re: nevada and northeastern california greater sage grouse ... · production of oil and gas...

January 29, 2014

Mr. Joe Tague – Project Lead VIA Email: [email protected] Branch Chief, Renewable Resources and Planning Bureau of Land Management Nevada/Northeastern California GRSG EIS 1340 Financial Boulevard Reno, NV 89502 RE: NEVADA AND NORTHEASTERN CALIFORNIA GREATER SAGE GROUSE DRAFT LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Dear Mr. Tague: On behalf of Public Lands Advocacy and Western Energy Alliance, following are comments in response to the Notice of Availability of the Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage Grouse (GRSG) Draft Land Use Plan Amendment and Draft Environmental Impact Statement (LUPA/DEIS) published in the Federal Register November 1, 2013. PLA is a non-profit trade group comprised of both operators and other non-profit trade association whose purpose is to promote the discovery, development, and production of oil and gas resources on public lands; furnishes opportunities for open discussion between land managers and industry; and accumulates and disseminates information to foster the best interests of the public and industry. Western Energy Alliance represents more than 480 companies engaged in all aspects of environmentally responsible exploration and production of oil and natural gas across the West. Our member companies hold valid existing leases as well as current oil and gas production in the planning area. In addition, there is interest in future oil and gas leasing, exploration, and production activities in the certain areas that will be directly affected by the proposed decisions in the LUPA/DEIS. GENERAL Users of public lands in Nevada (NV) invest billions of dollars into the national, state and local economies and provide thousands of high-paying jobs. Through the LUPA/DEIS, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the USDA Forest Service (FS) are proposing to adopt management procedures ostensibly designed to conserve and protect GRSG and its habitat on public lands throughout the state as a means of demonstrating to the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) that listing the species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) is unnecessary. However, the proposed management procedures in the LUPA/DEIS far exceed what is appropriate or needed. For example, the draconian leasing measures outlined in the LUPA/DEIS go far beyond what is necessary and reasonable and appear designed to prohibit virtually all new oil and gas activity within GRSG habitat by imposing No Surface Occupancy (NSO) stipulations on all new leases. Further, the LUPA/DEIS, disregards state and local conservation plans and efforts, fails to include common-sense measures to conserve and protect the species and its habitat, and demonstrates specific intent to prevent continued economic activity on public lands throughout the planning area.

PUBLIC LANDS ADVOCACY

mailto:[email protected]

Public Lands Advocacy/Western Energy Alliance Comments on Nevada/Northeastern California GRSG Draft LUPA/EIS January 29, 2014

The State of Nevada was one of the first government bodies to recognize the need for conservation of the GRSG. In 2000, the Governor appointed a task force comprised of several interest groups and agencies to develop a plan that would conserve and protect GRSG and its habitat. In October 2001 the Nevada Sage-grouse Conservation Strategy identified challenges, offered potential solutions, and laid the groundwork for the formation of local area working groups (LAWG) and Population Management Units (PMU). It provided guidance for developing conservation plans which were further endorsed through legislative measures in 2004 and 2010. NV utilized a much more refined approach to GRSG management than that proposed by the BLM/FS. GRSG habitat was categorized into five classes using definitions established by the Nevada Energy and Infrastructure Standards to Conserve Greater Sage-Grouse (Nevada Governor’s GRSG Conservation Team 2010). At former Interior Secretary Salazar’s invitation, NV undertook development of a state-specific GRSG plan which would provide the “regulatory mechanisms” required by the USFWS to avoid a listing of the GRSG, while ensuring the retention of a robust economy within the State, which is clearly not the intent of the federal agencies. Subsequently, the Governor’s Greater GRSG Advisory Committee (Advisory Committee) produced NV’s Strategic Plan for Conservation of Greater Sage ‐ Grouse in Nevada on July 31, 2012 (NV Plan). Moreover, the NV Plan is in the process of being modified to address perceived flaws identified by the USFWS. The BLM/FS have included the NV Plan as Alternative E in the LUPA/DEIS, which identifies 15 GRSG management areas (SGMAs) located across the state where GRSG resources would be managed to maintain and expand GRSG populations based upon the best biological information available. We urge selection of the NV Plan as the preferred alternative in the final EIS and Record of Decision (ROD) because the State has devoted much more time and effort developing a reasonable management approach for the GRSG than the BLM/FS have in this one-size-fits-all planning document. Active consultation between the states and federal agencies is a more effective approach than one-size-fits-all restrictions. This consultation process would also provide the opportunity for local working groups, made up of state and federal agency personnel, stakeholders, and local government representatives, to provide input on future management decisions. Instruction Memorandum (IM) 2012-044 does not conflict with or prohibit BLM from adopting GRSG management policies and procedures consistent with the NV Plan. Moreover, the conservation measures provided in Attachment 1 (Goals and Objectives, National Technical Team) of the IM are unnecessarily restrictive and must not be allowed to supersede the conservation measures adopted in the NV Plan. IM 2012-044 merely established a policy and process for the consideration of GRSG conservation measures in one or more alternatives during the land use planning process. It does not suggest preferred conservation measures or require the adoption of any particular conservation measures, such as those contained in BLM’s Preferred Alternative D. In sum, the adoption of conservation measures and policies outlined in the NV Plan would be entirely consistent with the process and strategy described in IM 2012-044. Moreover, neither the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) nor the ESA amends or alters the agencies’ statutory missions of multiple-use. Nor can the LUPA/DEIS impact valid existing rights. Among others, this process must not conflict with BLM’s duties and authorities under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) (43 U.S.C. § 1701 et seq.), the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (30


