 of any year, in order to protect sage-grouse winter range (entire leasedarea (59)) or habitat (delineated by BLM (108, 122, 125, and 128)). 16 Leases were to be issued for a total of 60,086.48 acres of public land in the49 parcels now at issue, situated in T. 12 N., Rs. 88 and 98 W., T. 13 N., Rs. 88, 90,101, 114, and 115 W., T. 14 N., Rs. 88, 89, 101, and 115 W., T. 15 N., Rs. 88-90, 95,

(continued...)

183 IBLA 105

IBLA 2012-208 & 2012-209

In his April 2012 DR, the State Director decided to offer 148 parcels of publicland, totaling 222,643.31 acres, for competitive oil and gas leasing. He explainedthat his decision would assist in satisfying the Nation’s energy needs while suitablyprotecting sage-grouse and their habitat and other resource values. See DR at 5-6. He stated that leasing conformed to the applicable land-use plans (May 2010Kemmerer, December 2008 Rawlins, and August 1997 Green River (Rock Springs)RMPs), as required by section 302(a) of FLPMA, 43 U.S.C. § 1732(a) (2006).17 SeeDR at 4, 5. He further concluded, in his April 2012 FONSI, that, since none of thepotential impacts were likely to be significant, BLM was not required bysection 102(2)(C) of NEPA to first prepare an EIS, before approving leasing.

BCA and Audubon appealed timely from the Deputy State Director’sApril 2012 protest denial decision, requesting a stay of the effect of the determinationto offer the disputed parcels at the Lease Sale. The requests for stay are opposed byBLM and the State in both appeals. Wexpro and Baseline, successful high bidders,oppose the stay in IBLA 2012-208, and QEP and Baseline, successful high bidders,oppose the stay in IBLA 2012-209. See supra note 5.

Following issuance of the April 2012 protest denial decision, the State Directorwent forward, pursuant to 43 C.F.R. § 3120.1-3, with offering the disputed parcels,along with other parcels, at the May 1, 2012, Lease Sale, which resulted in BLM’sdeclaration of Wexpro and others as the successful high bidders for competitive oiland gas leases for all of the disputed parcels. See 43 C.F.R. § 3120.1-3 (the automaticstay afforded by 43 C.F.R. § 4.21(a) does not apply to a decision by BLM to goforward with a competitive oil and gas lease sale); Wyoming Outdoor Council,156 IBLA 377, 380-82 (2002). On August 8, 2012, BLM informed the Board that onJuly 30, 2012, it had issued all of the 49 competitive oil and gas leases currently at

16 (...continued)101, and 113 W., T. 16 N., Rs. 100, 102, and 113 W., T. 17 N., R. 115 W., T. 18 N.,R. 91 W., T. 21 N., R. 111 W., T. 22 N., R. 85 W., T. 24 N., Rs. 86-89, 95, 96, and110 W., and T. 25 N., Rs. 89 and 109 W., Sixth Principal Meridian, Carbon,Sweetwater, and Uinta Counties, Wyoming.17 At the time of the DR, BLM was in the process of drafting proposed revisions of thethree RMPs at issue, for the purpose of deciding, inter alia, how best to manage thepublic lands for sage-grouse and their habitat. BLM’s decisions to defer all or parts ofthe parcels that had originally been proposed were designed to postpone adetermination whether to include the affected lands in a future lease sale until afterBLM had promulgated final revisions of the RMPs, which was expected to occur bySept. 30, 2014. Otherwise, BLM decided to go forward with its leasing decisionbased on the current RMPs.

183 IBLA 106

IBLA 2012-208 & 2012-209

issue, effective August 1, 2012, since the Deputy State Director’s April 2012 decisionhad become effective.

We first address whether BCA and Audubon have standing under 43 C.F.R.§ 4.410 to appeal from the Deputy State Director’s April 2012 decision denying theirprotests.

II. STANDING TO APPEAL

[1] In order to pursue an appeal from and seek a stay of a BLM decision, anappellant is required to have standing under 43 C.F.R. § 4.410 to appeal from thedecision. Under 43 C.F.R. § 4.410(a), an appellant must demonstrate that it is both a“party to a case” and “adversely affected” by the decision, within the meaning of43 C.F.R. § 4.410(b) and (d). See The Coalition of Concerned National Park [Service]Retirees, 165 IBLA 79, 81-86 (2005), and cases cited. An appeal must be dismissed ifeither element is lacking. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 140 IBLA 341, 346(1997); Mark S. Altman, 93 IBLA 265, 266 (1986). It is the responsibility of theappellant to demonstrate the requisite elements of standing. Concerned Citizens forNuclear Safety, 175 IBLA 142, 146 (2008); Colorado Open Space Council, 109 IBLA274, 280 (1989).

Under 43 C.F.R. § 4.410(b), an appellant is a “party to a case” when it is “onewho has taken action that is the subject of the decision on appeal, is the object of thatdecision, or has otherwise participated in the process leading to the decision underappeal, e.g., . . . by commenting on an environmental document, or by filing a protestto a proposed action.” See, e.g., The Coalition of Concerned National Park [Service]Retirees, 165 IBLA at 81-82. By virtue of their protests, both BCA and Audubonqualify as parties to a case.

Under 43 C.F.R. § 4.410(d), a party to a case is adversely affected by adecision when that decision has caused or is substantially likely to cause injury to alegally cognizable interest of the party. See, e.g., The Coalition of Concerned NationalPark [Service] Retirees, 165 IBLA at 81-82. When an organization appeals a BLMdecision, it must demonstrate that one or more of its members has a legallycognizable interest in the subject matter of the appeal, coinciding with theorganization’s purposes, that is or may be negatively affected by the decision. Id.at 86-87. The burden falls upon the appellant to make colorable allegations of anadverse effect, supported by specific facts, set forth in an affidavit, declaration, orother statement of an affected individual, sufficient to establish a causal relationshipbetween the approved action and the injury alleged. The Fund for Animals, Inc.,163 IBLA 172, 176 (2004); Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 127 IBLA 325, 327(1993); Colorado Open Space Council, 109 IBLA at 280.

183 IBLA 107

IBLA 2012-208 & 2012-209

Further, since the BLM decision at issue involves the leasing of several parcelsof land for oil and gas purposes, each of the appellants must show an adverse effectas a result of the leasing of each parcel to which it objects, in order to be recognizedas having standing to appeal the decision to lease that parcel. As we said in WyomingOutdoor Council, 153 IBLA 379, 384 (2000): “[W]hile an individual or a group hasthe right under 43 C.F.R. § 4.450-2 to protest all parcels offered at a lease sale,dismissal of such a protest does not guarantee the right to appeal the dismissaldecision as to all parcels.” Rather, standing to appeal must be demonstrated as to“each particular parcel to which the appeal relates.” 153 IBLA at 384 (emphasisadded).

