Background Information

Transcription

1 Utah Greater Sage Grouse Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Land Use Planning Amendments White Paper December 2013 Background Information In October, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) released a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) and land use planning amendments (Amendments) that will incorporate new Greater Sage Grouse (GSG) conservation measures on BLM and USFS lands in Utah and a small portion of Wyoming. The Amendments are part of BLM's "National Greater Sage Grouse Planning Strategy" that will incorporate new GSG policies on approximately 47 million acres of GSG habitat in ten western states. BLM and USFS (the agencies) intend to issue separate Records of Decision (ROD) by September 30, With this effort, the agencies hope to demonstrate to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) that a federal listing of the species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is unnecessary. The agencies are preparing Amendments for 14 BLM planning areas and six national forests covering 3.3 million acres of GSG habitat and another 694,000 acres of habitat with underlying federal mineral estate across the state of Utah. The planning areas also include portions of the Uinta Wasatch Cache National Forest and the Ashley National Forests that extend into Wyoming. The Amendments come with a 90 day comment period, which ends on January 29, The Amendments contain five management alternatives that apply to federal lands and minerals. The final preferred alternative could combine elements of one or all of the alternatives. Alternative A No Action continues current management direction under existing plans. Alternative B National Technical Team Measures includes measures outlined in the BLM National Technical Team (NTT) report. Alternative C Conservation Groups contains recommendations submitted by conservation groups, including the creation of new BLM Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) and USFS Greater Sage Grouse Zoological Areas covering 2.2 million acres. Alternative D Utah Sub Region (Preferred Alternative) includes conservation measures and prescriptions developed by the agencies, in coordination with local U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS). Alternative E State Plans include conservation measures and prescriptions based on the Conservation Plan for Greater Sage Grouse in Utah (Utah plan) and the State of Wyoming s Governor s Executive Orders and (Wyoming plan). BLM has mapped GSG habitat in coordination with the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (DWR). GSG habitat in the planning area falls into two categories: Preliminary Priority Management Areas (PPMA) are lands having the highest value to maintaining sustainable GSG populations Preliminary General Management Areas (PGMA) are lands requiring special management to sustain GSG populations, but that are not as important as PPMAs.

2 Page 2 Problems with the Amendments Utah s oil and natural gas industry supports the agencies efforts to craft new management policies to conserve and protect GSG and its habitat in Utah in order to demonstrate to the FWS that a federal listing of the species under the ESA is unnecessary. However, there are many management prescriptions in the Amendments that are unnecessarily restrictive, lack proper scientific justification, and do not coincide with local conditions. If implemented, the management restrictions in Alternatives B, C, and D will have a number of serious socioeconomic consequences in Utah and exceed what is needed to demonstrate to FWS that the regulatory mechanisms needed to conserve GSG and its habitat will exist in the planning area. Moreover, the agencies have proposed measures that do not adhere to the multiple use concept mandated by statute and fail to effectively balance the conservation of GSG with continued economic activity in the planning area. The agencies must rectify these issues before finalizing the Amendments. Users of public lands in Utah, including oil and natural gas companies, invest billions of dollars into the national, state and local economies and provide thousands of high paying jobs. The management restrictions and closures in the Amendments will have a direct impact on the economy and the future viability of oil and natural gas development in the planning area and beyond. Supporting Science The Amendments contain a number of studies and reports that reach widely inconsistent conclusions about the current status and historical population trends of GSG in Utah. While some studies indicate decreases in lek attendance and overall distribution, others show that populations are relatively stable or even increasing. While lek counts can be of limited value when evaluating the health and overall status of GSG populations, the Amendments state that the number of leks counted each year since 1970 has increased and the total number of birds counted has generally increased over time. In addition, the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) has found that the average number of males per occupied lek have stabilized between 1996 and Nonetheless, the agencies have discounted these positive trends by proposing overly restrictive management restrictions, including four mile NSO buffers around leks. The proposed management restrictions in the planning area must reflect the actual status and population trends of GSG. Furthermore, the Amendments rely too heavily on BLM s 2011 National Technical Team (NTT) report, entitled A Report on National Greater Sage Grouse Conservation Measures. While all the recommendations in the NTT report are not directly included in the preferred alternative, some are, including the proposed restrictions for noise and 4 mile no surface occupancy buffers around a lek. The use of the NTT report is extremely problematic as it contains overly burdensome recommendations that are not based on local conditions in Utah. The NTT report asserts that oil and natural gas impacts are universally negative and typically severe," but provides no scientific data to support that assertion. The report selectively presents scientific information to support overly burdensome conservation measures that are not based on local conditions. The Amendments rely too heavily upon a select few studies utilized by the NTT report, but also ignores other data and studies that clearly demonstrate 1 DEIS at 3 7.

