|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 54
5
Land Use Planning for Oil and Gas
BACKGROUND
The basic question posed for the committee is how to integrate the
planning and environmental analysis requirements of federal law with leas-
ing. The courts have interpreted existing statutes to require the BLM and
the Forest Service to consider possible mineral development in devising
their land use plans; to require preparation of EISs before making irre-
trievable commitments to develop federal minerals if development would
involve significant environmental impacts; and to give expansive definition
to "significant," creating a low threshold for triggering the EIS require-
ment. There is disagreement about the practical effects of the judicial
rulings. Moreover, the agencies' own responses to the issues confronted by
the courts are still evolving.
Both the Forest Service and the BLM continue to modify their planning
and NEPA regulations and guidelines. New plans attempt to address these
issues in new or at least more fully considered ways. Additional guidelines
have been issued as planning has progressed. Even the most recently
approved plans do not reflect all of the current planning guidelines.
An additional problem is posed by the more than 80,000 oil and
gas leases now in force on the federal lands, many of which were issued
before leasing was given the level of attention in land use plans or NEPA
documents that it receives today. The existing lessees may have property
rights that cannot be extinguished without just compensation. Proceeding
with exploration and development, however, might be inconsistent with
54
OCR for page 55
ss
emerging notions of what kind of development and environmental impact
is acceptable.
CURRENT PI^NNING DIRECTION
The basic planning approaches used by the BLM and the Forest
Service, and required by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act
(FLPMA; 43 USC 1701-1782) and the National Forest Management Act
(NE7MA; 16 USC 1601-1604) are similar. The planning acts for both the For-
est Service and the BLM require "comprehensive" and "interdisciplinary"
planning. This approach is consistent with the rational comprehensive
planning models of the planning profession (i.e., resource capabilities are
compared with potential demands on the resources, and choices are made
on the basis of some set of public interest criteria). Much of the detailed
information used by the agencies in their analyses and in working with the
public does not appear in either the draft or the final plans. As a result,
reviewing just the information in the plans and EISs, which is voluminous,
does not necessarily give a picture of the full extent of the materials that
are used.
Plans are prepared for National Forests in the case of the Forest
Service and for Resource Management Areas in the case of the BLM.i The
plans are based on both current and expected future uses of the lands in
question, are issued in both draft and final forms, and have typically taken
three to five years to complete. The plans themselves are considered major
federal actions under NEPA (42 USC 4321-4370 [19703) and, therefore,
are accompanied by environmental impact statements and must meet other
NEPA requirements. The planning process is a primary focus for public
involvement in making decisions on the federal lands. Public involvement
is sought during the early stages of planning in defining issues and concerns
that must be addressed, followed by a period of public comment on draft
plans and the associated draft. Final plans and final EISs can be appealed.
The plans are legal documents whose directives are judicially enforceable;
later site-specific decisions by the agencies that are inconsistent with a plan
can be enjoined, unless the plan is amended.
National Forest plans must be revised at intervals no greater than
15 years (16 USC 1604(f)~5~; BLM plans have no maximum term. The
~ Both the Forest Service and the BLM planning processes apply to areas where the agency
administers less than the full estate (e.g., only surface rights or only subsurface nghts), with the
remaining rights in nonfederal ownership or under control of another agency. Federal planning
in relation to oil and gas development can obviously be affected by the existence of these so-
called split estates, because of the diminished agency control they entail. The committee has not
devoted special attention to this issue, except to note its existence.
OCR for page 56
56
BLM reviews are triggered by the emergence of issues of possible concern,
whereas Forest Service plans are revised regardless of perceived "needs."
Both NFMA and FI~PMA also require coordination with other federal
agency, Indian, and state and local planning.
Both agencies have continued to update their planning direction based
on more experience with land management planning. They have also
recognized court decisions requiring that more site-specific impacts, as well
as cumulative impacts, of oil and gas development be evaluated prior to
the issuance of leases, unless the leases reserve authority in the agency to
make later separate discretionary decisions to authorize activities on leases
(see Chapter 4~. Both agencies have also attempted to use some type of
staged or segmented analysis of environmental impacts to compensate for
the limited information available at the planning stage about the extent to
which areas to be leased will be explored and developed. Concepts such as
assumed or foreseeable level of development have sometimes been used as
a basis for evaluating impacts and determining the areas to be leased and
the conditions for leasing.
Some land use decisions are made outside of the land use planning
process. Congress from time to time designates portions of both Forest
Senice and BLM lands to be national parks and monuments, national
recreation areas, wilderness areas, wild and scenic rivers, and national
trails. Generally, these designations withdraw the areas from oil and gas
leasing. In addition, the agencies sometimes designate areas of land under
their jurisdiction as research natural areas (Forest Service), as areas of
critical environmental concern (BLM), or for other purposes that may also
be attended by prohibitions or restrictions on oil and gas leasing. These
designations are often made as part of Me land use planning process.
Bureau of Land Management Planning
Resource Management Plans (RMPs) of the BLM start at the unit
level (Resource Management Areas). The FLPMA requires that the BLM
initiate its land use planning by preparing and maintaining "on a continuing
basis an inventory of all public lands and their resource and other values . . ."
(43 USC 1711a.
