{"id":962,"date":"2008-08-01T16:19:07","date_gmt":"2008-08-01T16:19:07","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/coloradowildlife.org\/?p=962"},"modified":"2008-08-01T16:19:07","modified_gmt":"2008-08-01T16:19:07","slug":"cwf-and-nwf-file-protest-to-blm-re-august-14th-lease-sale","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/coloradowildlife.org\/cwf-and-nwf-file-protest-to-blm-re-august-14th-lease-sale\/","title":{"rendered":"CWF and NWF file protest to BLM re: August 14th lease sale"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

National Wildlife Federation<\/span><\/p>\n

2260 Baseline Road, Suite 100<\/p>\n

Boulder, CO 80302<\/p>\n

Colorado Wildlife Federation<\/p>\n

1410 Grant Street, Suite C-313<\/p>\n

Denver, Colorado 80203<\/p>\n

Submitted by:<\/p>\n

Joseph M. Feller, Senior Counsel<\/p>\n

National Wildlife Federation<\/p>\n

2260 Baseline Road, Suite 100<\/p>\n

(303) 441-5158<\/p>\n

FellerJ@nwf.org<\/p>\n

PROTEST<\/p>\n

by the National Wildlife Federation and the Colorado Wildlife Federation<\/p>\n

of the inclusion of certain parcels<\/p>\n

in the Notice of Competitive Lease Sale, Oil and Gas, dated June 9, 2008,<\/p>\n

for the lease sale scheduled for August 14, 2008,<\/p>\n

issued by the Colorado State Office of the United States Bureau of Land Management<\/p>\n

The National Wildlife Federation and the Colorado Wildlife Federation hereby protest<\/p>\n

the inclusion of the following thirty-one parcels in the Notice of Competitive Lease Sale, Oil and<\/p>\n

Gas, dated June 9, 2008 (hereinafter Lease Sale Notice), for the lease sale scheduled for August<\/p>\n

14, 2008, issued by the Colorado State Office of the United States Bureau of Land Management:<\/p>\n

Serial # Serial # Serial #<\/p>\n

COC73064<\/p>\n

COC73065<\/p>\n

COC73066<\/p>\n

COC73067<\/p>\n

COC73068<\/p>\n

COC73069<\/p>\n

COC73070<\/p>\n

COC73071<\/p>\n

COC73072<\/p>\n

COC73073<\/p>\n

COC73074<\/p>\n

COC73075<\/p>\n

COC73076<\/p>\n

COC73077<\/p>\n

COC73078<\/p>\n

COC73079<\/p>\n

COC73080<\/p>\n

COC73081<\/p>\n

COC73082<\/p>\n

COC73083<\/p>\n

COC73084<\/p>\n

COC73085<\/p>\n

COC73086<\/p>\n

COC73087<\/p>\n

COC73088<\/p>\n

COC73089<\/p>\n

COC73090<\/p>\n

COC73091<\/p>\n

COC73092<\/p>\n

COC73093<\/p>\n

COC73094<\/p>\n

2<\/p>\n

Interest of the National Wildlife Federation and the Colorado Wildlife Federation<\/p>\n

The National Wildlife Federation (NWF) is a national organization, with forty-eight state<\/p>\n

affiliate organizations, dedicated to the protection and restoration of fish and wildlife and their<\/p>\n

habitat for the benefit of this and future generations. NWF has over four million members,<\/p>\n

including approximately twenty-two thousand members in Colorado. The Colorado Wildlife<\/p>\n

Federation (CWF) is an affiliate of NWF and is Colorado’s oldest wildlife conservation<\/p>\n

organization, with approximately 2,100 members.<\/p>\n

The parcels that are the subject of this protest are on, and at the base of, the Roan Plateau.<\/p>\n

These parcels contain some of the most important habitat in Colorado for wildlife and fish<\/p>\n

species including, but not limited to, deer, elk, and Colorado River cutthroat trout. NWF and<\/p>\n

CWF members use the federal land on and around these parcels for recreational and professional<\/p>\n

purposes including, but not limited to, hunting, fishing, hiking, camping, wildlife viewing, and<\/p>\n

scientific study. NWF and CWF have actively participated in the BLM’s planning process for<\/p>\n

oil and gas development on the Roan Plateau for several years. NWF’s and CWF’s participation<\/p>\n

have included, but not been limited to, participating in scoping meetings, submitting comments<\/p>\n

on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Roan Plateau Resource Management<\/p>\n

Plan Amendment (RPRMPA) in 2005, and filing a Protest of the Proposed RPRMPA in 2006.<\/p>\n

If the proposed lease sale goes forward as announced, NWF’s and CWF’s members’ use<\/p>\n

and enjoyment of lands on and around the Roan Plateau will be impaired by the extensive oil and<\/p>\n

gas development that will occur on the parcels under protest. That impairment will include, but<\/p>\n

not be limited to, the sights and sounds of industrial development, the impairment of air quality,<\/p>\n

and, most important, the displacement of wildlife from winter and summer ranges and calving<\/p>\n

grounds, the interruption of migration corridors, and the degradation of stream habitats for fish.<\/p>\n

Of particular importance to NWF and CWF members are the federal public lands at the<\/p>\n

base of the Roan Plateau that are critical winter range for a mule deer herd and an elk herd. The<\/p>\n

deer and the elk depend on these lands for their survival. As adjacent private lands are under<\/p>\n

intense energy development, the federal public lands proposed for lease form the remaining<\/p>\n

winter range for these herds. By allowing intensive energy development in some of the last<\/p>\n

remaining undeveloped winter range, the proposed lease sale would place these deer and elk<\/p>\n

herds at risk.<\/p>\n

Statement of Reasons for Protest<\/p>\n

I. Incorporation by Reference.<\/p>\n

3<\/p>\n

NWF hereby incorporates by reference in this Protest the following three documents, all<\/p>\n

three of which are attached to this Protest:<\/p>\n

(1) Attachment 1: The Protest filed by the National Wildlife Federation and the Colorado<\/p>\n

Wildlife Federation, dated October 16, 2006, of the Proposed Roan Plateau Resource<\/p>\n

Management Plan Amendment (RPRMPA) that was issued in September, 2006. Because the<\/p>\n

proposed lease sale implements decisions made in the RPRMPA, all of the points raised in the<\/p>\n

attached Protest of the Proposed RPRMPA are equally applicable to the proposed lease sale. We<\/p>\n

therefore request that all of the points raised in the attached Protest of the RPRMPA be treated as<\/p>\n

reasons for this Protest.<\/p>\n

(2 ) Attachment 2: The letter, dated August 9, 2007, from the National Wildlife<\/p>\n

Federation and the Colorado Wildlife Federation, commenting on the proposed Areas of Critical<\/p>\n

