Citizens for Huerfano County's formal protest on the Nov. 10, 2011 oil and gas lease sale.
19
P.O. Box 1193 La Veta, Colorado 81055 [email protected]September 12, 2011 United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Colorado State Office ATTN: KAREN ZUREK 2850 Youngfield Street Lakewood, Colorado 80215-7076 Delivered via Fax to: 303-239-3799 OIL AND GAS LEASE SALE PROTEST (Filed pursuant to 43 C.F.R. §§ 4.450-2 and 3120.1-3) November 10, 2011 Competitive Oil and Gas Lease Sale (State of Colorado) The Citizens for Huerfano County (“CHC”) is a Colorado Non-profit Corporation dedicated to protecting the public health, safety, environment, and wildlife from the effects of oil and gas exploration and operations, drilling and hydraulic fracturing ("fracking"). CHC is very concerned about the potential adverse impacts of the proposed leasing and subsequent development that it facilitates on Huerfano County including adverse effects on the public health, safety, environment, and wildlife, sustainable recreation-tourism and agricultural based economy, water and air quality and archeological, natural and cultural resources. While Huerfano County has a history of coal-bed methane extraction, oil and gas development is new to the county. Until very recently, the public was unaware of the marked increase in BLM oil and gas leasing and development in the county. In May 2008, over 1,000 acres were leased between the Towns of La Veta and Cuchara, and another 31,500 acres in the county were leased in May 2009. Both of these BLM oil and gas lease sales went largely unnoticed by the public, as did the scoping and draft Environmental Assessment that occurred this spring for the November 10, 2011 sale. It was only when Shell Oil approached the City of Walsenburg in early May, 2011, to purchase water for hydraulic fracking that the public became aware of the oil and gas industry’s interest
September 12, 2011 United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Colorado State Office ATTN: KAREN ZUREK 2850 Youngfield Street Lakewood, Colorado 80215-7076 Delivered via Fax to: 303-239-3799
OIL AND GAS LEASE SALE PROTEST
(Filed pursuant to 43 C.F.R. §§ 4.450-2 and 3120.1-3)
November 10, 2011 Competitive Oil and Gas Lease Sale (State of Colorado)
The Citizens for Huerfano County (“CHC”) is a Colorado Non-profit Corporation dedicated to protecting the public health, safety, environment, and wildlife from the effects of oil and gas exploration and operations, drilling and hydraulic fracturing ("fracking"). CHC is very concerned about the potential adverse impacts of the proposed leasing and subsequent development that it facilitates on Huerfano County including adverse effects on the public health, safety, environment, and wildlife, sustainable recreation-tourism and agricultural based economy, water and air quality and archeological, natural and cultural resources. While Huerfano County has a history of coal-bed methane extraction, oil and gas development is new to the county. Until very recently, the public was unaware of the marked increase in BLM oil and gas leasing and development in the county. In May 2008, over 1,000 acres were leased between the Towns of La Veta and Cuchara, and another 31,500 acres in the county were leased in May 2009. Both of these BLM oil and gas lease sales went largely unnoticed by the public, as did the scoping and draft Environmental Assessment that occurred this spring for the November 10, 2011 sale.
It was only when Shell Oil approached the City of Walsenburg in early May, 2011, to purchase water for hydraulic fracking that the public became aware of the oil and gas industry’s interest
and activities in Huerfano County. Prior to this, agency and industry secrecy and failure to provide proper public notice kept the public largely in the dark.
Nevertheless, as details on the extent of oil and gas industry interest in Huerfano County emerged, citizens quickly organized to respond to broad public concerns about impacts of such development. The Citizens for Huerfano County formally incorporated in July of 2011. In two short months, the organization has grown to over 300 members.
Although the formation of CHC is recent, the members of CHC have a longstanding interest in protecting the health, safety and environment of communities within Huerfano County. Members of CHC have a particular interest and long history of advocacy to protect historical and cultural resources, conservation areas and sensitive species, including but not limited to, those listed in Attachment A1, Colorado Natural Heritage Program identified sensitive species and plant communities in Huerfano County.