Both BCA and Audubon have submitted declarations of their staff and/ormembers in support of their assertions that they have a legally cognizable interestthat is substantially likely to be injured by BLM’s decision to go forward with leasingthe 49 parcels at issue. With its Statement of Reasons (SOR), BCA offers theDeclaration of Erik Molvar (May 23, 2012), who asserts use of lands in and/or in theimmediate vicinity of each of the 7 parcels which BCA protested and now appeals. We, therefore, conclude that BCA has demonstrated that it has standing to appealfrom the Deputy State Director’s decision denying BCA’s protest to the lease ofParcels 41, 42, and 49 through 53.

With its Reply, Audubon offers the Declarations of Daly Edmunds (July 6,2012), Vicki Henry (July 6, 2012), Stephen Henry (July 7, 2012), and Tim Banks(July 3, 2012). However, these Declarations assert use of lands by Audubon’smembers in or in the immediate vicinity of only 12 of the 42 parcels which Audubonprotested and now appeals, i.e., Parcels 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 25, 36, 75, 95, 108, and109. Thus, we conclude that Audubon has failed to carry its burden to demonstratethat it has a legally cognizable interest associated with any of the remaining30 parcels that is substantially likely to be injured by BLM’s decision to go forwardwith leasing those parcels, i.e., Parcels 4 through 7, 10, 20, 21, 24, 26, 28, 30, 31, 35,43, 44, 48, 56, 59 through 61, 116, 117, 120, 122, 125, 126, 128, 133, 134, and 153. For this reason, Audubon’s appeal is dismissed in part for lack of standing to appealto the extent that it challenges BLM’s decision to go forward with leasing these30 parcels.

We now turn to the merits of the appeals.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976

BCA argues that BLM’s decision to lease the 7 parcels at issue in

183 IBLA 108

IBLA 2012-208 & 2012-209

IBLA 2012-208 is violative of the multiple-use management requirement of section 302(a) of FLPMA, 43 U.S.C. § 1732(a) (2006), because BLM failed todetermine whether the public lands at issue are suitable for designation as wildernessin accordance with section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1131(c) (2006). BCA asserts that all 7 parcels were long ago determined to constitute public landshaving wilderness characteristics, thus warranting their designation as wilderness. BCA refers to proposals by itself and others, denoted as the Citizens’ WildernessInventory of Adobe Town (July 19, 2001), and the Citizens’ Wilderness Inventory of theKinney Rim South Unit (February 8, 2002), for the wilderness designation of twotracts of public land (Adobe Town (WY-030-411) and Kinney Rim South(WY-030-412-S)). SOR at 4. BCA notes that Areas B (23,566 acres) and C(10,573 acres) of the proposed Adobe Town wilderness unit encompassed Parcels 41and 42, and Areas C (50,476 acres), D (37,705 acres) and E (29,962 acres) of theKinney Rim South wilderness unit encompassed Parcels 49 through 53, which arecurrently at issue.

[2] BLM’s authority, under the wilderness review requirements of section 603of FLPMA, 43 U.S.C. § 1782 (2006), to designate wilderness study areas (WSA) isdeemed to have expired as of October 21, 1993, upon expiration of the President’sauthority under that statute to recommend WSA’s for wilderness designation. Colorado Environmental Coalition, 162 IBLA 293, 298 (2004); see EA at 85. Nonetheless, we have recognized that BLM may exercise its general inventory andland-use planning authority, pursuant to sections 201(a) and 202(a) of FLPMA,43 U.S.C. §§ 1711(a) and 1712(a) (2006), to assess and protect wildernesscharacteristics. See 162 IBLA at 299-300, n.9. BLM clearly exercised that authorityhere, “screen[ing] to determine whether the [proposed] parcels, or portions of theparcels, are located in areas that contain wilderness characteristics.” EA at 85.

BCA’s argument that BLM “has largely denied the existence of wildernesscharacteristics in the leased parcels in question,” although there is “ample evidence tothe contrary,” necessarily implies that BLM has already determined whether the landsat issue qualify as wilderness. SOR at 7. BLM addressed the question of whether anyof the disputed parcels, or any of the other public lands in Wyoming, satisfy thecriteria for designation as wilderness during the 15-year wilderness review periodwhich began October 21, 1976.18 The public lands at issue were not included in anyWSA. See EA at 86; 45 Fed. Reg. 75606 (Nov. 14, 1980); 44 Fed. Reg. 40429(July 10, 1979). BLM’s wilderness review decisions have become administratively

18 Parcels 41, 42, and 49 through 53 are situated in the immediate vicinity of the85,710-acre Adobe Town WSA (WY-030-401 and WY-040-408), designated by BLMpursuant to section 603 of FLPMA.

183 IBLA 109

IBLA 2012-208 & 2012-209

final for the Department, and thus are no longer subject to review by the Board. Colorado Environmental Coalition, 161 IBLA 386, 391-94 (2004).

In this case, BLM specifically evaluated the citizens’ wilderness proposals inFebruary 5, 2002, and March 19, 2003. See Letter to BCA from BLM, dated Feb. 5,2002 (part of Ex. D attached to SOR); Inventory Area Evaluation (Adobe TownCitizens’ Proposed Wilderness) (part of Ex. D attached to SOR); Documentation ofBLM Wilderness Inventory Findings on Record (Adobe Town Citizens’ ProposedWilderness), dated Sept. 12, 2011; Letter to BCA from BLM, dated Mar. 19, 2003(part of Ex. F attached to SOR); Inventory Area Evaluation (Kinney Rim South),dated Sept. 27, 2002 (part of Ex. F attached to SOR); Documentation of BLMWilderness Inventory Findings on Record (Kinney Rim South Citizens’ ProposedWilderness), dated Sept. 12, 2011. BLM concluded that none of the lands qualifiedfor wilderness designation because they either lacked wilderness characteristics orwere unsuitable for wilderness designation.19 See EA at 85, 86; EA, Appendix D, atunp. 2-3; SOR at 8, 11-13, 15. BLM’s citizens’ wilderness proposal decisions have,likewise, become administratively final for the Department, and thus are no longersubject to review by the Board.

BCA argues that BLM’s original February 5, 2002, and March 19, 2003,evaluations did not comply with more recent policy directives in IM No. 2011-154,which governs BLM’s wilderness assessments in conjunction with current land-useplanning, and that BLM was required to reassess the wilderness characteristics of thepublic lands at issue. See SOR at 8-16; Reply at 4-5, 11, 13-16. BCA asserts that BLMimproperly concluded that the lands did not exhibit wilderness characteristics,principally relying “on the presence of previously existing [oil and gas] leases . . . todeny the presence of wilderness qualities[.]” Reply at 14. Rather, it states thatwilderness characteristics are limited to naturalness and outstanding opportunitiesfor solitude or primitive, unconfined recreation.