Environmental Concern (ACECs) for the Roan Plateau Planning Area. Because the proposed<\/p>\n

lease sale includes all of the areas that the attached August 9, 2007, letter urged the BLM to<\/p>\n

designate as ACECs, the points raised in that letter are directly applicable to the proposed lease<\/p>\n

sale. We therefore request that all of the points raised in the attached August 9, 2007, letter be<\/p>\n

treated as reasons for this Protest.<\/p>\n

(3) Attachment 3: The letter, dated December 20, 2007, from Sherman Harris, Director<\/p>\n

of the Colorado Department of Natural Resources, to BLM Colorado State Director Sally<\/p>\n

Wisely, regarding Comments on Proposed ACEC Provisions in the Roan Plateau Resource<\/p>\n

Management Plan Amendment. This letter presents a specific proposal for oil and gas<\/p>\n

development on the Roan Plateau that reflects, and would resolve, many of the issues and<\/p>\n

concerns raised in this Protest. We therefore request that all of the points raised in the attached<\/p>\n

December 20, 2007, letter be treated as reasons for this Protest.<\/p>\n

II. The Proposed Lease Sale Contradicts Written Representations Made by the<\/p>\n

Department of the Interior to the Governor of Colorado.<\/p>\n

Less than five months ago, on March 13, 2008, Assistant Secretary for Land and Mineral<\/p>\n

Management C. Stephen Allred transmitted a letter to Colorado Governor Bill Ritter concerning<\/p>\n

proposed oil and gas development on the Roan Plateau. That letter contains at least two specific<\/p>\n

and important representations that are contradicted by the proposed lease sale.<\/p>\n

A. Contrary to the Written Representation to Governor Ritter, the proposed<\/p>\n

leases do not contain No Surface Occupancy (NSO) stipulations for all lands<\/p>\n

designated as Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs).<\/p>\n

In a preceding letter to the BLM, Governor Ritter had requested that the BLM designate<\/p>\n

36,184 acres on and around the Roan Plateau as Areas of Critical Environmental Concern<\/p>\n

(ACECs), and that all of those acres be protected by No Surface Occupancy (NSO) stipulations.<\/p>\n

4<\/p>\n

In his March 13, 2008, letter to Governor Ritter, Assistant Secretary Allred assured Governor<\/p>\n

Ritter that, although only 21,034 acres were designated as ACECs, those ACECs \u0153<\/p>\n

require no<\/span>,\u009d and that, when the ACECs are combined with 17,336 acres of other lands<\/span>development would be precluded on 38,470 acres<\/span>.\u009d<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

B. Contrary to the Written Representation to Governor Ritter, the proposed<\/span><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

lease sale will proceed without the certification necessary to provide the State<\/p>\n

of Colorado its fair share of lease revenue<\/p>\n

Under the Transfer Act, the State of Colorado risks receiving no revenue from the<\/p>\n

proposed lease sale if it takes place before the certification prescribed in subsection (f)(2) of the<\/p>\n

Transfer Act, 10 U.S.C. \u00a7 7439(f)(2). In his March 13, 2008 letter to Governor Ritter, Assistant<\/p>\n

Secretary Allred assured the Governor that the certification \u0153would occur prior to any lease sale\u009d<\/p>\n

and \u0153will allow the State to receive its share of royalties and bonus bids.\u009d Although, by all<\/p>\n

accounts, funds already collected by the Treasury under 10 U.S.C. \u00a7 7439 exceed the projected<\/p>\n

cost of environmental remediation at Anvil Points, absent certification under the Transfer Act,<\/p>\n

the Act’s terms would appear to indicate that the State, and its affected communities, will not<\/p>\n

receive any portion of bonus bid revenues \u2013 even if those funds greatly exceed the amounts<\/p>\n

necessary to compensate the Treasury for remediation and infrastructure.<\/p>\n

The proposed lease sale contradicts this assurance. Certification has not occurred, yet the<\/p>\n

BLM is proceeding with the lease sale, and the State of Colorado will not receive its share of<\/p>\n

royalties and bonus bids. In order to keep its commitment and provide Colorado its fair share, the<\/p>\n

BLM should defer the proposed lease sale until certification has occurred.<\/p>\n

.<\/span><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

III. The BLM Should Engage in Phased Leasing Rather than Leasing the Entire Roan<\/p>\n

Plateau Planning Area Immediately<\/p>\n

A. Phased leasing would facilitate the \u0153adaptive\u009d management that the BLM<\/p>\n

claims it will practice.<\/p>\n

The BLM has repeatedly asserted that it intends to engage in phased development of oil<\/p>\n

and gas on the Roan Plateau over time rather than simultaneous development of the entire area.<\/p>\n

The BLM has also asserted that it intends to practice \u0153adaptive\u009dmanagement of the area,<\/p>\n

modifying its management as it learns from the results of monitoring the impacts of oil and gas<\/p>\n

development on wildlife habitat and other resources. But the BLM’s insistence on leasing the<\/p>\n

entire area all at once precludes such adaptive management because it locks in a set of leases,<\/p>\n

5<\/p>\n

with a particular set of stipulations, that cannot be changed.<\/p>\n

The lease stipulations embody a set of assumptions about which wildlife species need<\/p>\n

protection, what specific areas of, and how much, habitat they need, how they will be affected by<\/p>\n

disturbance, and how development must be limited in order to protect them. These assumptions<\/p>\n

could turn out to be wrong, or the resources they are designed to protect could be affected by<\/p>\n

other factors or actions. Research about the effects of oil and gas development on deer, elk, and<\/p>\n

other species is ongoing, and lease stipulations that are thought to be necessary and sufficient<\/p>\n

today may turn out to be insufficient in a few years.<\/p>\n

Similarly, the proposed leases embody a particular set of assumptions about what is<\/p>\n

technologically feasible. For example, the lease stipulation for the Parachute Creek High Value<\/p>\n

Watershed reflects the BLM’s assumption that one half mile is the greatest minimum spacing for<\/p>\n

drill pads that is compatible with full extraction of the oil and gas in the planning area. Only a<\/p>\n

few years ago, BLM routinely assumed that such horizontal reach was technologically<\/p>\n

unfeasible, but technological innovation has outstripped hat assumption. Further advances in<\/p>\n

directional drilling technology may soon allow for much greater pad spacing.<\/p>\n

Because the BLM is planning for phased development of the Roan Plateau, it only makes<\/p>\n

sense to engage in similarly phased leasing. Leases could be issued now for the first of the six<\/p>\n

development areas on the top of the plateau. In the future, leases could be issued for each of the<\/p>\n

remaining development areas in turn, with stipulations reflecting the advances in knowledge and<\/p>\n

technology that have occurred in the interim. Given BLM’s own stated commitment to phased<\/p>\n

development, coupled with the evolving nature of science and technology, it simply makes no<\/p>\n

sense to lock in one set of stipulations by leasing the entire plateau at once.<\/p>\n