3 Page 3 impacts from oil and natural gas are not universally negative and typically severe. BLM should refrain from directly incorporating any of the NTT report recommendations into the proposed or final EIS. For more information, please refer to the attached Review of Data Quality Issues in A Report on National Greater Sage Grouse Conservation Measures Produced by the BLM Sage Grouse National Technical Team (NTT) which describes a number of shortcomings with the report, including: Failure to use the best available science Selective presentation of scientific information Misrepresentation of the impact of oil and natural gas operations on GSG Disproportionate influence from a small group of specialist advocates Bias against voluntary conservation Unnecessarily restrictive recommendations Undefined priority habitat Lack of credible peer review. Alternative E (State Plans) Alternative E is separated into two components. Alternative E1 is based on the Utah plan and Alternative E2 is based on the Wyoming plan. While there are some similarities between the Preferred Alternative and Alternative E, there are several important differences, including the size of buffers around leks, the design and application of disturbance thresholds, the mapped habitat boundaries, and the design of operational restrictions. Western Energy Alliance supports both the Wyoming and Utah plans and strongly encourages the agencies to more meaningfully incorporate them into the preferred alternative. Both plans successfully balance future economic activities with robust protections for GSG and its habitat, a balance which required significant efforts on behalf of both states to achieve. In addition, both plans were developed using a bottom up process with input from diverse stakeholders, rather than the top down approach taken by the agencies. Restrictions on Oil and Natural Gas Leasing and Development There are 791,000 acres with high oil and natural gas occurrence potential in the planning area. The cumulative impact of the closures and designations in the Amendments may preclude oil and natural gas development on many of these acres, undermining the development potential of the Uinta Basin, one of the major oil and natural gas production areas in the country. Under the Federal Land and Policy Management Act (FLPMA), oil and natural gas development is defined as a principal or major use of the public lands. Accordingly, BLM is required to foster and develop mineral development, not stifle and prohibit such development. In the Amendments, the agencies propose to: Close 335,300 acres to future leasing Apply No Surface Occupancy (NSO) stipulations to 2,451,900 acres in population areas Exclude above ground linear rights of way (ROW) on 1,422,300 acres in PPMA and designate another 1,368,900 acres in PGMAs as avoidance areas.

