* The Wilderness Society * Colorado Environmental Coalition *
* Center for Native Ecosystems * Colorado Mountain Club *
* National Wildlife Federation * Biodiversity Conservation Alliance *
*Natural Resources Defense Council * American Rivers *
* Rocky Mountain Recreation Initiative * Wilderness Workshop *
* Great Old Broads for Wilderness * High Country Citizens’ Alliance *
*Southern Rockies Ecosystem Project * Center for Water Advocacy *
* Sierra Club, Rocky Mountain Chapter * Colorado Wild *
* Western Colorado Congress * San Juan Citizens Alliance *
Mr. Casterson
Little Snake Field Office
Bureau of Land Management
455 Emerson Street
Craig, CO 81625
Re:
Comments on the BLM Little Snake Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental
Impact Statement
Delivered via email ([email protected]) and U.S. Mail (with attachments)
Dear Mr. Casterson:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Resource Management Plan
(RMP)/Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Little Snake Field Office. We
appreciate your efforts in involving the public in this important process.
These comments are being submitted on behalf of The Wilderness Society, Colorado
Environmental Coalition, Center for Native Ecosystems, Colorado Mountain Club, National
Wildlife Federation, Biodiversity Conservation Alliance, Natural Resources Defense Council,
American Rivers, Rocky Mountain Recreation Initiative, Wilderness Workshop, Great Old
Broads for Wilderness, The High Country Citizens’ Alliance, Southern Rockies Ecosystem
Project, Center for Water Advocacy, Sierra Club – Rocky Mountain Chapter, Colorado Wild,
Western Colorado Congress, and the San Juan Citizens Alliance.
The Wilderness Society (TWS) has been involved in land management since 1935, and has a
vested interest in the Little Snake RMP Revision. With over 300,000 members and supporters
nation-wide, TWS represents a diverse range of citizens. Our goal at TWS is to protect public
lands as wilderness and to ensure that land management practices are sustainable and based on
sound science to ensure that the ecological integrity of the land is maintained.
The Colorado Environmental Coalition (CEC) is the largest state-based citizens’ group
committed to conserving our clean air, water and open spaces for generations to come. By
strengthening the effectiveness of Colorado’s environmental community, the Coalition has a
legacy of success for our state’s wild places and quality of life. With the help of our thousands of
members across the state who recognize that the economic value our wild places offer is as
important to Colorado as the spiritual fulfillment these public lands provide residents and
visitors, the Coalition is a powerful voice for our state.
Center for Native Ecosystems (CNE) is dedicated to the conservation and recovery of native and
naturally functioning ecosystems in the Greater Southern Rockies. We value the clean water,
fresh air, healthy communities, sources of food and medicine, and recreational opportunities
provided by native biological diversity. We also passionately believe that all species and their
natural communities have the right to exist and thrive. CNE uses the best available science to
forward its mission through participation in policy, administrative processes, legal action, public
outreach and organizing, and education. We have commented extensively on natural resource
issues in the Little Snake Field Office.
The Colorado Mountain Club (CMC) is one of Colorado's oldest and largest outdoor
organizations. With a membership of 8,000 people in 15 chapters around the state, the Colorado
Mountain Club works to protect and educate people about the habitats, species, wildness, and
quiet backcountry experiences in the Southern Rockies region. Members recreate in lands
administered by the Little Snake Field Office and have a deep interest in the protection and
sustainable management of these lands.
The National Wildlife Federation (NWF) is a national member-supported non-profit
conservation, education, and advocacy organization. NWF is affiliated with conservation
organizations in 47 states and territories, including the Colorado Wildlife Federation in
Colorado. NWF is dedicated to conserving wildlife and other natural resources, and believes that
hunting, fishing, and trapping are legitimate recreational pursuits and useful wildlife
management practices. NWF works to promote responsible management of wildlife on public
lands.
Biodiversity Conservation Alliance (BCA) is a nonprofit conservation advocacy group dedicated
to protecting wildlife and wild places in Wyoming and surrounding states, including Colorado.
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) is a non-profit environmental organization
with over 650,000 members nationwide and approximately 18,000 in Colorado, headquarters in
New York and additional offices including one in Colorado. NRDC uses law, science and the
support of its members and activists to protect the planet's wildlife and wild places and to ensure
a safe and healthy environment for all living things. NRDC has worked to protect wildlands and
natural values on public lands for many years.
American Rivers is the national voice for rivers and river communities. Headquartered in
Washington, D.C., American Rivers has eight field and regional offices and more than 50,000
members throughout the country. Founded in 1973, American Rivers has a long history of
promoting designations of and providing protection for the National Wild and Scenic Rivers
System.
The Rocky Mountain Recreation Initiative (RMRI) promotes environmentally sustainable
recreation policies and trail design on Colorado public lands. RMRI engages with land managers
in an effort to reduce impacts of unmanaged recreation including habitat fragmentation caused
by uncontrolled trail proliferation. We have has been working toward these goals since 1994 via
2
travel plans and state recreation policy in conjunction with statewide conservation organizations,
biologists and local citizens.
The Wilderness Workshop’s mission is to protect and conserve the wilderness and natural
resources of the Roaring Fork Watershed, the White River National Forest, and adjacent public
lands. The Workshop is a non-profit organization that engages in research, education, legal
advocacy, and grassroots organizing to protect the ecological integrity of local landscapes and
public lands with a focus on the monitoring and conservation of air and water quality, wildlife
species and habitat, natural communities and lands of wilderness quality.
Great Old Broads for Wilderness (Broads) is a national member-supported non-profit wilderness
advocacy organization that uses the voices and activism of elders to preserve and protect
wilderness and wildlands. We have 3,500 members from all 50 states and about 500 members
from Colorado. Our members value wildlands for their myriad benefits including clean air, clean
water, wildlife habitat, functioning ecosystems, quality of life, and recreation.
High Country Citizens' Alliance (HCCA) is a 30 year old non-profit conservation organization
based in Gunnison County, Colorado with a mission protect, restore and enhance the natural
ecosystems and quality of life in the Upper Gunnison River Basin and throughout the Mountain
West. Our primary purposes are: to preserve and protect those environmental, economic and
social values essential to maintaining and enhancing the quality of life in the Mountain West for
ourselves and our posterity; to encourage public participation in land use planning; to promote
patterns of multiple use which maximize future options; to oppose and prevent damage to the
environment due to unwise use of natural public resources; and to encourage and support other
groups with similar purposes.
Founded in 1992, the Southern Rockies Ecosystem Project (SREP) is a nonprofit conservation
science organization working to protect, restore and connect ecosystems in the Southern Rockies
of Colorado, Wyoming and New Mexico.
The Center for Water Advocacy is a west-wide water advocacy organization focused on
protection of water quality and in-stream flows.
The Sierra Club is a national nonprofit organization of approximately 750,000 members
dedicated to exploring, enjoying, and protecting the wild places of the earth; to practicing
and promoting the responsible use of the earth’s ecosystems and resources; and to
protecting and restoring the quality of the natural and human environment. The Sierra
Club's Rocky Mountain Chapter supports the preservation of wild areas in Colorado for
continued public enjoyment, education and recreation. The Rocky Mountain Chapter of the
Sierra Club is a Colorado-wide Chapter that was organized in 1965 and now has 20,000
members. Sierra Club members routinely visit, explore and enjoy public lands in the LSRA.
Colorado Wild is a non-profit environmental conservation organization based in Durango,
Colorado that works to protect and restore the native plants and animals of the Southern Rocky
Mountains. Colorado Wild is a member-based organization with over 800 members. Colorado
Wild’s members continually use Colorado's public lands, including those managed by the Little
Snake Field Office, as well as watercourses fed by the area, for the purposes of ecological health,
recreation, aesthetic enjoyment, and other purposes.
Western Colorado Congress (WCC) is an alliance for community action that empowers people to
protect and enhance their quality of life in western Colorado. With over 3200 members and
3
eight community groups across the region – including the Community Alliance of the Yampa
Valley in Routt County – WCC works with local citizens to promote a healthy environment and
sustainable economies.
San Juan Citizens Alliance (SJCA) has 500 members in southwest Colorado and for the past 20
years has had a continuing interest in the wise management of our public lands and in addressing
the impacts of energy development.
In addition to these comments, we incorporate by reference the following comments submitted
by experts in their respective fields as follows:
•
•
•
•
The comments of the Colorado Plateau Archaeological Alliance (Jerry Spangler),
identifying inadequacies in the inventory, assessment of potential environmental
consequences and management of cultural resources in the Draft RMP/EIS;
The comments of Ken Kreckel, identifying inadequacies in the consideration and use of
directional drilling for limiting environmental damage from oil and gas development;
The comments of Bill Alldredge, identifying inadequacies in the assessment of potential
environmental consequences and management of big game; and
The comments of Clait Braun, identifying inadequacies the inventory, assessment of
potential environmental consequences and management of sage grouse.
The comments of these experts identify substantial deficiencies in the Draft RMP/EIS that must
be addressed as the basis of the decisions made by BLM.
Our comments address the following issues:
Issues addressed:
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
IX.
X.
XI.
XII.
XIII.
XIV.
XV.
XVI.
XVII.
Page:
General Management Framework ............................................................................... 5
Lands with Wilderness Characteristics ..................................................................... 13
Unbalanced Management of Oil and Gas Development ........................................... 34
Impacts of Oil and Gas Development on Wildlife and Greater Sage Grouse ........... 45
Recreation and Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs) ........................... 59
Travel Management Planning ................................................................................... 64
Cultural Resources .................................................................................................... 69
Commercial Oil Shale Leasing ................................................................................. 73
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) and Special Status Species ...... 75
Socioeconomics......................................................................................................... 85
Claims under RS2477 ............................................................................................. 104
Wild and Scenic Rivers ........................................................................................... 105
Air Quality .............................................................................................................. 110
Water Resources...................................................................................................... 112
Land Tenure Adjustments ....................................................................................... 113
Visual Resources ..................................................................................................... 114
Adaptive Management ............................................................................................ 115
4
I. GENERAL MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK
A. The BLM’s approach to management of the Little Snake Resource Area is unbalanced
and does not utilize opportunities to preserve and enhance the biological diversity,
wilderness values and cultural resources of the planning area.
The preferred alternative is skewed towards oil and gas development and motorized recreation.
For instance, more than 93% of the Field Office is open to oil and gas leasing and 77% of the
Field Office is limited to existing routes with only 7% of the Field Office closed to off-road
vehicles (ORVs 1) in the Preferred Alternative. Draft RMP, pp. 2-56 to 2-57, 2-105 to 2-107. Of
the 7% of the Field Office closed to oil and gas leasing, almost half of the acreage closed is a
nondiscretionary closure required by the Interim Management Policy for Wilderness Study
Areas. BLM only used its discretionary authority to close 82,680 acres to oil and gas leasing.
Draft RMP, pp. 2-41 to 2-42 and 2-57. Perhaps most troubling, BLM did not identify any of
Vermillion Basin, an area identified throughout the Northwest Colorado Stewardship (NWCOS)
and RMP processes as an important citizen-proposed wilderness area, as off limits to oil and gas
leasing and development. Such development could forever destroy Vermillion Basin’s many
resources, including a high density of significant archaeological sites such as the robust Fremont
culture presence that resulted in spectacular rock art sites and masonry granaries.
The Draft RMP fails to balance oil and gas development and ORV use with management to
protect wildlife habitat, cultural resources, traditional western lifestyles and community values,
and opportunities for quiet recreation.
The lack of balance in the Draft RMP is caused in large part by the BLM’s failure to craft
landscape level management prescriptions which provide adequate protection for the many
resources of the Little Snake Resource Area and the agency’s failure to take advantage of the
considerable conservation opportunities presented by this RMP revision.
1. The Draft RMP fails to craft landscape level management prescriptions
Sound ecological protection for a landscape with its vegetation, wildlife, water and other
ecological resources must be developed at the landscape scale. The importance and complexity
of using the best available science to plan at the landscape scale has been recognized by many
scientists (Szaro et al. 2005, Noss 2007). Many ecological functions such as the seasonal
migrations of wildlife, connectivity required to prevent genetic isolation, and natural
disturbances affecting wildlife habitat occur across broad landscapes. Consequently, decision
making about the use and conservation of natural resources needs to be made at the landscape
scale.
Unfortunately, decisions about protecting habitat and wildlife are not made at the landscape scale
in the Draft RMP. The major consideration in the Preferred Alternative for wildlife protection –
the option for lease holders to keep their direct disturbance down to 5% in exchange for waving
seasonal use restrictions – is applied optionally on a lease-by-lease basis rather than required for
the broader habitat areas that need protection. Individual gas fields or other local projects are
also too small an area to make informed decisions about wildlife because they fail to see the
1
This term has the same meaning as the term “Off-Highway Vehicles (OHVs)” used in the RMP.
5
significance of a resource in the context of the broader landscape. Management decisions about
oil and gas development as it affects wildlife (and other natural resources) must be made at the
landscape level looking across the entire Little Snake Resource Area and considering
implications on adjacent lands as well. Indeed, the RMP revision is the ideal time to make such
management decisions.
First, ecological values should be mapped out across the full resource area such as the wildlife
habitats in Map 5 (all Maps attached). Note that most of the lands outside of the National
Monument and Forest Services lands contain important wildlife values. Many areas contain
multiple, overlapping habitat types. Maps of this type should be prepared and used to identify
specific areas to be protected for their wildlife values and corridors connecting these patches
with each other and with migratory corridors where needed (e.g. for ungulates migrating to
summer range).
After the important habitat areas have been defined, the practical realities of the distribution of
land ownership, split estate minerals and existing leasing constraints should be considered. Map
6 (attached) shows lands in shades of tan and brown where the BLM has some form of
jurisdiction or authority. The light tan indicates areas of BLM minerals and non-BLM surface
ownership. The other shades of brown are areas of BLM surface management with differing
leasing status (not leased, leased and not held by production, leased and held by production).
(Other federal lands – shown in green – are not considered here even though BLM may have
jurisdiction over minerals on lands of Forest Service surface management.) While the map is a
complex mosaic of ownership, split estate and leasing status, it is apparent that the BLM has
some type of authority regarding mineral development over much of the landscape within the
Little Snake Resource Area. Other lands – shown in white - are often small patches, notably
smaller than the wildlife habitat areas of importance. This is significant because it means there is
an opportunity through the RMP process for the BLM to set the stage to sustain important
wildlife habitat for the long-term.
The plan should set up long-term (beyond the 15-20 year life of this plan) wildlife management
zones based on habitat needs for the species included in these comments. The management
prescriptions in these zones may vary by leasing status and split estate status. All wildlife zones
should have management prescriptions based on wildlife needs and in the long-term move
toward a more protective status. Examples for the wildlife management zones should include
areas of no development and areas of restricted development. Management prescriptions should
be similar to the following for all lands with federal minerals whether or not the BLM has
surface management authority:
federal minerals not leased
• no new leases in some areas in most critical habitats
• where leasing is allowed, new leases must have minimum habitat core area and
maximum area of direct disturbance based on wildlife research and follow phased
and cluster development
federal minerals leased, not held by production
• when leases expire don’t re-lease lands in most critical habitats
6
•
•
insure full and timely restoration of developed lands before any new leasing
occurs
where leasing is allowed, new leases must have minimum habitat core area and
maximum area of direct disturbance based on wildlife research and follow phased
and cluster development
federal minerals leased, and held by production
• current oil and gas production continues
• after production is complete, do not re-lease lands
• insure full and timely restoration of developed lands before any new leasing
occurs
Clearly defined wildlife management zones with prescriptions such as those listed above could
set a trajectory for management of the lands for the next century, not just the next 20 years. This
plan needs to look at how it will set the stage for sustaining the landscape and its resources
beyond current leasing – beyond the life of this RMP.
Recommendations: The BLM should compile wildlife habitat data and related ecological value
data and design wildlife management zones. The agency should further produce mandatory
management prescriptions for these zones including areas of no oil and gas development and
areas of highly restricted development based on wildlife impacts research similar to those
outlined above. These new management prescriptions should set the landscape on a trajectory to
protect the most important wildlife habitat areas. In the short-term, unleased lands will be
protected in these areas and in the long-term (as leases expire and production is completed) these
areas will be restored, unfragmented and connected across the broader landscape.
2. The Draft RMP is unbalanced, failing to take advantage of the considerable conservation
opportunities presented by this RMP revision and instead overemphasizing oil and gas
development.
By failing to incorporate the alternative approaches provided to the BLM during scoping and
throughout the NWCOS and RMP development process, and neglecting to take into
consideration management guidance and scientific research provided by citizens and
conservation groups, the BLM does not take the opportunity to create a more balanced plan
which conserves the many fragile resources of the region. For instance, the NWCOS process
allowed members of the public to voice their concern and support for protection of wild places,
yet BLM still chose to prioritize oil and gas development. The Heart of the West Plan, which
outlines a number of recommendations for balancing oil and gas development with resource
protection, was submitted during scoping. BLM should also incorporate the recommendations
outlined in Section IV of our comments, Impacts of Oil and Gas Development on Wildlife and
Greater Sage Grouse. These recommendations permit oil and gas development where
appropriate, but ensure all development is done in a manner which will not forever alter the
character of the resource area. Additionally, recommendations for balancing resource extraction
and ORV use with resource protection were provided in the Friends of Northwest Colorado
Vision, submitted to the BLM prior to publication of the Draft RMP. Furthermore, BLM should
7
protect the CO 13 Big Bottom and CO 13 Nine Mile Gap habitat linkages identified by the
Southern Rockies Ecosystem Project (attached).
This emphasis on oil and gas development and failure to protect wildlife habitat will have dire
consequences for the region’s big game. Hunting and fishing alone generated more than $67
million in total economic gains in Moffat and Rout counties in 2002, according to the Colorado
Department of Wildlife (“The Economic Impacts of Hunting, Fishing and Wildlife Watching in
Colorado” October 31, 2004), but the negative impacts of widespread leasing on the area’s
healthy ecosystems and recreation economies could see those numbers plummet.
Another area in which BLM prioritizes resource extraction and motorized recreation over
resource protection in the agency preferred alternative was in the treatment of lands with
wilderness characteristics, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs), and Special
Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs).
We appreciate BLM’s acknowledgement of the wilderness character of the Dinosaur North and
Cold Springs areas (Draft RMP, p. 2-50). However, the other areas proposed by citizen groups
for wilderness do not receive adequate protection in the preferred alternative. These areas
include Vermillion Basin, Cross Mountain, Yampa River, Pinyon Ridge, and Diamond Breaks.
These areas are critical not only for their wilderness qualities but also the recreation
opportunities they provide; for example, Diamond Breaks is home to a trophy elk hunting unit.
These areas should be closed to oil and gas leasing, closed to ORVs and identified as right-ofway (ROW) exclusion zones.
BLM only retains 1 of the 4 existing ACECs in the Little Snake Resource Area and fails to
designate any new ACECs in the Preferred Alternative. (Draft RMP, p. 2-38). All 4 existing
ACECs and 12 proposed ACECs were found to meet the relevance and importance criteria set
out in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLMPA) (Draft RMP, pp. 2-38 to 2-41 and
Appendix G), yet BLM failed to designate any of these areas as ACECs. Further, BLM failed to
designate ACECs for the greater sage grouse, despite a recommendation to do so by Clait Braun,
a leading expert on greater sage grouse. Greater sage grouse habitat protection is particularly
important in the Little Snake Resource Area, which contains the largest, healthiest lek complex
in Colorado (Comments of Clait Braun on the Draft RMP; see also Braun, C.E. 2004.
Declaration re: APD for Focus Ranch, Federal #12-1 - attached.). This thriving complex, also
one of the largest in the West, must be protected in the BLM’s plan to ensure the future health of
the species and continued vitality of the region. The greater sage-grouse was petitioned for
Endangered Species Act protection, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service made a positive
preliminary finding that protection may be warranted. The Service later denied the grouse
protection, but information has since come to light indicating that political appointee Julie
MacDonald may have influenced this decision. In addition, new research has shown that sagegrouse are even more sensitive to disturbance related to oil and gas drilling than had previously
been believed. Therefore, the Service is likely to revisit whether Endangered Species Act
protection is necessary in the near future.
In the interim, as BLM acknowledges in the Draft RMP, the Little Snake Resource Area
“contains the largest Greater Sage-Grouse population in the State of Colorado.” Draft RMP, p. 3-
8
60. There are currently 5 local working groups developing management plans for this species,
which will culminate into a Statewide Conservation Plan for this species. Through the National
Science and Technology Center, the BLM is in the process of conducting “Greater Sage-Grouse
Habitat Connectivity Mapping and Analysis Workshops.” BLM Instruction Memorandum No.
2007-062. Two of the areas under consideration include portions of the Little Snake Resource
Area, highlighting the importance of the sage grouse population. The results of these processes
will undoubtedly contribute information further supporting the need to protect sage grouse
populations in the Little Snake Resource Area, by designating ACECs and applying
scientifically-based protections from the impacts of oil and gas development and ORVs. The
Draft RMP has failed to take necessary action.
As discussed below, BLM is required by FLPMA to prioritize the designation of ACECs in the
planning process. BLM failed to prioritize the designation of ACECs and instead prioritized oil
and gas development and ORV recreation in its preferred alternative.
BLM also failed to balance motorized recreation with quiet, traditional, human-powered
recreation. Only Zone 2 of the Serviceberry SRMA is closed to ORVs and designated for those
seeking a non-motorized experience. Draft RMP, p. 2-89. The other SRMAs designated in the
preferred alternative (Little Yampa Canyon SRMA, Juniper Mountain SRMA, Cedar Mountain
SRMA, and South Sand Wash SRMA) allow motorized use on designated trails or are open to
cross country travel. None of the areas identified in the Citizens’ Wilderness Proposal are
designated as primitive recreation SRMAs in the Preferred Alternative.
Finally, BLM did not identify as the Preferred Alternative the much more balanced alternative it
developed, Alternative D. While we would suggest additional improvements to Alternative D, it
goes much farther than the Preferred Alternative in balancing oil and gas development and ORV
use with resource protection.
Recommendations: BLM should take this opportunity to balance oil and gas development and
ORV use with protection of the many other natural resources of the Little Snake Resource Area
in designing long-term management of these public lands. While Alternative D needs some
improvement, BLM should choose it as the proposed plan with the modifications highlighted in
these comments. Regardless of the alternative chosen, the proposed plan should incorporate the
many plans, submissions, and other information gathered by BLM which call for protection of
important cultural, wilderness, and primitive recreation values present in the Little Snake
Resource Area.
B. FLPMA requires protection of natural resources.
The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), 43 U.S.C. § 1701 et seq., imposes a
duty on BLM to identify and protect the many natural resources found in the public lands in the
Little Snake Field Office that will be governed by this RMP. FLPMA requires BLM to
inventory its lands and their resource and values, "including outdoor recreation and scenic
values." 43 U.S.C. § 1711(a). FLPMA also obligates BLM to take this inventory into account
when preparing land use plans, using and observing the principles of multiple use and sustained
yield. 43 U.S.C. § 1712(c)(4); 43 U.S.C. § 1712(c)(1). Through management plans, BLM can
9
and should protect wildlife, scenic values, recreation opportunities and wilderness character in
the public lands through various management decisions, including by excluding or limiting
certain uses of the public lands. See 43 U.S.C. § 1712(e). This is necessary and consistent with
FLPMA’s definition of multiple use, which identifies the importance of various aspects of
wilderness characteristics (such as recreation, wildlife, natural scenic values) and requires BLM's
consideration of the relative values of these resources but "not necessarily to the combination of
uses that will give the greatest economic return." 43 U.S.C. § 1702(c). FLPMA explicitly
recognizes that multiple use does not mean that every acre must or should be available for all
multiple uses; FLPMA’s definition of “multiple use” includes “the use of some land for less than
all of the resources.” 43 U.S.C. FLPMA § 1702(c). (emphasis added). In this manner, all BLM
lands can serve multiple uses and still permit, and in some cases even require management of
certain places to conserve natural resources as paramount over other uses.
Under FLPMA, BLM is also obligated to “give priority to the designation and protection of areas
of critical environmental concern [ACEC].” 43 U.S.C. § 1712(c)(3). ACECs are areas where
special management attention is required “to protect and prevent irreparable damage.” 43 U.S.C.
§ 1702(a). Protection of existing ACECs and due consideration of proposed ACECs must be a
priority in the RMP process.
Further, FLPMA requires that: “In managing the public lands the [Secretary of Interior] shall, by
regulation or otherwise, take any action necessary to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation
of the lands.” 43 U.S.C. §1732(b). In this context, when the imperative language “shall” is used,
“Congress [leaves] the Secretary no discretion” in how to administer FLPMA. NRDC v.
Jamison, 815 F.Supp. 454, 468 (D.D.C. 1992). BLM’s duty to prevent unnecessary or undue
degradation (UUD) under FLPMA is mandatory, and BLM must, at a minimum, demonstrate
compliance with the UUD standard. See, Sierra Club v. Hodel, 848 F.2d 1068, 1075 (10th Cir.
1988) (the UUD standards provides the “law to apply” and “imposes a definite standard on the
BLM.”). FLPMA also mandates that the public lands be managed “without permanent
impairment of the productivity of the land or quality of the environment.” 43 U.S.C. 1702(c).
Recommendations: In developing and evaluating potential management alternatives for the Little
Snake Field Office, BLM should bear in mind the concept of multiple use, as defined above, in
order to inventory and safeguard resources such as scenic values, cultural resources and wildlife
habitat, create ACECs, and preserve lands with wilderness character. We are concerned that
BLM has not complied with these obligations, resulting in an unbalanced management plan.
These comments contain specific recommendations regarding necessary corrections to the Draft
RMP.
C. NEPA requires that the BLM fully assess potential environmental consequences and
develop a range of alternatives, including mitigation measures, based on scientifically
acceptable methodology and high quality data.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq., dictates that the BLM
take a “hard look” at the environmental consequences of a proposed action and the requisite
environmental analysis “must be appropriate to the action in question.” Metcalf v. Daley, 214
F.3d 1135, 1151 (9th Cir. 2000); Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332,
10
348 (1989). In order to take the “hard look” required by NEPA, BLM is required to assess
impacts and effects that include: “ecological (such as the effects on natural resources and on the
components, structures, and functioning of affected ecosystems), aesthetic, historic, cultural,
economic, social, or health, whether direct, indirect, or cumulative.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.8.
(emphasis added). The NEPA regulations define “cumulative impact” as:
the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action
when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions
regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other
actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively
significant actions taking place over a period of time.
40 C.F.R. § 1508.7. (emphasis added). A failure to include a cumulative impact analysis of
actions within a larger region will render NEPA analysis insufficient. See, e.g., Kern v. U.S.
Bureau of Land Management, 284 F.3d 1062, 1078 (9th Cir. 2002) (analysis of root fungus on
cedar timber sales was necessary for entire area). In the context of this RMP, the decisions made
in one area of this landscape are likely to affect other areas. Accordingly, to the extent that
management decisions in this area may affect or be affected by decisions in adjacent areas, BLM
must analyze potential impacts and consider ways to avoid or limit them in order to perform a
NEPA analysis commensurate with the scope of the decisions included in the RMP.
The range of alternatives is “the heart of the environmental impact statement.” 40 C.F.R. §
1502.14. NEPA requires BLM to “rigorously explore and objectively evaluate” a range of
alternatives to proposed federal actions. See 40 C.F.R. §§ 1502.14(a) and 1508.25(c).
“An agency must look at every reasonable alternative, with the range dictated by the nature and
scope of the proposed action.” Northwest Envtl Defense Center v. Bonneville Power Admin.,
117 F.3d 1520, 1538 (9th Cir. 1997). An agency violates NEPA by failing to “rigorously explore
and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives” to the proposed action. City of Tenakee
Springs v. Clough, 915 F.2d 1308, 1310 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14). This
evaluation extends to considering more environmentally protective alternatives and mitigation
measures. See, e.g., Kootenai Tribe of Idaho v. Veneman, 313 F.3d 1094,1122-1123 (9th Cir.
2002) (and cases cited therein). For this Draft RMP, the consideration of more environmentally
protective alternatives is consistent with FLPMA’s requirement BLM to “minimize adverse
impacts on the natural, environmental, scientific, cultural, and other resources and values
(including fish and wildlife habitat) of the public lands involved.” 43 U.S.C. §1732(d)(2)(a).
NEPA requires that an actual “range” of alternatives is considered, such that the Act will
“preclude agencies from defining the objectives of their actions in terms so unreasonably narrow
that they can be accomplished by only one alternative (i.e. the applicant’s proposed project).”
Colorado Environmental Coalition v. Dombeck, 185 F.3d 1162, 1174 (10th Cir. 1999), citing
Simmons v. United States Corps of Engineers, 120 F.3d 664, 669 (7th Cir. 1997). This
requirement prevents the EIS from becoming “a foreordained formality.” City of New York v.
Department of Transp., 715 F.2d 732, 743 (2nd Cir. 1983). See also, Davis v. Mineta, 302 F.3d
1104 (10th Cir. 2002).
11
In many instances, as will be noted throughout the comments, the management alternatives
presented do not comply with BLM’s obligation to consider a reasonable range of alternatives or
to consider the environmentally preferable alternatives that would conserve the many valuable
natural resources in the Little Snake Field Office.
Further, the agency must “insure the professional integrity, including scientific integrity, of the
discussions and analyses in environmental impact statements.” 40 C.F.R. § 1502.24. Information
regarding reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts that is essential to a reasoned
choice among alternatives shall be included in an EIS if the costs of obtaining it are not
exorbitant. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.22(a). In addition, regarding the content of an environmental
analysis, “The information must be of high quality. Accurate scientific analysis, expert agency
comments, and public scrutiny are essential to implementing NEPA.” 40 C.F.R. § 1500.1(b).
The Data Quality Act and the BLM’s interpreting guidance expand on this obligation, requiring
that “influential information” (information that is expected to have a “clear and substantial”
change or effect on important public policies and private sector decisions as they relate to federal
public lands and resources issues, such as that information contained in or used to develop a
resource management or travel management plan) use “best available science and supporting
studies conducted in accordance with sound and objective scientific practices.” 2
In order to evaluate the broad range of impacts encompassed by a NEPA analysis, it is also
critical that BLM adequately and accurately describe the environment that will be affected by the
proposed action under consideration – the “affected environment.” 40 C.F.R. § 1502.15. The
affected environment represents the baseline conditions against which impacts are assessed. The
importance of accurate baseline data has been emphasized by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit, which stated that “without establishing . . . baseline conditions . . . there is simply
no way to determine what effect [an action] will have on the environment, and consequently, no
way to comply with NEPA.” Half Moon Bay Fisherman’s Marketing Ass’n v. Carlucci, 857
F.2d 505, 510 (9th Cir. 1988). The court further held that, “The concept of a baseline against
which to compare predictions of the effects of the proposed action and reasonable alternatives is
critical to the NEPA process.” Ibid.
NEPA further requires that, in preparing a final EIS, BLM must discuss “any responsible
opposing view which was not adequately discussed in the draft statement and indicate the
agency’s response to the issue raised.” 40 C.F.R. § 1502.9. The Council on Environmental
Quality interprets this requirement as mandating that an agency respond in a “substantive and
meaningful way” to a comment that addresses the adequacy of analysis performed by the agency.
Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ’s National Environmental Policy Act
Regulations. 3 BLM’s NEPA Handbook elaborates upon this requirement, providing that:
comments relating to inadequacies or inaccuracies in the analysis or methodologies used must be
addressed; interpretations of analyses should be based on professional expertise; and where there
is disagreement within a professional discipline, a careful review of the various interpretations is
2
Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Pub.L.No. 106-554, § 515. See
also, Bureau of Land Management Information Quality Guidelines, available at
http://www.blm.gov/nhp/efoia/data_quality/guidelines.pdf.
3
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has found that the “Forty Questions” are “persuasive authority
offering interpretive guidance” on NEPA from CEQ. Davis v. Mineta, 302 F.3d 1104,1125 (10th Cir. 2002).
12
warranted.” Handbook H-1790-1, Section V.B.4.a., p. V-11. Failure to disclose and thoroughly
respond to differing scientific views violates NEPA and obligates an agency to perform a
compliant environmental analysis prior to approving a proposed action. See, Robertson v.
Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. at 350.
Recommendations: BLM must fully assess the potential environmental consequences of
management decisions, as described above, and consider a true range of alternatives, including
more environmentally preferable management approach and mitigation measures. In developing
alternatives and assessing their potential impacts, BLM must use data and methods of high
quality and establish a baseline of existing conditions against which potential impacts can be
assessed. Further, BLM must carefully consider the comments of the experts, identified above,
who have submitted important criticisms of BLM’s methodology and conclusions and provided
specific recommendations to remedy inadequacies. We will be identifying specific failures in
the alternatives considered and proposing corrections below.
II. LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS
We appreciate the Little Snake Field Office’s approach to inventorying for and protecting lands
with wilderness characteristics. BLM’s mandate of multiple use and sustained yield, as well as
other relevant law and BLM’s current guidance, provides for inventory and protection of
wilderness values. However, we believe that the Draft RMP does not adequately consider and
protect the values of these lands.
A. Wilderness character is a valuable resource and important multiple use of the lands
governed by the Little Snake RMP.
BLM has identified “wilderness characteristics” to include naturalness or providing opportunities
for solitude or primitive recreation. See, Instruction Memoranda (IMs) 2003-274 and 2003-275.
These values should also be identified and protected through these planning processes. BLM
should recognize the wide range of values associated with lands with wilderness character:
1. Scenic values – FLPMA specifically identifies “scenic values” as a resource of BLM lands for
purposes of inventory and management (43 U.S.C. § 1711(a)), and the unspoiled landscapes of
lands with wilderness characteristics generally provide spectacular viewing experiences. The
scenic values of these lands will be severely compromised if destructive activities or other visual
impairments are permitted.
2. Recreation – FLPMA also identifies “outdoor recreation” as a valuable resource to be
inventoried and managed by BLM. 43 U.S.C. § 1711(a). Lands with wilderness characteristics
provide opportunities for primitive recreation, such as hiking, camping, hunting and wildlife
viewing. Most, if not all primitive recreation experiences will be foreclosed or severely
impacted if the naturalness and quiet of these lands are not preserved.
3. Wildlife habitat and riparian areas – FLPMA acknowledges the value of wildlife habitat found
in public lands and recognizes habitat as an important use. 43 U.S.C. § 1702(c). Due to their
unspoiled state, lands with wilderness characteristics provide valuable habitat for wildlife,
thereby supporting additional resources and uses of the public lands. As part of their habitat,
13
many species are also dependent on riparian and other wetland habitats, especially during either
seasonal migrations or seasons and years when surrounding habitats are dry and unproductive.
Wilderness-quality lands support biodiversity, watershed protection and overall healthy
ecosystems. The low route density, absence of development activities and corresponding dearth
of motorized vehicles, which are integral to wilderness character, also ensure the clean air, clean
water and lack of disturbance necessary for productive wildlife habitat and riparian areas (which
support both wildlife habitat and human uses of water).
Further, inventorying lands with wilderness characteristics will also provide important data on
existing large blocks of habitat and how BLM can restore these blocks of habitat to better match
the historic range of variability. Swanson et al. (1994) contend that managing an ecosystem
within its range of variability is appropriate to maintain diverse, resilient, productive, and healthy
ecosystems for viable populations of native species. Using the historical range of variability, they
believe, is the most scientifically defensible way to meet society’s objective of sustaining habitat.
Patrick Daigle and Rick Dawson, Extension Note 07; Management Concepts for Landscape
Ecology (Part 1 of 7). October 1996. http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/docs/en/en07.pdf; citing
Swanson, F. J.; Jones, J. A.; Wallin, D. O.; Cissel, J. H. 1994. Natural variability--implications
for ecosystem management. In: Jensen, M. E.; Bourgeron, P. S., tech. eds. Eastside Forest
Ecosystem Health Assessment--Volume II: Ecosystem management: principles and applications.
Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-318. Portland, OR: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Pacific Northwest Research Station: pp 89-106.
Identifying, restoring and protecting substantial roadless areas in the Little Snake planning area
can provide crucial benefits to wildlife.
4. Cultural resources – FLPMA also recognizes the importance of “historical values” as part of
the resources of the public lands to be protected. 43 U.S.C. § 1702(c). The lack of intensive
human access and activity on lands with wilderness characteristics helps to protect these
resources. As discussed in detail in the comments of the Colorado Plateau Archaeological
Alliance, there are important areas of overlap between the areas identified as rich in cultural
resources and those containing wilderness characteristics, underscoring the added benefits of
protecting these lands.
5. Economic benefits – The recreation opportunities provided by wilderness-quality lands also
yield direct economic benefits to local communities. According to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service, in 2001 State residents and non-residents spent $2 billion on wildlife recreation in
Colorado. (USFWS 2002, National Survey of Hunting, Fishing and Wildlife-associated
Recreation - http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/fhw01-co.pdf). In addition, local
communities that protect wildlands reap measurable benefits in terms of employment and
personal income. For instance, a recent report by the Sonoran Institute (Sonoran Institute 2004,
Prosperity in the 21st Century West -The Role of Protected Public Lands) found that:
Protected lands have the greatest influence on economic growth in rural isolated counties
that lack easy access to larger markets. From 1970 to 2000, real per capita income in
isolated rural counties with protected land grew more than 60 percent faster than isolated
counties without any protected lands.
14
These findings confirm earlier research, showing that wilderness is in fact beneficial for local
economies. Residents of counties with wilderness cite wilderness as an important reason why
they moved to the county, and long-term residents cite it as a reason they stay. Recent survey
results also indicate that many firms decide to locate or stay in the West because of scenic
amenities and wildlife-based recreation, both of which are strongly supported by wilderness
areas. (Morton 2000, Wilderness: The Silent Engine of the West’s Economy). Other “nonmarket” economic values arise from the ability of wildlands to contribute to recreation and
recreation-related jobs, scientific research, scenic viewsheds, biodiversity conservation, and
watershed protection. (Morton 1999, The Economic Benefits of Wilderness: Theory and
Practice; Loomis 2000, Economic Values of Wilderness Recreation and Passive Use: What We
Think We Know at the Turn of the 21st Century). All of these economic benefits are dependent
upon adequate protection of the wilderness characteristics of the lands.
6. Quality of life – The wildlands located within the Little Snake planning area help to define the
character of this area and are an important component of the quality of life for local residents and
future generations, providing wilderness values in proximity to burgeoning urban and suburban
areas such as Steamboat Springs and Craig. Their protection enables the way of life of this
community to continue.
7. Balanced use – The vast majority of BLM lands are open to motorized use and development.
FLPMA recognizes that “multiple use” of the public lands requires “a combination of balanced
and diverse resource uses” that includes recreation, watershed, wildlife, fish, and natural scenic
and historical values (43 U.S.C. § 1702(c)). FLPMA also requires BLM to prepare land use
plans that may limit certain uses in some areas (43 U.S.C. § 1712). Many other multiple uses of
public lands are compatible with protection of wilderness characteristics – in fact, many are
enhanced if not dependent on protection of wilderness qualities (such as primitive recreation and
wildlife habitat). Protection of wilderness characteristics will benefit many of the other multiple
uses of BLM lands, while other more exclusionary uses (such as off-road vehicle use and timber
harvesting) will still have adequate opportunities on other BLM lands.
B. BLM must consider alternatives for managing lands managed by the RMP to protect
their wilderness characteristics.
As discussed above, NEPA requires BLM to “rigorously explore and objectively evaluate” a
range of alternatives to proposed federal actions. See 40 C.F.R. §§ 1502.14(a) and 1508.25(c).
Given the broad purpose of the preparation of the RMP revisions and the information compiled
by the public regarding lands with wilderness characteristics, the range of alternatives for these
lands should include alternatives to protect their wilderness values. This range of alternatives is
also consistent with BLM’s FLPMA obligations to inventory its lands and their resources,
"including outdoor recreation and scenic values" (43 U.S.C. § 1711(a)), which by definition
includes wilderness character. FLPMA also obligates BLM to take this inventory into account
when preparing land use plans, using and observing the principles of multiple use and sustained
yield. 43 U.S.C. § 1712(c)(4); 43 U.S.C. § 1712(c)(1). Through management plans, BLM can
and should protect wilderness character and the many uses that wilderness character provides on
the public lands through various management decisions, including by excluding or limiting
certain uses of the public lands. See, 43 U.S.C. § 1712(e). This is necessary and consistent with
15
the definition of multiple use, which identifies the importance of various aspects of wilderness
character (such as recreation, wildlife, natural scenic values) and requires BLM's consideration
of the relative values of these resources but "not necessarily to the combination of uses that will
give the greatest economic return." 43 U.S.C. § 1702(c).
1. BLM should consider designating new Wilderness Study Areas.
We are aware of the April 2003 settlement agreement (Utah Settlement) between Secretary of the
Interior Norton and the State of Utah (in which BLM abdicated its authority to designate any
additional Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs)), and we maintain that this agreement is invalid and
will ultimately be overturned in pending litigation.
The federal court in Utah revoked its approval of the Utah Settlement, stating that its approval of
the initial settlement was never intended to be interpreted as a binding consent decree.
Recognizing that the court’s decision undermined the legal ground for the Utah Settlement, the
State of Utah and the Department of Interior have now formally withdrawn the settlement as it
was originally submitted. See, Motion to Stay Briefing and for a Status Conference, September
9, 2005, attached. This casts serious doubt upon BLM’s current policy not to consider
designating new WSAs. Because the State of Utah and the Department of Interior have
withdrawn their settlement and do not intend to seek a new consent decree, there is currently no
binding consent decree and the BLM has not even issued any updated guidance seeking to
continue applying this misguided and illegal policy.
Even if the Utah Settlement is reinstated, not as a consent decree, it is illegal. The Utah
Settlement is based on an interpretation of FLPMA §§ 201, 202, and 603 that is contrary to
FLPMA’s plain language. Section 603 did not supersede or limit BLM’s authority under § 201
to undertake wilderness inventories, but rather relies explicitly on BLM having exactly that
authority under § 201. Nor did § 603 in any way limit BLM’s discretion under § 202 to manage
its lands as it sees fit, including managing areas as § 202 WSAs in accordance with the Interim
Management Policy (IMP). Every prior administration has created WSAs under § 202 and they
plainly had authority to do so. This administration has such authority as well, making this a
reasonable alternative deserving of consideration in this NEPA process.