The specific planning directives in FLPMA are extensive and require
that BLM "use a systematic interdisciplinary approach to achieve integrated
consideration of physical, biological, economic, and other sciences" (43 USC
1712(c)~2~. The act also requires that an opportunity be allowed for public
involvement and that regulations set procedures, including public hearings,
to give other federal agencies, state and local governments, and the public
an opportunity to participate in formulating plans for the federal lands
(43 USC 1712(f)~. The plans are intended generally to be consistent with
OCR for page 57
57
| Identification of Issues, Concerns, ond Opportunities
Requires Public Participation
Development of Planning Criterio _- Requires Public Porticipotion
1
Inventory Data and Information Collection |
| Analysis of the Management Situation
1 '
| Formulation of Alternotives
I -T I
I
I Estimation of Effects of Alternatives
Resource Management Plans will
be reviewed at least every 5 years.
Plans will be revised at least every
15 years, or earlier if the review
indicates a need for revision (43
CFR 1 601 .6 - 3).
| Selection of Preferred Alternative |- Requires Public Participation
. . .
~. 1 ,
| Selection of Resource Management Plan 1__
| Monitoring and Evoluotion
Requires Public Porticipotion
FIGURE 5.1 Bureau of I>nd Management resource management planning process
SOURCE: Courtesy of Bureau of Inland Management.
r ~ --- em row
state, local, and other agency plans, but this is limited by considerations
of federal law and the national interest (43 USC 1712 (c)~9~. Each plan
stare with an identification of issues, which are then addressed in the plan
and its land use allocation decisions. Figure 5.1 shows steps in the planning
process for a typical RMP.
Before enactment of the 1987 Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing
Reform Act (101 Stat. 1330-256), the Supplemental Program Guidance for
Energy and Mineral Resources Fluid Minerals (SPA; BLM, 1986) identified
the following decisions to be made at the planning stage:
OCR for page 58
58
· areas open to oil and gas leasing with standard lease terms and
conditions;
areas open to leasing, but subject to seasonal or minor constraints;
· areas open to leasing, but subject to no-surface-occupancy or other
major constraints; and
areas closed to leasing and development.
The areas subject to each of these limitations are to be shown on maps
incorporated in land use plans. In addition, the plans are to show how these
limitations will affect existing leases when they expire, the lease stipulations
that will be used for areas open to leasing, and the circumstances in which
waivers to lease stipulations will be considered. Whether decisions made
during planning that affect leasing and development of oil and gas resources
also apply to the exploration phase should be noted in plans.
Under the SPG for fluid minerals, the BLM has continued to offer
BLM tracts for leasing. It has, however, determined that 20 of its previously
completed plans need to be revised in order to satisfy the upgraded planning
requirements for oil and gas in the SPG. Some tracts BLM has offered
to lease have been challenged for alleged lack of NEPA compliance, but
numerous tracts have been leased without challenge.
Forest Service Planning
The 1974 Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act
(16 USC 1600-1614) and the 1976 National Forest Management Act provide
guidelines that require planning at three administrative levels: national, re-
gional, and individual forest, where, in an iterative process, each level
provides inputs for the others. At the national level, every 10 years the
Forest Service prepares an "assessment" of the forest and rangeland situa-
tion. This report identifies matters of concern that are then addressed in
a national "program," which is prepared on a 5-year cycle and identifies
needs that can be addressed by Forest Service programs. These "programs,"
the most recent of which was released in 1985, specified budget needs for
the Carpet ... for the. following four decades. In an iterative process,
A ~ ~^ TV me ~ ~ ~ _
the national program targets are translated into its resource and program
targets for each region and National Forest. There is no parallel structure
for assessing national needs and making regional allocations to guide the
BLM land use plans.
The 1985 national "program" set a mineral and energy goal for the For-
est Service: "provide for mineral prospecting and exploration, and respond
to proposals for minerals development, in concert with other resource uses
and values, and provide technology for reclamation of disturbed lands.
Emphasize energy minerals and minerals of strategic importance." The
production of energy minerals from the National Forests is projected to
OCR for page 59
so
increase between 32 and 40 percent from 1986, the base year, to 2030. The
energy minerals category includes coal, of which the National Forests have
large reserves. But it is clear from this projection that the Forest Service
expects to continue to make land available for exploration for oil and gas
and probably at higher than current levels. Implications for regional goals
are not clearly addressed in the 1985 program.
The Forest Sentence planning process Is delineated in Figure 5.2. The
Forest Service also uses a sophisticated resource allocation model during
the land use planning process. This model, FORPLAN, originally designed
to analyze timber resource allocations, is now used to make estimates of
the present net value of alternative land use allocations based on their
estimated future costs and benefits. FORPLAN is used mainly as a tool in
describing results of alternative land use and resource allocations, rather
than as a device for reaching final planning decisions. FORPLAN computer
runs are used in the public participation process to describe some possible
effects of alternatives. '!
On January 23, 1989, the Forest Service proposed rules by which
it would implement the statutory responsibilities for management of oil
and gas leasing and attendant surface-disturbing activities conducted on
National Forest lands (54 Fed. Reg. 3326 [19893~. These proposed rules
were issued to implement the expanded authority given to the Secretary of
Agriculture by the Reform Act in the management of oil and gas resources
on National Forest System lands.
