Pinedale Anticline Litigation FAQ

Index

Why did the TRCP file suit against the BLM?
Why does the TRCP care about the Pinedale Anticline?
What did the ROD say the BLM would do in the Pinedale Anticline project area?
How has the adaptive environmental management process failed?
Why does the TRCP care that the adaptive environmental management process failed?
Why are mule deer and sage grouse important to the TRCP?
Why is the TRCP suing now?
What is the purpose of the TRCP litigation?
Why didn’t the TRCP work with the BLM and the state of Wyoming to resolve the problem?
Why didn’t the TRCP work with the energy companies to resolve the problem?
Did the TRCP exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit?
Why file in Washington, D.C., rather than Wyoming?
Is the TRCP categorically opposed to energy development?
How would the TRCP prefer to see development proceed in the Pinedale Anticline?
What is the status of the TRCP action regarding energy development in the Atlantic Rim?
How might the TRCP suits affect rising gasoline prices?

Why did the TRCP file suit against the BLM?

The BLM has failed to implement effective “adaptive environmental management” (AEM) and mitigation requirements established in a July 2000 record of decision (ROD) (link to Web site) for the Pinedale Anticline oil and gas development project and other related decisions for projects within the Pinedale Anticline. This failure has enabled development without the necessary changes in management promised to address impacts to fish and wildlife resources; therefore, significant impacts to species like sage grouse and mule deer are continuing, even though actions could be taken to address them.

The TRCP is not trying to stop development on the Pinedale Anticline; rather, it wants to assure that commitments made and requirements outlined in the decisions approving development for the project are met and completed. The TRCP action against the BLM is driven in part by the fact that the defective AEM process used to guide development in the project area is being heralded as a model for how similar projects on Western public land should be managed in the future. This model has been proven not to work locally and therefore should not be pursued elsewhere without consideration of the deficiencies identified by the TRCP.

Why does the TRCP care about the Pinedale Anticline?

The project area, which comprises close to 200,000 acres in southwestern Wyoming, supports substantial populations of sage grouse and one of Wyoming’s largest mule deer populations. The abundance of big-game animals and their use of the area during migrations from summer to winter ranges has led to it being called the “American Serengeti.” The area offers some of the best hunting and fishing opportunities in Wyoming and the West. TRCP members traditionally have hunted, fished and observed fish and wildlife in and around the Pinedale Anticline and plan to continue these activities in the future. The pace and approach to development, however, has resulted in a high probability that fish and wildlife will be adversely affected to levels that may not be sustainable for TRCP members’ use.

What did the ROD say the BLM would do in the Pinedale Anticline project area?

In developing the ROD, which authorized up to 700 well pads, the BLM committed itself and industry to the AEM (adaptive environmental management) process to address wildlife, air and water quality and other environmental concerns. The agency concluded that this process was necessary to develop the Pinedale Anticline in a manner consistent with BLM obligations under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). The BLM was supposed to use the AEM process to make mid-course corrections and adjustments to activities and mitigation to address impacts identified by monitoring and research. Under the requirements of the ROD, the needs of fish and wildlife were supposed to be balanced during energy development.

How has the adaptive environmental management process failed?

The AEM process did not even commence until four years after the ROD was signed due to litigation brought by one of the operators (Yates Petroleum). The process was supposed to allow the BLM to gather data (at the operators’ expense), evaluate that data and adjust management and operations to reduce environmental impacts, including on wildlife and recreation. The mechanism by which the BLM was to implement the AEM approach was the Pinedale Anticline Working Group (PAWG). The PAWG has not functioned as intended since it was chartered in 2004. In 2006 it was restructured and its role diminished. Recommendations made by both the PAWG and its individual “task groups” have been largely ignored by the BLM. Currently, the PAWG does not have enough members to function due to lack of a quorum (six out of nine members) and will not have the members until late in 2008, a full eight years after development began.