The Utah Settlement is also illegal because the court in Utah lacked jurisdiction to prohibit
designation of new WSAs nationwide, including in Colorado.
Recommendations: In light of the most recent ruling and subsequent action of the parties, we
emphasize that the BLM can and should continue to designate new WSAs in these planning
processes, including the areas identified in the Citizens’ Wilderness Proposal. Further, if BLM
continues to exclude designation of new WSAs from consideration in the Little Snake RMP, it
risks violating both FLPMA and NEPA, and jeopardizing the validity of the entire planning
process.
16
2. BLM should also consider other management alternatives for protecting lands with wilderness
characteristics.
The Utah Settlement does not affect BLM's obligation to value wilderness character or,
according to BLM directives, the agency’s ability to protect that character, including in the
development of management alternatives. In fact, BLM has not only claimed that it can
continue to protect wilderness values, but has also committed to doing so. On September 29,
2003, BLM issued IMs 2003-274 and 2003-275, formalizing its policies concerning wilderness
study and consideration of wilderness characteristics in the wake of the Utah Settlement. In the
IMs and subsequent public statements, BLM has claimed that its abandonment of previous policy
on WSAs would not prevent protection of lands with wilderness characteristics. The IMs
contemplate that BLM can continue to inventory for and protect land “with wilderness
characteristics,” such as naturalness or providing opportunities for solitude or primitive
recreation, through the planning process. The IMs further provide for management that
emphasizes “the protection of some or all of the wilderness characteristics as a priority,” even if
this means prioritizing wilderness over other multiple uses. This guidance does not limit its
application to lands suitable for designation of WSAs; for instance, the guidance does not
include a requirement for the lands at issue to generally comprise 5,000-acre parcels or a
requirement that the lands have all of the potential wilderness characteristics in order to merit
protection. IM 2003-274 states that “BLM may continue to inventory public lands for resource
or other values, including wilderness characteristics” and that the agency can “manage them
using special protections to protect wilderness characteristics.” (emphasis added). Further, IM
2003-275, Change 1, reads:
The BLM can make a variety of land use plan decisions to protect wilderness
characteristics, such as establishing Visual Resource Management (VRM) class
objectives to guide the placement of roads, trails, and other facilities; establishing
conditions of use to be attached to permits, leases, and other authorizations to achieve the
desired level of resource protection; and designating lands as open, closed, or limited to
Off Highway Vehicles (OHV) to achieve a desired visitor experience. (emphasis added).
Accordingly, administrative protections can and should be considered for lands not currently
protected. The Draft RMP should have also considered management alternatives that provide
administrative protection for the wilderness characteristics of those lands currently designated as
WSAs if they are not ultimately designated as Wilderness by Congress; their wilderness
characteristics are already acknowledged by the BLM.
Courts have confirmed the BLM’s obligations to consider the value of wilderness characteristics
and the potential impacts of decisions on this resource when making land use planning decisions.
In a recent decision, a federal court found that BLM’s failure to re-inventory lands for wilderness
values and to consider the potential impact of decisions regarding management of a grazing
allotment violated its obligations under NEPA and FLPMA, then enjoined any implementation
of the decision until the agency reinventoried the lands at issue and prepared an environmental
document taking into account the impacts of its decisions on wilderness values. In Oregon
Natural Desert Association v. Rasmussen, CV 05-1616-AS, Findings and Recommendations
(D.Or. April 20, 2006 – copy attached); Order (D.Or. December 12, 2006 – copy attached), the
17
Oregon Natural Desert Association (ONDA) had submitted an updated inventory of wilderness
values, but BLM declined to “revisit” its previous inventory or to consider the potential damage
to wilderness values from the proposed grazing management decisions. The court found that
BLM had violated NEPA by failing to consider significant new information on wilderness values
and potential impacts on wilderness values, and had also failed to meet its obligations under
FLPMA by failing to engage in a continuing inventory of wilderness values. The court
concluded:
The court finds BLM did not meet its obligation under NEPA simply by reviewing and
critiquing ONDA's work product. It was obligated under NEPA to consider
whether there were changes in or additions to the wilderness values within the EastWest Gulch, and whether the proposed action in that area might negatively impact
those wilderness values, if they exist. The court finds BLM did not meet that obligation
by relying on the one-time inventory review conducted in 1992. Such reliance is not
consistent with its statutory obligation to engage in a continuing inventory so as to
be current on changing conditions and wilderness values. 43 U.S.C. § 1711(a).
BLM's issuance of the East-West Gulch Projects EA and the accompanying Finding of
No Substantial Impact (FONSI) in the absence of current information on wilderness
values was arbitrary and capricious, and, therefore, was in violation of NEPA and the
APA. (emphasis added)
BLM is similarly obligated to both consider additions to wilderness values and evaluate the
potential impacts on those wilderness values from its management decisions.
In the most recent ruling on the Utah Settlement challenge (State of Utah v. Norton, Case No.
2:96-CV-0870, Order and Opinion (D.Utah September 20, 2006)), Judge Benson found against
the Conservation Groups for a number of reasons, including agreeing with the legal
interpretation of FLPMA put forth by the State of Utah and the BLM (a finding we continue to
dispute). However, the ruling also justifies the court’s interpretation by finding that the agency
can provide virtually the same protection for lands with wilderness characteristics through
administrative decisions as it can through designation of new WSAs, with the only material
difference being that, while the agency can alter its own management decisions, only Congress
can change a WSA designation. The court stated: “Both Utah and the BLM acknowledge that
the BLM has the discretion to manage lands in a manner that is similar to the non-impairment
standard by emphasizing the protection of wilderness characteristics as a priority over other
potential uses.” Order and Opinion, p. 41 (emphasis added - excerpt attached).
In a subsequent briefing to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, the Department of the
Interior and the BLM reiterated that “the settlement does not preclude BLM from inventorying
public lands for wilderness-associated characteristics” and that “the land management
decision obtained through FLPMA § 202 process may resemble management under FLPMA §
603’s non-impairment standard.” In discussing how BLM will manage lands with wilderness
characteristics, the brief refers to the “BLM’s discretion under FLPMA § 202 to preserve their
wilderness-associated characteristics.” Brief of the Federal Appellees, State of Utah v.
Kempthorne, Case No. 06-4240 (February 26, 2007), pp. 40, 43 (emphases added - excerpt
18
attached). Similarly, the Little Snake Field Office can and should protect lands with wilderness
characteristics from the damage likely to result from oil and gas development and uncontrolled
ORV use, both of which the BLM has acknowledged are likely to occur if these activities are
permitted to occur on lands with wilderness characteristics.
In addition, the information submitted regarding citizen-proposed wilderness constitutes
significant new information that must be addressed in this RMP revision. This information has
not yet been analyzed in the existing land use plan, so NEPA requires analysis of the potential
environmental direct, indirect and cumulative effects of oil and gas development on these areas
and consideration of protection for them. See, 40 C.F.R. § 1502.9(c); Marsh v. Oregon Natural
Resources Council, 490 U.S. 360, 374 (1989). In a recent decision, the U.S. District for the
District of Utah found that information regarding wilderness characteristics that was not
considered in the existing land use plan was:
a textbook example of significant new information about the affected environment (the
wilderness attributes and characteristics of the Desolation Canyon, Floy Canyon,
Flume Canyon, Coal Canyon, and Flat Tops unit) that would be impacted by oil and gas
development; information that was not reflected in BLM’s existing NEPA analyses.
Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Norton, 457 F. Supp. 2d 1253 (D. Utah 2006) (attached).
A compliant NEPA analysis requires not only assessment of potential impacts but also a
consideration of potential mitigation measures, such as protecting lands with wilderness
characteristics. 40 C.F.R. §§ 1502.14, 1502.16. The Little Snake RMP must consider protective
measures tailored specifically to protect lands with wilderness characteristics.
BLM’s Arizona State Office issued guidance that elaborates upon the national guidance by
providing for identification of lands with wilderness characteristics and development of
management prescriptions to protect and enhance these values (IM No. AZ-2005-007 – attached
for your reference). Other RMPs that are being prepared in Arizona, New Mexico and Utah
include identification of lands with wilderness characteristics and include management of certain
areas to maintain and enhance these values in management alternatives under consideration. For
example, the Preliminary Draft Alternatives for the Moab RMP also identify “Lands with or
likely to have Wilderness Characteristics” and specifically set out management prescriptions for
these lands. The lands at issue are identified from a combination of Utah BLM’s 1999 inventory,
citizen-proposed wilderness that the BLM made “reasonable probability determinations” for as
lands likely to have wilderness characteristics, and additional lands identified by the public
during scoping for the RMP. The Moab Field Office evaluated all of this information in order to
make determinations that these lands have wilderness characteristics. Relevant excerpts from
these documents are attached and also available on-line at:
http://www.blm.gov/rmp/ut/moab/documents.htm In addition, the recently-released Preliminary
Draft Alternatives for the TriCounty RMPs (prepared by the BLM’s Las Cruces, NM Field
Office) also provide for protection of citizen-proposed wilderness, stating that these areas
“would be managed to maintain wilderness characteristics.” See, TriCounty RMPs/EIS
Newsletter, p. 3. The Preliminary Goals and Objectives (p. 3) set out a management approach
specific to lands with wilderness characteristics, including:
19
•
•
Goal: Maintain naturalness, outstanding opportunities for solitude, and unconfined
recreation.
Objectives:
o Manage areas with wilderness characteristics to maintain the natural qualities of
the landscape where the imprint of human activity is substantially unnoticeable;
where the sights, sounds, and evidence of other people are rare or infrequent; and
where visitors can be isolated, alone, or secluded from others.
o Provide management direction for assessing site specific impacts from proposals
that fall within identified areas with wilderness characteristics based on the longterm effect on naturalness, ability to restore the impacted area to its natural state,
compatibility with VRM objectives, loss of opportunity for solitude and primitive
recreation, and potential for proposed use to be accommodated outside of the area.
These documents are attached and also available on-line at:
http://www.nm.blm.gov/lcfo/tri_county/tricounty.html.
Recommendations: BLM is obligated to include protection of lands with wilderness
characteristics in management alternatives and to ensure that wilderness values receive proper
and sufficient attention as a critical aspect of land management in preparation of the RMP,
including by: inventorying for lands with wilderness characteristics (including those lands
identified in the Citizens’ Wilderness Proposal); considering alternatives for protecting lands
with wilderness characteristics (including for those lands currently designated as WSAs if they
are not ultimately designated as Wilderness by Congress); and addressing wilderness
characteristics as a separate and unique issue in the planning process in each section of the RMP.
C. The preferred alternative does not sufficiently protect areas with wilderness
characteristics.
As noted in current BLM guidance, the BLM can use a combination of ACECs, SRMAs, other
designations and specific management prescriptions to protect wilderness characteristics. There
are seven units from the Colorado Citizens’ Wilderness Proposal (CWP) encompassed by the
Little Snake Planning Area: Vermillion Basin, Dinosaur North, Cold Springs Mountain, Little
Yampa/Juniper Canyon, Cross Mountain, Diamond Breaks and Pinyon Ridge.
We would note that the agency’s current standards for identifying and managing lands with
wilderness characteristics are less stringent than those applicable under the Wilderness Act and
under the now-revoked Wilderness Inventory Handbook. For instance, the national guidance
provides for management that emphasizes “the protection of some or all of the wilderness
characteristics as a priority” over other multiple uses. (emphasis added). This guidance does not
limit its application to lands suitable for designation of WSAs; for instance, the guidance does
not include a requirement for the lands at issue to generally comprise 5,000-acre parcels or a
requirement that the lands have all of the potential wilderness characteristics in order to merit
protection. For this reason, we take issue with the agency’s assessment of “areas likely to have
wilderness characteristics” where it relies upon a size determination of greater than 5,000 acres.
Draft RMP, Table 3-25, p. 3-86. Not only does current guidance omit the requirement, but also
the Wilderness Act provides for designation of areas that are 5,000 acres or “of sufficient size as
to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition.” 16 U.S.C. § 1131(c).
20
As shown in the repeated submissions of the Citizens’ Wilderness Proposal, these lands have
wilderness characteristics.
The Citizens’ Wilderness Proposal identifies lands with wilderness characteristics, inventoried in
accordance with the more stringent standards of the Wilderness Act and the Wilderness
Inventory Handbook. The CWP was first published in 1994 by a coalition of 47 groups and has
been updated based on ongoing inventories as new information becomes available, including the
attached information, which includes the most recent data regarding the CWP units in the Little
Snake planning area, as well as GIS files depicting each area. The Little Snake RMP should
acknowledge the wilderness characteristics of the areas included in this proposal and manage
these areas to protect their wilderness characteristics.
We appreciate the Draft RMP’s recognition that each of the seven areas identified above have
wilderness characteristics and the BLM’s consideration of protecting these values in a variety of
designations and management prescriptions. Alternative D would protect the majority of these
areas: Vermillion Basin, Dinosaur North (identified as Dinosaur Additions in the CWP), Cold
Springs Mountain and Little Yampa/Juniper Canyon (identified as the Yampa River unit in the
CWP) are managed as Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs), and Diamond Breaks
(outside the WSA), Cross Mountain (outside the WSA) and Pinyon Ridge are managed as “lands
with backcountry characteristics.” However, in the preferred alternative (Alternative C), only
Dinosaur North and Cold Springs Mountain are managed as lands with wilderness characteristics
outside WSAs, leaving more than 175,000 acres of lands with wilderness characteristics
unprotected from oil and gas development. While part of the Yampa River CWP unit is included
in a Special Recreation Management Area, the area is not a primitive backcountry area and is not
closed to oil and gas development. Further, the Draft RMP does not include a map of lands with
wilderness characteristics outside WSAs in Chapter 3 (Affected Environment), making it
difficult to compare the areas identified by the BLM with those identified in the CWP and also
fails to present important information regarding the baseline condition of these lands. Concerns
with management proposed for each CWP area is discussed below:
Vermillion Basin: In the preferred alternative, the entirety of Vermillion Basin is open to oil and
gas development. The Draft RMP recognizes the important natural values and opportunities for
solitude and primitive, non-motorized recreation provided by this area (including Vermillion
Basin in the category of lands with wilderness characteristics outside existing WSAs in the
preferred alternative (Draft RMP, p. 2-47) and as a primitive Special Recreation Management
Area in Alternative D (Draft RMP, p. 2-93)), but then utterly fails to protect it any meaningful
way. In the preferred alternative (Alternative C), the management approach for Vermillion
Basin is “to allow for coordinated and organized oil and gas development while protecting
natural and scenic values.” Draft RMP, p. 2-47. The details of this management approach are as
unworkable as this objective sounds.
Only the northern section of Vermillion Basin has areas of high or even moderate potential for
oil and gas occurrence and a large portion of the area has low or no known potential. See, e.g.,
Maps 3-32, 3-27. Nonetheless, the preferred alternative would open every single acre of
Vermillion Basin to oil and gas development and virtually ensure that it is all leased.
21
The preferred alternative proposes to manage oil and gas development in Vermillion Basin by
limiting surface disturbance to one percent (1%) of the unit at any one time. Draft RMP, p. 2-48.
However, existing disturbance is not included. Id. These units of leases are composed of not
only areas that are intended or expected to be developed, but also can include a “mitigation area”
that an operator never intends to develop but merely allows the operator to increase the total
acreage of surface disturbed in areas of development. Id. The mitigation areas do not need to be
adjacent to the area under exploration or development. Id. Further, all of Vermillion Basin will
be made available for leasing at the same time. Id.
This approach creates an obvious incentive for operators to purchase leases in areas of low
potential (areas that might otherwise not be attractive for leasing), so that they can more
intensively develop a smaller area. The management approach does not include any requirement
to limit surface disturbance to any specific road density or any other limits, so there are no
controls on the amount of damage that can occur.
The Draft RMP claims that this management approach will provide “greater protections” to
Vermillion Basin’s wilderness characteristics. Draft RMP, p. 4-126. However, the Draft RMP
also acknowledges that “oil and gas development would result in a significant impact to
wilderness characteristics.” Id. The discussion in the Draft RMP of likely impacts from oil and
gas development on Vermillion Basin does not specifically discuss or acknowledge the
foreseeable extent of impacts of leasing areas with low potential, such as the more intensive
development of certain areas. The amount of damage may also be increased by the failure of the
surface disturbance limits to take into account existing disturbance. Ignoring these impacts
contradicts NEPA’s requirement to take into account all of the direct, indirect and cumulative
impacts of a proposed action.
Another likely impact of the approach to managing oil and gas development in Vermillion Basin
is to limit the likelihood that it can be managed for other multiple uses, because the approach
incentivizes leasing of all the area at the same time and, once an area is leased, the BLM has
reduced options for restricting activities on the lease. See, e.g., 43 C.F.R. § 3101.1-2. As a
result, the preferred alternative undermines BLM’s compliance with the multiple use mandate of
FLPMA.
BLM’s conclusions that this approach will provide protections to the wilderness values of
Vermillion Basin are also not supported. In order for BLM to rely on mitigation, such as this
approach, NEPA requires that BLM make a firm commitment to the mitigation and discuss the
mitigation measures “in sufficient detail to ensure that environmental consequences have been
fairly evaluated…” Communities, Inc. v. Busey, 956 F.2d 619, 626 (6th Cir. 1992). NEPA
defines “mitigation” of impacts (at 40 C.F.R. § 1508.20) to include:
• Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action;
• Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its
implementation;
• Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment;
• Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance
operations during the life of the action; or
22
•
Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or
environments.
Simply identifying mitigation measures, without analyzing the effectiveness of the measures
violates NEPA. Agencies must “analyze the mitigation measures in detail [and] explain how
effective the measures would be . . . A mere listing of mitigation measures is insufficient to
qualify as the reasoned discussion required by NEPA.” Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective
Association v. Peterson, 764 F.2d 581, 588 (9th Cir. 1985), rev'd on other grounds 485 U.S. 439
(1988). NEPA also directs that the “possibility of mitigation” should not be relied upon as a
means to avoid further environmental analysis. Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ’s
National Environmental Policy Act Regulations; Davis v. Mineta, 302 F.3d 1104,1125 (10th Cir.
2002).
Further, as discussed above, NEPA requires that the agency “insure the professional integrity,
including scientific integrity, of the discussions and analyses in environmental impact
statements.” 40 C.F.R. § 1502.24. Accurate scientific analysis, expert agency comments, and
public scrutiny are essential to implementing NEPA.” 40 C.F.R. § 1500.1(b). The requirements
of NEPA are reiterated and augmented in the requirements of the Data Quality Act.
The Draft RMP does not provide sufficient detail regarding how the 1% disturbance cap will be
measured, monitored or enforced, so it cannot rely upon this as a mitigation measure for the
expected significant impacts. Similarly, there is not sufficient support for concluding that rolling
reclamation will be successful in restoring the wilderness values of Vermillion Basin. In fact,
the actual reclamation standards set out in Appendix O do not require actual establishment of
native vegetation. Instead, Appendix O provides that if vegetation is not successfully reestablished after 2 growing seasons, then if erosion is greater than 2 times
allowable, some type of “corrective action” would be required of the
“responsible company,” but no additional detail is provided as to what this
action might be. If erosion is at or below the set erosion threshold and the
BLM determines that the site may become stable, then no corrective action
would be required and, if this holds for another season, then the standard is
considered met. So, essentially, the reclamation standard may be no more than
erosion measurements. A “stable” site is not equivalent to a restored site,
but, under the preferred alternative, it can be sufficient to permit
additional destruction of Vermillion Basin.
Vermillion Basin not only contains wilderness values, but also contains valuable and vulnerable
cultural resources, discussed in further detail below and in the comments of the Colorado Plateau
Archaeological Alliance. As discussed in the comments of the Colorado Plateau Archaeological
Alliance, the roadless character of the Vermillion Basin is likely a key reason that the cultural
resources in the area have remained intact. Opening the area to oil and gas development will
likely compromise these precious resources, as well. The BLM should analyze the benefits of
keeping a culturally significant landscape intact versus the direct and indirect damage to cultural
resources and the setting in which they are found that will inevitably occur from allowing
industrial development of Vermillion Basin.
23
Currently, Vermillion Basin is the largest, contiguous block of unleased land within the Little
Snake Field Office. Further, over 1 million acres in the planning area are already leased. If the
Vermillion Basin area is entirely leased and the northern portion intensively developed, as can be
expected based on the management approach in the preferred alternative, then the BLM will lose
the opportunity to protect the area’s natural character. Further, given the lack of similarly large
unleased areas in the Little Snake Resource Area and in the adjacent Field Offices, losing the
opportunity to protect Vermillion Basin will foreclose an important management alternative and
lead to a greater cumulative loss of wilderness values. In addition to the substantial development
predicted in the Draft RMP, significant oil and gas development is proceeding in the surrounding
areas, including an additional 4,200 proposed gas wells in the Hiawatha area, spanning the
Wyoming-Colorado border into the Little Snake Resource Area. Intensive development is
ongoing and more is planned in the Piceance Basin: approval of 15,000 or more wells is under
consideration in the Amendment of the White River RMP; in the interim, the White River Field
Office has approved more than 1000 additional wells in Exxon’s Piceance Development Project;
the Kremmling and Glenwood Springs RMPs are being revised and one of the goals is to
improve access for oil and gas development, although 540,000 acres are already under lease; and
the adjacent Rawlins Field Office in Wyoming is revising its RMP with a projection of
approving 8822 wells, while the Desolation Flats, Continental-Creston, and Atlantic Rim
projects approved or in the process of being approved by this Field Office provide for 11,335
wells. The Draft RMP fails to give adequate weight to the benefits of preserving Vermillion
Basin and the consequences to permitting development in the context of the regional landscape.
The cultural resources and wilderness qualities of Vermillion Basin are extremely valuable and
also extremely vulnerable. The importance of protecting these resources is heightened by the
fact that they are already rare in this region and cannot be replaced once they are destroyed.
There is an unquestioned and substantial benefit from protecting these resources, which the BLM
must take into account. In addition, the potential benefits from oil and gas development in
Vermillion Basin are relatively insignificant. An analysis prepared by The Wilderness Society
(A GIS Analysis of the Undiscovered Technically Recoverable Oil and Gas in the Little Snake
Resource Area – attached) found that the Vermillion Basin CWP area contains only enough
technically recoverable gas to supply U.S. energy needs for about 10 days, and less than 8
minutes’ worth of oil. The high costs of sacrificing the important cultural resources and
wilderness qualities of Vermillion Basin cannot be justified for this limited benefit.
The preferred alternative also prescribes Visual Resource Management (VRM) Class III
management for Vermillion Basin, but VRM Class I is more suitable protection for the
naturalness and other wilderness values of Vermillion Basin. The objective of VRM Class III is
“to partially retain the existing character of the landscape.” Management is so that “the level of
change to the characteristic landscape should be moderate.” In contrast, the object of VRM
Class I is “to preserve the existing character of the landscape” and management is so that the
“level of change to the characteristic landscape should be very low and must not attract
attention” See, BLM official Visual Resource Management information website at:
http://www.blm.gov/nstc/VRM/vrmsys.html. This is insufficient protection for an area that will
be managed for naturalness; VRM Class I is more appropriate.
24
The wilderness values and appropriate boundaries for management of Vermillion Basin’s
wilderness characteristics are described in further detail in the attached submission of the
updated CWP inventory information. The area identified as Vermillion Basin in the Draft RMP
is not equivalent to the more than 86,560 acres identified in the CWP and shown to have
wilderness characteristics. Accordingly, the larger area identified in the attached inventory
should be included in the lands with wilderness characteristics managed as part of Vermillion
Basin in the RMP.
Dinosaur North: We support the management of this area as “lands with wilderness
characteristics outside WSAs,” including the closure to oil and gas operations and other minerals
activities, no wind energy development and exclusion of rights-of-way (ROWs). However, we
also believe that closure to ORVs is appropriate to protect the area’s wilderness characteristics.
As discussed in the comments of the Colorado Plateau Archaeological Alliance, the roadless
character of the Dinosaur North area is likely a key reason that the cultural resources in the area
have remained intact. The RMP should prioritize closure and restoration, so that no new routes
are created and that closures and restoration activities that will enhance the area’s wilderness
characteristics are not delayed. We refer you to the attached submission of the updated CWP
inventory information, identifying this area as Dinosaur Additions, for additional information.
Further, this area should be managed as VRM Class I instead of the VRM Class II proposed in
the Draft RMP. The objective of VRM Class II is “to retain the existing character of the
landscape” and management is such that the “level of change to the characteristic landscape
should be low.” The objective of VRM Class I is “to preserve the existing character of the
landscape” and management is so that the “level of change to the characteristic landscape should
be very low and must not attract attention.” VRM Class II is not sufficient protection for an area
that will be managed for naturalness; VRM Class I is more appropriate.
We also note that the acreage depicted as “Dinosaur Additions” in Map 3-27 (Citizen’s [sic]
Wilderness Proposal Areas) and “Dinosaur North” in Map 2-37 (Special Recreation
Management Area Designations – Alternative D) are inaccurate. Also, the area identified as
Dinosaur North in the Draft RMP should be managed to protect its wilderness values based on
the boundaries identified collectively as Dinosaur Additions in the attached CWP inventory and
shown to have wilderness characteristics.
Cold Springs Mountain (outside WSA): We support the management of this area as lands with
wilderness characteristics outside WSAs, including the closure to oil and gas operations and
other minerals activities, no wind energy development and exclusion of ROWs. However, we
also believe that closure to ORVs is appropriate to protect the area’s wilderness characteristics.
As discussed in the comments of the Colorado Plateau Archaeological Alliance, the roadless
character of the Cold Springs Mountain area is likely a key reason that the cultural resources in
the area have remained intact. The RMP should prioritize closure and restoration, so that no new
routes are created and that closures and restoration activities that will enhance the area’s
wilderness characteristics are not delayed. In addition, this area should be managed as VRM
Class I instead of the VRM Class III proposed in the Draft RMP. The objective of VRM Class
III is “to partially retain the existing character of the landscape.” Management is so that “the
level of change to the characteristic landscape should be moderate.” See, BLM official Visual
25
Resource Management information website at: http://www.blm.gov/nstc/VRM/vrmsys.html.
This is insufficient protection for an area that will be managed for naturalness; VRM Class I is
more appropriate. The objective of VRM Class I is “to preserve the existing character of the
landscape” and management is so that the “level of change to the characteristic landscape should
be very low and must not attract attention.”
We refer you to the attached submission of the updated CWP inventory information for
additional information. Also, the area identified as Cold Springs Mountain in the Draft RMP is
not equivalent to the area identified in the CWP and shown to have wilderness characteristics.
Accordingly, the larger area depicted on the attached CWP inventory should be included in the
lands with wilderness characteristics managed as part of Cold Springs Mountain in the RMP.
Yampa River: The Yampa River unit identified in the CWP is encompassed in the larger Little
Yampa/Juniper Canyon area discussed in the Draft RMP. The Draft RMP acknowledges that
this area contains lands with wilderness characteristics, but both the preferred alternative and
Alternative D propose to manage the area as part of a larger Special Recreation Management
Area. Draft RMP, pp. 2-51, 2-177 – 2-180. While we appreciate the limitations on oil and gas
development and use of ORVs, we believe that this area will be best managed if it is clearly
identified as a distinct primitive, non-motorized SRMA on maps and in the RMP, and managed
accordingly, including closure to oil and gas operations and other minerals activities, closure to
ORVs, Class I VRM, and exclusion of ROWs.
We also take issue with the conclusion in the BLM’s assessment of the Yampa River unit that it
does not meet the “size criterion” because it does not incorporate more than 5,000 contiguous
acres. Draft RMP, Table 3-25, p. 3-86. As shown in the CWP inventory, the area with
wilderness characteristics is in excess of 12,000 contiguous areas. Also, as discussed above,
under BLM’s current guidance, there is no “criterion” for areas to be comprised of more than
5,000 contiguous acres. The Wilderness Act also provides for designation and management of
smaller areas, so long as they are “of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and
use in an unimpaired condition.” 16 U.S.C. § 1131(c). The BLM’s conclusion should be
corrected.
We refer you to the attached submission of the updated CWP inventory information for
additional information. Also, based on the information included in the attached CWP
inventory, the area to be managed in this SRMA should also include Duffy Mountain, where a
road closure and restoration can be prioritized to create a larger primitive SRMA and provide
enhanced recreational experiences. The areas identified in the CWP inventory as Yampa River,
as well as Duffy Mountain, should be managed as a primitive SRMA in the RMP. To the extent
that BLM prefers to link the area to the greater Little Yampa/Juniper Canyon SRMA, the
primitive, non-motorized Yampa River SRMA must be clearly identified on maps and in the
RMP.
Diamond Breaks (outside WSA): We appreciate the recognition of the important opportunities
for primitive recreation and solitude and support management of this area as lands with
backcountry characteristics outside WSAs, as included in Alternative D. We also support the
management prescriptions for this area as closed to oil and gas development and closed to ORVs.
26
However, this area should be managed as VRM Class I instead of the VRM Class III proposed in
the Draft RMP. The objective of VRM class III is “to partially retain the existing character of
the landscape.” Management is so that “the level of change to the characteristic landscape
should be moderate.” This is insufficient protection for an area that will be managed for
naturalness; VRM Class I is more appropriate. In addition, the area should be classified as an
exclusion (not just avoidance) area for ROWs.
We also take issue with the conclusion in the BLM’s assessment of Diamond Breaks that it does
not have sufficient “naturalness.” Draft RMP, Table 3-25, p. 3-86. As discussed in detail in the
CWP submission, this area is in a natural state. Although the CWP lands outside the WSA at the
base of Chokecherry and Yellow Jacket Draws have seen a few human disturbances, these
disturbances do not impact the naturalness of the lands. The area includes a few ways and some
vegetation treatments which have removed some of the sagebrush. While the impacts from
these disturbances can be seen from some parts of the area, they are well screened by vegetation
and topography, making their impacts minor and hardly noticeable. Furthermore, similar ways
have been included in existing wilderness such as the Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness near
Grand Junction. Finally, the Wilderness Act allows for reclamation of such impacts through
both natural and agency means. The BLM has no excuse for not managing these lands to protect
their Wilderness Characteristics. The BLM’s conclusion should be corrected.
We refer you to the attached submission of the updated CWP inventory information for
additional information regarding the wilderness values and boundaries of the Diamond Breaks
unit. The Diamond Breaks area, as identified in the CWP inventory and/or under BLM’s
jurisdiction, should be managed as lands with backcountry characteristics in the RMP.
Cross Mountain (outside WSA): We appreciate the recognition of the important opportunities
for primitive recreation and solitude and support management of this area as lands with
backcountry characteristics outside WSAs, as included in Alternative D. We also support the
management prescriptions for this area as closed to oil and gas development and closed to ORVs.
However, this area should be managed as VRM Class I instead of the VRM Class III proposed in
the Draft RMP. The objective of VRM class III is “to partially retain the existing character of
the landscape.” Management is so that “the level of change to the characteristic landscape
should be moderate.” This is insufficient protection for an area that will be managed for
naturalness; VRM Class I is more appropriate. The objective of VRM Class I is “to preserve the
existing character of the landscape” and management is so that the “level of change to the
characteristic landscape should be very low and must not attract attention.” In addition, the area
should be classified as an exclusion (not just avoidance) area for ROWs.
We also take issue with the conclusion in the BLM’s assessment of Cross Mountain that it does
not meet the “size criterion” because it does not incorporate more than 5,000 contiguous acres.
Draft RMP, Table 3-25, p. 3-86. Because this area is a proposed addition to, and is contiguous
with, an existing WSA, this conclusion is inaccurate. Also, as discussed above, under BLM’s
current guidance, there is no “criterion” for areas to be comprised of more than 5,000 contiguous
acres. Further, the Wilderness Act actually provides for designation and management of smaller
areas. 16 U.S.C. § 1131(c). The BLM’s conclusion should be corrected.
27
We refer you to the attached submission of the updated CWP inventory information for
additional information regarding the wilderness values and boundaries of the Cross Mountain
unit. The Cross Mountain area, as depicted in the CWP inventory and/or within BLM’s
jurisdiction, should be managed as lands with backcountry characteristics in the RMP.
Pinyon Ridge: We appreciate the recognition of the important opportunities for primitive
recreation and solitude and support management of this area as lands with backcountry
characteristics outside WSAs, as included in Alternative D. We also support the management
prescriptions for this area as closed to oil and gas development and closed to ORVs. However,
this area should be classified as an exclusion (not just avoidance) area for ROWs. Further, this
area should be managed as VRM Class I instead of the VRM Class II proposed in the Draft
RMP. The objective of VRM Class II is “to retain the existing character of the landscape” and
management is such that the “level of change to the characteristic landscape should be low.”
The objective of VRM Class I is “to preserve the existing character of the landscape” and
management is so that the “level of change to the characteristic landscape should be very low
and must not attract attention.” VRM Class II is not sufficient protection for an area that will be
managed for naturalness; VRM Class I is more appropriate.
We also take issue with the conclusion in the BLM’s assessment of Pinyon Ridge that it does not
meet the “size criterion” because it does not incorporate more than 5,000 contiguous acres when
looking at “LSFO-managed portion only.” Draft RMP, Table 3-25, p. 3-86. The Pinyon Ridge
unit is contained partially in the Little Snake Field Office and partially in the White River Field
Office. However, this does not affect the overall size or manageability of this area to protect its
wilderness characteristics. In the same assessment, while considering Diamond Breaks, the
agency includes the portion of the CWP unit that is in Utah to determine that it includes more
than 5,000 acres. The fact that Pinyon Ridge spans a field office boundary (as opposed to a State
line) should not affect the BLM’s assessment of its acreage. Further, since the Little Snake RMP
is being revised at this time and the White River RMP is not undergoing revision at this time, it
is incumbent upon this office to ensure that the Pinyon Ridge area is managed to maximize the
available backcountry experiences in a common sense manner. BLM cannot ignore the
opportunities and responsibilities for managing these lands because of a field office boundary.
Further, as discussed above, BLM’s current guidance contains no “criterion” for areas to be
comprised of more than 5,000 contiguous acres and even the Wilderness Act provides for
designation and management of smaller areas. The BLM’s conclusion should be corrected.
We refer you to the attached submission of the updated CWP inventory information for
additional information regarding the wilderness values and boundaries of the Pinyon Ridge unit.
The entire Pinyon Ridge area, as depicted in the CWP inventory information, should be managed
as lands with backcountry characteristics in the RMP.
Existing WSAs: Current WSAs are subject to management under the non-impairment standard,
requiring that the areas are managed so as not to impair their suitability for designation as
Wilderness (per BLM Handbook 8550-1). However, the RMP is also required to address
management of the lands within these WSAs in the event that Congress decides not to designate
them as Wilderness. We support the approach in the preferred alternative to manage the
28
Diamond Breaks, West Cold Spring, Ant Hills, Chew Winter Camp, Peterson Draw and Vale of
Tears WSAs in the same manners as the adjacent lands with wilderness characteristics and to
manage the Cross Mountain WSA as an ACEC if they are not designated as Wilderness and
released from protection by Congress. Draft RMP, pp. 2-151 – 2-154. However, as discussed
above, it is important to manage these areas as VRM Class I, because VRM Class III is not
sufficient to protect their naturalness; the management of the West Cold Spring WSA area
should be VRM Class II.
To provide more thorough commentary on the appropriate management prescriptions that should
be applied to lands with wilderness characteristics in the Little Snake RMP, we are including the
following general and specific recommendations:
General Guidance:
With limited exceptions, surface-disturbing activities or activities that involve the permanent
placement of structures are not consistent with protection of wilderness characteristics.
Specifically, the following activities should not occur within lands having wilderness
characteristics:
• Permanent or temporary roads;
• Use of motorized equipment or motorized vehicles;
• Landing of aircraft (except in emergencies);
• Mechanical transport;
• Structures, developments, or installations; and
• Commercial enterprises.
Specific exemptions/allowances are made for:
• Valid Existing Rights. Prior-existing rights may continue. New discretionary uses that
create valid existing rights are not allowed if they would detract from the wilderness
values.
• Administrative Activities. New commercial activities or new permanent roads will
not be authorized. BLM may authorize other prohibited uses if it is necessary to
administer and protect the lands with wilderness character and to protect the health
and safety of persons within the area.
Allowed activities include, as appropriate depending upon the character of an individual
area:
• Managing fire, insects, weeds, and diseases;
• Completing recurring Federal mineral surveys;
• Continuing established livestock grazing;
• Allowing for commercial services to the extent necessary to provide for activities
which are proper for realizing the recreational or other wilderness character purposes
and are compatible with the defined values; and
• Allowing for adequate access to inholdings.
29
Specific Guidance:
(1) Emergencies. The use of motor vehicles and mechanical transport, and the construction
of temporary roads, structures, and installations is allowed for emergency purposes, but
must be conducted to achieve the least disturbance and reclaimed as soon as possible.
(2) Land Disposals, Rights-of-Ways (ROWs),and Use Authorizations. Lands managed for
wilderness characteristics will be retained in public ownership. They will not be disposed
through any means, including public sales, exchanges, patents under the Recreation and
Public Purposes Act, State selections or other actions (except where a vested right was
established prior to October 21, 1976).
Prior existing rights, such as leases under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act,
leases/permits under 43 CFR 2920, and rights-of-ways (ROWs) may continue. These also
could be renewed if they are still being used for their authorized purpose.
The BLM will acquire State and private inholdings when practicable. In unique situations
and subject to public review, exchanges may be made involving Federal and non-Federal
lands when such action would significantly benefit that area’s wilderness characteristics.
New authorizations, leases, permits, and ROWs will not be authorized.
(3) Routes of Travel. The construction of new permanent or temporary routes or roads will
not be allowed.
No cross-country motorized or mechanized travel will be allowed within areas managed
to maintain wilderness characteristics. Generally, motorized recreation will not be
permitted; relocation of motorized recreation, as well as closure and restoration of
existing motorized routes, will be prioritized. However, motorized or mechanized use of
preexisting travel routes that are necessary for transportation and designated in the plan
will be allowed subject to applicable prescriptions or stipulations. Motorized and
mechanized routes must be minimized, and closure and restoration of unnecessary routes
will be prioritized to enhance and protect wilderness characteristics. Any motorized or
mechanized use off designated routes will not be allowed.
(4) Locatable Minerals. Existing and new mining operations will be regulated using the 43
CFR 3809 regulations to prevent unnecessary and undue degradation of the lands.
(5) Leasable Minerals. Existing mineral leases represent a valid existing right. These rights
are dependent upon the specific terms and conditions of each lease. Existing leases will
be regulated to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation. No new leases will be issued.
(6) Grazing. Existing livestock grazing, and the activities and facilities that support a grazing
program, are permitted to continue.
30
Adjustments in the numbers and kind of livestock permitted to graze would be made as a
result of revisions in the land use plan. Consideration is given to range condition and the
protection of the range resource from deterioration.
The construction of new grazing facilities would be permitted if they are primarily for the
purpose of protecting wilderness characteristics and more effective management of
resources, rather than to accommodate increased numbers of livestock.
The use of motorized equipment for emergency purposes and as otherwise permitted
under the management plan is allowed.
(7) Fire Management. Fire management will be consistent with BLM policy. It may be
appropriate to allow natural fires to burn in conformity with a fire management plan, and
Wildland Fire Use is to be encouraged. Prescribed fires are allowed in conformity with a
fire management plan so long as it is consistent with improving or maintaining the area’s
wilderness character.
Minimum impact suppression techniques will be applied.
(8) Forest/Vegetation Health. Insects, disease, and invasive species may be controlled if it is
determined that it is necessary to meet the minimum requirements to administer and
protect these lands.
Insect and disease outbreaks must not be artificially controlled, except to protect timber
or other valuable resources outside the land with wilderness characteristics, or in special
instances when the loss to resources may cause adverse impacts to wilderness
characteristics.
Vegetative manipulation to control noxious, exotic, or invasive species is allowed when
there is no effective alternative and when the control is necessary to maintain the natural
ecological balances within the area. Control may include manual, chemical, and
biological treatment provided it will not cause adverse impacts to the wilderness
characteristics.
(9) Recreation. Primitive and unconfined recreational uses such as hiking, camping, rock
climbing, caving, fishing, hunting, rafting, canoeing, and trapping are allowed on these
lands. Recreational uses will not be allowed if they require:
• Motor vehicles or mechanical transport (e.g., mountain bikes) off routes designated as
open or limited through the route designation process; and
• Permanent structures or installations (other than tents, tarpaulins, temporary corrals,
and similar devices for overnight camping).
New commercial services will not be allowed unless they are necessary for realizing the
primitive and unconfined recreational values. An example of an allowed commercial
service would be an outfitting and guide service. Existing commercial recreational
31
authorizations may be allowed to continue under its terms and conditions to their
expiration date.
Recreational or hobby collecting of mineral specimens when conducted without location
of a mining claim may be allowed. This use will be limited to hand collection and
detection equipment.
(10) Cultural and Paleontological Resources. Cultural and paleontological resources are
recognized as unique and valuable. They are also important supplemental values to an
area’s wilderness characteristics.
Resource inventories, studies, and research involving surface examination may be
permitted if it benefits wilderness values. This same standard applies for the salvage of
archeological and paleontological sites. Rehabilitation, stabilization, reconstruction, and
restoration work on historic structures; excavations; and extensive surface collection may
also be permitted if they maintain the area’s wilderness character.
Permanent physical protection, such as fences, will be limited to those measures needed
to protect resources eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and will be
constructed so as to minimize impacts on apparent naturalness.
(11) Wildlife Management. Fish and wildlife resources are a special feature that contributes to
an area’s wilderness character. Whenever possible, these resources should be managed to
maintain that character.
Nothing will be construed as affecting the jurisdiction or responsibilities of the State
agencies with respect to fish and wildlife management on these lands. Fishing, hunting
and trapping are allowable activities on these lands. The State establishes regulations and
enforcement for these uses.
Stocking of wildlife and fish species native to the area may be permitted. Introduction of
threatened, endangered, or other special-status species native to North America may be
allowed. Management activities on these lands will emphasize the protection of natural
processes. Management activities will be guided by the principle of doing the minimum
necessary to manage the area to preserve its natural character.
Recommendations: A map depicting the lands with wilderness characteristics outside WSAs
should be included in Chapter 3 (Affected Environment) of the RMP and Map 3-29
(Backcountry Areas), which depicts the lands with backcountry characteristics outside WSAs,
should be clearly labeled and identify the areas by name.
