NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION®
People and Nature: Our Future Is in the Balance

Northern Rockies Project Office
240 North Higgins, # 2 - Missoula, MT 59802
406-721-6705 - 406-721-6714 [fax] - www.nwf.org

May 14, 2002

Mary Bloom, Project Leader
Bureau of Land Management
111 Garryowen Road
Miles City, MT 59301-0904

RE: Comments on Statewide Draft Oil and Gas Environmental Impact Statement and Amendment of the Powder River and Billings Resource Management Plans.

Dear Ms. Bloom:

The National Wildlife Federation (NWF) is the nation's largest conservation and education organization with a membership committed to the conservation of our wildlife and natural resources. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Oil and Gas Environmental Impact Statement and Amendment of the Powder River and Billings Resource Management Plans for the Bureau of Land Management and State of Montana, dated January 2002.

NWF has worked extensively on issues related to conservation of grasslands, sage grouse, prairie dogs, aquatic resources, and threatened and endangered species for many years. We have a long-standing interest and are currently deeply engaged in conservation efforts for these resources, and believe that CBM development poses a serious threat to these and other natural resources.

In general we feel the DEIS is deficient in several regards. In particular, we cannot support adoption of preferred Alternative E, nor any other alternatives presented; we have several reasons for our inability to do so.

Preferred Alternative E will directly impact over 75,000 acres, result in the construction of over 9,000 miles of roads and pipeline and utility corridors measuring nearly 28,000 miles. At 8 wells per square mile, this is 2,287 square miles impacted by intensive CBM development, with additional wildlife habitat surrounding well fields indirectly impacted by human activities and presence (DEIS, Table 4-15).

Wildlife Conservation Planning and Effects
The State of Montana, in coordination with the BLM and other agencies, is preparing management plans for sage grouse and black-tailed prairie dogs. The success of these plans, particularly in relation to preventing further population and range declines which might trigger listing under the Endangered Species Act, hinge upon successful long-term conservation of existing populations and remaining intact habitats.

Both the BLM and the State of Montana have signed an agreement to maintain and increase the current distribution and abundance of sage grouse (WAFWA 2000), and also to consider and adopt the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agency's guidelines to manage sage grouse populations and their habitats (Connelly et al. 2000). This effort has been triggered by a dramatic contraction of sage grouse distribution and population throughout the West (WDFW 2000). This DEIS fails to consider an alternative which is responsive to this decline, or which may achieve the obligations of the MOU and the related guidelines.

Current surface occupancy and use stipulations are inadequate to protect sage grouse and other wildlife species from impacts. For example, the current stipulation which prohibits "surface use" from March 1-June 15 within two miles of grouse leks does not apply to operation and maintenance of production facilities (DEIS 4-115). The plan has no alternative which considers prohibiting surface use March 1-June 15 for all activities (including operation and maintenance), burying power lines, minimizing noise from compressor stations and well pumps, or reinjecting production water. All these factors could be critical to mitigating impacts to sage grouse populations and other wildlife.

Significant declines in sage grouse populations in areas of oil and gas development have been observed in Alberta, Colorado, and Wyoming. Direct destruction of sage habitat, patch size reduction, fragmentation caused by roads, pipelines, and utility corridors, and year-round disturbance from compressor station noise, vehicles, equipment, and production field activities are believed to be contributing factors. It is believed that in Alberta the cumulative impacts of further oil and gas activities could reduce the sage grouse population to non-viable levels. Of 30 leks observed in Wyoming within .25 miles of CBM wells since 1997, there have been significantly fewer males/lek and the rate of growth is much lower than other less disturbed leks; direct disturbance and loss of habitats are the suspected causes for these differences; the proximity (within 1 mile) of CBM compressor stations to sage grouse leks is also have a measurable negative impact on sage grouse (Braun et al. 2002).

As noted in the draft EIS, black-tailed prairie dogs are a candidate species for listing as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The proposed CBM development area occurs in habitat where prairie dogs were formerly abundant. In Montana, these are areas where prairie dogs need to be recovered for the status of the species to improve. The Montana Prairie Dog Management Plan specifically excludes private lands from the purview of the plan that gves public lands, most notably the BLM lands covered in the draft EIS, enhanced importance to improving the status of this candidate species. BLM is mandated in its internal procedure guidelines as well as under the ESA to improve the status of candidate and listed species. Given this, it is regrettable that the DEIS provides no guidance on how CBM development might impact prairie dogs. At a minimum, it is feasible that CBM development will further fragment prairie dog habitat making recolonization as well as long-term persistence more unlikely. We agree that available data are inadequate to convincingly establish such impacts but suggest that the final EIS should include provisions to mitigate for adverse impacts on prairie dog colonies through establishment of large complexes of prairie dog towns on BLM lands unaffected by CBM development.

