Background Information
|
|
- Roland Payne
- 5 years ago
- Views:
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).
UTAH PUBLIC LANDS MULTIPLE USE Coalition
UTAH PUBLIC LANDS MULTIPLE USE Coalition 9865 South state Street + Sandy, Utah 84070 + 801.233.3040 January 24, 2014 Mr. Juan Palma Utah State Director Bureau of Land Management 440 West 200 South, Suite
More informationAppendix J Greater Sage-grouse Habitat Equivalency Analysis
TransWest Express EIS Appendix J Greater Sage-grouse Habitat Equivalency Analysis TransWest Express EIS Appendix J J-1 Compliance with Applicable Greater Sage-grouse Polices and Applicant Proposed Mitigation
More informationRe: Eastern Colorado Resource Management Plan and an Associated Environmental Impact Statement for the Royal Gorge Field Office, Colorado
John Smeins RMP/EIS Team Lead, Royal Gorge Field Office Bureau of Land Management 3028 East Main Street Cañon City, CO 81212 Re: Eastern Colorado Resource Management Plan and an Associated Environmental
More informationFACT SHEET: BLM, USFS Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Effort
EMBARGOED UNTIL SEPTEMBER 22, 2015 @ 12:00PM ET FACT SHEET: BLM, USFS Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Effort Overview Effective conservation of the greater sage-grouse and its habitat requires a collaborative,
More informationBureau of Land Management National Sage-Grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy
Bureau of Land Management National Sage-Grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy 1.3.1 Guidance for Addressing Sagebrush Habitat Conservation in BLM Land Use Plans U.S. Department of the Interior November
More informationNotice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the. Converse County Oil and Gas Project, Converse County, Wyoming
This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 01/26/2018 and available online at https://federalregister.gov/d/2018-01320, and on FDsys.gov 4310-22 P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
More informationSubmitted via to:
January 21, Submitted via email to: blm_nm_lcdo_comments@blm.gov Ms. Jennifer Montoya RMP/EIS Team Lead, Las Cruces District Office Bureau of Land Management 1800 Marquess Street Las Cruces, NM 88005 RE:
More informationAGENDA Tuesday, September 29, 2015
9/24/15 Page 1 of 1 GRAND COUNTY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING ADMINISTRATIVE WORKSHOP Grand County Council Chambers 125 East Center Street, Moab, Utah AGENDA Tuesday, September 29, 2015 9:00 a.m. WORKSHOP Call
More informationNotice of Availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Monument
This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 06/24/2016 and available online at http://federalregister.gov/a/2016-15023, and on FDsys.gov 4310-DQ-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau
More informationAppendix C: Analysis of BLM Required Design Features for Greater Sage Grouse
Appendix C: Analysis of BLM Required Design Features The Study team analyzed Required Design Features (RDFs) from the Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource Management
More informationDirector s Protest Resolution Report. Proposed Bishop Resource Management Plan Amendment & Livestock Use Authorizations
Director s Protest Resolution Report Proposed Bishop Resource Management Plan Amendment & Livestock Use Authorizations October 17, 2014 1 Contents Reader s Guide... 3 List of Commonly Used Acronyms...
More informationEconomic Impacts of Sage Grouse Management: Supplemental Report
Economic Impacts of Sage Grouse Management: Supplemental Report Piceance Basin Development Analysis Prepared for Garfield County Community Development Department 108 8 th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs,
More informationIn 2013, Gunnison sage-grouse was proposed for an "endangered" listing by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under the Endangered Species Act.