The BLM should reassess its decisions not to protect all of the areas identified as possessing
wilderness characteristics. Wilderness is a disappearing resource and the agencies should strive
to preserve all that remains on public lands. A reassessment and protection of more lands with
wilderness characteristics would also be consistent with current law and guidance, as discussed
above. Further, preserving the wilderness character in the planning area is also an effective way
32
to preserve the cultural resources of areas such as Vermillion Basin, Cold Springs Mountain and
Dinosaur North, as well as scenic values, opportunities for primitive recreation and other natural
resources. In addition, the BLM must weigh the costs of damaging and possibly permanently
destroying the wilderness qualities and cultural resources of these lands against the relatively
limited benefits to be gained from oil and gas development. As discussed in The Wilderness
Society’s “A GIS Analysis of the Undiscovered Technically Recoverable Oil and Gas in the Little
Snake Resource Area,” found that the entire Little Snake Resource Area contains less than a
year's worth of technically recoverable natural gas and a little over 3 hours’ worth of oil
compared base on current U.S. consumption; while the percentage of these resources that are
economically recoverable will be considerably less.
Also, the lands proposed for protection in the CWP make up only 6% of the Little
Snake Resource area; these lands contain less than 5% of the technically recoverable gas in the
Little Snake Resource Area and less than 1% of the oil. In particular, the Vermillion Basin CWP
area contains only enough technically recoverable gas to supply U.S. energy needs for about 10
days, and less than 8 minutes’ worth of oil. The high costs of sacrificing the important cultural
resources and wilderness qualities of these areas cannot be justified for this limited benefit.
Vermillion Basin, Dinosaur North, and Cold Springs Mountain (outside the WSA) should be
managed as “lands with wilderness characteristics outside WSAs” in the RMP, including the
management prescriptions described above (including closure to oil and gas development and
ORVs). Diamond Breaks (outside the WSA), Cross Mountain (outside the WSA) and Pinyon
Ridge (including the portion in the White River Field Office) should all be managed as “lands
with backcountry characteristics outside WSAs,” as proposed in Alternative D, but with the
management prescriptions detailed above (including closure to oil and gas development and
ORVs). The Yampa River CWP unit encompassed by the Little Yampa/Juniper Canyon area
described in the Draft RMP and Duffy Mountain should be designated as a Special Recreation
Management Area for primitive, non-motorized recreation, with the management prescriptions
set out above. The appropriate boundaries for these areas and additional information on their
wilderness values and conditions of existing ways are also included in the updated inventory
submissions submitted with these comments. In the event that the current WSAs in the planning
are not designated as Wilderness and are released from WSA status by Congress, the areas in the
current Diamond Breaks, West Cold Spring, Ant Hills, Chew Winter Camp, Peterson Draw and
Vale of Tears WSAs should be managed as lands with wilderness characteristics, as proposed in
Alternative C but also including the management prescriptions discussed above, and the area in
the current Cross Mountain WSA should be managed as an ACEC, as proposed in Alternative C.
The approach to managing oil and gas development in Vermillion Basin in the preferred
alternative is not only an unacceptable sacrifice of its wilderness values, but also violates
FLPMA’s mandate of multiple use and NEPA’s requirements for thoroughly assessing
environmental consequences, using high quality data and science, and only using mitigation
measures that can be proven effective and relied upon. Opening all of Vermillion Basin to oil
and gas development in this manner is irresponsible and fails to fulfill BLM legal obligations.
33
III. UNBALANCED MANAGEMENT OF OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT
A. The Draft RMP does not provide a reasonable range of alternatives for management of
oil and gas development.
Under the preferred alternative, more than ninety-three percent (93%) of the planning area is
open to oil and gas development. Draft RMP, p. 2-57. Of the 160,870 acres that would be
closed to leasing in Alternative C, almost half (the 78,190 acres of the current WSAs) are
required to be closed by law. In both Alternatives A and B, only the 78,190 acres required to be
closed to oil and gas leasing are closed; and in Alternative D, 275,630 acres, approximately 11%
of the planning area would be closed to oil and gas leasing. As discussed above, BLM has a
wide range of authority under FLPMA’s multiple use mandate to specify that not all uses are
appropriate in all places. The many other natural resources present in the planning area (such as
wilderness characteristics, scenic values, cultural resources, recreation, and fish and wildlife
habitat) can and should be protected for public enjoyment. By limiting the options for closing
areas to oil and gas development, BLM is improperly constraining the range of management
alternatives in contravention of NEPA. Although many acres are open to oil and gas
development subject to various lease stipulations, BLM often offers companies exceptions,
modifications or waivers from the application of “no surface occupancy” (NSO) stipulations.
Appendix E to the Draft RMP sets out a wide variety of “criteria” that could support a request for
exceptions, modifications or waivers, but does not include any specific measurement for when
“timing” or “site location” could be sufficient or any limitations on the applicability of
exceptions, modifications or waivers to certain types of stipulations or conditions.
Recommendations: BLM’s obligation to manage these public lands for a variety of resources, of
which oil and gas is only one, requires consideration of alternatives to close substantial areas to
oil and gas leasing and a preferred alternative that gives more weight to other uses of the public
lands. The Wilderness Society’s “A GIS Analysis of the Undiscovered Technically Recoverable
Oil and Gas in the Little Snake Resource Area,” found that the entire Little Snake Resource Area
contains less than a year's worth of technically recoverable natural gas and a little over 3 hours’
worth of oil compared base on current U.S. consumption; while the percentage of these resources
that are economically recoverable will be considerably less. Also, the lands proposed for
protection in the CWP make up only 6% of the Little Snake Resource area; these lands contain
less than 5% of the technically recoverable gas in the Little Snake Resource Area and less than
1% of the oil. In particular, the Vermillion Basin CWP area contains only enough technically
recoverable gas to supply U.S. energy needs for about 10 days, and less than 8 minutes’ worth of
oil. The high costs of sacrificing the important cultural resources and wilderness qualities of
these areas, as well as the other natural resources in the Little Snake Resource Area, must be
considered and weighted against this limited benefit.
B. The RMP should identify best management practices and other approaches to lessen
the impacts of oil and gas development, and also make them mandatory.
While we believe BLM should use its discretion to close ACECs, SRMAs, lands with wilderness
characteristics, and vital wildlife and rare plant habitat to oil and gas development, we recognize
34
that significant portions of the planning areas may well remain open to oil and gas development.
Requiring responsible development in leased areas will help BLM meet its FLPMA obligations
and can drastically reduce the impacts of oil and gas development on the other natural resources
of the public lands.
1. Best Management Practices
It is vital that the RMP require the use of best management practices (BMPs) for oil and gas
exploration and development, which can drastically reduce the impacts of oil and gas
development on the other natural resources of the public lands. The Draft RMP identifies the
existence of BMPs and references the BLM’s “Best Management Practices for Oil and Gas
Development on Public Lands” (also known as the “Gold Book”). Draft RMP, p. 2-64.
However, instead of identifying specific BMPs or requiring their incorporation into leases or
conditions of approval, the Draft RMP merely states that “use of a variety of BMPs would be
encouraged” (emphasis added). Id.
BLM’s guidance requires consideration of BMPs for oil and gas development. BLM’s
Instruction Memorandum 2004-194 directs consideration of BMPs, and both the IM and the
recently updated Gold Book provide examples of BMPs that can be applied to both new and
existing leases, in order to limit the damage from oil and gas development. Making BMPs
mandatory is consistent with FLPMA’s requirement that the BLM avoid unnecessary or undue
degradation of the public lands. Further, under NEPA, only if these BMPs are mandatory can
the BLM rely upon them to mitigate the potential impacts of oil and gas development. It is
critical that the RMP consider and make BMPs mandatory in order to comply with BLM’s
guidance and obligations to protect the many natural values of these lands.
Recommendations: The Wildlife Protection Guidelines for Oil and Gas Development developed
by the Colorado Wildlife Federation and the Colorado Mule Deer Association, and endorsed by
66 additional sportsmen and other wildlife conservation groups in Colorado, provide important
recommendations that should be considered and incorporated as appropriate (copy attached and
incorporated by reference). The following BMPs are highlighted from these Guidelines:
• Where appropriate, require directional drilling to permit oil and gas development while
reducing surface impacts to important areas;
• Maximize closed loop drilling when possible to protect water and soil from toxic
chemicals;
• Use clustered development based upon best available technology to minimize surface
area development and impacts, and to reduce noise and dust caused by traffic to and from
drill sites;
• Require unitization and communitization so that BLM can ensure protective measures are
incorporated in unitization and communitization agreements and cooperative
development can reduce impacts to natural resources;
• Require use of existing roads to the maximum degree possible and require minimization
of the length and environmental impact of new roads constructed to service well
locations;
35
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Formally consult with Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) before setting the number
of active drill pads within a Geographical Area Plan (GAP) boundary to identify
important fish and wildlife habitats;
Where large blocks of public land will be leased, sell the new leases in blocks that
coincide with the objectives of maximum practicable surface spacing and minimization
of surface disturbance and habitat fragmentation;
Shorten the duration of ongoing disturbance by prohibiting intermittent drilling;
Mandate operators to significantly improve their application of BMPs as technologies
advance;
Require interim reclamation and immediate post-drilling restoration of land, including
rigorous control of noxious weeds, such that any land not in use or needed for ongoing
operations will be reclaimed;
Require operators to apply best available control technology to reduce noise, water and
air pollutants, including flareless well completions; and
Increase bonding to a level and form that is sufficient to cover all reclamation.
The RMP should also consider no development in aquifer recharge zones and commit to
enforcing both these BMPs and stipulations such as seasonal closures and buffer zones around
sensitive habitat with limited or no opportunities for exception, modification or waiver.
2. Directional Drilling
The RMP does not include sufficient requirements for directional drilling and the greater wellspacing requirement that could result from its use. As discussed in detail in the comments of
Ken Kreckel, the geology of the Little Snake Planning Area and the economics of natural gas
development show that directional drilling is feasible. However, BLM has improperly concluded
that directional drilling is neither feasible nor necessary. As detailed in Ken Kreckel’s
comments, the Draft RMP and reasonable foreseeable development scenario (RFD), which
project 3,031 wells, underestimate the likely level of development by 200%. A particularly
glaring example is the assumption in the RFD of 225 wells drilled in an area including Hiawatha,
Sugar Loaf and Vermillion, when the pending EIS for the Hiawatha project proposes 1,403 wells
in the Colorado portion of the project alone. Based on this information and the history of the
manner in which tight gas reservoirs have been developed, Ken Kreckel concludes that the BLM
has radically underestimated the amount of drilling likely to occur – along with the related
surface disturbance and other environmental impacts.
NEPA requires that BLM thoroughly analyze the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of oil
and gas development and consider appropriate mitigation measures. BLM is also obligated to
base its management approach on quality scientific information. Underestimating the likely
amount of oil and gas development has contributed to the BLM ignoring the need to use
directional drilling and to ensure adequate spacing. As shown in Ken Kreckel’s comments,
BLM’s conclusions about the utility and feasibility of directional drilling are not based on
accurate scientific data. Based on the accurate data and analysis presented by Mr. Kreckel, the
majority of the Field Office can be developed using well spacing of no less than 320 acres to 640
acres. Maximizing the space between wells and the use of directional drilling is also consistent
with BLM’s obligations under FLPMA to avoid unnecessary and undue degradation and
permanent impairment of the public lands.
36
Recommendations: BLM must acknowledge the likely density of drilling that will occur and
make use of directional drilling to limit surface disturbance. BLM must also acknowledge the
feasibility of directional drilling to limit surface disturbance and should mandate directional
drilling to achieve spacing of no less than 320 acres to 640 acres throughout the Field Office. In
more sensitive areas, BLM can use spacing of no less than 640 acres between wells and/or limit
oil and gas development with no surface occupancy stipulations.
3. Phased Development
Phased development is an overarching plan that spreads out the harms created by oil and gas
exploration and development over time and/or over a geographic area so that other uses and
values of the land can be sustained both during and after the lifetime of oil and gas extraction.
Phased development can limit both the amount of equipment in use at any given time and
amount of surface disturbance on a lease at any given time, and can require successful restoration
before permitting additional disturbance. It can also allow for wildlife corridors to be left
undeveloped to allow for wildlife movement. BLM improperly concludes that phased
development is not a workable approach to managing the impacts of oil and gas development.
The policy and legal support for considering phased development in the RMP is discussed in this
section. BLM’s other contentions regarding the potential costs of phased development are
discussed in a separate section of these comments addressing the socioeconomic analysis and
potential impacts of the Draft RMP.
a. A phased development alternative is most consistent with FLPMA.
A phased development alternative that provides for oil and gas extraction while preserving other
uses of the lands for future generations is most consistent with FLPMA. Under FLPMA, the
BLM is required to “manage the public lands under principles of multiple use and sustained
yield." 43 U.S.C. § 1732(a).
Phased development is consistent with the multiple use requirement that BLM manage their
“public lands and their various resource values so that they are utilized in the combination that
will best meet the present and future needs of the American people . . . a combination of
balanced and diverse resource use that takes into account the long-term needs of future
generations for renewable and nonrenewable resources, including but not limited to recreation,
range, timber, minerals, watershed, wildlife and fish, and natural scenic, scientific and historical
values.” 43 U.S.C. § 1701(c) (emphasis added). This concept of stewardship also promotes the
“harmonious and coordinated management of the various resources without permanent
impairment of the productivity of the land and the quality of the environment with consideration
being given to the relative values of the resources and not necessarily to the combination of uses
that will give the greatest economic return or the greatest unit output.” 43 U.S.C. § 1701(c)
(emphasis added).
The long-term nature of phased development supports FLPMA’s requirement for "sustained
yield" by allowing "the achievement and maintenance in perpetuity of a high-level annual or
37
regular periodic output of the various renewable resources consistent with multiple use." 43
U.S.C. § 1702(b).
FLPMA’s provision that the Secretary of Interior shall take any action “necessary to prevent
unnecessary or undue degradation of the lands” is consistent with the use of phased
development. 43 U.S.C. § 1732(b). Further, the preservation of the economic and ecosystem
resources of the land through the lifetime of oil and gas extraction in the region best fulfills
FLPMA’s multiple use and sustained yield mandates. Planning so that development proceeds at
a pace and in a manner that protects present uses and resources is the best way to ensure that it
proceeds without permanent impairment of the productivity of the land that would defeat "the
achievement and maintenance in perpetuity of a high-level annual or regular periodic output of
the various renewable resources consistent with multiple use." 43 U.S.C. § 1702(b).
b. A phased development alternative is most consistent with the BLM’s NEPA
obligations.
In the context of this RMP Amendment, NEPA’s requirement that BLM “rigorously explore and
objectively evaluate” a range of alternatives to proposed federal actions obligates the BLM to
consider a phased development alternative. See 40 C.F.R. §§ 1502.14(a) and 1508.25(c). The
range of alternatives is “the heart of the environmental impact statement.” 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14.
NEPA’s requirement that alternatives be studied, developed, and described both guides
the substance of environmental decision-making and provides evidence that the mandated
decision-making process has actually taken place. Informed and meaningful
consideration of alternatives -- including the no action alternative -is thus an integral part of the statutory scheme.
Bob Marshall Alliance v. Hodel, 852 F.2d 1223, 1228 (9th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 489
U.S. 1066 (1989) (citations and emphasis omitted).
As discussed in detail above, BLM violates NEPA if it fails to thoroughly consider reasonable
alternatives, including more environmentally protective alternatives. Further, NEPA requires
that an actual “range” of alternatives is considered, such that the Act will “preclude agencies
from defining the objectives of their actions in terms so unreasonably narrow that they can be
accomplished be only one alternative (i.e. the applicant’s proposed project).” Colorado
Environmental Coalition v. Dombeck, 185 F.3d 1162, 1174 (10th Cir. 1999), citing Simmons v.
United States Corps of Engineers, 120 F.3d 664, 669 (7th Cir. 1997). This requirement prevents
the EIS from becoming “a foreordained formality.” City of New York v. Department of Transp.,
715 F.2d 732, 743 (2nd Cir. 1983). See also, Davis v. Mineta, 302 F.3d 1104 (10th Cir. 2002). In
this RMP revision, the BLM must not simply consider the development as proposed or as
previously conducted by the oil and gas industry. Rather, the agency must consider more
responsible approaches to development, including phased development and the other measures
described in these comments.
In a recent decision, a federal court in Montana held that phased development falls within the
“range” of alternatives to be considered. The court found that BLM’s approval of an RMP
38
Amendment and FEIS that allowed full-field coal bed methane development without
consideration of a phased development alternative violated NEPA. Northern Plains Resource
Council v. Bureau of Land Management, CV 03-69-BLG-RWA (D.Montana February 25, 2005
- attached). The court reiterated that “the agency must look at every reasonable alternative
within the range dictated by the nature and scope of the proposal. The existence of reasonable
but unexamined alternatives renders an EIS inadequate.” Northern Plains Resource Council, pp.
10-11, citing Friends of Southeast’s Future v. Morrison, 153 F.3d 1065 (9th Cir. 1998). The
court then stated that phased development is “within the range of reasonable alternatives” and
must therefore be “given detailed consideration” when the BLM is considering a plan for
development rather than a site specific project. Lastly, the court held that phased development
“is not the functional equivalent of a no-action alternative” and should be considered in addition
to other reasonable alternatives.
Because this EIS is considering substantial increases in the development of oil and gas resources
in the Little Snake planning area, the RMP is, as in the Montana case, “precisely the place for
BLM to consider alternatives varying the pace and geographic sites of development.” Northern
Plains Resource Council, p. 19.
Recommendations: The BLM must uphold its responsibility to protect the abundant natural
values present in the Little Snake Field Office by considering a phased development alternative
and evaluating its environmental consequences, as required by both FLPMA and NEPA.
C. The mitigation measures in the Draft RMP do not meet NEPA’s standards for effective
mitigation.
As discussed above, in order for the BLM to rely upon mitigation measures to reduce the impacts
of oil and gas development, the BLM must make a firm commitment to mitigation, discuss
mitigation measures in sufficient detail to ensure that environmental consequences have been
evaluated and develop these measures using high quality, scientific data. The various measures
identified in the Draft RMP to mitigate the impacts of oil and gas development on Vermillion
Basin, sage grouse habitat and other resources in the Little Snake Field Office do not meet these
standards.
1. Surface disturbance limitation for Vermillion Basin will not reliably protect the
wilderness values, cultural resources and other natural resources of the area.
As discussed above, the preferred alternative’s approach to limiting surface disturbance in
Vermillion Basin to 1% at any given time, subject to ongoing reclamation, is not likely to protect
the many special and vulnerable resources in this area. Because the standard for reclamation can
be functionally reduced to soil stabilization, it cannot be reasonably relied upon to restore the
naturalness and scenic values of Vermillion Basin. Also, the management approach will actually
permit more intensive surface disturbance in smaller areas undergoing development, by
encouraging operators to form units that include parcels with low oil and gas potentials for use as
“mitigation areas.” Since there are no requirements for operators to limit surface disturbance to
any specific road density or any other limits, there are no actual controls on the amount of
damage that can occur at one time. As discussed in the comments of the Colorado Plateau
39
Archaeological Alliance, “development could be aggregated” and “such development could
result in concentrated cumulative effects” that will damage the cultural resources of Vermillion
Basin. This same conclusion applies to the other natural resources of Vermillion Basin, such as
its wilderness values. The Draft RMP also acknowledges that “oil and gas development would
result in a significant impact to wilderness characteristics.” Draft RMP, p. 4-126. The intensity
of development will necessarily affect the likelihood of success in restoring an area.
The Draft RMP’s failure to provide: limitations on the intensity of surface disturbance,
meaningful restoration requirements, a detailed measurement, monitoring and enforcement
approach, or sufficient scientific data, results in a management approach that cannot be relied
upon to protect Vermillion Basin. The preferred alternative therefore violates NEPA’s
requirements to use quality data and enforceable, effective mitigation measures, as well as to
avoid FLPMA’s mandate to avoid unnecessary or undue degradation of the public lands.
Further, the Draft RMP’s failure to recognize the extent of the likely environmental impacts of
the preferred alternative violates NEPA’s requirement to assess the direct, indirect and
cumulative impacts of a proposed action.
Recommendations: The 1% surface disturbance limitation is not an acceptable approach for
Vermillion Basin. It cannot be relied upon to mitigate the significant impacts to its wilderness
values and cultural resources, which should be protected in accordance with FLPMA’s multiple
use mandate.
2. Voluntary surface disturbance limitation for sage grouse habitat will not reliably protect
sage grouse habitat and will further impact crucial winter habitat for big game.
The Draft RMP also presents another management approach for oil and gas operators to agree
not to disturb more than 5% of a lease or unit of leases surface at once in areas within 4 miles of
sage grouse leks and 8 identified sagebrush patches. Draft RMP, pp. 2-16 – 2-19. This is a
voluntary arrangement, under which operators agree to limit surface disturbance and, in
exchange, their oil and gas development activities are exempted from all timing limitations and
also the winter range limitation for big game, so that they can drill year round. The BLM’s
stated intent is not to have facilities more than every 160 acres, so even though the 5% is not a
spacing requirement, “operators are encouraged to develop proposals that leave larger blocks of
sagebrush habitat undisturbed within project areas, by clustering facilities, carefully designing
road and pipeline systems to minimize disturbance, or other means.” Draft RMP, p. 2-17.
However, because there is no actual spacing requirement and there are no other standards for
road density, core areas or other measures to preserve functioning habitat, the BLM cannot
reasonably rely upon this approach to be successful.
The Draft RMP also does not provide sufficient scientific data as to why the 5% surface
disturbance would actually protect functional sage grouse habitat. In fact, Clait Braun, a leading
scientist studying sage grouse, comments that the “idea is novel but it has no known scientific
basis or merit for sage-grouse.” Rather than mitigating impacts to sage grouse, Clait Braun
concludes that this approach would “ensure that local populations would be at threat of
extirpation.” In addition, Clait Braun questions the accuracy of the baseline data on sage grouse
populations and the selection of areas to be included. A Blueprint for Sage-grouse Conservation
40
and Recovery (attached and incorporated by reference into these comments) details the habitat
requirements for successful and sustaining sage grouse populations, and includes specific
recommendations for managing oil and gas development. Based on this document and his
knowledge of the Little Snake planning area, Clait Braun concludes that the 5% limitation on
surface disturbance will not provide the core areas and linkages between those areas necessary
for sage grouse to survive, unless a stronger definition of these large habitat patches to ensure
that they are actually functional is used and linkages are also identified and protected. Further,
he recommends protection of sage-grouse winter use areas altogether.
Similarly, the Draft RMP does not present sufficient data to show that the 5% surface
disturbance limitation will provide adequate protection for big game. Bill Alldredge notes that
the baseline conditions for big game have not been established and instead the Preferred
Alternative, “fails to include some of the most recent and important data.” Further, Dr.
Alldredge points out that not all habitat is “equal,” so, it is vital that the BLM identify highest
quality habitat and limit effective habitat loss. His comments highlight the inadequacies in the
reclamation standards set out in Appendix O, because they could result in an area being deemed
“reclaimed” and more disturbance authorized where only herbaceous material is growing (which
will not meet winter habitat needs for big game) or where the soil is simply stabilized. Dr.
Alldredge also notes the challenges in monitoring surface disturbance.
The Draft RMP does not include a detailed discussion of the manner in which the BLM will
monitor, measure and enforce the 5% limitation – all of which will present substantial
challenges. While the Draft RMP mentions that GIS analysis will be used to define the existing
level of disturbance as a baseline and for monitoring, there is no discussion as to who will
perform this monitoring and how the BLM will use it to enforce the limitation. Further, since
this is a voluntary approach, BLM cannot quantify how much of the area would be managed
under the 5% surface disturbance and how much would be managed under the timing stipulations
and has not assessed how these two different management approaches can work together to
provide sufficient functional habitat. The Draft RMP also provides that the 5% surface
disturbance limitation and year round drilling may apply to individual leases or units, but does
not specify any minimum amount of acreage that must be included to make the approach
functional. Draft RMP, p. 2-17.
As is the case with the preferred alternative for Vermillion Basin, the 5% is subject to rolling
reclamation, in accordance with the reclamation standards set out in Appendix O. Since this
standard can result in “reclamation” being defined only as soil stabilization, there is not
sufficient support for BLM to rely on this approach to restore areas to functional habitat.
The measurement of the 5% disturbance will underestimate impacts, because the calculation will
not include surface disturbance (even roads) if it does not relate to oil and gas development.
Draft RMP, p. 2-17. The impacts of surface disturbance are not distinguished by source – just by
effect on the landscape and the agency should not ignore the impacts of this additional
disturbance. Further, the Draft RMP provides that if an area is already experiencing surface
disturbance from oil and gas development at or exceeding 5% or likely to exceed 5% if
development continues (i.e., existing disturbance is already at 4%), then BLM will still permit
additional disturbance if an operator can show that it “will reclaim” areas equal to the proposed
41
disturbance. Draft RMP, p. 2-18. There is no discussion of what standards will be applied or
how long or under what conditions an operator will be permitted to exceed the 5% limitation.
The Draft RMP further permits operators to use off-site mitigation or compensatory mitigation to
offset disturbance on an area being disturbed. Draft RMP, p. 2-18. Once again, the Draft RMP
does not include any detailed discussion as to how off-site mitigation will be measured,
payments for compensatory mitigation will be calculated, or how permitting payment or
mitigation of areas that may be less suitable habitat will protect functional habitat for sage grouse
and big game.
Recommendations: As shown above, the 5% surface disturbance limitation is not consistent with
accepted science, is not based on an adequate baseline, underestimates the negative impacts and
overestimates the likely benefits to sage grouse and big game habitat, and cannot be relied upon
to be effective. Accordingly, this approach does not comply with NEPA’s requirements
regarding development of alternatives, application of mitigation measures, or assessment of
impacts, and prevents BLM from properly managing the public lands in compliance with
FLPMA. In order to effectively protect sage grouse and big game habitat, the RMP should
incorporate the recommendations of Clait Braun and Bill Alldredge. Further, this type of
approach:
• should not be applied in sensitive areas;
• requires an adequate baseline to identify functional habitat and appropriate areas for
development;
• must be mandatory and enforced over a sufficiently large area (and not subject to being
undercut by use of off-site or compensatory mitigation);
• needs to include a specific approach to measurement, monitoring, and enforcement;
• must use a percentage that can be shown (based on current science) to be likely to be
successful; and
• should incorporate a meaningful reclamation standard.
To the extent that the RMP cannot meet these standards, then the BLM should utilize definitive
spacing requirements. As discussed previously, most of the planning area can be effectively
developed using 640-acre spacing with limited areas using 320-acre spacing. This approach,
taken in conjunction with protecting important core areas, linkages, and seasonal use areas, can
provide a more reliable method of avoiding or mitigating the effects of oil and gas development
on wildlife and other natural resources. Additional lease stipulations and management critical
for survival of sage grouse in the Little Snake Resource Area are discussed in further detail
below.
3. All stipulations are subject to waiver, exception and/or modification under essentially
unlimited circumstances.
The Draft RMP refers to Appendix E as setting out standards for when certain stipulations may
be subject to waiver, exception or modification. However, Appendix E does not set out any
specific standards or situations that could support a decision not to apply a protective stipulation.
Rather, the Appendix presents a list of “criteria,” such as “weather severity,” “timing” and
“cumulative effects,” then states that even this list is “a starting point and could change.”
Further, Appendix E does not include a discussion of which criteria could apply to justify
42
waiver, exception or modification, does not identify which criteria might apply to certain
stipulations, or otherwise distinguish among the many stipulations that could be affected.
Oil and gas companies frequently request that the conditions in their leases, which are designed
to protect public values such as wildlife, clean air and clean water, be put aside in favor of
removing restrictions on oil and gas development activities. For example, the Rawlins,
Wyoming Field Office granted 72% of the requests to waive lease conditions, known as
stipulations, which were received between October 1, 2005 and September 30, 2006
(http://www.wy.blm.gov/rfo/wildlife/exceptionsfy06.htm). The Pinedale, Wyoming Field Office
granted 88% of the requests for wildlife exceptions received from October 2006 through
February 2007. The Pinedale Field Office has a history in recent years of granting such requests,
granting 90% of requests for exceptions from stipulations applied to protect sage grouse during
the winter of 2002-2003 and granting 88% of requests for exceptions from big game winter
range stipulations. (http://www.wy.blm.gov/pfo/wildlife/exceptions.php )
Accordingly, by permitting essentially unlimited opportunities to request waiver, exception and
modification in the Draft RMP, the BLM cannot rely upon the protective lease stipulations as
mitigation measures per NEPA’s standards.
Recommendations: In order to ensure that lease stipulations are a reliable and effective method
for protecting the many resources of the public lands, such as wildlife habitat, watersheds, and
recreation opportunities, the Draft RMP must stringently limit and specifically define the
situations where waiver, exception or modification to lease stipulations can be considered.
Operators are fully advised of lease stipulations before they bid on a lease and, by bidding on the
lease, have determined the terms to be acceptable, in terms of both technical and financial
feasibility. Therefore, BLM should not grant relief from the terms of a lease unless an operator
can make a substantial showing as to why it is necessary. Further, as discussed in the comments
of Clait Braun and Bill Alldredge, and elsewhere in these comments, many of the stipulations in
the Draft RMP do not provide the level of protection necessary, based on accepted science and
current data. These stipulations need to be strengthened in accordance with their
recommendations.
4. Reclamation standards should be based on successful revegetation of native species.
The reclamation approach set out in Appendix O includes useful definitions and
measurements for successful reclamation, including:
- basal cover of perennial species (“preferably native”) adapted to the
area is at least 90% of cover plus some presence of woody species;
- appropriate diversity based on perennial genera and species – one
species cannot make up more than 50% of perennial vegetation;
- self-regenerating plant communities evident if in good vigor and
evidence of successful reproduction; and
- surface stability – based on limited soil movement and erosion channels
are less than 1 inch in depth and at intervals greater than 10 feet.
43
However, the standard is then undercut by providing that if reclamation is not
deemed successful after two growing seasons, then:
- if erosion is greater than 2 times allowable, “corrective action”
would be required of the “responsible company”; and
- if erosion is at or less than this threshold and BLM determines the site
may become stable, then no corrective action would be required and, if
this holds for another season, then the standard is considered met.
Recommendations: In order to meet NEPA’s requirement that a mitigation
measure be reasonably likely to be enforced and effective, this latter section
needs to provide more detail as to the type of corrective action that would be
required – such as, additional planting and active watering – so that
operators cannot object to requirements for more reclamation efforts.
Further, the requirement for revegetation cannot be exchanged for erosion
control. While stabilization is an important part of reclamation,
stabilization alone will not restore functional habitat or naturalness.
Accordingly, successful revegetation must be required prior to deeming
reclamation complete.
D.
The Draft RMP should realistically assess the cumulative impacts of oil
and gas development.
Existing development from neighboring planning areas as well as development
within the Field Office affects the planning area. Similarly, although the
BLM may not have formal control over adjacent private lands, these lands can
also be affected by oil and gas development. The impacts of oil and gas
development do not recognize management boundaries. NEPA’s definition of
cumulative impacts requires the BLM to consider the decisions in this RMP in
light of the incremental effects from past, present and reasonably foreseeable
future activities on the resources of the Little Snake Resource Area, whether
they are taken by this field office, another BLM field office, other agencies
or private persons.
40 C.F.R. § 1508.7. Therefore, this RMP must consider the local,
regional and even national context of this RMP in addressing issues such as:
-
the widespread oil and gas development already underway and/or currently being
considered for approval in the region;
the regional effects of oil and gas development on air quality;
the dwindling habitat nationwide for sage grouse and the particularly healthy habitat in
the Little Snake Resource Area;
Vermillion Basin as the largest unleased block of land in the Little Snake Resource Area;
the spectacular big game habitat and hunting opportunities;
the current lack of protections for wilderness characteristics and primitive, quiet
recreation;
44
-
the many special status species present in the Little Snake Resource Area;
the degree to which the BLM can improve the chances for survival and even
enhancement of many species, both regionally and nationally;
the costs of oil and gas development to other aspects of the local economy.
Many of these considerations are discussed in further detail throughout these
comments.
Recommendations: In evaluating the need and ways to manage these lands to
protect the many resources in the Little Snake Resource Area, BLM must
consider the cumulative impacts from regional oil and gas development and the
cumulative impacts to adjacent lands from oil and gas development. This
analysis should inform the manner in which BLM allocates lands as available or
unavailable for oil and gas development and the conditions under which
development may be permitted.
IV. IMPACTS OF OIL AND GAS DEVLEOPMENT ON WILDLIFE AND GREATER SAGE GROUSE
A.
The Draft RMP fails to acknowledge and utilize the full extent of scientific literature
pointing to the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of roads and oil and gas
development, particularly habitat fragmentation on wildlife, and incorporate it in
relevant sections of the document.
We commend the BLM for several sections acknowledging the likelihood of impacts on wildlife
from oil and gas development.
“Special management attention might be needed to restore, maintain, or enhance priority
species and their habitats. Increased uses throughout the RMPPA, including recreational
use, grazing, and motorized and mechanized vehicle use, have the potential to critically
affect wildlife populations and their habitat if not properly managed.” (Draft RMP, p.ES4)
“Impacts from energy and minerals management that would occur on fish and wildlife
species and associated habitat include habitat loss, degradation, fragmentation, and
species displacement from oil and gas development (e.g., well pads, access roads, and
central facilities) on 49,216 acres during the planning period. It is assumed that these
activities would be located primarily in the high oil and gas potential area (Map 3-32) and
would affect mainly sagebrush and saltbush habitat types, which are common in the
RMPPA. Big game, raptors, prairie dogs, and other sagebrush obligate species are the
principal wildlife species affected.” (Draft RMP, p. 4-50)
Chapter 4 on Environmental Consequences includes a discussion of direct and indirect impact of
oil and gas development on wildlife (Draft RMP, pp. 4-43 through 4-47). This type of review of
the scientific literature is critically important, but we are concerned that the review in the Draft
RMP is incomplete and misses important literature and consequently significant findings of
biologists that study wildlife impacts from roads and oil and gas development. This is of great
45
concern since the potential for impacts is high and that the Draft RMP states that “Issues
regarding where and how mineral resources could be developed will be a principle focus of this
plan.” (Draft RMP, p. 1-6)
Substantially more information on the impact of roads and oil and gas related infrastructure on
wildlife are available. These impacts widely recognized in the scientific community as having a
range of direct, indirect and cumulative effects on habitats and wildlife (Trombulak and Frissell
2000, Wyoming Game and Fish Department 2004, Wisdom 2004). Effects range from direct
removal of habitat to long-term displacement of species from preferred habitat. The indirect and
cumulative effects are hardest to measure, but are increasingly studied through analysis of habitat
fragmentation.
Habitat fragmentation has been defined as the “creation of a complex mosaic of spatial and
successional habitats from formerly contiguous habitat” (Lehmkuhl and Ruggiero 1991). Habitat
fragmentation alters the distribution of wildlife species across the landscape and affects many
life functions such as feeding, courtship, breeding, and migration. Transportation networks are
one of the most significant causes of habitat fragmentation, and negatively impact wildlife well
beyond the surface area disturbed by an actual road or motorized trail. In fact, habitat
fragmentation from roads and other human infrastructure has been identified as one of the
greatest threats to biological diversity worldwide (Wilcove 1987).
The adverse effects of routes on wildlife have been well documented in several extensive
literature reviews (Trombulak and Frissell 2000, Gucinski et al. 2001, Gaines et al. 2003,
Wyoming Game and Fish Department 2004, New Mexico Department of Game and Fish 2005
(attached), Confluence Consulting 2005). The hundreds of scientific papers in these literature
reviews illustrate the preponderance of evidence that routes ranging from narrow dirt tracks to
paved roads can and do cause adverse affects on wildlife. This volume of science simply cannot
be ignored in a major land management planning effort such as this RMP (or any travel
management planning effort).
Examples of direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of roads on wildlife and their habitats
identified in the biological literature include (Trombulak and Frissell 2000, New Mexico
Department of Game and Fish 2005):






Fragmentation of connected habitats including the loss of core habitat areas and
habitat connectivity for wildlife movements and dispersal
Adverse genetic effects such as reducing genetic diversity by isolating populations
Increased potential for extirpation of localized populations or extinction of
narrowly distributed species from catastrophic events
Modifications of animal behavior through reductions in habitat use due to human
activity and interference with wildlife functions such as courtship, nesting, and
migration
Disruption of the physical environment in many ways including direct removal of
habitat due to route construction, reduction of cover and habitat security, increasing
dust and erosion
Alteration of the chemical environment through vehicle emissions and herbicides
46







Changes in habitat composition by direct loss of vegetation from road construction
and changes in microclimates in road edge habitats potentially resulting in changes in
type and quality of food base and reduction in habitat cover
Spread of exotic species that may lead to competition with preferred forage species
Degradation of aquatic habitats through alteration of stream banks and increased
sediment loads
Changes to flows of energy and nutrients such as changes in temperatures in
microclimates created at road edges
Increased alteration and use of habitats by humans through activities including
increased unethical hunting practices and increased dispersion of recreation impacts,
particularly by off-road vehicles due to a proliferation of roads
Mortality from construction of roads
Mortality from collisions with vehicles
As documented by the comprehensive literature reviews cited above and the additional
conclusions reached by state agencies in their respective reports, the existence of motorized
routes can result in habitat fragmentation and, depending on the use of the route, have impacts
extending well into surrounding habitats. Such fragmentation from transportation networks is
immediate and can lead to a range of risks to the survival of wildlife. Sound science must be
used to evaluate impacts from motorized travel routes and including those from energy
development before adopting an oil and gas development plan.
The Wyoming Game and Fish Department prepared a report containing comprehensive
guidelines for wildlife protection in areas of energy development, based on a literature review on
the effects of roads, other infrastructure, and activities associated with energy development on
Wyoming’s sagebrush and grassland habitats and wildlife species (Wyoming Game and Fish
Department 2004). Because a substantial portion of the impact of oil and gas development comes
from its relatively dense road network, much of the literature cited in the report documents the
impacts of roads on wildlife. The report acknowledges the threat to wildlife from fragmentation,
identifying fragmentation and diminishing quality of sagebrush ecosystems as “the principal
reasons why populations and distributions of wildlife are declining” (p. 1). The report
demonstrates the likelihood of habitat fragmentation from roads and other disturbances
associated with energy development, and emphasizes the range of damage to habitat that occurs
from such development:
“Adverse effects of oil and gas development can be divided into 6 general
categories: 1) direct loss of habitat; 2) physiological stress to wildlife; 3)
disturbance and displacement of wildlife; 4) habitat fragmentation and isolation;
5) introduction of competitive and predatory organisms; and 6) secondary effects
created by work force assimilation and growth of service industries. The direct
loss or removal of habitat is always a concern, however oil and gas developments
are typically configured as point and linear disturbances scattered across broad
areas. Collectively, the amount of disturbance may encompass just 5-10% of the
land. However, avoidance and stress responses by wildlife extend the influence of
each well pad, road, and facility to surrounding habitats.” (p. 5)
The report provides further details about how oil and gas development causes habitat
fragmentation:
47
“As densities of wells, roads, and facilities increase, the effectiveness of adjacent
habitats can decrease until most animals no longer use the habitat. Although
vegetation and other natural features may remain unaltered within areas near oil
and gas features, wildlife make proportionately less use of these areas than their
availability. Animals attempting to forage inside the affected zones are also
subjected to increased physiological stress. The avoidance/stress effect impairs
function by reducing the capability of wildlife to use the habitat effectively. In
addition, physical or psychological (i.e., disturbance-related) barriers lead to
fragmentation of habitats and further reduce the availability of effective habitat.
These impacts can be especially problematic when they occur within limiting
habitat components such as crucial winter ranges and reproductive habitats.” (p.
5)
The Wyoming Game and Fish Department report further notes that the development, such as
roads, associated with oil and gas activities will harm wildlife populations even if there is
suitable habitat nearby:
“When activities associated with energy development displace animals from
otherwise suitable habitats, the animals are either forced into marginal habitats or
they compete with animals that already occupy the unaffected habitats.
Consequences of such displacement and competition are lower survival, lower
reproductive success, lower recruitment, and ultimately lower carrying capacity
and reduced populations.” (pp. 6-7)
As documented by comprehensive literature reviews and the additional conclusions reached by
state agencies in their respective reports, the existence of a road or oil and gas infrastructure can
result in habitat fragmentation and, depending on the use of the roads or infrastructure, have
impacts extending well into surrounding habitats. Developing resource management plans
determinations about the existence, closure, placement, and levels and types of use of roads for
energy development are an ideal context for measuring and addressing habitat fragmentation.
Examples of species specific information on fragmentation and impacts from roads and oil and
gas development from field biologists and the scientific literature that should be considered
include the following.
Greater Sage-Grouse Impacts
Greater Sage-Grouse suffer from dwindling habitat across the west due to deterioration,
fragmentation and direct loss of habitat (Connelly and Braun 1997, Braun 1998 (attached),
Connelly et al. 2000 (attached), Schroeder et al. 2004). Findings cited in the Draft RMP from
Colorado Department of Wildlife biologist are valuable and should be given stronger
consideration. “It has been found that no more than 75 percent of Greater Sage-Grouse nests are
found within a 4-mile radius of a lek, making the previous production area size insufficient to
protect most nests.” (Draft RMP, p. 3-64).
The number of well pads within a given radius of a lek is also used to evaluate indirect effects on
Sage-Grouse. Holloran (2005) looked at wells within a 2-mile (3km) radius of leks in Wyoming
and found that 5 to 15 wells caused relatively light effects. Leks with greater than 15 wells
within a 2-mile radius were heavily affected. Holloran (2005) also found that in highly disturbed
48
areas the annual survival of adult nesting females declined 20.4 percent and the annual survival
of nesting yearling females declined 6.4 percent.
Lyon and Anderson (2003) found that female nest initiation rates declined 24% in disturbed
areas. Preliminary results of an ongoing study of Sage-Grouse in Montana coal-bed natural gas
(CBNG) development showed an active lek had one third the density of wells within two miles
of the lek compared with an inactive lek, and that “active leks and leks with moderate to large
numbers of males were often found adjacent to CBNG fields but rarely within CBNG” (Naugle
et al. 2006).