19 BCA states that, following its original evaluations, BLM reassessed the wildernesscharacter of the lands in the Adobe Town and Kinney Rim South units inpromulgating the Draft Oil Shale and Tar Sands RMP Amendments to Address Land UseAllocations in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming and Programmatic EIS on Dec. 21, 2007(72 Fed. Reg. 72751 (Dec. 21, 2007)), and the Draft Programmatic EIS and PossibleLand Use Plan Amendments for Allocation of Oil Shale and Tar Sands Resources onLands Administered by BLM in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming on Feb. 3, 2012 (77 Fed.Reg. 5513 (Feb. 3, 2012)). See SOR at 19. BLM states that any indication that anylands at issue were considered to be wilderness in character is not accurate. SeeDecision at 20-22.

183 IBLA 110

IBLA 2012-208 & 2012-209

In February 2002, BLM initiated the process of deciding whether to amend theexisting November 8, 1990, Great Divide RMP, which covered public lands under thejurisdiction of the Rawlins Field Office. BLM specifically considered, in the DraftRMP, whether to adopt management actions which would preclude oil and gasleasing and other public-land uses for the protection of the 31,510-acre Adobe TownFringe, which aggregated parts of the original Adobe Town citizens’ wildernessproposal. BLM declined to do so, however. Although the Fringe satisfied thenaturalness and outstanding opportunities for solitude and primitive, unconfinedrecreation, the tract did not qualify for wilderness designation, since it could not beproperly managed for its wilderness character, given existing oil and gas leases anddevelopment in the immediate vicinity. See Draft RMP and EIS, datedDecember 2004, at 2-4 to 2-5, 2-33 to 2-34, Map 2-45 (Areas with WildernessCharacteristics); BLM Briefing Paper, dated Feb. 22, 2006 (part of Ex. G attached toSOR); Proposed RMP and Final EIS, Volume 1-1, dated Dec. 26, 2007, at 2-3; RODand Approved RMP at 1-3; Director’s Protest Resolution, dated Dec. 24, 2008, at150-51; EA at 135.

BLM also specifically evaluated an “Expanded Wilderness Study AreaAlternative,” which would have designated additional lands covered by the AdobeTown, Kinney Rim, and other citizens’ wilderness proposals as WSAs, or otherwiseprovided for the protection of wilderness characteristics. BLM declined to considerthat alternative because the statutory authority for WSA designation had alreadyexpired, and BLM had already determined that none of the lands qualified forwilderness designation, either lacking wilderness characteristics or being unsuitablefor wilderness designation. See Proposed RMP and Final EIS, Volume 1-1, at 2-10 to2-11; ROD and Approved RMP at 1-3; EA at 85-86; EA, Appendix D, at unp. 2-3.

BCA and others protested BLM’s Proposed RMP, pursuant to 43 C.F.R.§ 1610.5-2, arguing, inter alia, on the basis that lands in the Adobe Town, KinneyRim, and other citizens’ wilderness proposals warranted designation as wilderness. The Director, BLM, denied the protest on December 24, 2008, declining to managethe lands for protection of wilderness characteristics, instead providing formultiple-use management. See Director’s Protest Resolution at 149-53. The StateDirector designated the lands as suitable for multiple-use management, and thus foroil and gas leasing. ROD and Approved RMP at 2-22, Map 2-38; EA at 85-86; EA,Appendix D, at unp. 2-3; FONSI at 3; Decision at 12. BLM’s land-use planningdecision is not properly challenged before the Board, since the Director’s protestdecision constitutes the final decision of the Department, under 43 C.F.R.§ 1610.5-2(b). See, e.g., Biodiversity Conservation Alliance, 171 IBLA 313, 319(2007).

183 IBLA 111

IBLA 2012-208 & 2012-209

Having determined in the RMP that the subject lands are appropriate formultiple-use management, BLM has authority to issue oil and gas leases for thoselands. See 43 U.S.C. § 1732(a) (2006); 43 C.F.R. § 1610.5-3(a); Norton v. SouthernUtah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55, 69 (2004); Tom Van Sant, 174 IBLA 78, 91-92(2008); EA, Appendix F, at unp. 24; Decision at 13. BLM is not required toreconsider whether lands sought to be leased should more appropriately be protectedfor their wilderness character, which would necessarily entail an amendment of theRMP, each time that a leasing proposal is being considered. See ColoradoEnvironmental Coalition, 161 IBLA at 396. Rather, BLM may act pursuant to theoutstanding land-use planning directions of the RMP.

Although it had already thoroughly considered the citizens’ wildernessproposals, and effectively re-inventoried the public lands at issue for wildernesscharacteristics in 2002 and 2003, BLM specifically updated its wilderness inventoryprior to deciding whether to lease the 7 parcels subject to BCA’s protest and appealfor oil and gas purposes. BLM states that it updated the inventory, in accordancewith IM No. 2011-154, when it undertook an IDT review of the proposed leasing inJuly 2011, prior to preparation of the EA. See EA at 85, 86, 87, 124, 125; EA,Appendix D, at unp. 2-3; EA, Appendix F, at unp. 27, 68; Decision at 12-13, 21, 22. BLM concluded that most of the lands in Areas B and C of the Adobe Townwilderness unit and Areas C, D, and E of the Kinney Rim South wilderness unit,which encompassed the public lands at issue, did not exhibit wildernesscharacteristics of naturalness or outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive,unconfined recreation. See Documentation of BLM Wilderness Inventory Findings onRecord (Adobe Town Citizens’ Proposed Wilderness), dated Sept. 12, 2011;Documentation of BLM Wilderness Inventory Findings on Record (Kinney Rim SouthCitizens’ Proposed Wilderness), dated Sept. 12, 2011. BLM determined that only thewestern half of Area C of the Adobe Town unit, which included part of Parcel 42, wasappropriate for consideration as an area having wilderness characteristics. However,BLM concluded that that portion of Parcel 42 was not appropriate for wildernessdesignation, since it was situated within an existing Federal oil and gas unit, within1 mile of an active oil and gas well, and adjacent to Federal oil and gas leases held byproduction. See EA at 85, 86, 87; EA, Appendix D, at unp. 2-3; EA, Appendix F, atunp. 28-29; Decision at 13, 14, Attachments 4 and 5.