Gunnison County, CO Community Development Department 221 N. Wisconsin St. Ste. D Gunnison, CO 81230 (970) 641-0360 Website: www.gunnisoncounty.org Email: planning@gunnisoncounty.org Information Sheet:
More informationJune 20, response to. of the. window on. three. they have. appropriate FAILURE TO
PUBLIC LANDS ADVOCACY June 20, 2013 Brian Hockett, Project Manager Bureau of Land Management Havre Field Office 3990 Highway 2 West Havre, MT 59501 BLM_MT_HiLine_RMP@ @blm.gov RE: HILINE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
More informationPublic Lands Advocacy
Public Lands Advocacy www.publiclandsadvocacy.org Claire M. Moseley Executive Director 1155 South Havana Street, #11-327, Denver, CO 80012 phone 303-506-1153 FAX 866-837-4560 Email claire@publiclandsadvocacy.org
More informationCause No. 1R, Docket No RM-01. Updates to Restricted Surface Occupancy Area and Sensitive Wildlife Habitat maps
Final Statement of Basis, Specific Statutory Authority, and Purpose New Rules and Amendments to Current Rules of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, 2 CCR 404-1 Cause No. 1R, Docket No. 1307-RM-01
More informationSiting Guidelines for Windpower Projects in Kansas
Siting Guidelines for Windpower Projects in Kansas The Kansas Renewable Energy Working Group Environmental and Siting Committee Introduction The Environmental and Siting Committee of the Kansas Renewable
More informationNorth Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement
North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement Sage-Grouse Conservation Issue Priority Sage-Grouse Habitat Greater Sage-grouse are a landscape species
More informationDIVISION 140 GREATER SAGE-GROUSE CONSERVATION STRATEGY FOR OREGON
DIVISION 140 GREATER SAGE-GROUSE CONSERVATION STRATEGY FOR OREGON 635-140-0000 Purpose These administrative rules establish the policy of the Commission for the protection and enhancement of Greater Sage-Grouse
More informationAppendix 19. ODFW Rule OAR
Appendix 19. ODFW Rule OAR 635-140-0000 Included in this appendix is the filing notice and full text of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife s Oregon Administrative Rule 635-140-0000. This rule amends
More informationPlan of Development. Energy Gateway South Transmission Project. Volume I PREPARED BY:
Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Plan of Development Volume I Wyoming Colorado Utah PREPARED BY: U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management Wyoming State Office NOVEMBER 2016 THIS PAGE
More informationOffice of the Governor
DAVE FREUDENTHAL STATE CAPITOL GOVERNOR THE STATE OF WYOMING CHEYENNE, WY 82002 Office of the Governor STATE OF WYOMING EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT EXECUTIVE ORDER 2010-4 (Replaces 2008-2) GREATER SAGE-GROUSE
More informationEnergy Development on Public Lands
Small and Temporary Impact The Intermountain West produces 27% of our nation s natural gas while impacting less than 1% of public lands America s independent natural gas producers deliver clean energy
More informationRecord of Decision Darroughs Hot Springs Geothermal Leasing Project
Record of Decision Darroughs Hot Springs Geothermal Leasing Project Background USDA Forest Service Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest Tonopah Ranger District Nye County, Nevada The production, transmission,
More informationJanuary 29, Water Docket Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 4101T 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20460
January 29, 2003 Water Docket Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 4101T 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20460 Subject: Modification of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
More informationWild Horse Education
1 of 7 Wild Horse Education Laura Leigh Wild Horse Education 216 Lemmon Dr #316 Reno, NV 89506 WildHorseEducation@gmail.com December 18, 2019 TO: email blm_nv_bmdo_2019oilandgasleaseea@blm.gov Comments
More informationComments on the Department of the Interior s Request for Public Input on Regulatory Reform
September 6, 2017 Via electronic mail and regulations.gov The Honorable Ryan Zinke Secretary of the Interior U.S. Department of the Interior 1849 C St., NW Washington, DC 20240 RE: Comments on the Department
More informationSubmitted via Federal Rulemaking portal:
May 6, 2016 Chief Tina Campbell Attention: Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2015-0126 Division of Policy, Performance and Management U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 5275 Leesburg Pike Falls Church, VA 22041-3802 Submitted
More informationDRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PINEDALE ANTICLINE OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECT SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING
DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PINEDALE ANTICLINE OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECT SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING (Volume 1 of 2) Bureau of Land Management Wyoming State Office
More informationGlossary of Commonly Used Terms and Acronyms in Public Lands Management and Related Legislation
Glossary of Commonly Used Terms and Acronyms in Public Lands Management and Related Legislation Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA): A milestone in U.S. land protection, this
More informationWEST TAVAPUTS PLATEAU NATURAL GAS FULL FIELD DEVELOPMENT PLAN RECORD OF DECISION
WEST TAVAPUTS PLATEAU NATURAL GAS FULL FIELD DEVELOPMENT PLAN RECORD OF DECISION July 2010 Prepared by: U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Price Field Office Price, Utah Cooperating
More informationRGNF / 3 rd Party Consultant Meeting June 23, 2011
Village at Wolf Creek Land Exchange RGNF / 3 rd Party Consultant Meeting June 23, 2011 Agenda Summary of Scoping Comments Preview Individuals, Agencies, Environmental Groups, Wolf Creek Ski Area Alternatives
More informationEndangered or Not? Colorado County Approaches to Gunnison & Greater Sage Grouse Protection
Endangered or Not? Colorado County Approaches to Gunnison & Greater Sage Grouse Protection Rocky Mountain Land Use Institute Annual Conference Friday, March 14 th 1:15 2:45 PM Panel Members Jon Waschbusch,
More informationMiles City Field Office Draft Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement
Miles City Field Office Draft Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement Sage-Grouse Conservation Issue Priority Sage-Grouse Habitat Greater Sage-grouse are a landscape species (Connelly
More informationNEVADA EXPLORATION PROJECT
Energizing the World, Bettering People s Lives NEVADA EXPLORATION PROJECT Legislative Committee on Public Lands June 12, 2014 Kevin Vorhaben, Rockies/Frontier Business Unit Manager Forward-looking Statements
More informationProposed Plan High Level Overview
Introduction Navigating the Document Key Appendices Proposed Plan Primary Threats in Oregon Addressing Threats Mitigation Strategy Adaptive Management Strategy Next Steps Questions Proposed Plan High Level
More informationBuffalo Field Office Draft Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement
Buffalo Field Office Draft Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement Sage-Grouse Conservation Issue Priority Sage-Grouse Habitat Greater Sage-grouse are a landscape species (Connelly
More informationStatement of. Tony Ferguson, USDA Forest Service Director of Minerals and Geology. Management. Before the. House Committee on Natural Resources
Statement of Tony Ferguson, USDA Forest Service Director of Minerals and Geology Management Before the House Committee on Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources Concerning The President
More informationTHROW THIS PAGE AWAY & DELETE FROM PDF
1. Purpose of and Need for Action THROW THIS PAGE AWAY & DELETE FROM PDF March 2018 Greater Sage-Grouse Resource Management Plan Amendment Template 2 1. Purpose of and Need for Action 1 This page intentionally
More informationBureau of Land Management Oil and Gas Program
Bureau of Land Management Oil and Gas Program Presentation to the Production Accountants Society of Oklahoma Steve Tryon, Field Manager February 6, 2013 The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is a small agency
More informationPotential Effects of Tall Structures on Grouse Species. New Mexico Avian Protection Workshop February
Potential Effects of Tall Structures on Grouse Species New Mexico Avian Protection Workshop February 14-15 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse Concerns Long term population declines Extensive loss and alteration
More informationOverview of Nevada Public Land Management Task Force Draft Report
Overview of Nevada Public Land Management Task Force Draft Report EXHIBIT J - LANDS Document consists of 15 pages. Entire exhibit provided. Meeting Date: 06-12-14 Presentation to the Nevada Legislature
More informationP.O. Box Reno, NV Via and Overnight Mail
P.O. Box 10101 Reno, NV 89510 info@wmc-usa.org November 30, 2017 Via Email and Overnight Mail Ms. Marci Todd BLM Acting State Director Nevada State Office 1340 Financial Boulevard Reno, NV 89502 M1todd@blm.gov
More informationGREATER SAGE-GROUSE HABITAT CONSERVATION STRATEGY. Prepared by Montana s Greater Sage-grouse Habitat Conservation Advisory Council
GREATER SAGE-GROUSE HABITAT CONSERVATION STRATEGY Prepared by Montana s Greater Sage-grouse Habitat Conservation Advisory Council January 29, 2014 Contents I. INTRODUCTION... 3 II. PERFORMANCE STANDARD...