Sagebrush Obligate Birds Impacts
Inglefinger (2001) found that for lands within 328 feet (100 meters) of a road or well pad the
density of sagebrush obligate birds drops by 50 percent regardless of the amount of activity on
the road (Inglefinger 2001).
Mule Deer Impacts
Freddy et al. (1986) (attached) found that mule deer are shown to alert exhibiting a stress
response to human activity at a distance of 0.29 miles (470 meters) and are less likely to use the
habitat for normal life functions. Wyoming Game and Fish Department (2004) used this figure
to calculate a 117 acre area of reduced habitat effectiveness around each well pad. An ongoing
study by Sawyer et al. (2005) of GPS-collared mule deer in Wyoming found that deer utilized
habitat progressively farther from roads and well pads over years of increasing gas development
and showed no evidence of acclimating to energy-related infrastructure and activities. Lutz et al.
(2003) (attached) states that mule deer can be pressured into using less-preferred or lowerquality habitat, and that this could negatively affect an individual’s energy balance “and
ultimately decrease population productivity especially on winter range.”
Pronghorn Impacts
The discussion in the Draft RMP of pronghorn disturbance from roads and development was
concerning, particularly the statement that “There are no known published studies on
pronghorns’ reactions to roads . . . “ (Draft RMP, p. 4-45). We agree that fewer biological
studies are available for pronghorn than some other species mentioned in the Draft RMP, but
information is available.
Pronghorn are a species that must be able to move freely across an open landscape for food,
habitat, and mates. Past management planning by the BLM suggests that route densities
exceeding 1mi/mi2 will cause negative impacts on pronghorn populations (BLM 1999).
Wyoming Game and Fish Department (2004) note that pronghorn are particularly flight sensitive
and avoid areas of dense energy development. The agency includes the following in their
guidelines for oil and gas development:
“Avoidance distances reported for pronghorn range from 0.25 mi (Autenrieth
1983) to 0.6 mi (Easterly et al. 1991) from sources of disturbance. Accordingly,
49
we presume disturbance thresholds for pronghorn are comparable to those
identified for mule deer. Habitat treatments should be designed to offset the
reduction of habitat effectiveness throughout the areas covered by these zones of
impact.” (Wyoming Game and Fish Department 2004)
A study in central Arizona showed that pronghorn generally exhibited a weak avoidance of areas
within 3,168 feet of a maintained road, as well as areas near non-maintained dirt roads and fourwheel-drive trails (Ockenfels et al. 1994, attached). The same study observed that males (and
perhaps females) avoided habitat within 0.25 miles of highways. Additionally, pronghorn may be
more strongly affected by the noise and activity associated with a road than by the road bed itself
(Ockenfels et al. 1994), suggesting that temporal occupancy restrictions are particularly
important.
A study of pronghorn from the University of Wyoming for the Wyoming Department of
Transportation Research Center demonstrated that pronghorn tend to occupy areas with lower
densities of primary roads and other rights of way (Sheldon et al. 2006, attached). This study
also supports discussion that pronghorn strongly avoid fencing and fencing along paved roads.
Van Riper and Ockenfels (1998) (attached) found that in more than 3,000 movements that were
recorded, not one pronghorn ever crossed a fenced road.
Perhaps the most significant research on pronghorn and oil and gas development is an ongoing
study by Berger et al. (2006) (newspaper articles attached) in Upper Green River Basin gas
fields. The research suggests that the configuration and density of well pads and other surface
disturbances adversely affect pronghorn habitat use. This paper documents findings from the
first year of a 5 year study monitoring study funded by oil and gas companies and done in
coordination with wildlife managers at the BLM and Wyoming Fish and Game Department. A
subset of the results from the report includes:
i. “A growing array of gas fields, roads and attendant human infrastructure is altering
the suitability of habitat for wildlife.”
ii. “continual fracturing of previously undisturbed lands is leading to reduced usage and
abandonment of habitat parcels, particularly those less than ~ 600 acres in size.”
iii. “Snow depth in excess of ~ 20 centimeters affects use of local habitats. However,
once the density of gas wells and attendant infrastructure reaches a threshold,
pronghorn no longer us these areas irrespective of snow depth.”
iv. “Based on 56,992 data points generated from global positioning system (GPS) radio
collars, none of the collared animals used areas within the Jonah Gas Field.”
v. “Pronghorn generally shunned concentrated gas fields, and there was no evidence to
suggest animals altered their 24-hour activity patterns to utilize these areas at night
when human disturbance was reduced.”
An updated report including the second year’s field work is due out this spring and should be
considered developing the final alternative for the Little Snake RMP.
Elk Impacts
50
A major volume reviewing elk ecology and management by Lyon and Christensen (2002)
(attached) states, “Access — mainly that facilitated by roads — is perhaps the single most
significant modifier of elk habitat and a factor that will remain central to elk management on
public and private lands.” Several authors have noted that elk habitat security is a particular
concern in open landscapes (Morgantini and Hudson 1979, Rost and Bailey 1979 (attached),
Lyon 1979 (attached)) such as the open sagebrush habitat of the Little Snake Resource Area.
Lyon (1979) suggests that in non-forested landscapes with route densities less than 1 mi/mi2 may
eliminate effective habitat for elk. A study in open habitat at Jack Morrow Hills in Wyoming
observed that elk avoid areas within 1.2 miles of roads and active oil and gas wells in the
summer and within 0.6 miles of these features in the winter (Powell 2003) (attached).
While it is important to acknowledge the latest science on wildlife impacts, this information is of
limited value as a simple discussion in the Environmental Consequences chapter. Its real value
is in building a knowledge base to draw on for the process of crafting management alternatives.
It is not clear from the Draft RMP if this was used to shape and evaluate alternatives for the
protection of wildlife resources.
Recommendations: The Environmental Consequences portion of the Draft RMP needs to
include a more thorough review of the current literature on the direct indirect and cumulative
impacts of roads and oil and gas development on wildlife. Such literature should not just be
mentioned but be used to craft the management alternatives and to shape alternatives that will
sustain and protect wildlife resources in the Little Snake Resource Area.
B.
The Draft RMP fails to adequately analyze wildlife indirect and cumulative impacts;
the preferred alternative will result in unacceptably significant impacts to wildlife
species of the Little Snake Resource Area.
The BLM has a responsibility to manage the landscape for wildlife, energy development, and
many other purposes. The current planning process will set the terms for management over the
next 15 to 20 years and beyond. The planning process requires the BLM to assess various
alternatives for management and use of the public lands within the Little Snake Resource Area,
and is guided by the BLM’s obligations under the FLPMA and NEPA.
FLPMA requires the BLM to “manage the public lands under principles of multiple use and
sustained yield,” in a manner that will “minimize adverse impacts on the natural, environmental,
scientific, cultural, and other resources and values (including fish and wildlife habitat) of the
public lands involved.” 43 U.S.C. §1732. In developing management plans, the BLM must take
into account physical, biological, economic, and other sciences; give priority to the designation
and protection of areas of critical environmental concern; and give consideration “to the relative
values of the resources and not necessarily to the combination of uses that will give the greatest
economic return.” 43 U.S.C. § 1712; 43 C.F.R. § 1601.0-5(f)).
NEPA dictates that the BLM take a “hard look” at the environmental consequences of a
proposed action, and the requisite environmental analysis “must be appropriate to the action in
question.” 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq; Metcalf v. Daley, supra; Robertson v. Methow Valley
51
Citizens Council, supra. The impacts and effects of a proposed action, such as oil and gas
development, that the BLM is required to assess include: “ecological (such as the effects on
natural resources and on the components, structures, and functioning of affected ecosystems),
aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social, or health, whether direct, indirect, or cumulative.”
40 C.F.R. § 1508.8.
Measuring the acres of direct disturbance to wildlife is appropriate and is estimated for the oil
and gas development of the alternatives in the Draft RMP. However, little quantitative
assessment is made of indirect and cumulative impacts. This important part of the NEPA
process is challenging for wildlife because it varies by species and must be measured spatially
across a landscape. Fortunately, GIS (geographic information system) technology makes this
process much easier. Basic habitat fragmentation measures of roads and oil and gas
infrastructure (e.g., road density or distance to road) can be made for a broad landscape, key
wildlife habitat area, or management unit. These measures, when combined with the literature
discussed in the last section, allows scientists to project likely impacts of general transportation
networks, oil and gas development, ORV impacts or other infrastructure development.
Examples of this application of GIS for energy development was provided to the Little Snake
RMP planning team during the NWCOS process and during this planning process in our reports
Fragmenting Our Lands: The Ecological Footprint from Oil and Gas Development (Weller et. al
2002) and Wildlife at a Crossroads: Energy Development in Western Wyoming (Thomson et al.
2005) and also in June 2006 in our paper Analysis of the Little Snake Resource Area “Sage brush
Habitat Fragmentation Proposal from the Cooperating Agencies.” Additional reports are
included in Appendix 1, attached and discussed below.
Also important to developing and evaluating management alternatives are creating oil and gas
development infrastructure build-out scenarios for each alternative. Readily available GIS
technology can generate GIS data layers for different development scenarios guided by
parameters and constraints for development provided in the RFD. This technology was
demonstrated in our paper Analysis of the Little Snake Resource Area “Sage brush Habitat
Fragmentation Proposal from the Cooperating Agencies.”
The Draft RMP states:
“based on the reasonably foreseeable oil and gas development scenario for the
RMPPA, BLM does not anticipate a large amount of new development that would
lead to unacceptably adverse effects in all areas of the RMPPA.” (Draft RMP, p.
2-3)
This leaves the door open for substantial, unacceptably adverse effects in portions of the resource
area. To demonstrate our concern we completed a build-out scenario of well pads and roads for
the preferred alternative (the build-out generates the development described in the RFD which
we understand from the Draft RMP is anticipated to be followed under the preferred alternative –
all Maps are attached). It uses a CommunityViz extension to the standard ArcGIS software to
position well pads on the landscape in the geographic areas and spacing density as defined in the
52
RFD. It also contains constraints from the preferred alternative 4 including avoiding well pad
placement in areas of slopes greater than 35%, BLM-defined areas of low and no known oil and
gas potential, road ROWs, within ¼ mile of proposed WSRs, WSAs, SRMAs, ACECS, and
areas of wilderness characteristics. Routes to connect the build-out well pads to the existing
transportation network were digitized manually using topography as a guide. The minimum
length of road necessary was digitized.
We used the results of the oil and gas build-out scenario to assess indirect and cumulative
impacts on wildlife. We did this by measuring the habitat fragmentation metrics of route density
and distance to route and compared the results with biological studies of road and oil and gas
development impacts on specific species. Results show graphically and quantitatively where the
development will occur (according to the RFD) allow us to project impacts on wildlife species.
Please note the placement of individual wells in the build-out analysis was generated randomly
by computer GIS software within geographic constraints from the RFD to achieve the
development and well pad spacing defined by the RFD. The build-out should not be construed
as a prediction of the exact geographic locations that a company would place roads and wells
(based on subsurface geology, topography and many other factors), but rather as a rough
distribution to allow us to approximate direct and indirect and cumulative impacts through
habitat fragmentation analysis.
Additionally, the results measured here are conservative because they include only impacts from
roads and well pads but no other existing or new infrastructure such as pipelines or pumping
stations, and because the best road data available was missing some existing routes.
Consequently, our results will notably underestimate the true wildlife impacts.
Results of Build-out Scenario and Wildlife Impact Analysis
The results of our build-out scenario and portions of the fragmentation analysis were presented to
BLM staff in Craig BLM Office in December 18th 2006. Species specific results were
completed subsequent to this visit.
Map 1 (attached) shows that current distribution of lands ownership, roads, and well pads
according to GIS data obtained from the BLM and the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation
Commission. The oil and gas development build-out of roads and well pads in Map 2 shows the
new roads and well pads probable under the preferred alternative. The build-out displays the
roads and 3031 well pads as projected in the RFD. It shows high density expansion of existing
fields; new high density fields in Vermillion Basin, Sand Wash, and East of Godiva Rim areas;
and dispersed, small, low density fields scattered across areas of medium and high potential. The
location of the new high density fields were randomly placed within a broader bounding box
defined in the RFD. The smaller dispersed developments were placed near existing development
per recommendation of RFD author Fred Conrath.
4
The build-out scenario was developed under a preliminary release of the alternatives. The only element we found
that affected the build-out scenario is the elimination of the ACEC in the northeast portion of Vermillion Basin. The
build-out of wells (Map 2) avoids the ACED and this would not occur in the version of the preferred alternative in
the Draft RMP.
53
The direct impacts of the roads and well pads for the entire Little Snake Resource Area under the
preferred alternative are:
Miles of existing routes: 9,469*
Miles of new routes: 784
Total miles of routes: 10,253
Number of existing well pads: 2,151 (657 active & 1494 abandoned)
Number of new pads: 3,031 (2,425 producing & 606 non-producing)
Total well pads: 5,182
Area of direct disturbance from roads and well pads**
Current roads and development: 64,614 acres
Total under build-out scenario: 80,046 acres
* Please note that the miles of existing routes do not include the projected 3,000 miles of uninventoried,
non-system routes (largely ORV routes) projected in the Draft RMP to be on the landscape (Draft RMP, p.
3-121).
** Calculation uses dimensions of well pads (4 acres) and roads (50 foot right of way) from the RFD.
The above statistics for direct impacts tell only a small part of the story. As discussed above and
in the Draft RMP (pp. 4-43 through 4-47) the indirect impacts on wildlife extend well beyond the
physical footprint of the roads well pads and other infrastructure. The BLM must consider
indirect impacts in evaluating potential management proposals.
Maps 3 and 4 (attached) illustrate the measures of route density and distance to route across the
Little Snake Resource Area. Note on Map 3 how little of the landscape has route densities less
than 1 mile per square mile (shown in green). On Map 4, note how little of the map is farther
than one mile from a road (shown in colors other than white). These measures are more useful
when calculated for specific wildlife habitat and combined with the biological research on
impacts for that species or species group.
Sagebrush obligate birds: Under the RFD build-out scenario, 26% of the entire LSRMA and 28%
of the priority sage brush patches identified by the DOW would be within 328 feet (100 meters)
of a road or well pad – a distance within which the density of sagebrush obligate birds drops by
50% regardless of the amount of activity on the road (Inglefinger 2001). This suggests that
under the RFD build-out there could be a significant decline in sagebrush obligate bird species
throughout the resource area.
Greater Sage-Grouse: Under the RFD build-out of roads and well pads, 30 percent of the
landscape is within 3.1 miles (5 km) of leks – the minimum distance recommended for no new
road construction and seasonal closures of existing roads (Braun 2006). Additionally, 34 percent
of the landscape is within 3.4 miles (5.5 km) of a lek – the minimum distance recommended for
no surface occupancy around all active Sage-Grouse leks (Braun 2006). Furthermore, 40 percent
of the landscape is within 4 miles (6.4 km) of a lek – the distance recommended for habitat
protection by Colorado Department of Wildlife (Brad Petch personal communication). The
54
Draft RMP also acknowledged that “no more than 75% of greater Sage-Grouse nests are found
within a 4-mile radius of a lek” (Draft RMP, p. 3-64).
The number of well pads within a given radius of a lek is also used to evaluate indirect effects on
Sage-Grouse based on Holloran (2005) finding that 5 to 15 wells within a 2 mile radius caused
relatively light effects. Leks with greater than 15 wells within a 2-mile radius were heavily
affected 5. Our calculations indicate that under the RFD scenario, 18% of leks in the LSRMA
would be heavily affected with between 16 and 54 wells, or an average of 25.2 wells, within 2
miles of the leks. Because these numbers are substantially larger than Holloran’s study
suggesting 15 or more well pads to cause heavy impacts, we would expect significantly reduced
use of these leks by Sage-Grouse. An additional 20% of the leks would be lightly affected based
on Holloran’s study.
In other words, because of the wide distribution of leks in areas of projected oil and gas
development under the preferred alternative, substantial impacts on Greater Sage-Grouse are
likely. Forty percent of the Little Snake Resource Area landscape is sufficiently close to leks to
warrant substantial constraints on new and existing development.
Mule deer: Under the RFD build-out scenario of roads and well pads, 77 percent of mule deer
severe winter range and winter concentration areas is within 0.29 miles (470 meters) of a well
pad or road – the distance that mule deer are shown to alert to human activity and are less likely
to use the habitat for normal life functions (Freddy et al. 1986, Wyoming Game and Fish
Department 2004). The preferred alternative puts three quarters of the areas needed for winter
survival at risk. It also does not address connectivity for remaining habitat.
Pronghorn: Under the RFD build-out scenario of roads and well pads, 76 percent of pronghorn
severe winter range and winter concentration areas have route densities that exceed the 1 mi/mi2
threshold suggested to cause negative impacts on pronghorn (BLM 1999). Additionally, 94
percent of the same habitat is closer than 0.6 miles (1 kilometer) to a route – at this distance from
a maintained road pronghorn are shown to exhibit avoidance (Ockenfels et al. 1994). Because
both of these thresholds have been exceeded across the majority of the habitat area and
pronghorn are particularly flight sensitive (Wyoming Game and Fish Department 2004), we are
concerned that pronghorn could be pressured off their existing winter range if development
occurs according to the preferred alternative.
Additionally, we measured how much of the pronghorn severe winter range and winter
concentration habitat could be in patches of 600 acres or greater under the RFD build-out
scenario. This is the minimum patch size threshold shown by Berger (2006) below which
pronghorn significantly reduce use or abandon habitat. Calculations show that of the original
227,617 acres of habitat, 187,667 acres remain in patches greater than 600 acres in size. There
are 91 of these patches ranging in size from 612 acres to 9635 acres (average 2,062 acres).
These calculations suggest a potential loss of 18% of pronghorn severe winter range and winter
concentration areas under the preferred alternative.
5
Holloran’s work referred to wells rather than well pads. However, at the time and place of his field work there was
a limited amount of directional drilling using multiple wells per pad. Data is not available to show if any wells were
clustered on a single pad in his study area and, if so, how many (Holloran, personal communication).
55
Elk: Under the RFD build-out scenario of roads and well pads, 80 percent of elk severe winter
range and winter concentration areas have route densities that exceed the 1 mi/mi2 threshold
recommended for habitat security in non-forested landscapes for elk (Lyon 1979) (attached).
While populations may be strong currently, new development under the RFD scenario may
displace elk from these areas and/or limit the ability of the habitat to support needed activities.
The literature discussed previously and the analysis presented here provide abundant evidence
that energy development as proposed under the RFD will negatively affect wildlife. We also
understand that the biological research on the impacts is not complete and additional field
research is needed. However, gaps in scientific knowledge about the species discussed above
and other resources must not stop or delay decisions to protect wildlife resources by planning for
a more ecologically sustainable pattern of oil and gas development across the Little Snake
Resource Area. We recommend application of the “precautionary principle” of conservation
biology, which states that precautionary measures should be taken when a certain activity or
inactivity threatens to harm human health or the environment, even when science has not fully
established cause-and-effect relationships (Groom et al. 2006) (attached). This principle is
rooted in the recognition that scientific understanding of ecosystems is complicated by numerous
factors, including dynamic ecosystem processes and the various effects of human activities. Put
simply, it is easier to prevent harm to biodiversity than to attempt to repair it later.
The Draft RMP should have used GIS to conduct build-out analysis and habitat fragmentation
analysis to evaluate the impacts on wildlife as recommended in out reports Wildlife at a
Crossroads: Energy Development in Western Wyoming and Analysis of the Little Snake
Resource Area “Sage brush Habitat Fragmentation Proposal from the Cooperating Agencies.”
The Draft RMP does not use spatial analysis to evaluate indirect or cumulative impacts. It does
not evaluate how route density varies across the landscape generally and in specific wildlife
habitats. The Draft RMP does not analyze or establish goals for core habitat patches (unroaded
patches) in specific wildlife habitats. The oil and gas development (including all related
infrastructure described under the preferred alternative will clearly cause substantial habitat
fragmentation. Infrastructure need to be evaluated using the latest science and spatial analysis
and the results need to be used to craft a preferred alternative that helps protect wildlife and other
resources.
The data that we have previously provided and highlighted shows not only that there is a
substantial, established body of literature supporting the need to address habitat fragmentation
from routes and oil and gas development, but also that the level of fragmentation in the preferred
alternative will result in unacceptably high impacts on wildlife habitat for the species that the
agencies are required to protect under FLPMA, NEPA, and the BLM’s National Sage-Grouse
Habitat Conservation Strategy. The agency should utilize this data both to evaluate potential
impacts of proposed oil and gas development (and other travel planning) and to design an
acceptable travel network and pattern of development, which provides sufficient core areas and
suitable route densities to protect wildlife habitat.
Recommendations: The BLM must use the latest available scientific literature and spatial
analysis of habitat fragmentation on the impacts of ORVs and roads on wildlife to create road oil
56
and gas development alternatives and to evaluate the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of
development alternatives as previously recommended in our reports Wildlife at a Crossroads:
Energy Development in Western Wyoming and Analysis of the Little Snake Resource Area “Sage
brush Habitat Fragmentation Proposal from the Cooperating Agencies.” The BLM should act
based on the best available information to fulfill its obligations to protect wildlife and their
habitat. The following metrics should be used as thresholds to assess the impacts of proposed
route networks, well pads and other oil and gas infrastructure on the wildlife species identified
and to design an acceptable route network:
Species
Impact Threshold
Reference
Sagebrush obligate birds
maximize habitat greater
than 328 feet from a road
Inglefinger 2001
Greater Sage-Grouse
Minimize disturbance within
4 miles of a lek
CO Department of Wildlife
Mule deer
Maximize habitat greater
than 0.29 mile from a road
Freddy et al. 1986
Pronghorn
0.6 mile from a road
Ockenfels et al. 1994
600 acre minimum patch size
Berger et al. 2006
1 mile/mile2 route density
Lyon 1979
Elk
C.
The attempt to protect patches of critical wildlife habitat in the preferred
alternative by providing an optional 5% direct disturbance cap in exchange for
waving seasonal stipulations will not effectively protect the most important habitat
areas.
The Preferred Alternative provides a management option “To maintain and improve large blocks
of functional sagebrush communities, oil and gas operators could opt into an agreement to limit
habitat fragmentation in return for easing timing limitation stipulations and allowing year-round
drilling.” Draft RMP, p. 2-16. We encourage the BLM’s attempts to protect large functional
patches of sagebrush habitat. However, this plan as described for the Preferred Alternative
(Draft RMP, pp. 2-16 to 2-18 and 4-58) will not have the intended effect.
First, the plan is optional for all oil and gas leases. It is unknown if any lease holder would
choose to participate in this 5% disturbance cap in exchange for waving seasonal stipulations.
Second, a 5% direct disturbance cap for a leaseholder will not prevent adverse affects on wildlife
on the most important areas of sagebrush habitat. Our analysis of a 5% disturbance cap
(Analysis of the Little Snake Resource Area “Sage brush Habitat Fragmentation Proposal from
the Cooperating Agencies”) demonstrated that the 5% cap would still have substantial negative
impacts on wildlife. Findings from that report demonstrate that fragmentation levels caused by
roads and well pads (existing and new development) are likely to cause substantial negative
57
effects on Greater Sage-Grouse, other sage brush obligate bird species, mule deer, pronghorn,
and elk. It shows that wildlife impacts occur before the 5% threshold is met. Additionally, it
shows why disturbance caps must look at all roads and infrastructure to determine wildlife
impacts (i.e. not just the disturbance by the leaseholder as suggested in the preferred alternative).
Third, habitat protection decisions must be made at a landscape level not a lease level. Leases
are simply too small to make ecologically sound decisions on habitat management. Even if
relatively good decisions are made by one leaseholder that kept direct disturbance to a few
percent and clustered development on a small portion of the lease, it could be surrounded by
areas of dense development by leaseholders choosing not to opt into this management option.
Viable options for protecting sage-steppe habitat must be mandatory and provide for long-term
protection of substantial habitat patches and connectivity between patches and migratory paths.
(Please see recommendation below regarding landscape level protection planning.)
Recommendations: If oil and gas operators have existing leases within the priority sagebrush
patches identified by BLM and DOW, BLM should make it mandatory that special restrictions
regarding surface disturbance and activity levels are placed on activities in those areas. The
agency should also develop a more protective strategy for conserving and connecting patches of
sagebrush habitat for ungulate winter range, sagebrush obligate birds, and prairie dogs that
requires patches of un-fragmented habitat as well as reduced direct disturbance.
D.
The role of the Little Snake Resource Area in protecting sage steppe habitat in
Colorado and the broader West is not acknowledged by or used in comparing the
relative impacts and benefits of the alternatives
The Draft RMP lays out laudable goals for sagebrush habitat management on page 2-15:
󲐀
“Sagebrush Goal A: Sustain the integrity of the sagebrush biome to
maintain viable populations of Greater Sage-Grouse and other sagebrush
obligate species. Objectives for achieving this goal include—
1. Maintain large patches of high-quality sagebrush habitats,
consistent with the natural range of variability for sagebrush
communities in northwest Colorado.
2. Maintain connections between sagebrush habitats on a landscape
scale, as allowed by the range site condition.
󲐀
Sagebrush Goal B: Identify and initiate restoration and rehabilitation of
sagebrush habitat while maintaining a mosaic of canopy cover and seral
stages. Objectives for achieving this goal include—
 Reconnect large patches of sagebrush habitat, consistent with the
natural range of variability for sagebrush communities in northwest
Colorado.”
However, it is not clear how these goals will be achieved. Page 2-216 suggests “Restriction on
surface disturbing activities and implementing BMPs for surface disturbing activities could
decrease impacts on vegetation” However, BMPs are not required, only recommended.
58
Actions taken to protect sage steppe habitat are important because of the unique role the Little
Snake Resource Area plays in the protection of this habitat in Colorado and across the West.
This loss and fragmentation of sagebrush steppe habitat has been documented across the west
(West 2000, Knick et al. 2003) and is now drastically reduced from its original geographic
extent and few or no pristine examples of this ecosystem exist (West 2000). The American Bird
Conservancy (2007) lists sage brush habitat as the most threatened bird habitat in the continental
United States. The BLM has acknowledged the threat to the species and developed a National
Sage-Grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy (BLM 2004).
A report for the Colorado Division of Wildlife identifies sagebrush habitats of northwest
Colorado, North Park-Middle Park and the Gunnison Basin as the three areas with the largest
concentrations of sagebrush habitat in Colorado and states that “These three areas should be
considered cornerstones of sagebrush conservation in Colorado” (Boyle and Reeder 2005). The
maps in the DOW report show that the Little Snake Resource Area contains the largest region of
sagebrush habitat of the three areas and the largest patch of “Priority 1” lands for sagebrush
protection and management as identified for the presence of species with a “nearly complete
reliance on sagebrush habitats.” This means that preserving some of the best remaining
sagebrush areas in the Little Snake Resource Area is important for the conservation of
sagebrush-dependent species throughout the region. The Draft RMP confirms the importance of
sage steppe habitat to wildlife on page 3-28: “Wyoming big sagebrush is the most frequently
eaten sagebrush species and is a staple for pronghorn and Greater Sage-Grouse. It is also one of
the dominant species found on antelope and mule deer-crucial winter ranges.”
Recommendations: The important role of sage steppe habitat should be acknowledged in the
Affected Environment chapter (Draft RMP, pp. 3-28 to 3-29 and 3-37 to 3-38). Additionally, the
cumulative impacts of management activities such as oil and gas development and ORV
activities should be added (Draft RMP, p. 4-230). In particular, the Draft RMP should describe
how the development of 3031 well pads and associated infrastructure will fragment what is now
the largest region of sagebrush habitat in the state and how this will impact sagebrush protection
and restoration in the state of Colorado and beyond.
E.
Alternatives are not balanced among the many resources and uses of the Little
Snake Resource Area and are biased toward oil and gas extraction.
The Draft RMP does not provide a balanced range of alternatives that gives sufficient
consideration to the long-term protection of habitat and wildlife. On the contrary, all but
alternative D allow for the development of the full 3031 wells allowed under the RFD. Page 4145 states that “Under Alternatives A, B, and C, a total of 3,031 wells could be drilled during the
next 20 years”. The 3,031 wells figure comes directly from the number of wells requested by the
oil and gas industry. The preferred alternative makes no attempt to reduce the number of wells
or require phased or cluster development to protect other uses and resources, particularly for
habitat and wildlife.
Recommendations: Given the substantial negative impacts likely to affect sage steppe habitat
and wildlife (see comments above) the final alternative must, at a minimum, compromise
59
between requests from the energy industry and the protection of natural resources. A more
prudent approach would be to develop a system for clustered and phased development allowing
for added protection for habitat and wildlife by geographically clustering development and
phasing production and restoration over a longer period of time.
V. RECREATION AND SPECIAL RECREATION MANAGEMENT AREAS (SRMAS)
The recreation resource on public lands is becoming increasingly valuable: more people want to
recreate on a finite amount of public land. Many recreationists desire solitude, clean air, clean
water, vast undeveloped landscapes, and a place to witness healthy, natural systems thriving with
native plants and wildlife. The Little Snake RMP should accommodate those desires.
Unfortunately, the Draft RMP dismisses these desires and instead prioritizes motorized
recreation.
A.
BLM should conduct comprehensive recreation planning and include substantial
opportunities for quiet (non-motorized) recreation.
Among the many uses for wilderness lands and values these lands support, recreation forms a
critical part of our western lifestyle and provides significant and sustainable benefits to local
economies. Colorado’s “Active Outdoor Recreation Economy” (AORE) contributes over $10
billion annually to Colorado’s economy, supports 107,000 jobs across Colorado, generates nearly
$500 million in annual state tax revenue, and produces $7.6 billion annually in retail sales and
services across Colorado – accounting for 4% of the gross state product (The Active Outdoor
Recreation Economy: a $730 billion annual contribution to the U.S. Economy produced by
Outdoor Industry Foundation, Fall 2006.) This revenue is generated from locals and visitors
engaging in non-motorized recreation such as bicycling, camping, fishing, hunting, paddling,
snow sports, trail activities, and wildlife viewing. Colorado’s congressionally designated
Wilderness Areas and other wildlands are a central feature of this economy - many who spend
money in our AORE do so because of the unparalleled opportunities for quiet recreation in the
rugged settings our public lands provide.
The BLM’s draft RMP for the Little Snake Resource Area poses a significant threat to the
LSRA’s lands with wilderness characteristics. Fragmentation and destruction of these fragile
backcountry areas will have harmful and lasting effects on opportunities for recreation on our
public lands, with resulting damaging effects to local and state economies. The BLM should
follow its mandate to manage its lands for all the resources there, not simply for oil and gas
development.
BLM’s goals and objectives in regards to recreation are admirable. For instance, Goal A reads,
“Provide a diversity of outdoor recreational opportunities, activities, and experiences for various
user groups” (Draft RMP, p. 2-78, emphasis added). Goal A goes onto state, “Identify strategies
and decisions that may be applied to protect or preserve primitive and semiprimitive areas so as
to provide solitude and backcountry opportunities”.
60
While the goals above are laudable, BLM’s plan fails to provide a diversity of recreation
opportunities or to make decisions which protect or preserve primitive and semiprimitive areas.
Instead, BLM prioritized motorized recreation in the preferred alternative. Only 1 zone within
the 5 SRMAs (Zone 2 of the Serviceberry SRMA) is designated to protect non-motorized
recreation opportunities by closing the area to motorized vehicles. Alternative D, on the other
hand, would designate a total of 9 SRMAs of which 4 SRMAs and a portion of another would be
focused on protecting non-motorized recreation by closing the area to off-road vehicles.
The Draft RMP acknowledges the likely effects of the Draft RMP on recreation:
Restrictions on surface disturbing activities and adaptive management of many resources
would reduce impacts on recreation and provide opportunities for motorized, developed,
and primitive/unconfined recreation opportunities; however, significant impacts would
still occur on non-motorized recreation and recreational users seeking solitude and
primitive/unconfined recreation opportunities because of degradation to the natural
character from the high potential of new mineral leasing and user conflicts from allowing
OHV use on designated routes and trails in the Vermilion Basin area. Draft RMP, p. 2227.
This approach to managing the recreation resource has foreclosed quality primitive and
unconfined recreation opportunities.
Recommendations: Recreation has become one of the most important uses of the public lands.
BLM should commit to and conduct comprehensive recreation planning to ensure that recreation
opportunities are assessed and balanced, quality recreation experiences are provided. BLM
should adopt Alternative D as its proposed plan in regards to Recreation Management.
Alternative D balances motorized recreation with protection of quiet, traditional, human-powered
recreation opportunities. Most Americans enjoy traditional forms of recreation such as hiking,
birding, camping, and backpacking and the LSFO RMP should protect these opportunities.
B.
The RMP should use the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) to classify and
manage quality recreation experiences
In order to ensure the continued viability of these desired experiences, the BLM’s Land Use
Planning Handbook recommends BLM use the ROS tool when designating Special Recreation
Management Areas (SRMAs) (H1601-1, Appendix C, pp. 16). The Draft RMP fails to
specifically mention ROS, or to delineate areas as Primitive, Semi-Primitive non-motorized,
Semi-Primitive motorized, Roaded Natural, Rural, or Urban. This leads to confusion as to the
purpose of each SRMA. For instance, the Draft RMP’s explanation of the Little Yampa/Juniper
Canyon SRMA (Draft RMP, pp. 2-79 – 2-82) never delineates ROS class, and therefore there is
confusion as to whether Zone 2 would be managed as Roaded Natural or Semi-Primitive
Motorized in the preferred alternative. Increasing recreation pressure dictates the need to include
more lands within ROS classes that protect the land’s undeveloped, wild character, i.e. primitive
and semi-primitive non-motorized recreation classes. These designations allow for multiple
activities of the sorts most desired by the public: camping, picnicking, hiking, climbing, enjoying
61
scenery, wildlife or natural features viewing, nature study, photography, spelunking, hunting (big
game, small game, upland birds, waterfowl), swimming, fishing, and non-motorized river
running.
Recommendations: BLM should delineate ROS class across the Resources Area. All lands
within WSAs, lands with wilderness characteristics outside of existing WSAs, and backcountry
areas should be managed as ROS class primitive and as primitive recreation SRMAs, important
wildlife habitat and ACECs should be managed as ROS class primitive or semi-primitive, nonmotorized.
C. Special Recreation Management Areas
We support the Draft RMP’s approach to establishing special recreation management areas in the
lands governed by the LSFO RMP, which is consistent with the Land Use Planning Handbook
(in Appendix C and as further defined in the Glossary). However, once again, BLM prioritized
motorized recreation over quiet, traditional, human-powered recreation.
BLM has recently issued a directive for implementation of its Unified Strategy on Recreation
and the Colorado BLM is in the process of completing its own Recreation and Visitors
Strategy. The agency has recognized the importance of identifying and providing quality
recreation experiences on our public lands. In some cases, it is appropriate to provide motorized
recreation opportunities, however, BLM failed to identify sufficient non-motorized recreation
opportunities in its preferred alternative. In fact, only one zone within the Serviceberry SRMA is
specifically designated for the protection of non-motorized recreation opportunities. What
follows are our concerns with BLM’s analysis and decisions regarding specific SRMAs.
Recommendations:
a. Cedar Mountain SRMA
Cedar Mountain (900 acres) would be open for ORV use on designated routes in Alternative C,
the preferred alternative, and Alternative D (Draft RMP, p. 2-85). However, Cedar Mountain is
envisioned as a community niche, offering opportunities for day use picnicking, hiking, jogging,
horseback riding, and wildlife viewing. These activities are not consistent with ORV activity and
noise coming from ORVs. This area also remains open to oil and gas leasing with an NSO
stipulation. Cedar Mountain should be closed to OHV usage and closed to oil and gas
leasing.
b. South Sand Wash SRMA
South Sand Wash SRMA (35,510 acres) is intended as a recreation area for ORVs. Zones 1 and
2 would remain available for open travel under the preferred alternative. ORV use in Zone 3
would be limited to designated routes. As mentioned in the Travel Management Section of these
comments, the Colorado BLM State Office recently issued IM CO-2007-020, which states that
BLM is now expected to “include a system of designated routes” in RMPs. This directive
further states that open travel areas should be small, few in number, and should only be
designated where it is enforceable. Zones 1 and 2, where open travel would remain open under
the preferred alternative, add up to 21,940 acres (Draft RMP, p. 2-104). This area will likely see
62
conflicts between wild horses, grazing, preserving cultural resources, and ORVs, all exacerbated
by “open” use. While IM CO-2007-020 was published after this planning process began, and
therefore BLM is not obligated to follow it, BLM should apply the rationale outlined in the IM
and restrict open areas to no more than a few hundred acres if at all. All travel in the South
Sand Wash SRMA should be solely on designated routes, and in a system designed to
minimize impact on cultural and wildlife resources, and livestock grazing operations.
c. Serviceberry SRMA
Serviceberry SRMA (12,380 acres) is divided into two zones and would be designated as
creating non-motorized hunting opportunities in the preferred alternative. In the preferred
alternative, ORV use would be limited to designated routes in Zone 1 and closed to ORVs in
Zone 2 (Draft RMP, p. 2-89). During various NWCOS discussions, LSFO staff noted that this
SRMA could be used for other forms of primitive back country recreation such as hiking and
horseback riding, outside of hunting season. The preferred alternative for Serviceberry leaves
the SRMA open for oil and gas leasing and development. Energy development is inconsistent
with a designation of primitive, non-motorized recreation and thus, Serviceberry should be
withdrawn from leasing for fluid minerals. There is also an inconsistency for other minerals
development. Serviceberry is described as open for other minerals activity, but closed to
locatable minerals activity and would not be available for coal leasing. Serviceberry is also listed
to be considered for ROWs on a case-by-case basis. Allowing ROWs through this SRMA would
not be consistent with the goal of managing to protect for primitive, non- motorized recreational
experiences. Subject to valid existing rights, the entire area should be withdrawn for all
minerals activity, whether fluid or hard and excluded from new ROWs. Further, BLM
should specifically state that Zone 2 is closed to ORVs during the entire year, not just
during the hunting season.
d. Fly Creek SRMA
The Fly Creek SRMA (12,340 acres) is proposed as a primitive, non-motorized back country
area for hunting in Alternative D, but unfortunately not in the Preferred Alternative. As with
Serviceberry, Fly Creek can be designated for other forms of primitive, non-motorized
recreation, outside of the hunting season. The agency is to be commended for proposing to close
the area to OHV use, as such a closure is consistent with preserving the traditional, quiet
recreational experience. Also, the agency is commended for proposing to develop a nonmotorized trails system in this area. However, Fly Creek would remain open to oil and gas
exploration and development in this proposal. Again, energy development is not consistent with
a designation of primitive, non-motorized recreation. Fly Creek is also listed to be considered for
ROWs on a case-by-case basis. Allowing ROWs through this SRMA would not be consistent
with the goal of managing to protect for primitive, non-motorized recreational experiences.
BLM should designated the Fly Creek SRMA in the proposed plan and withdraw this area,
subject to valid existing rights, from mineral activity, whether fluid or hard. Further,
BLM should exclude new ROWs.
e. Dinosaur North SRMA
The Dinosaur North SRMA (45,620 acres) is proposed to provide primitive recreation
opportunities such as hiking, backpacking, horseback riding, and camping in Alternative D, but
unfortunately not in the Preferred Alternative. The area is proposed for closure to ORVs, which
63
is consistent with the purposes for which the SRMA would be designated. Further, BLM would
use its discretionary closure authority and withdraw the area from oil and gas leasing. Finally,
this area is identified as an exclusion area for new ROWs, which is consistent with the purposes
of the SRMA. BLM should designate the Dinosaur North SRMA in the proposed plan
and/or protect the wilderness character of the area as discussed in the section of our
comments regarding protection of wilderness characteristics.
f. Cold Spring SRMA
The Cold Spring SRMA (30,470 acres) is proposed to provide primitive recreation opportunities
such as hiking, backpacking, horseback riding, and camping in Alternative D, but unfortunately
not in the Preferred Alternative. The area is proposed for closure to ORVs, which is consistent
with the purposes for which the SRMA would be designated. Further, BLM would use its
discretionary closure authority and withdraw the area from oil and gas leasing. Finally, this area
is identified as an exclusion area for new ROWs, which is consistent with the purposes of the
SRMA. BLM should designate the Cold Spring SRMA in the proposed plan and/or protect
the wilderness character of the area as discussed in the section of our comments regarding
protection of wilderness characteristics
g. Vermillion Basin SRMA
The Vermillion Basin SRMA (77,080 acres) is proposed to provide primitive recreation
opportunities such as hiking, backpacking, horseback riding, and camping in Alternative D, but
unfortunately not in the Preferred Alternative. The Vermillion Basin SRMA should be expanded
to take in the full citizen-proposed wilderness inventory of 86,569 acres as described in the
attached Citizens’ Wilderness Proposal. The area is proposed for closure to ORVs which is
consistent with the purposes for which the SRMA would be designated. Further, BLM would
use its discretionary closure authority and withdraw the area from oil and gas leasing. Finally,
this area is identified as an exclusion area for new ROWs, which is consistent with the purposes
of the SRMA. BLM should expand the Vermillion Basin SRMA to 86,569 acres and
designate it in the proposed plan and/or protect the wilderness character of the area as
discussed in the section of our comments regarding protection of wilderness characteristics.
h. Additional Potential SRMAs and/or Special Management Prescriptions
In addition to designating the above SRMAs (with improvements) in its proposed plan, BLM
should consider designating additional SRMAs or providing special management for additional
areas with primitive recreation values. In order to provide a balance of opportunities
between motorized and non-motorized recreation, the agency should close the WSAs and
Citizen-Proposed Wilderness areas to ORVs and other vehicular travel except for
administrative purposes and maintenance of existing rights. The Agency should consider
the areas east of Antone Gap and north of County Route 72, towards Diamond Mountain;
and northwest of Antone Gap, towards Middle Mountain; as potential sites for primitive,
non-motorized recreation including hunting, hiking, horseback riding, wildlife viewing,
and closed to OHV use.
VI. TRAVEL MANAGEMENT PLANNING
64
A. Comprehensive travel management planning should be part of the RMP.
BLM’s internal guidance states that “each RMP will divide planning areas into OHV area
designations that are open, limited or closed.” IM No. 2004-005; see also 43 C.F.R. § 8342.2(b).