Why does the TRCP care that the adaptive environmental management process failed?

The best available scientific data (research specifically designed to determine how development would affect mule deer and funded by industry, the BLM and the Wyoming Game and Fish Department) (link to report) demonstrate that the number of mule deer on crucial winter ranges in the project area has declined by more than 40 percent since development began in 2000. The research also shows that mule deer have been displaced from preferred habitats to less suitable habitats and that energy development is one of the major causes of this effect.

Other peer-reviewed, published research on sage grouse, both in Pinedale and in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming (link to article), shows that sage grouse do not do well near intense development, a fact borne out on the Pinedale Anticline, where active leks near intense development have been significantly reduced or eliminated. This research also shows that protections currently employed for sage grouse, primarily quarter-mile, no-surface-occupancy buffers, are inadequate to maintain viable populations.

Because the PAWG is dysfunctional and the task groups have not met goals, no mechanism exists to evaluate the monitoring data and make recommendations to the BLM for adaptive changes needed to address impacts (i.e., to adjust operations to reduce observed impacts or adjust mitigation requirements) as was originally promised in the 2000 ROD.

Why are mule deer and sage grouse important to the TRCP?

Mule deer require vast areas of quality habitat for survival and are sensitive to disturbance. The mule deer that use the Pinedale Anticline are part of a herd that is highly migratory and travels 60-100 miles between summer and winter ranges. The Pinedale Anticline project area contains part of one (of two) major winter range complexes for the Sublette mule deer herd. These two winter ranges must provide enough habitat to sustain an objective of 32,000 mule deer throughout the winter. More than half of the mule deer that use the Mesa Winter Range Complex (which is part of the Anticline) formerly relied on the Pinedale Mesa, which is the winter range which has been most severely affected by development to date. Mule deer are important to sportsmen, considered by many hunters to be an iconic big-game animal. The Sublette mule deer herd is one of the largest and most hunted mule deer populations in the state, and hunters significantly boost the local economy.

Sage grouse are the grand bird of the prairie and the ultimate sagebrush obligate. Once found in the millions throughout the West, sage grouse recently have experienced losses of half the habitat on which they depend. Sage grouse provide a unique upland bird hunting experience in Wyoming for gun hunters and falconers. The upper Green River area of Wyoming is one of the last strongholds for the bird in the West, with some of the state’s highest density of breeding birds. The Pinedale Anticline currently provides habitat that supports 14 active sage grouse leks, or breeding areas. Research and monitoring in the Anticline show that sage grouse are extremely sensitive to development and that protection measures used by the BLM are inadequate - recognizing that the leks nearest to intense development have been significantly affected or eliminated. Similar published work in the Powder River Basin draws the same conclusions: Intense development will lead to local extirpations of sage grouse. Sage grouse are being considered for protection under the Endangered Species Act by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Hunters and the TRCP do not want the sage grouse listed and another sporting opportunity lost.

Why is the TRCP suing now?

Despite the clear evidence of negative impacts on wildlife, the BLM recently (December 2007) proposed to authorize expanded, year-round drilling throughout the project area. The proposal, which contradicts science generated since 2000, includes year-round development of 4,399 additional natural gas wells and additional pipeline corridors. Industry also is seeking a permanent exception from the BLM’s seasonal restrictions within big-game crucial winter habitat and greater sage grouse seasonal habitat. The TRCP has participated in the failed the AEM process and provided the BLM and industry comments and information about ongoing and proposed energy activities and how fish and wildlife concerns could be better met, but to no avail. The TRCP fears that future development will not recognize the importance of the area for hunting and fishing and believes that these opportunities will be severely diminished or eliminated if development proceeds as it has in the past, or as it is planned. The TRCP believes that a functional AEM process is essential to balance fish and wildlife needs with extraction of energy resources.

What is the purpose of the TRCP litigation?