Our members live in and depend on a habitable environment, sufficient and clean water resources and the unique sense of place values of Huerfano County for their lives and livelihoods. As one of Colorado’s most arid and economically impoverished counties, we are concerned that the industrial development that the BLM lease sale will facilitate, will have disproportionate and unjust impacts on our members and communities. Our members enjoy a wide range of recreational activities on or near land proposed for leasing, including viewing and studying wildlife and native ecosystems, hiking, camping, cycling, taking photographs, hunting, fishing and experiencing solitude. Our members plan to return to the subject lands in the future to engage in these activities. We are collectively committed to ensuring that federal agencies properly manage and protect our public resources, health and environment. THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT
Because CHC did not exist at the time, no members of CHC received notice of the lease sale, either from the NEPA register on the Royal Gorge Field Office or from the Colorado State BLM Office’s prior to the 30-day public review and comment period.
Nevertheless, CHC has reviewed the Draft Environmental Assessment on the Royal Gorge Field Office (DOI-BLM-CO-200-2011-0057 EA) (“DEA”) and concludes that it is inadequate for the reasons described below.
A fundamental problem is that the DEA analyzed only the effect of the lease sale, not the subsequent actions and impacts that will be enabled by the act of leasing. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), which oversees the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act, states that the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C. §4321 et seq., requires federal agencies to take a “hard look” at new information or circumstances concerning the environmental effects of a federal action even after an initial environmental analysis has been prepared.
The act of leasing for purposes of oil and gas development is a necessary and linked step toward actual drilling and, as such, the act of leasing itself could have many adverse effects on our members. For example, the DEA fails to consider potential adverse impacts on wells and source water resources, air quality, Gillette Syndrome2 socioeconomic impacts 3, effects on the county’s recreation, tourism and agricultural based economy, potential geohazards and other significant impacts on the human environment. The November BLM lease sale further increases the probability of oil and gas development and has already impacted the real estate business, as worries about pollution, noise, and industrialization cause potential property buyers to postpone or abandon decisions to invest in residential and commercial real estate in the county. According to local real estate professionals, some long-time residents are considering relocating not only because of the potential drilling but also based on fears that property values will decline by double-digit percentages as they have in other areas affected by oil and gas development.4 In addition to these larger concerns that apply to all of the parcels being offered in Huerfano County, our specific concerns as they apply to individual parcels are summarized in Table 1
2Impacts of Energy Development in Colorado: With a Case Study of Mesa and Garfield Counties. Headwaters
Economics, Bozeman Montana, November, 2008, http://headwaterseconomics.org/energy 3 http://www.sublettewyo.com/Archive.aspx?AMID=42 4 Battlement Mesa Homeowners v. Antero Resources, lawsuit filed July 20, 2011. Also personal communication with
Anne Renaud-Wilkinson, MAI, Huerfano County, licensed and designated commercial appraiser, Appraisal Institute
below. These include inadequate analysis of the effects of the oil and gas lease on big game (elk, bighorn sheep), Canada lynx, Mexican spotted owl, raptors, Colorado Natural Areas Program (“CNAP”) designated Natural Areas, Colorado Natural Heritage Program (“CNHP”) Potential Conservation Areas, Colorado State Wildlife Areas, and Congressionally Designated Wilderness, and archeological, historical and cultural resources. New circumstances and information
NEPA’s implementing regulations require that an agency “prepare supplements to either draft or final environmental impact statements if … there are significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts.” 40 C.F.R. §1502.9(c)(1)(ii). Even where an environmental impact statement (“EIS”) has been previously prepared, “[i]f there remains ‘major Federal actio[n]’ to occur, and if the new information is sufficient to show that the remaining action will ‘affec[t] the quality of the human environment’ in a significant manner or to a significant extent not already considered, a supplemental EIS must be prepared.” Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council, 109 S.Ct. 1851, 1859 (1989).
New and resurfacing5,6 information about impacts of oil and gas drilling, and hydrofracking in particular, on air quality, on water quality and quantity, and on public health, is emerging every day.
Results from the Battlement Mesa Health Impact Assessment in Colorado on the health impacts of natural gas development and production were released earlier this year7. The draft HIA provides evidence for substantial impacts from oil and gas operations including chemical emissions into the air, soil and water, effects due to unsafe industrial operations and socioeconomic effects that suggest additional safeguards are needed to protect the public health, safety and environment.