BLM met this requirement by designating the entire resource area as either Open, Closed, or
Limited (for both ORVs and snowmobiles) (Draft RMP, pp. 2-103 – 2-104). While BLM met
the letter of the regulation, it failed to meet the intent of this guidance, which has since been
incorporated into the updated version of BLM’s Land Use Planning Handbook. H-1601,
Appendix C, Section II.D (Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management). The Land Use
Planning Handbook states that BLM should:
Complete a defined travel management network (system of areas, roads and/or trails)
during the development of the land use plan, to the extent practical. If it is not practical
to define or delineate the travel management network during the land use planning
process, a preliminary network must be identified and a process established to select a
final travel management network. (emphasis added)
The Land Use Planning Handbook (Appendix C, Section II.D) also sets out requirements for
travel management at both the land use and implementation planning levels:
- At the land use plan level, BLM must identify areas for use based on program goals and
objectives, primary users, reason for “allowing travel” into an area, setting character to be
maintained (including Visual Resource Management and Recreation Opportunity Spectrum
classifications), and primary means of travel appropriate to meet objectives and keep setting
character; and
- At the implementation level, BLM must define a detailed travel management network,
“establish a process” to identify roads, trails, etc. with criteria for selections, guidelines for
management, monitoring and maintenance, and indicators for future plan maintenance.
Rather than define a designated travel system, BLM’s preferred alternative designates 77%
(1,039,500 acres) of the Field Office “Limited to Existing Roads and Trails” (Draft RMP, p. 2104). The preferred alternative only closes 6.4% (86,710 acres) to ORVs and only limits ORV
use to designated trails in 15% (203,100 acres of which 56,930 were identified as such in the
existing plan). Further, BLM did not identify any areas where it felt seasonal closures were
warranted, despite identifying 161,810 acres as seasonally sensitive in Alternative D.
The Colorado BLM has issued IM CO-2007-020, which identifies implementing comprehensive
travel management as a “high priority” for the BLM. While this guidance was issued after this
planning effort began, it is important to note that this IM states that the agency is “moving
towards a system of limiting use to designated roads” and “not encouraging extensive crosscountry travel.” As a result, in Colorado, the BLM is now expected to “include a system of
designated routes” in RMPs and, where designations cannot be completed for an entire planning
area, this directive specifically encourages designating as many areas as possible and prioritizing
sub-regions. We would also note that this directive emphasizes that travel management should
address “all resource aspects” and modes and conditions of travel, and specifically mentions nonmotorized recreation.
65
Recommendations: We urge BLM to reconsider its decision to designate the vast majority of the
Field Office as “Limited to Existing Roads and Trails” and to instead adhere to the intent of both
the national and Colorado State Director guidance and complete comprehensive travel
management planning and designate a route system as part of the RMP. BLM should adopt an
improved Alternative D (as described throughout these comments) in regards to transportation
management. Alternative D does not allow for cross-country travel, closes almost 290,000 acres
(21% of the Field Office), and limits travel to designated roads and trails on 1,079,440 acres
(79% of the Field Office). Further, Alternative D closes most of the Citizen Proposed
Wilderness Areas to ORV use or limits ORV use to designated roads and trails. Further,
Alternative D limits to designated roads and trails or closes ORV use in ACECs. This approach
is most consistent with the requirements of 43 C.F.R. § 8342.1 and Executive Orders (Executive
Order No. 11644 (1972) (as amended by Executive Order No. 11989 (1977)). We appreciate
BLM’s decision to include Appendix F which sets out criteria for prioritizing areas to receive
comprehensive travel management planning (although the “Adaptive Management” concept is
somewhat vague) and believe that BLM should build upon this concept and limit ORV to
designated roads and trails for all areas which are not closed to ORV use.
B. Travel management decisions should be based on landscape level planning.
Travel planning requires the agency to manage human travel across the landscape. The land use
planning process, which addresses the broader landscape within a planning area, provides one of
the best opportunities to make travel planning decisions in the appropriate context. While we
understand that BLM does not have authority to close or relocate highways, major roads, or
validated County roads, BLM must include these routes when analyzing the transportation
network as they have a great impact on habitat fragmentation and reduction in core area size
(discussed in length above in these comments and in Appendix 1 (attached)). The placement
and design of travel routes defines which areas will remain or become roadless, and which areas
will be disturbed and how. In other words, route decisions determine the fragmentation of the
landscape, and, thus, how naturally or unnaturally a landscape will behave in terms of water flow
and quality, wildlife migration, and species composition and function.
As mentioned throughout these comments, NEPA requires federal agencies to assess the direct,
indirect and cumulative environmental impacts of proposed actions, taking a “hard look” at
environmental consequences and performing an analysis commensurate with the scale of the
action at issue. 42 U.S.C. § 4321, et seq; 40 C.F.R. § 1508.8. 6 Travel planning affects the entire
landscape and can only be thoroughly and properly assessed by considering potential impacts
and making decisions at a comparable level. In terms of how to evaluate the potential impacts of
travel management decisions, NEPA’s definition of “cumulative impact” is instructive:
the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action
when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of
what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions.
6
See also Metcalf v. Daley, 214 F.3d 1135, 1151 (9th Cir. 2000); Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490
U.S. 332, 348 (1989).
66
Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant
actions taking place over a period of time.
40 C.F.R. § 1508.7. (emphasis added). BLM must account for the direct, indirect, and
cumulative impacts of all roads in the planning area when completing a comprehensive travel
management plan.
Recommendations: BLM should address travel management on a landscape-wide basis by
addressing the impacts of all roads in the planning area and accounting for the landscape-wide
impacts of these roads. Comprehensive travel management planning should occur within the
context of the RMP.
C. The RMP should use a legal definition of “road.”
BLM must apply a legal definition of “road” within the planning process, develop appropriate
criteria to accurately gauge what is or is not a road, ensure that illegal “ghost roads” are not
legitimized, and in fact, close and reclaim such “ghost roads.” Some legal roads serve important
travel needs and are appropriate for motorized use. However, routes that are not “roads” should
not receive equal consideration. The agency has a definition of “road,” and this definition should
be adopted and used consistently in order to create a regular expectation and approach on BLM
lands. We note, however, that merely meeting the definition of a road is not sufficient to justify
designating a route. In fact, the BLM must still consider whether a route has negative impacts to
sensitive or protected resources, such as by the process recommended in this document, and
should only designate those that do not impact these resources.
The legal definition of road for the BLM public lands is derived from the definition of “roadless”
in the legislative history of FLPMA:
The word “roadless” refers to the absence of roads which have been improved and
maintained by mechanical means to insure relatively regular and continuous use.
A way maintained solely by the passage of vehicles does not constitute a road.
(H.R. Rep. No. 94-1163 at 17 (1976)).
In addition, the Code of Federal Regulations (43 C.F.R. § 19.2(e)) establishes the following
definition:
An improved road that is suitable for public travel by means of four wheeled, motorized
vehicles intended primarily for highway use.
IM 2006-173 (“Implementation of Roads and Trails Terminology Report”), which sets out and
defines associated with transportation management, also includes a definition of a road as:
A linear route declared a road by the owner, managed for use by low-clearance
vehicles having four or more wheels, and maintained for regular and continuous use.
Therefore, it is incumbent upon BLM to exclude “user created” routes from the inventory when
completing travel management (again, ideally as part of the RMP process). To include these
routes is to legitimize and “grandfather in” illegally created routes and/or routes which have not
67
been improved or maintained by mechanical means to ensure regular use. While BLM may
benefit from obtaining input on areas that groups believe would be appropriate for their use, any
inventory or proposal of routes to be included in the transportation system for the Little Snake
travel management planning process should exclude user-created routes.
Recommendations: BLM should use a legal definition of “road” (as defined above) when
designating routes and exclude “user created” routes from the inventory.
D. Mapping of routes should be conducted in the context of existing resources and current
protective management.
As part of comprehensive travel management planning (or site-specific travel management
planning if BLM refuses to limit ORV travel to designated routes throughout the resource area),
we anticipate BLM will produce route maps to illustrate a base travel network, to generate
various route designation proposals, and for purposes of receiving public comments. In these
contexts, it is vital that the agency clearly mark on all maps or proposed maps areas with existing
restrictions on motorized use, such as: wilderness areas, WSAs, current primitive non-motorized
designations, Wild and Scenic Rivers, and ACECs. Depicting existing restrictions will ensure
that public comments are informed by the knowledge that additional routes will not be permitted
in certain areas. Further, maps should indicate resources that could be affected by motorized use,
such as wilderness characteristics and wildlife habitat. Public comments will then be informed
by the potential resource conflicts and the best opportunities for designating areas for nonmotorized recreation.
Recommendations: BLM should identify both existing restrictions on motorized access and
other areas that can be damaged by motorized use on all maps used in travel planning.
E. The RMP should calculate habitat fragmentation and set standards for functional
habitat when making travel planning decisions.
As mentioned in the beginning of this section of our comments (and expanded upon throughout
the Oil and Gas Section of our comments), BLM must address travel management on a landscape
level to ensure that BLM meets its responsibility as stewards of the public land and mitigates
against habitat fragmentation. We have included The Wilderness Society’s most recent Science
and Policy Brief, “Habitat Fragmentation from Roads: Travel Planning Methods to Safeguard
BLM Lands” (Appendix 1). Also included in Appendix 1 are four scientific reports prepared by
TWS and discussed in the habitat fragmentation report. These include: Fragmenting Our Lands:
The Ecological Footprint From Oil and Gas Development; Protecting Northern Arizona’s
National Monuments: The Challenge of Transportation Management;, Wildlife at a Crossroads:
Energy Development in Western Wyoming;, and Ecological Effects of a Transportation Network
on Wildlife. In addition to summarizing the four reports mentioned above, “Habitat
Fragmentation from Roads: Travel Planning Methods to Safeguard BLM Lands” provides a
summary of available scholarly and government reports and studies on the impact of habitat
fragmentation on wildlife, provides methods for calculating habitat fragmentation, and provides
recommendations on how to integrate fragmentation analysis into travel management.
We also recommend you look at the travel planning criteria set out in the Record of Decision for
the Dillon (MT) RMP (relevant sections attached and also available on-line at:
68
http://www.mt.blm.gov/dfo/rod/contents.htm), as an example of criteria that incorporate key
aspects of BLM’s ORV regulations as well as ecological metrics. While this field office did not
complete a comprehensive travel management plan as part of its RMP revision, it included road
density targets and included an appendix outlining the principles it will use when completing a
comprehensive travel management plan during implementation.
Recommendations: BLM should use the information provided in Appendix 1 to measure habitat
fragmentation, conduct a thorough fragmentation analysis, and inform decisions regarding road
closure and other limitations on use in the Little Snake Field Office when conducting travel
management planning.
F. Principles of travel management planning.
When completing a comprehensive travel management plan, it is vital to complete it in a
systematic and transparent manner, as outlined in the following principles:
Key principles of travel planning
(1) Travel management is part of land use planning and should address both recreation and
transportation needs from a landscape perspective.
(2) Prior to conducting an inventory or designation of routes, BLM should assess the present
resources, requirements for protection, and which uses for recreation and development are
compatible with these resources, requirements and other users.
(3) BLM should use a legal definition of “road” when designating routes.
(4) BLM’s consideration of ORV use should take into account its potential damage to resources
and other uses, including exclusion of other users, in compliance with 43 C.F.R. § 8342.1
and Executive Orders (Executive Order No. 11644 (1972) (as amended by Executive Order
No. 11989 (1977)).
(5) Where BLM presents a baseline travel system, it must present route maps in a responsible
manner that does not legitimize illegally-created routes.
(6) BLM should include a detailed closure and restoration schedule in the plan.
(7) BLM should include and implement a monitoring plan.
(8) BLM should include and implement education and outreach in the plan.
(9) BLM should develop alternatives that incorporate the agency’s ability to implement, monitor
and enforce designated routes and areas in light of current budget trends.
The Wilderness Society and the Colorado Mountain Club have developed a template for
conducting travel management planning, including a detailed discussion of these key principles
of travel planning, which we have attached and recommend that the BLM incorporate into the
RMP as the process for further planning.
69
Recommendations: BLM should follow the nine travel planning principles listed above to ensure
that only routes which truly serve a valid purpose for the public remain open. In addition, the
BLM should conduct travel planning in accordance with the template provided with these
comments.
VII. CULTURAL RESOURCES
People have roamed the canyons and hills of the Yampa Valley and surrounding areas for untold
hundreds of years. The cultural resources within the Little Snake Resource Area are already
numerous and known to be of import to human history; many more sites are likely to be
discovered. These sites provide invaluable opportunities to learn more about our history.
The abundant rock art panels provide information regarding the spatial and temporal
relationships between prehistoric populations. There are many examples of petroglyphs and
pictographs throughout the Little Snake Resource Area, especially in Vermillion Basin and Irish
Canyon. Many of these artifacts have already been vandalized by signatures, bullet holes,
chalking on Native American rock art, and even removal of entire petroglyph panels. There is
also a rare medicine wheel near Irish Canyon; an old jeep trail that crosses the site is currently
closed to vehicular traffic. Both the Dinosaur North and Cold Springs Mountains areas have
large numbers of significant and eligible historic properties, including rock art sites, huntergatherer encampments and storage facilities, which are currently protected from the risks
associated with access, associated with ORVs and energy development.
A detailed account of these resources and the inadequacies in the Draft RMP’s knowledge of
cultural resources and failures to provide for protection of these vulnerable and irreplaceable
parts of our history is discussed in the comments of the Colorado Plateau Archaeological
Alliance. We have highlighted certain issues and recommendations below.
A. BLM has not completed an adequate inventory of cultural resources or analysis of
potential impacts to cultural resources from management alternatives. As a result,
BLM has not developed sufficient protective measures and management decisions in the
Draft RMP cannot be supported.
NEPA requires that BLM establish a baseline of the existence and condition of cultural
resources, so that the agency can assess the potential direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of
management decisions. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.15. The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)
also requires that the agency inventory cultural resources in order to assess the potential impacts
of proposed actions, such as route designations, and to develop measures to avoid, minimize, or
mitigate any adverse effects on historic properties. 16 U.S.C. § 470f; 36 C.F.R. §§ 800.4, 800.6.
However, while BLM acknowledges that there is a high potential for additional cultural
resources to be found, only a very small percentage of the planning area has been inventoried to
date and BLM relies upon this lack of information to limit the analysis of impacts from other
management decision. Draft RMP, pp. 4-103 - 4-104. BLM nonetheless proceeds with
decisions such as designating the Sand Wash areas as an open ORV “play area” and making all
of Vermillion Basin available for oil and gas leasing. Because BLM has not identified the
70
cultural resources, it cannot analyze the potential impacts of the various management decisions
on cultural resources.
Further, BLM defers to later NHPA inventories and avoidance of cultural sites to support its
conclusion that the RMP will result in no significant impacts to cultural resources. Draft RMP,
p. 4-104. This approach violates NEPA, because additional impacts to unknown sites and
indirect or cumulative impacts to known and unknown sites in the area of a project are
foreseeable and could be avoided or mitigated. Similarly, this approach violates the NHPA by
ignoring potential adverse effects on sites and their location, setting, and design, as well as ways
to avoid them. 36 C.F.R. §§ 800.5, 800.6. In fact, the Draft RMP does not acknowledge the
cumulative impacts of large-scale energy development, which can adversely affect site setting
and integrity, even if known sites are avoided.
Recommendations: BLM should commit to inventorying cultural resources in the Little Snake
Resource Area. Waiting to inventory until a project is proposed results in limited additional
information, while ignoring the potentially larger context of additional sites and their setting.
Areas at most risk from damaging activities should be prioritized. Inventories should be
completed and a thorough NEPA analysis so that BLM can make informed decisions and avoid
or mitigate adverse effects, as required by the NHPA. The Draft RMP should acknowledge the
range of direct, indirect and cumulative effects that may arise from management decisions,
especially large-scale energy development, and provide measures to avoid, minimize and
mitigate those impacts. Prior to designating areas or routes open to ORV travel or permitting
large-scale energy development, BLM should commit to inventorying cultural resources,
evaluating sites and mitigating potential effects. Further details about these inadequacies and the
recommended ways to protect cultural resources are included in the comments of the Colorado
Plateau Archaeological Alliance.
B. BLM should prioritize protection of cultural resources in management decisions.
1. The RMP does not give sufficient priority to cultural resources in management decisions.
As discussed above, FLPMA permits BLM to manage the public lands such that not all uses are
permitted in all places. Further, Section 106 of the NHPA imposes obligations on the BLM to
prioritize identification and protection of cultural resources; Section 110 obligates the BLM to
proactively identify and evaluate sites that may be eligible for listing on the National Register.
16 U.S.C. §§ 470f , 470h. However, the Draft RMP does not even include protection of cultural
resources in discussing the risks from energy development and roads, the potential benefits from
special management areas, and the socioeconomic values of the region. Draft RMP, Planning
Issues, pp. 1-5 – 1-10. Based on the impressive and important cultural resources in the Little
Snake Resource Area, BLM should manage other activities on the public lands to minimize risks
to cultural resources.
Recommendations: In general, the Proposed RMP should identify protection of cultural
resources as a priority, both in decisions to permit potentially damaging activities and in
decisions to protect sensitive areas for other natural resources that may also benefit cultural
resources. BLM should acknowledge the existence of important cultural resources in Vermillion
71
Basin, Dinosaur North, Cold Springs Mountain and Irish Canyon and prioritize these areas for
further inventory and immediate protection.
Areas where cultural resources are known or likely to occur should not be open to cross-country
ORV use. Areas with high densities of cultural resources should be closed to ORVs. In other
areas with cultural resources, ORVs should be limited to designated routes after an inventory to
determine appropriate locations and conditions. This is also consistent with BLM’s regulations
regarding location of areas and routes for ORVs. 43 C.F.R. § 8342.1
Similarly, areas where high densities of cultural resources are known or likely to occur should
not be open to oil and gas development, or should include non-waivable NSO stipulations. In
other areas with cultural resources, location of development should be limited based on an
inventory to determine appropriate locations and conditions.
BLM should inventory the Little Snake Resources Area for sites that may be eligible for the
National Register and pursue nominations and recognition for historic properties and
archaeological districts.
2. The Draft RMP does not comply with IM 2007-030 regarding protection of cultural
resources in travel management.
Instruction Memorandum (IM) No. 2007-030, which was issued and became effective on
December 15, 2006, addresses “Cultural Resource Considerations for Off-Highway Vehicle
(OHV) Designation and Travel Management.” IM 2007-030 acknowledges the “overall
beneficial effect of route designations on cultural resources.” The IM includes a broad
recognition of the benefits to other resources from controlling motorized access, stating:
“Sensitive resource areas may be protected through rerouting, reconstruction, and new
construction, limitations on vehicle type and time or season of travel, in addition to closure.”
Further, in providing direction on developing management, the IM notes that: “Selection of
specific road and trail networks and imposition of other use limitations should avoid impacts on
historic properties wherever possible” and requires that “existing cultural information must be
considered.” As discussed in the comments of the Colorado Plateau Archaeological Alliance,
BLM has sufficient important information available to indicate areas that should be protected
(such as Vermillion Basin). Nonetheless, the Draft RMP declines to make decisions to protect
these areas. As mandated by IM 007-030: “Evaluation of routes or areas to be designated as
closed to protect cultural resources may be based on existing inventory information and should
not be postponed until additional information is acquired.” (emphasis added).
Recommendations: The RMP should specifically acknowledge the benefits to sensitive
resources, including cultural resources, from closing areas to motorized use or otherwise limiting
access. In setting out criteria for comprehensive travel management planning, the RMP should
not delay closures and other designations to protect cultural and other sensitive resources from
the damage associated with motorized access, and should adopt a more restrictive travel network
to address these concerns.
72
C. BLM should nominate and manage an archaeological district, including Vermillion
Basin, Cold Springs Mountain and Irish Canyon.
1. The resources in Vermillion Basin, Cold Springs Mountain and Irish Canyon evidence a
regional movement of prehistoric peoples and should be managed as part of an
archaeological district to enhance inventory, protection and research.
The cultural resources in Vermillion Basin are nationally significant and have importance in
relation to other sites in the surrounding areas. As noted in the comments of the Colorado
Plateau Archaeological Alliance, a National Register nomination for rock art sites in the
Vermillion Basin was initiated several years ago. These comments also discuss the 5
archaeological sites with 39 distinct rock art panels and associated features found in Irish and
Vermillion Canyons, which can yield information important in prehistory and history, including
the development and demise of northern Fremont culture, the arrival and interface of Ute and
Eastern Shoshone populations, and Euroamerican exploration and settlement. Further, these sites
relate to sites in Irish Canyon, Cold Springs Mountain and Brown’s Park, showing a movement
of peoples and ideas from north to south, south to north, and along tributaries of the Green River
throughout various periods of time. Overall, the expert comments acknowledge “the importance
of the Vermillion Basin to an understanding of Fremont culture interactions with ancestral Plains
peoples,” which requires that “the entire Vermillion Basin should be subjected to an intensive
Class III survey to determine the nature and extent of Fremont adaptations, and to assist the
BLM in its efforts to mitigate direct and indirect adverse effects to these resources.” The
Colorado Plateau Archaeological Alliance expects that further study will document Fremont
villages and farmsteads focused on maize horticulture in the Little Snake Resource Area.
The nomination of the Vermillion Basin as a National Register archaeological district should be
completed by the BLM and formally submitted to the National Park Service. Given the
relationship of sites in the Vermillion Basin to those in Irish Canyon, Cold Springs Mountain and
Brown’s Park, the BLM should consider an archaeological district that includes nearby
archaeological sites.
Recommendations: Section 110 of the NHPA obligates BLM to identify sites that may be
eligible for the National Register. BLM should actively assess the sites in Vermillion Basin,
Irish Canyon, Cold Spring Mountain and surrounding areas as appropriate for nomination of a
National Register archaeological district. BLM should also conduct an intensive survey to
document the cultural resources, including their setting, and implement management
prescriptions to protect them, including closure to oil and gas development, closure to ORVs and
exclusion of ROWs.
2. The 1% surface disturbance limitation for oil and gas development of Vermillion Basin
will cause significant impacts to its cultural resources, which should be protected in
accordance with FLPMA’s multiple use mandate.
As discussed in detail previously in these comments and those of the Colorado Plateau
Archaeological Alliance, the 1% surface disturbance and rolling reclamation approach to oil and
gas development is likely to result in more intensive development in areas of high potential. In
73
addition, energy development requires construction of access roads, which are likely to lead to
higher levels of vandalism and degradation. The direct, indirect and cumulative impacts from
energy development in Vermillion Basin would likely devastate the cultural resources in the
area.
Recommendations: The BLM’s conclusions that this approach to development of Vermillion
Basin will not significantly impact cultural resources cannot be supported. The area should be
closed to oil and gas development to protect the cultural resources.
VIII. COMMERCIAL OIL SHALE LEASING
The BLM is currently reassessing its approach to leasing for development of oil shale resources.
See, e.g., BLM’s “Oil Shale Resources” program page (available on-line at:
http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/oil_shale.html ). At this point, the BLM has issued
leases for research, development and demonstration (RD&D) projects in Colorado
(http://www.co.blm.gov/wrra/WRFO_Oil_shale.htm ) and Utah
(http://www.blm.gov/utah/vernal/oilshaledraft.htm ), which are intended to “test whether current
scientific knowledge and expertise will allow oil shale to be developed effectively, economically,
and with responsibility to the environment and to local communities.” As shown in the project
descriptions, a range of different technologies are being assessed for development (ranging from
in situ development to a more traditional “mining” approach), which are likely to have different
potential risks and magnitude of effects on the environment. These projects have not progressed
sufficiently for there to be any assessment of which technologies will be effective, let alone
which technologies are likely to be used. While the agency has completed an initial scoping
process for a programmatic EIS to “assess alternative actions for commercial leasing of oil shale
resources” (available on-line at: http://ostseis.anl.gov/ ), this document cannot analyze or, really,
even describe expected impacts from leasing because the technology that will be used to develop
oil shale has not yet been determined.
Nonetheless, the Draft RMP proposes to “make available the federal coal and oil shale estate for
exploration and development” and designates lands as available for oil shale leasing “consistent
with lands available for oil and gas leasing or coal leasing.” Draft RMP, pp. 2-172, 2-174. As a
result, 93% of mineral resources in the planning area, based on either those available for oil and
gas leasing (Draft RMP, p. 2-57) or federal coal lands available (based on 621,980 of 671,170
acres – Draft RMP, pp. 2-73), will be available for oil shale development.
This decision cannot be supported based on available information. The technology or
technologies that would be used to develop oil shale resources has not been determined – as
acknowledged by BLM, the RD&D leases are being used to assess “whether current scientific
knowledge and expertise will allow” development of oil shale; so the question is still “if” oil
shale can be developed, not even “how” and certainly not “when.” Therefore, the agency cannot
reasonably assess the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of leasing and cannot meet the
requirements of NEPA. As found by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, a failure to
thoroughly analyze “unique environmental concerns” like those related to oil shale leasing and
74
development will invalidate decisions to make lands available for leasing and leases issued.
Pennaco Energy, Inc. v. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 377 F.3d 1147, 1159 (10th Cir. 2006).
Recommendations: Since the methodology of oil shale leasing and development cannot be
reasonably predicted, BLM cannot take the requisite “hard look” at potential impacts and,
consequently, should not make a broad commitment to open the vast majority of the Little Snake
planning area to commercial leasing in this RMP. Rather, the RMP should delay designating
lands available for oil shale leasing and commit to amending the RMP once sufficient
information is developed. Among the items the BLM intends to analyze in the PEIS is the
amendment of existing RMPs to address oil shale leasing in, among other areas, the Little Snake
Resource Area. See, http://ostseis.anl.gov/eis/what/index.cfm. While we do not concede that the
BLM will have information sufficient to take the “hard look” at a commercial leasing program
required by law in the PEIS, this ongoing effort provides yet another reason that it makes little
sense for the agency to make lands available for commercial oil shale leasing in the Little Snake
RMP.
IX. AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN AND SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES
As discussed in the Management Framework portion of these comments, FLPMA obligates the
BLM to “ give priority to the designation and protection of areas of critical environmental
concern [ACECs]” when preparing land use plans. 43 U.S.C. §1712(c)(3).
BLM’ s ACEC Manual (1613) provides additional detail on the criteria to be considered in
ACEC designation, as discussed in the applicable regulations, as well. See, Manual 1613,
Section .1 (Characteristics of ACECs); 43 C.F.R. § 8200. An area must possess relevance
(such that it has significant value(s) in historic, cultural or scenic values, fish & wildlife
resources, other natural systems/processes, or natural hazards) and importance (such that it has
special significance and distinctiveness by being more than locally significant or especially
rare, fragile or vulnerable). In addition, the area must require special management attention to
protect the relevant and important values (where current management is not sufficient to
protect these values or where the needed management action is considered unusual or unique),
which is addressed in special protective management prescriptions. For potential ACECs,
management prescriptions are to be “ fully developed” in the RMP. Manual 1613, Section .22
(Develop Management Prescriptions for Potential ACECs).
A. BL M failed to meet its legal obligation under FL PM A to pr ior itize the designation of
ACECs.
1. The decision to omit the retention of existing ACECs or designation of new ACECs in
Alternative B violates FLPMA and BLM’s internal guidance.
As mentioned throughout our comments, BLM has placed the development of oil and gas and
motorized recreation as a priority over protection of natural resources. The Draft RMP
75
contemplates designating no ACECs under Alternative B - including removing designation for
all existing ACECs. Draft RMP, p. 2-37). Analyzing an alternative which removes all existing
ACEC designations and does not consider the designation of any ACEC does not comply with
FLPMA or BLM Manual direction. BLM admits Alternative B fails to meet the mandates of
FLPMA or its internal guidance by its very definition of Alternative C. Alternative C states,
"Area protections such as designation as ACECs and WSRs would be limited to those areas
where such designations are necessary to protect sensitive resources." Draft RMP, p. ES-6
(emphasis added). While Alternative C only retains the designation of the Irish Canyon ACEC,
and is therefore out of compliance with FLPMA for its own reasons (as will be discussed in
detail below), Alternative B clearly does not fall within FLPMA’s mandate to prioritize the
designation of ACECs. If BLM were to choose Alternative B, it would by its own omission, fail
to protect even the one area it believes is absolutely “necessary” to protect.
Recommendations:
The Proposed Plan must be corrected to ensure that all alternatives analyzed comply with the law
and with agency policy. At a minimum, Alternative B must be corrected to include the
designation of the Irish Canyon ACEC.
2. BLM’s Range of Alternatives, in Regard to the Designation of ACECs, Fails to Account for
the Many Sensitive Resources Found in the Little Snake Resource Area.
Alternative D states, "Area protections such as ACECs and WSRs would be maximized." Draft
RMP, p. ES-6). Far from maximizing ACEC designation, Alternative D fails to provide
adequate special management through ACEC designation for even the most imperiled resources.
Center for Native Ecosystems nominated all Colorado Natural Heritage Program Potential
Conservation Areas (PCAs) for ACEC designation. Appendix G does not clearly state the criteria
that the BLM used to determine whether a nominated ACEC met the criteria for designation, but
suggests that PCAs containing BLM Sensitive plants and/or G1/G2 (which the Heritage Program
defines as "globally critically imperiled" or "globally imperiled") communities were found to
meet relevance and importance criteria..
However, Pot Creek and Whiskey Springs proposed ACECs in Alternative D are the only
proposed ACECs designed for BLM Sensitive plants and/or G1/G2 communities that fully cover
the BLM surface within the corresponding PCA (which is the Whiskey Springs East PCA in the
case of the proposed Whiskey Springs ACEC). Many PCAs that do meet these criteria are not
included in Alternative D's ACECs (or as ACECs in any other alternative) at all, or are only
partially covered.
The following PCAs contain BLM Sensitive plants yet are not analyzed in any alternatives:
1. Bassett Spring (also includes G1/G2 species)
2. Chicken Springs (also includes G1/G2 species)
3. Cold Springs Mountain Springs (also includes G1/G2 species) (Very High Biodiversity
Significance)
4. Gates of Lodore (also includes T2 taxa)
5. Hackings Draw
6. Phillips Creek
76
7. The Steps
8. West Boone Draw (also includes G1/G2 species)
9. Zenobia Peak East (also includes G1/G2 species)
The following PCAs contain G1/G2 communities yet are not analyzed in any alternative:
1. Little Snake River at Cross Mountain, B3
2. Williams Fork, B3
Many of the PCAs are only covered because of the White-tailed Prairie Dog ACEC (designated
in Alternative D, Draft RMP, p. 2-38), and may not be adequately protected even if that ACEC is
designated in the Proposed Plan. Even the Gibben’s Beardtongue ACEC does not cover all of
the BLM surface included in the PCAs designed to protect this species. It is also noteworthy that
none of the PCAs with the highest biodiversity value (B1- or B2-ranked) have all of the BLM
surface included in the Alternative D ACECs. The Draft RMP provides no information about
why BLM surface in these PCAs were not included in the proposed ACECs. The Natural
Heritage Program designs PCA boundaries specifically to meet the needs of the imperiled
elements that they contain, so without a thorough explanation by the BLM for why these areas
were excluded it appears that even if these ACECs are designated in the Proposed Plan, they may
not be effective at conserving rare elements.
The following PCAs contain BLM Sensitive plants, yet only portions of the BLM surface
are analyzed in Alternative D (the PCA name is followed by the proposed ACECs
providing partial coverage):
1. Ace-in-the-Hole Draw (also includes G1/G2 community), White-tailed Prairie Dog ACEC
2. Browns Draw (also includes G1/G2 species) - Whiskey Springs Draw ACEC
3. Bull Canyon at Big Joe Basin - Bull Canyon ACEC
4. Bull Canyon - Bull Canyon ACEC
5. G Gap - G Gap ACEC, White-tailed Prairie Dog ACEC
6. Horse Draw (also includes G1/G2 community) (Very High Biodiversity Significance) White-tailed Prairie Dog ACEC, Cold Desert ACEC
7. Irish Canyon (Very High Biodiversity Significance) - Limestone Ridge ACEC, Irish Canyon
ACEC, Bull Canyon ACEC, White-tailed Prairie Dog ACEC
8. Lookout Mountain - Lookout Mountain ACEC
9. No Name Spring (also includes G1/G2 species) - No Name Spring
10. North Vermillion Bluffs - Lookout Mountain ACEC, White-tailed Prairie Dog ACEC
11. Pablo Spring (also includes G1/G2 community) - Bull Canyon ACEC
12. South Vermillion Bluffs - Lookout Mountain ACEC, White-tailed Prairie Dog ACEC
13. Spitzie Draw (also includes G1/G2 community, G1/G2 species, listed species) (Outstanding
Biodiversity Significance) - Gibben's Beardtongue ACEC
14. Sterling Place (also includes G1/G2 species) (Very High Biodiversity Significance) Gibben's beardtongue ACEC
15. Vermillion Bluffs West - White-tailed Prairie Dog ACEC, G Gap ACEC
16. Willow Spring at Cold Spring Mountain (also includes G1/G2 species) - Willow Spring
ACEC
77
The following PCAs contain G1/G2 communities, yet only portions of the BLM surface are
analyzed in Alternative D ACECs:
1. Deception Creek - Deception Creek ACEC
2. Sellers Hole Ridge - White-tailed Prairie Dog ACEC
3. Shell Creek - White-tailed Prairie Dog ACEC, Cold Desert ACEC
4. Vermillion Creek Falls (Very High Biodiversity Significance) - Bull Canyon ACEC
It is also unclear why the BLM limited its analysis of PCA relevance and importance criteria to
whether the PCA contained BLM Sensitive plants only, as opposed to whether it contained BLM
Sensitive animals. PCAs containing BLM Sensitive animals should also meet the relevance and
importance criteria.
The following PCAs contain habitat for BLM Sensitive animals, yet are not analyzed in
Alternative D:
1. Black Meadow
2. Dry Meadow
3. Freeman Creek
4. South Fork Park
5. Tipton
The Colorado BLM's Sensitive species list has not been revised since 2000. Because the list is
outdated, it is particularly important that the BLM also consider the Natural Heritage Program's
current imperilment rankings when determining whether an element may deserve ACEC
protection. Several PCAs contain G1/G2/T1/T2 species or subspecies (T rankings are identical
to G ranks but are for trinomials - subspecies or varieties) yet are not fully covered by proposed
ACECs in any alternative. Federal agencies (including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under
the direction of the Endangered Species Act) provide the same types of protections to imperiled
subspecies/varieties as they do to full species, so G1/G2 and T1/T2 taxa should be afforded the
same consideration in designating ACECs. Two of the PCAs listed below contain habitat for
species protected under the Endangered Species Act, which should also make these areas a
priority for designation of ACEC.
The following PCAs contain T1/T2 species, yet are not analyzed in any alternative:
1. Buffham Place
2. Cedar Springs Draw
3. East Boone Draw
4. Zenobia Peak and Douglas Mountain
The following PCAs contain G1/G2 species, yet only portions of the BLM surface are
included in Alternative D:
1. Middle Yampa River (also includes Endangered Species Act listed species) (Very High
Biodiversity Significance) - Little Juniper Canyon ACEC
2. Yampa River at Lily Park (also includes Endangered Species Act listed species) (Very High
Biodiversity Significance) - Cross Mountain Canyon ACEC
3. Yampa River at Little Juniper Canyon (Very High Biodiversity Significance) - Little Juniper
Canyon ACEC
78
The BLM also misses the opportunity to conserve specific special status species by failing to
propose any ACECs for BLM surface intersecting PCAs containing the following species
(the species name is followed by the PCA names) in any alternative:
1. Colorado River cutthroat trout (Freeman Creek, South Fork Park)
2. Duchesne milkvetch (Gates of Lodore)
3. Ownbey's thistle (Hackings Draw)
4. Autumn willow (Phillips Creek)
Only portions of BLM surface intersecting PCAs containing the following species are
analyzed in Alternative D - no single PCA containing these species has its BLM surface
fully proposed (the species name is followed by the PCA names) for designation as an
ACEC:
1. Debris milkvetch (North Vermillion Bluffs, South Vermillion Bluffs)
2. Nelson milkvetch (Ace-in-the-Hole Draw)
3. Woodside buckwheat (Bull Canyon at Big Joe Basin, Bull Canyon Knob, Gates of Lodore,
Irish Canyon, Pablo Spring, The Steps)
4. Ligulate feverfew (Bull Canyon at Big Joe Basin, Bull Canyon Knob, Irish Canyon)
5. Gibbens's penstemon (Spitzie Draw, Sterling Place)
6. Mountain clover (Irish Canyon, The Steps)
Recommendations:
All existing ACECs should be maintained under all alternatives. The BLM should ensure that all
of the BLM surface in each of the PCAs listed above is analyzed as a potential ACEC in at least
one alternative in the Proposed Plan. BLM should develop management prescriptions to protect
the areas identified for protection by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program. Failing to fully
protect B1/B2 PCAs (including those for Gibbens's penstemon) is an especially grave error.
3. BLM’s Preferred Alternative fails to prioritize the designation of proposed ACECs.
Appendix G of the Draft RMP makes a compelling case for the important values in many of the
ACECs proposed in Alternative D. BLM, however, failed to include designation of these
ACECs in its Preferred Alternative. This failure to designate areas which met the importance
criteria is true even for currently designated ACECs; in fact, the BLM openly admits that the
values for which these ACECs were originally designated are still present.
Alternative D would retain the existing 4 ACECs as well as designate 12 new ACECs. The total
acreage of protected land in Alternative D is 310,390 (Draft RMP, p. 2-38). All 16 of these
ACECs were found to meet the relevance and importance criteria in Appendix G of the Draft
RMP, yet the BLM’s Preferred Alternative would only designate one ACEC, a total of 11,910
acres (Draft RMP, p. 2-38). Clearly, BLM has prioritized the development of oil and gas and
motorized recreation over protection of resources, despite FLPMA’s requirement that BLM,
“give priority to the designation and protection of areas of critical environmental concern
[ACECs]” when preparing land use plans. 43 U.S.C. §1712(c)(3).
79
Recommendations: In order to comply with FLPMA and BLM internal guidance (as outlined
above), BLM should designate all ACECs in the Proposed Plan which have been found to meet
the relevance and importance criteria and considered for designation in at least one alternative
of the Draft RMP.
B. BLM failed to adequately protect white-tailed prairie dogs, sage grouse, Gibben’s
penstemon, black-footed ferrets, raptors, and other special status or potential special
species.
BLM failed to designate ACECs for a number of species, both plant and animal, as was outlined
in our comments above. However, several of these species warrant special notice as the
Preferred Alternative’s general management prescriptions within occurrences of these species
will be particularly detrimental to their continued recovery and survival.
1. White-tailed prairie dogs.
a. BLM’s decision to use colony size as a filter in determining which whit-tailed prairie
dog colonies to protect is flawed.
The Draft RMP uses colony size to determine whether or not disturbance will be allowed in
occupied white-tailed prairie dog habitat. However, it is challenging to consistently map whitetailed prairie dog colony boundaries because this species does not clip vegetation to maintain
clear lines of sight within colonies like black-taileds do, and white-taileds have a looser social
structure which results in lower prairie dog densities and less clearly defined territories. The
Colorado Division of Wildlife attempted on-the-ground mapping as well as aerial transects for
white-tailed prairie dogs, but found that different observers produced different results. Colony
size can change quickly because plague is present throughout the white-tailed prairie dog's range,
so the BLM would need to reassess colony size before each proposed activity.
The system that the Draft RMP proposes would conserve relatively small colonies while
allowing for development in larger colonies even though these larger colonies have greater
biological value. This proposal actually promotes habitat fragmentation and further collapse of
the prairie dog ecosystem. Conserving white-tailed prairie dog habitat is key to conserving
ferruginous hawks, mountain plovers, burrowing owls, and the potential for black-footed ferret
habitat in this Field Office. White-tailed prairie dogs may persist in the 10-acres-or-less colonies
that the BLM proposes to conserve, but these imperiled associated species are unlikely to tolerate
such fragmented conditions.
The BLM also proposes to disallow surface disturbance between April 1 to June 15 "to protect
prairie dog pups" (p. ES-9). This is a laudable goal, but it does not conserve habitat, it just
reduces disturbance and potential for mortality of naive pups. This seasonal stipulation also does
not adequately cover the breeding season, and if surface disturbance disrupts breeding, there may
be few pups to benefit from the proposed timing limitation. Female prairie dogs are only
sexually receptive for a few hours on a single day in a given year, so even very temporary
disturbance can preclude an individual from breeding for a full year. While we believe that
surface disturbance should be disallowed in prairie dog habitat at any time of year, if the BLM
80
truly wishes to conserve reproductive output it should lengthen this timing limitation to include
the full breeding season - a February 1 start date would be more appropriate.
Recommendations:
To save time, expense, and white-tailed prairie dog habitat, the BLM should simply disallow
surface disturbance in prairie dog habitat regardless of colony size.
b. BLM failed to adequately protect white-tailed prairie dogs and their habitat.
Appendix G states that the white-tailed prairie dog is a Species of Special Concern according to
the Colorado Division of Wildlife. Unfortunately this is not the case. While the Division is
working on a statewide management plan, it has not added the prairie dog to the Species of
Concern list yet. It is, however, considered to be one of the Species of Greatest Conservation
Need by CDOW. Conservation groups did petition for Endangered Species Act listing, and
recent media reports have exposed how the negative petition finding was ordered by political
appointee Julie MacDonald, so the negative finding may well be set aside shortly. After the
petition was submitted, the states conducted their own Conservation Assessment and also found
that the BLM's regulatory mechanisms were potentially inadequate. The final Conservation
Assessment, approved by the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (the umbrella
group overseeing state wildlife agencies in the West) in January 2006 contains the following
calls for ACEC designation for white-tailed prairie dog complexes:
Critical areas identified during these analyses must be incorporated into Land Use
Plans (e.g. RMPs) with conservation actions focusing on protecting unoccupied
and occupied habitat, protecting corridors for immigration and emigration, and
allowing maintenance and expansion of WTPD colonies and complexes. (p. 51)
Special protection for large WTPD complexes should be employed by designating
them as ACECs or "special management areas" on public lands. (p. 63)
The Conservation Assessment also made specific recommendations about oil and gas drilling in
white-tailed prairie dog habitat:
Oil and gas development must be designed to minimize adverse impacts on
existing WTPD colonies/complexes, and areas identified for expansion of
colonies/complexes. To assess impacts at proposed sites, WTPD occupied and
potential habitat should be documented prior to development. A minimal analysis
should include mapping of WTPD suitable and occupied habitat, use of GIS to
determine spatial distribution of these areas, estimate of local population
densities, and evaluation of dispersal potential between suitable habitat patches
within each complex (e.g. between colonies). Baseline information will help
determine whether the loss of occupied and suitable habitat due to resource
extraction activities could be compensated for by better managing other suitable
habitat within a proposed project site and/or avoiding suitable and occupied
habitat entirely by allowing development only in habitat not suitable for WTPD
occupation. In addition, project design of oil and gas facilities in and adjacent to
81
occupied and suitable habitat should include location of wells and roads outside of
these areas, consideration of directional drilling when wells are proposed within
suitable and occupied habitat, timing restrictions of vehicle travel to periods when
WTPDs are less active, and regulation of vehicle traffic type. Finally, because
knowledge of the effects of resource extraction on WTPD populations is limited,
monitoring at sites before, during, and after development should be required. (p.