B.<\/p>\n

is a violation of NEPA.<\/p>\n

The BLM’s failure to analyze and evaluate the alternative of phased leasing<\/span><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

Not only does the BLM’s failure to adopt a phased leasing approach defy common sense,<\/p>\n

the BLM’s failure to even analyze such an alternative in the EIS for the RPRMPA is a violation<\/p>\n

of NEPA, which requires consideration of all reasonable alternatives.<\/p>\n

IV. The BLM Has Not Adequately Analyzed the Impacts of the Proposed Lease Sale on<\/p>\n

Wildlife, Wildlife Habitat, and Other Natural Resources On and Around the Roan<\/p>\n

Plateau<\/p>\n

The issuance of oil and gas leases marks a commitment by the BLM that, under NEPA,<\/p>\n

requires a full and thorough analysis of the environmental impacts of the development that may<\/p>\n

occur on those leases.<\/p>\n

Alliance v. Hodel<\/p>\n

with NEPA through preparation of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the<\/p>\n

6<\/p>\n

RPRMPA. However, as explained in the attached Protest of the RPRMPA (Attachment 1 to this<\/p>\n

Protest), that EIS is deficient in several respects, including, but not limited to the following:<\/p>\n

\u2013 The FEIS is based on inadequate or non-existent data about wildlife populations and<\/p>\n

wildlife habitat on and around the Roan Plateau.<\/p>\n

RPRMPA, p. 9.<\/p>\n

\u2013 The FEIS relies on Best Management Practices (BMPs) and other mitigation<\/p>\n

measures without specifying which BMPs and which practices will be required in<\/p>\n

which areas.<\/p>\n

\u2013 The impact analysis in the FEIS is arbitrarily and unreasonably limited to the<\/p>\n

development that will occur in the next twenty years, and it likely underestimates the<\/p>\n

number of wells that will be drilled even in that time period.<\/p>\n

the RPRMPA, pp. 10 – 11.<\/p>\n

The BLM has the opportunity to overcome these deficiencies in the final EIS for the<\/p>\n

RPRMPA by preparing additional, more specific, NEPA documentation to accompany the<\/p>\n

proposed lease sale notice. However, the BLM has chosen not to do so. Moreover, the BLM<\/p>\n

has made no commitment to prepare additional NEPA documentation when it receives<\/p>\n

applications for permits to drill (APDs) or to conduct other development activities. Therefore,<\/p>\n

the BLM is relying entirely on the final EIS for the RPRMPA, and that EIS is inadequate.<\/p>\n

.<\/span>See, e,g., Conner v. Burford<\/span>, 848 F.2d 1441 (9<\/span>th\u00a0<\/span>Cir. 1988);\u00a0<\/span>Bob Marshall<\/span>, 852 F.2d 1223 (9<\/span>th\u00a0<\/span>Cir. 1988). In this case, the BLM has attempted to comply<\/span>See\u00a0<\/span>attached Protest of the<\/span>See\u00a0<\/span>attached Protest of the RPRMPA, pp. 6 – 8.<\/span>See\u00a0<\/span>attached Protest of<\/span><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

V. The BLM Has Not Analyzed the Impacts of Development During the Full Life of the<\/p>\n

Proposed Leases<\/p>\n

The analysis of the environmental impacts in the FEIS for the RPRMPA was limited to a<\/p>\n

20-year horizon, which the BLM deemed to be \u0153the life of the plan.\u009d The BLM refused to<\/p>\n

analyze the impacts of full field development because \u0153[f]ull field development is not anticipated<\/p>\n

during the life of this plan.\u009d Letter from Susan Giannettino, Acting Assistant Director,<\/p>\n

Renewable Resources and Planning, to Kathleen C. Zimmerman, National Wildlife Federation,<\/p>\n

p. 17 (June 7, 2007) (responding to NWF’s Protest of the Proposed RPRMPA).<\/p>\n

the proposed leases is not limited to 20 years.<\/p>\n

term<\/p>\n

Lease Sale Notice at iii (emphasis added). Moreover, because the BLM is requiring that all<\/p>\n

leases on top of the Roan Plateau be covered by a single Federal Unitization Agreement,<\/p>\n

the leases on top of the Plateau will continue so long as even one lease is still producing in<\/p>\n

paying quantities. Therefore, even if an impact analysis limited to 20 years were adequate to<\/p>\n

support the RPRMPA, it is certainly not adequate to support issuance of the proposed leases.<\/p>\n

The BLM’s refusal to analyze the impacts of full field development is not only<\/p>\n

unjustified, it is also supremely unrealistic. The lands immediately adjoining the proposed<\/p>\n

7<\/p>\n

leaseholds on all sides, including the western portion of the Roan Plateau right up to the border<\/p>\n

of the proposed leaseholds, are already undergoing intensive development for gas extraction.<\/p>\n

The gas resource on the proposed leaseholds is well-known and highly sought-after. There is no<\/p>\n

reason to believe that it will not be developed to the full extent that the proposed leases will<\/p>\n

allow. To issue those leases without a full analysis of the full development that they will allow is<\/p>\n

irresponsible and contrary to NEPA.<\/p>\n

But the life of<\/span>Each lease \u0153will continue beyond its primary<\/span>as long as oil or gas in paying quantities is produced on or for the benefit of the lease.<\/span>\u009d<\/span>all\u00a0<\/span>of<\/span><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

VI. The Majority of the Proposed Lease Stipulations Contain Embedded Waiver<\/p>\n

Provisions that Unreasonably and Unlawfully Grant BLM the Authority to Waive<\/p>\n

Compliance Without Public Notice, Opportunity for Comment or Protest, or<\/p>\n

Environmental Analysis<\/p>\n

Because the BLM has rejected the possibility of protecting wildlife and wildlife habitat<\/p>\n

by leaving any portion of the Roan Plateau planning area unleased, the primary mechanism for<\/p>\n

protecting wildlife, wildlife habitat, and other resources in the planning area is the incorporation<\/p>\n

of protective stipulations in leases. The Final EIS (FEIS) and the Record of Decision (ROD) rely<\/p>\n

heavily and repeatedly on assurances that such stipulations will be adequate to protect wildlife<\/p>\n

and wildlife habitat from degradation by oil and gas development. However, the terms of the<\/p>\n

stipulations are so porous that such assurances are not justified.<\/p>\n

In an apparently novel stipulation drafting technique, not encountered in lease<\/p>\n

stipulations in prior Colorado oil and gas lease sales,<\/p>\n

Appendix B (pp. 77 – 107) of the Lease Sale Notice contain embedded provisions that authorize<\/p>\n

the BLM to permit development contrary to the terms of the stipulations without advance notice<\/p>\n

to the public, opportunity for comment or protest by the public, or documentation under NEPA.<\/p>\n

