Sagebrush Country and Oil and Gas Country Can Coexist

A Voice for the Western Majority Sagebrush Country and Oil and Gas Country Can Coexist

In recent months, communities, businesses and elected officials throughout the West have collaborated in an unprecedented federal and state planning effort to conserve the habitat of the Greater sage-grouse, a ground-dwelling sagebrush species whose rapid decline has made it a potential candidate for listing under the Endangered Species Act. Because western economies are dependent on the sagebrush ecosystem and the numerous activities it supports including recreation, tourism, ranching, and energy development stakeholders have come together from all levels (local, state, and federal) in an effort to avoid the need for a listing. However, throughout this cooperative process, some lobbyists for oil and gas companies have repeatedly claimed that the Department of the Interior s proposed plans to protect the bird would prohibit oil and gas development on large amounts of western public lands. As our new analysis shows, that claim does not square with the reality on the ground in the West, where there is ample room for both responsible energy development and sage-grouse conservation. Last October, Western Values Project released a report showing how responsible energy development is indeed compatible with the long-term conservation of Greater sage-grouse. The report found almost no overlap between areas being targeted for energy development and key sage-grouse habitat areas, and additionally found that in the few areas where there was overlap, only 2% of the existing leases were actually producing oil or gas. Given these results, we predicted that forthcoming management plans from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) the agency responsible for managing over 50 million acres of sagebrush habitat across eleven western states could provide ample protections for the Greater sage-grouse without hindering energy development on public lands.

Since our previous report, the BLM has issued its proposed management plans for the Greater sage-grouse. As explained in more detail below, the proposed plans confirm the predictions in our previous report as key areas identified for sage-grouse protections by the BLM are almost entirely separate and distinct from lands with the most valuable oil and gas resources. Additionally, valid existing leases are not impacted by the BLM plans. The lack of overlap between areas identified for Greater sage-grouse protections and areas valuable for oil and gas development provides another important reason why all stakeholders should support the proposed plans and why the BLM should adopt and finalize the habitat protections set forth in those plans. In spite of the misleading rhetoric from industry s lobbyists, the BLM s plans can protect the Greater sage-grouse while still providing ample opportunities for responsible energy development. A Closer Look at the Truth of Oil and Gas Development in Sagebrush Country In May of 2015, the BLM released its proposed plans for managing Greater sage-grouse habitat within eleven western states. In developing the plans, the BLM worked closely with a broad range of stakeholders, including state and local governments, ranchers, business owners and sportsmen. In all, the proposed plans would prioritize the conservation of 11 million acres of the most critical sage-grouse habitat called sagebrush focal areas (SFAs) and would also protect a second-tier of sage-grouse habitat called Priority Habitat Management Areas, or PHMAs. If ultimately adopted, the SFAs and PHMAs would provide key and much needed protections for Greater sage-grouse, along with hundreds of other species that occupy and rely on the same habitat. In April of 2015, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) released an updated map of oil and gas shale plays in the United States. Drilling in these plays, which include the Bakken, Marcellus and Eagle Ford, has fueled our domestic oil and gas boom and allowed the United States to become the world s largest producer of oil and natural gas. EIA s new map includes updated boundaries and additional geological information on the shale plays information that, according to EIA, will help the industry reduce the risk of drilling dry, nonproducing wells and better understand hydrocarbon resource potentials. The map should allow the oil and gas industry to identify the most productive, high-return shale plays. Our new analysis compares territory covered by the SFAs and PHMAs with the shale plays identified by the EIA. In sum, we found almost no overlap between the proposed SFAs and PHMAs and the shale plays identified by EIA. As such, the protections for sage-grouse that would apply within the SFAs and PHMAs should not affect or inhibit development of our most productive domestic shale oil and gas plays. 3