More informationTravel management travel would be restricted in priority habitat to existing roads and
Oregon Sub-Region Greater Sage-Grouse Draft Resource Management Plan Amendment and Environmental Impact Statement Sage-Grouse Conservation Issue Oregon BLM Alternative (Preferred Alternative D) Priority
More informationCase 1:18-cv REB Document 1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 1 of 86
Case 1:18-cv-00187-REB Document 1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 1 of 86 Laurence ( Laird ) J. Lucas (ISB # 4733) llucas@advocateswest.org Todd C. Tucci (ISB # 6526) ttucci@advocateswest.org Talasi B. Brooks (ISB
More informationRecord of Decision. South Unit Oil and Gas Development Final Environmental Impact Statement
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service February 2012 Record of Decision South Unit Oil and Gas Development Final Environmental Impact Statement Duchesne Ranger District, Ashley National
More informationTable 3.1 Threatened, Endangered and Candidate Plant and Wildlife Species... 7 Table 5.1. List of Contributors and Reviewers... 10
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION... 1 1.1 PROPOSED ACTION... 2 1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED... 2 2.0 CURRENT MANAGEMENT DIRECTION... 5 3.0 SPECIES EVALUATION IN THIS BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT... 7 4.0 EFFECTS ANALYSIS...
More informationCity of Edmonton Oil and Gas Facilities Policy Review Implementation Plan
City of Edmonton Oil and Gas Facilities Policy Review Implementation Plan Approved by Council January 30, 2008 Table of Contents 1.0 Roles and Responsibilities 1.1.1 Oil and Gas Liaison Officer 1.1.2 Internal
More informationComments on the Proposed Stream Protection Rule; Docket ID No. OSM ; Federal Register Vol. 80, No. 143 (July 27, 2015); RIN 1029-AC63
October 26, 2015 VIA ELECTRONIC FILING Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Administrative Record, Room 252 SIB 1951 Constitution Avenue NW Washington, DC 20240 Re: Comments on the Proposed
More informationCity of Mississauga Environmental Impact Studies Terms of Reference 2002
City of Mississauga Environmental Impact Studies Terms of Reference 2002 1.0 INTRODUCTION To ensure in so far as possible, both private and public developments are consistent with Natural Heritage and
More informationConstructing Effective Comments Under NEPA. Mary Anne Nash Public Policy Counsel Oregon Farm Bureau Federation
Constructing Effective Comments Under NEPA Mary Anne Nash Public Policy Counsel Oregon Farm Bureau Federation What is NEPA? The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires a federal agency to prepare
More informationECOLOGICAL DEAL BREAKERS
ECOLOGICAL DEAL BREAKERS Aaron Maier, Senior Ecologist Wyoming Oil and Gas Fair Jackson, WY September 19, 2014 Presentation Outline: 1. Current status and future challenges a. Vegetation Management b.
More informationChapter 750 WIND POWER GENERATION FACILITIES
Chapter 750 WIND POWER GENERATION FACILITIES 750.01 Purpose 750.02 Definitions 750.03 Designated Areas 750.04 Permitted Uses 750.05 Conditional Uses 750.06 Construction Standards 750.07 Application Requirements
More informationAPPENDIX A Grading Ordinance Guidelines for Native Oak Tree Removal
APPENDIX A Grading Ordinance Guidelines for Native Oak Tree Removal Incorporated into Chapter 14 of Santa Barbara County Code: Grading April 22, 2003 PREAMBLE The goal of the Oak Tree Protection and Regeneration
More informationReport to the Montrose County Board of County Commissioners Prepared by the Montrose County Planning and Development Department #1
Report to the Montrose County Board of County Commissioners Prepared by the Montrose County Planning and Development Department #1 PREPARED BY: MEETING DATE: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: PROPOSAL:
More informationChapter 9 Wetlands Park Study Team
Chapter 9 Wetlands Park Study Team Objective How can we help Clark County facilitate implementation of the Clark County Wetlands Park Master Plan, and provide for the management of various ecosystems within
More informationPOTENTIAL IMPACTS OF ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON GREATER SAGE-GROUSE (Centrocercus urophasianus)
POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON GREATER SAGE-GROUSE (Centrocercus urophasianus) AND THEIR HABITAT IN NEVADA AUGUST 2008 PREPARED FOR: NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE GAME DIVISION PREPARED BY:
More informationWhy does the Forest Service need to propose this activity at this time?