The proposal outlines the following four steps that would precede all
competitive lease sales involving National Forest System land. The process
is delineated in a flow chart (Figure 5.3~.
1. The agency would identify lands with potential for leasing This
would be done within six months of the effective date of the rules. Forest
supervisors would identify those areas under their jurisdiction that have
potential for oil and gas leasing, and that had not previously been evaluated
for their suitability for oil and gas leasing. The rules propose that an area
be identified as having potential for leasing if (1) there is ongoing oil and
gas production in the area, (2) the geologic environment of the area is
known to be favorable for the accumulation of oil and gas resources, or
(3) there is ongoing industry interest in obtaining oil and gas leases for the
area.
2. Lands identified with potential for oil and gas would be reviewed for
leasing suitability. Certain lands would be excluded from this suitability
review because they are not available for oil and gas leasing because of
previous decisions such as withdrawals, or because they are recommended
wilderness areas or roadless areas currently undergoing evaluation. Avail-
able lands then would be further analyzed to determine whether leasing is
OCR for page 60
60
Define the Problem
ICO s, laws and regulations,
planning criteria, data collection
Anal yze Poten tial
Dev. Rec., Dis. Rec., Timber,
Wildlife. Wilderness
1
Devel op Al tern atives
formulation, effects, evaluation
Decide on Solution
Proposed Plan
and Draft EIS
~ ,
Final Plan and Final ENS
Record of Decision
Manage the Program
in-.p~emen tation, mon itoring
anc evalu ation, amenomen ts
and revisions
90- day
Public Review
and Comment
FIGURE 5.2 Forest Senace resource management planning process. SOURCE: Courted
of Forest Service.
consistent with the land use plan or at least not precluded by the plan, and
whether the lands designated are suitable for leasing with certain stipula-
tions. That process would also include an identification of conditions of
surface occupancy and use that would be attached as stipulations in any
leases issued for the area to ensure consistency with law and the land use
plan for the area.
3. The outcome of each suitabi~ renew would be communicated to
the Bureau of Land Management and public notice would be given. At this
OCR for page 61
61
1. Agency IDEHTIfIES LANDS WITH POTENTIAL for leasing
(factors: existing production, known geologic potential,
and i ndustry i merest ~ n areas )
2. Agency REVIEWS LANDS FOR LEASING SUITABILITY
3. Agency DETERMINES IF LANbS ARE SUITABLE for leasing
(i.e., lands are avai a e or easing, leasing consistent with Forest
plan or not precluded by plan, or lands can be suitable for leasing
with certain stipulations)
4. Agency/BLM CONDUCTS NEP1 ANALYSIS AND DOCUMENTATION
Gives pub iC not ce. c is on appea a e.
5. BLM HOLDS COMPETITIVE LEASE SALE
1
Parcels are sold
6. BLH ISSUES LEASE
7. LESSEE SUBMITS AND TO BLM
8. BLM FORWARDS SURFACE USE PLAN TO fOREST SERVICE
9. FS AND BLM CONDUCT NEPA COMPLIANCE AND REQUIRE BONDING
1
Parcels not 1 Aught
Available for application for 2 years
1
appl ication no appl ication
FS APPROVES-------------------------(SUBJECT TO APPEAL)-----------------------FS DISAPPROVES
10. OPERATIONS CO - ENCE
(Once the BLM has aDDroved down hole use)
Producer
1
11. SUPPLEMENTAL SURFACE USE PLAN OF OPERATIONS
12. NEPA COMPLIANCE AND RECISION PROCESS REPEATED
(SUBJECT TO APPEAL)
WELL DEPLETES
13. OPERATOR COMPLETES RECLAMATION
14. BLM RELEASES BOND
FIGURE 5.3 Proposed Forest Service oil and gas leasing and operations process.
SOURCE: Forest Service (1989c).
point the NEPA analysis and documentation would be completed, and a
final decision would be made as to whether the Forest Service would object
to leasing the area. That decision can be appealed up through the Forest
Service administrative appeal process.
4. The BLM would hold a competitive lease sale. From this point on,
the Forest Service and BLM processes would be identical. The Forest
Service would be required to approve or disapprove a surface use plan of
operations for National Forest System land.
OCR for page 62
62
Initially, because leasing and planning stages have not been synchro-
nized, steps 1 through 3 would be conducted based on existing land use
plans. Ultimately, as plans are reviewed, the resource, suitability, and
environmental reviews would be done at the planning stages.
STATUS OF LAND USE PI^NS
Both the Forest Service and the BLM are still preparing some of
the first round of land use plans under NFMA and FLPMN The last 38
National Forest plans are scheduled for completion in 1989, all but two of
them for National Forests in the West Coast states of California, Oregon,
Washington, and Alaska (Forest Service, 1989c). Completion of these plans
has been delayed by disputes over issues generally unrelated to oil and gas
leasing. Only two plans in other states remain to be completed. One of
these is for the Bridger-Teton National Forest in Wyoming, where oil and
gas exploration issues are significant. The BLM had 55 approved RMPs on
December 1, 1988, and 35 more are scheduled to be completed by the end
of 1992.