1\u00a0<\/span>the majority of the stipulations set out in<\/span><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

See, e.g.,<\/p>\n

in wildlife security areas below the Roan Cliffs \u0153may be permitted by BLM\u009d despite<\/p>\n

stipulation in preceding paragraph that \u0153no ground-disturbing activities will be permitted\u009d in<\/p>\n

such areas). Some of these provisions require prior consultation with the Colorado Division of<\/p>\n

Wildlife (CDOW) or the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service; none require consultation with affected<\/p>\n

individuals and private organizations.<\/p>\n

These provisions clearly have the effect of allowing the BLM to waive the affected<\/p>\n

stipulations without public review or analysis under NEPA. Yet, because these provisions have<\/p>\n

Lease Sale Notice at 88 (Exhibit GS-NSO-ROAN-27, stating that ground disturbingactivities<\/span><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

1<\/p>\n

November 2007 Lease Sale, Stipulation CO-18 (Raptor Nest Sites \u2013 providing that \u0153Any changes to this stipulation<\/p>\n

will be made in accordance with the land use plan and\/or the regulatory provisions for such changes. (For guidance<\/p>\n

on the use of the stipulation, see BLM Manual 1624 and 3101 or FS Manual 1950 and 2820.) Exception Criteria:<\/p>\n

Exceptions may be granted during years when the nest site is unoccupied, when occupancy ends by or after May 15,<\/p>\n

or once the young have fledged and dispersed from the nest\u009d).<\/p>\n

Compare\u00a0<\/span>GS-NSO-ROAN-25 (Raptor Nest Sites \u2013 providing for \u0153embedded waiver\u009d)\u00a0<\/span>with, e.g.,\u00a0<\/span>BLM Colorado<\/span><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

8<\/p>\n

been embedded in the stipulations themselves, the BLM claims that they are not \u0153exceptions,<\/p>\n

modifications, or waivers\u009d but rather statements of \u0153the conditions under which each stipulation<\/p>\n

would apply, and standards that must be met for their application.\u009d Lease Sale Notice at 77.<\/p>\n

This drafting sleight-of-hand, however, does not alter the reality that these provisions, in effect,<\/p>\n

grant the BLM broad license to waive stipulations that are critical for protection of wildlife,<\/p>\n

wildlife habitat, and other resources. For this reason, we shall hereinafter refer to these<\/p>\n

provisions as \u0153embedded waiver provisions\u009d even though the BLM attempts to deny that they<\/p>\n

authorize waivers.<\/p>\n

Embedded waiver provisions are included in the following stipulations in the lease sale<\/p>\n

notice:<\/p>\n

GS-NSO-ROAN-17 (Wild and Scenic River Eligibility Corridors)<\/p>\n

Affected Parcels: COC73074, COC73075, COC73077, COC73079, COC73080,<\/p>\n

COC73081, COC73082, COC73084, COC73086, COC73088, COC73089, COC73090,<\/p>\n

COC73091, COC73092<\/p>\n

GS-NSO-ROAN-18 (Sharrad Park Paleontological Resources)<\/p>\n

Affected Parcels: COC73085<\/p>\n

GS-NSO-ROAN-23 (Riparian and Wetland Habitat)<\/p>\n

Affected Parcels: COC73064, COC73065, COC73066, COC73067, COC73068,<\/p>\n

COC73069, COC73070, COC73071, COC73074, COC73075, COC73076, COC73077,<\/p>\n

COC73078, COC73079, COC73080, COC73081, COC73082, COC73083, COC73084,<\/p>\n

COC73085, COC73086, COC73087, COC73088, COC73089, COC73090, COC73091,<\/p>\n

COC73092, COC73093<\/p>\n

GS-NSO-ROAN-24 (Threatened, Endangered, or Candidate Species Habit)<\/p>\n

Affected Parcels: COC73080, COC73084, COC73090<\/p>\n

GS-NSO-ROAN-25 (Raptor Nest Sites)<\/p>\n

Affected Parcels: COC73076, COC73079, COC73078, COC73082, COC73083,<\/p>\n

COC73084, COC73089, COC73090, COC73091, COC73092, COC73094<\/p>\n

GS-NSO-ROAN-27 (Wildlife Security Areas Below the Rim)<\/p>\n

Affected Parcels: COC73064, COC73066, COC73068, COC73070, COC73071,<\/p>\n

COC73076, COC73077, COC73080, COC73083, COC73084, COC73085, COC73090,<\/p>\n

COC73093, COC73094<\/p>\n

GS-NSO-ROAN-28 (High Value Special Status Fish Species Habitat)<\/p>\n

Affected Parcels: COC73074, COC73075, COC73076, COC73077, COC73078,<\/p>\n

COC73079, COC73080, COC73081, COC73082, COC73084, COC73086, COC73088,<\/p>\n

COC73089, COC73090, COC73091, COC73092<\/p>\n

9<\/p>\n

GS-NSO-ROAN-30 (I-70 Viewshed)<\/p>\n

Affected Parcels: COC73066, COC73068, COC73069, COC73070, COC73071,<\/p>\n

COC73072, COC73080, COC73084, COC73085, COC73090, COC73091, COC73093,<\/p>\n

COC73094<\/p>\n

GS-NSO-ROAN-31 (East Fork Falls Viewshed (VRM 1)<\/p>\n

Affected Parcels: COC73089, COC73092<\/p>\n

GS-CSU-ROAN-04 (Erosive Soils and Slopes Greater than 30 percent)<\/p>\n

Affected Parcels: COC73064, COC73065, COC73066, COC73067, COC73068,<\/p>\n

COC73069, COC73070, COC73071, COC73072, COC73074, COC73076, COC73077,<\/p>\n

COC73080, COC73081, COC73083, COC73084, COC73085, COC73089, COC73090,<\/p>\n

COC73091, COC73092, COC73093, COC73094<\/p>\n

GS-CSU-ROAN-08 (Peregrine Falcon Cliff-Nesting Complex)<\/p>\n

Affected Parcels: COC73084, COC73090<\/p>\n

GS-CSU-ROAN-09 (Wildlife Security Areas Above the Rim)<\/p>\n

Affected Parcels: COC73074, COC73075, COC73076, COC73077, COC73078,<\/p>\n

COC73079, COC73080, COC73081, COC73082, COC73084, COC73086, COC73088,<\/p>\n

COC73089, COC73090, COC73091, COC73092, COC73093<\/p>\n

GS-CSU-ROAN-10 (Big Game Migration Corridors)<\/p>\n

Affected Parcels: COC73076, COC73080<\/p>\n

GS-CSU-ROAN-12 (Habitat for Special Status Plant Species Populations and Significant<\/p>\n