The TRCP wants the BLM to adhere to commitments made in the original 2000 ROD, specifically a functional AEM process that addresses documented impacts to fish and wildlife resources and requires mitigation for the losses already experienced from development. The TRCP wants to ensure that any continuing or new development uses the best available information to manage wildlife and fish resources and public uses. The TRCP wants the BLM to identify and plan for how hunting and fishing will be sustained at acceptable levels during development of the area and how these levels will be returned to pre-development levels once energy development is over. Finally the TRCP seeks adequate mitigation for losses already incurred and seeks commitments made by BLM and Industry that were promised in the PAPA ROD and other decision documents to be honored.

Why didn’t the TRCP work with the BLM and the state of Wyoming to resolve the problem?

Efforts have been made by the TRCP over the past several years, including involvement in the PAWG by Dr. Rollin Sparrowe, a former federal biologist, and others to implement AEM with the BLM. The BLM rejected efforts to address wildlife, allowed the PAWG to fail and proceeded in disregard of the best available science. Dr. Sparrowe’s experience with AEM in the Pinedale Anticline demonstrates that commitments made by the BLM, even now, likely will not be observed.

The TRCP has commented and made recommendations about how fish and wildlife concerns can be better addressed in ongoing and proposed energy projects and plans. The TRCP has not seen adequate response from the BLM to these concerns in their proposals and plans for further energy development. Dr. Sparrowe and other TRCP staff have worked with Wyoming Game and Fish Department personnel on these issues and participated in numerous public forums on wildlife and energy issues. To date, no substantial change has been made to future energy development as a result of TRCP activities – leaving us with no other course of action to protect and conserve our fish, wildlife and sporting resources during public-lands energy development.

Why didn’t the TRCP work with the energy companies to resolve the problem?

The TRCP worked with the companies through the Pinedale Anticline Working Group, which has failed in implementing effective AEM. Dr. Sparrowe chaired the wildlife task group of the PAWG and worked with industry to present the BLM with recommendations on conserving mule deer and other wildlife. Most were rejected. The TRCP worked with the companies in 2005 by jointly developing and conducting a workshop on mitigation for operators in the project area, federal and state agencies and others.

Did the TRCP exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit?

For various legal and procedural reasons, no administrative remedies were available to the TRCP. Nevertheless, the TRCP, through Dr. Sparrowe and others, has participated in the PAWG, commented on proposals and related projects, and tried to work with the BLM to address concerns. TRCP efforts have met with inadequate results.

Why file in Washington, D.C., rather than Wyoming?

Public lands belong to all Americans and are managed through direction from agencies based in Washington, D.C. Policy directives for energy development on BLM lands originate in D.C. The D.C. District Court has extensive experience with challenges to federal agency actions, including NEPA/FLPMA challenges as presented in the TRCP complaint. The TRCP’s primary office is in D.C., and its outside counsel has an office in D.C. The TRCP’s long-term interest is served by litigating these issues (which may arise in at least five different states) in a single forum, which should reduce costs, expenses and attorneys' fees.

Is the TRCP categorically opposed to energy development?

The TRCP supports responsible energy development coupled with commitments to sustain fish and wildlife resources throughout development phases. The TRCP also supports adaptive management, which, when properly applied, is an effective tool to address uncertainties in environmental analyses. The TRCP is involved in energy projects and plans taking place throughout the Rocky Mountains (Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming) and works on public policy in many arenas. The TRCP works to ensure that fish and wildlife resources receive the attention and management they are afforded under state and federal management guidelines and that future generations can enjoy America’s conservation legacy. The TRCP believes in the development of our domestic energy supplies but not at the expense of our natural resources.