Conflict and controversy over the planning process persist. Both envi-
ronmental and industry representatives have criticized the Forest Service's
proposed regulations. At least 28 Forest Service land use plans, 13 Bureau
of Land Management land use plans, and 8 lease sales (since the Reform
Act) have been protested or appealed through administrative channels be-
cause of alleged deficiencies in planning for, or environmental analysis of,
oil and gas activities.
A problem for the committee in analyzing land use planning as it
relates to oil and gas leasing is that direction for both agencies has been
changing constantly over the last 13 years since the passage of NFMA
and FLPMA Such planning is also complicated by existing leases, which
pose different issues of regulatory authority than new leases. Currently
completed plans in most cases do not reflect the most recent direction
because the plans were completed before the directives were issued.
Evaluation of Oil and Gas Resources for Planning
Lack of information on potential mineral resources is a problem at the
land use planning stage because of the need to examine potential impacts
of resource development in plans. If there has been no exploration or
development of oil and gas in the area, it is often impossible to predict the
presence, quantity, quality, or other characteristics of the area's potential
petroleum resources. This stems from lack of specific information on the
subsurface geology of all or part of the planning area. The five geological
conditions necessary for oil and gas development are typically discovered
OCR for page 63
63
only during exploration. Of the five conditions necessary for hydrocarbon
production, only one can be determined without drilling, and even that is
usually determined by inference from seismic or other information collected
on the surface:
1. Geologists look for subsurface structures that are favorable for
trapping hydrocarbons (Figure 5.4~. Such structures generally can be de-
tected by seismic reflection techniques. A seismic survey will typically
require a field crew to occupy the land surface along a series of survey
lines for a period of days or weeks. Seismic reflection surveys provide an
acoustical cross section of the earth that resembles a geologic cross sec-
tion. From a series of acoustical cross sections, a petroleum geologist can
determine (within a few hundred feet) the preferred locations for drilling.
The presence or absence of favorable geologic conditions is all that can
be determined by geological and geophysical studies. Whether oil or gas
is present in a structure can only be determined by drilling, except in rare
circumstances.
2. The second necessary condition is porosity. Rock must have ade-
quate pores or open spaces between grains or rock fragments where oil or
gas can collect. Typical petroleum-bearing rocks have from 5 to as much
as 25 percent of their volume in pores. Porosity can be ascertained only by
obtaining samples of the rock or by making geophysical measurements in a
hole drilled through the rock unit.
3. A third condition is permeability. Pores must be connected to each
other so that fluid can flow readily from one pore to another toward lower-
pressure conditions, such as a subsurface trap or, ultimately, a pumping
well. As with porosity, permeability cannot be measured without drilling.
4. The fourth necessary condition is a source of hydrocarbons. The
vast majority of producible hydrocarbons comes from previous life forms,
mostly microscopic plants and animals that were entrapped in sediments in
the last 600 million years of geologic time. The sediments were later buried
to sufficient depths and subjected to sufficient heat, and pressure matures
the hydrocarbons into forms that will flow as fluids, either as oil or natural
gas.
5. Finally, the hydrocarbons must move to the borehole in response
to changing pressure conditions. This phenomenon, known as "drive,"
requires that the fluids in the reservoir be under sufficient pressure to flow
toward a well. If there is no drive, there will be little or no production
from a well completed in a reservoir. Drive is measured by a variety of
methods, all of which require a drill hole.
If producing fields exist nearby, it is often possible to extrapolate
porosity, permeability, and drive conditions from one reservoir to another.
OCR for page 64
64
~=
-
S
~ a
_
~
·c ~
rid, an
0 0
V, _
.4
"m
Ct _
._
·Cc) (_)
C)
O ::
L. ~
-
~ ~3
C)
O >`
.o
O
~ a:
LU o
.
I..
OCR for page 76
76
period in ten areas of high coal development interest in six states and
held a workshop thereafter in which the BLM offices in those six states
reviewed the test results and made recommendations for changes in the
criteria and the procedures used in applying them. The BLM has since
conducted several comprehensive reviews of the performance of the surface
coal mining unsuitability review process, resulting in four substantive rule
makings to alter or eliminate certain criteria and their exemptions.
Despite their similar origins, and their similar purpose as a screening
mechanism early in the land use process, the surface coal mining and
timber production unsuitability reviews have significant differences. The
coal unsuitability criteria are set forth fully in rules; the timber unsuitability
criteria are published fully only in the Forest Service handbook, an internal
document not subject to public participation. The coal unsuitability criteria
are numerous and more detailed; the timber unsuitability criteria are
few and general. The coal unsuitability criteria are concerned only with
environmental values, while the timber unsuitability criteria include both
environmental and economic considerations.
As described by the Interior Department (1979), the 20 surface coal
mining unsuitability criteria can be divided into four categories:
· criteria that are required by section 522 of SMCRA (e.g., protected
federal lands such as designated wilderness and wild and scenic rivers, buffer
zones along rights-of-way, and land adjacent to certain public, church, and
community buildings);
· criteria that are discretionary under section 522 of SMCRA (e.g.,
land used for scientific studies, municipal watersheds, and floodplains);
· criteria that embody requirements under other statutes that the In-
terior Department chose to enforce through the application of unsuitability
criteria (e.g., habitat for federally listed, threatened or endangered species;
bald and golden eagle nests, roosts, and concentration areas; falcon nesting
sites; alluvial valley floors; sites on the National Register of Historic Places;
and National Natural Landmarks); and
· criteria that are not required by statute but that the Interior De-
partment chose to apply in its discretion as good public policy (e.g., Class
I scenic areas, habitats of state-listed threatened and endangered species,
high-priority habitats for certain migratory birds, certain species of high
state interest, and certain federally approved state criteria).