U.S.C. § 181 et seq.) or the USFS duties and responsibilities under the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) (16 U.S.C. § 1600 et seq.) and the Multiple‐Use Sustained‐Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. §§ 528‐ 531). NATIONAL TECHNICAL TEAM (NTT) REPORT We object to BLM’s reliance upon the NTT report as its principal guiding document, particularly for oil and gas leasing and operations, because it failed to utilize any type of systematic cataloging and quantitative evaluation to determine the type, extent and effectiveness of mitigation measures currently employed by the oil and gas industry. Moreover, the NTT report is clearly biased as evidenced by its assertion that oil and gas “impacts are universally negative and typically severe," particularly since the NTT utilized little or no useful and site-specific data upon which to base that conclusion. In fact, this statement is predicated upon a select few studies while ignoring other data and studies that clearly demonstrate impacts from oil and gas are not universally negative and typically severe. While we acknowledge there may be temporary decreases in lek counts within close proximity to initial well construction and other activities, this cannot be construed to indicate general population declines. Rather, it has been scientifically demonstrated that the GRSG are simply temporarily displaced to other areas with less activity until the initial area returns to a less active state. Additionally, many of the Required Design Features (RDF) and Best Management Practices (BMP) recommended by the NTT fail to recognize valid existing rights or to understand the complexity of oil and gas exploration and development as evidenced by its strategy to impose a one-size-fits-all management approach that disregards topography, local conditions, and practicality. We strongly recommend the agencies revisit the RDFs and mitigation measures to ensure they are technically feasible and appropriate and that they maintain the level of flexibility required when their use may be considered on a site-specific basis. Also, in accordance with current law and regulation, it is inappropriate for the LUPA/DEIS to establish these overly site-specific requirements at a programmatic level as proposed: “In applying protections for greater sage-grouse protections, all projects must evaluate (1) whether the conservation measure is reasonable (see 43 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 3101.1‐2 for the definition of “reasonable” for fluid mineral leases) and consistent with valid existing rights, and (2) whether the action is in conformance with the RMP. Each conservation measure will be evaluated on a site-specific basis for likely effectiveness on a cost-benefit basis.” The Department of Interior (DOI) has been criticized by the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) for using the NTT report as BLM’s only source of GRSG management direction. In a letter sent to the Interior Secretary on May 16, 2013, WAFWA member states made it clear they never endorsed the sole use of the NTT or any other scientific publication. Rather, they believe that a wide variety of peer-reviewed publications which collectively provide the best available science for GRSG should form BLM’s basis for conserving the species. They went on to recommend that management and regulatory mechanisms be centered upon the best available science [emphasis added] which would provide the best strategy for near- and long-term management of GRSG and provide the best opportunity for precluding a listing under ESA. An overview of the Cooper Ornithological Society’s Monograph: Studies in Avian Biology (Monograph), the primary source of information relied upon by the NTT (and the USFWS in making its 2010 listing


determination), was conducted by the Center for Environmental Science, Accuracy and Reliability (CESAR) in February 2012 entitled “Science or Advocacy?” which found: • Significant mischaracterization of previous research; • Substantial errors and omissions; • Lack of independent authorship and peer review (3 of the authors of the NTT are also the