5 Abrahm Lustgarten, Does an Old EPA Fracking Study Provide Proof of Contamination? ProPublica, August 4,
2011, http://www.propublica.org/article/does-an-old-epa-fracking-study-provide-proof-of-contamination 6 EPA Report: Fracking Contaminated Drinking Water, Environmental Working Group, Aug. 3, 2011,
http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2011/08/03-1 7 Battlement Mesa HIA/EHMS (2nd draft), Garfield County, http://www.garfield-county.com/public-
The Environmental Protection Agency has initiated a national study to investigate alleged water contamination from drilling in five areas including Las Animas County in the Raton Basin, Colorado8. EPA is also conducting a study on the effects of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water, and has recently proposed new rules on emissions released by fracking.9 Recent earthquakes in southern Colorado have been linked to the practice of hydraulic fracturing10. The Secretary of Energy Advisory Board Shale Gas Production Subcommittee recently released a report calling for mandatory disclosure of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing and urged industry to improve drilling practices that can lead to water contamination11. State regulators have recently uncovered evidence that potentially lethal concentrations of hydrogen sulfide gas have been encountered on drilling sites in Colorado12. Drought restrictions, such as we’re currently experiencing in southern Colorado, are forcing ranchers and homeowners to compete with the energy industry for scarce water resources13.
These reports, studies and investigations, represent just a fraction of the new information that needs to be fully considered by BLM, prior to leasing, to avoid subjecting the citizens and environment of Huerfano County to unnecessary risk.
In accordance with NEPA, agencies must supplement existing environmental analyses if new circumstances “raise[ ] significant new information relevant to environmental concerns[.]” Portland Audubon Soc’y v. Babbitt, 998 F.2d 705, 708-709 (9th Cir. 2000). Moreover, an
8 Abrahm Lustgarten, EPA Fracking Study to Focus on Five States – But Not Wyoming, ProPublica, June 24, 2011,
http://www.propublica.org/article/epa-fracking-study-to-focus-on-five-states-but-not-wyoming 9 Nicholas Kusnetz, EPA Proposes New Rules on Emissions Released by Fracking, ProPublica, July 29, 2011,
http://www.propublica.org/article/epa-proposes-new-rules-on-emissions-released-by-fracking 10 David Williams, Past earthquakes in southern Colorado studied for links to gas fracking, water disposal, Colorado
Independent, Aug. 24, 2011, http://coloradoindependent.com/97225/past-earthquakes-in-southern-colorado-studied-
for-links-to-gas-fracking-water-disposal 11 David Williams, DOE fracking report lauded for focus on disclosure, other aspects of gas drilling, Colorado
Independent, Aug. 12, 2011, http://coloradoindependent.com/96068/doe-fracking-report-lauded-for-focus-on-
disclosure-other-aspects-of-gas-drilling 12 John Colson, State: Potentially deadly gas at drilling rigs, Glenwood Springs Post Independent, Aug. 26, 2011,
http://www.postindependent.com/article/20110826/VALLEYNEWS/110829931/1083&ParentProfile=1074 13 Josh Harkinson, As Texas Withers, Gas Industry Guzzles, Mother Jones, Sept. 1, 2011,
“agency must be alert to new information that may alter the results of its original environmental analysis, and continue to take a ‘hard look at the environmental effects of [its] planned action, even after a proposal has received initial approval.’” Friends of the Clearwater v. Dombeck, 222 F.3d 552, 557 (9th Cir. 2000) quoting Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 374 (1989).
This new information must be applied to all of the Huerfano County parcels listed in Table 1 below.
Range of Alternatives
NEPA requires BLM to consider a range of alternatives to the proposed action. Indeed the alternatives considered constitutes the “the heart” of the environmental impact statement.14 A broad enough range of alternatives is essential for the public to evaluate the various paths available to meet the purpose and need for the lease sale, the subsequent development of energy resources, and the impacts to the human environment of such development.
BLM analyzes three alternatives in the DEA: a no-leasing alternative, an alternative that includes leasing parcels within the Denver-Boulder-Greely-Ft. Collins air quality non-attainment area and in close proximity to Spinney reservoir, and the proposed leasing alternative. None of the three alternatives includes or considers a full explanation of impacts or adequate safeguards and mitigation measures to protect the public health, safety, environment, and wildlife of Huerfano County.
For example, the EA assumes that because “the proposed lease parcels are primarily located in rural portions of central and eastern Colorado [where] existing air quality conditions are generally very good, and well below (cleaner than) applicable CAAQS and NAAQS” no air quality impacts will occur as a result of the leasing.” This conclusion is erroneous in light of the serious air quality impacts experienced by other rural communities whose formerly good air quality has been severely affected by oil and gas leasing, such as Pinedale, Wyoming15.
The BLM emissions inventory of oil and gas activities along with projected future development for the Front Range of Colorado needs to be completed before the agency moves ahead with oil and gas leasing in the Front Range, including Huerfano County.