Roads, Disturbance, Harvest and Exotic Plants
The DEIS fails to adequately analyze how new roads will influence vulnerability of formerly inaccessible wildlife to hunter harvest. Hunter harvest is well-recognized as a critical feature of both upland bird, big game, and prairie dog management. The DEIS also fails to adequately analyze how new roads will act as vectors for noxious weed and exotic perennial grass invasion into native habitats. Invasions of cheat grass (Bromus tectorum) are responsible for widely degrading sage grouse habitats, particularly by shortening fire cycles and thus preempting the natural succession of plant communities to support mature sage (Artemesia spp.) (Connelly et al., 2000).

Water Draw-down and Discharge
Draw-downs of natural water tables, and effects to associated surface springs, riparian areas, wet meadows, and mesic sites, are not adequately analyzed. These moist sites, and associated well-developed vegetation communities, are critical to the life-cycles of many wildlife species. The DEIS does not analyze the habitat area that will be effected by water table draw-down. The distribution and health of many wildlife populations are directly linked to natural springs, seeps, and associated native vegetation. Production water impounded, or spread on, the surface can not be expected to be a functional substitute for the role of natural springs and seeps to wildlife. The final EIS must analyze the area and species that will likely be impacted by draw-downs of the water table and the change in the quantity and quality of water available at natural springs and seeps. The final EIS must also more thoroughly analyze the effects of the discharge of production water into rivers, creeks and surface aquifers, and the resulting degradation of waters critical to the quality of the human environment.

Many new lands will be made available for livestock grazing by CBM production water surface discharge. The DEIS fails to adequately analyze how this will change the distribution of livestock across these landscapes, and the impacts that may result to vegetation and wildlife. Connelly et al. (2000) states that to protect summer/brood-rearing habitat of grouse, development of livestock water should be avoided. The DEIS does not suggest that surface water development should be avoided, but instead admits that surface water will be made widely available to livestock. While a few individual livestock water developments in uplands may have negligible effects on a large sage grouse population, the cumulative effects of many such developments, particularly in areas where habitat or populations are already compromised, may be substantial.

Cattle are central place foragers, with the primary focus of activity being the watering facility (Stuth 1991). In one study, use of watering facilities was 71 to 353 times greater than expected based on random use (Prasad and Guthery 1986). Because of higher-than-expected use, watering facilities on rangeland typically promote concentric zones of plant communities consisting of bare ground, invading plant species, plant species that increase under grazing pressure, and plant species that decrease under grazing pressure as distance from the water facility increases (Guthery et al 1990, Stuth 1991). The heavy use of vegetation around watering points is well documented; two long-term studies show that forage production is most severely reduced in the zone within .5 mi of water (Valentine 1947; Fusco et al. 1995). Even light grazing can harm sage grouse in areas with a history of overgrazing, because the recovery of grasses and forbs may be greatly slowed or prevented (Blake 1970; Klebenow 1982, 1985; Autenreith, et al. 1982; Winward 1991). It has been found in Montana that the paired factors of slope and distance to water also effect forage use levels (Muggler 1965); sage grouse utilize areas of less slope, the same terrain where livestock preferentially graze, so terrain should also be part of the grazing effects analysis. All the above studies combine to suggest that it is likely that herbage production and residual cover will be reduced in areas influenced by new water developments, and that such factors could have significant individual and cumulative effects on productivity of sage grouse. More surface water very likely will result in additional fencing to manage livestock distribution; the effects of such additional fencing on sage grouse and other wildlife are also not adequately analyzed in the DEIS.

Inadequate Range of Alternatives
One flaw in the analysis is that there in no actual "No Action" alternative described for CBM activities; all alternatives provide for CBM activities at some level, from test wells to full field development. This DEIS' "No Action" Alternative A still provides for ongoing CBM test wells. Therefore this DEIS fails to consider an actual "No Action" alternative which considers the impacts of no CBM test wells or development. This is a serious flaw. Additionally the high impacts analyzed for Alternative C do not substantially differ from preferred Alternative E. Similarly the impacts of Alternatives B and D are similar (Table 4-15). Taken together, it is clear that the DEIS has not provided an adequate range of alternatives.