BCA states that BLM “falsified” its 2011 assessment for most, if not all, of the7 parcels, noting that BLM’s wilderness evaluation showed that it had failed to“individually evaluate” each parcel, and was also at odds with factual information inthe record. Reply at 5, 7; see id. at 5-10. BCA cites to BLM’s September 15, 2011,wilderness evaluations for Parcels 41, 42, and 49 through 53, which are found atB(3) of Volume B of the Administrative Record, rather than its September 12, 2011,wilderness evaluations for Areas B and C of the Adobe Town wilderness unit and

183 IBLA 112

IBLA 2012-208 & 2012-209

Areas C, D, and E of the Kinney Rim South wilderness unit, which are found at G(27)and G(29) of Volume G of the Administrative Record. It is true that in its assessmentof the individual parcels, BLM used the same text to describe the naturalnesscharacteristics for each of the parcels or groups of parcels. However, that textappears on the evaluations of all of the proposed parcels, regardless of whethernaturalness was evaluated. The text is clearly superfluous. What distinguishes eachof the evaluations is the red-lettered text, which we regard as BLM’s true evaluationof each parcel or group of parcels. In each case, BLM noted that the parcel or groupof parcels did not qualify as natural because there were “[t]oo many man madeintrusions and oil and gas development in the area.” BCA has failed to show error inthat evaluation.

We therefore conclude that BLM has more than fulfilled its obligation undersection 201(a) of FLPMA to prepare and maintain on a continuing basis an inventoryof the public lands at issue and their wilderness values. Seen in this light, BCA’scurrent challenge to BLM’s evaluation of wilderness characteristics does notconstitute an assertion that BLM failed, as a procedural matter, to fulfill its inventoryduty under section 201(a) of FLPMA, but rather amounts to a substantive objectionto BLM’s determination that Parcels 41, 42, and 49 through 53 lack wildernesscharacteristics under section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act, or otherwise qualify forwilderness designation. That determination is committed to the professional opinionof BLM’s technical experts, and, even were we to adjudicate the matter, we would notoverturn that judgment based solely on BCA’s contrary opinion. See, e.g., UtahWilderness Association, 86 IBLA 89, 90-91 (1985).

B. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

BCA and Audubon argue that BLM’s decision to lease the disputed parcelsviolates section 102(2)(C) of NEPA, because the EA fails to adequately consider thelikely impacts of leasing and development of the oil and gas resources on wildernesscharacteristics, recreational use, visual resources, and the Greater sage-grouse andtheir habitat. See SOR at 18-24; Request at 18-32. The 7 parcels challenged by BCAare said to be located within areas of the public lands that qualify for designation aswilderness, and the 42 parcels challenged by Audubon are said to be located withinsage-grouse Core Areas. Appellants assert that BLM’s decision to lease the parcelsshould be reversed and that BLM should be required to supplement its EA or preparean EIS before deciding whether to lease the parcels.

[3] Section 102(2)(C) of NEPA requires consideration of the potentialenvironmental impacts of a proposed action in an EIS if that action is a “majorFederal action[] significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.” 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C) (2006). A BLM decision to proceed with a proposed action,

183 IBLA 113

IBLA 2012-208 & 2012-209

based on an EA tiered to a programmatic EIS, will be upheld, as being in accordwith section 102(2)(C) of NEPA, where the record demonstrates that BLM has,considering all relevant matters of environmental concern, taken a “hard look” atpotential environmental impacts, and made a convincing case that no significantimpact will result that was not already addressed in the EIS or that any such impactwill be reduced to insignificance by the adoption of appropriate mitigation measures. Wyoming Outdoor Council, 173 IBLA 226, 235 (2007).

An appellant seeking to overcome such a decision carries the burden todemonstrate, with objective proof, that BLM failed to consider a substantialenvironmental question of material significance to the proposed action, or otherwisefailed to abide by section 102(2)(C) of NEPA. Bales Ranch, Inc., 151 IBLA 353, 357(2000). The appellant must make an “‘affirmative showing that BLM failed toconsider a substantial environmental question of material significance,’” and cannotsimply “‘pick apart a record with alleged errors and disagreements[.]’” ArizonaZoological Society, 167 IBLA 347, 357-58 (2006) (quoting In re Stratton Hog TimberSale, 160 IBLA 329, 332 (2004)).

Audubon asserts that BLM was required to further analyze the likely effects ofdevelopment at the leasing stage, rejecting BLM’s statement that it could notundertake “‘a more specific impact and/or cumulative effects analysis’” concerningthe likely effects of oil and gas development in the absence of a definite developmentproposal. Request at 34 (quoting EA, Appendix F, at unp. 53).

In reviewing the record, we find that BLM did not “entirely defer” analysis ofdevelopment impacts “to future NEPA documents,” as asserted by Audubon, but thatBLM properly took the view that the analysis in the EA could not be “more specific.” Request at 34. BLM considered the effects of reasonably foreseeable development inconnection with the parcels, leaving more specific analysis to the consideration ofAPDs and plans for field development. Such an approach complies with NEPA. SeeState of New Mexico v. BLM, 565 F.3d 683, 718 (10th Cir. 2009) (“[A]n agency’sfailure to conduct site-specific analysis at the leasing stage may be challenged, but. . . a ‘particular challenge’ lacked merit when environmental impacts wereunidentifiable until exploration narrowed the range of likely drilling sites,” citingNorthern Alaska Environmental Center v. Kempthorne, 457 F.3d 969, 973, 977-78(9th Cir. 2006)); e.g., EA at 2, 6, 92 (“BLM cannot determine exactly where a well orwells may be drilled or what technology . . . may be used to drill and produce wells,so the impacts listed [in the EA] . . . are more generic, rather than site-specific”),116-17, 140; EA, Appendix F, at unp. 41; Decision at 5, 9, 26-27. We conclude thatthe analysis in the EA, tiered to the EISs, was properly commensurate with the levelof detail concerning oil and gas development known and anticipated at the time ofleasing.

183 IBLA 114

IBLA 2012-208 & 2012-209

1. Wilderness Characteristics

We start with BCA’s argument that BLM failed to adequately consider thelikely impacts of leasing and development on the wilderness characteristics of thepublic lands in Parcels 41, 42, and 49 through 53. See SOR at 18-21. BCA states thatthe construction of permanent roads and well sites is “fundamentally incompatiblewith wilderness qualities.” Id. at 19.

We have long held that BLM is not required to consider the likely effects of oiland gas leasing and development on wilderness characteristics or the overallsuitability of the affected lands for wilderness designation, or regard such impacts assignificant, when BLM has previously determined, with administrative finality, thatthe area of public lands at issue does not qualify for wilderness designation. SeeBiodiversity Conservation Alliance, 171 IBLA 218, 233-34 (2007), and cases cited. BLM is also not required to consider the likely impacts of such activity on possiblefuture recognition by Congress or the Department, since they constitute remote andhighly speculative impacts. See id.

