BLM greasing the skids for the energy companies again

[Oak]

This is pretty sweet. In September the BLM released the Record of Decision on the Suplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the Pinedale Anticline Project Area (PAPA).

If you look at the Wildlife Monitoring and Mitigation Matrix in that decision, you see that the criteria for implementation of mitigation for mule deer impacts is a 15% reduction in mule deer numbers from the baseline established in the winter of 2005/2006.

Remember that Pinedale Anticline mule deer study that showed a 46% decrease in mule deer between 2002 and 2004? I guess we're going to just forget that ever happened and start fresh with the reduced population.

How quickly will something be done if the 15% decline is noted?

"Initial mitigation will utilize Mitigation Responses 1, 2, and 3...."

"Sufficient time will be allowed for mitigation measures to demonstrate the desired result before the next mitigation response for each specific impact is required, and this expected time will be estimated when the measure is planned and implemented...."

"During the first annual planning meeting a monitoring and mitigation plan will be initiated to describe more specifically the details and process of monitoring and selection of actual mitigation responses. This plan will be updated each year, based on the monitoring and mitigation results and future needs that are apparent at that time...."

"It is fully anticipated that with multiple mitigation attempts with subsequent monitoring, it will be several years before modification of operations [ie, "Recommend, for consideration by Operators and BLM, adjustments of spatial arrangement and/or pace of ongoing development."] as noted in Mitigation Response 4 will be considered."

Sage-grouse can take it in the shorts and like it, too.

From Chapter 4, "Environmental Consequences," of the SEIS:

"During the past 10 years, there has been an overall declining trend of male greater sage-grouse attendance in three lek complexes in the PAPA. Each of the leks with declining trends have at least 18 producing natural gas wells (range of 18 to 189 producing wells) within a 2-mile radius. There are only two other leks in the PAPA that have increasing trends in males since 1998 but there are no producing wells within 2 miles of either lek. Conversely, leks in complexes adjacent to the PAPA do not demonstrate decreasing trends but numbers of male greater sage-grouse at nine leks have significantly increased (with statistically significant increasing linear trends) since 1998. As in the PAPA, there are no producing natural gas wells within 2 miles of any of the nine leks...."

"Similar observations followed from an earlier 5-year study conducted on leks in and adjacent to the PAPA. Results from the study indicate that, as distances between greater sage-grouse leks and drilling rigs, producing wells, and main roads decreased with the increased levels of development annually, attendance of male greater sage-grouse at leks declined (Holloran, 2005). The investigation indicates that male counts on heavily impacted leks declined 51 percent, from 1 year prior to well development, through 2004. Numbers of strutting males decreased with increased traffic volumes within 1.86 miles of leks and increased noise intensity at leks...."

"Declining attendance at leks proximate to wellfield development is attributed to avoidance of the leks by yearling male greater sage-grouse (Kaiser, 2006). With low or no annual recruitment of yearling males, leks could eventually disappear in a few years as older males die. Once a lek has been abandoned, the vital habitat is no longer functional and has been significantly impacted...."

"Greater sage-grouse nesting and brood-rearing habitats have been affected by wellfield development in the PAPA. Females avoid nesting in areas of high well densities and females with broods of chicks avoid well pads with producing wells (Holloran, 2005). Accumulating evidence on the effects of wellfield development on greater sage-grouse use of habitats indicates that once-functional, non-impacted habitats in the PAPA are less effective, given the level of development though 2006. This is because greater sage-grouse use the habitats less over time...."

"Continued loss of habitat function is likely with levels of development under all Alternatives (Table 4.20-5). Under all Alternatives, effectiveness of greater sage-grouse breeding (leks), nesting, and brood-rearing habitats would continue to decline, as they have through 2007.... With the declines in greater sage-grouse use of the PAPA, it is uncertain if habitats would still provide some function to greater sage-grouse by the end of the development phase under all action Alternatives...."