Failure to Analyze Leasing for CBM
Finally this DEIS, while looking at development activities, does not look at leasing. Oil and gas leasing decisions and lease stipulations were previously analyzed in the BLM 1992 Final Oil and Gas RMP/EIS Amendment (BLM 1992). Wildlife stipulations attached to leases offer protective measures for certain species, during a particular time period, or within a specific area. These stipulations do not address other concerns related to special status species or water/habitat related issues caused by direct and indirect impacts from CBM exploration and development. Under BLM's 1992 amendment analysis, the agency did not anticipate or consider that ultimately these leases would be developed for coal bed methane. The Interior Board of Land Appeals has recently overturned leases in Wyoming that were issued under similar circumstances. The EIS needs to validate that the existing leases were lawfully issued, and/examine an alternative that assumes no leasing or leasing with no surface occupancy stipulations. See e.g. Conner v. Burford, 448 F.2d 1441 (9th Cir. 1988).

Conclusion
It is our honest belief that the BLM and the State of Montana have a clear legal obligation to carefully reconsider the DEIS and preferred alternative based on new information and numerous substantial issues raise here and elsewhere. Several actions proposed within these documents constitute an irrevocable commitment of resources which could harm significant flora and fauna held in trust by the agency and state.

We appreciate this opportunity to comment, look forward to the final EIS and Record of Decision, and hope that our comments and concerns will be reflected therein.

Sincerely,

Tom France, Esq.
Director

Ben Deeble
Regional Sage Grouse Project Coordinator

References

Autenreith, R.E., W. Molini, C. Braun (eds). 1982. Sage grouse management practices. Tech. Bull No. 1. Western States Sage Grouse Committee. Twin Falls, ID. 42 pp.

Baker, D.L. and F.S. Guthery. 1990. Effects of continuous grazing on habitat and density of ground-foraging birds in south Texas. J. Range Manage 43:2-5.

Blake, C.S. 1970. The response of sage grouse population to precipitation trends and habitat quality in south Idaho. Proc. West. Assoc. State Game and Fish Comm. 50:452-462.

Braun, Clait E., Olin O. Oedekoven, Cameron L. Aldridge. 2002. Oil and gas development in western North America: effect on sagebrush steppe avifauna with particular emphasis on sage grouse. North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference proceedings (in press).

Connelly, John W., M.A. Schroeder, A.R. Sands, and C.E. Braun. 2000. Guidelines to manage sage grouse populations and their habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 2000, 28(4):967-985.

Fusco, M., J. Holechek, A. Tembo, A. Daniel, and M. Cardenas. 1995. Grazing influences on watering point vegetation in the Chihuahuan desert. J. Range Manage. 48:32-38.

Guthery, C.A. DeYoung, F.C. Bryant, and D.L. Drawe. 1990 Using short duration grazing to accomplish wildlife habitat objectives. In K. E. Severson, tech. coord. Can livestock be used as a tool to enhance wildllife habitat? U.S.D.A.., For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-194.

Klebenow, D.A. 1985. Habitat management for sage grouse in Nevada. World Pheasant Assoc. 10:34-46.

Klebenow, D.A. 1982. Livestock grazing interactions with sage grouse. Pp 113-123 IN Peek and Dalke (eds). Proc. Wildlife-Livestock Relationship Symp.: Apr. 20-22, 1981. Coeur d'Alene, ID. Univ. Idaho, Forest Range and Exp. Stn. Moscow ID. 614 pp.

Muggler, W.F. 1965. Cattle distribution on steep slopes. J. Range Manage. 18:255-257.

Oakleaf, R.J. 1971. Relationship of sage grouse to upland meadows in Nevada. M.S. thesis, Univ. Nevada, Reno, NV. 64 pp.

Prasad, N.L, and F.S. Guthery. 1986. Wildlife use of livestock water under short duration and continuous grazing. Wild. Soc. Bull. 14:450-454.

Stuth, J.W. 1991. Foraging behavior. Pp 65-83 in R.K. Heitschmidt and J. W. Stuth, eds. Grazing management: an ecological perspective. Timber Press, Portland, Oregon 259 pp.

Valentine, K.A. 1947. Distance from water as a factor in grazing capacity of rangeland. J. Range Manage 10:749-754.

WAFWA 2000. Memorandum of Understanding between Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, and U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, and U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 6 pp.

WDFW, 2000. Changes in the sage grouse range throughout western North America (map). Product of the Wildlife Resource Data Systems, February 18, 2000. Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA.

Winward, A.H. 1991. Management in sagebrush steppe. Oregon Agric. Exp. Stn. Speci Rep. 880. Oregon State Univ. Corvallis, OR .7 pp.