In the present case, since all of the public lands at issue have been finallydetermined to lack wilderness characteristics or to not be suitable for wildernessdesignation, we find no error in BLM’s declining to consider the likely impacts ofleasing and development on such characteristics. See EA at 124 (“Offering parcelsthat have been determined to not contain wilderness characteristics would not impactwilderness characteristics”).

2. Recreational Use

BCA argues that BLM failed to adequately consider the likely impacts ofleasing and development on the recreational use of the public lands in Parcels 41,42, and 49 through 53. See SOR at 22. BCA points out that in the December 2008Rawlins RMP, the lands in the 7 parcels were included in the 238,970-acre AdobeTown Dispersed Recreation Use Area (DRUA), which encompasses the Adobe TownWSA and adjacent lands. BCA claims that BLM was required to consider the impactsof oil and gas leasing and development on the subject parcels, which were deemed toprovide opportunities for dispersed recreational use.

The record makes clear that BLM was aware that the 7 parcels are all situatedin the DRUA, which was designated in the Rawlins RMP for the protection ofrecreational resources. See EA at 21, 25-26, 85, 124; Decision at 14; Rawlins RODand Approved RMP at 2-25, Map 2-17 (Recreation Management Areas); Rawlins RODand Approved RMP, Appendix 37 (Adobe Town DRUA), at A37-1. However, thelands in the DRUA were also designated in the RMP for multiple-use

183 IBLA 115

IBLA 2012-208 & 2012-209

management, and were accordingly open to oil and gas leasing and development. See EA, Appendix F, at unp. 24, 29, 72; ROD and Approved RMP at 1-12 to 1-13,2-21 to 2-22, 2-25, Map 2-38 (Oil and Gas Classifications), Map 2-58 (Adobe TownDRUA Recreation Opportunity Spectrum), Map 2-59 (Adobe Town DRUA RecreationOpportunity Spectrum - Desired Future Condition); ROD and Approved RMP,Appendix 37, at A37-1 (“Identification of the area as a Dispersed RecreationManagement Area will not limit mineral leasing or development”), A37-2 to A37-3. BLM sought to balance the competing interests by including a CSU stipulation forlands in the DRUA. That stipulation provides that surface use or occupancy, inconjunction with leasing, will be restricted or prohibited unless BLM and the leaseoperator agree upon an acceptable plan for mitigating adverse impacts to therecreational opportunity class setting within the DRUA. See EA at 106, 107, 125;Decision at 15. BCA offers no convincing argument or supporting evidence thatdemonstrates error or shows a deficiency in BLM’s analysis regarding the likelyimpacts of leasing and development on recreational resources.

3. Visual Resources

BCA argues that BLM failed to consider the likely impacts of leasing anddevelopment on the visual resources of the public lands at issue. See SOR at 22-24.

The EA, as tiered to the Rawlins RMP EIS, adequately addresses the likelyimpacts of leasing and development on air quality, which affects visibility, and onvisual resources. See EA at 66-70, 74-77, 91, 116-17, 132-33; Proposed RMP andFinal EIS, Volume 1-1, at 3-2 to 3-7, 3-9, 3-120 to 3-122, 4-5 to 4-11; Proposed RMPand Final EIS, Volume 1-2, at 4-391 to 4-407; Proposed RMP and Final EIS,Volume 2-1, at F-33 to F-45, Maps 2-49 to 2-51 (Visual Resource Management(VRM)). BLM used the applicable VRM classifications, as adopted in the RMP, inconsidering visual resource impacts on the subject Parcels. See EA at 91; Decision at14-16, 19-20; Director’s Protest Resolution at 140, 141; ROD and Approved RMP at2-48, Map 2-50 (VRM). BCA offers no convincing argument or supporting evidenceto show any error or deficiency in BLM’s analysis regarding the likely impacts ofleasing and development on visual resources. Nor does BCA establish that any suchimpacts are likely to be significant, warranting an EIS.

4. Supplemental EIS

BLM is required by NEPA’s implementing regulations to supplement an EIS, orthe EIS to which an EA is tiered, “if . . . [t]here are significant new circumstances orinformation relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed actionor its impacts.” 40 C.F.R. § 1502.9(c)(1). However, it is said that “an agency neednot supplement an EIS every time new information comes to light after the EIS is

183 IBLA 116

IBLA 2012-208 & 2012-209

finalized,” but that, applying the rule of reason, “if the new information is sufficientto show that the remaining [major Federal] action will ‘affec[t] the quality of thehuman environment’ in a significant manner or to a significant extent not alreadyconsidered, a supplemental EIS must be prepared.” Marsh v. Oregon NaturalResources Council, 490 U.S. 360, 373-74 (1989). As the court stated in State ofWisconsin v. Weinberger, 745 F.2d 412, 418, 420 (7th Cir. 1984): “[A SupplementalEIS is required when] the new [circumstances or] information present[] a seriouslydifferent picture of the likely environmental consequences of the proposed action notadequately envisioned by the original EIS.” (Emphasis added.) See, e.g., Center forBiological Diversity, 181 IBLA 325, 344 (2012).

Specifically, BCA cites as new information the State’s April 10, 2008,designation of 180,910 acres encompassing the Adobe Town WSA and surroundinglands, including Parcels 41 and 42, as Very Rare or Uncommon (VRU). In the VRUdesignation, the State determined that the affected lands exhibit very rare oruncommon scenic and other values which warrant protection. The State notes thatthe VRU designation, pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 35-11-112(a) (2008), had theeffect only of “limit[ing] non-coal [surface] mining on the[] [designated] lands ifmining would ‘irreparably harm, destroy, or materially impair’ the area,” and thus didnot prohibit or restrict oil and gas leasing or development. Opposition (BCA) at 11(quoting Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 35-11-406(m) (2011)); see Rawlins ROD and ApprovedRMP at 1-12; Decision at 17 n.40.20

BCA also argues that BLM’s February 2011 Visual Resource Inventory (VRI) forthe Rawlins Resource Area requires BLM to supplement its environmental analysis. See SOR at 5, 6; Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order, WyomingEnvironmental Quality Council, EQC Docket No. 07-1101, dated Apr. 10, 2008 (Ex. Hattached to SOR); Visual Resource Inventory, Rawlins Field Office, datedFebruary 2011 (Ex. M attached to SOR). In the VRI, BLM “place[d] most of the leaseparcels in question into the highest available Visual Resource Inventory class forlands not formally designated as wilderness.” SOR at 27. BLM notes that the VRIwas intended to guide BLM’s reassessment of the existing VRM classifications of thepublic lands in connection with its pending revision of the RMP. See EA at 91. Untilthen, BLM is required to adhere to the VRM classifications in the outstanding RMP,which was Class III for Parcels 41, 42, and 49 through 53.