52)
the threat posed by oil and gas exploration and extraction may justify listing
unless it is addressed on public lands managed by the BLM. It is critical that the
BLM, through its Land Use Plans, manage oil and gas leasing and development in
WTPD complexes to maximize prairie dog habitat potential. Land Use Plans
must be revised on a state-by-state basis and WTPD protection should be initiated
in order to prevent further, more drastic actions, possibly including listing the
WTPD under the ESA. (pp. 70-71)
The BLM fails to implement these recommendations in the Draft RMP.
Recommendations:
The BLM should include the White-tailed Prairie Dog ACEC in every alternative, and should
designate this ACEC in its Proposed Plan. To conserve the functional white-tailed prairie dog
ecosystem complete with its complement of species like the black-footed ferret, ferruginous
hawk, burrowing owl, and mountain plover, the BLM must conserve some large prairie dog
habitat areas. The Little Snake Complex and the Wolf Creek Complex are Colorado's two best
white-tailed complexes. Last year the Colorado BLM chose to lease the majority of the Wolf
Creek Complex for oil and gas drilling, which makes it all the more important to work toward
conservation of an alternate site for ferret reintroduction in Colorado. The BLM has everything
else in place for ferret reintroduction in the Little Snake Field Office, except for prairie dog
populations that are healthy enough, dense enough, and unfragmented enough to support ferrets,
and also lacks the management direction to prioritize prairie dog and ferret management over
conflicting uses. This is the key flaw in the entire ferret program. Only Alternative D would
provide the buffers, connectivity, and absence of conflicting uses that could make ferret
reintroduction viable in the Little Snake Field Office. Alternative D should also include Right of
Way exclusion and No Ground Disturbance for this area. The BLM and CDOW should evaluate
the success of the new seasonal prairie dog shooting closure and consider implementing a yearround closure in potential ferret reintroduction habitat to help bolster prairie dog populations to
where ferret reintroduction could be feasible and to help further ferret recovery if ferrets are
eventually released. Other white-tailed prairie dog ferret reintroduction areas like Shirley Basin
and Coyote Basin (Utah) include year-round shooting closures in at least portions of the
reintroduction area.
2. Greater Sage Grouse.
As articulated in the Impacts from Oil and Gas on Wildlife and the Greater Sage Grouse portion
of our comments, BLM has an opportunity to make decisions as part of this planning process
82
which could greatly benefit the long-term survival of the Greater Sage Grouse. Unfortunately,
BLM failed to consider designating (or even analyzing) the proposed Sage Grouse Conservation
ACEC which was proposed as part of the appeal of BLM’s decision to allow drilling on the
Focus Ranch parcel. This is particularly unfortunate given that according to Clait Braun, a
recognized expert on Sage Grouse (see comments submitted by Clait Braun on the Draft RMP),
“Greater sage grouse habitat protection is particularly important in the Little Snake Resource
Area, which contains the largest, healthiest lek complex in Colorado” (Braun, C.E. 2004.
Declaration re: APD for Focus Ranch, Federal #12-1) (Attached).
Recommendations: BLM should designate the Greater Sage Grouse Conservation ACEC as
proposed during the Focus Ranch APD Appeal to aid in the conservation of Greater Sage Grouse
populations.
3. Gibbens's penstemon.
It is extremely difficult to understand why the BLM would not designate an ACEC to conserve
Gibben's penstemon in the preferred alternative. This is one of the rarest plant species found on
BLM lands in Colorado, and is ranked as a G1S1 species by the Natural Heritage Program - the
highest level of imperilment. For the BLM to find that Irish Canyon warrants ACEC designation
and an area like Spitzie Draw does not is arbitrary and capricious. Center for Native Ecosystems
and Biodiversity Conservation Alliance have both considered petitioning for Endangered Species
Act protection for Gibben's penstemon in the past. The Little Snake RMP revision is BLM's
opportunity to show that it is serious about the conservation of this extremely rare wildflower.
Recommendations
The BLM should include ACEC designation for Gibbens's penstemon in every alternative and
should be designated in the Proposed Plan. Both the Spitzie Draw and Sterling Place PCAs
should be designated in their entirety. Management should follow that described in the Natural
Systems section below.
4. Black-footed ferrets.
The BLM has been relying on the restriction that "no surface disturbing activities would be
allowed that might significantly alter the prairie dog complex and make it unsuitable for
reintroduction of the black-footed ferret" (Draft RMP, p. 2-26) to mitigate surface disturbance
impacts on ferrets, but we have long argued that this is essentially meaningless. Since the 1995
plague event the complex has remained unsuitable for ferret reintroduction already, so it is
totally unclear what would have to happen to make the complex even less suitable.
"Significantly alter" is never defined or quantified, either. Alternative D proposes to retain this
language, according to page 2-27, and the preferred alternative uses similarly vague language:
"Surface disturbing activities will be minimized to the extent reasonable to reduce landscape
disturbance to prairie dog habitat for the black-footed ferret" (Draft RMP, p. 2-27). What is
reasonable? By how much should landscape disturbance be reduced?
Recommendations:
The RMP revision provides an opportunity for the BLM to chart a course involving the
following steps:
83
•
•
•
•
Improved prairie dog and ferret management
Prairie dog recovery in the Little Snake Complex
Ferret reintroduction
Ferret recovery in the Little Snake Complex
Without actively working toward these goals, they are unlikely to be achieved. Designating the
White-tailed Prairie Dog ACEC and employing the management prescriptions in Alternative D
along with those we have discussed above would go a long way toward making ferret
reintroduction possible. But following the preferred alternative's course of further fragmenting
large colonies will make recovery of either species much more challenging. This RMP should
also include plans for plague control including dusting potential reintroduction areas and
distributing plague vaccine baits when they become available. These are long-term needs for
prairie dog and ferret conservation.
5. Raptors.
The preferred alternative proposes to apply NSO stipulations only within a one-quarter mile of
raptor nest sites "to preserve the integrity of the sites" (p. ES-9). However, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service has developed guidelines for raptor management that require larger buffers from
disturbance than this.
Recommendations:
The BLM must consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure that its raptor
management is in compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act, and the Endangered Species Act. The Utah Field Office of the Fish and Wildlife
Service is able to provide the BLM with these raptor guidelines, and the BLM should adopt their
recommended management. At present, the RMP's proposed management is inadequate.
6. Special status plants.
While we believe that special status plants warrant ACEC designation and will best be conserved
via designation, should the BLM refuse to designate ACECs for these resources, we still
recommend that strong management prescriptions be developed and mandated.
Recommendations:
BLM should develop management prescriptions to protect special status plants including:
• Inclusion of buffers in order to protect against indirect effects of disturbance.
• No Surface Occupancy stipulations throughout the habitat plus buffer, with no
opportunity for modification, waiver, or exception.
• Right of Way exclusion protections.
• No Ground Disturbance protections, with the opportunities for exceptions should
fencing/exclosures be needed to further plant conservation goals.
C. BLM failed to consider management prescriptions for ACECs which will adequately
protect the natural resources.
84
We have already noted the many ways in which the BLM must incorporate additional PCAs in
this suite of ACECs, and how proposed ACECs must be expanded to incorporate the full extent
of BLM surface within the PCAs. In addition, the BLM must provide adequate management for
these proposed ACECs as well as all designated ACECs in the Proposed Plan.
The management prescriptions in this plan seem to be focused on merely avoiding the exact
locations occupied by the irreplaceable values rather than defending entire ACECs so that those
values are not compromised by indirect effects. ACECs are supposed to act as mini reserves to
ensure that the ecological processes necessary to sustain rare elements are conserved while
sources of degradation are kept at bay, but this is not how the BLM is operating. Instead,
ACECs are seen as just another hoop to jump through before disturbance can be approved. The
BLM may require slight changes in siting, but rarely disallows intrusion in the ACEC itself.
This is counter to FLPMA, which charges the BLM with an affirmative duty to designate and
protect ACECs - not just the individual plants that they contain. But the BLM routinely cites
language in its RMPs allowing the agency to permit conflicting uses in ACECs as long as direct
harm to the rare species can be avoided. This is exactly the kind of loophole that this RMP
revision should be closing rather than opening.
The management prescriptions outlined in the Draft RMP do not adequately protect the resources
for which ACECs are designated in the alternatives. Even Alternative D attaches only a CSU
rather than NSO to most of the ACECs, which will result in extensive fragmentation of habitat
and presence of indirect effects of disturbance even if these areas are designated.
Recommendations:
Any ACECs proposed to conserve rare plants or plant communities must contain the following
management components to truly be effective:
• Inclusion of buffers in order to protect against indirect effects of disturbance (PCA
boundaries should achieve this)
• No Surface Occupancy stipulations throughout the entire ACEC, with no opportunity for
modification, waiver, or exception
• Right of Way exclusion protections
• No Ground Disturbance protections, with the opportunities for exceptions should
fencing/exclosures be needed to further plant conservation goals.
X. SOCIOECONOMICS
The following comments are divided into three sections. The first addresses our concerns with
the overall quality and thoroughness of the BLM’s assessment of the socioeconomic impacts
associated with the RMP Alternatives. The second section addresses our grave concerns with the
resource and acreage figures used to make these socioeconomic assessments (and presumably all
the impact assessments throughout the Draft RMP). The final section discusses our significant
concerns with BLM’s analysis of the impacts of the timing of oil and gas development and it’s
dismissal of proposals to slow development by implementing phased or strategic leasing or
development.
85
A. General comments on the socioeconomic analysis
In its assessment of the socioeconomic impacts of the alternatives for the Little Snake RMPPA,
the BLM focused almost exclusively on the potential benefits of the alternatives, and specifically
on the potential benefits of expanded oil and gas development. At the same time, the agency
produced inadequate (or in some cased nonexistent) assessments of the socioeconomic costs
associated with the alternatives and with expanded oil and gas development. This omission
represents a serious flaw in the impact analysis and must be corrected. The BLM has also failed
to adequately assess the impacts of the management Alternatives on key sectors of the local
economy.
Expanded oil and gas development in the Little Snake Resource Area is likely to have extensive
and potentially devastating socioeconomic impacts. These impacts need to be included
quantitatively in the assessment of overall impacts, not dismissed as unmeasurable or
unquantifiable as has been done in the Draft RMP.
The dramatic increase in the number of oil and gas wells will result in environmental costs to the
surrounding public lands and communities, as well as a much larger area of impact. Peer
reviewed methods for quantifying both the non-market and market costs of changing
environmental quality have been developed by economists and are readily applicable to the
present case. For a catalog of these methods see Freeman (2003). For a complete socioeconomic
analysis, BLM should adapt these methods to conditions in the RMPPA to obtain a complete
catalog of estimates of the economic consequences of the Alternatives.
BLM must recognize the value of public lands for hunting, fishing, other recreation, and as an
amenity drawing new businesses and residents into the Little Snake Resource Area. Public lands
which are protected from development are a critical source of economic prosperity and stability
for Moffat and Routt Counties, as has been demonstrated all over the region (Rasker et. al 2004,
Bennett and McBeth 1998, Johnson 2001, Deller et al. 2001, Lorah 2000, Low 2004, Morton
2000, Nelson 1999, Snepenger et al. 1995). Local natural amenities are becoming increasingly
important as a driver of Western rural economies. This is occurring at the same time that western
economies (including that of Moffat and Routt Counties) are experiencing a trend away from
resource-extraction and primary manufacturing. More and more of the jobs and income in rural
Colorado are derived from industries in the broadly defined service sector. Technology allows
many workers to choose the location of their work and entrepreneurs are increasingly free to
choose the location for their businesses. Most of these "footloose" workers and entrepreneurs
select their location based on the amenities the area offers.
There is a vast and growing body of research that indicates that the environmental amenities
provided by public lands are an important economic driver in the rural West. For several
examples, see the peer-reviewed articles cited above, as well as these additional peer-reviewed
research papers: Rudzitis and Johansen 1989; Whitelaw and Neimi 1989; Johnson and Rasker
1993, 1995; Power 1995, 1996; Duffy-Deno 1998; Rudzitis 1999; Rasker et al. 2004; Holmes
and Hecox 2004.
The evidence in this body of research suggests that, even if the estimates of short term economic
benefits contained in the Draft RMP are taken as accurate, the long-term effect of accelerated oil
and natural gas development could be to place Moffat and Routt counties at an economic
disadvantage, because their environmental and social amenities have been compromised. Indeed,
a recent study by the USDA has found that counties pursuing a strategy of economic growth
86
based on recreation have enjoyed greater economic growth, lower poverty rates, higher labor
force participation rates, and greater improvements in other social indicators than other counties
(Reeder and Brown 2005).
Retirement and investment income (which makes up the majority of non-labor income) is the
largest single source of income in Moffat and Routt Counties. Most people who rely on
retirement and investment income are also free to choose where they live, and this demographic
segment is also choosing high amenity areas, resulting in growth in populations and income in
the West (McGranahan 1999, Shumway and Otterstrom 2001, Lorah and Southwick 2003). Given
these trends, it is especially inappropriate that the Draft RMP makes no effort whatsoever to
quantify non-labor income or to estimate its role in the local economy. Nor does the Draft RMP
evaluate the potential negative impacts that expanding oil and gas development in the Little
Snake RMPPA will have on this sector of the economy.
Furthermore oil and gas development can have many easily quantifiable negative impacts on the
economy of the RMPPA which are not accounted for in the Draft RMP. It has been well
documented that the current accelerated oil and gas development in the Rocky Mountain region
has resulted in greater competition for skilled oil and gas workers. While most of these workers
are not supplied from the local area, there may be several potential impacts in Moffat and Routt
Counties. First, increased demand for local labor may result in worker shortages for employers
outside the oil and gas industry as some workers move to oil and gas jobs. Second, competition
for workers may result in increased wage rates, which could burden local employers. Many of
these employers are government entities with limited ability to increase wages in order to retain
staff. A third potential impact of the dramatically expanded scope of oil and gas development in
the Little Snake Resource Area will be an increase in the population in these counties as workers
following the rigs move to the area. This increased population will result in increased demand for
housing (in turn raising housing prices) and increased demand for public services at a time when
these local agencies may be experiencing staff shortages either through increased staffing needs
going unmet or migration of labor to the oil and gas industry. The analysis of the economic
impacts of expanded oil and gas development must include an examination of the changes in
labor and government expenditures, among other costs, that will accrue to the surrounding
communities.
Increased oil and gas development in the Little Snake Resource Area will result in greater wear
and tear on county infrastructure, especially in Moffat County where most of this development is
expected to take place. In addition, some infrastructure may need to be expanded in order to meet
increasing capacity needs. These costs must be quantified and included in the economic analysis
of the alternatives.
Analysis which presents only the benefits and ignores the costs is by definition biased. The Draft
RMP appears to have been written with considerable input on the benefits of oil and gas
development that appear to have been influenced by the oil and gas industry. However to present
these benefits without input on the potential costs from stakeholders who will bear these costs is
an incomplete analysis. Furthermore it is clear that considerable effort was expended to quantify
in the minutest detail the potential, but speculative, benefits of oil and gas development, while at
the same time dismissing certain techniques and methods for making similar quantifications of
socioeconomic costs, as well as the benefits of protecting public lands, as infeasible or
inappropriate. The agency must expend an equal amount of effort quantifying and analyzing the
87
benefits of the other multiple uses for the public lands in the Little Snake Resource Area as well
as the costs of the proposed single-use alternatives.
See the attached document: “Socio-economic Framework for Public Land Management
Planning: Indicators for the West’s Economy” for more information on appropriate
socioeconomic analysis.
Section 4.1 Approach to the Analysis
Several key assumptions stated in this section need to be reevaluated as they are likely to prove
untrue which will have a large influence on the level and extent of the impacts of each
alternative. First, the assumption that agency funding will be adequate to implement each
alternative. Recent research has shown that the BLM has in fact not been able to fulfill its
mandated environmental protection requirements (U.S. GAO 2005, Western Organization of
Resource Councils 2005).
The assumption that “Restrictions or prohibitions on activities in specific areas would protect
sensitive resources” (Draft RMP, p. 4-3) may also prove to be untrue, which would have
implications for the extent and level of impacts of the alternatives. Analysis of the records at two
BLM offices has shown that the agency all too often waives stipulations and conditions of
approval for oil and gas development (among the “restrictions or prohibitions” included in the
assumption). 7 It would seem reasonable to assume that this practice of waivers and exceptions
being granted is widespread. Any finding of the impacts of oil and gas drilling should consider
the tendency of the agency to waive protective stipulations and evaluate these as if they were not
in fact enforced.
Section 4.2 Availability of Data and Incomplete Information
This section presents a troubling and rather long list of incomplete information for several major
areas which are critical to a complete and accurate assessment of the impacts of the activities
proposed in the RMP. These data need to be collected before any assessment of the impacts of
the management alternatives can be truly completed.
Section 4.5 Impacts on Social and Economic Conditions
In addition to the broad omissions discussed above, the analysis contains several unsubstantiated
assertions and some undocumented numbers which are of questionable veracity. These need to
be presented with clear documentation as to sources. Where appropriate data must also be
presented that shows how estimates were calculated.
Table 4-55 on page 4-211 shows the numbers of wells projected under each alternative, adjusted
to reflect a “penalty” for more restrictive requirements. How was this “penalty” calculated? What
are the sources for the “costs” associated with environmental protections? These inputs need to
be documented.
7
The Rawlins, Wyoming BLM Field office granted 71% of waiver requests between October 1 2005 and September
30, 2006 (http://www.wy.blm.gov/rfo/wildlife/exceptionsfy06.htm), The Pinedale Field Office granted 88% of the
requests for wildlife exceptions made to them during 2006-2007
http://www.wy.blm.gov/pfo/wildlife/wild_2006_2007.htm. This field office has a history in recent years of granting more
requests for exceptions to wildlife stipulations than it denies. For example, during the winter of 2002-2003, the
Pinedale Field Office granted 90% of requests for sage grouse stipulations exceptions. Similarly, during the 20042005 season, this field office granted 88% of requests for “exceptions” to winter range stipulations, 86% of requests
for exceptions to the raptor winter and nesting stipulations and 70% of requests to waive the sage grouse stipulations
88
The multipliers used throughout the economic analysis for the oil and gas industry are, as
asserted by the BLM itself on p. 4-212, “incredible.” Some synonyms for incredible include
“hard to believe,” “implausible,” “barely credible,” “absurd” and “far-fetched.” These are apt
when applied to the ridiculous multipliers used to boost the apparent importance of the oil and
gas industry. Moffat county’s economy is too small to warrant a multiplier over 9 (Draft RMP, p.
4-212). It is much more likely that oil and gas workers will remain only temporarily, that the drill
rigs will be built in other locations and that the other oil and gas field supplies will also be
purchased by out-of-state or out-of-county companies in larger markets. Are these state-level or
even regional multipliers? These are not necessarily appropriate for assessing impacts at scale to
which they are applied in the Draft RMP. BLM must document the sources for these multipliers.
Text on page 4-213 describes “additional benefits associated with management alternatives.”
This section attempts to further inflate the apparent benefits of oil and gas drilling by document
the alleged contributions that this industry makes to the local communities. These numbers must
be documented. Furthermore, members of the oil and gas industry are certainly not the only
philanthropists in the Little Snake Resource Area. The contributions to the local community, to
local colleges and other social and economic benefits of all charitable giving must be
documented, as well as the potential impact on these sources of donations if oil and gas drilling
drives other philanthropists from the communities of the Little Snake Resource Area.
The BLM asserts on page 4-213 that “It was not possible to evaluate the impact of the
management alternatives on hunting and fishing.” This is not true. Numerous studies on the
impact of success levels as well as the impact of scenery on hunter preferences have been
completed. See Kaval and Loomis (2005) for several citations of studies on the value of hunting
and fishing, the economic impacts of hunting and fishing and studies on how the quality of the
experience changes these values. See Rosenberger and Loomis (2001) for details on benefits
transfer methodologies that can be used to adapt the findings to the potential wildlife impacts in
the Little Snake Resource Area. These findings along with the well documented impacts that oil
and gas drilling will have on wildlife can and should be used to evaluate these potential impacts
to the local economy.
Table 4-57 presents estimates of projected motorized and non-motorized visitor days for each
alternative. How were these numbers derived? It seems unlikely that in a county with a
population of less than 15,000 that there will be nearly 30,000 non-residents participating in
motorized recreation. The fact that motorized recreation appears to dominate goes against the
findings of the two leading comprehensive surveys on American recreation behavior. Both the
National Survey on Recreation and the Environment and the National Visitor Use Monitoring
Survey conducted by the U.S.D.A. Forest Service indicate that far more people participate in
non-motorized recreation than motorized recreation. Furthermore, Stynes and White (2005) find
that non-motorized and motorized recreationists spend about the same amount of money per day
(with non-motorized users actually spending slightly more). Please document your justification
for the far-fetched numbers shown in this table as well as the assertion that non-motorized user
exhibit “…lower spending per user.” (Draft RMP, p. 4-214).
Recommendations:
1. Make quantitative estimates of the potential socioeconomic costs of expanded oil and gas
development as detailed above. See the attached document “The Economic and Social
89
Impacts of Oil and Gas Development” for further information on the costs of oil and gas
development.
2. Estimate the socioeconomic benefits of protecting the public lands in the Little Snake
RMPPA
3. Estimate the impacts of non-labor income in the local economy and estimate the potential
impacts of the land management alternatives on this sector and the impacts that this will
in turn have in the local economy
4. Make a detailed assessment of the role that the service sector plays in the local economy
and the potential impact that the management alternatives will have on this sector and in
turn on the economy as a whole.
5. Given the likelihood that certain assumptions (described above) will not be met, BLM
should reevaluate the socioeconomic impacts without these assumptions
6. BLM must gather the missing information and data detailed in section 4.2 and reevaluate
the socioeconomic and other impacts of the management alternatives with complete
information. To do otherwise is a violation of the Data Quality Act.
7. BLM must thoroughly document all sources of information used in the RMP as noted
above.
B. Resource estimates.
The socioeconomic impacts as well as all the other impacts of the management alternatives are
based on some dubious numbers for the amount of land and resources impacted. Section 4.4.1
“Impacts on Energy and Minerals,” includes analyses based on the 2003 Energy Policy and
Conservation Act (EPCA) report. These analyses break down the land, oil and gas resources in
the Little Snake Resource Area into the various EPCA access categories for each alternative.
These analyses appear to be biased in a way that deliberately exaggerates the impacts of even the
very modest protections proposed in the Preferred Alternative (C) and especially those proposed
in Alternative D (which implements the greatest protection for the area’s multiple uses, including
wildlife, backcountry recreation and cultural resources). A simple comparison of the numbers in
Tables 4-42, 4-44, 4-46 and 4-48 shows that the estimates of total gas, liquids and acres for
Alternative D are much greater than any of the other alternatives. The tables imply that there is
15% more land, 39% more gas and 30% more total liquid in Alternative D than in Alternative A
(see Tables 1-3).
Logic would dictate that this is physically impossible. It is also interesting to note that
Alternative B, which places the least restrictions on the oil and gas industry is also indicated in
the Draft RMP to affect the smallest land area and the fewest resources. In fact, the total amount
of land, oil and gas presented in the Draft RMP increase with increasing restrictions on oil and
gas (see Figure 1). It is clear that this will bias estimates of the opportunity costs of these
restrictions upward.
Table 1. EPCA Analysis by Alternative - Acres
Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D
90
Table 1. EPCA Analysis by Alternative - Acres
Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D
Standard lease terms
549,960
1,509,500
417,800
364,880
Seasonal restrictions
1,162,040
149,360
1,216,190
1,214,610
Controlled Surface Use
116,210
153,890
184,840
94,210
Recoverable NSO
163,630
26,590
180,970
262,600
Non-recoverable NSO
28,560
6,180
35,070
197,340
Closed to leasing
78,190
78,190
160,870
275,630
Total
2,098,590
1,923,710
2,195,740
2,409,270
Difference between Alternatives A and D: 15%
From Tables 4-42, 4-44, 4-46 and 4-48 in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
for the Little Snake Resource Management Plan
Table 2. EPCA Analysis by Alternative - Total liquids (Mbbl) (Proved Reserves and
Undiscovered Technically Recoverable Resources)
Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D
Standard lease terms
61,497
270,073
54,255
42,506
Seasonal restrictions
216,771
5,391
217,170
216,746
Controlled Surface Use
15,456
15,250
21,764
4,967
Recoverable NSO
16,835
2,411
20,326
44,652
Non-recoverable NSO
2,583
295
2,962
80,290
Closed to leasing
68
68
2,127
17,393
Total
313,210
293,488
318,604
406,554
Difference between A and D: 30%
From Tables 4-42, 4-44, 4-46 and 4-48 in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
for the Little Snake Resource Management Plan
Table 3. EPCA Analysis by Alternative –Total natural gas (MMcf) (Proved Reserves
and Undiscovered Technically Recoverable Resources)
Standard lease terms
Seasonal or timing
limitations
Controlled Surface Use
Recoverable NSO
Non-recoverable NSO
Closed to leasing
Alternative
A
Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D
2,021,383
9,248,565
1,766,512
1,292,434
7,560,670
544,095
407,744
62,550
273
95,540
617,704
55,445
3,661
273
7,566,038
764,209
487,460
93,127
68,708
7,548,230
101,711
2,144,044
2,980,758
619,456
91
Table 3. EPCA Analysis by Alternative –Total natural gas (MMcf) (Proved Reserves
and Undiscovered Technically Recoverable Resources)
Alternative
A
Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D
Total
10,596,715 10,021,188 10,746,054
14,686,633
Difference between A and D: 39%
From Tables 4-42, 4-44, 4-46 and 4-48 in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
for the Little Snake Resource Management Plan
18,000,000
16,000,000
Total acres
Total liquids (MMbbl)
Total natural gas (MMcf)
2,409,270
406,554
14,000,000
12,000,000
2,195,740
2,098,590
1,923,710
318,604
313,210
293,488
10,000,000
8,000,000
14,686,633
6,000,000
10,021,188
10,596,715
10,746,054
Alternative B
Alternative A
Alternative C
4,000,000
2,000,000
0
Alternative D
Increasing restrictions on oil & gas development
Figure 1. Land and Resources – EPCA Analysis by Alternative
This overstatement of the amount of oil and gas off-limits in Alternative D has implications for
the impact analyses throughout the entire Draft RMP and must be corrected.
This section also asserts that all the alternatives (even Alternative B, which favors oil and gas
development to the extreme) “…could contribute to energy shortages and therefore a potential
increase in energy prices… “ (Draft RMP, p. 4-149). See Draft RMP, pp. 4-146, 4-150, and 4153 for similar statements about Alternatives A, C and D respectively. These assertions are
unfounded and amount to fear-mongering. In each of the alternatives only a minute amount of
natural gas or oil would be precluded from development, amounting to a small fraction of the
total resources in the RMPPA, and an infinitesimal fraction of the national total (see Tables 4
and 5). It would be impossible for these amounts to have any impact on national or even local
energy prices.
Table 4. Unavailable Natural Gas Resources Compared to National Consumption
92
Alternative A
A little over a day
*
6 and a half
minutes
Alternative B
Alternative C Alternative D
Non-recoverable
An hour and a
NSO
half
A day and a half
50 days
6 and a half
A little over a
Closed to leasing
minutes
day
10 days
Less than 2
Less than 3
Total unavailable
25 hours
hours
days
60 days
* Total U.S. consumption of natural gas was 60 million cubic feet per day in 2006 (21.9
Trillion cubic feet annually), per the U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information
Administration (http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/ng_cons_sum_dcu_nus_a.htm, accessed
5/4/07)
Table 5. Unavailable Liquid Resources Compared to National Consumption
Alternative A
Alternative B
Alternative C
Alternative D
Non-recoverable
Less than 4
NSO
3 hours *
20 minutes
3 hours
days
Closed to leasing
5 minutes
5 minutes
2.5 hours
Less than 1 day
3 hours, 10
Less than 6
Less than 5
Total unavailable
minutes
25 minutes
hours
days
* Total U.S. consumption of petroleum was 20.8 million barrels per day in 2005, per the
U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Petroleum Products
Consumption Overview. October 2006.
(http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/infosheets/petroleumproductsconsumption.html, accessed
5/4/07)
As can be seen, the amount of natural gas and oil off-limits in even the most restrictive
alternative is negligible, especially so considering the apparent “errors” in the BLM’s resource
estimates for Alternative D discussed above. When these numbers are corrected it is likely that
the amount of gas and oil off limits in this alternative will decline. We have made our own
estimate by using the proportions (percentages) of resources in each category in Alternative D,
and comparing these percentages with the total resource amounts for Alternative A (the
baseline). Assuming that the resource estimates for Alternative A are accurate, only 43 days
worth of natural gas and 3.6 days worth of oil would be actually be off limits in Alternative D.
Recommendations:
1. Correct the discrepancy in resource estimates. Oil and gas resource and acreage totals
should be the same for each alternative.
2. Recalculate all the potential impacts associated with the alternatives, especially
Alternative D, to reflect accurate resource and acreage figures.
3. Remove all inflammatory and unsubstantiated references to potential energy shortages
and price increases.
93
C. Timing of oil and gas development
Section 2.2.4 (Draft RMP, p. 2 – 4-5) presents BLM’s justification for its rejection of the
application of phased or strategic leasing and development for the oil and gas resources in
Vermillion Basin. We request that the BLM reconsider its outright rejection of phased leasing
and development. We feel that the justification for this decision is not valid and have provided a
detailed response to each of BLM’s points. First, it should be noted that Vermillion Basin
represents only a small percentage of the total area and total resources (less than 5% of the gas or
oil, and only about 2% of the land area), so the issues discussed below (to the extent that they are
relevant anywhere) would minimal at best in Vermillion Basin.
BLM claims that phased leasing and phased development would cause delays in production of
energy resources that would result in increased prices and that it would exacerbate energy
shortages (Draft RMP, p.2-4). BLM supports this claim by asserting that demand is increase.
Demand for natural gas is not and has not been increasing. We are not experiencing an energy
shortage. The recent surge in drilling in the region has not resulted in lowered prices; therefore it
is illogical to assume that delaying drilling will increase prices. And, as noted above, Vermillion
Basin represents a small fraction of the total gas resources in the Little Snake Resource Area, and
an even tinier percentage of the gas resources in the state. Delaying drilling would have little
impact on prices.
BLM justifies their rejection of phased development and phased leasing, in part, on the basis that
it would result in “…a delay in the royalties paid to the Federal Government.” (Draft RMP, p. 24) While it may be true that the revenues would not be received all at once, it should be made
clear that the purpose of public land management is NOT to maximize or expedite revenue
generation. This violates the multiple use mandate of FLPMA. These lands in Vermillion Basin
as well as the other areas in the Citizens’ Wilderness Proposal produce other public goods
(recreation opportunities, open space, scenic views, preserving a part of our heritage for future
generation) that should be considered when making management decisions. Furthermore, the
rapid development of our natural resources will not necessarily maximize or optimize total
revenue over the long-term. There are countless textbooks on the ideal management of nonrenewable resources. In none of these is it considered optimal to liquidate them as quickly as
possible. In fact, natural resource economists would recommend the functional equivalent of
phased leasing or phased development of these publicly owned assets as sound financial
management (for example see: Fisher, A.C. 1981. Resource and Environmental Economics. New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press; and Neher, P.A. 1990. Natural Resource Economics:
Conservation and Exploitation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press).
BLM claims that phased leasing and phased development do not “… take into account supply
and demand economics.” (Draft RMP, p. 2-4). This argument reveals the one-sided input that the
agency apparently used to construct their arguments for rejection phased leasing or development,
indicating that the only stakeholders consulted on these proposals were the oil and gas industry.
The American public may have more long-term expectations for their public lands, “demanding”
other things that these lands should supply, namely open space, wildlife habitat, wilderness and
protection of the other values of the land noted above.
BLM claims that: “Large areas need to be leased to justify exploration expenditures such as
seismic studies (Draft RMP, p. 2-4).” Vermillion Basin is just over 82,000 acres of the 4.2
million acre resource management area (less than 2%). This area can be left out of initial leasing
94
with negligible impact on the amount of area available for these seismic surveys. The BLM goes
on to state: “If seismic studies are not completed for the area and geologic structures are not
therefore known, phased leasing could accidentally be implemented over part of a structure that
may require immediate additional leasing to develop the structure logically.” (Draft RMP, p. 2-4)
What is this statement based on? What does “develop the structure logically” mean? It appears
that this justification takes into account only the input from the oil and gas industry without
considering other stakeholders.
BLM claims that phased development or leasing would somehow increase the amount of
infrastructure required for oil and gas development. This argument is also illogical. Properly
designed phased development or phases leasing should require that early development be
reclaimed before moving into new areas, thus making this argument void. They claim that
opening the entire area for oil and gas drilling at once would result in minimization of roads and
other infrastructure. Development plans should always require that surface disturbance is
minimized, regardless of whether phased leasing or development is implemented.
BLM asks what criteria should be used to implement phased development or leasing, asking
“geologic or environmental: which is more important?” (Draft RMP, p. 2-4) BLM is required by
law to manage the lands in the LSRMA for multiple uses. This should be regardless of the
financial considerations of one particular industry. Protection of the wilderness character in
Vermillion Basin is one of these multiple uses. Therefore, phased development or leasing can
and should be implemented to preserve this wilderness character. To answer the question posed
by the BLM: environmental considerations should drive the implementation of phased leasing or
development. The gas isn’t going anywhere.
BLM poses some specific arguments against phased development (which would allow
immediate leasing of the area, but would limit development of those leases to a maximum
amount at any given time). These arguments are also readily refuted by applying some logic.
First, BLM discusses the potential problems that might arise if several parties have leases in an
area, but only a limited number of wells are to be allowed at any one time. This problem is easily
resolved by first making the terms clear at the time of the lease sale. Parcels can be offered with
their proposed development date clearly indicated, or with the order in which they will be
developed made clear. This may mitigate some of the concerns BLM has about revenue
generation, by creating a “premium” for parcels with more favorable development dates.
BLM discusses the potential that leases may have to be extended beyond the 10-year lease term
under a phased development plan. BLM also indicates that rental fees would have to be waived
in such cases. Recent analysis of BLM Land and Mineral records, conducted by the Wilderness
Society, 8 shows that industry generally does not act quickly to develop their leases, but rather
moves in the final years before expiration to either apply for drilling permits or to otherwise
extend there leases (Table 6). This creates uncertainty about the potential for an area to become
developed making local community planning more difficult, and, in times like the current boom,
places an added burden on the agency to process a flood of APD applications and other
administrative requests. It also serves to “lock up” public lands for a single (rather than multiple)
8
The BLM’s LR2000 database was used to examine oil and gas development trends in four randomly selected
townships in Garfield County, Colorado. Using the Serial Register Page in LR2000, the year during the primary term
at which certain actions were accomplished was determined. Three actions on each lease were tracked: commitment
to a unit, filing an Application for Permit to Drill (APD), and held by production. These actions were selected because
they are essential in maintaining a lease past its primary term.
95
use for longer periods of time. Phased leasing might create incentives for companies to act on
their leases in a more timely and predictable manner.
Table 6. Length of Time Elapsed Between Lease Start Date
and Three Critical Actions
Mean time between:
Effective date and commitment to first
unit
Effective date and first APD filed
Effective date and held by production
6.5 years
8.2 years
8.9 years
Source: Bureau of Land Management Lands and Minerals
Records - LR2000 http://www.blm.gov/lr2000/
As with phased leasing, BLM claims that it would have the “added burden” of deciding which
areas to develop first and wonders again which criteria (geology or environment) is more
important. As stated above, the environment should be the driving factor in such decisions. If the
impacts to the environment were of no concern (which is most certainly not the case), there
would be no need to implement either phased development or phased leasing.
Noticeably missing from BLM’s rejection of phased leasing and phased development is any
discussion of the potential benefits that might be realized from slowing down the pace of oil and
gas drilling. Rapid oil and gas development on such a large scale has considerable negative
impacts on the local communities in addition to the obvious potential for significant
environmental costs. Most of the disruption and dissatisfaction in Western boomtowns stems
from the rapid influx of new residents (Merrifield 1984, Davenport and Davenport 1980).
Several studies have examined the longevity of such dissatisfaction and found that in time
communities recover (Smith, et. al 2001; Brown, et. al 2005) however, it would seem reasonable
that residents would prefer to avoid the period of discontent if possible.
The cycles of boom and bust in oil and gas development have documented negative impacts on
communities. Drilling booms by definition occur at a rapid pace and tend to expand drilling into
higher risk areas. Smith (1986) observed that past booms extended drilling into marginal areas
that were abandoned when prices dropped – leading to the bust portion of the boom-and-bust
cycle. Smith also noted that the areas with the largest rate of growth also experienced the largest
rate of decline. Goldsmith (1992) and Guilliford (1989) have also documented the problems
associated with the boom and bust nature of oil and gas development. The historical lesson
suggests that mitigating the boom and bust economic swings is one strategy for reducing the
community costs associated with oil and gas development.
The current drilling boom in the region is having negative impacts throughout the West,
including Moffat County. 9 Recent news accounts document residents leaving areas where
9
See: Farrel, Patrick. Methamphetamine fuels the West’s oil and gas boom, High Country News, October 3, 2005
http://www.hcn.org/servlets/hcn.Article?article_id=15811# (describing costs to Moffat County Sheriffs and District
Attorney’s Office in investigating and prosecuting methamphetamine-related cases)
Craig Daily Press, July 7, 2004, “County’s discuss sharing resources,” by Gebhart, Rob (describing increased costs
to Moffat County in maintaining paved county roads due to increased heavy truck traffic associated with energy
development) http://www.craigdailypress.com/section/localnews/story/12740 (accessed 5/4/07);
96
drilling has become the dominant land use, reducing quality of life and property values. 10
Research in La Plata County, Colorado linked a 22% decline in property vales with an increase
in coalbed methane production in the county (BBC Research and Consulting, 2001). Other
impacts include damage to rural roads; 11 poaching in and around the gas fields 12 and other crime,
especially drug use. 13
Cohen et al. (2007) describe an increase in methamphetamine production on the nation’s public
lands, citing documents from the National Drug Intelligence Center. It is possible that drug
production may be occurring on the public lands surrounding boom towns experiencing
increased drug use. Among the problems described by Cohen et al. are economic losses to
gateway communities, stemming both from a loss of tourism and from an increased demand for
emergency and social services. Jacquet (2005) demonstrates a link between increased gas drilling
in the Pinedale, Wyoming area and an increase in per capita incidents of serious felonies, arrests
and emergency service calls. These impacts reduce an area’s desirability as a location for the
types of businesses and new residents driving the current amenity economy. The news accounts
noted below indicate that Moffat County is also experiencing an increase in drug-use and drugrelated crimes. Rapid oil and gas development will only exacerbate these problems
Communities experiencing a boom in oil and gas drilling are impacted demographically as
drilling crews and workers migrate into the area. Historically, most of the disruption and
dissatisfaction in Western boom towns stems from the rapid influx of new residents (Merrifield
1984, Davenport and Davenport 1980). Increased demand for housing raises prices during boom
periods, leading to increased poverty among those not able to take advantage of new jobs
(Brabant and Gramling 1997). Providing basic services for a rapidly growing population, along
with the increased costs associated with changes in per capita demand for services (due to the
increase in social problems noted above), places added financial burdens on local governments
during booms. Communities in southern Wyoming provide a modern example of these boom
town impacts which mirrors those documented a quarter century ago (Pinedale Anticline
Working Group 2005, Pederson Planning Consultants 2001).
Oil and gas development is notorious for resulting in cycles of boom and bust which can have
devastating impacts on Western communities. Research has indicated that an emphasis on
resource extraction results in inherently economically unstable communities (Fortmann et al.
1989, Freudenburg 1992, Freudenburg and Gramling 1994). This instability in income and
employment is usually a result of labor saving technological improvements and fluctuations in
world resource markets - macroeconomic forces completely outside local control. Such
economic instability and lack of local control can be expected with rapid oil and gas
development.
It is generally the rapid changes in population in the initial years following the opening of an
area for oil and gas development that results in the dissatisfaction often noted in boom towns
(Smith et. al 2001, Brown et. al 2005, Goldsmith 1992, Guilliford 1989, Merrifield 1984,
Craig Daily Press, March 9, 2005, “Residents mull magwater issue,” by Gebhart, Rob (Moffat County commissioners
authorize county Road and Bridge director to “upgrade” County Road 21 N “so it can handle the heavy traffic of oil
and gas industry trucks”) http://www.craigdailypress.com/section/localnews/story/16200 (accessed 5/4/07)
10
“Silt couple selling 110-acre ranch,” The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel, 26 February 2007.
11
“Boom hits county roads,” Casper Star-Tribune, 13 December 2006.
12
“Poachers making a killing in West’s oil, gas fields,” USA Today, 15 February 2007.
13
“Boomtown Blues,” The New Yorker, 5 February 2007.
97
Kittredge 1987, Kelly 1980). Mitigating these impacts is difficult, as the appropriate level of
increased capacity for services is difficult to determine since the increased demand is likely to be
temporary when development is rapid (Merrifield 1984). One way for the residents of Moffat
County to gain some control over these impacts is if the BLM implements a phased leasing or
development that controls the scale and pace at which drilling occurs.
