This site will look much better in a browser that supports web standards, but it is accessible to any browser or Internet device.
Overall increase in lands open to leasing with standard lease terms and conditions (SLTC) and no other stipulations (See p. 2-28 Draft and p. 2-24 Final)
Draft: Approximately 779,000 acres
Final: Approximately 1.4 million acres
Overall decrease in lands open to leasing with No Surface Occupancy (NSO) stipulations (See p. 2-28 Draft and p. 2-24 Final):
Draft: 160,435 acres
Final: 40,526 acres
Specific protections removed (See p. P-2 and Appendix C):
Public Water Reserves (40 acres)
Draft: Closed to leasing
Final: SLTC
Watershed Areas (92,838 acres)
Draft: Stipulation for controlled surface use
Final: SLTC
Big Game Habitat Areas (690,729 acres)
Draft: Stipulation for controlled surface use
Final: SLTC
Nutt and OteroMesaDesert Grassland Habitat Areas (16,266 acres and 104,875 acres, respectively)
Draft: NSO
Final: Stipulation for controlled surface use
Bighorn Sheep Habitat (199,020 acres)
Draft: Stipulation for controlled surface use
Final: SLTC
Rattlesnake Hill Archaeological District (640 acres)
Draft: Closed to leasing
Final: NSO
Red Sands ORV Area (33,600 acres)
Draft: Stipulation for controlled surface use
Final: SLTC
CuchilloMountains Piñon Nut Collection Area (14,863 acres)
Draft: Stipulation for controlled surface use
Final: SLTC
Draft EIS called for NSO within core habitat area and adjacent buffer zones. In general, surface occupancy allowed only within 492 feet (150 meters) of existing roads. No waivers, exceptions or modifications. (p. A-VI-14 Draft RMPA/EIS). The total acreage protected in this manner was 121,141 acres.
Per Draft RMPA/EIS, one of the major issues the amendment was intended to address was “increasing protection of desert grassland habitat from fragmentation” and the purpose of the NSO stipulation was to “limit further fragmentation of that habitat.” (p. 2-25).
The Final EIS replaces this with a “controlled surface use” status. Confined unreclaimed and unrevegetated surface disturbance from lease activities cannot exceed 5% of leasehold at any time. New lessees must form exploratory units* prior to commencing drilling activity. No waivers or exception. But, modification to permit “temporary surface disturbances that will be substantially unnoticeable within one year of initial disturbance (e.g., geophysical exploration) or in the case of demonstrated need for health or safety.” (p. D-10).
*[Note: Exploratory units are one type of unitization, where all parties with an interest in an oil and gas reservoir or field join in exploration of the entire reservoir or field instead of developing them independently. The potential benefit is from better use of resources and less disturbance to the environment, since fewer wells can be drilled to access the resource.]
Reclamation standards: Reclamation is not considered successful “until ground cover with desired species is showing signs of stable establishment.” Establishment is “indicated by the existence of healthy, mature annuals and perennials in the correct density and composition, as compared to the seed mixture established by the Authorized Officer.” Also, a “restoration plan for habitat of special status species will be developed in coordination with and approved by BLM.” (Appendix B).
These standards will, as a practical matter, be applied by BLM in discussion with the operator and will be very subjective. Administration and approval will be difficult to monitor and even more difficult to enforce, leaving open the potential for informal “agreements” on successful reclamation permitting more surface occupancy in these sensitive areas prior to complete restoration of the destroyed surface.
BLM has acknowledged the extensive changes resulting from fragmentation of habitat into smaller “patches,” beginning with formation of gaps from cleared areas and ultimately degrading the habitat. (pp. 4-35). As the US Fish and Wildlife Service informed BLM, these areas “are among the last remnants of high-quality, unfragmented yucca desert grassland habitat.” (p. 4-34). The limited protection can be modified to permit geophysical exploration, which will also disturb wildlife occupancy of habitat areas. At the same time, the “moving” 5% of surface occupancy and inadequately defined reclamation standards will not prevent greater disturbance and fragmentation.