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Uinta-Wasatch-Cache NF Supervisor s Office www.fs.usda.gov/uwcnf 857 W. South Jordan Parkway South Jordan, UT 84095 Tel. (801) 999-2103 FAX (801)
More informationGREATER SAGE-GROUSE HABITAT ECOLOGY AND CONSERVATION. Mine Design, Operation & Closure Conference 2011 R. Northrup
GREATER SAGE-GROUSE HABITAT ECOLOGY AND CONSERVATION Mine Design, Operation & Closure Conference 2011 R. Northrup 1 OUTLINE Sage-Grouse Status Basic Habitat Ecology Primary Habitat Issues Basic Conservation
More informationPurpose, Need, and the Alternatives Analysis
Purpose, Need, and the Alternatives Analysis Introduction As dictated by the state s Removal-Fill Law, the Department may only issue a permit only upon the determination that a removal-fill project is
More informationTABLE OF CONTENTS. List of Figures... viii. List of Tables... xi. Acknowledgements...xv I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...1
TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures... viii List of Tables... xi Acknowledgements...xv I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...1 II. INTRODUCTION...4 A. Purpose...4 B. Goals and Scope...5 Assessment Goals... 5 Strategy Goals...
More informationIndustry Innovation Reduces Impacts on Sage-Grouse and Big Game
Gaining Ground Industry Innovation Reduces Impacts on Sage-Grouse and Big Game The oil and natural gas industry over the past five years has undergone transformation with the rise of the shale revolution.
More informationEMBARGOED UNTIL SEPTEMBER 22, 12:00PM ET. Frequently Asked Questions: Greater Sage-Grouse Status Review
Frequently Asked Questions: Greater Sage-Grouse Status Review After evaluating the best available scientific and commercial information regarding the greater sage-grouse, the Service has determined that
More information16.1 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
Chapter 16 NEPA requires an EIS and CEQA requires an EIR to evaluate a number of other types of environmental impacts in addition to those already addressed in the resource chapters. The analysis required
More informationOMB A What Are The Goals Of The Government In Using Voluntary Consensus Standards?
Sally Katzen, Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT Office of Management and Budget Washington, D.C. 20503 February 10, 1998. Circular No. A 119
More informationCCARM Meeting Minutes
CCARM Meeting Minutes Wednesday, December 7, 2016 1. Introductions 2. Project Presentation in advance of the Watershed Restoration Initiative Deadline 1. BLM - These will all be presented separately in
More informationAnalysis of the Overlap between Priority Greater Sage-Grouse Habitats and Existing and Potential Energy Development Across the West
Analysis of the Overlap between Priority Greater Sage-Grouse Habitats and Existing and Potential Energy Development Across the West Final Report October 16, 2014 Prepared for: Western Values Project Prepared
More informationAUMA Policy Paper 2013.A1
AUMA Paper 2013.A1 AUMA Board of Directors Municipal Water on Wetlands WHEREAS in 2012 the AUMA Board of Directors issued the mandate of developing Municipal Water Policies and approved advancing polices
More informationArticle 57 WIND GENERATION AND WIRELESS COMMUNICATION TOWERS
Article 57 WIND GENERATION AND WIRELESS COMMUNICATION TOWERS SECTION 57.010, PURPOSE: The purpose of this article is to establish wind generation and wireless communication tower (Hereafter referred to
More informationExhibit B Shoreline Checklist & Statement of Exemption Form for Ensuring Consistency with SMP Policies and Regulations and No Net Loss Policy
CLALLAM COUNTY Department of Community Development 223 East 4th Street, Suite 5 Port Angeles Washington 98362 360-417-2420 Exhibit B Shoreline Checklist & Statement of Exemption Form for Ensuring Consistency
More informationSECTION 4.0 ALTERNATIVES
SECTION 4.0 ALTERNATIVES 4.1 CEQA REQUIREMENTS The key requirements under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to identify and evaluate alternatives in an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) are
More informationGREENS CREEK MINE FINANCIAL ASSURANCE REVIEW