Most of the criteria are sufficiently specific to be simple to apply once
the basic data are collected. Also, to prevent undue preclusion of land
from surface coal mining, the criteria are narrowly drawn. For example,
floodplains are determined by 100 year recurrence intervals, right-of-way
buffer zones can be no wider than 100 feet from the outside line of the right-
of-way, and habitat of federal threatened or endangered species must be
OCR for page 77
77
designated critical habitat or "habitat which is determined to be of essential
value and where the presence of threatened or endangered species has been
scientifically documented." Finally, most of the criteria have exceptions
and exemptions that permit a determination of suitability under certain
circumstances even when the criteria apply. As summarized in the 1979
Secretarial Issue Document, `'some of the criteria involve interpretations of
legal requirements within circumscribed limits; others represent an attempt
to set broader limits on field-level resource management judgments that
have previously been entirely discretionary" (Department of the Interior,
1979~.
The Forest Service has adopted five criteria to determine lands that
would be unsuitable for timber production. These criteria include eco-
nomic, as well as environmental, considerations, reflecting the NFbIA's
requirement that the Forest Service's planning regulations specify land use
plan guidelines '~which insure consideration of the economic and envi-
ronmental aspects of various systems of renewable resource management"
(16 USC 1604(g)~3~(A)~. The five criteria specifically reflect the NFMA's
requirements for land use plan guidelines for timber harvesting (16 USC
1604 (g)~3~), and do not incorporate requirements of other laws or include
discretionary "public policy" considerations. The criteria are
.
lands "withdrawn from timber production" by the Congress, the
Secretary of Agriculture, or the Chief of the Forest Service (e.g., units of
the National Wilderness Preservation System and Research Natural Areas);
lands "incapable of producing industrial wood," including tree
species not likely to be utilized within the next 10 years;
· lands that are "physically [unisuitable forest land" because tech-
nology is unavailable to ensure timber production '~without irreversible
resource damage to soils productivity or watershed conditions";
· lands that are "physically [unisuitable forest lands" because ade-
quate restocking is unlikely to occur within 5 years; and
· lands for which "there is not adequate information available, based
on current research and experience, to project responses to timber manage-
ment practices," with particular reference to lands classified as incapable
of producing 20 cubic feet per acre per year (see Forest Service, 1989b,
Chapter 20~.
The committee notes that many incipient unsuitability criteria for on-
shore oil and gas leasing are already in place in one form or another. For
example, the "standard mitigation guidelines for surface-disturbing activi-
ties" developed by the Wyoming office of the Bureau of Land Management
from its standard oil and gas lease stipulations, include such potential cri-
teria as "slopes in excess of 25 percent," land "within either one~uarter
mile or the visual horizon (whichever is closer) of historic trails," and other
OCR for page 78
78
wildlife, cultural resource and special management categories (e.g., sage
grouse strutting grounds, raptor nesting sites, campgrounds, reservoirs,
occupied dwellings, rights-of-way, and special natural history or paleon-
tological features3 (document provided to the committee by the Bureau
of Land Management, Wyoming State Office). Further refined and with
proper exception procedures, such criteria would resemble formal unsuit-
ability criteria of either general or regional applicability. Also reported
to the committee was a joint effort of several environmental organizations
and officials of the Intenor Department in the summer of 1988 to identify
certain circumstances under which oil and gas leasing should be precluded
(see France, 1989~.
EVALUATING THE IMPACTS OF OIL AND GAS
EXPLORATION AND DE VELOPMENT
ON WILDLIFE
Wildlife is among the resources that must be considered in BLM and
Forest Service planning. Impacts on wildlife should be considered in the
land use plans if oil and gas leasing is contemplated. Impacts include
physical disturbance of habitat, including groundwater and surface water,
and activities, such as human presence and equipment use, that interfere
with wildlife. The concern to be addressed in planning is wildlife's need for
adequate food, water, and cover and for its interactions free of extraordinary
external influences.
The impact of oil and gas exploration and development on wildlife is
highly site-specific and varies from low to high depending on the location,
intensity, extent, and nature of mitigation measures, and on the species of
wildlife. 13rpes of impacts on wildlife from oil and gas activities include
displacement of wildlife from critical winter range;
· disturbance of wildlife by people, equipment, or facilities, particu-
larly during breeding, birthing, or other critical times of the year;
· damage to aquatic systems, including riparian areas, from spill
of salt water or other contaminants, sedimentation, and direct impacts
of construction on streams and adjacent riparian areas, including loss of
vegetation;
· impacts on important wildlife habitats and activities from the con-
struction and maintenance of access roads, pipelines, and other facilities
required to support the oil and gas exploration and development;
intensive human activity from oil and gas operations, including
maintenance activities that require daily access to work areas and unrelated
public use of roads and adjacent areas, with possible increases in poaching;
· modification or loss of small but irreplaceable habitat for threatened
or endangered species.