The Wildlife Society (TWS), an association of professional wildlife scientists and managers that advocates for science-based wildlife policy, is concerned about the lack of data available to help land and wildlife managers make informed decisions about oil and gas development and the rapid rate at which lands may be converted to development use. “Current management is not achieving the intent of federal land management policy and legislation,” asserted a recent TWS position statement. “Furthermore, science supporting such management has not been applied in an effective manner. It is reasonable and socially responsible to manage energy projects on public lands in a manner that sustains fish and wildlife habitat and public recreation, and protects environmental and ecological values, including air and water quality, and provides for aesthetic considerations.” TWS develops position statements on issues of major importance to wildlife resources, based on expertise contained within TWS membership. (Read the entire TWS statement.)

How would the TRCP prefer to see development proceed in the Pinedale Anticline?

The TRCP believes in applying lessons learned and taking a balanced approach to development. The losses experienced by mule deer populations on the Pinedale Anticline should be factored into the continuing development, actions taken to prevent further losses of winter habitat or other actions that we know will further affect the number of mule deer using the project area.

The TRCP supports the use of pre-project plans and commitments that explicitly outline how fish and wildlife resources will be sustained throughout all phases of development (including final reclamation/restoration). The TRCP believes actions like spatial and temporal phased development, deferred development of key areas and reduced pace of development are appropriate tools for conserving natural resources during development. Adequate staff and funding must exist to support management of fish and wildlife resources and must be assured for the life of the project. Adaptive management, based on proven science and monitoring data, must include regular evaluation of results and willingness by the controlling agency to alter management to lessen impacts. Mitigation must be a structured process that includes actions that directly benefit the species, habitat or recreational opportunity being affected. Mitigation should follow the CEQ guidelines sequence (Avoid, Minimize, Reduce, Rectify and Compensate) for success, with off-site mitigation used only when appropriate.

In sum, RODs on energy projects are contracts with American public. The TRCP views such contracts as binding commitments to conserve other resources while important oil and gas resources are developed. The original intent of the 2000 plan for the Pinedale Anticline was, and still is, a valid approach to balancing resources. Much has been learned during the first eight years of development of the Pinedale Anticline, and adjustments are necessary to sustain fish and wildlife resources throughout the rest of the development on the anticline.

What is the status of the TRCP action regarding energy development in the Atlantic Rim?

The TRCP complaint against the Interior Department was filed in August 2007 over an energy project near Rawlins, Wyo., in an area called the Atlantic Rim. Home to thousands of elk, mule deer, pronghorn and sage grouse, the Atlantic Rim is one of Wyoming’s most productive regions for wildlife. The BLM plans to industrialize this important area, in its own words rendering a situation “unsuitable” for hunting and fishing for generations to come.

In its suit, the TRCP argues that the BLM improperly authorized coal-bed methane development in the Atlantic Rim to the detriment of big game and sage grouse and the recreational hunting opportunities they currently provide. The case should be completed by midsummer 2008, with a decision expected in late summer or early fall.

How might the TRCP suits affect rising gasoline prices?

Supporters of expanded development in Pinedale and on other federal public land have argued that gasoline prices will be lowered by opening up more land to around the year drilling. This is false. The Pinedale Anticline is a natural gas field, and the TRCP suit does not demand that it be shut down. Gasoline is driven by the oil commodity market, refining capabilities, distribution and speculation. None of those factors are in play in the Pinedale Anticline. Approximately 47.5 million acres of federal lands are currently leased by oil and gas companies, of which only about 13 million acres are actually producing oil and gas. Energy companies have leased more acres than they can possibly drill right now.

Further, even as leasing and drilling has expanded on federal public land – between 1999 and 2007, the number of drilling permits issued for development of public lands increased by more than 361 percent – gas prices have risen exponentially. There is absolutely no correlation between expanding energy development on federal public land and lowering gasoline prices at the pump.

Requiring the BLM to follow legal multiple-use requirements would not prevent extraction of oil and gas in Pinedale Anticline and other places; it would mean that we would not sacrifice our fish and wildlife heritage to produce energy. Extracting energy resources after a plan is established for development that maintains healthy fish and wildlife populations will allow us the meet the standard of “responsible development” that we all seek.