4 Page 4 Habitat Maps The proposed PPMA and PGMA areas identified in the preferred alternative differ from the Sage Grouse Management Areas (SGMA) that were identified by the State of Utah. The agencies have not properly justified this divergence of PPMA and PGMA from habitat areas mapped by UDWR in the preferred alternative. It appears that BLM has utilized two year old data regarding occupied habitat to expand the PPMA and PGMA habitat areas from those mapped by UDWR, rather than using more up to date information from the State that became available in We strongly encourage the agencies to replace the PPMA and PGMA maps in the preferred alternative with those included in Alternative E. Under Alternative E, 97.1% of the birds would be in managed Utah Sage Grouse Management Areas (SGMA) or Wyoming core areas, which would result in sufficient management and protection of both states GSG populations. We also request that the agencies abstain from incorporating PPMA and PGMA habitat areas identified in Alternatives B and C, which are considerably more expansive than those in Alternatives D and E and unjustified by scientific documentation, into the final Amendments and EIS. Disturbance Threshold The preferred alternative would place a 5% threshold on discrete anthropogenic disturbances in population areas, regardless of land ownership. In areas where the 5% disturbance threshold is already exceeded, no further anthropogenic disturbances would be permitted until enough habitat has been restored to maintain the area under the threshold. When determining whether development is appropriate on federal lands, disturbances on private and state lands will count towards the 5% disturbance threshold. While the agencies do not have the authority to restrict development on private lands, they could preclude project authorizations on public lands in order to compensate for disturbances on private lands. This type of management would disadvantage federal leaseholders with no control over developments on private lands and could force them to abandon federal leases and forego significant capital investments. As a result, millions of dollars in annual federal royalty revenue and associated socioeconomic benefits to local communities would be in jeopardy. The agencies have not adequately explained several crucial details about the design and application of the concept: What base year would be used to calculate the anthropogenic disturbance thresholds? What constitutes a discrete anthropogenic disturbance? How will the disturbance percentage reflect reclamation or habitat enhancements? How will the disturbance database be managed and updated? Will GSG population levels be monitored in each zone? How will surface use conflicts be resolved? The agencies have also not explained the differences between temporary and permanent disturbances, and how each will be applied towards the threshold. The agencies define temporary use as an activity considered to be one that is not fixed in place and is of short duration. 2 This definition lacks specificity and could be widely interpreted. Contrarily, the Utah plan specifically defines temporary as [a]ny 2 DEIS at Glossary 26.

5 Page 5 ground disturbing activity where the effects would be expected to last less than five years. 3 Oil and natural gas development activities are by nature temporary disturbances. The highest level of surface disturbance associated with development occurs during the construction drilling and completion phases, which can last from a few weeks to a few months. Once production is achieved, the surface disturbance that results from these activities shrinks dramatically and long term disturbances represent only a small fraction of the initial disturbance. Without a clear explanation of the above factors, the threshold methodology as proposed in the Amendments may prevent consistent and clear implementation. While the Utah and Wyoming plans also include disturbance threshold procedures, they are clearly thought out and provide the needed flexibility to allow economic activities that properly limit surface disturbance to proceed. We strongly encourage the agencies to incorporate the disturbance thresholds that are included in both the Wyoming and Utah plans into the preferred alternative. Reclamation Areas with surface disturbance are not excluded from the 5% disturbance threshold until they have been both successfully reclaimed (short term) and restored (long term), including certification of a selfsustaining, native plant community. Depending on the climate and soil conditions, as well as the plant communities being established, this could potentially take many years to accomplish, particularly in areas with arid climatic conditions and sandy soils. If an initial permitting rush occurs whereby multiple project proponents submit projects as fast as possible in anticipation of declining threshold space, subsequent projects could be significantly delayed while operators wait for prior disturbances to be reclaimed and restored. Reclamation efforts that have been shown to be effective in similar climate and soil conditions should not be counted against the threshold. Four Mile NSO Buffers around Leks The agencies have proposed to designate PPMAs within four miles of occupied leks as NSO and apply a seasonal restriction on exploratory drilling activities during nesting and early brood rearing in those areas. Given the topography of the planning area, there is substantial acreage within four miles of leks that is not sage grouse habitat. The blanket NSO could therefore be applied to marginal or non habitat, placing large swaths of acreage off limits or seriously inhibiting the ability of operators to access resources with no verifiable benefit to the GSG. These restrictions will greatly limit year round oil and natural gas development and its associated benefits, which results in reduced truck traffic, fewer emissions, and phased development. The agencies must provide a mechanism to ground truth the proposed PPMA and PGMA habitats on a project specific basis in order to effectively assess the potential impacts of management decisions. Without a mechanism to ground truth areas within the four mile NSO buffer, the agencies may unnecessarily restrict future oil and natural gas development in areas that do not actually support GSG habitat. 3 Utah s Conservation Plan for Greater Sage Grouse. Page 28. February 14, 2013.