And yet, despite data showing a 10 year declining population trend in areas being developed, the mitigation response is triggered by a 30% reduction in lek attendance from 2007 numbers:

"Total average 2-year change in numbers of males attending development area lek complexes.... Average 30% decline over two years...."

For those of you still reading, what does this mean? It means that once again the BLM is not basing their evaluations of these projects on the potential cumulative impacts of all development in the area. Despite the fact that the BLM admits that the habitat may have little or no functional use for sage-grouse after development, they give it the ol' rubber stamp of approval. The energy companies and the BLM deserve an ESA listing of Greater Sage-Grouse.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Oak,

If you remember, the Dubya Administration argued in court that the dams on the Lower Snake River were a "natural part of the environment" so the impact of the dams should not be considered.

It is pretty easy to guess that with the short memory of the Dubya Administration, gas wells in place more than 2 years are obviously "a natural part of the environment".....

 

[Oak]

You have a good point there.

I knew this thread would take too much effort for 95% of the posters to evaluate and comment on. I was just in a bad mood that day. Tom hasn't helped the mood today, either.

 

[noharleyyet]

Daddy Bama's gonna fix it Oak. You happier now?

BTW, you owe Jose a reciprocal concurrence.

 

[Oak]

Daddy Bama's gonna fix it Oak. You happier now?

Pendulum will likely swing, and likely too far.

 

[MarvB]

Unfortunately the pendulum usually (in both directions) looks like this one:

...and now back to my budget work to see if there is any way to defer layoffs until after the Christmas season

 

[Tom]

Maybe Obama will shut the BLM down for a #*^@#* up like this. Piece of shit document there, they ought to permanately shut it down for this. Right Oak, have I got it now?

Don't let me get you in a bad mood, I"m just one voter. Who set up the BLM anyway? Somebody way back, right?

 

[Oak]

Piece of shit document there, they ought to permanately shut it down for this.

What don't you like about it?

 

[smalls]

I knew this thread would take too much effort for 95% of the posters to evaluate and comment on. I was just in a bad mood that day.

Oak, I'm not going to pretend that I am an expert on the effects that LNG mining is doing across the west, especially in WY and CO. It seems that assesing the impact of such projects is what you do for a living, so I'd like to ask a serious question (not trying to corner you or be a smartass).

In your opinion, where is the balance between environmental protection and the need to "source" energy from western states?

Is there an acceptable way to access these natural gas deposits while mitigating the destruction to critical habitats (such as for Sage Grouse)? If so, what are the impediments to implementing conscientious drilling?

 

[JoseCuervo]

In your opinion, where is the balance between environmental protection and the need to "source" energy from western states?

What is this alleged "need" to source energy from western states? Do you wonder why we suddenly had this "need" during the 8 years of Bush?? Do you think the "need" might be related to Dubya/Cheney ties to the energy industry and the "drill, baby, drill" approach?

 

[Tom]

I thought the points you made, Oak, were good, it doesn't consider the drop from the beginning and it doesn't seem to respond to the already damaged population numbers.

Where does it say they are supposed to return the habitat to the way it was when they got there? What about planting a bunch of sage, since they are destoying lots of sage, does it say they should do that somewhere, to try and keep a good habitat level overall? Like, if I plant an oak tree in my yard, animals can come eat accorns, even though they can't eat any grass from my driveway. Stuff like that, do they have to do that, those energy company mongers, or did the BLM not require that?

Jose, do you use heat in the winter? How about lights at night? That's an energy need that's been around a long time. And you know what, there's millions others like you in this country, energy users, get it somewhere else, not near me, not off our federal land that's near me. That's not what you're saying is it?

 

[smalls]

What is this alleged "need" to source energy from western states? Do you wonder why we suddenly had this "need" during the 8 years of Bush?? Do you think the "need" might be related to Dubya/Cheney ties to the energy industry and the "drill, baby, drill" approach?

The last I checked your Beemer and your G5 don't run on sunshine and skittles. Not everything is a fuggin' GW conspiracy.