OCR for page 79
79
These impacts can, to some degree, be avoided if identified early
in the planning and leasing processes and if appropriate action is taken.
For example, critical winter ranges are reasonably well known and can be
identified by most state fish and wildlife agencies. Restrictions on seasons
during which exploration or development may occur can be quite effective
in reducing that impact But special restrictions are only effective if they
are actually implemented. A complicating factor in evaluating potential oil
and gas impacts on wildlife is whether adjacent leases will be developed
simultaneously or whether other types of use will occur in the same or
adjacent areas and also have impacts on the same species or population
of wildlife. The typical lag that occurs between planning and subsequent
leasing, exploration, and development, and the uncertainties regarding the
type and extent of development, make it difficult to specify during planning
the kinds of situations that will occur when exploration and development
take place.
Impacts on wildlife during exploration may be transient and limited
enough in terms of time of the year to have only temporary effect. The
direct impact from construction of drill sites and drilling is usually substan-
tial~ less than that of associated activities such as roads, pipelines, and
other facilities, which are most difficult to envision at the planning stage.
The impacts on wildlife are usually greatest during the development phase
when roads, pads, and pipelines are being constructed. The operation and
maintenance phase typically requires much less human and equipment ac-
tivity in an area, and such activity may be substantially controlled to limit
impacts on wildlife and fish.
It is clear that the type and significance of impacts on wildlife and fish
due to oil and gas exploration and development are highly variable and
relate both to specific species and their habitat and to the nature and extent
of oil and gas operations. There have been a few studies of the impacts of
oil and gas development on fish and wildlife, such as fish losses from oil
or saltwater spills and increased sedimentation, and disturbance of critical
wildlife habitat due to oil and gas development. A realistic evaluation of
the probable future impact on fish and wildlife from development of a
proposed lease requires access to substantial information on the specific
fish and wildlife species in the area, their important habitats, and some
understanding of the extent and nature of development that may take
place, including associated roads, pipelines, and support facilities. More
is usually known about wildlife during planning than is known about the
potential Ape and nature of future oil and gas exploration and development.
A report published by the Ad Hoc Oil and Gas Exploration Committee
of the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (1989)
underscores the need to bring the professional expertise of state and
OCR for page 80
80
federal wildlife agencies to bear in the evaluation of potential wildlife and
fish impacts from oil and gas exploration and development.
LIMITATIONS OF PI^NNING FOR OIL AND GAS
Unrealistic expectations have been built around the ability of the land
use planning process to resolve all of the conflicts among uses of the federal
lands. This is evident for oil and gas development as one of the uses. Such
development has proceeded, and presumably will proceed, on a schedule
that is not controlled by the planning cycle.
The committee has noted elsewhere that the length of time from
planning to drilling can pose problems (see Figure 1.2, p. 12~. The land
use planning cycle is 10 to 15 years. When combined with lease terms of
5 and 10 years, there can be as much as 30 to 35 years between the time
a plan is drafted and a well field is developed; this time lag is exacerbated
when implementation of plans is delayed.
The land use planning now being done by the Forest Service and the
BLM has significantly improved the allocation of lands among competing
uses. It has also helped in directing the use of environmental quality
controls for oil and gas development on federal lands. Nevertheless, there
are limitations to the planning process and in the information that is
available for planning decisions. Some of them are noted in the following
sections.
Economic Analysis in the Planning Process
Economic analysis is used in the planning process, especially in the
preparation of Forest Service plans. As noted earlier, the Forest Service
uses an economic optimization model, FORPLAN, to describe some of
the effects of alternatives. Economics is used as only one of the criteria
considered in planning, which is consistent with the statutory concept of
multiple use in the Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act and FLPMA that
decisions are not to be made solely on the basis of dollar values. The
economic analyses are typically used in the public involvement process to
describe one kind of impact of allocating lands to alternative uses.
The economic analyses in plans that the committee reviewed help
explain the relative values that are being compared in the planning process.
But caution is needed with the numbers that are used, as shouts in the draft
EIS for the Bridger-Teton Forest plan. The draft EIS shows the estimated
annual value (in 1982 dollars) of the benefits from each of the major
resource uses of the Bridger-Teton for each of five decades in the plan
projection. In Able 5.1 the economic calculations for a typical alternative
show estimates of the present net value of the sum of both estimated market
OCR for page 81
81
TABLE 5.1 Estimated Annual Value of Resource Benefits on the Bndger-Teton National
Forest (thousands of 1982 dollars)
Decade
2
3 4
s
Recreation9,3989,79310,21010,49610,795
Wildemess3,9103,9103,9103,9103,910
Wildlife/Wish4,9404,8964,8274,9485,029
Range1,6751,6831,6911,7001,708
Timber4,2574,2955,1534,4564,388
Water73135118148172
Minerals28,09528,09528,09528,09528,095
SOURCE: Forest Service (1989a).
and "assigned" (nonmarket) value (Forest Service, 1989a, EIS, App. B. Sec.
6-126~.
The relationship between estimated mineral values and other resource
values was much the same for each of the other alternatives in the Bndger-
~ton plan. The table shows that mineral values, mainly from oil and gas,
estimated by the Forest Service are much higher than the estimated values
of any of the other uses of this forest.
