1

Federal Oil and GasPlanning, NEPA, and

Development

Scott F. ArcherUSDI - Bureau of Land Management

Scott_Archer@blm.gov

April 8, 2009

2

Status of BLM O&G Leases

3

What is wrong with O&G?

• There is a lot of it• There will be more of it• The process is

fragmented• Many small sources,

generally not subject to permitting

4

… And, it is UGLY.

5

Multiple Companies• Exploration• Drilling• Servicing• Trucking• Pipelines• Compressors• Refining• Sales

6

7

8

9

10

11

BLM’s Role• Planning • Leasing • Specific Project Approvals • Applications for Permit to Drill • NEPA Analysis• Stipulations and Conditions of Approval• Inspection and Enforcement• Royalties and Payment in Lieu of Taxes

12

Little Snake Resource Management Plan

• Revision to existing Land Use Plan (RMP)• Identified Four O&G Leasing Alternatives• No historic development – No Locations• Compared estimated pollutant emissions• EPA Region 8 threatened EU-3 rating• “Hypothetical” Cal Puff Modeling, separate from

NEPA but subject to Public Comment• Initiated EPA HQ (OFA) – BLM MOU

– January 30, 2008 last Draft MOU

13

Utah RMP Revisions

• Six concurrent RMP Revisions– Over ~ 4-5 year period– Five compared Alternative Emissions– One based on Cal Puff modeling

• One based on Cal Puff modeling

• January 17, 2009 DC District Court Judge issued Temporary Restraining Order to suspend Leasing based on RMPs

14

Response to EPA Region 8EPA requested quantitative air quality modeling analysis be conducted at the RMP level. However the BLM conducts modeling analysis only when reasonably foreseeable activity and emission source location data are available. In most cases, the BLM is not able to identify this type of detailed information at the RMP level of decision making. Therefore, when such data cannot be identified, a quantitative analysis, in BLM's estimation, would not only be premature but scientifically invalid. BLM approves development activities through implementation decisions for approval of permits to drill or other site-specific actions. In these project-specific plans, BLM would examine the need for air quality data analysis, modeling and monitoring. These decisions are subject to additional, more specific analysis including quantitative air quality analysis, where appropriate.

15

Utah December 2008 Lease Auction

• BLM holds quarterly competitive lease sales (auctions) based on potential, recovery, etc.

• November 7, 2008, NPS expressed concern regarding 45 parcels– Air Quality, Water Resources, & Natural Sound

• November 24, 2008, expand concern to 95 parcels• November 25, 2008, 10 parcels removed & 85 went

forward with “protective stipulations and lease notices” BLM/NPS Agreement

• December 19, 2008, Lease Sale– College Student makes unsupported Lease Bids

• January 2009 Secretary Salazar voids Lease Sale

16

17

18

BLM Language• Planning and Leasing

– “Usually, not enough information is available at this stage … However, … the agency will make the final decision … which may include modeling.”

• Low Level (small number of wells)– “Appropriate level will be determined by the land

management agency …”

• Project/High Level (field development)– “… consistent with the availability of emission

based activity assumptions and reasonably foreseeable location data.”

19

March 20, 2009 Inside EPA• “EPA is urging BLM and FS to abandon an

agreement signed in the final days of the Bush administration for assessing the air quality impact of energy leasing and planning, arguing the agreement ignores air pollution in the early phases of land management planning and is inconsistent with NEPA.”

• Note – an early draft version had included EPA as a signatory Agency.

20

March 20, 2009 Inside EPA• “The MOU would establish a ‘one size fits all’ paradigm

on air quality analysis that is unacceptable to EPA.”

• “The Little Snake and Montana Statewide RMPs also show that, contrary to the presumption in the MOU, sufficient information is often available at the planning stage to allow for successful quantitative air quality analysis.”

• “I would like to recommend that BLM and FS set aside the MOU, and that we collectively engage in collaborative problem solving to develop a mutually acceptable process for conducting air quality analyses for energy development on Federal lands.”

– Catherine McCabe, acting EPA Enforcement Chief

21

22

23

For More Information

Please feel free to contact:Scott F. Archer

Senior Air Resource SpecialistUSDI – Bureau of Land ManagementDenver Federal Center, Building 50P.O. Box 25047Denver, Colorado 80225-0047USA+1.303.236.6400scott_archer@blm.gov