authors, researchers, and editors on 3 of the most cited sources in the NTT.) • Methodological bias; • Invalid assumptions and analysis; and • Inadequate data. CESAR was not alone in finding significant fault with the Monograph. Reviews were also conducted separately by scientists commissioned by the State of Colorado which found the same exact defects. Not surprising, theirs and other comments on the Monograph were ignored by DOI and the NTT. Similar findings regarding the NTT report were made in a review recently prepared for Western Energy Alliance in which it was discovered that “the NTT report represents a partial presentation of scientific information to justify a narrow range of preferred conservation measures and policies that will be imposed as land use regulations by the BLM. In contrast, an objective scientific review would have led to a broadening of conservation alternatives for decision makers to choose from.” With respect to oil and gas, “the NTT presents a biased view of oil and gas operations by conveying that ‘impacts are universally negative and typically severe.’ The NTT then selectively presented information in support of its conclusions, while ignoring contrary information. Key assertions in the NTT report are both biased and in error, especially the frequently repeated, but erroneous assumption, that a temporary decrease in lek counts immediately adjacent to active wells is equivalent to a population decline.” 1 Another major fundamental concern is that the NTT report failed to recognize that the level of disturbance associated with a well is not constant throughout its life. The highest level of surface disturbance associated with oil and gas development occurs during the construction, drilling and completion phases, which can last as little as one or two days up to a few months, depending upon the time it takes to complete the well. Once production ensues, these activities subside dramatically and only regular monitoring and maintenance of the well are required. Shortly after well completion, the operator normally begins interim reclamation to restore any impacted habitat that isn’t being utilized. This interim reclamation remains in effect until the well has been depleted. Upon conclusion of production activities, the operator will then move forward with plugging and abandonment procedures, which also includes final reclamation that will ultimately result in full reestablishment of the site and its return to productive habitat. Interior’s reliance upon the NTT report appears aimed at causing new oil and gas leasing, exploration and development in the public lands states to be essentially terminated throughout hundreds of millions of acres GRSG habitat.

1 Review of Data Quality Issues in A Report on National Greater GRSG Conservation Measures Produced by the BLM GRSG

National Technical Team (NTT) Dated December 21, 2011. Dr. Rob Ramey, III, Wildlife International Inc. (Attachment A)


We also point out that the NTT report relied heavily upon Holloran's 20052 dissertation despite the fact that it failed to acknowledge the countless stipulations and mitigation measures utilized by the oil and gas industry in GRSG habitat. The focus of this study was limited to an unmitigated control area which was to be used as a basis for comparison to areas where mitigation was being employed. He predicted population declines between negative 8.7 percent to negative 24.4 percent annually in Pinedale. Despite Holloran’s predictions of catastrophic population decline in the unmitigated area, this prediction has been clearly refuted by the data; GRSG in the Pinedale area have thrived and are well above statewide averages. USFWS GREATER SAGEGROUSE CONSERVATION OBJECTIVES FINAL REPORT (“COT REPORT”) The COT report is also heavily relied upon throughout this LUPA/DEIS. Due to a number of significant flaws, as described below, we also urge the BLM/FS to reconsider its reliance on the COT report in the final LUPA/EIS and subsequent Record of Decision (ROD). Of primary concern is that the COT report does not represent a comprehensive scientific review; rather, it is simply an incomplete examination of limited literature and unpublished reports that were used to “identify conservation objectives to ensure the long‐term viability of the GRSG.” In fact, the COT report provides no original data or quantitative analyses and notably fails to review all of the available scientific literature on the GRSG. Consequently, this severely limited review perpetuates outdated information and assumptions in the COT report An example of its inadequacy is the fact that the COT report’s threats analysis, population definitions, current and projected numbers of males, and probability of population persistence are heavily based upon a paper by Edward O. Garton. Notably, Garton et al. 20113 is the most frequently cited paper in the COT report. The same significant methodological biases and mathematical errors within the COT report4 were also present in the final revisions of Garton et al. 2011. Moreover, the fact that the data and programs used in Garton et al 2011 are not available for public review and are not reproducible, seriously compromises the scientific integrity of the COT report. While the COT report says that “there is an urgent need to ‘stop the bleeding’ of continued population declines” it fails to cite hunting, which is the most well‐documented source of GRSG mortality with 207,433 GRSG harvested between 2001 and 2007.5 Some estimate current total GRSG populations at or

2 (Holloran, M. J. 2005. Greater GRSG (Centrocercus urophasianus) population response to natural gas field development in

western Wyoming. PhD Dissertation. University of Wyoming. Laramie, Wyoming.) 3 Edward O. Garton, John W. Connelly, Jon S. Horne, Christian A. Hagen, Ann Moser, and Michael A. Shroeder, Greater