Care must be exercised, however, in interpreting these figures. The
estimated mineral values in the Bndger-Teton plan are based on statewide
averages for leased oil and gas lands in Wyoming for the 10 years prior
to the draft plan. These were $13.00 per acre for royalties ($108.68 for
producing land), $1.25 for rentals, and $10.00 for bonus payments (based
on 1988 results), for a total of about $24.00 per acre for leased land.
Such averages can only give some sense of relative aggregated values of
alternative land allocations. Oil and gas, if they are available in producible
quantities on the Bridger-Teton, will generally have higher dollar values
than the surface resources and uses with which they compete. The present
values of the expected stream of future rentals and royalties plus the values
of bonus payments from competitive leasing clearly exceed the present
value of timber sales or grazing receipts, as well as dollar values that are
assigned to recreation.
However, oil and gas values will not necessarily be higher than those of
other resources in all cases where they compete on the forest. Prospective
OCR for page 82
82
oil and gas values vary widely from place to place, just as the values of
surface resources vary widely. Area-specific comparisons between oil and
gas and competing uses must be based on the values that are relevant to
each area.
Another difficulty in using expected oil and gas values is evident in
the Bridger-Teton analysis. It shows a constant level of revenues from
oil and gas for each of the next five decades. Inasmuch as oil and gas
leasing on the forest has been halted until the land use plan is completed
and leases typically are not drilled for some years after they are let, it is
unlikely that full production will occur during the first two decades of the
projection period. For economic comparisons based on future values that
are discounted to the present, as in the FORPLAN model, timing of the
projected income stream is important. The further in the future income
is projected to occur, the less impact it has on present value calculations.
Thus, comparisons can be skewed by the timing of projected production.
Results of the economic analysis in the Lewis and Clark Forest plan
are quite different. Timber values used in the plan far exceed those for
oil and gas. The estimated present net value of timber in the Forest
Service's "preferred" alternative is $215,770,000, while that for oil and
gas development is $850,000 (Forest SeIvice, 1984, p. 2-111~. The only
projected oil and gas revenues in the Lewis and Clark Forest plan are for
annual rentals on leases. In other words, this plan projects no bonuses from
the sale of leases or royalties from oil and gas production. This seems as
unlikely as the assumption in the Bridger-Teton Forest plan that substantial
additional production will occur in the next decade.
Role of Values in Planning for Oil and Gas Development
Most of the conflicts over oil and gas leasing and development involve
disagreements over the value to be assigned to alternative land uses between
parties who assign different values to land. Land, including the animals,
plants, and other objects attached to it, takes on importance to people
because of the satisfaction it provides. Land may be important because it is
a tradable commodity, or it may be valued as an unaltered state of nature.
A distinction is often made between commodity and noncommod-
ity values on the federal lands. Both categories have ambiguities. For
example, opportunities for recreation are sometimes bought and sold in
ordinary market transactions, but in other cases, recreation is a free good
(a noncommodity). Some uses of the federal lands have largely symbolic
importance; for example, the significance of federal land uses to people's
or communities' life-styles.
It seems clear, and the agencies have recognized, that the kinds of
evaluations made with formal models, such as FORPLAN, have to be
OCR for page 83
83
supplemented with other ways of weighing noncommodity and commodity
values. Public participation is a critical part of the planning process because
of the role it plays in such comparisons.
Information and Planning
While the lack of information on oil and gas resources at the planning
stage is a serious problem, there is also a lack of reliable information on
other resources and uses of the federal lands. How to measure noncom-
modity uses and values and weigh them against competing commodity uses
limits the usefulness of formal planning models. Nevertheless, other kinds
of information are also frequently lacking. How oil and gas development
affects wildlife behavior is especially important.
Behavior of some species of wildlife in the wild generally appears
to be well understood and documented. Not as well understood is how
different wildlife species react to people's activities, such as those associ-
ated with oil and gas exploration and development. The committee was
told, for example, that research shows that mountain goats suffer more
stress, which affects reproduction, than other large wildlife species from
the activities associated with exploration. But it was not clear over what
period and space the goats would be affected or how these effects could
be minimized. On the other hand, the committee was also told that some
species are adaptable and seem to be little affected by either exploration-or
development. Planning in relation to wildlife is complicated by the range of
activities that are associated with both exploration and development, from
the use of explosives and helicopters during seismic exploration to heavy
equipment and road traffic during exploratory well drilling and subsequent
development.
Mitigating measures, such as avoiding exploration or development in
specified areas during certain times of the year, are apparently effective to a
degree. But it also is clear that information on wildlife behavior in relation
to people's activities cannot be extrapolated from one wildlife species to
another. Some skepticism about the kinds of wildlife information used in
planning oil and gas exploration and development is warranted.
Estimated dollar values for noncommodity resources that have no
regularly assigned market values can be misleading. As noted in the
discussion of the Bridger-lLton Forest plan, the way in which average
values are used in planning for commodity resources, such as oil and gas,
timber, and grazing, is questionable. The characterizations of aesthetic
resources and how they are affected by development are generally vague.