1.0 Introduction GREENS CREEK MINE FINANCIAL ASSURANCE REVIEW Page 1 of 8 Sarah Zuzulock, MS Center for Science in Public Participation June 2003 The Greens Creek mine is a joint venture between Kennecott
More informationAppendix 2. Summary of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2010 Warranted but Precluded Determination
Appendix 2. Summary of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2010 Warranted but Precluded Determination This appendix contains a summary of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 12-month findings for
More informationIdaho (Boise, Caribou-Targhee, Salmon-Challis, and Sawtooth National Forests and
This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 10/05/2018 and available online at https://federalregister.gov/d/2018-21619, and on govinfo.gov 3411-15-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
More informationComments of the Colorado and National Wildlife Federations
Comments of the Colorado and National Wildlife Federations January 28, 2013 United States Bureau of Land Management Oil & Gas Draft RMPA/EIS Comments Bureau of Land Management White River Field Office
More informationEXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This final environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Ruby Pipeline Project, proposed by Ruby Pipeline, L.L.C. (Ruby), has been prepared by the staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory
More informationDraft NSW Coastal Planning Guideline: Adapting to Sea Level Rise
Draft NSW Coastal Planning Guideline: Adapting to Sea Level Rise Submission of the Urban Development Institute of Australia NSW December 2009 Urban Development Institute of Australia NSW 1 1. INTRODUCTION
More informationHinckley Seniors Group January 2, 2012
Hinckley Seniors Group January 2, 2012 What Is Shale Gas and Why Is It Important? Shale gas refers to natural gas that is trapped within shale formations. Shale is a fine-grained sedimentary rocks that
More informationMethodology for Project Data Collection. And. Results of Review. Oil & Gas Exploration and Development Categorical Exclusion.
Methodology for Project Data Collection And Results of Review Oil & Gas Exploration and Development Categorical Exclusion Introduction December 12, 2005 For decades the Forest Service has administered
More informationGREATER SAGE-GROUSE CONSERVATION
United States Department of Agriculture GREATER SAGE-GROUSE CONSERVATION Forest Service 1 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/greater_sage-grouse. Cover photo & the photo above courtesy of Shutterstock.com Meet the
More informationSTATE CAPITOL GOVERNOR THE STATE OF WYOMING CHEYENNE, WY STATE OF WYOMING EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT EXECUTIVE ORDER. Order (Replaces )
MATTHEW H. MEAO STATE CAPITOL GOVERNOR THE STATE OF WYOMING CHEYENNE, WY 82002 Office of the Governor STATE OF WYOMING EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT EXECUTIVE ORDER Order 2011-5 (Replaces 2010-4) GREATER SAGE-GROUSE
More informationRECLAMATION PLAN FOR. (name of Mine) MINING OPERATION
RECLAMATION PLAN FOR (name of Mine) MINING OPERATION Note: This prototype, developed by the State Mining and Geology Board (Board), is intended to assist smaller-scale mine operators in environmentally
More information5.0 ALTERNATIVES 5.0 ALTERNATIVES
5.0 ALTERNATIVES The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15126.6, requires an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to describe a reasonable range of alternatives to a project or to the location
More informationQuestions & Answers: Boulder County Third Draft Preliminary Comprehensive Drilling Plan (CDP) Jan. 11 Surface Owner Meeting
Questions & Answers: Boulder County Third Draft Preliminary Comprehensive Drilling Plan (CDP) Jan. 11 Surface Owner Meeting Included below is a summary of questions and responses from our surface owner
More informationExhibit K2 Greater Sage-grouse Habitat Equivalency Analysis Plan
Exhibit K2 Greater Sage-grouse Habitat Equivalency Analysis Plan Final: Energy Gateway South Transmission Project Greater Sagegrouse Habitat Equivalency Analysis Prepared by Rocky Mountain Power PacifiCorp