Nor does the DEA consider other viable alternatives to meeting the purpose and need of the proposed lease sale, such as implementation of energy-efficiency measures and facilitating distributed, clean energy initiatives that would reduce the need for fossil-fuel based energy.
Safeguards and Mitigation
NEPA analysis should include a thorough description and analysis of proposed safeguards and mitigation measures and evaluate the effectiveness of the mitigation measures using the best available science. NEPA is clear that, “accurate scientific analysis, expert agency comments, and public scrutiny are essential” according to 40 C.F.R. § 1500.1(b) (2009). “For this reason, agencies are under an affirmative mandate to ‘insure the professional integrity, including scientific integrity, of the discussions and analyses in environmental impact statements[,] identify any methodologies used and . . . make explicit reference by footnote to the scientific and other sources relied upon for conclusions[.]’" Envtl. Def. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 515 F. Supp. 2d 69, 78 (D.D.C. 2007) (citing 40 C.F.R. § 1502.24 (2009)).
BLM’s analysis must take into account the most current and best available science on the impacts of energy development on the public health, safety, environment, and wildlife, as well as the best available science on the status of and threats posed to communities and the environment.
Analysis of environmental impacts should not be deferred until the application for permit to drill (APD) stage because once a lease is granted, resources are already committed to the development process. It will be more difficult for BLM to ensure proper protections for the human environment once leases are issued. Therefore, analysis and surveys of these parcels should be conducted at the first instance possible and prior to the leasing stage.
BLM needs to go back to the drawing table and conduct a thorough review of impacts using currently available science before leasing the parcels listed in Table 1.
Hydraulic Fracturing
Of particular concern to members of CHC is the failure of BLM to analyze in the DEA the effects of hydraulic fracturing on the public health, safety and environment. Hydraulic fracturing is standard practice in natural gas extraction and its effects can be analyzed at the lease stage. An April 18, 2011 report issued by the US House of Representatives Committee on Energy and
Commerce found that hydraulic fracturing fluids contain 29 chemicals that are known or possible human carcinogens, regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act, or listed as hazardous air pollutants under the Clean Air Act, including benzene, toluene, xylene, ethylbenzene, and lead. 16 While BLM acknowledges that hydraulic fracturing can harm ground water resources, it applies conventional assumptions that “casing along with cement is extended well beyond fresh-water zones to insure that drilling fluids remain within the well bore and do not enter groundwater,” despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary17.
The geology of Huerfano County is known to be both complex and unique, and problems with wellheads are already documented18. According to regional experts, the presence of various igneous intrusions (dikes) in the region have significant fracture density, with significant fracture aperture (opening) and therefore could conduct fluids, like drilling and fracking fluids, or radioactive substances, into adjacent formations19 (i.e. natural fissures that are prolific in the area). Thus, drilling in Huerfano County may entail greater risk to water resources than drilling in other areas.
The BLM DEA does not mention or address the complex and unique geology of the region, or the known complications and problems with drilling. Nor are any special precautions offered to avoid problems with drilling, casing, plugging or other aspects of the drilling and production process. Simply stating that “contamination of ground water resources in highly unlikely” does not address the many real world concerns of our members about hydraulic fracturing.
The BLM DEA does not mention or address potentially serious water quantity issues. Drilling, and especially hydrofracking, requires enormous amounts of water, an average of 5 million gallons per frack, and each well can be fracked multiple times. Huerfano County is an arid region and existing surface and groundwater supplies are already stretched to the limit. There is
16 United States House of Representatives, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Chemicals Used in Hydraulic
not sufficient water in the county to sustain existing agricultural and municipal uses without restricting use during the county's frequent multi-year droughts. There is no "extra" water to support drilling and hydraulic fracking operations on even a small fraction of the leases that industry is currently holding, let alone for any new leases being proposed for sale in November 2011.
We maintain that BLM needs to analyze these issues before leasing any additional lands in Huerfano County.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
BLM acknowledges that greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) could result from “future development of these leases” and that they, “must consider and analyze the potential effects of the BLM and BLM-authorized activities on air resources as part of the planning and decision making process”. In the end, however, the DEA simply concludes that, “no additional mitigative measures beyond those required by local, state and federal air quality laws and regulations (including those of the State of Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, and the COGCC) would be required for leasing” and fails to conduct any analysis whatsoever, of GHG emissions. Passing responsibility on to other agencies and processes is in violation of the spirit and rule of NEPA, which requires a thorough and complete analysis of the proposed federal action by the permitting (or leasing) entity.
Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Impacts
It is reasonable to expect that oil and gas development and exploration on the proposed parcels will have substantial direct, indirect and cumulative impacts on our members and on the environment of Huerfano County. Pursuant to CEQ regulations defining cumulative impacts, and case law applied to these regulations and to specific federal actions, BLM must do a much better job of analyzing cumulative impacts. CEQ’s regulations provide a clear definition of cumulative impacts:
“Cumulative impact” is the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time.
40 C.F.R § 1508.7. NEPA’s mandate to look at cumulative impacts is to ensure that an agency does not evaluate a project “in a vacuum.” Grand Canyon Trust v. FAA, 290 F.3d 339, 342 (D.C. Cir. 2002). Instead, NEPA is intended to ensure that agencies make sound decisions informed by what else has happened, is happening and will happen to affect the environment. See, e.g., Ctr. for Biological Diversity, 508 F.3d at 550; Ocean Advocates v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 402 F.3d 846, 864 (9th Cir. 2004) (Corps failed to take a hard look at cumulative impacts of dock extension and potential increase in crude oil tanker traffic). “A necessary component of NEPA’s ‘hard look’ is “a sufficiently detailed catalogue of past, present, and future projects, and … adequate analysis about how these projects, and differences between the projects, are thought to have impacted the environment.” Oregon Natural Resources Council Fund v. Goodman, 505 F.3d 884, 892 (9th Cir. 2007), quoting Lands Council v. Forester of Region One, 395 F.3d 1019, 1027-28 (9th Cir. 2005).
BLM has not adequately analyzed potential direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of the proposed leasing on the public health, safety, environment, and wildlife of Huerfano County.
For example, although BLM acknowledges that, “Throughout the lease area there are many activities currently occurring, along with historic impacts”20, it defers analyzing such cumulative impacts by concluding that, “future oil and gas development may impose deleterious effects [but] every parcel is unique and cumulative impacts will need to be thoroughly addressed in the development and APD stage.”21
Such a statement does not constitute cumulative impact analysis. It postpones cumulative impact analysis of leasing until a later date, which ignores the cumulative impacts of leasing all of the proposed parcels in Huerfano County.
This falls far short of the “hard look” at the cumulative impacts of oil and gas development on private and public lands, in addition to residential development, grazing, agriculture, mining, climate change, and other threats to the public health, safety, environment, and wildlife of Huerfano County. Such reasoning disregards the reality that, “small, non-threatening injuries
can incrementally lead to a fatal result, whether it is the ‘straw that broke the camel’s back’ or ‘death by a thousand cuts.’”22
In order to adequately analyze the environmental baseline and the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of the proposed action in combination with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions, we request that BLM conduct a more complete cumulative analysis of the threats to air quality, to water quality and quantity, and to the public health, safety, environment, and wildlife posed by leasing the proposed parcels before authorizing oil and gas leasing in Huerfano County.
Overall, BLM has failed to analyze the impacts of its connected actions. Oil and gas development requires pipelines and other facilities to transport the product to a holding or processing center. This necessary infrastructure will impact the environment in ways not analyzed in this EA. We maintain that BLM must consider the affects of this broader infrastructure before offering the Huerfano County parcels for lease.
SENSITIVE SPECIES
Canada Lynx
The Canada lynx is a Federally Listed Threatened species.23 Based on lynx habitat maps created by FS, BLM, and CDOW, parcels 5941 and 5996 contain Canada lynx denning and winter habitat and potential Lynx habitat. Parcel 5994 also contains denning and winter habitat, as well as other important lynx habitat.
Despite the potential for significant negative impacts on lynx that could result from leasing of the proposed parcels, the EA has no discussion whatsoever of lynx. BLM fails to apply a No Surface Occupancy stipulation to protect lynx habitat on any of the proposed parcels, prepare any NEPA analysis of the impacts on the lynx of leasing the proposed parcels, or complete the §7 consultation required by the ESA prior to deciding to lease parcels in lynx habitat. We agree with the Center for Native Ecosystems analysis and put forth our own request that BLM defer leasing parcels 5941, 5994, and 5996 until it has conducted this requisite analysis and consultation.