Sage‐Grouse Population Dynamics and Probability of Persistence, in Greater Sage‐Grouse Ecology and Conservation of a Landscape Species and its Habitats. Studies in Avian Biology (vol. 38) 293‐382 (Steven T. Knick and John W. Connelly eds., 2011) (hereafter “Garton et al. 2011) 4 Rob Roy Ramey, Data Quality Issues in the Greater SageGrouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Conservation Objectives: Final

Report, p.1 (October 16, 2013) (Attachment B) 5 COT Report at 31; Kerry P. Reese and John W. Connelly, Harvest Management for Greater SageGrouse: A Changing

Paradigm for Game Bird Management, in Greater Sage‐Grouse Ecology and Conservation of a Landscape Species and its Habitats. Studies in Avian Biology (vol. 38) Table 7.3 p. 106 (Steven T. Knick and John W. Connelly eds., 2011).


near 500,000 birds.6 Clearly such mortality levels should be carefully considered and properly accounted for. Instead, the COT report chose to limit its recommendations to restrictions on activities that have never been demonstrated to cause a population decline. The COT report’s recommendation to regulate nonthreatening activities combined with its disregard of a major, actual threat to GRSG demonstrates a clear lack of scientific integrity in the COT report.7 It is also important to recognize that there is no evidence of any reproducible, quantitative methodology used in assigning rankings to threats in each population and GRSG management zone. The ranking of threats in the COT report appears to be entirely subjective.8 Moreover, peer review of the COT report was inadequate. A number of the relevant peer review regulations and guidance plainly emphasize the importance of independence9 and the need to avoid conflicts of interest.10 Of particular importance, a peer reviewer must not have been a contributor to the work product leading to the listing of a species and the peer reviewer must not have been influenced by funding considerations. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) considers financial interests, access to confidential information, reviewing one’s own work, public statements and positions, and employees of sponsors as problems to be avoided in its conflicts policy.11 The 2005 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Bulletin directs agencies to use the NAS policy. Peer review of the COT report clearly failed to meet the requirements of both the DOI Manual and the NAS policy, which accentuate the need for independence and an avoidance of a conflict of interest. Nevertheless, COT report deficiencies include: authorship with three COT report team members; grant support from the USFWS and USGS; significant financial support for GRSG research (Drs. Holloran, Messmer and Reese listed over $10 million);12 authorship with NTT members; and authorship with other

6 Broder, John M.. (2010‐03‐05) No Endangered Status for Plains Bird. Nytimes.com

7 Id at 4

8 Id at 4

9 104 Interagency Cooperative Policy for Peer Review in Endangered Species Act Activities 59 Fed. Reg. 34270 (Jul. 1, 1994);

OMB Guidance; Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review 70 Fed. Reg. 2664 (Jan. 14, 2005); Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies. 74 Fed. Reg. 10671 (Mar. 11, 2009), available at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR‐2009‐03‐11/pdf/E9‐5443.pdf (http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/scientific‐integrity‐memo‐12172010.pdf); Performance Work Statement for Scientific, Technical and Advisory Services (http://www.fws.gov/informationquality/peer_review/IDIQ_Performance_Work_Statement_17Nov2011.pdf) ; Information Quality Guidelines and Peer Review (http://www.fws.gov/informationquality/topics/InformationQualityGuidelinesrevised6_6_12.pdf). 10

Policy on Committee Composition and Balance and Conflicts of Interest for Committees Used in the Development of Reports (http://nationalacademies.org/coi/); Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review 70 Fed. Reg. 2664 (Jan. 14, 2005); Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies (http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/scientific‐integrity‐memo‐ 12172010.pdf); Department Manual, Part 305, Chapter 3 (http://www.fws.gov/science/pdf/DOIScientificIntegrityPolicyManual.pdf). 11

Available at: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309059437&page=9 12

Reese listed over $6.3 million in funding and in‐kind contributions, but failed to account for precisely how much can be attributable to sage‐grouse.