More informationTechnical Advisory Committee
Swainson s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee City of Sacramento September 2, 2006 North Permit Center Department of New Development 2101 Arena Blvd, 2nd Floor Sacramento, CA 95834 Subject: Comments on
More informationCANADIAN AVIATION REGULATION ADVISORY COUNCIL (CARAC) NOTICE OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT (NPA): RESPONSIBLE AERODROME DEVELOPMENT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CARAC ACTIVITY REPORTING NOTICE #2013-014 In order to provide aerodrome development proponents and affected stakeholders with greater certainty with respect to aerodrome development and
More information4.14 Geology and Soil Resources
This section of the Draft Plan Amendment, Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIS/EIR) addresses potential impacts of the Alta East Wind Project (AEWP) to geology and
More information[FWS R8 ES 2017 N107; FXES FF08ECAR00] Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Incidental Take Permit
This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 12/01/2017 and available online at https://federalregister.gov/d/2017-25889, and on FDsys.gov Billing Code 4333 15 DEPARTMENT OF THE
More informationSITING OF ENERGY FACILITIES IN OREGON EFSC Standards in Oregon Administrative Rule
SITING OF ENERGY FACILITIES IN OREGON EFSC Standards in Oregon Administrative Rule Background The Energy Facility Siting Council reviews applications for large energy facilities by using a set of standards
More informationGreater Sage-grouse Record of Decision
United States Forest Department of Service Agriculture Greater Sage-grouse Record of Decision Northwest Colorado Wyoming In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
More informationDetermine Certainty Program Framework of a Market Based Conservation Initiative for Longleaf Pine Habitat Improvements in Eastern North Carolina
Determine Certainty Program Framework of a Market Based Conservation Initiative for Longleaf Pine Habitat Improvements in Eastern North Carolina Project March 31, 2016 Michelle Lovejoy, Project Leader,
More informationC&B Alberta Solar Development ULC
Decision 22781-D01-2017 Newell Solar Power Plant November 15, 2017 Alberta Utilities Commission Decision 22781-D01-2017 Newell Solar Power Plant Proceeding 22781 Application 22781-A001 November 15, 2017
More informationATTACHMENT 2A- Issues Tentatively Resolved Decisions from the Board of Supervisors Hearing on September 11, 2007
1. Introduction (on pg 1-15) Add the following goal: A Community safe from climate change. Marin will be a leader in averting and adapting to aspects of climate change. 2. Biological Resources 2.A. Richardson
More informationDesert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan Proposed Land Use Plan Amendment and Final Environmental Impact Statement
Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan Proposed Land Use Plan Amendment and Final Environmental Impact Statement Volume I: Background and Planning Process Prepared by: U.S. Bureau of Land Management
More informationDecember 15, 2006 BY ELECTRONIC AND REGULAR MAIL. Mr. Carl Zimmerman Assateague Island National Seashore 7206 National Seashore Lane Berlin, MD 21811
December 15, 2006 BY ELECTRONIC AND REGULAR MAIL Mr. Carl Zimmerman Assateague Island National Seashore 7206 National Seashore Lane Berlin, MD 21811 Dear Mr. Zimmerman: On behalf of the nationwide membership
More information1/26/17. Senator Susan Glick Chair, Senate Natural Resources Committee 200 W. Washington St. Indianapolis, IN RE: SB420. Dear Senator Glick,
1/26/17 Senator Susan Glick Chair, Senate Natural Resources Committee 200 W. Washington St. Indianapolis, IN 46204 RE: SB420 Dear Senator Glick, The Indiana Society of American Foresters is writing to
More information7.0 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES AND OTHER NEPA CONSIDERATIONS
7.0 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES AND OTHER NEPA CONSIDERATIONS 7.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter compares the alternatives and their environmental consequences for the NorthMet Project Proposed Action and Land
More information