[Note: Adaptive management strategy for aplomado falcon habitat: Three “core habitat areas” for the aplomado falcon in desert grasslands will be withheld from leasing until impacts of oil and gas activities are better understood – 2 in Otero Mesa Grassland complex (27,696 acres total) and 1 in Nutt grassland complex (8,094 acres). Total acreage in this category is 35,790 acres, with reevaluation of management at 5-year intervals. (Appendix F)
BLM has delayed any cumulative impact analysis of oil and gas activities, concluding that it is too “difficult to define the functional, temporal, and spatial relationships between potential fluid mineral activities and other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.” Instead, BLM will delay any specific analysis until lease nominations and applications for permits to drill. (p. S-4)
However, BLM has not delayed:
By opening these areas for leasing with few or no conditions on surface use or even timing limitations, BLM has arguably foreclosed the opportunity to impose protections at the time of lease issuance or application for a permit to drill. The vast majority of this area is already designated as open to leasing without NSO stipulations. BLM could have taken this opportunity to maintain the NSO stipulations that protect surface vegetation and watersheds, and still permit leasing by directional drilling. Instead, BLM has declined to impose protections but also declined to conduct the required analysis to ensure that there will not be a significant adverse impact or unnecessary or undue degradation to the environment.
BLM acknowledges that “cumulative impact may result in the form of habitat fragmentation.” (p. S-4). Nonetheless, BLM has abandoned the proposed NSO stipulations that maintained larger, contiguous areas of habitat and still only protected a relatively small area of habitat.
BLM also acknowledges that existing and future water demands of the local community “could make even the small water requirements for fluid minerals development a burden to the water system” and that “indirect impacts on surface water quality also may be cumulative.” (p. S-4). However, this realization did not prevent BLM from abandoning previously proposed closures and surface use limitations for public water reserves and watershed areas.
Draft RMPA/EIS included specific protections for grasslands, fragile soils, riparian areas, wildlife, water sources, and visual resources during development, operations and abandonment that were removed from Proposed RMPA/Final EIS.
Final: No specific mitigation techniques are specified. Reference is made to Appendix B (Surface Use and Best Management Practices) and Appendix D (Resource Concerns Closed or Open to Leasing). (p. 4-4).
Only reclamation standards are not specific to resources impacted:
Only one reclamation standard is applicable during operation and it is not specific to impacts:
Removed protective measures from Best Management Practices that were included in Draft RMPA/EIS, identified specific measures, and required minimizing impacts, ongoing mitigation and reclamation during operations, including:
For well siting, removed following protective measures:
For well construction, removed following protective measures :
For Pipeline Sites, removed following protective measures:
For Noxious Weed Control, removed following protective measures:
For Pollution Control and Hazardous Substances Management, removed following protective measures:
For Reclamation and Abandonment, removed following protective measures:
These changes undermine any protection that is allegedly gained from stipulations included in the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS for desert grasslands and fragile soils. Standards will be subjective and at BLM’s discretion.
Desert Grassland Habitat Stipulation (p. D-10) provides that unreclaimed and unrevegetated surface disturbance cannot exceed 5% of leasehold.
Erosive/Fragile Soils Stipulation (pp. D-9 – 10) provides that surface disturbing activities must incorporate applicable mitigation measures described in the best management practices section of RMPA (Appendix B).
Geophysical exploration impacts on sensitive soils and vegetation are acknowledged but ignored through falsely classifying these impacts as not “disturbing” the surface and permitting despite otherwise applicable surface use limitations.
5000 miles of geophysical seismic activities for exploration are anticipated in the Reasonable Foreseeable Development, based on 250 miles of exploration per year and one acre of impact per mile. (Table 4-1 page 4-3 and Appendix A).
In the RMPA/Final EIS, BLM acknowledges that preliminary exploration investigations can cause soil disturbance and damage to vegetation structure. Off-road travel for seismic exploration can impact soils and plant growth. Also, “off-road vehicle travel can cause compaction and mortality of vegetation.” Further, the off-road vehicles can remove vegetation on steep slopes and push over shrubs, causing long-term loss of perching, feeding and nesting areas for birds. (p. 4-30). Similar impacts may occur to vegetation used as forage for wildlife and the bird prey base for others. (p. 4-34).
These impacts are seemingly ignored when BLM concludes that geophysical exploration activities are only minimally intrusive and not part of the surface-disturbing activities. (Table 4-1, p. 4-3). These truly serious impacts will most likely occur to the fragile desert grassland habitats, because the conditional surface use limitation permits modification for geophysical exploration at BLM’s discretion. (p. D-10).