BCA argues that both the April 2008 VRU designation and the February 2011VRI can be considered significant new information, since they were generated after

20 The State’s authority to make such designations in the future was revoked onJuly 1, 2011. See Decision at 17 n.40 (citing Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 35-11-112(a)(2011)).

183 IBLA 117

IBLA 2012-208 & 2012-209

the December 2007 Final EIS was prepared. However, while not addressed in theFinal EIS, both the VRU and VRI designations were considered during promulgationof the RMP and in connection with BLM’s current leasing decision. See Rawlins RODand Approved RMP at 1-12 (“BLM’s proposed management of the Adobe Town area,including the Adobe Town WSA and Adobe Town Dispersed Recreation Use Area,meets or exceeds the management protections of the State of Wyoming ‘very rare oruncommon’ designation”), 1-13; Decision at 17 n.40. Further, while not addressed inthe Final EIS, BLM considered the VRI in connection with promulgation of the RMPand in connection with BLM’s current leasing decision. See Rawlins ROD andApproved RMP at 1-1, 2-48, Map 2-50 (VRM); EA at 91; EA, Appendix F, at unp. 24,30; Decision at 14, 15 (“BLM retains the authority, through the DRUA CSU leasestipulation, to ensure that . . . lease development activities on [issued] . . . leases willcomply with the applicable VRM requirements [in effect at the time such activities areapproved]”).

BCA does not demonstrate that any of the findings associated with the StateVRU designation or BLM’s VRI constitutes significant new information showing thatBLM’s decision to lease the 7 parcels now at issue would impact scenic qualities,visual resources, or any other aspect of the environment in a significant manner or toa significant extent not already addressed in the Final EIS. Neither the VRUdesignation nor the VRI, absent any change in the existing VRM classification,automatically changes the applicable land-use management prescriptions regardingthe public lands at issue, or otherwise properly bears on the question of whether suchlands are available or appropriate for oil and gas leasing. Nowhere does BCAestablish that leasing and development of the public lands at issue is violative of theState’s VRU designation or BLM’s existing VRM classification. BCA faults BLM formerely acknowledging the VRU designation and VRI, without addressing theramifications thereof. See SOR at 26, 27-28. The mere assertion that BLM shouldhave addressed these matters does not, without more, establish that there is apotential significant impact not considered in the Final EIS that BLM was required toaddress by supplementing the EIS.

5. Greater Sage-Grouse

Audubon argues that BLM failed to adequately consider the likely impacts ofleasing and development of the public lands in the 42 disputed parcels on Greatersage-grouse and their habitat, particularly where they are situated in Core Areas.21

21 Audubon also argues that BLM failed to make an informed decision regarding theapproval of leasing in the Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Rock Springs Resource Areas,because it has failed to “learn[] from the experience” associated with the Sept. 28,

(continued...)

183 IBLA 118

IBLA 2012-208 & 2012-209

See Request at 18-32. It specifically challenges BLM’s conclusion that any suchimpact will be insignificant, asserting that leasing 45,686 acres of public lands inCore Areas is likely to significantly affect the sage-grouse’s “prospects for recoveryand survival,” and thus BLM was required to prepare an EIS.22 Id. at 2. Audubonasserts that, pending development of a comprehensive long-term region-widestrategy for conserving and restoring sage-grouse and their habitat andcorresponding revision of the RMPs, BLM must exercise considerable caution inimplementing its interim strategy for protecting sage-grouse. Audubon claims thatuninformed decisions to lease lands in additional Core Areas may result in the needfor formal designation of the sage-grouse as a threatened or endangered speciesunder the ESA.23 See id. at 23.

a. BLM’s Interim Management Strategy

BLM is currently implementing an interim strategy for the management ofpublic lands for the purpose of promoting sustainable sage-grouse populations andsufficient suitable habitat, while it is in the process of devising, through the revision

21 (...continued)2011, decision by the Federal district court in Western Watersheds Project v. Salazar,No. 4:08-CV-516-BLW, 2011 WL 4526746 (D. Idaho). Request at 31. In that case,the court, inter alia, found the Pinedale RMP EIS violative of NEPA because BLMfailed to adequately consider the likely cumulative impacts of energy developmentand grazing in the Pinedale Resource Area on declining sage-grouse population andhabitat. See 2011 WL 4526946 at *15-*17. Audubon makes no effort to establishthat any deficiency in the Pinedale RMP EIS, which was issued in August 2008 beforeBLM adopted the State’s core population area strategy in December 2009, is alsoevident in the case of the November 2011 EA, and the tiered Kemmerer, Rawlins, andGreen River RMP EISs, which are currently at issue. In short, Audubon fails to showthe relevance of the decision to this case. See Request at 30-32; Decision at 39; BLMOpposition (Audubon) at 21.22 We note that 47,662.2 acres of public land are actually encompassed by the42 disputed parcels in the Lease Sale.23 In this connection, Audubon argues that BLM failed to obtain FWS’ approval ofleasing or otherwise coordinate its decision with FWS. Request at 21. BLM was notrequired under section 7 of the ESA, 16 U.S.C. § 1536 (2006), to formally consultwith FWS since the sage-grouse is not yet designated a threatened or endangeredspecies. See EA at 5. BLM did, however, afford FWS an opportunity to comment onits proposed leasing. See id. at 144. FWS did not object or offer any comments. Wefind no indication that FWS ever determined that BLM’s decision to lease lands in theCore Areas was contrary to its views, or violative of the ESA. WGFD, which was alsoafforded an opportunity, did not object. See id.

183 IBLA 119

IBLA 2012-208 & 2012-209

of the RMPs, a comprehensive long-term strategy for managing the public lands forthe conservation and restoration of sage-grouse and their habitat, with the ultimategoal of avoiding formal designation of the sage-grouse as a threatened or endangeredspecies. Further, the interim strategy properly targets oil and gas leasing anddevelopment because such activity is well known to be likely, absent any restraint, tocontinue to cause the loss, fragmentation, and/or degradation of sage-grouse andtheir habitat.

While the limitations placed on leasing and development in Core Areas haveproperly been the centerpiece of that strategy, it must be recognized that BLM doesnot, at the present time, preclude leasing and development in Core Areas. Rather,with the effective concurrence of FWS and WGFD, BLM has adopted particularexceptions to the general preclusion of leasing and development in the case ofCore Areas. BLM applied those exceptions, which are currently set forth inIM No. WY-2012-019, in the present case, determining that 42 parcels situated inCore Areas were properly offered for leasing, since they were not part of at least11 square miles of contiguous, manageable, unleased Federal mineral estate, andthus could not be effectively managed as key sage-grouse habitat. See EA at 9, 83,121-22, Appendix C; Decision at 4, 5, 34 (“The parcels (or portions of parcels) thatthe BLM intends to offer for the May 2012 [Lease] Sale have all passed theBLM-Wyoming’s sage-grouse screen”). Audubon has not demonstrated that BLMfailed to properly determine whether any of the parcels qualified for the exceptionfrom the deferral of leasing in Core Areas, by virtue of not being part of at least11 square miles of contiguous, manageable, unleased Federal mineral estate.24 Further, BLM properly states that not leasing parcels that are excepted from theCore Area leasing preclusion is as equally violative of its management policy asleasing parcels that are subject to the Core Area leasing preclusion. See Decisionat 36.