22 Center for Native Ecosystems et al. v Salazar, Civil Action No. 08-cv-2744-WDM-BNB, p 14 (D. Colo, 2011) 23 65 F.R. 16052
Mountain plover is a BLM sensitive species. BLM does not realistically consider the impact of leasing on the mountain plover. The DEA concludes that, “Oil and gas extraction activities may be compatible with mountain plover needs. In Utah, disturbed areas around oil well pads create open habitat with high amounts of bare ground suitable for mountain plover (Day 1994).”24
However, in its 12-Month Finding on the mountain plover, FWS notes that, “while mountain plover tended to choose nest sites near surface disturbance, the overall impact of oil and gas expansion could be negative (Manning and White 2001, p. 226). IM 2010-117 requires BLM to consider “the best available information and science”25 in preparing Environmental Assessments of proposed leases. Selectively discussing only the science that indicates that oil and gas development is not a threat to the mountain plover does not constitute using the best available science. BLM should defer leasing the parcels until it has conducted a more thorough analysis of the impacts of leasing on the mountain plover, including conducting site visits, and considering a more complete range of the best available science on the impacts of oil and gas development on the mountain plover.
Mexican Spotted Owl
In the southern Rocky Mountains of Colorado, Mexican Spotted Owls (Strix occidentalis lucida) typically inhabit mature mixed-conifer forest in steep canyons 26, generally with significant rock faces and various amounts of mature coniferous forest such as those found in parcels 5996 and 5941. The EA does not analyze the actual or potential occurrence of Mexican Spotted Owl in these parcels and should not offer them for lease until such analysis is completed. Gray Vireo Gray Vireo (Vireo vicinior) are pinyon-juniper woodland obligates that are known to occur in Huerfano County. Gray Vireo usually inhabits stands dominated by juniper or thin stands of pure juniper similar to that found in parcels 5993 and 5995. The DEA does not analyze the actual or potential occurrence of Gray Vireo in these parcels and should not offer them for lease until such analysis is completed.
24 BLM, RGFO, supra note 7, at 18. 25 BLM, supra note 3, at 10. 26 Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 22/Thursday, February 1, 2001/Rules and Regulations, p 8530
CHC further asks the BLM to withdraw parcels 5993, 5994, 5995, 5997 and 5998 from the leasing process because of their proximity to the East Spanish Peak CNAP Natural Area and the Congressionally Designated Spanish Peaks Wilderness Area. These, and surrounding areas, have all been recognized for their high conservation value due to their unique and high-quality natural features of statewide and national significance, and oil and gas exploration and development activities on or nearby will dramatically diminish their value for recreation, wildlife, and ecosystem health. Their preservation is vital to the recreation-tourism based economy of the surrounding area and the degradation of these areas would disproportionately affect the local economy.
CHC reviewed comments submitted on the DEA by the Center for Native Ecosystems (CNE) and the Colorado Division of Wildlife (DOW). We share the concerns of CNE and DOW and agree with their assessments regarding the need for further analysis beyond that contained in the EA.
In particular, we share the opinion of CNE that site-specific surveys are needed to determine more clearly what species and resources are present in order to assign appropriate stipulations and conditions to leasing. We are aware that some of the proposed parcels have no public access and therefore, very little is known about them by local residents. BLM should defer leasing all of the proposed parcels until it has conducted the required site visits.
Table 1 below, summarizes these, and additional resource concerns applicable to specific parcels that we believe require additional analysis prior to leasing.
COC 5-digit
serial #:
Parcel ID:
Tsp Rge BLM Acres
PVT Acres
Total Acres
STATEMENT OF REASONS: Environmental
Impacts Requiring Additional Analysis
COC75040 6002 0260S 0700W 880 880 Group 1/Gardner: Close proximity to Gardner Butte, a documented, historical Golden Eagle habitat, roosting and nesting site, mule deer, elk, pronghorn and bighorn sheep winter habitat, riparian/wetland vegetation (0260S, 0700W), 6th PM potential T & E species and cultural resources, recreation area
COC75036 5941 0280S 0690W 680 520 1200 Group 2/Mt. Maestas (east of La Veta Pass, north of Hwy 160). DOW recommended withdrawal, Lynx Denning and Winter Habitats NE CO USFS, Lynx Analysis Unit BLM & FS 2008, Lynx Linkage Modeled SREP/CNE 2009, Lynx Potential Habitat CDOW 2006, Mexican Spotted Owls (Strix occidentalis lucida) potential habitat. Big Game: Mule deer, elk, pronghorn and bighorn sheep winter habitat, bighorn sheep lambing habitat, riparian/wetland vegetation, potential T & E species and cultural resources, recreation area, Visual impacts (VMR Class II), southern blocks near road, visual impacts, near south Abeyta Creek, Springs, northeast blocks near North Abeyta Creek.