Oil and gas development can also have positive impacts in communities. Most notably, it can
bring a potential increase in revenue for the local government, increases in population (although
some residents may see this change as negative) and potential new jobs. Whether these positive
impacts outweigh the negative impacts and result in net benefits for a community will depend on
the costs associated with development.
Phased leasing and development can reduce the costs associated with oil and gas development
several ways. The drilling phase of oil and gas development generally results in a higher demand
for labor - thus the shorter the development period, the more pronounced the peak in
employment. Such a peak in labor demand often results in a rapid temporary influx of population
to an area, resulting in many of the tangible and intangible costs of boom town development such
as increased demand for civic services and changes in local lifestyles. Slower development
results in fewer new jobs in any given year, but the added oil and gas employment continues for
a longer period.
As Merrifield (1984) points out, communities facing rapid development of energy resources
would prefer to have the financing for the optimal infrastructure upgrade in advance of the
development. While Merrifield also proposes several (often complicated) solutions, as this paper
shows, simply slowing the pace of development will make this a more achievable goal by
reducing the level of public investment needed to reach the optimal additional infrastructure.
The overall cost of social services can be reduced if the influx of workers is slowed. A large
influx of workers into a community will require a larger investment in services and
infrastructure. This investment may require that a community incur debt in order to meet the
rapid increase in demand. When development slows (as is often the case with oil and gas
development) the community is left with excess capacity along with the need to service the debt
incurred. Slower development will be less likely to result in such influxes reducing the need to
finance capital improvements and added service capacity.
Extending the period over which the development takes place will allow communities to better
absorb the social and economic impacts of oil and gas development. The potential influx of new
residents will be dampened. At the same time it is possible that local residents will be more
likely to have time to acquire the skills necessary to take advantage of the employment that
drilling and production may bring. This may reduce many of the negative social impacts of rapid
oil and gas drilling and reduce the added costs to communities. Revenue to the local government
will be spread out over a longer time, allowing for a longer, more predictable and stable revenue
stream.
Economic costs to communities in the Little Snake Resource Area can be mitigated by
implementing phased leasing and development for oil and gas. Phased development can also help
mitigate the BLM’s costs by ensuring that the scale of development does not exceed the budgets
available for monitoring and enforcement of environmental protections. Such analysis is the
subject of future research.
98
Phased leasing or development which limits development in new areas until restoration is
satisfactorily completed can help limit the negative impact on the local economies in the Little
Snake Resource Area, since the entire area won’t be drilled at once. With phased leasing and
development, the BLM will be in a better position to ensure successful restoration because
operators have a financial incentive to complete restorations plans so they can move on to the
next area. Development only proceeds once monitoring data shows no significant environmental
or socioeconomic impacts and disturbed areas have been successfully restored.
Rapid development also has impacts on the environment which will in turn affect the local
community's economy or its ability to transition to an amenity economy. Schneider et. al (2003)
use a modeling approach to examine these long-term environmental impacts under various
development scenarios. The short-term impacts of oil and gas operations include increased traffic
and air pollution, operations often result in water pollution and changes in water quantity and
flow regimes (USGS, 1995, Darin, 2000, Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission,
2006, Clement 2002), and the network of roads, well-pads, pipelines and other infrastructure
fragment wildlife habitat (Trombulak and Frissell 2000, Lyon and Christensen 2002, Lutz et al.
2003, WGFD 2004, Sawyer 2005). Impacts to wildlife are especially damaging to an area where
hunting and fishing recreation is so important. The Federal Reserve Bank called wildlife
recreation "rural America's newest billion dollar industry (Henderson, 2004), with wildliferelated activities boosting tourism, spurring business growth and contributing to increased
property values. According to the National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-associated
Recreation, 2.1 million people participate in wildlife recreation in Colorado and contribute $2
billion to the states economy (USFWS and Census Bureau, 2001). A more recent study focused
on the economic impacts of wildlife recreation in the state found that there were as many as 10
million hunting and fishing activity days in Colorado in 2002 (Pickton and Sikorowski, 2004),
with an annual impact of nearly $1.8 billion in expenditures supporting as many as 33,000 fulltime jobs. Quality hunting and fishing requires wildlife habitat, which generally means large
areas of open land. As the population of both Moffat County and Colorado grows, these are
increasingly found only on federal and other public lands. Any management of public lands in
the Little Snake Resource Area must consider the importance of wildlife recreation, and
therefore the importance of protecting wildlife habitat to the local economy. Phased development
and leasing can ensure that larger areas of intact wildlife remain and will help protect this
important resource.
The lack of analysis of the potential benefits of slowing development makes it especially
interesting to note that later in the Draft RMP, in Section 4.6.3 “Cumulative Impacts by Resource
Category” (Draft RMP, pp. 4-241 to 4-242), the BLM does do some analysis of the potential
benefits of speeding up development. And it is not surprising, given the one-sided treatment of
the oil and gas industry in the Draft RMP that the costs of speeding development have been
ignored.
Most of the analyses in the Draft RMP assume that drilling will take place over 20 years.
Experience elsewhere in the region indicates that it is often the case that development occurs
much more rapidly. For example, in the Jonah Field in southwest Wyoming the 20-year
projected total was reached within 5 years. It is commendable for the BLM to recognize the
potential for development to occur at a more rapid than anticipated pace. However it is utterly
irresponsible for the agency to address only the potential benefits of such an acceleration without
a comparable examination of the potential costs – which are likely to be considerable.
99
More rapid development results in greater habitat fragmentation (Sawyer et al. 2005), higher
levels of air and water pollution (Gauthier-Warinner 2000, USGS 1996), greater social disruption
in surrounding communities, and fewer agency resources for the monitoring and enforcement
needed to prevent these negative impacts (U.S. GAO 2005, Western Organization of Resource
Councils 2005).
By definition, boom towns are the result of rapid development, and this development has been
shown to have many negative impacts to the communities inundated by oil and gas drilling
(Freudenburg 1992, Freudenberg and Gramling 1994, Guilliford 1989, Goldsmith 1992,
Humphrey et al. 1993, Limerick et al. 2002, Pederson Planning Consultants, 2001, Pinedale
Anticline Working Group, 2005, Smith 1986). These negative impacts include increased cost to
private land owners and residents, increased cost to local governments, and overall economic
instability and a loss of economic diversity.
The current oil and gas boom has generated significant costs to communities in the West. For
example in Wyoming's Powder River Basin, landowners are spending thousands of dollars on
attorneys in order to attempt to protect their property, often to no avail, as these areas have seen
dramatic declines in property values (Pederson Planning Consultants 2001). A recent study in La
Plata County, Colorado found that coalbed methane wells there resulted in a decline in property
values of 22 percent (BBC Research and Consulting 2001).
Residents' quality of life also suffers during accelerated oil and gas development. These costs
must be accounted for in the analysis. Surveys of residents in Western communities indicate that
people choose to live in this region because of the scenery, recreation, lifestyle, and clean air and
water rather than economic factors such as jobs or low taxes (McLeod et al. 1998, Porter et al.
2004). These amenities are diminished when oil and gas drilling increases in pace and scale. The
loss of amenities and the economic impacts created by this loss must be acknowledged and
accounted for in the analysis for the Little Snake Resource Area, and especially the potential
increased costs associated with rapid drilling such as described in Section 4.6.
Costs to local governments include added strain on infrastructure, increased road maintenance
costs, increased demand for public services such as hospitals and schools, increased need for
emergency services (due both to increased population and an increase in the number of people
working in more dangerous occupations such as those found in oil and gas extraction), 14 and a
host of less tangible costs due to the effects of a changing demographic and social makeup of the
towns and communities (Morton et al. 2002). For example, increased truck traffic results in
increased road maintenance costs (Pinedale Anticline Working Group 2005). 15 Increased traffic
also results in dust from poorly constructed access roads which causes health problems for both
humans and livestock, reduces the grass available for cattle, and negatively impacts air quality
and visibility.
Crime and other social problems intensify in boomtowns, with these areas seeing increases in
larceny, traffic violations and accidents, destruction of private property, family violence and
14
“Disposable Workers of the Oil and Gas Fields” by Ray Ring, High Country News, April 2, 2007
“County’s discuss sharing resources,” by Rob Gebhart Craig Daily Press, July 7, 2004, (describing increased costs
to Moffat County in maintaining paved county roads due to increased heavy truck traffic associated with energy
development) http://www.craigdailypress.com/section/localnews/story/12740 (accessed 5/4/07);
“Residents mull magwater issue,” by Rob Gebhart, Craig Daily Press, March 9, 2005, (Moffat County commissioners
authorize county Road and Bridge director to “upgrade” County Road 21 N “so it can handle the heavy traffic of oil
and gas industry trucks”) http://www.craigdailypress.com/section/localnews/story/16200 (accessed 5/4/07)
15
100
child abuse. Oil and gas workers facing long shifts and time away from families often turn to
drugs. 16 All of these escalating problems increase the cost of emergency and social services for
cities and counties. Boomtowns also often experience a shift in the labor force. Workers leave
for oil and gas jobs, resulting in instability in the labor force and difficulty hiring public workers
(e.g. policemen, firemen) at a time when the counties and cities are stretched thin to handle the
increased workload (Pederson Planning Consultants 2001). In the Pinedale Anticline area of
Wyoming, emergency calls more than doubled between 2000 and 2003, while ambulance runs
increased by 36% since oil and gas drilling has accelerated. Traffic and automobile accidents
have also increased in conjunction with oil and gas drilling. One major intersection in Sublette
County saw traffic rates nearly triple between 1995 and 2003. After declining in the mid 1990's,
accident rates per capita increased 23% between 1999 and 2003, and this increase mirrors the
increase in drilling rigs in the area (Pinedale Anticline Working Group, 2005). These social
problems are more severe with more development and the BLM completely ignores these costs
in it’s analysis of the potential impacts of rapid drilling.
Figure 2 illustrates potential employment on an annual basis for the two timing scenarios which
the BLM (rather scantly) analyzed in the Draft RMP. In addition, the figure also includes a
scenario where drilling occurs even more rapidly (as recent experience has show is often the
case), and another showing the employment impacts from a longer drilling period. What the
figure tells us is that rapid drilling will likely result in a large influx of workers in the Little
Snake Resource Area in the initial years, followed by a rapid decline in employment. This
pattern is classic for a boom and bust scenario. On the other hand if development is slowed to a
pace where the well drilling is spread out over longer time periods, the “peak” in employment is
lessened or even eliminated and the employment lasts for a much longer time.
16
“Methamphetamine fuels the West’s oil and gas boom,” by Patrick Farrel, High Country News, October 3, 2005
http://www.hcn.org/servlets/hcn.Article?article_id=15811# (describing costs to Moffat County Sheriffs and District
Attorney’s Office in investigating and prosecuting methamphetamine-related cases)
“Boomtown Blues” by Alexandra Fuller, The New Yorker, February 5, 2007;
“Meth in the oil fields” Farmington Daily Times, New Mexico, September 16, 2006;
“Meth and oil and gas: A troubling storm” Farmington Daily Times, August 25, 2006;
“Oil, drugs don’t mix” Deseret Morning News, Utah, June 19, 2006
101
140
Wells drilled in 5 years
Wells drilled in 10 years
Wells drilled in 20 years
Wells drilled in 30 years
120
100
80
60
40
20
year 49
year 47
year 45
year 43
year 41
year 39
year 37
year 35
year 33
year 31
year 29
year 27
year 25
year 23
year 21
year 19
year 17
year 15
year 13
year 11
year 9
year 7
year 5
year 3
year 1
0
This figure is based on the projected well numbers and employment presented in the Little Snake RMP Draft EIS.
Table 4-61 (p. 4-240) shows the estimated numbers of wells for each alternative. Using these nubers along with the employment projections for
each alternative presented in Table 4-60 (p. 4-238) we calcuated that there will be 0.04 drilling jobs per well and 0.04 production jobs/well.
We have assumed each producing well will produce gas or oil for 20 years and therefore that the estimated production jobs will also last 20 years.
This figure shows annual estimates for drilling and production jobs.
The figure is based on the total number of wells projected for the Preferred Alternative (C).
The area under each curve is the same because the total number of wells and thus the total number of jobs is the same regardless of the timing
assumed. Only the annual totals vary, as well as the total length of time the jobs will last.
Figure 2. Direct Oil and Gas Jobs in the Little Snake RMPPA Under Various Timing Assumptions
This has several benefits. First it can eliminate the need for a community to invest in the
infrastructure that will be necessary for a large influx of works. Second, the negative impacts
associated with this influx of workers described above will be lessened. When the oil and gas
development is carried out over a longer time period, workers can be more assured of longerterm employment. This is especially important for the often-transient drilling jobs. While there
may be fewer of these in any given year under a longer time horizon, these jobs will last much
longer. This is beneficial to local communities as it may mean more local workers will take
advantage of the drilling jobs, or that those workers who migrate to the community for these jobs
will find it to their advantage to make a more permanent home there. These workers may be
more likely to bring their families and less likely to engage in some of the negative behavior that
results in the wild “boom town” atmosphere described in the news articles cited above.
Rapid oil and gas development can also hinder a community’s ability to transition away from
reliance on extractive industries - a situation which has been show to result in inherently unstable
economies and communities. When an area is dependent upon only one or a few industries for
most of its employment and income, there are often negative consequences, mostly stemming
from fluctuations in the dominant industries. Western resource-dependent communities are
vulnerable to external changes, such as energy price fluctuations, over which they have no
control. Limerick et al. (2002) describe this as “…a particular kind of precariousness…”
102
explaining that these one-industry towns have “…no insulation from any problems that might
strike the industries on which they relied."
This is especially true of the oil and gas industry, as described by Smith (1986) examining the
boom and bust phenomenon in oil and gas extraction. Smith points out that high prices for oil in
the late 1970's led to an increase in drilling, but there was no corresponding increase in
production during the same period. He speculates about the reason for this: “Drilling in some
states may have been extended into marginal areas under very optimistic price expectations, and
such operations had to be abandoned when prices were no longer adequate.” These sorts of
activities lead to the classic boom and bust economic cycle typical of many rural resourcedependent areas. “Those states that showed the largest rate of growth in oil and gas extraction
during 1972-81 tended to have the largest rate of decline in the post 1981 period.” Resource
dependent communities have little control over the local economy because they have absolutely
no control over global commodity prices. When prices drop, companies abandon wells, lay off
workers, and leave the communities high and dry to suffer the economic and environmental
consequences.
Economic instability is of concern to community leaders because if a local economy is unstable,
economic development plans are more likely to fail. The economic instability created in the
"boom and bust" cycles associated with resource extraction increases the risk for capital
investment in linked industries. As such, resource specialization and the resulting economic
instability can prevent the formation of forward and backward economic linkages in the local and
regional economy.
Accelerated oil and gas development has left many counties and communities unable to pay for
or finance the increase in public service costs or the cleanup cost after the bust. We have every
reason to believe that similar costs and burdens will be placed on the communities in the
LSRMA, especially if the drilling takes place in 10 years (or fewer, as is often the case) rather
then over 20 years. The timeframe for leasing or development of these public lands should take
into account the potential impact that rapid development will have on the local community and
should be implemented in such a way as to minimize these impacts, not according to the
demands of the oil and gas industry.
Recommendations:
1. Reconsider using phased development to protect the other multiple uses of the public
lands in the Little Snake RMPPA.
a. In order to make a complete analysis of the impacts of phased development, the
agency must make an assessment of the benefits of phased development.
b. This assessment must consider the potential community benefits and the potential
benefits of the added environmental protection that will result from slowing oil
and gas development under a phased development or leasing plan.
2. When estimating the benefits of rapid oil and gas development in the Little Snake RMPPA,
the BLM must show these benefits as net rather than gross (that is these analyses should
reflect the costs as well).
103
a. The increased public service and infrastructure costs, the increased loss of wildlife
habitat, and the other environmental costs associated with more rapid oil and gas
development must be fully accounted for in the Final RMP. See the attached
document “The Economic and Social Impacts of Oil and Gas Development” for
further information on the costs of oil and gas development.
XI. CLAIMS UNDER REVISED STATUTE 2477 (R.S. 2477)
As discussed above, BLM’s Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1601-1) and the Executive Orders
and federal regulations cited therein obligate the BLM to make travel management decisions,
including, for instance, limiting use of ORVs to areas and routes where they will not damage
natural resources or cause excessive conflicts with other users of the public lands. The
regulations further require BLM to close routes or areas where ORVs are having considerable
adverse impacts on other natural resources. 43 C.F.R. § 8341.2. Mere assertions of R.S. 2477
rights-of-way should not affect this decision-making process.
Instruction Memorandum (IM) 2006-159, which addresses non-binding determinations that may
be made by field or state offices, is very clear that there is no requirement for the agency to
conduct a non-binding determination as part of travel planning in general or even in relation to
specific road closures. Further, as noted in the guidance and by the Tenth Circuit Court of
Appeals, the BLM cannot make determinations as to the validity of R.S. 2477 claims – only a
court can make a final determination. 17 The IBLA has recently ruled that BLM need not
address R.S. 2477 claims when completing transportation plans f. 18 Further,
Federal courts have made clear that BLM has the duty and authority to manage its lands in the
face of unsupported R.S. 2477 claims. See, e.g., The Wilderness Society v. Kane County, 470
F.Supp.2d 1300, 1306 (D. Utah 2006) (“the presumption on federal land is that ownership and
management authority lies with the federal government and that any adverse claimant … is not
entitled to win title or exercise unilateral management authority until it successfully has carried
its burden of proof in a court of law.”)
The Draft RMP references the existence of alleged R.S. 2477 claims (and provides a map of the
claims), but notes that this is an issue “which cannot be resolved in the planning process” and
that “adjudication is beyond the scope of this RMP.” Draft RMP, pp. 3-122, 4195. Accordingly, the Little Snake RMP will not affect valid existing rights, so if Moffat County
ever files a claim for an R.S. 2477 ROW in federal court, and if that federal court ultimately
finds a claim valid, BLM can, if necessary and appropriate, adjust the RMP. We support the
general approach taken in the Draft RMP, such that BLM will not make decisions recognizing
17
Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Bureau of Land Management, 425 F.3d 735, 757 (10th Cir. 2005).
See Rainer Huck, 168 IBLA 365, 398-99 (April 18, 2006) (“BLM did not need to decide the validity of the R.S.
2477 assertions in order to make its route designations, especially since it did not intend its analysis to affect any
R.S. 2477 validity determinations and indicated that the Plan would be adjusted to reflect any R.S. 2477
decisions.”). The IBLA further declined to adopt the appellants’ suggestion that “the Department must engage in a
10-year quest to inventory routes OHV users may have carved out of the public lands by virtue of repetitive use” as
part of land management planning, particularly where claimants submitted little or no evidence. 168 IBLA at 399
n.17
18
104
R.S. 2477 ROWs as part of the resource management planning process or in related travel
management planning actions.[3]
The RMP also presents the relative impact of transportation and access decisions under each
alternative on access to Moffat County’s unadjudicated R.S. 2477 claims, identifying those that
would not be available for vehicle use. Draft RMP, pp. 4-197 – 4-199. However, this analysis
does not and should not assess the potential impacts of determinations that certain R.S. 2477
assertions are valid. As noted by the BLM, opening R.S. 2477 claims to motorized travel “could
change the character of the area, including but not limited to the recreation experience, and
ultimately could result in a change in management if vehicle use were inconsistent with the
management objects described in the RMP for that area.” Draft RMP, p. ES-4. Thus, if an R.S.
2477 determination results in opening to motorized travel routes currently not open, then the
BLM must assess the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts on the travel system (such as
increases in road density), consider appropriate mitigations, if needed, determine any necessary
conditions on use (because even where there is a valid R.S. 2477 claim, BLM still has the
authority to manage the claim to ensure its compliance with environmental and other laws), and
amend the RMP or travel management plan (if one is in place).
Also, because the R.S. 2477 claims have not been adjudicated – indeed Moffat County has
supplied no evidence that they are, and no court of law has found them valid – the travel
planning decisions in the RMP and travel management plan (when prepared) can not be based on
these unsupported assertions. The Draft RMP states: “BLM recognizes that R.S. 2477
assertions are made by Moffat County and that many of these routes existed before 1976 on
public lands that were unreserved.” Draft RMP, p. ES-3. Taken in conjunction with the
comparison of impacts of the alternatives on access to R.S. 2477 claims, this language gives the
impression that the BLM may leave routes open solely based on the existence of asserted R.S.
2477 claims. 20 As discussed above, the BLM’s designation of areas and routes for motorized use
must be based on the criteria set out in BLM’s regulations and Land Use Planning Handbook –
these do not include unsupported R.S. 2477 claims, basing decisions on the location of R.S. 2477
claims may well violate these standards.
Recommendations: BLM should neither make determinations regarding R.S. 2477 claims as part
of this planning process nor permit those assertions to influence its decisions regarding
permitting motorized use. Further, where changes in motorized use occur after preparation of the
RMP or travel plan, the BLM should amend the affected documents with full NEPA analysis.
XII. WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS
General comments
The Draft RMP focuses primarily on suitability determinations regarding five river segments
(Beaver Creek (one segment), Vermillion Creek (one segment), and Yampa River (three
19
Alternative avenues exist – namely the federal courts – for those seeking recognition of R.S. 2477 rights and
ROWs can be obtained under FLPMA for those seeking access.
20
Further, the mere existence of a route on unreserved land before 1976 is not sufficient to demonstrate the validity
of an R.S. 2477 claim.
105
segments). For this particular, highly and inappropriately limited, list of eligible stream
segments, the Draft RMP contemplates adequate, not to say complete, protection for the wild &
scenic characteristics of the segments.
We appreciate the draft plan’s description of those protection measures, as far as they go, and we
support their full implementation, with supplemental protections as described below.
A. The RMP should protect all five eligible segments.
The Preferred Alternative (Alternative C) would determine as suitable, and apply the described
protections, only to the three Yampa River segments. This approach—not finding the Beaver
Creek or Vermillion Creek segment suitable—is inappropriate and unsupportable in three basic
ways.
Find all eligible segments suitable - All five segments found to be eligible should be advanced as
suitable, recommended for inclusion in the Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and correspondingly
protected administratively until Congress decides about their inclusion in that system.
No information provided in the Draft RMP suggests a justification for not finding the Beaver
Creek or Vermillion Creek segments suitable. Both segments boast reliable stream flow, are freeflowing, and possess at least one outstandingly remarkable value, as described in the eligibility
report. Both segments should be found eligible and managed to protect the values that make
them so.
Protective measures must be specific to wild and scenic eligibility and suitability - Protective
management prescriptions and requirements—specific to segments to the values that have
prompted findings wild and scenic eligibility and suitability—must be included the final RMP.
The draft plan’s references to other management prescriptions or designations that could, by
coincidence help protect features that contribute to the segments’ eligibility and suitability are
helpful (wilderness study areas, areas of critical environmental concern, visual resource
management classes, mineral withdrawals, etc.). Those coincidental protections and designations
must, in the Final RMP and in its implementation, be kept in place specifically for wild and
scenic river purposes, or similar measures must be provided in the final plan exclusively for wild
and scenic river purposes.
Protect all eligible segments - Whether found suitable or not, all segments found eligible must,
under the provisions of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and accompanying regulations, be
managed in order to preserve the characteristics that make those segments eligible.
Correspondingly, the protective measures contemplated for Vermillion Creek and for Beaver
Creek, under Alternative D—at the least—must be implemented for those stream segments.
Recommendations: The RMP should protect all 5 segments found eligible for Wild and Scenic
River Act protections, including applying protective measures. Further, based on the status of
these segments, the RMP should find all of these segments suitable and provide for management
to protect their suitability.
106
B. Apply all available protections specific to wild and scenic river segments.
Whatever the ultimate collection of stream segments found to be suitable, all those segments
should be subject to all the protective measures described in the various RMP alternatives. In
particular, measures listed for Alternative D, but not shown for preferred Alternative C, should
be included in the final plan.
Recommendations: The RMP should include the protective measures identified in Alternative D,
in addition to those cited for Alternative C, include managing all suitable segments as:
• closed to off-highway vehicle use;
• withdrawn from mineral entry;
• VRM Class I or Class II areas;
• right-of-way exclusion areas
• priority areas for remedial actions to ensure that spawning Colorado pikeminnow habitat
is maintained or enhanced;
• extensive no-surface-occupancy stipulations areas for all activities;
C. Reconsider and expand eligibility determinations.
The final eligibility report, published as an appendix to the Draft RMP, found that, of a total of
nearly 300 stream segments reviewed, only five would be found eligible. The draft eligibility
report noted that 34 segments carry perennial flows and are free-flowing, meeting the two
tangible, objective eligibility criteria under provisions of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. It
seems logical that more than five of those 34 segments would have at least one outstandingly
remarkable value, and thus eligible for further study and for interim protection. Before
completing the Final RMP, the BLM should provide for public review and comment
supplemental information describing the potential outstandingly remarkable values considered
for the 34 stream segments and the corresponding explanations for the agency’s failure to
recognize and protect those values.
The criteria for eligibility evaluation are clear. Since more detailed management decisions about
stream segments would be made in the suitability determination phase, as part of the current
RMP revision or in subsequent amendments, it makes sense to list as eligible all segments that
have any variation of the three primary eligibility criteria, including even one outstandingly
remarkable value. When in doubt, include them as eligible.
This inclusive approach is directed, and thus applicable to all the stream portions described
below, in the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management Manual chapter “8351 –
Wild and Scenic Rivers – Policy and Program Direction for Identification, Evaluation, and
Management (BLM Manual). Section .31A of that manual states:
Basis for Determination. To be eligible, a river segment must be “free-flowing” and must
possess at least one river-related value considered to be “outstandingly remarkable.”
These factors are summarized in Illustration 1. No other factors are considered in
determining the eligibility of a river segment. All other factors are considered in
determining suitability.” (emphasis added)
107
Even short of the nearly 300 stream segments found to have at least two of those characteristics,
eight were found, in the 1991, to be eligible, that is, also containing outstandingly remarkable
values. At the least, all eight of those segments should still be found eligible, considered for
suitability, and administratively protected in the interim. Specifically:
Yampa River, general – The BLM should find eligible the entire length of the Yampa River from
Williams Fork to Dinosaur National Monument. The river’s continuity and the integrated health
and protection of stream and corridor values are key to the protection and proper management of
any one segment. Correspondingly, breaking the river into segments for analysis of eligibility
criteria misses the integrated nature of values that meet those criteria through the river’s length.
The entire length of the river below its confluence with Williams Fork meets the criteria of
reliable flows and free-flowing condition. The entire stretch is also eligible in terms of the
outstandingly remarkable value of river recreation. The entire stretch enjoys length of season,
flow, diversity of use, quality experience, scenery and naturalness, high level of use, and
associated attractions of open scenery—both natural and agricultural, historic structures,
geologic diversity. Various portions of the stretch include unique scenic, fish, historic, and
ecological values, but the entire stretch qualifies just for its river-related recreation opportunities
and use.
Yampa River, Duffy Tunnel to Cross Mountain – The basis for not including these segments as
eligible—a small diversion and the amount of private land included—are erroneous and
selectively applied.
The Maybell Ditch diversion reduces the overall river flow by a very small proportion, is not an
impoundment, and does not alter the free flowing nature of the river.
The assertion that a large percentage of the segment passes through private land is founded, in
part, in the arbitrary selection of the segments’ end points. When considered in combination with
the rest of the river between Williams Fork and Dinosaur National Monument, the overall
proportion of private land reduces significantly.
More important, this long stretch is the very heart of the river and so is essential to the continuity
of next study phases.
The BLM Manual’s Illustration 1, mention in the Manual citation above, makes no mention of
land ownership patterns as factors affecting a stream segment’s eligibility.
Yampa River, Duffy Tunnel to private land boundary (Signal Butte) – The portion of the river
immediately below Duffy Tunnel bends around the distinctive, scenic, and geologically
significant Signal Butte. This portion therefore contains features from at least three of the
outstandingly remarkable criteria—scenic, geologic, ecological.
Whatever decision is made about the private lands portions of the Duffy-to-Dinosaur segment of
the river, this portion around Signal Butte should be found eligible.
108
Yampa River, Juniper Canyon – A uniquely important portion of the Duffy-to-Cross Mountain
segment is the stretch past Little Juniper Mountain and through Juniper Canyon. This portion is,
of course, of reliable flows and is free-flowing (as noted above). In addition, this portion includes
every single one of the eight outstandingly remarkable values—scenic, fish, recreation, wildlife,
geologic, historic, cultural, and ecological—including all of the subset values under each, as
summarized in the report’s list of eligible values and as described in more detail in the BLM
Manual section .31. The Juniper Canyon portion is included in the Juniper Mountain Special
Recreation Management Area and attracts significant recreational and ecological study interest
both on the river and in the corridor.
Whatever decision is made as to the eligibility of the private lands portions of the Duffy-toDinosaur segment, this portion through Juniper Canyon should be declared eligible without
reservation or hesitation.
Yampa River, Cross Mountain to Dinosaur National Monument – This segment, in addition to
being an important portion of the overall length of the river, as described above, includes its own
unique public values and should be found eligible. The segment is of reliable flows and is freeflowing, and it contains nearly all, perhaps all, of the outstandingly remarkable values
summarized in the draft report and described in the BLM Manual. The segment constitutes the
river’s entrance into Dinosaur National Monument and so warrants special attention and
protection.
The importance of declaring this segment eligible, thus setting in motion discussions of best
management to the mutual benefit of both the natural environment and private landowners is
enhanced, rather than diminished, by the presence of private land along the river. Discussions of
the river’s suitability is an excellent opportunity to engage landowners, to better understand their
needs and concerns along a publicly popular river, and to prepare a consensus approach to its
protection and management.
The Draft RMP’s assertion that the segment contains too much private land to be eligible is
simply inaccurate. Of the approximately 18 miles of riverbank in the segment (nine miles each
side), barely half is on private land. At the least, the river itself and the south bank of the river
through this segment, the latter administered almost entirely by the BLM, should be found
eligible.
Vermillion Creek, downstream from Blue Hill Road – We appreciate the draft report’s finding of
eligibility for a portion of Vermillion Creek (from Blue Hill Road downstream to the private land
boundary). That finding of eligibility should be extended downstream to the creek’s confluence
with the Green River (or, considering administrative distinctions, at least to the boundary
between Brown’s Park National Wildlife Refuge and BLM-administered lands). The lower
segment’s scenic values are significant, including distinctively steam and high corridor banks, a
dazzling waterfall, and meanders through diverse arroyos and across rolling sage country,
collectively meeting eligibility criteria for scenic, fish, recreation, wildlife, geologic, and
ecological values.
109
The lower section is of reliable flows and is free-flowing, just as is the upper segment that is
found eligible in the draft report.
Vermillion Creek, upstream of Blue Hill Road – The portion of the Vermillion Creek upstream
of Blue Hill Road, between that road and Road 2033, should be found eligible. This portion is of
reliable flows and is free-flowing, just as is the portion below Blue Hill Road. The upper portion
also includes a wide array of outstandingly remarkable values, including hunting and fishing
opportunities (recreation), distinctive limestone ridges and seashell fossil beds (scenic and
geologic), rare and unusual plants identified by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program
(ecological), colorful badlands (scenic), and petroglyphs (cultural).
This portion of the creek also traverses the Vermillion Citizens’ Wilderness Proposal and lands
previously inventoried by the BLM as being roadless and including an array of values that
contribute to the streams eligibility.
Little Snake River – The Draft RMP proposes to drop a former eligibility finding for the BLM
resource area’s namesake stream. The 1991 preliminary eligibility evaluation found 9 ½ miles of
the Little Snake River between Highway 318 and the confluence with the Yampa River to be
eligible. This change is based on a new assertion that the 1991 report found only one
outstandingly remarkable value in the river (rare and endangered fish).
That earlier report failed to recognize other important values in and along the Little Snake,
including: diverse views of natural landscape (scenic), as well as fishing, hiking, hunting,
wildlife watching (recreation and wildlife), and those values should be reviewed and then used as
basis for a revised finding of eligibility.
The river qualifies under several of the criteria justifying a finding of eligibility, and that finding
should be retained now.
Recommendations: As discussed in detail above, the BLM should find the entire length of the
Yampa River, as well as the Duffy Tunnel to Cross Mountain, Duffy Tunnel to private land
boundary (Signal Butte), Juniper Canyon, and Cross Mountain to Dinosaur National Monument
segments, Vermillion Creek, downstream from Blue Hill Road, Vermillion Creek, upstream
from Blue Hill Road, and the Little Snake River eligible for designation under the Wild and
Scenic River Act and manage these segments to protect their eligibility.
XIII. AIR QUALITY
It is our understanding that BLM is completing air quality modeling for the Glenwood Springs,
Kremmling, Little Snake, and White River Field Offices (and some reports indicate that the
Grand Junction Field Office may also be included). While a regional approach to air quality is
commendable, no mention of this collaborative effort or its impacts on activities within the Little
Snake Field Office is included in the Draft RMP. Given the amount of oil and gas development
anticipated, not only in the Little Snake Field Office, but also throughout the White River Field
Office, the Glenwood Springs Field Office, and the Kremmling Field Office, a comprehensive
air quality analysis is sorely needed. This analysis should also consider the impacts to air quality
from oil and gas development in the Grand Junction Field Office in Colorado, the Rock Springs
110
and Rawlins Field Offices in Wyoming, as well as oil and gas development in Vernal, Price, and
Moab Field Offices in Utah.
Air pollution problems, perhaps more than any other environmental problem, are not subject to
human-created, artificial boundaries. This regional air model should address the issue of
regional haze and the destruction of viewsheds caused by haze (a necessary part of cumulative
impact analysis).
The Draft RMP acknowledges that all phases of oil and gas development as well as ORV use off
of paved highways directly contribute to air pollution (Draft RMP pp., 4-6 -4-7). As
acknowledge in the Draft RMP, oil and gas development activities produce large surface
disturbances (pads and roads) and increase vehicle traffic throughout the lifetime of the well,
which contributes to particulate pollution. Oil and gas development activities also contribute to
CO, NOx,, SO2, HAPs and volatile organic compound (VOCs) pollution, through activities like
flaring, drilling, processing plants, and wellhead compressors and compressor stations, to name a
few. The Draft RMP also acknowledges that recreational ORV use cause fugitive dust
emissions, particulate matter and contribute CO, NOx and hydrocarbon emissions.
As part of a regional air model, BLM should prepare an Air Quality Baseline and Analysis
Report, including the information found in the Little Snake Draft RMP and set air quality goals
and objectives aimed at improving air quality both regionally and throughout the planning area.
The Draft RMP fails to set any additional goals or objectives beyond those already found in
existing regulations (Draft RMP, p. 2-8).
The Little Snake Field Office should seek to exceed local, State and Federal air quality
standards, including the requirements of applicable State implementation plans and ambient air
quality standards and improving air quality in non-attainment areas. Protecting air quality should
be a priority – not just an afterthought that is done if convenient or “feasible.” FLPMA requires
BLM to consider the relative value of the various resources, and clean air is quickly becoming
(along with undeveloped landscapes) a most valued, yet dwindling resource. Therefore, BLM
should take a proactive approach to managing air quality by, among other things: setting
aggressive standards (beyond that simply found in existing regulations); requiring any actions on
public lands to meet those standards (i.e. no flaring, no two-stroke engine use on public lands,
etc); analyzing the cumulative impact of any proposed action with other past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable actions; establishing an effective monitoring program; and halting any
actions that contribute to air pollution if such monitoring reveals that standards have been
exceeded.
The only management action BLM lists for Air Quality is that, “The use of “green” or flareless
well completions as a best management practice (BMP) for oil and gas operations would be
encouraged” (Draft RMP, p. 2-8). No explanation of how this will be accomplished or by what
mechanism this “encouragement” will take place is found in the Draft RMP. BLM must make
flareless well completions a mandatory BMP, not simply one which will be encouraged. Further,
BLM should look to the Wildlife Protection Guidelines for Oil and Gas Development (endorsed
by 66 wildlife and conservation groups (attached) and available at:
http://www.coloradowildlife.org/advocacy/guidelinesoilgas.asp) for additional BMPs for air
quality monitoring.
111
Recommendations: BLM should disclose how the Regional Air Quality Modeling (Glenwood
Springs, Little Snake, Kremmling, White River and other Field Offices) will impact activities
within the Field Office as well as what the Little Snake Field Office’s role is in this air modeling
effort. Further, in the Proposed Plan, BLM should add a sentence in Section 2.5.12 which states,
“BLM’s goal is to exceed the air quality standards found in the Clean Air Act and the State of
Colorado Ambient Air Quality Standards for activities occurring on BLM lands”. Finally, BLM
must make flareless well completions mandatory, analyze the impacts of adopting additional
Best Management Practices for oil and gas development in relation to air quality, and adopt these
BMPs in the Proposed Plan.
XIV. WATER RESOURCES
BLM should proactively manage both the quality and quantity of water resources. The Draft
RMP sets resource goals and objectives for both water quality and quantity. Draft RMP, pp. 2-10
– 2-11. These goals and objectives, however, are vague in that they defer to BMPs as a means of
protecting water quality and quantity, yet no list of BMPs is provided and implementation of
BMPs is not mandated for specific activities. Further, NSO stipulations within .25 miles from
perennial streams are only applied in certain situations and are waivable (Draft RMP, p. 2-11).
While BLM analyzes and acknowledges that surface disturbing activities including fluid mineral
development and ORVs will have negative impacts on water resources (Draft RMP, p. 4-28),
BLM failed to analyze the impact to ground and surface water quality and quantity caused by
potential oil shale development. The omission of an analysis of impacts to water resources from
oil shale development, along with BLM’s failure to choose Alternative D which would, “provide
the most protection to water resources” (Draft RMP, p. 4-29) is particularly disturbing given that,
“The data on cumulative departure from mean flow indicate that the RMPPA has been
experiencing a drought since early 2000.” Draft RMP, p 3-22). The Draft RMP’s analysis of
potential impacts to water resources and its reliance on best management practices as mitigation
measures do not meet NEPA’s standards.
FLPMA establishes a general requirement that land use planning and the resulting plan provide
for compliance with “pollution control laws.” 43 U.S.C. § 1712(c)(8). Compliance with the
Clean Water Act (CWA) is an important element of this requirement. The CWA establishes
many requirements that BLM must adhere to in the RMP process. It is imperative that BLM
insure that waters on its lands comply with or surpass the State water quality standards. It is
critical to recognize that State water quality standards “serve the purposes” of the CWA, which,
among other things, is to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of
the Nation’s waters. . .” 33 U.S.C. §§ 1313(c)(2)(A), §1251(a). That is, a purpose of water
quality standards is to protect aquatic ecosystems, and BLM must ensure this comprehensive
objective is met by ensuring water quality standards are complied with. Water quality standards
are typically composed of numeric standards, narrative standards, designated uses, and an antidegradation policy. The Draft Plan, however, only considers numeric standards as “water quality
standards.” That narrow view is incorrect. The Supreme Court held in PUD No. 1 of Jefferson
County v. Washington Dep’t of Ecology, 511 U.S. 700 (1994), that all components of water
quality standards are enforceable limits. Consequently, the RMP must outline not only the ways
in which BLM will meet or exceed the numeric standards, but also how it will manage its lands
to ensure that the State’s anti-degradation policy is complied with.
112
Adopting this legally sanctioned view of water quality standards is important. For example, a
typical designated use for a stream might state that the stream is “protected for cold water species
of game fish and other cold water aquatic life, including necessary organisms in their food
chain.” Designated uses of this sort encompass a far more holistic, ecosystem-based view than
focusing on, say, the concentration of chloride in the stream (a numeric standard). While Table
3-7 (Draft RMP) is a good start, over one half of the Landscape Assessment Units have not been
analyzed. Consequently, the RMP should provide that designated uses be fully achieved, and if
they are not, require prompt management changes even if numeric standards are otherwise being
met. Similarly, BLM should develop and commit to an active monitoring protocol to ensure that
not only numeric standards are being met, but also develop their monitoring protocol to take into
account narrative standards as well.
In addition to the anti-degradation policy’s protections for waters that are meeting water quality
standards, where State water quality standards have not been achieved despite implementation of
point source pollution controls, section 303(d) of the CWA requires a State to develop a list of
those still-impaired waters, with a priority ranking, and to set total maximum daily loads
(TMDLs) of pollutants for the stream “at a level necessary to implement the applicable water
quality standards. . . .” 33 U.S.C. §1313(d)(1)(C). Consequently, to the extent waters within the
BLM’s jurisdiction have been identified as water quality impaired segments, or contribute stream
flow to such segments, the Proposed Plan should include affirmative steps toward reducing that
impaired status. If any specific load allocation has been made by the State for activities on BLM
lands, BLM should ensure that all activities are in compliance.
The Proposed Plan should also ensure full compliance with sections 401 and 404 of the CWA.
Section 401 requires State certification of compliance with State water quality standards prior to
authorization of certain actions on BLM lands. 33 U.S.C. § 1341. Section 404 requires permits
before discharges of dredged or fill material can be made into navigable waters, and BLM,
through the Proposed Plan, should assist the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers with
implementation and enforcement of this requirement, which, of course, is a powerful means for
the protection of wetlands. See 33 U.S.C. § 1344.
Recommendations: We urge the BLM to provide a list of BMPs for oil and gas, such as those
outlined in the Wildlife Management Guidelines for Oil and Gas Development (endorsed by 66
wildlife and conservation groups and available at:
http://www.coloradowildlife.org/advocacy/guidelinesoilgas.asp), make these BMPs mandatory,
make the .25 mile NSO stipulation next to perennial streams non-waivable, analyze the impacts
to water resources from oil shale development, and develop a monitoring system and
enforcement protocol which not only considers numeric standards, but also seeks to meet or
exceed narrative standards.
XV. LAND TENURE ADJUSTMENTS
Section 102(a)(1) of FLPMA requires that BLM-managed lands be retained in federal ownership
unless BLM determines through the land use planning process that disposal of a particular parcel
will serve the national interest. 43 U.S.C. 1701. Land tenure decisions must achieve the goals,
standards, and objectives outlined in the land use plan. BLM should focus future land tenure
113
decisions with an eye towards providing adequate public open space, maintaining key viewsheds
and taking into consideration new proposals for open space, non-motorized trails and special
management areas.