Audubon argues that, in allowing leasing in Core Areas, BLM failed toconsider the likely effects of leasing and developing 45,686 acres of public landsin the 42 parcels on the overall success of its interim management strategy forpromoting a sustainable sage-grouse population and sufficient suitable habitat,and, ultimately, on the success of the conservation and restoration objectives of itseventual comprehensive long-term region-wide management strategy, which will beset forth in revised RMPs. See, e.g., Request at 24. It points to the fact that leasingand development “appear to undercut” the basic “guiding principles” of the interim

24 We note that Audubon objects to the inclusion of Parcel 75 in the Lease Salebecause, although it was determined to be within a Core Area, it was improperlyexcepted from deferral by the screening criteria. BLM, however, concluded that theparcel was not within a Core Area. See EA at 44; Decision, Attachment 1, at unp. 4.

183 IBLA 120

IBLA 2012-208 & 2012-209

strategy, which are to protect unfragmented habitat, minimize habitat loss andfragmentation, and manage habitat for sage-grouse life history needs. Id.

Audubon fails to demonstrate that leasing the 42 parcels subject to its appealis likely to adversely impact BLM’s ability to achieve its interim management strategygoals of promoting a sustainable sage-grouse population and sufficient suitablehabitat, owing to habitat loss, fragmentation, or degradation, or any other cause. Itmust be remembered that BLM’s determination that leasing and development ispermissible in the case of the 42 parcels stems precisely from its conclusion that,unlike the other Core Areas that overlap public lands originally proposed for leasing,but deferred from leasing, the public lands in the Core Areas at issue do not affordhabitat that may be suitably managed for sage-grouse, since it is not considered partof an expanse of habitat large enough for that purpose. Therefore, BLM deemed suchlands appropriate for leasing and development. Audubon fails to rebut BLM’sconclusion. Further, nowhere does Audubon offer any convincing argument orsupporting evidence that the decision to offer the 42 parcels currently at issue islikely, alone or together with other leasing and development, to cause or evencontribute to the listing of the sage-grouse as a threatened or endangered speciesunder the ESA.

Audubon effectively seeks a blanket preclusion of any leasing anddevelopment in Core Areas. However, BLM’s interim management policy does notprovide for a blanket preclusion in development areas, and it is unclear whether sucha preclusion would be applicable even were the sage-grouse to be formallydesignated a threatened or endangered species. In focusing on the generalpreclusion of leasing and development in Core Areas, Audubon fundamentallyopposes the manageability exceptions adopted by BLM. In that regard, Audubon’sposition appears to reflect little more than a difference of opinion regarding theproper management of the sage-grouse, which does not establish a NEPA violation. See, e.g., Santa Fe Northwest Information Council, 174 IBLA 94, 120 (2008). WhileAudubon constantly indicates that its approach is in line with the “best availablescience,” it fails to identify that science or to demonstrate how that science supportsits position. Request at 39.

b. New Scientific Information

Audubon specifically argues that BLM’s decision to lease in the Core Areasfailed to take into account the significant new scientific information regarding thelikely impacts of leasing and development on sage-grouse and their habitat set forthin NTT’s December 21, 2011, Report. See Request at 20-21, 23-25, 26-28; Reply at4-7. The NTT stated that its Report was based upon the “latest science” and that itsmanagement decisions reflected the “best biological judgment” regarding sage-grouse

183 IBLA 121

IBLA 2012-208 & 2012-209

and their habitat. Report at 5. Audubon contends that the Report “cannot beignored” in reviewing the likely environmental consequences of leasing the 42 parcelsfor oil and gas purposes. Request at 24-25.

BLM acknowledged the NTT Report in its April 2012 DR and Decision, but notin its EA, which was prepared in November 2011. See DR at 1 (“BLM-Wyoming hasreviewed recent policy issued by the BLM-Washington Office,” citingIM No. 2012-044, which has Attachment 1 (NTT Report)); Decision at 6. Much ofthe sage-grouse literature cited and summarized in the Report dates from the time ofFWS’s March 2010 listing decision, and it is unclear whether any of the literature isdated after the November 2011 EA. See Report at 39-49, 52-55, 59-60, 66-67. In anyevent, Audubon fails to show that the Report would materially alter anything in theEA, or otherwise affect BLM’s leasing decision. Audubon does not identify anyscientific information contained or cited in the Report that is at odds with the leasingof all or any of the 42 parcels at issue. It is not enough to cite to general scientificliterature without making any effort to relate such scientific information to theproposed action and the circumstances under which it will occur, or otherwisedemonstrate its relevance to the environmental consequences of that action. Merecitation does not demonstrate that BLM failed to properly understand the expectedconsequences of the proposed leasing, or to fully appreciate its significance, and thusdoes not establish a violation of NEPA. Biodiversity Conservation Alliance, 171 IBLA at228-29; Biodiversity Conservation Alliance, 169 IBLA 321, 343 (2006).

c. Habitat Connection

Audubon argues that BLM failed to consider the likely impacts on sage-grouseand their habitat by leasing public lands in the 42 parcels that have habitat that isconnected to habitat on public lands in Colorado. Audubon states that suchconnectedness promotes the movement of sage-grouse and the genetic diversity ofthe sage-grouse population. See Request at 28-29. Audubon specifically refers to 17of the disputed parcels (Parcels 8 through 18, 24 through 27, 31, and 35), which aresituated south of Rawlins, Wyoming, have habitat connected to habitat on publiclands over the border in Colorado, and are already surrounded by oil and gasdevelopment.