Overlap of Sagebrush Focal Areas (SFAs) with EIA s Identified Shale s Of the approximately 369 million acres of current and prospective shale plays across the entire U.S. as identified by EIA, only 1.2 million acres, or much less than one percent, overlap with SFAs. And in just the western states covered by the proposed BLM plans, the SFAs again cover less than one percent of shale plays. Table 1: Overlap of SFAs and EIA s Shale s in the 11 Western States Covered by BLM s Proposed Sage-Grouse Plans State Shale California Monterey Los Angeles California San Joaquin Acres in State Acres of Overlap with SFAs 475,000 0 0% 1,650,000 0 0% California Monterey Santa Maria 497,000 0 0% California Monterey Santa Maria- 17,000 0 0% Ventura OS California Monterey Ventura 232,000 0 0% Colorado Niobrara Denver 4,555,000 0 0% Colorado Monterey-Temblor HillardBaxter- Mancos-Niobrara 2,276,000 0 0% Colorado Hermosa Paradox 8,000 0 0% Colorado Niobrara Park 329,000 0 0% Colorado Niobrara Piceance 5,182,000 0 0% Colorado Pierre-Niobrara Raton 1,275,000 0 0% Montana Cody Montana 1,448,000 0 0% Thrust Belt Montana Niobrara North-Central 1,174,000 0 0% MT Montana Niobrara Powder 110,000 0 0% Montana Bakken Williston 4,871,000 0 0% Montana Heath Williston 2,093,000 0 0% Montana Three Forks Williston 5,565,000 0 0% North Dakota Bakken Williston 11,850,000 0 0% Percent Overlap 4

North Dakota Three Forks Williston 14,468,000 0 0% Utah HillardBaxter- 91,000 0 0% Mancos-Niobrara Utah Hermosa Pardox 1,897,000 0 0% Utah Mancos Uinta 2,484,000 0 0% Utah Manning Canyon Uinta 876,000 0 0% Wyoming Mowry Big Horn 647,000 0 0% Wyoming Niobrara Denver 2,729,000 0 0% Wyoming Hillard Baxter- Mancos-Niobrara 9,113,000 1,181,000 12.96% Wyoming Niobrara Piceance 341,000 0 0% Wyoming Niobrara Powder 6,182,000 0 0% Wyoming Niobrara-Mowry Powder 5,630,000 0 0% Total 88,065,000 1,181,000 1.34% A Greater sage-grouse struts near a pronghorn, just two of the over 350 species of wildlife that live in the western sagebrush ecosystem. 5

Sagebrush Focal Areas and EIA Oil & Gas Shale Areas Niobrara North-Central MT Bakken Williston Cody Montana Thrust Belt Heath Williston Three Forks Williston Hillard-Baxter- Mancos-Niobrara Mowry Big Horn Niobrara Powder Niobrara- Mowry Powder Monterey- Temblor San Joaquin Legend States EIA Current Shale s EIA Prospective Shale s Sagebrush Focal Areas Mancos Uinta Manning Canyon Uinta Mancos Uinta Hermosa Pardox Niobrara Piceance Niobrara Park Lewis San Juan Niobrara Denver Pierre -Niobrara Raton Content may not reflect National Geographic's current map policy. Sources: National Geographic, Esri, DeLorme, HERE, UNEP-WCMC, USGS, NASA, ESA, METI, NRCAN, GEBCO, NOAA, increment P Corp. Data Sources: BLM, EIA, esri. Sagebrush Focal Areas only shown when referred to in RMP Map Created by: Alison Gallensky Rocky Mountain Wild 15-105 8/24/2015 v1 0 50 100 200 300 400 500 Miles 6