This is not to say that the analyses that are part of the planning process
are not worthwhile, but the information used in the planning process is
often not adequate for planning decisions, which puts much of the burden
OCR for page 84
84
for evaluating possible effects of oil and gas development on the public
involvement process. In view of the large size of BLM and Forest Service
planning units, the detail in the plans is surprisingly good. Restrictions
are usually identified in the plans for fairy specific units of land. Plans
show stipulations generally in three categories standard, special (which
typically includes timing restnctions), and no surface occupancy. The lack
of information on oil and gas potentials during the current round of
planning will be corrected in part during the next round of planning. As
leasing and exploration proceed, the next generation of plans can be based
on new exploration data. The number of truly frontier exploration areas
on the federal lands will inevitably diminish
While the amount of information that is assembled during planning is
impressive, the way information is stored and used, especial after plans
are completed, appears often to lack purpose. Information on at least
some Forest Service planning units is being organized in a Geographic
Information System (GIS) using computers for information storage and
retrieval. This approach could be used on all planning units.
Land Use Plans and Environmental Renews
The planning process is driven not only by BLM and Forest Service
planning statutes, but also by the requirements of NEPA, the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 (16 USC 1531-1543), and other federal laws. Thus,
land use plans have to be read in the context of the other analyses to
which they are "tiered" and that are subsumed under them. While this
is not necessarily a problem for the careful reader, the complexity of the
planning process sometimes poses problems for the public and even for the
specialist.
Oil and gas exploration and development is a serious issue in those
areas that the committee visited and for which it reviewed plans. The
seriousness of this issue, however, is not readily apparent in the barrage of
paper included with the plans. Oil and gas development is an important
issue in the Bridger-Teton Forest, for example, but the sheer bunk of
the single-spaced, 1,62~page plan and environmental impact statement
obscures its role and importance on this unit of federal lands. The many
requirements placed on the agencies in preparing land use plans, as well as
the tendency to focus on timber, grazing, and other surface resource issues,
often obscure important oil and gas exploration and development issues.
The scenarios used to describe reasonably foreseeable oil and gas
development in the West HiLine (BLM) and Bridger-Teton Forest Servicer
plans are useful in relating possible effects on surface resources and their
uses. The approaches are somewhat different in the two plans, but both
achieve the goal of shedding light on the possible environmental impacts of
OCR for page 85
85
oil and gas development. The Bridger-~ton plan is more detailed and site-
specific than the West HiLine plan, but that may be appropriate in view of
the intensity of the conflicts among possible land uses on the Bridger-~ton
National Forest.
Language in the version of the Reform Act that passed the House
of Representatives (House of Representatives, 1987, 100th Congress, H.R.
2851) would have required new or amended plans to identify potential areas
of oil and gas development; analyze the social, economic, and environmental
consequences of oil and gas development; and identify specific protective
stipulations and the areas where they would be applied. The Bndger-
~ton plan does all of this, perhaps in greater detail than any other plan
for federal lands. It is more specific about potential areas for oil and
gas development than other plans that the committee reviewed. All of the
plans reviewed by the committee contained analyses of the social, economic,
and environmental consequences of oil and gas development, although, as
described earlier, the analyses were Epically limited by the lack of site-
specific information on possible oil and gas exploration and development.
These plans also identified protective stipulations that would be used and
where they would be applied.
REFERENCES
Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior. 1979. Surface Mining Control
and Reclamation Act Unsuitability Rule. Washington, D.C.
Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior. 1983. Headwatem Resource
Management Plan and Final Environment Impact Statement.
Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior. 1986. Supplemental Program
Guidance for Energy and Mineral Resources-Fluid Minerals. November 14.
Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior. 1988. West HiLine.Resource
Management Plan and Anal Environmental Impact Statement.
Department of the Interior. 1979. Secretarial Issue Document. Federal Coal Management
Program.
Forest Service. 1979. Final Environmental Impact Statement for Roadless Area Review and
Evaluation. FS 325. January.
Forest Service. 1981a. Environmental Assessment for Oil and Gas Leasing on Nonwilderness
Lands. February 18.
Forest Service. 1981b. Environmental Assessment: Oil and Gas Leasing: Deep Creek and
Reservoir North RARE II Further Planning Areas. Lewis and Clark National Forest.
January
Forest Service. 198Z Lewis and Clark National Forest. Geophysical Exploration on Non-
wilderness Lands. July 2.
Forest Service. 1984. Lewis and Clark National Forest Plan.
Forest Service. 1989a. Bridger-Teton National Forest Plan (draft final) and Environmental
Impact Statement (draft final).
Forest Service. 1989b. Timber Resource Planning Handbook. FSH2409.13.
Forest Service. 1989c. Oil and Gas Resources Proposed Rule. Fed. Reg. 54~13~:3326-3339.
France, T.M. 1989. Testimony of Thomas M. France (National Wildlife Federation) before
the National Research Council Committee on Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing. May 15.
OCR for page 86
86
International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 1989. State and Federal Guidelines
for Protecting Fish and Wildlife Resources in Areas Of Oil and Gas Development.
Report of the Ad Hoc Oil and Gas Exploration Committee. Washington, D.C.
Wilkinson, C.F., and Anderson, H.M. 1985. Land and Resource Planning in the National
Forests. Oregon L. Rev. 64~1~:261-263.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
gas development