In determining whether to lease the public lands at issue, BLM considered theexistence of habitat connections between areas of land within Wyoming, concludingthat none of the disputed parcels was situated in an area where connectivity was atissue. See Decision at 39. BLM also notes that, in any event, there is no connectionbetween any of the disputed parcels and lands in Colorado. See EA, Appendix F, atunp. 42. The record does not support Audubon’s argument that adverse impacts arelikely to arise as a consequence of leasing any of the 17 parcels by virtue of habitat

183 IBLA 122

IBLA 2012-208 & 2012-209

connection between any or all of the 17 parcels and any other lands in Wyoming orColorado. See Request at 29 (citing Undated Comments of Alison Holloran, Directorof Science, Audubon Rockies (Ex. 3B attached to Request), at 2-3); Reply at 15(citing Supplemental Expert Comments of Holloran, dated July 6, 2012 (attached toReply), at 1-2).

d. Cumulative Impacts

Audubon also argues that BLM failed to consider likely cumulative impacts tosage-grouse and their habitat owing to development of the oil and gas resources ofthe 17 parcels along the Wyoming border together with “the proposed Chokecherryand Sierra Madre (CCSM) Wind Farm Project and associated TransWest Express[electrical] transmission line,” which are situated “in close proximity” to the parcels. Request at 31; see Reply at 15-17.

BLM could not, in its cumulative effects analysis, discern any reasonablyforeseeable cumulative impacts associated with the CCSM and TransWest Expressprojects, noting that, in any event, “[t]he EISs/EAs being prepared for those projectswill address the cumulative effects of th[]e individual projects in conjunction witheach other and other ongoing projects,” including oil and gas development associatedwith the leases now at issue. EA at 140; see FONSI at 6; Decision at 40. We notethat BLM recently published a notice of the availability of the Final EIS for the CCSMproject, but has yet to prepare a draft or final EA or EIS for the TransWest Expressproject. See 77 Fed. Reg. 39503 (July 3, 2012).25

BLM is not required to consider cumulative impacts that are remote and highlyspeculative. Coeur d’Alene Audubon Society, Inc., 146 IBLA 65, 70 (1998) (citingTrout Unlimited v. Morton, 509 F.2d 1276, 1283 (9th Cir. 1974)). Audubon fails tooffer any argument or supporting evidence demonstrating that, owing to geographicproximity or any other factor, there is likely to be an interaction between theproposed leasing and development and the CCSM and TransWest Express projectsthat might result in a specific cumulative impact, which BLM improperly failed toaddress. See Request at 31-32; e.g., Wyoming Outdoor Council, 147 IBLA 105, 109(1998). We have long held that, in order to demonstrate a deficiency in BLM’scumulative effects analysis, “it is not sufficient merely to note the existence of other. . . projects . . . without concretely identifying the adverse impacts caused by suchother . . . projects to which the action being scrutinized will add.” National WildlifeFederation, 150 IBLA 385, 399 (1999). In sum, the record leaves no question that 25 See alsohttp://www.blm.gov/pgdata/content/wy/en/info/NEPA/documents/hdd/transwest.html (last visited Aug. 24, 2012).

183 IBLA 123

IBLA 2012-208 & 2012-209

BLM considered the likely impacts of oil and gas leasing and development of the42 parcels on sage-grouse and their habitat in the EA, as tiered to the RMP EISs.26

6. Reasonable Alternatives

Audubon argues that BLM failed to consider reasonable alternatives to theproposal to offer the disputed parcels for leasing. See Request at 26-28. Audubonasserts that BLM should have considered a “sage-grouse conservation alternative,”which would have deferred leasing in the case of all of the parcels that encompassedpublic lands in Core Areas, and thus the 42 parcels now at issue, until BLMcompleted its revision of the RMPs, which would adopt a comprehensive long-termregion-wide management strategy for sage-grouse, or, at least, devised a new interimmanagement strategy. While admitting that BLM could adopt, in its final leasingdecision, alternatives that precluded the leasing of some or all of the parcels withinCore Areas, Audubon argues that BLM failed to fulfill its NEPA obligation to“specifically analyze” such alternatives. Id. at 26.

BLM is required by section 102(2)(E) of NEPA, 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(E)(2006), to consider “appropriate alternatives” to the proposed action, which willaccomplish its intended purpose, are technically and economically feasible, and havea lesser impact. Headwaters, Inc. v. BLM, 914 F.2d 1174, 1180-81 (9th Cir. 1990);Bales Ranch, Inc., 151 IBLA at 363. An EA must generally include a “briefdiscussion[] . . . of alternatives[.]” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.9(b).

BLM clearly considered the alternative advanced by Audubon in the course ofconsidering the no action alternative, under which all of the public lands proposedfor leasing would not be leased, and thus would not be developed for oil and gaspurposes. Subsumed under the no action alternative was not leasing all of theparcels within Core Areas, including the 42 parcels now at issue, or the multitude ofcombinations of these parcels. See EA, Appendix F, at unp. 41; Decision at 38.

26 See, e.g., EA at 81-83, 120-22; EA, Appendix F, at unp. 36-43; Kemmerer ProposedRMP and Final EIS, Volume 1, dated Aug. 8, 2008, at 3-59 to 3-61, 3-81 to 3-85, 4-89to 4-96, 4-130 to 4-137, 4-142 to 4-143, 4-146 to 4-147, 4-150 to 4-151, 4-153 to4-154; Kemmerer Proposed RMP and Final EIS, Volume 2, at Maps 24-26 (BiologicalResources Special Status Species - Wildlife); Rawlins Proposed RMP and Final EIS,Volume 1-1, at 3-143 to 3-144, 3-155 to 3-158; Rawlins Proposed RMP and Final EIS,Volume 1-2, at 4-450, 4-455 to 4-457, 4-466 to 4-467, 4-473 to 4-474, 4-477, 4-483;Rawlins Proposed RMP and Final EIS, Volume 2-1, at Map 3-13 (Greater Sage-Grouseand Columbia Sharp-Tailed Grouse Leks); Green River Proposed RMP and Final EIS,Volume 1, dated Feb. 15, 1996, at 269 (Map 17 (Sage Grouse Seasonal RestrictionAreas)), 347, 350, 438 to 440; Decision at 5, 33-34, 36.

183 IBLA 124

IBLA 2012-208 & 2012-209

BLM is not required to devise a multitude of alternatives that specificallyinvolve not leasing different groupings of the various parcels proposed for leasing. What is at stake is whether, in deciding whether to lease the proposed parcels, BLMhas considered the environmental ramifications of not leasing any or all of theparcels. Clearly, BLM has done so by considering the environmental ramifications ofnot leasing all of the proposed parcels, which necessarily includes not leasing any oneor any one grouping of these parcels. In doing so, it is well established that BLMsatisfied section 102(2)(E) of NEPA. See, e.g., Biodiversity Conservation Alliance,171 IBLA at 238.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to the Board of Land Appealsby the Secretary of the Interior, 43 C.F.R. § 4.1, Audubon’s appeal in IBLA 2012-209is dismissed in part for lack of standing; the decision appealed from is affirmed; andthe petitions for a stay are denied as moot.

/s/ James F. RobertsAdministrative Judge

I concur:

/s/ T. Britt PriceAdministrative Judge

183 IBLA 125