Greater Sage-Grouse Priority Habitat Management Areas And EIA Oil & Gas Shale Areas Niobrara North-Central MT Bakken Williston Cody Montana Thrust Belt Heath Williston Three Forks Williston Hillard-Baxter- Mancos-Niobrara Mowry Big Horn Niobrara Powder Niobrara- Mowry Powder Monterey- Temblor San Joaquin Legend States EIA Current Shale s EIA Prospective Shale s Priority Habitat Management Areas Mancos Uinta Manning Canyon Uinta Mancos Uinta Hermosa Pardox Niobrara Piceance Niobrara Park Lewis San Juan Niobrara Denver Pierre -Niobrara Raton Content may not reflect National Geographic's current map policy. Sources: National Geographic, Esri, DeLorme, HERE, UNEP-WCMC, USGS, NASA, ESA, METI, NRCAN, GEBCO, NOAA, increment P Corp. Data Sources: BLM, EIA, esri Map Created by: Alison Gallensky Rocky Mountain Wild 15-105 8/24/2015 v1 0 50 100 200 300 400 500 Miles 7

Overlap of Priority Habitat Management Areas and EIA s Identified Shale s Similarly, there is minimal overlap between current and prospective shale plays and PHMAs, the second-tier habitat proposed for designation in the BLM s management plans. Less than three percent of shale plays throughout the U.S. that are identified by EIA overlap with the BLM s PHMAs. Again, in the western states where the BLM would designate PHMAs, there is less than 12% of overlap. Table 2: Overlap of PHMAs and EIA s Shale s in the 11 Western States Covered by BLM s Proposed Sage-Grouse Plans State Shale California Monterey Los Angeles California Montrey- Temblor San Joaquin Acres in State Acres of Overlap with PHMAs 475,000 0 0% 1,650,000 0 0% California Monterey Santa Maria 497,000 0 0% California Monterey Santa Maria-Ventura 17,000 0 0% OS California Monterey Ventura 232,000 0 0% Colorado Niobrara Denver 4,555,000 0 0% Colorado Hillard Baxter Mancos-Niobrara 2,276,000 989,000 43.5% Colorado Hermosa Paradox 8,000 0 0% Colorado Niobrara Park 329,000 258,000 78.4% Colorado Niobrara Piceance 5,182,000 1,425,000 27.5% Colorado Pierre- Niobrara Raton 1,275,000 0 0% Montana Cody Montana 1,448,000 0 0% Thrust Belt Montana Niobrara North-Central 1,174,000 0 0% MT Montana Niobrara Powder 110,000 49,000 44.5% Percent Overlap 8

Montana Bakken Williston 4,871,000 0 0% Montana Heath Williston 2,093,000 1,408,000 67.3% Montana Three Forks Williston 5,565,000 0 0% North Dakota Bakken Williston 11,850,000 0 0% Wyoming North Dakota Three Forks Williston 14,468,000 0 0% Utah Hillard Baxter- 91,000 0 0% Mancos- Niobrara Utah Hermosa Pardox 1,897,000 0 0% Utah Mancos Uinta 2,484,000 127,000 5.1% Utah Manning Uinta 876,000 20,000 2.3% Canyon Wyoming Mowry Big Horn 647,000 142,000 21.9% Wyoming Niobrara Denver 2,729,000 0 0% HillardBaxter- Mancos-Niobrara 9,113,000 3,632,000 39.9% Wyoming Niobrara Piceance 341,000 43,000 12.6% Wyoming Niobrara Powder 6,182,000 1,015,000 16.4% Wyoming Niobrara- Mowry Powder 5,630,000 1,144,000 20.3% Total 88,065,000 10,252,000 11.6% The Path Forward As predicted in our previous report and confirmed by our new analysis, there is almost no conflict between the management proposed by the BLM to protect the Greater sagegrouse and areas with the most valuable oil and gas resources. The most important areas for sage-grouse habitat protection the SFAs and PHMAs identified in the proposed BLM plans and the areas with highest potential for oil and gas development, as identified by the EIA, are almost entirely distinct. As such, conservation of the Greater sage-grouse is wholly compatible with the development of oil and gas resources. The compatibility of these two goals provides an important reason why the BLM should finalize and adopt its proposed management plans for the Greater sage-grouse. 9