Plan Communities)<\/p>\n

Affected Parcels: COC73064, COC73066, COC73068, COC73070, COC73071,<\/p>\n

COC73074, COC73076, COC73077, COC73078, COC73079, COC73080, COC73081,<\/p>\n

COC73082, COC73083, COC73084, COC73085, COC73086, COC73087, COC73088,<\/p>\n

COC73089, COC73090, COC73091, COC73092, COC73094<\/p>\n

GS-CSU-ROAN-13 (Parachute Creek High Value Watershed and WMA)<\/p>\n

Affected Parcels: COC73077, COC73078, COC73079, COC73080, COC73082,<\/p>\n

COC73084, COC73086, COC73087, COC73088, COC73089, COC73090, COC73091,<\/p>\n

COC73092<\/p>\n

GS-CSU-ROAN-14 (VRM Class II Areas Below the Rim)<\/p>\n

Affected Parcels: COC73064, COC73066, COC73068, COC73070, COC73071,<\/p>\n

COC73073, COC73074, COC73076, COC73077, COC73080, COC73083, COC73084,<\/p>\n

COC73085, COC73090, COC73093, COC73094<\/p>\n

GS-CSU-ROAN-15 (VRM Class III Areas Above the Rim<\/p>\n

10<\/p>\n

Affected Parcels: COC73074, COC73075, COC73076, COC73077, COC73078,<\/p>\n

COC73079, COC73080, COC73081, COC73082, COC73084, COC73086, COC73087,<\/p>\n

COC73088, COC73089, COC73089, COC73090, COC73091, COC73092<\/p>\n

GS-CSU-ROAN-16 (Hubbard Mesa OHV Riding Area)<\/p>\n

Affected Parcels: COC73068, COC73069, COC73071, COC73072<\/p>\n

GS-TL-ROAN-13 (Big Game Winter Range)<\/p>\n

Affected Parcels: COC73065, COC73066, COC73067, COC73068, COC73069,<\/p>\n

COC73070, COC73071, COC73072, COC73074, COC73075, COC73076, COC73077,<\/p>\n

COC73080, COC73081, COC73083, COC73084, COC73085, COC73089, COC73090,<\/p>\n

COC73093, COC73094<\/p>\n

GS-TL-ROAN-14 (Raptor Nesting Sites)<\/p>\n

Affected Parcels: COC73074, COC73076, COC73078, COC73079, COC73082,<\/p>\n

COC73083, COC73084, COC73088, COC73090, COC73091, COC73092, COC73094<\/p>\n

GS-TL-ROAN-16 (Peregrine Flacon Cliff- Nesting Complex)<\/p>\n

Affected Parcels: COC73084, COC73090, COC73091, COC73094<\/p>\n

A. The embedded waiver provisions invalidate the analysis in the Final EIS.<\/p>\n

The FEIS’s conclusion that the proposed leases would not have unacceptable adverse<\/p>\n

impacts on wildlife, wildlife habitat, recreation, or visual quality were based in large part on the<\/p>\n

assumption that the lease stipulations would be applied and enforced. As the BLM stated in its<\/p>\n

response to our Protest of the Proposed RPRMPA:<\/p>\n

\u0153This discussion of impacts [in the FEIS] was completed with the assumption that<\/p>\n

all the protective measures described in the Proposed RMPA would be applied.<\/p>\n

As stated on page 4-6, \u02dc. . . the impact analyses throughout Chapter 4 assume that<\/p>\n

the restrictions and limitations would apply throughout the planning area and 20-<\/p>\n

year planning period.’\u009d<\/p>\n

Letter from Susan Giannettino, Acting Assistant Director, Renewable Resources and Planning, to<\/p>\n

Kathleen C. Zimmerman, National Wildlife Federation, p. 17 (June 7, 2007) However, the broad<\/p>\n

embedded waiver provisions in most of the stipulations create a likelihood that the protective<\/p>\n

measures described in the RPRMPA will<\/p>\n

analysis in the FEIS and they represent, in effect, the adoption of a new alternative whose<\/p>\n

impacts were not analyzed in the FEIS.<\/p>\n

not\u00a0<\/span>be applied. They therefore render invalid the<\/span><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

B. The embedded waiver provisions are contrary to 43 C.F.R. \u00a7 3101.1-4<\/p>\n

43 C.F.R. \u00a7 3101.1-4 governs the modification and waiver of lease provisions. That<\/p>\n

11<\/p>\n

regulatory section requires a public review period of at least 30 days before modification or<\/p>\n

waiver of \u0153a stipulation [that] involves an issue of major concern to the public\u009d and before a<\/p>\n

\u0153substantial\u009d modification or waiver of any stipulation.<\/p>\n

All of the stipulations in which the BLM has embedded waiver provisions \u0153involve issues<\/p>\n

of major concern to the public.\u009d Numerous and extensive public comments have expressed the<\/p>\n

widespread concern that oil and gas development on and around the Roan Plateau will damage or<\/p>\n

destroy the resources that these stipulations are designed to protect: Wild and Scenic Rivers,<\/p>\n

riparian and wetland habitats, habitat for threatened or endangered species of wildlife, rare<\/p>\n

plants, raptor nesting sites, crucial deer and elk habitat, Colorado River cutthroat trout, soils,<\/p>\n

watersheds, fossils, and scenic views. These stipulations are the BLM’s primary means of<\/p>\n

addressing these major public concerns. Therefore, under 43 C.F.R. \u00a7 3101.1-4, the BLM<\/p>\n

should find that all of these stipulations \u0153involve issues of major concern to the public\u009d and<\/p>\n

specify in the leases that they will not be modified or waived without a 30-day public review<\/p>\n

period.<\/p>\n

Instead, however, the BLM has rigged the stipulations by placing within them embedded<\/p>\n

waiver provisions that allow the BLM to permit, without public review, activities that violate the<\/p>\n

prohibitions of the stipulations. This transparent circumvention of the requirements of 43<\/p>\n

C.F.R.\u00a7 3101.1-4 is unlawful. The stipulations should be revised to eliminate the embedded<\/p>\n

waiver provisions and to state that they will not be waived or modified without a 30-day public<\/p>\n

review period.<\/p>\n

.<\/span><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

C. The embedded waiver provisions are contrary to the public participation<\/p>\n

requirements of NEPA and FLPMA.<\/p>\n

The regulations implementing NEPA require the BLM to \u0153[m]ake diligent efforts to<\/p>\n

involve the public in preparing and implementing their NEPA procedures.\u009d 40 C.F.R.<\/p>\n