6 Page 6 Wrongful Assumptions about Horizontal Drilling and Drilling Locations The agencies wrongly assume that operators can drill horizontally to access oil and natural gas resources beneath NSO buffers around leks from lands outside those buffers. Due to limitations to maximum reach capabilities, production success, drainage area, and engineering technology, horizontal drilling cannot be employed in every field for every type of development. The geology of many formations in Utah and Wyoming, combined with the limitations of horizontal drilling and production technologies, often requires operators to drill wells directionally (in some cases closer to vertically), rather than horizontally. As such, the agencies should not assume that horizontal drilling is feasible in all scenarios. The agencies also wrongly assume that operators would be able to access federal minerals within four miles of a GSG lek by drilling from existing or new well pads on nearby state and private lands. While operators are likely to move operations to other areas that are unencumbered by NSO stipulations rather than forego production and capital investments entirely, the agencies wrongly assume that operators have the ability to do so in all circumstances. There are many geological, economic, and administrative factors that come into play when determining whether to move development to substitute areas. Even if operators are able to utilize locations on state or private parcels in lieu of federal parcels, in many cases it is impossible to develop one without the other as the operator may require the federal parcel or parcels for access, ROWs, infrastructure, or some other purpose requisite to fully develop the resource play. Socioeconomic Impact Analysis The restrictions in the preferred alternative would result in a reduction in oil production of 26% and a reduction in natural gas production of 39% in the planning area. Based on the Total Economic Impact calculations, this equates to an anticipated economic reduction of $133,955,100 due to lost oil production and $465,702,127 due to lost natural gas production. Further, federal royalties and state severance taxes would see an annual reduction of $3,138,235. This decreased production and resulting loss of economic impact is significant and should compel the agencies to reevaluate the proposed restrictions on oil and natural gas development. In addition, these figures may even be understated because the agencies wrongly assume that the resources within the four mile NSO radius (over 50 square miles) may be reached by directional or horizontal drilling methods and/or adjacent state or private parcels (see above). The agencies have further underestimated the negative socioeconomic impacts that will result from the proposed management strategy because the socioeconomic analysis is biased in favor of non market valuation methods. Due to this bias, the agencies have overestimated non market valuations and underestimated the negative economic impact on local communities, Utah, Wyoming, and the nation. The agencies also portray the socioeconomic impacts on the entire planning area but do not delineate the effects that would result from the proposed management restrictions on specific areas, including individual counties. A more specific portrayal of the projected impacts would help communities to more fully understand the various socioeconomic effects of the Amendments.

7 Page 7 Sound Requirements Within PPMAs during breeding season (February 15 th June 15 th ), the agencies propose to manage noise associated with discretionary activities to a level at which sound does not exceed 10 decibels above ambient levels from two hours both before and after sunset. This overly restrictive threshold is based on a questionable study referenced directly in the NTT Report and will be difficult, if not impossible to achieve. Specifically, noise studies cited in the NTT provided no evidence that noise associated with oil and natural gas development resulted in a GSG decline. These noise thresholds are therefore an arbitrary requirement and should be reconsidered. Required Design Features The agencies propose a number of Required Design Features (RDFs) addressing roads, operations, and reclamation. While some of these design features may prove effective in many instances, they should rather be incorporated as preferred or suggested, and not required. Site specific circumstances may dictate that certain design features are not technically feasible, economic, or appropriate, and should not be assumed to be universally effective or applicable. Exceptions are allowed for in the Amendments but the burden is on the operator to prove that the RDF is unnecessary, rather than the agency demonstrating that the design feature is necessary. The agencies should retain a list of practical best management practices (BMP) that are effective and can be applied based on site specific circumstances, rather than required design features that may not be universally applicable. Split Estate On split estate lands with federal minerals and private surface, BLM would apply disturbance thresholds as well as the same conservation measures and RDFs applied to public lands. This may lead to unworkable situations in which the conservation requirements and RDFs are not consistent with the land owner s needs. Such situations could be prohibitive to resource development on split mineral estates that have already been agreed upon by private landowners, oil and natural gas operators, and appropriate federal agencies. For More Information For more information about the Amendments and its impact on future oil and natural gas development in the planning area, please contact Spencer Kimball (kimballstrategiesllc@outlook.com), Brian Meinhart (bmeinhart@westernenergyalliance.org), or Lowell Braxton (vanbrax@gmail.com).