 

[Oak]

In your opinion, where is the balance between environmental protection and the need to "source" energy from western states?

Is there an acceptable way to access these natural gas deposits while mitigating the destruction to critical habitats (such as for Sage Grouse)? If so, what are the impediments to implementing conscientious drilling?

The best "mitigation" would be to slow the train down. The BLM is understaffed and can not keep up with the current pace of development. They can not do inspections of drilling operations, they can not right environmental assessments, they can not get out in the field to actually see what is going on. All they can do is sit in the office and process APD's. There is not enough time to evaluate the effects of development on wildlife populations, and there is nothing done to slow development when negative effects are observed.

The BLM is essentially saying that when the mule deer population in this area drops to 46% of the 2002 population (54% minus another 15% of that 54%), they will begin mitigation steps. The fourth step of mitigation is to consider altering the spatial arrangement and pace of development. Since each step of mitigation requires at least one year of implementation and monitoring, you are looking at a minimum of 4 years into the project before they would consider slowing the pace of development. If the population dropped 46% in 3 years, this plan seems a bit inadequate. The prudent course would be to start development slowly and ramp up while monitoring the effects. Another possibility would be phased development, although the remaining infrastructure and frequent service needed for that infrastructure would reduce the effectiveness.

Sage-grouse are tougher, as they are relatively sensitive to development. I don't think any plan which is predicted to possibly eliminate the viability of a population of a candidate species is a good plan. Directional drilling is one way to reduce the impacts, but I think the natural gas in the Pinedale area is relatively shallow, which reduces the degree directional drilling can be used. In my area, some wells are 5000-8000 feet deep, and directional drilling can reach up to 3000 feet horizontally. Operators are drilling up to 26 wells from a single pad, albeit a big pad.

I'm not saying I have all the answers for the problems in Pinedale, but do you think that the current path is the correct one? Have our energy needs reached the point that we need to start sacrificing entire populations to meet the demands?

Now I have to finish up on the EA I'm writing so that it can go out tomorrow (today) for review. See, the land management agency just didn't have time to do it themselves because they are so understaffed.

 

[JoseCuervo]

The last I checked your Beemer and your G5 don't run on sunshine and skittles. Not everything is a fuggin' GW conspiracy.

Are you sure???? Wasn't a big part of the need to "drill, baby, drill" the result of a conspiracy of a bunch of Texans to try and corner the energy market and pretend to make California run out of electricity? Ever hear of Enron??? Weren't they a bunch of Texans, just like Dubya???

Less than a mile from my old house, right smack in the middle of some great duck hunting area is the terminus for a bunch of high voltage power lines, that terminate, nowhere. About 8 years ago, a bunch of speculators thought we were going to go dark if we didn't build a natural gas power plant. They convinced the Power company to build the transmission lines...... But, the Texans all went to jail, power returned to normal, and, there was no longer the demand for the power plant.... So, we have a bunch of power poles that don't do anything, a big gravel pad and chainlink.

And, despite a shortage of sunshine and skittles, I have all the gas I need at $1.69 and and Jet A at $4.00

 

[noharleyyet]

Don't hate on the movers and shakers Gunner. You'll be the first to come begging to big bro Texas when your 5 screens blink off.

 

[AZ402]

Maybe Obama will shut the BLM down for a #*^@#* up like this. Piece of shit document there, they ought to permanately shut it down for this. Right Oak, have I got it now?

Don't let me get you in a bad mood, I"m just one voter. Who set up the BLM anyway? Somebody way back, right?

Holy crap, Tom rules!

 

[smalls]

Are you sure???? Wasn't a big part of the need to "drill, baby, drill" the result of a conspiracy of a bunch of Texans to try and corner the energy market and pretend to make California run out of electricity? Ever hear of Enron??? Weren't they a bunch of Texans, just like Dubya???

Jeff Skilling was on the grassy knoll.