COC75039 5943 S290S 0690W 40 40 Group 2/Mt. Maestas (east of La Veta Pass, north of Hwy 160). Close proximity to Hwy 160, visual resources, big game winter habitat, sensitive species and cultural resource concerns
COC75029 5993 0290S 0670W 432 432 Group 4/Wahotoya. Big game winter range, raptor nesting and fledgling habitat, fragile soils, > 40% slope, riparian/wetland vegetation, Class I and II paleontological, sensitive species, cultural resources, Gray Vireo (Vireo vicinior) habitat.
COC 75030 5994 0300S 0670W 238 238 Group 4/Wahotoya (partially deferred as per addendum 2, adjacent to wilderness). Remaining plots on Story Creek also have potential big game winter range, elk calving, bighorn lambing, VRM/visual Class II (no surface occupancy), riparian/ wetland, sensitive species, raptor habitat, cultural resources, proximity to both East Spanish Peak CNAP Natural Area and Spanish Peaks Wilderness, Lynx Denning and Winter Habitats NE CO USFS, Lynx Analysis Unit BLM & FS 2008, Lynx Habitat Other NE CO FS, Comanche Mountain Plover Nest Survey CDOW 2009, CNAP Natural Areas 2006: East Spanish Peak, Congressionally Designated Wilderness: Spanish Peaks Wilderness Area, Research Natural
Areas - Proposed Pike-San Isabel NF Wild Connections 2006, Santa Fe Historic Trail NPS.
COC75035 5995 0290S 0680W 80 80 Group 4/Wahotoya. Big game winter habitat, raptor nesting and fledgling habitat, fragile soils, > 40% slope, Class I and II paleontological, sensitive species, cultural resources, Long Canyon, potential Gray Vireo (Vireo vicinior) habitat.
COC75037 5996 0280S 069W 2295 2295 Group 2/Mt. Maestas (east of La Veta Pass, north of Hwy 160) Middle blocks, Rough Mtn headwaters of North Abeyta Creek, northern blocks, south and main forks of Yellowstone Creek (headwaters). Big Game: Mule deer, elk, pronghorn and bighorn sheep winter habitat, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep lambing habitat, elk calving, riparian/wetland vegetation, sensitive species, visual, cultural and recreational, Lynx Denning and Winter Habitats NE CO USFS, Lynx Analysis Unit BLM & FS 2008, Lynx Linkage Modeled SREP/CNE 2009, Lynx Potential Habitat CDOW 2006, potential Mexican Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis lucida) habitat.
COC75021 5997 0290S 0670W 307 307 Group 4/Wahotoya. Big game winter range, raptor nesting and fledgling habitat, fragile soils, riparian/wetland, sensitive species, Class I and II paleontological resources and cultural resource concerns.
COC75031 5998 0300S 0670W 710 710 Group 4/Wahotoya. Riparian/ wetland vegetation (bisects Santa Creek), recreation (hiking trail), big game winter range, elk calving, sensitive species, cultural resources, raptor habitat, Class II VMR/visual resource requires no surface occupancy
COC75032 5999 0270S 0680W 720 720 Group 3/Black Hills. DOW recommended withdrawal, big game winter range, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep lambing, raptor nesting and fledgling habitat, riparian/ wetlands, Class I and II paleonto-logical area, sensitive species, cultural and visual resources, erosion/steep
COC75033 6036 0270S 0680W 640 640 Group 3/Black Hills. DOW recommended withdrawal, or Historic railroad, big game winter habitat, riparian/wetland, sensitive species, cultural resources
COC75034 6000 0280S 0680W 80 80 Group 3/Black Hills. DOW recommended withdrawal, Big game winter range, sensitive species, cultural resources
COC75038 6001 0280S 0690W 267.44 267.44 Group 2/Mt. Maestas (east of La Veta Pass, north of Hwy 160). DOW recommended withdrawal, north block near the headwaters of South Yellowstone Creek (private), 2 south blocks (state land), adjacent to Silver Mountain, near headwaters of North Abeyta Creek/South Fork Yellowstone Creek drainage (possible greenback cutthroat habitat) big game winter range, elk calving, bighorn sheep lambing, riparian/wetland, sensitive species and cultural resource concerns, potential Mexican Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis lucida) habitat.
COC75040 6002 26S 70W 880 880 Group 1/Gardner: Huerfano Creek drainage, well and source waters for Gardner, close proximity to Gardner Butte - documented, historical golden eagle/raptor nesting and fledgling habitat (not analyzed in EA), greenback cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki stomia) mule deer, elk, pronghorn and bighorn sheep winter range, riparian/wetland vegetation, potential T & E species and cultural resources, recreation area
TABLE 1. Summary of resource & sensitive species concerns in Huerfano County parcels.