\u00a7 1506.6(a). The modification or waiver of stipulations that were developed through the NEPA<\/p>\n

process is part of the implementation of BLM’s NEPA procedures. Therefore, the BLM is<\/p>\n

required to make diligent efforts to involve the public in decisions about such modifications or<\/p>\n

waivers. But the embedded waiver provisions do just the opposite; they are a contrivance that<\/p>\n

excludes the public from decisions about waivers and modifications. They are therefore contrary<\/p>\n

to 40 C.F.R. \u00a7 1506.6(a) and to NEPA, which that regulation implements.<\/p>\n

The embedded waiver provisions are also contrary to the Federal Land Policy and<\/p>\n

Management Act (FLPMA). Section 309(e) of FLPMA requires the BLM to \u0153establish<\/p>\n

procedures, including public hearings where appropriate, to give the Federal, State, and local<\/p>\n

governments<\/p>\n

formulation of standards and criteria for,<\/p>\n

plans and programs for,<\/p>\n

(emphasis added). As reflected in the emphasized language, Congress intended to require public<\/p>\n

participation not only in the preparation of plans and programs, but also \u0153there are strong<\/p>\n

12<\/p>\n

indications that Congress intended some form of public input for all decisions that may have<\/p>\n

significant impact on federal lands.\u009d<\/p>\n

(D.C. Cir. 1987) (citing H.R. Rep. No. 1163, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 7 (1976), U.S. Code Cong. &<\/p>\n

Admin. News 1976, p. 6181). Decisions to permit drilling and other oil and gas development<\/p>\n

activities in areas that would otherwise be closed to such activities by lease stipulations are<\/p>\n

clearly decisions that may have significant impact on federal lands. Therefore, under FLPMA,<\/p>\n

public input is required for such decisions. By authorizing such decisions without public notice<\/p>\n

or opportunity for comment, the embedded waiver provisions in the proposed leases violate<\/p>\n

FLPMA.<\/p>\n

and the public\u00a0<\/span>adequate notice and an opportunity to comment upon the<\/span>and to participate in<\/span>, the preparation\u00a0<\/span>and execution\u00a0<\/span>of<\/span>and the management of,\u00a0<\/span>the public lands.\u009d 43 U.S.C. \u00a7 1739(e)<\/span>National Wildlife Federation v. Burford<\/span>, 835 F.2d 305<\/span><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

D. The standards incorporated in the embedded waiver provisions are far too<\/p>\n

vague, and they undermine the transparency of the stipulations and the<\/p>\n

public process by which they were developed.<\/p>\n

The embedded waiver provisions include standards that purport to limit their application<\/p>\n

so as not to defeat the purposes of the stipulations. But these standards are so vague as to be<\/p>\n

virtually meaningless. Again, stipulation GS-NSO-ROAN-27 (Lease Sale Notice at 88),<\/p>\n

concerning ground-disturbing activities in specified wildlife security areas below the Roan<\/p>\n

Cliffs, is a typical example. The embedded waiver provision in this stipulation states that such<\/p>\n

otherwise-forbidden activities may be permitted if the BLM determines that they \u0153would not<\/p>\n

impair values associated with maintenance of the species of interest.\u009d The wording of the<\/p>\n

embedded waiver provisions in most of the other stipulations is very similar.<\/p>\n

The meaning of \u0153values associated with maintenance\u009d is completely unclear. The<\/p>\n

provision goes on to provide a long list of factors that the BLM will \u0153consider\u009d in making this<\/p>\n

determination, but the list does nothing to clarify the standard to be applied to those factors.<\/p>\n

Moreover, such<\/p>\n

stipulations were developed in the first place. Through the NEPA process, with public input and<\/p>\n

review, the BLM has already concluded that maintenance of certain wildlife species requires that<\/p>\n

certain activities be prohibited in certain specified areas. The embedded waiver provisions,<\/p>\n

however, allow the BLM to reconsider those conclusions in a non-public, NEPA-free process.<\/p>\n

ad hoc\u00a0<\/span>determinations completely vitiate the public NEPA process by which the<\/span><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

E. Contrary to NEPA, the embedded waiver provisions fail to account for the<\/p>\n

cumulative effects of the activities that they will permit.<\/p>\n

The most pernicious effect of the embedded waiver provisions is that they can be used to<\/p>\n

authorize many individual activities that each may have an insignificant impact on wildlife or<\/p>\n

other resources but that will cumulatively have major effects on such resources. The BLM may<\/p>\n

readily determine, for example, that a single well pad, pipeline, or other ground disturbance in a<\/p>\n

wildlife security area \u0153would not impair values associated with maintenance of\u009d deer or elk. But<\/p>\n

the combined effect of many such disturbances, along with the effects of other activities<\/p>\n

permitted by the embedded waiver provisions contained in other stipulations, will<\/p>\n

unquestionably have a much greater impact than will any single disturbance.<\/p>\n

13<\/p>\n

As the BLM is well aware, it is for precisely this reason that NEPA requires the BLM to<\/p>\n

assess the cumulative effects of<\/p>\n

provisions, because they allow the BLM to authorize many activities without analyzing or<\/p>\n

considering the cumulative effects of those activities, are contrary to NEPA.<\/p>\n

all\u00a0<\/span>the actions it takes in any area. Thus, the embedded waiver<\/span><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

F. The monitoring and reporting requirements accompanying the embedded<\/p>\n

waivers are far too vague and abdicate the BLM’s responsibilities<\/p>\n

Each of the embedded waiver provisions contains a boiler-plate monitoring requirement,<\/p>\n

but that monitoring requirement is so non-specific that it provides no assurance that adverse<\/p>\n

affects of permitted activities will be detected and corrective action taken in a timely fashion.<\/p>\n

The boiler-plate requirement states simply that \u0153ongoing monitoring data shall be collected by<\/p>\n

the proponent using widely accepted scientific methods.\u009d It does not state what will be<\/p>\n

monitored, how it will be monitored, when and where it will be monitored, or the intensity or<\/p>\n

frequency of the monitoring. It leaves these decisions up to the oil and gas operators, and<\/p>\n

requires only annual reporting to the BLM and notification to the BLM \u0153if unanticipated types or<\/p>\n

levels of adverse effects are noted.\u009d The determination of what constitutes an \u0153unanticipated<\/p>\n

type or level of adverse effect\u009d is also left to the operator. This boiler-plate monitoring<\/p>\n

requirement is not only inadequate but it also abdicates the BLM’s responsibility to protect the<\/p>\n

land and its resources from degradation.<\/p>\n

.<\/span><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

VII. The \u0153Exploratory Well\u009d Exception to the Phased Development Stipulation for the<\/p>\n

Top of the Roan Plateau Renders that Stipulation Ineffective<\/p>\n

The key to the BLM’s plan for limiting the effects of oil and gas development on wildlife<\/p>\n

and other resources on top of the Roan Plateau is the stipulation requiring the sequential<\/p>\n

development of six different areas on top of the plateau, with no development permitted on an<\/p>\n

area until the previous area has been reclaimed. (Stipulation GS-CSU-ROAN-13, affecting<\/p>\n

parcels COC73077, COC73078, COC73079, COC73080, COC73082, COC73084, COC73086,<\/p>\n

