BLM approves drilling on winter range

[Oak]

This is the typical M.O. of the energy companies now. Submit drilling applications in smaller increments so that the BLM can approve them, with both the energy companies and the BLM knowing that another plan for infill drilling will be submitted a couple of years later. This way the BLM does not have to consider the full impacts of developing an area.

Groups: Drilling plan fails to address impacts on winter big game habitat

Dennis Webb
Glenwood Springs, CO Colorado
October 5, 2007

PARACHUTE - Contributing to tamarisk removal along the Colorado River is an inadequate tradeoff for impacts on deer and elk that will result from a drilling plan near Parachute, three conservation groups say.

The Colorado Wildlife Federation, Colorado Mule Deer Association and National Wildlife Federation say a federal decision to allow drilling of 139 wells doesn't include crucial mitigation to address loss of winter range habitat for big game.

The wells would be drilled by EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) on 4,820 acres of public and private land about three miles southeast of Parachute. EnCana would drill directionally from 16 existing and 10 new well pads.

The company did agree to fund a project by the nonprofit Tamarisk Coalition to remove the invasive species and otherwise restore habitat on about 250 acres along the river, generally west of Parachute.

The conservation groups filed a protest Sept. 27 with the BLM's state headquarters over the drilling decision made by its Glenwood Springs office. The BLM must respond within 10 days of that protest.

Mule deer move from Battlement Mesa into the proposed drilling area each fall. The BLM found that the drilling would result in a reduction in habitat use on about 53 percent of the 4,820 acres.

The wildlife groups contend the agency manipulated the planning area so drilling and road-building densities would fall below the thresholds at which the BLM would require off-site habitat mitigation. They say the BLM enlarged the planning area to include areas not envisioned for drilling so the well pad density would be less than a threshold of four per square mile.

The conservation groups also say the BLM is misinterpreting its own 1999 Glenwood-area management plan language regarding habitat mitigation. That plan refers to a threshold of four wells per square mile, but the BLM now is counting the number of pads.

"They've made that interpretation to take the energy companies off the hook for mitigation work, without public input," said Bob Elderkin, a Silt Mesa resident and board member for the Colorado Mule Deer Association.

Now retired from the BLM, Elderkin had helped write the 1999 plan.

Steve Bennett, associate field manager for the BLM's Glenwood Springs Field Office, said the BLM reads its 1999 policy differently now because there wasn't much directional drilling going on in 1999. Now, energy companies generally drill numerous wells from one pad, reducing surface impacts.

The conservation groups also point out that the BLM's decision on the EnCana drilling looks just a few years ahead and fails to consider longer-term habitat impacts. They expect that full development of the area will entail one well for each 10 acres, which could result in many more additional wells and impacts.

Bennett said it "gets pretty speculative when you try to guess what's going to happen for many, many years out."

Elderkin and other wildlife proponents think the BLM's decision reflects a mandate by the Bush administration to make drilling a priority on public lands. He fears that if further drilling is proposed in the planning area southeast of Parachute, it won't undergo adequate review "unless there's somebody other than a Republican in the White House."

Bennett said further environmental review occurs any time changes are made to drilling plans.

EnCana spokesman Doug Hock said the drilling plan is the result of a two-year process.

"So it wasn't something that was rushed through," he said.

"We strongly believe that we can develop according to our plan and do it in a way that is protective of wildlife or we wouldn't have submitted it," he said. "That's important to us."

Colorado Division of Wildlife spokesman Randy Hampton said the BLM addressed some issues the agency had raised about the drilling plan. But the DOW remains concerned that the plan lacks adequate detail and disclosure of impacts. It's hard to examine effects on wildlife without knowing site-specific information, he said.

And the ruling:

BLM rejects three wildlife groups' drilling plan protest

Dennis Webb
Glenwood Springs, CO Colorado
October 20, 2007

The state office of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management has denied three wildlife groups' protest of a 139-well natural gas development project near Parachute.

The BLM previously had found that the drilling by EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) would have no significant environmental impacts. The Colorado Mule Deer Association, Colorado Wildlife Federation and National Wildlife Federation protested the agency's decision.

They argue the BLM is failing to take adequate steps to try to mitigate the wildlife impacts of the drilling plan.

In a letter to the groups, deputy state BLM director Lynn Rust said the initial finding by the agency "adequately analyzed, disclosed and mitigated the impacts of the proposed action and is thereby upheld."

Michael Saul, an attorney for the National Wildlife Federation, said he would need to consult with the groups involved to see if they want to further appeal the decision.

"I have to say my initial reaction is I'm a bit disappointed because it appears that the BLM acknowledges the principal issue we've raised, that they're really only looking at the very immediate future of what's happening in the area and not the full scope of development that everyone can reasonably anticipate," he said.

The conservation groups say the BLM's decision on the EnCana drilling looks just a few years ahead and fails to consider longer-term habitat impacts. They expect that full development of the area will entail one well for each 10 acres, which would result in many more additional wells and impacts.

Rust responded, "Neither a proposal nor site-specific information currently exists to make a reasoned analysis of potential future development" within the planning area.

The BLM also rejected the group's contention that it failed to adequately consult with the Colorado Division of Wildlife, and to consider new information about gas development impacts on mule deer.

It said studies in 2005-06 regarding winter oil and gas development in the Pinedale, Wyo., area aren't directly applicable to the Parachute project. The Parachute area is much smaller, and has fewer deer and less proposed energy development, Rust wrote. It also has more vegetation and topographic screening than the open sagebrush country around Pinedale.

In addition, there is question whether the Wyoming studies documented a true population decline of deer or a temporary shift in distribution and habitat use, the agency contends.

Saul said the BLM seems to be scrambling for reasons to distinguish between the Wyoming and Parachute areas "without actually having any science to back up the implied conclusion that, 'well, you're going to see a different type of result in this type of geography.'"

The conservation groups say the BLM is misinterpreting its own 1999 Glenwood-area management plan language regarding when habitat mitigation would be required. That plan refers to a threshold of four wells per square mile, but the BLM now is counting the number of pads, which would total 26 across the 4,280-acre project area.

The groups contend the agency also enlarged the planning area to include areas not envisioned for drilling so the well pad density would stay below that threshold.

Answering concerns about the adequacy of wildlife mitigation, Rust wrote that EnCana voluntarily proposed a seasonal prohibition on gas development activities each January and February to protect winter habitat, and offered to fund removal of tamarisk on 250 acres separate from the drilling project area to improve regional wildlife habitat.

Saul said he thinks "the last gasp of this particular leadership of the BLM is making a very concerted effort to skirt or flout the intent of federal law." The agency is under orders by the Bush administration to make energy development a high priority.

The conservation groups can take their case within 30 days to the U.S. Interior Department Board of Land Appeals, or can pursue it in federal court.

Steve Bennett, associate manager of the BLM's Glenwood Springs Field Office, said he was happy that its work was upheld. But he added, "We learn from these things even if we are upheld, as far as it brings to light issues that we need to look at even closer than what we have, on future plans."

He said the BLM would try to improve coordination with the DOW.

 

[1_pointer]

The state office of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management has denied three wildlife groups' protest of a 139-well natural gas development project near Parachute.

WOW! I wish the range program could get these types of rules. I know my job would be much simpler if I could 'deny' protests on certain grazing decisions...