In summary, the BLM’s pre-leasing analysis in the DEA does not comply with NEPA, FLPMA or other applicable law. Huerfano County citizens have raised substantial concerns about surface impacts and threats to the public health, safety, environment, and wildlife associated with the potential leasing of the parcels listed in Table 1 above.
CHC respectfully requests that the State Director withdraw these disputed parcels from the November 10, 2011 competitive lease sale. In the event BLM proceeds to offer these parcels, all prospective bidders should be informed of the pending protest.
Submitted on behalf of Citizens for Huerfano County,
Ceal Smith, MSci. Consultant for CHC Cc: Department of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, Senator Michael Bennet, Senator Mark Udall, Governor Bill Hickenlooper, Executive Director Mike King (Colorado Department of Natural Resources), Huerfano County Board of County Commissioners
174
County: Huerfano
Amphibians CNHP Status and Ranking Regulatory Status
Scientific Name Common Name Tracking Global State Agency Federal StateStatus Rank Rank Sensitive Status Status
Rana pipiens northern leopard frog W G5 S3 FS/BL SC
Birds CNHP Status and Ranking Regulatory Status
Scientific Name Common Name Tracking Global State Agency Federal StateStatus Rank Rank Sensitive Status Status
Buteo regalis Ferruginous Hawk Y G4 S3B, FS/BL SC
Charadrius montanus Mountain Plover Y G2 S2B, FS/BL C SC
Falco peregrinus anatum American Peregrine Falcon Y G4T3 S3B, LE
Numenius americanus Long-billed Curlew Y G5 S2B, FS/BL SC
Strix occidentalis lucida Mexican Spotted Owl Y G3T3 S1B, LT T
Vireo vicinior Gray Vireo Y G4 S2B,
Fish CNHP Status and Ranking Regulatory Status
Scientific Name Common Name Tracking Global State Agency Federal StateStatus Rank Rank Sensitive Status Status
Oncorhynchus clarki stomias greenback cutthroat trout Y G4T2T3 S2 LT T
Oncorhynchus clarki virginalis Rio Grande cutthroat trout Y G4T3 S3 FS/BL SC
Insects CNHP Status and Ranking Regulatory Status
Scientific Name Common Name Tracking Global State Agency Federal StateStatus Rank Rank Sensitive Status Status
Amblyscirtes simius Simius roadside skipper Y G4 S3
Mammals CNHP Status and Ranking Regulatory Status
Scientific Name Common Name Tracking Global State Agency Federal StateStatus Rank Rank Sensitive Status Status
Gulo gulo wolverine Y G4 S1 FS E
Plant Communities CNHP Status and Ranking Regulatory Status
Scientific Name Common Name Tracking Global State Agency Federal StateStatus Rank Rank Sensitive Status Status
DANTHONIA PARRYI Montane Grasslands Y G3 S3
PINUS ARISTATA/FESTUCA THURBERI Lower Montane Woodlands Y G3 S2
PINUS ARISTATA/VACCINUM Montane Woodlands Y GU SUMYRTILLUSPINUS EDULIS/LEYMUS AMBIGUUS Foothills Pinyon-Juniper Woodlands Y GU SU
STIPA COMATA-BOUTELOUA Montane Grasslands Y G5 S2S3
Plants CNHP Status and Ranking Regulatory Status
Scientific Name Common Name Tracking Global State Agency Federal StateStatus Rank Rank Sensitive Status Status
Agastache foeniculum Lavender Hyssop Y G4G5 S1
Aletes lithophilus Rock-Loving Neoparrya Y G2 S2 FS/BL
Asclepias uncialis Dwarf Milkweed Y G3? S1S2 FS/BL
Askellia nana Dwarf Hawksbeard Y G5 S2
Crepis nana Dwarf Hawksbeard Y G5 S2
Draba grayana Gray's Peak Whitlow-Grass Y G2 S2
wpc
Text Box
Attachment A: Sensitive Species
175
Draba rectifructa Mountain Whitlow-Grass Y G3? S2
Festuca campestris Big Rough Fescue Y G4? SH
Lilium philadelphicum Wood Lily W G5 S3
Neoparrya lithophila Rock-Loving Neoparrya Y G2 S2 FS/BL
Oenothera harringtonii Arkansas Valley Evening Primrose Y G2 S2