COC73087, COC73088, COC73089, COC73090, COC73091, and COC73092.) But this<\/p>\n

stipulation includes a glaring exception, providing that \u0153exploratory wells may be drilled in other<\/p>\n

areas sufficient to plan future drilling operations.\u009d This exception is so broad that it swallows<\/p>\n

the rule. Under this exception, exploratory wells, with no clear limit on their number, and their<\/p>\n

associated disturbance and infrastructure may be present and active in any, or all, of the six<\/p>\n

development areas at the same time.<\/p>\n

This exception should either be removed or greatly circumscribed. If it is not removed,<\/p>\n

it should be clarified to sharply limit the number of exploratory wells and to require that<\/p>\n

exploratory wells be no more than one development area ahead of the rest of the development on<\/p>\n

the plateau.<\/p>\n

14<\/p>\n

VIII. The Controlled Surface Use (CSU) Stipulations Are Far Too Vague and Leave<\/p>\n

Critical Decisions to be Made Without Public Review or Environmental Analysis<\/p>\n

The problems created by the embedded waiver provisions in most of the proposed lease<\/p>\n

stipulations are made even worse by the vague provisions of the Controlled Surface Use (CSU)<\/p>\n

stipulations. The CSU stipulations provide that the BLM may, but not necessarily will, take<\/p>\n

certain actions to protect erosive soils and steep slopes (GS-CSU-ROAN-04), riparian and<\/p>\n

wetland habitats (GS-CSU-ROAN-07), a peregrine falcon cliff-nesting complex (GS-CSUROAN-<\/p>\n

08), wildlife security areas above the rim (GS-CSU-ROAN-09), big game migration<\/p>\n

corridors (GS-CSU-ROAN-10), special status plant species and significant plant communities<\/p>\n

(GS-CSU-ROAN-12), the Parachute Creek high value watershed (GS-CSU-ROAN-13), VRM<\/p>\n

Class II areas below the Roan Cliffs (GS-CSU-ROAN-14), and VRM Class III areas on top of<\/p>\n

the Roan Plateau (GS-CSU-ROAN-15). These provisions leave the protection of critical<\/p>\n

resources to the unfettered discretion of the BLM. The public has no way of knowing whether,<\/p>\n

when, how, or to what extent the BLM will exercise the discretion it has under these provisions,<\/p>\n

no assurance that the BLM’s actions will be adequate to protect the resources concerned, and no<\/p>\n

opportunity for input into the BLM’s actions. Therefore, these provisions, like the embedded<\/p>\n

waiver provisions in these and most of the other stipulations, are contrary to the environmental<\/p>\n

analysis requirements of NEPA and to the public participation requirements of NEPA and<\/p>\n

FLPMA.<\/p>\n

IX. The Proposed Lease Sale Will Result in Unnecessary and Undue Degradation of<\/p>\n

Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat<\/p>\n

FLPMA requires the BLM to \u0153take any action necessary to prevent unnecessary or undue<\/p>\n

degradation of the [public] lands.\u009d 43 U.S.C. \u00a7 1732(b). The resources that this requirement<\/p>\n

protects include wildlife and wildlife habitat.<\/p>\n

define \u0153unnecessary or undue degradation,\u009d any degradation that results from a failure to take<\/p>\n

reasonably available measures to minimize or avoid such degradation is surely both<\/p>\n

\u0153unnecessary and undue.\u009d<\/p>\n

As noted in the attached October 16, 2006, Protest of the Proposed Roan Plateau<\/p>\n

Resource Management Plan Amendment (RPRMPA) (Attachment 1 to this Protest), the<\/p>\n

proposed lease sale will result in numerous forms of degradation of wildlife habitat, some of<\/p>\n

which are recognized in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) accompanying the<\/p>\n

RPRMPA. These forms of degradation include, but are not limited to, a loss of 18.7 percent of<\/p>\n

the remaining mule deer wintering habitat below the Roan Cliffs, displacement of deer and elk<\/p>\n

populations, and loss or permanent alteration of some areas of high quality wildlife habitat for<\/p>\n

species such as Colorado River cutthroat trout.<\/p>\n

Proposed RPRMPA at 3 (quoting FEIS at 4-55, 4-44, and 4-130, respectively). There are<\/p>\n

numerous readily available measures to protect wildlife and wildlife habitat in the Roan Plateau<\/p>\n

15<\/p>\n

Planning Area that the BLM could have, but did not, include in the proposed leases.<\/p>\n

See id.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a7 1701(a)(8). While FLPMA does not<\/span>See\u00a0<\/span>October 16, 2006, NWF\/CWF Protest of<\/span><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

A. The BLM has failed to designate and protect crucial wildlife habitat areas as<\/p>\n

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs).<\/p>\n

FLPMA requires the BLM to \u0153give priority to the designation and protection of areas of<\/p>\n

critical environmental concern.\u009d 43 U.S.C. 1712(c)(3). The BLM, in its draft EIS for the<\/p>\n

RPRMPA, identified 36,184 acres in(1) the East Fork Parachute Creek Watershed, (2) the<\/p>\n

Trapper and Northwater Creeks watersheds, (3) the Anvil Points watershed, and (4) the Magpie<\/p>\n

Gulch area that deserve protection as ACECs because they provide crucial habitat for mule deer,<\/p>\n

elk, and Colorado River cutthroat trout. The Colorado Division of Wildlife, which is the agency<\/p>\n

responsible for management of fish and wildlife in Colorado, wrote in its comments on the<\/p>\n

BLM’s final proposal for designation of ACECs:<\/p>\n

We believed at the time of the draft plan, and still believe today, that the ACECs<\/p>\n

identified in the 1999 [draft] EIS should be fully protected as ACECs with No<\/p>\n

Surface Occupancy stipulations. . . . Without these very minimum ACECs, we<\/p>\n

can say that the plan will jeopardize the Roan Plateau’s important wildlife habitat.<\/p>\n

NWF and CWF voiced the same concern in the August 9, 2007, letter that is attached to<\/p>\n

this protest as Attachment 2. The reasons for protecting the full 36,184 acres of proposed<\/p>\n

ACECs were also presented in detail in a December 20, 2007, letter from Harris Sherman,<\/p>\n

Director of the Colorado Department of Natural Resources to BLM Colorado State Director<\/p>\n

Sally Wisely (Attachment 3 to this Protest). The BLM, however, extended ACEC designation<\/p>\n

only to a reduced area of approximately 21,000 acres, and even that reduced area is not fully<\/p>\n

protected by NSO stipulations. Specifically, areas of critical big game winter range below the<\/p>\n

