Pinedale Anticline Fact Sheet

Index

Location/Description
Gas Resources
Fish and Wildlife Resources
- Mule Deer
- Pronghorn
- Sage Grouse
- Fisheries
Project History
Adaptive Environmental Management /
Pinedale Anticline Working Group
Proposal for PAPA Expansion

Location/Description

The Pinedale Anticline Project Area (PAPA) is located south of Pinedale, Wyo., and consists of 197,345 acres of federal, state and private lands. Of this total, approximately

157,719 surface acres (79.9%) are BLM
9,766 surfaces areas (5.0%) are state of Wyoming
29,860 surface acres (15.1%) are private

(Click here for the Pinedale Anticline project Web site with links to the project documents.)

Gas Resources

The PAPA is one of the newest and most productive gas fields in the continental United States. Gas reserves, estimated at up to 40 trillion cubic feet (TCF), reside in an over-pressurized, low permeability or "tight sands" formation that requires hydraulic fracturing to facilitate production. Estimates are that 20-25 TCF of gas may be recoverable.

Fish and Wildlife Resources

Fish and wildlife resources in the PAPA and surrounding area are world class, and the upper Green River area is a longtime destination for sportsmen. Approximately 100,000 big-game animals migrate through and seasonally use the upper Green River area, making it an American Serengeti. Mule deer, pronghorn, moose, sage grouse and other game species use all or portions of the PAPA throughout the year. The New Fork River and Green River, both world-class trout fisheries, are within the PAPA and support thousands of anglers per year.

Mule Deer
Mule deer that winter on the Mesa Big Game Winter Range are part of the Sublette mule deer herd, which consists of 15 hunt units and a post-season objective of 32,000 animals. The Sublette Mule Deer Study (Sawyer and Lindzey 2001) indicates that these mule deer seasonally migrate 60-100 miles from winter range near Pinedale, Wyo., to summer in portions of the Salt River, Wyoming, Wind River, Gros Ventre and Snake River ranges. Abundance estimates for the Mesa winter range have declined by more than 40 percent since development began in 2000. (Click here to download published article.)
Pronghorn
Pronghorn also winter on the Mesa Big Game Winter Range and are part of the Sublette pronghorn herd, the second largest in Wyoming. The herd consists of 11 hunt units and has a post-season population objective of 48,000 animals. Some of these animals travel more than 200 miles from their summer range in Grand Teton National Park to their winter range south of the PAPA, depending on snow accumulations. The longest big-game migration still functioning in the United States (outside of Alaska), it includes numerous obstacles and bottlenecks, of which Trapper’s Point on the north end of the PAPA is most famous.
Sage Grouse
Sage grouse are abundant within the PAPA with a total of 14 leks, or breeding grounds, inside the project boundary. Historical accounts of sage grouse in the winter counted thousands of birds in flocks in the PAPA, particularly in the Lovatt Draw portion of the project. Since development began, the leks nearest to intense development have been severely affected or eliminated. Experts have predicted sage grouse extirpation from the PAPA if development proceeds as planned and additional habitat conservation measures are not undertaken.
Fisheries
The New Fork River and Green River are within the PAPA and provide thousands of anglers exceptional fishing throughout the year. The New Fork River is considered one of the best brown trout fisheries in the West, and the Wyoming Game and Fish Department has enacted special regulations on both rivers to preserve special qualities and opportunities. Public access points are few, and anglers must navigate industrial truck traffic, noise and dust — all of which diminish angling experiences.

Project History

In July 2000, the BLM signed the record of decision (ROD) for the Pinedale Anticline Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Project (PAPA). (Click here for PAPA documents.) The ROD allowed development under the "environmentally preferred" alternative (also called the "Resource Protection Alternative"). This authorized development of 700 producing well pads over a 10-15 year period.

The PAPA was divided into nine management zones, each with specific objectives and thresholds for development. The ROD recognized the uncertainty of what development might mean to natural resources and established an "adaptive environmental management" (AEM) process to deal with these variables. Through AEM, the Pinedale Anticline Working Group (PAWG) was established to guide AEM and advise the BLM (more about the PAWG below).

In November 2004, BLM signed a decision that allowed Questar Energy to pursue "year-round" drilling, including limited development in big-game winter range during the winter, in exchange for mitigation that included reductions in total truck trips per year, total well pads, airborne emissions and drilling duration (from 18 years to 9 years).