Along with the growing population of Craig and the other population centers within the planning
area has come a desire to develop more land, some of which may be appropriate. However, the
BLM must retain land near sensitive and ecologically important areas, including all those within
existing or proposed ACECs, SRMAs, lands with backcountry characteristics, WSAs, lands with
wilderness character, and areas for open space. BLM’s preferred alternative states that, in all
three zones, “Sales should be tied to identification of the purchase of
nonfederal lands within the LSFO, as appropriate and in the public’s
interest” (Draft RMP, pp. 2-98 – 2-99). While we applaud BLM for stating
that all land disposal should be tied to land acquisition, BLM should mandate
a “no net loss” of public land policy and clearly identify the types of
areas whose acquisition will be tied to any land disposal.
Recommendations: The BLM should amend the RMP language regarding exchanging or selling
lands within each Zone. The following statement, present in the description of each zone in
Alternative C, presently reads:
… exchange or sell lands (surface and/or mineral estate) to facilitate better
management of BLM lands and to benefit the public. Sales should be tied to
identification of the purchase of nonfederal lands within the LSFO, as
appropriate and in the public’s interest.
This section of the RMP should be amended in each zone to read (changes
bolded):
… exchange or sell lands (surface and/or mineral estate) to facilitate better
management of BLM lands and to benefit the public. Sales must be tied to
identification of the purchase of nonfederal lands within the LSFO, as
appropriate and in the public’s interest including private or state
inholdings within WSAs, proposed wilderness, lands with wilderness
characteristics, backcountry areas, ACECs, SRMAs, and areas proposed for
public open space.
XVI. VISUAL RESOURCES
It is BLM policy that visual resource management (VRM) classes are assigned to all public lands
in RMPs. The objective of this policy is to “manage public lands in a manner which will protect
the quality of the scenic (visual) values of these lands.” BLM Manual MS-8400.02. Under the
authority of FLPMA, the BLM must prepare and maintain on a continuing basis an inventory of
visual values for each RMP effort. 43 U.S.C. § 1701; BLM Manual MS-8400.06. In addition,
NEPA requires that measures be taken to “. . . assure for all Americans . . . aesthetically pleasing
114
surroundings.” Once established, VRM objectives are as binding as any other resource objectives,
and no action may be taken unless the VRM objectives can be met. See IBLA 98-144, 98-168, 98207 (1998). BLM’s description of Visual Resources (Draft RMP, p. 2-51) should be amended to
state that compliance with VRM classes is not discretionary.
BLM’s Preferred Alternative only provides VRM I status to Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs),
while Alternative D provides VRM I status to WSAs and the Cross Mountain ACEC (which was
released from ACEC protection in Alternative C) (Draft RMP, p. 2-51). The purpose of
designating Cross Mountain ACEC VRM I is to protect this area should the Cross Mountain
WSA be released by Congress. The area encompassed by the existing Cross Mountain ACEC is
one of, if not the most scenic area in the Little Snake Field Office. BLM should maintain the
VRM I classification of this area to protect the area should Congress release the Cross Mountain
WSA.
Recommendations:
BLM should prioritize scenic value as a resource that is conserved and the RMP should state that
compliance with VRM classes is established. Further, BLM should provide VRM protection and
limit surface disturbance within important viewsheds. Specifically 21:
The following proposed wilderness areas (as outlined in the attached Citizen’s Wilderness
Proposal) should be managed as VRM Class I in the Proposed Plan:
•
Vermillion Basin (mostly VRM III (with small portions of VRM II) in Alternative C / mostly
VRM II in Alternative D);
•
Cold Spring Mountain (VRM III in Alternative C / VRM II in Alternative D),
•
Diamond Breaks backcountry area outside of WSA (VRM III in Alternative C / VRM II in
Alternative D),
•
Cross Mountain backcountry area outside of WSA (VRM III in Alternative C / VRM II in
Alternative D),
•
Yampa River (Some portions VRM II and some portions VRM III in Alternatives C and D)
•
Pinyon Ridge (VRM III in Alternative C / VRM II in Alternative D)
•
Dinosaur Additions (VRM II in Alternatives C and D)
XVII. ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT
The Draft RMP contains a number of references to using adaptive management. The general
approach is consistent with key adaptive management requirements. As an overall basis for
implementation, the Draft asserts that the BLM will: “[u]se adaptive management where
appropriate, including best available science, and identify and monitor indicators of acceptable
landscape or resource health.” Draft RMP, p. 2-5. Also, the preferred alternative “would be
implemented by using the principles of adaptive management. Appendix M explains the
21
Existing proposed VRM Class for Alternatives C and D was found using Maps 2-12 and 2-13 as well as the VRM
descriptions found on pages 2-52 thru 2-54 in the Draft RMP.
115
adaptive management approach to be employed in implementation of this alternative.” Draft
RMP, p. 2-7. Appendix M (Criteria for Subsequent Activity Planning) sets out both project-level
and system-level adaptive management frameworks, describes situations where management
change may be triggered and the use of a “fallback prescription” where adaptive management is
not suitable or funding for necessary monitoring is not sufficient, and includes a land health
assessment form to be used to measure effects of management on indicators of resources.
The Draft RMP also refers to Appendix F (Criteria for Subsequent Activity Planning), stating:
“Adaptive management criteria would be used to prioritize implementation planning in areas
with the greatest need for it (Appendix F).” Draft RMP, p. 2-7. For OHV designations and
transportation planning, Appendix F sets out a plan for data collection and monitoring, a
commitment to funding this approach, and specific indicators for resource conditions (such as elk
distribution and herd health, rangeland health, road density and oil and gas leasing). Appendix F
also identifies criteria for wild horses, the Yampa River Corridor and reserve conservation
allotments.
While we support many aspects of the overall approach to adaptive management, such as the
specific indicators and acceptable levels of change, the commitment to funding for monitoring,
and the use of a fallback prescription. However, additional details regarding actions that will be
taken if levels of change are unacceptable need to be included. This specificity is necessary in
order for adaptive management to meet NEPA’s standards for mitigation measures that are likely
to be effective and enforced. Further, monitoring commitments and criteria should also be
included for other key resources, such as lands with wilderness characteristics, wild and scenic
river segments and ACECs. Indicators can include the status of wilderness characteristics,
outstanding river values, and the relevant and important values for which ACECs have been
designated.
The purported “adaptive management” approach to oil and gas leasing, though, is unacceptable
and does not meet NEPA’s requirements for mitigation measures. For oil and gas leasing,
Appendix F simply refers to Appendix E (Procedures and Criteria for Granting Exception,
Modification of Waiver) as setting out the “process and criteria” for managing oil and gas
leasing stipulations. Elsewhere, the Draft RMP also refers to granting of waivers, exception and
modifications of oil and gas lease stipulations as based on a form of adaptive management, set
out in Appendix E stating:
Commodity production would be balanced against wildlife and vegetation protection;
however, exceptions would be granted according to adaptive criteria established
(Appendix E). Protection of greater sage-grouse and other wildlife habitat characteristics
would be maintained or increased. Draft RMP, pp. 2-6–2-7.
Appendix E does not identify potentially affected resources, any approach to measuring those
affects or description of actions that will be taken. Instead, this Appendix presents a list of
“criteria,” such as “weather severity,” “timing” and “cumulative effects,” without specifying
which criteria could apply to justify waiver, exception or modification or distinguish among the
many stipulations that could be applied. There is no commitment to monitoring, no range of
acceptable change and no description of the different actions that may be acceptable in certain
116
situations. As a result, Appendix E cannot be considered a form of adaptive management or a
suitable mitigation measure for the effects of oil and gas development or the need for lease
stipulations to be applied. Instead, a commitment to data collection and monitoring, as well as
indicators, levels of acceptable change and required actions should be set out and applied.
An example of sufficiently detailed adaptive management approach is contained in the Record of
Decision for the Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan, prepared by the Rock Springs
(WY) BLM Field Office. Appendix 2 (Implementation, Monitoring, and Evaluation Process)
provides the specificity needed to evaluate the planned adaptive management program (and is
available on line at
http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wy/jmhcap/rod.Par.37876.File.dat/02appendices.pdf and
attached). We particularly note the following, as examples of the sort of detail that should be
contained in the Little Snake RMP:
 Table A2-1 Resource Management Indicators - p. A2-7 – contains a broad set of
indicators
 Table A2-2 Indicator Detail - pp. A2-8 – A2-10 – contains multiple sources for data
 Table A2-3 Measurement Detail - pp. A2-11 – A2-13 – contains measures of change and
triggers for management actions
 Figure A2-2 CAP Management Process - p. A2-15 – provides a useful illustration of the
adaptive management process
Recommendations: We believe that adaptive management should only be used where it can
strengthen BLM’s ability to conserve resources within the multiple use mandate and should not
be employed to relieve BLM of specific obligations, restrictions on development, or use of
appropriate management tools such as special designations. Adaptive management can provide a
method for BLM to fully and actively manage resources beginning with inventory, continuing
through monitoring and analysis of impacts, to modifying management based on the results of
monitoring and evaluation.
The approach in the Draft RMP contains many important elements in Appendix M and Appendix
F. However, as noted above, there are additional elements that should be included in the
adaptive management process. We refer the BLM to the referenced sections of the Jack Morrow
Hills Coordinated Activity Plan as an example. Further, we recommend that the RMP set out a
comprehensive plan that applies in the same manner to oil and gas leasing, wilderness
characteristics, wild and scenic river segments and ACECs, is based on best available science
and includes the following:
•
Adaptive management should start small and pace development with level of
learning.
In the early stages of the Little Snake RMP, actions that may cause environmental impact should
be limited until such a time where inventory, monitoring, and analysis can confirm that the
resources are tending toward the desired goal.
• Define in detail what the adaptive management process will and will not address.
BLM should prepare a monitoring protocol that guides whether or not BLM plans to use
adaptive management with specific resources. The Draft RMP should also describe the
resources and specific indicators that will be measured and used to determine adaptive
117
management so that the public can provide meaningful comments on BLM’s proposed approach
to adaptive management.
•
Ensure adequate baseline prior to starting adaptive management and identify
indicators.
BLM should prepare detailed analysis of current inventory status to accompany the RMP that
clearly specifies resources that may be affected by various activities and their baseline condition,
then identify indicators for resources or groups of resources that will demonstrate the effects of
management decisions. The RMP should also identify those resources or locations for which
BLM lacks inventory data and establish a timeframe to accomplish inventories for resources or
locations where data is lacking.
•
Set out detailed monitoring plan and ensure agency commitment to fund
monitoring.
A detailed monitoring plan is crucial for assessing potential impacts on resource conditions,
ensuring that indicators are measured at regular and consistent intervals. Commitment of
adequate resources for administration of this adaptive management process should be firm and
sufficient to support the full implementation of adaptive management. Funding for adaptive
management should not be dependent on shifting the financial and personnel burden to various
user interests or other cooperating community groups.
•
Include defined limits of acceptable change in resource conditions and specify
actions to be taken if change reaches or exceeds those limits.
For all indicators, the RMP should identify the range of acceptable change from the baseline
condition, using best available science, and specify those actions that will be taken in the event
that unacceptable levels of change are identified.
•
Have a “fallback” plan should monitoring or other aspects of the adaptive
management process not be fully carried out.
Adaptive management must include requirements for when and how the proposed outcome will
be reevaluated if it is not being met. The agency’s ability to reevaluate or amend desired
outcomes should not be the sole fallback if either the adaptive management process is not
working or outcomes are not being met. BLM should build into the Little Snake RMP
provisions to address situations based on new information, circumstances, regulatory
requirements, or discontinued agency funding for monitoring that would trigger a plan
amendment or revision under a new EIS.
• Process should be managed so citizens can actively and effectively participate.
The adaptive management process should be managed so that the public can actively and
effectively participate. This resource area is broad, involving millions of acres; citizens interested
in the resources governed by the Little Snake RMP reside across three counties; and,
involvement of citizens in adaptive management processes can be both timely and costly to
individuals. BLM should, in addition to seeking funding commitments for fund monitoring and
analysis, seek funding for citizen participation. BLM should also begin planning now as to how
citizen involvement in adaptive management will meet the requirements of the Federal Advisory
Committee Act, and such planning should not be left only to those citizens or community groups
wishing to collaborate or advise BLM.
118
The BLM should limit use of adaptive management to appropriate situations (where the risk of
failure will not cause harm to sensitive resources). An adaptive management program should
comply with the guidelines set out above and the RMP must fully explain, with sufficient detail,
how BLM will employ adaptive management, what the “triggers” are for its use, and what
opportunities the public will have to participate in adaptive management decisions.
Thank you for your consideration of our substantive comments on the Draft RMP/Draft EIS for
the Little Snake Field Office. We look forward to seeing these issues addressed in the
Final/Proposed RMP/EIS.
Sincerely,
The Wilderness Society
Suzanne Jones, Central Rockies Regional Director
Nada Culver, Senior Counsel
Heath Nero, Outreach Coordinator
BLM Action Center
1660 Wynkoop, Suite 850
Denver, CO 80202
303-650-5818
Colorado Environmental Coalition
Elise Jones, Executive Director
1536 Wynkoop St., #5C
Denver, CO 80202
tel: 303.534.7066
fax: 303.534.7063
Luke Schafer, Northwest Organizer
11 W. Victory Way #208
Craig, CO 81625
970-824-2961
Center for Native Ecosystems
Jacob Smith, Executive Director
1536 Wynkoop, Suite 302
Denver, Colorado 80202
303.546.0214
Colorado Mountain Club
Clare Bastable
Conservation Director
PO Box 1348
Carbondale, CO 81623
(970) 618-1341
[email protected]
119
National Wildlife Federation
Michael Saul, Associate Counsel
2260 Baseline Road, Suite 100
Boulder, CO 80302
Biodiversity Conservation Alliance (formerly Biodiversity Associates)
Erik Molvar, Executive Director
P.O. Box 1512
Laramie, WY 82073
(307) 742-7978
FAX (307) 742-7989
Natural Resources Defense Council
Amy Mall, Campaign Director
1809 Mariposa Avenue
Boulder, Colorado 80302
American Rivers, Inc.
Quinn McKew, Associate Director
1101 14th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005
202-347-7550
Rocky Mountain Recreation Initiative
Roz McClellan, Director
1567 Twin Sisters Rd.
Nederland, CO 80466
303-447-9409
Wilderness Workshop
Sloan Shoemaker, Conservation Director
Peter Heart, Conservation Analyst
PO Box 1442 / 589 Main St.
Carbondale, CO 81623
970-963-3977
Great Old Broads for Wilderness
Veronica Egan, Executive Director
PO Box 2924
Durango, CO 81302
High Country Citizens' Alliance
Dan Morse, Public Lands Director
120
PO Box 1066
Crested Butte, CO 81224
(970) 349-7104
[email protected]
Southern Rockies Ecosystem Project
Michelle Zimmerman, Executive Director
1536 Wynkoop Street Suite 200
Denver, Colorado 80202
desk: 303.454.3341
cell: 303.881.3087
Center for Water Advocacy
Harold Shepherd, Executive Director
P.O. Box 583
Clifton, CO 81520
Sierra Club, Rocky Mountain Chapter
Kirk Cunningham, Conservation Chair
1536 Wynkoop St., Suite 4B
Denver CO 80203
Colorado Wild
Ryan Demmy Bidwell, Executive Director
P.O. Box 2434
Durango, CO 81302
phone: 970-385-9833
www.coloradowild.org
Western Colorado Congress
Mark Schofield, Director of Organizing
P.O. Box 1931
Grand Junction, CO 81502
(970) 256-7650
[email protected]
San Juan Citizens Alliance
Mark Pearson, Executive Director
PO Box 2461
Durango, CO 81302
(970) 259-3583
www.sanjuancitizens.org
121
Attachments and References
Attachments:
1. Maps produced by The Wilderness Society’s Center for Landscape Analysis, 2007.
2. Southern Rockies Ecosystem Project habitat linkages, “CO 13 Big Bottom” and “CO 13
Nine Mile Gap”, April 2006.
3. Declaration re: APD for Focus Ranch, Federal #12-1, Braun, C.E. 2004.
4. State of Utah v. Norton, Motion to Stay Briefing and for a Status Conference, September
9, 2005.
5. Oregon Natural Desert Association v. Rasmussen, CV 05-1616-AS, Findings and
Recommendations (D.Or. April 20, 2006.)
6. Oregon Natural Desert Association v. Rasmussen, CV 05-1616-AS, (D.Or. December 12,
2006.)
7. State of Utah v. Norton, Case No. 2:96-CV-0870, Order and Opinion (D.Utah September
20, 2006.)
8. Brief of the Federal Appellees, State of Utah v. Kempthorne, Case No. 06-4240
(February 26, 2007).
9. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Norton, 457 F. Supp. 2d 1253 (D. Utah 2006.
10. IM No. AZ-2005-007.
11. Excerpts from the Preliminary Draft Alternatives to the Moab RMP.
12. Newsletter and Goals and Objectives for the Preliminary Draft Alternatives to the TriCounty RMP.
13. Citizens’ Wilderness Proposal for the Little Snake Field Office, May 2007.
14. A GIS Analysis of the Undiscovered Technically Recoverable Oil and Gas in the Little
Snake Resource Area, 2007.
15. Wildlife Protection Guidelines for Oil and Gas Development, June 2006.
16. Northern Plains Resource Council v. Bureau of Land Management, CV 03-69-BLGRWA (D.Montana February 25, 2005.
17. Braun, Clait E. Ph.D, A Blueprint for Sage-grouse Conservation and Recovery, May
2006.
122
18. New Mexico Department of Game and Fish. 2005. Habitat Fragmentation and the
Effects of Roads on Wildlife and Habitats.
19. Braun, C.E. 1998. Sage grouse declines in western North America: What are the
problems? Proceedings of the Western Association of State Fish and Wildlife Agencies
78:139-156.
20. Connelly, J.W., J.A. Schroeder, A.R. Sands, and C.E. Braun. 2000. Guidelines to
manage sage grouse populations and their habitats. Wildlife Biology ¾:123-128.
21. Freddy, D.J., W.M. Bronaugh, and M.C Fowler. 1986. Response of mule deer to
disturbance by person afoot and snowmobiles. Wildlife Society Bulletin 14:63-68.
22. Lutz, D.W., B.F. Wakeling, L.H. Carpenter, D. Stroud, M. Cox, D. McWhirter, S.
Rosenstock, L.C. Bender, and A.F. Reeve. 2003. Impacts and changes to mule deer
habitat. Pages 13-61 in: de Vos, J.C. Jr., M.R. Conover, and N.E. Headrick, Eds. Mule
Deer Conservation: Issues and Management Strategies. Jack H. Berryman Institute Press,
Utah State University, Logan, UT.
23. Ockenfels, R.A., A. Alexander, C.L. Dorothy Ticer, and W.K. Carrel. 1994. Home Range
Movement Patterns and Habitat Selection of Pronghorn in Central Arizona. Technical
Report 13. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ.
24. Sheldon, D., F. Lindzey, and B. Rudd. 2006. Movement and Distribution Patterns of
Pronghorn Antelope in Relation to Roads in Southwestern Wyoming, prepared by:
Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Wyoming,
Laramie, Wyoming, prepared for: Wyoming Department of Transportation, 88p.
25. Van Riper, C., and R. Ockenfels. 1998. The influence of transportation corridors on the
movement of pronghorn antelope over a fragmented landscape in Northern Arizona.
International Conference on Wildlife Ecology and Transportation, 1998 pp. 241-245.
26. Newspaper article reference: Berger, J. and J. Beckmann. 2004. Pronghorn Survival and
Energy Development in Western Wyoming: Assessing Effects of Human Disturbance
During Winter. Annual Report from the Wildlife Conservation Society.
27. Lyon, L.J. and A.G. Christensen. 2002. Elk and land management. Pages 557-581 in:
Toweill, D.E. and J.W. Thomas, Eds. North American Elk Ecology and Management.
Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
28. Rost, G.R. and J.A. Bailey. 1979. Distribution of mule deer and elk in relation to roads.
Journal of Wildlife Management 43(3):634-641.
29. Lyon, L.J. 1979. Habitat effectiveness for elk as influenced by roads and cover.
Journal of Forestry 77:658-660.
123
30. Powell, J.H. 2003. Distribution, Habitat Use Patterns, and Elk Response to Human
Disturbance in the Jack Morrow Hills, Wyoming. Master of Science Thesis, University
of Wyoming.
31. Appendix 1:
a. Habitat Fragmentation from Roads: Travel Planning Methods to Safeguard
BLM Lands, The Wilderness Society, 2006.
b. Weller, C., Thomson, J., Morton, P., Aplet, G. 2002. Fragmenting Our Lands:
The Ecological Footprint from Oil and Gas Development. The Wilderness
Society: Washington, DC. 24 p.
c. Hartley, D. A., Thomson, J. L., Morton, P., Schlenker-Goodrich, E. 2003.
Ecological Effects of a Transportation Network on Wildlife. The Wilderness
Society: Washington, DC. 27 p.
d. Thomson, J. L., Hartley, D. A., Ozarski, J., Murray, K., Culver, N. W. 2004.
Protecting Northern Arizona's National Monuments: The Challenges of
Transportation Management. The Wilderness Society: Washington, DC. 39 p.
e. Thomson, J. L., Schaub, T. S., Culver, N. W. Aengst, P.C. 2005. Wildlife at a
Crossroads: Energy Development in Western Wyoming. The Wilderness
Society: Washington, DC. 40 p.
f. Morton, P., Weller, C., Thomson, J., Haefele, M., Culver, N. 2004. Drilling in
the Rocky Mountains: How Much and At What Cost? The Wilderness
Society: Washington, DC. 33 p.
32. Groom, M.J., G.K. Meffe, C.R. Carroll, 2006. Principles of Conservation Biology.
Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, MA
33. Excerpts from the Record of Decision for the Dillon (MT) RMP.
34. Recommended Process for BLM Travel Management Planning and Route Designation
developed by The Wilderness Society and the Colorado Mountain Club.
35. Socio-Economic Framework for Public Land Management Planning: Indicators for the
West's Economy, 2006, The Wilderness Society.
36. The Economic and Social Impacts of Oil and Gas Development, 2006, The Wilderness
Society.
37. Appendix 2 (Implementation, Monitoring, and Evaluation Process), Record of Decision
for the Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan, Rock Springs (WY) BLM Field
Office.
References:
124
American Bird Conservancy. 2007. Top 20 Most Threatened Bird Habitats in the U.S. available
from: www.abcbirds.org/habitatreport.pdf . The Plains, Virginia. 48p.
BBC Research and Consulting. November 12, 2001. Measuring the Impact of Coalbed Methane
Wells on Property Values, Appendix B of the La Plata County Impact Report (Appendix
B: http://co.laplata.co.us/pdf/plan_doc/final_impactrpt/final_ir_appb.pdf, Full report:
http://co.laplata.co.us/publications.htm)
Bennett, K. and M.K. McBeth. 1998. Contemporary western rural USA economic composition:
Potential implications for environmental policy and research. Environmental
Management 22(3): 371-381.
Berger, J., K.M. Berger, and J.P. Beckmann, 2006. Wildlife and Energy Development: Pronghorn of
the Upper Green River Basin – Year 1 Summary. Wildlife Conservation Society, Bronx, NY,
54p. Available
at: http://www.wcs.org/media/file/Shell%20Year%201%20Progress%20REVISED%20III.
pdf.
Boyle, S.A. and D.R. Reeder. 2005. Colorado sagebrush: a conservation assessment and
strategy. Grand Junction: Colorado Division of Wildlife.
Brabant, S. and R. Gramling. 1997. Resource extraction and fluctuations in poverty: A case
study. Society & Natural Resources 10(1):97-106.
Braun, C.E. 1998. Sage grouse declines in western North America: What are the problems?
Proceedings of the Western Association of State Fish and Wildlife Agencies 78:139-156.
Braun, C.E. 2006. Sage-Grouse Habitat Conservation Strategies: A Blueprint for Conservation
and Recovery. Grouse Inc. Tucson, Arizona.
Brown, R.B., S.F. Dorius and R.S. Krannich. 2005. The boom-bust-recovery cycle: Dynamics of
change in community satisfaction and social integration in Delta, Utah. Rural Sociology
70(1):28-49.
Bureau of Land Management. 1999. Draft EIS for the Pinedale Anticline Oil and Gas
Exploration and Development Project, Sublette County, WY. U.S. Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Pinedale Field Office, Pinedale, WY.
Clements, W.H. 2002. Expert Comments, submitted on the Montana Statewide Draft Oil and Gas
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Amendment of the Powder River and Billings
Resources Management Plans (RMPs). (On file with the authors.)
Cohen, K., N. Sanyal, and G.E. Reed. 2007. Methamphetamine production on public lands:
Threats and responses. Society and Natural Resources 20(2):261-270.
Confluence Consulting. 2005. Annotated Bibliography of Potential Impacts of Gas and Oil
Exploration and Development on Coldwater Fisheries. Prepared by Confluence
Consulting, Inc. for Trout Unlimited, Bozeman, Montana, 28p.
Connelly, J.W., Jr., and C.E. Braun, 1997. Long-term changes in sage grouse (Centrocercus
urophasianus) populations in western North America. Wildlife Biology 3: 123-128.
Connelly, J.W., J.A. Schroeder, A.R. Sands, and C.E. Braun. 2000. Guidelines to manage sage
grouse populations and their habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28(4):967-985.
125
Darin, T. 2000. Coal-bed methane coming to a town near you. Frontline Report. Wyoming
Outdoor Council. Spring 2000. Available at:
http://www.wyomingoutdoorcouncil.org/news/newsletter/docs/2000b/
Davenport, J. and J. A. Davenport (eds). 1980. The Boom Town: Problems and Promises in the
Energy Vortex. Laramie WY: University of Wyoming, Department of Social Work.
Deller, S.C., T. Tsai, D.W. Marcouiller, and D.B.K. English. 2001. The Role of Amenities and
Quality of Life in Rural Economic Growth. American Journal of Agricultural Economics
83(2): 352-365.
Duffy-Deno, K. T. 1998. The effect of federal wilderness on county growth in the intermountain
western United States. Journal of Regional Science 38(1): 109-136.
Fortmann, L.P. et al. 1989. Community stability: The foresters' fig leaf. In Community Stability
in Forest-based Economies, eds., D.C. Le Master and J.H. Beuter . Portland OR: Timber
Press.
Freddy, D.J., W.M. Bronaugh, and M.C. Fowler. 1986. Responses of mule deer to disturbance
by persons afoot and snowmobiles. Wildlife Society Bulletin 14:63-68.
Freeman, A.M. III, 2003; The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values, 2nd Edition,
Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C.
Freudenburg, W.R. 1992. Addictive economies: extractive industries and vulnerable localities in
a changing world economy. Rural Sociology 57:305-332.
Freudenburg, W.R. and R. Gramling. 1994. Natural resources and rural poverty: A closer look.
Society and Natural Resources 7:5-22
Gaines, W., P. Singleton, and R. Ross. 2003. Assessing the Cumulative Effects of Linear
Recreation Routes on Wildlife Habitats on the Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests.
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-586. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest
Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR.
Gauthier-Warinner, R.J. 2000. Oil and gas development. In: Drinking water from forests and
grasslands: A synthesis of the scientific literature. Dissmeyer, G. E. ed. Gen. Tech. Rep.
SRS-39. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern
Research Station. 246 p. Available at:
http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/gtr/gtr_srs039/index.htm
Goldsmith, O.S. 1992. Economic instability in petroleum-based economies. Presented at
OPEC/Alaska Conference on Energy Issues in the 1990’s. Anchorage AK, July 23-24,
1992.
Groom, M.J., G.K. Meffe, C.R. Carroll, 2006. Principles of Conservation Biology. Sinauer
Associates, Inc., Sunderland, MA.
Gucinski, H., J.J. Furniss, R.R. Ziemer, and M.H. Brookes. 2001. Forest Roads: A Synthesis of
Scientific Information. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-509. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR.
Guilliford, Andrew. 1989. Boomtown Blues: Colorado Oil Shale 1885-1985. Niwot, CO:
University Press of Colorado.
126
Henderson, J. 2004. Wildlife Recreation: Rural America's Newest Billion-Dollar Industry. The
Main Street Economist, April 2004. Center for the Study of Rural America, Federal
Reserve Bank of Kansas City. Kansas City, MO.
Holloran, M.J. 2005. Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Population Response to
Natural Gas Field Development in Western Wyoming, Doctoral Dissertation, University of
Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming.
Holmes, F. Patrick and Walter E. Hecox. 2004. Does wilderness impoverish rural regions?
International Journal of Wilderness 10(3): 34-39.
Humphrey, C.R.; G. Berardi, M.S. Carroll, S. Fairfax, L. Fortman, C. Geisler, T.G. Johnson, J.
Kusel, R.G. Lee, S. Macinko, M.D. Schulman, P.C. West. 1993. Theories in the study of
natural resource-dependent communities and persistent poverty in the United States. In:
Rural Sociological Society Task Force on Persistent Rural Poverty, Ed. Persistent
Poverty in Rural America.. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Ingelfinger, F. 2001. The effects of natural gas development on sagebrush steppe passerines in
Sublette County, Wyoming. M.Sc. thesis, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY.
Jacquet. J. 2005. Index Crimes, Arrests, and Incidents in Sublette County 1995-2004: Trends and
Forecasts. Report prepared for the Socioeconomic Analyst Advisory Committee, Sublette
County, Wyoming (available at: http://www.pinedaleonline.com/socioeconomic/ accessed
March 8, 2007)
Johnson, J. and R. Rasker. 1993. The Role of Amenities in Business Attraction and Retention.
Montana Policy Review 3(2).
Johnson, J., and R. Rasker. 1995. The Role of Economic and Quality of Life Values in Rural
Business Location. Journal of Rural Studies 11(4): 405-416.
Johnson, T.G. 2001. The rural economy in a new century. International Regional Science Review
24(1): 21-37.
Kaval, P. and J. Loomis. 2005. Updated Outdoor Recreation Use Values with Emphasis on
National Park Recreation. Final Report for Dr. Bruce Peacock, National Park Service,
Fort Collins, CO under Cooperative Agreement CA 1200-99-009, Project number IMDE02-0070. 48 p.
Kelly, J. 1980. Rocky Mountain High. Time December 15: 28-41.
Kittredge, W.. 1987. Overthrust Dreams. In: Owning It All by W. Kittredge. Saint Paul, MN:
Grey Wolf Press.
Knick, S.T., D.S. Dobkin, J.T. Rotenberry, M.A. Schroeder, W.M. Vander Haegen, and C. van
Riper. 2003. Teetering on the edge or too late? Conservation and research issues of
avifauna of sagebrush habitats. The Condor 105:611-634.
Lehmkuhl, J.F. and L.F. Ruggiero. 1991. Forest fragmentation in the Pacific Northwest and its
potential effects on wildlife. Pages 35-46 in: Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, A.B. Carey, and
M.H. Huff, Tech. Coords. Wildlife and Vegetation of Unmanaged Douglas-fir Forests.
General Technical Report PNW-GTR-285. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest
Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR.
127
Limerick, Patricia Nelson; Travis, William; Scoggin, Tamar. 2002. Boom and bust in the
American West. Workshop Report. Center of the American West, University of
Colorado, Boulder, CO. Available at: http://www.centerwest.org/boom_bust.html
Lorah, P. 2000. Population Growth, Economic Security and Cultural Change in Wilderness
Counties. In McCool, S.F., D.N. Cole, W.T. Borrie, and J. O'Loughlin, comps.
Wilderness Science in a Time of Change Conference, Volume 2: Wilderness within the
Context of Larger Systems, 1999 May 23-27. Missoula, MT. Proceedings RMRS-P-15VOL 2., U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research
Station, Ogden, UT.
Lorah, P. and R. Southwick. 2003. Environmental protection, population change, and economic
development in the rural western United States. Population and Environment 24(3): 255272.
Low, S. 2004. Regional Asset Indicators: Entrepreneurship Breadth and Depth. The Main Street
Economist, September, 2004. Center for the Study of Rural America, Federal Reserve
Bank of Kansas City, Kansas City, MO.
Lutz, D. W., B.F. Wakeling, L.H. Carpenter, D. Stroud, M. Cox. D. McWhirter, S. Rosenstock.
L.C. Bender, and A.F. Reeve 2003. Impacts and changes made to mule deer habitat.
Pages 13-61 in: Mule Deer Conservation: Issues and Management Strategies, eds. de
Vos, J.S. Jr., M.R. Conover, N.E. Headrick.. Jack H. Berryman Institute Press, Utah State
University, Logan, UT.
Lyon, L.J. 1979. Habitat effectiveness for elk as influenced by roads and cover. Journal of
Forestry 77:658-660.
Lyon, A.G. and S.H. Anderson. 2003. Potential gas development impacts on sage-grouse nest
initiation and movement. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31:486-491.
Lyon, L.J. and A. G. Christensen. 2002. Elk and land management. Pages 557-581 In North
American Elk Ecology and Management, eds. Toweill, D.E. and J.W. Thomas.
Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.
McGranahan, D.A. 1999. Natural amenities drive rural population change. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Food and Rural Economics Division.
Agricultural Economics Report No. 781.
McLeod, D., C. Kruse, J. Woirhaye. 1998. Results from a Land Use Survey in Sublette County,
Wyoming. Agricultural Experiment Station Publication B-1067. University of Wyoming,
College of Agriculture, Laramie. Available at:
http://agecon.uwyo.edu/EconDev/PubStorage/B-1067.pdf
Merrifield, J. 1984. Impact mitigation in western energy boomtowns. Growth and Change
15(2):23-28.
Morgantini, L.E. and R.J. Hudson. 1979. Human disturbance and habitat selection in elk. Pages
132-139 in: Symposium on Elk Ecology and Management, April 3-5, 1978. Laramie, WY.
Morton, P. 2000. Wilderness, the Silent Engine of the West's Economy. The Wilderness Society,
Washington, DC.
128
Morton, P. C. Weller, J. Thomson. 2002. Coalbed Methane and Public Wildlands: How Much
and at What Cost? Presented at Coalbed Methane Development in the Intermountain
West, the Natural Resources Law Center, University of Colorado, Boulder CO. pp156175. Available at http://www.cbmclearinghouse.info/documents.html
Naugle, D.E., B.L. Walker, and K.E. Doherty. 2006. Sage-Grouse Population Response to
Coal-bed Natural Gas Development in the Powder River Basin: Interim Progress Report
on Region-wide Lek-count Analysis. University of Montana.
Nelson, P.B. 1999. Quality of Life, Nontraditional Income, and Economic Growth: New
Development Opportunities for the Rural West. Rural Development Perspectives 14(2):
32-37.
New Mexico Department of Game and Fish. 2005. Habitat Fragmentation and the Effects of
Roads on Wildlife and Habitats. Available at http://www.wildlife.state.
nm.us/conservation/habitat_handbook/EffectsofRoads.htm.
Noss, R.G., 2007. Conservation Thresholds: Overview and Commentary. Pages 1-12 in:
Lasting Landscapes: Reflections on the Role of Conservation Science in Lands Use
Planning. Environmental Law Institute, Washington D.C.
Ockenfels, R.A., A. Alexander, C.L. Dorothy Ticer, and W.K. Carrel. 1994. Home Range
Movement Patterns and Habitat Selection of Pronghorn in Central Arizona. Technical
Report 13. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ.
Pederson Planning Consultants. 2001. Appendix D in the Wyoming Energy Commission,
Preliminary Progress Report to the Wyoming Legislature, Joint Minerals, Business and
Economic Development Committee, December 14, 2001. Draft Report commission by
the Wyoming Energy Commission. 34 pages.
Pickton, T. and L. Sikorowski. 2004. The Economic Impacts of Hunting, Fishing, and Wildlife
Watching in Colorado. Final Report prepared by BBC Research and Consulting for the
Colorado Division of Wildlife. Denver, CO.
Pinedale Anticline Working Group. 2005. BLM Pinedale Anticline Working Group PAWG Task
Groups’ Report.
Porter K., L. Ziegler, K. Lumsden, E. Vajda, C. Collins. 2004. Sublette County Community
Assessment. Wyoming Rural Development Council, Cheyenne, WY. Available at:
http://www.wyomingcommunitynetwork.com/FinalReports/Pinedalefinal.pdf
Powell, J.H. 2003. Distribution, Habitat Use Patterns, and Elk Response to Human Disturbance
in the Jack Morrow Hills, Wyoming. Master of Science Thesis, University of Wyoming.
Power, Thomas M. 1995. Economic Well-Being and Environmental Protection in the Pacific
Northwest: A Consensus Report by Pacific Northwest Economists. Missoula MT:
University of Montana.
Power, T. M. 1996. Lost Landscapes and Failed Economies. Island Press, Covelo, CA.
Rasker, R., B. Alexander, J. van den Noort, and R. Carter. 2004. Public Lands Conservation and
Economic Well-Being. The Sonoran Institute, Tucson, AZ. (for a summary see:
http://sonoran.org/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=66&Itemid=74
accessed 5/7/07)
129
Reeder, R.J. and D.M. Brown, 2005, Recreation, Tourism, and Rural Well-Being, USDA
Economic Research Service, Economic Research Report Number 7, Washington, D.C.
Rosenberger, R. and J. Loomis. 2001. Benefits Transfer of Outdoor Recreation Use Values: A
Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service Strategic Plan (2000 Revision). Gen.
Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-72. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 59 p.
Rost, G.R. and J.A. Bailey. 1979. Distribution of mule deer and elk in relation to roads. Journal
of Wildlife Management 43(3):634-641.
Rudzitis, G. 1999. Amenities Increasingly draw people to the rural west. Rural Development
Perspectives 14(3): 9-13.
Rudzitis, G., and H.E. Johansen. 1989. Amenities, Migration, and Nonmetropolitan Regional
Development. Report to National Science Foundation. Department of Geography,
University of Idaho, Moscow, ID.
Sawyer, H., R. Nielson, D. Strickland, and L. McDonald. 2005. Annual Report, Sublette Mule
Deer Study (Phase II): Long-term monitoring plan to assess potential impacts of energy
development on mule deer in the Pinedale Anticline Project Area. Western Ecosystems
Technology, Inc. Cheyenne, WY. Available at http://www.westinc.com/reports/PAPA_2005_report_med.pdf.
Schneider, Richard, R., J. Brad Stelfox, ,Stan Boutin, and Shawn Wasel. 2003. Managing the
cumulative impacts of land uses in the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin: A
modeling approach. Conservation Ecology 7(1):8 [online] URL:
http://www.consecol.org/vol7/iss1/art8.
Schroeder, M.A., C.L. Aldridge, A.D. Apa, J.R. Bohne, C.E. Braun, S.D. Bunnell, J.W.
Connelly, P.A. Deibert, S.C. Gardner, M.A. Hilliard, G.D. Kobriger, S.M. McAdam, C.W.
McCarthy, J.J. McCarthy, D.L. Mitchell, E.V. Rickerson and S.J. Stiver. 2004.
Distribution of Sage-Grouse in North America. The Condor, 106:363-376.
Sheldon, D., F. Lindzey, and B. Rudd. 2006. Movement and Distribution Patterns of Pronghorn
Antelope in Relation to Roads in Southwestern Wyoming, prepared by: Wyoming
Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming,
prepared for: Wyoming Department of Transportation, 88p.
Shumway, J.M. and S.M. Otterstrom. 2001. Spatial patterns of migration and income change in
the mountain West: The dominance of service-based, amenity-rich counties. Professional
Geographer 53(4): 492-501.
Smith, E.J. 1986. Boom and bust in energy extraction. Agriculture and Rural Economics
Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.
Staff Report No. AGES860423.
Smith, M.D., R.S. Krannich and L.M. Hunter. 2001. Growth, decline, stability, and disruption: A
longitudinal analysis of social well-being in four western rural communities. Rural
Sociology 66(3): 425-450.
Snepenger, D.J., J.D. Johnson, and R. Rasker. 1995. Travel-Stimulated Entrepreneurial
Migration. Journal of Travel Research 34(1): 40-44
130
Szaro, R.C., D.A. Boyce, and T. Puchlerz. 2005. The challenges associated with developing
science-based landscape scale management plans. Landscape and Urban Planning, 72:312.
Trombulak, S.C. and C.A. Frissell. 2000. Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and
aquatic communities. Conservation Biology 14:18-30.
U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Department of
Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. 2001. National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and
Wildlife-associated Recreation. Available at:
http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/fishing.html
U.S. Geological Survey. 1996. Impact of Oil and Gas Activity on Land-Use Management
Decisions. http://energy.usgs.gov/factsheets/GIS/gis.html
U.S. Government Accountability Office. 2005. Oil and Gas Development: Increased Permitting
Activity Has Lessened BLM's ability to Meet Its Environmental Protection
Responsibilities. Report to the Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate. June 2005. GAO-05-418. Available at:
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05418.pdf
Van Riper, C., and R. Ockenfels. 1998. The influence of transportation corridors on the
movement of pronghorn antelope over a fragmented landscape in Northern Arizona.
International Conference on Wildlife Ecology and Transportation, 1998 pp. 241-245.
West, N.E. 2000. Strategies formaintenance of and repair of biotic community diversity on
rnagelands, in proceedings of P.G Entwistle, A.M. DeBolt, J.H. Kaltenecker, and K.
Steenhof [compilers] Sagebrush Steppe Ecosystems Symposium. USDI Bureau of Land
Management Publication BLM/ID/PT-001001+1150, Boise, ID, p15-26.
Western Organization of Resource Councils. 2005. Law and Order in the Oil and Gas Fields: A
Review of Inspection and Enforcement Programs I Five Western States. Available at :
http://www.worc.org/pdfs/Oil%20and%20Gas%20Report04.pdf
Whitelaw, E., and E.G. Niemi. 1989. Migration, economic growth, and the quality of life. In
Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Annual Pacific Northwest Regional Economic
Conference, Corvallis, OR, pp 36-38.
Wilcove, D.S. 1987. From fragmentation to extinction. Natural Areas Journal 7:23-29.
Wisdom, M. J., A. A. Ager, H. K. Preisler, N. Cimon, and B. K. Johnson. 2004. Effects of offroad recreation on mule deer and elk. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and
Natural Resources Conference 69:531-550.
Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 2004. Recommendations for Development of Oil and Gas
Resources within Crucial and Important Wildlife Habitat: A Strategy for Managing
Energy Development Consistently with the FLPMA Principles of Multiple Use and
Sustained Yield. Available at http://gf.state.wy.us/habitat/index.asp.
Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. 2006. Data on coalbed methane production
1987 to 2006 downloaded on April 14, 2006. http://wogcc.state.wy.us/
131
132