Roan Cliffs in the Anvil Points and Magpie Gulch ACECs are not protected by NSO stipulations.<\/p>\n

The proposed lease sale should be withdrawn and revised to extend ACEC designation,<\/p>\n

with full NSO protection, to the 36,184 acres of ACECs proposed in the 1999 Draft EIS.<\/p>\n

B. The BLM has failed to adequately protect big game habitat below the Roan<\/p>\n

Cliffs.<\/p>\n

As CDOW, NWF, and CWF have repeatedly emphasized, winter habitat below the Roan<\/p>\n

Cliffs is just as critical, if not more critical, to deer and elk populations as is summer habitat<\/p>\n

above the rim. As adjacent private lands are under intense energy development, the federal<\/p>\n

public lands at the base of the Roan Plateau provide some of the last remaining undeveloped<\/p>\n

winter range. Yet the proposed leases fail to extend the same protection to habitat below the rim<\/p>\n

as they do to habitat above the rim. In order to fully protect habitat below the rim, the following<\/p>\n

measures should be implemented:<\/p>\n

(1) The same clustered, phased, development, with surface disturbance being limited to<\/p>\n

16<\/p>\n

one development area at a time, that is being required for development in the Parachute Creek<\/p>\n

High Value Watershed and WMA above the rim should also be required in deer and elk winter<\/p>\n

range below the rim.<\/p>\n

(2) The same half-mile (or greater) well spacing that is being required in the Parachute<\/p>\n

Creek High Value Watershed and WMA above the rim should be required in deer and elk winter<\/p>\n

range below the rim.<\/p>\n

(3) All remaining critical mule deer wintering habitat below the rim should be protected<\/p>\n

by NSO stipulations.<\/p>\n

C. Well-spacing requirements should be increased in critical wildlife areas.<\/p>\n

The proposed lease sale stipulation for the Parachute Creek High Value Watershed on top<\/p>\n

of the plateau requires a minimum of one half mile between drill pads, which corresponds to a<\/p>\n

pad spacing of 160 acres, or four pads per section. Available evidence suggests that 160-acre<\/p>\n

spacing is not sufficient to protect big game habitat. For example, according to the<\/p>\n

recommendations of the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, a density of four pads per section<\/p>\n

is on the margin between \u0153high\u009d and \u0153extreme\u009d impacts on elk crucial winter range and calving<\/p>\n

areas.<\/p>\n

and Gas Resources within Crucial and Important Wildlife Habitats 23 (2004) (available at<\/p>\n

See\u00a0<\/span>Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Recommendations for Development of Oil<\/span><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

http:\/\/gf.state.wy.us\/downloads\/pdf\/og.pdf<\/p>\n

of four pads per section is at the very upper end of the range of pad densities (1 – 4 pads per<\/p>\n

section) for which the impacts on crucial deer winter range can be considered \u0153moderate.\u009d<\/p>\n

Moreover, the industry can do better than 160-acre spacing. The proposed wildlife<\/p>\n

habitat protection rules of the Colorado Oil and Gas Commission have a provision (proposed rule<\/p>\n

1208.c ) encouraging operators to limit well sites to two per section (320-acre spacing) in<\/p>\n

sensitive wildlife habitats (including mule deer critical winter range) and one per section (640-<\/p>\n

acre spacing, or one mile average distance between wells) in sage grouse areas. There is no<\/p>\n

reason that a spacing at least this great should not be required on the Roan Plateau.<\/p>\n

). According to the same recommendations, a density<\/span><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/p>\n

For all of the foregoing reasons, the National Wildlife Federation and the Colorado<\/p>\n

Wildlife Federation respectfully request that the BLM remove all of the parcels listed on the first<\/p>\n

page of this Protest from the August 14, 2008, lease sale.<\/p>\n

17<\/p>\n

Respectfully submitted,<\/p>\n

Joseph M. Feller, Senior Counsel<\/p>\n

National Wildlife Federation<\/p>\n

2260 Baseline Road, Suite 100<\/p>\n

Boulder, CO 80302<\/p>\n

(303) 441-5158<\/p>\n

FellerJ@nwf.org<\/p>\n

for the National Wildlife Federation and the<\/p>\n

Colorado Wildlife Federation<\/p>\n

Attachments:<\/p>\n

1. Protest filed by the National Wildlife Federation and the Colorado Wildlife Federation, dated<\/p>\n

October 16, 2006, of the Proposed Roan Plateau Resource Management Plan Amendment<\/p>\n

(RPRMPA) that was issued in September, 2006.<\/p>\n

2. Letter, dated August 9, 2007, from the National Wildlife Federation and the Colorado<\/p>\n

Wildlife Federation, commenting on the proposed Areas of Critical Environmental Concern<\/p>\n

(ACECs) for the Roan Plateau Planning Area.<\/p>\n

3. Letter, dated December 20, 2007, from Sherman Harris, Director of the Colorado Department<\/p>\n

of Natural Resources, to BLM Colorado State Director Sally Wisely, regarding Comments on<\/p>\n

Proposed ACEC Provisions in the Roan Plateau Resource Management Plan Amendment. This<\/p>\n

letter presents a specific proposal for oil and gas development on the Roan Plateau that reflects,<\/p>\n

and would resolve, many of the issues and concerns raised in this Protest. We therefore request<\/p>\n

that all of the points raised in the attached December 20, 2007, letter be treated as reasons for this<\/p>\n

Protest.<\/p>\n

surface occupancy<\/p>\n

protected by NSO stipulations, \u0153<\/p>\n

The proposed lease sale contradicts this assurance. Although some of the proposed leases<\/p>\n

contain NSO stipulations, those NSOs do not cover the entire 21,034 acres designated as<\/p>\n

ACECs, and development is not precluded on 38,470 acres. Therefore, the proposed leases<\/p>\n

should be withdrawn and rewritten to provide for no surface occupancy on all lands designated<\/p>\n

as ACECs, as promised to Governor Ritter by Assistant Secretary Allred.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

National Wildlife Federation 2260 Baseline Road, Suite 100 Boulder, CO 80302 Colorado Wildlife Federation 1410 Grant Street, Suite C-313 Denver, Colorado 80203 Submitted by: Joseph M. Feller, Senior Counsel National Wildlife Federation 2260 Baseline Road, Suite 100 (303) 441-5158 FellerJ@nwf.org PROTEST by the National Wildlife Federation and the Colorado Wildlife Federation of the inclusion of …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"rank_math_lock_modified_date":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-962","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-news","7":"anons"},"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/coloradowildlife.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/962"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/coloradowildlife.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/coloradowildlife.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/coloradowildlife.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/coloradowildlife.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=962"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/coloradowildlife.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/962\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/coloradowildlife.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=962"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/coloradowildlife.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=962"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/coloradowildlife.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=962"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}