In 2005, at Questar’s request, the BLM modified this operating plan and allowed more development during the winter and, for the first time, winter completions of wells. Also in 2005, the BLM authorized a pilot project that allowed three additional companies (Anshutz, Shell and Ultra) well drilling during the restricted winter months, resulting in nine total locations that were drilled in winter 2005-2006. During this same time, BLM granted more activity for "deep well" development, adding to the total disturbance and activity during restricted periods.

In late 2005, the BLM and the operators began discussion about further year-round development, negotiations which have resulted in the proposal to modify the 2000 ROD for the PAPA with a supplemental EIS and expand development exponentially.

Adaptive Environmental Management /Pinedale Anticline Working Group

The AEM process was established to address the uncertainty of impacts on natural resources like fish and wildlife and balancing energy development with other uses of the lands. AEM was specified as essential to the project’s success in meeting these goals and outcomes. Through AEM, the BLM could be apprised of impacts from development and make mid-course corrections to address resources being affected. The process also facilitated an annual assessment whereby the BLM, companies and stakeholders could review the previous year’s actions and plan for the coming year. AEM was to be administered by the PAWG. (Click here for the PAWG Web site.)

Shortly after the ROD was signed in 2000, the PAWG formed and began developing monitoring and mitigation plans for the resources of concern. Immediately, the PAWG was challenged by Yates Petroleum as violating the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), and subsequently the group was halted and dissolved. In the meantime, the BLM approved permits, and the companies began drilling with neither the PAWG in place nor the commitments to the ROD for monitoring and mitigation being implemented. Some monitoring, mostly for certain wildlife species, was funded by industry, but the data collected was never evaluated.

In 2004, after being chartered under FACA and appointments made by the Secretary of Interior, the PAWG met again, nearly four years after development began. Task groups for resources were formed, comprising more than 100 participants. The PAWG requested an accounting of the ROD requirements and actions and learned that most AEM requirements were not being met. The PAWG struggled from 2004-2006, during which time many participants abandoned the group, disillusioned by the process. In 2006, the PAWG reformed with a new direction, whereby only post-decision actions were to be addressed. This change effectively eliminated the one of the primary functions of the AEM process — the PAWG’s working with the BLM and industry to plan operations to reduce or eliminate impacts identified through monitoring or research. This and the BLM’s inaction on previous recommendations left the AEM process in limbo, and no official PAWG meeting took place in 2006. The wildlife task group, a critical part of the PAWG, dissolved in 2005, with its recommendations for mule deer ignored by the BLM.

The BLM has attempted to revitalize the PAWG, but the process has faltered. Appointments of participants have been allowed to expire, and as of June 2008 the group did not have enough members for a quorum. The PAWG and tasks groups have publicly stated their frustration with the BLM and the process, leaving its future in doubt.

Proposal for PAPA Expansion

In 2005, the companies began working with the BLM to revise the 2000 ROD for the PAPA. In December 2006, the BLM released the draft supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) (link to SEIS Web site), which outlined the expansion proposed by industry and planned by the BLM. Public comments overwhelmingly opposed the proposal and alternatives. Consequently, in December 2007 the BLM released a revised SEIS (link to SEIS Web site) that outlined two additional alternatives and a preferred alternative. The preferred alternative includes the following components:

An additional 4,399 wells from 600 total well pad locations would be allowed, with the amount of surface disturbance increased by 12,000 acres.
Many wildlife protections would be waived, and year-round drilling would occur in crucial big-game habitats and near sensitive sage grouse habitats.
Mitigation would include additional pipelines, some lease deferrals and other voluntary commitments.
Thirty-six million dollars, spread over approximately 17 years, would be committed, and annual payments would be based on the pace of development.
The BLM would develop an interagency monitoring group, which would include representatives from industry but not the public, for wildlife resources.
Mule deer populations would be allowed to decline another 15 percent — and sage grouse populations would be allowed to decline 30 percent — before action would be required.
The future and function of the PAWG would be unclear. Many of the previous commitments for wildlife resources would be superseded.
Many actions contradict recent research, and the pilot and demonstration project results are not incorporated into the proposal.
Development plans do not include any deeper formation wells that might be drilled in the same area, and baseline inventories and monitoring/mitigation plans are not required until after the decision is made.
Drilling and production would take approximately 75 years, with total reclamation and restoration of the area continuing for more than a century.