influential GRSG authors including Doherty, Naugle, and Knick.13 The reviews of the COT report present numerous examples of failures to meet NAS and OMB guidelines. In addition to conflicts of interest and reliance upon questionable data to assess threats, more than one reviewer cited tangible uncertainties regarding management and potential impacts on GRSG populations. In fact, “…the majority of the reviewers found that the report fell short of meeting its stated goals in several important areas, and they identified opportunities to better achieve those goals and improve its utility for decision making….”14 Reviewers also identified an astonishing lack of reference to at least 15 relevant scientific papers.15 Given these major flaws, we advise the BLM/FS to reconsider its reliance on the COT report in the LUPA/DEIS. To do otherwise would be inconsistent with the ESA, the Data Quality Act (DQA) and current Presidential and Interior Department memoranda and orders. ENERGY AND MINERAL DEVELOPMENT ARE LEGITIMATE USES OF PUBLIC LANDS Under FLPMA, BLM is required to manage the public lands on the basis of multiple use and sustained yield. 43 USC § 1701(a)(7) (2006) “‘Multiple use management’ is a concept that describes the complicated task of achieving a balance among the many competing uses on public lands, ‘including, but not limited to, recreation, range, timber, minerals, watershed, wildlife and fish, and [uses serving] natural scenic, scientific and historical values.’ ” Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. at 58 (quoting 43 U.S.C. § 1702(c). We recognize the difficult task the BLM and Forest Service faces to manage public lands in the planning areas for multiple use. However, oil and gas development is a crucial part of the BLM’s multiple-use mandate and the agency must ensure that oil and gas development is not unreasonably limited in the LUP. FLPMA clearly identified mineral exploration and development as a principal or major use of the public lands. The Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 specifically states: "Nothing herein shall be construed so as to affect the use or administration of the mineral resources of national forest lands …” To that end, the laws require both agencies to foster and develop mineral activities, not stifle and prohibit such development. It does not appear this was one of the agencies’ goals when preparing the LUPA/DEIS. Rather it is evident that the agencies are intent upon limiting what it considers to be a damaging presence on federal lands. The agencies must reconsider its view of oil and gas and mineral development when preparing the final LUPA/DEIS. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS Energy Policy Act of 2005 Section 363 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) requires federal land management agencies to ensure that lease stipulations are applied consistently and to ensure that the least restrictive

13

Scientific Peer Review of the Sage‐Grouse Conservation Objectives Draft Report, Appendix A 14

Scientific Peer Review of the Sage‐Grouse Conservation Objectives Draft Report at 3 15

Id


stipulations are utilized to protect many of the resource values to be addressed. The LUPA/DEIS ignores established BLM policy that states "the least restrictive stipulation that effectively accomplished the resource objectives or uses for a given alternative should be used." Moreover, the agencies have failed to demonstrate that less restrictive measures were considered but found insufficient to protect the resources identified. A statement that there are conflicting resource values or uses does not justify the application of restrictions. Discussion of the specific requirements of a resource to be safeguarded, along with a discussion of the perceived conflicts between it and oil and gas activities must be provided. Clearly, an examination of less restrictive measures must be a fundamental element of a balanced analysis and documented accordingly in the FEIS. Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 2000(EPCA) In April 2003, field offices were directed to comply with four EPCA planning integration principles:

1) Environmental protection and energy production are both desirable and necessary objectives of sound land management and are not to be considered mutually exclusive priorities.

2) The BLM must ensure appropriate accessibility to energy resources necessary for the nation's security while recognizing that special and unique non-energy resources can be preserved.

3) Sound planning will weigh relative resource values, consistent with the FLPMA. 4) All resource impacts, including those associated with energy development and transmission will

be mitigated to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation (BLM 2003a).” Under EPCA BLM is required to identify impediments to oil and gas development. It was the intent of Congress that access to energy resources be improved as indicated in EPCA and EPAct. BLM recognized the intent of the both Phases I and II of the EPCA review when it issued Instruction Memorandum 2003-233, Integration of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) Inventory Results, into the Land Use Planning Process. Consequently, BLM Field Offices are now required to review all current oil and gas lease stipulations to make sure their intent is clearly stated and that stipulations utilized are the least restrictive necessary to accomplish the desired protection. Moreover, the IM directs that stipulations not necessary to accomplish the desired resource protection be modified or dropped using the planning process. Since the purpose of integrating the EPCA results into planning is intended to determine whether existing resource protection measures are inadequate, adequate or excessive, we recommend that BLM reevaluate its management decisions accordingly and make requisite changes to the final planning documents Full examination of less restrictive measures must be a fundamental element of a balanced analysis and documented accordingly in the FEIS. Moreover, under EPCA BLM is required to identify impediments to oil and gas development. It was the intent of Congress that access to energy resources be improved. BLM recognized the intent of the both Phases I and II of the EPCA review when it issued Instruction Memorandum 2003-233, Integration of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) Inventory Results, into the Land Use Planning Process. Consequently, BLM Field Offices are now required to review all current oil and gas lease stipulations to make sure their intent is clearly stated


and that stipulations utilized are the least restrictive necessary to accomplish the desired protection. Moreover, the IM directs that stipulations not necessary to accomplish the desired resource protection be modified or eliminated using the planning process. VALID EXISTING RIGHTS 2.5 Management Common to All Alternatives - Recognize valid existing rights, which include any leases, claims, or other use authorizations established before a new or modified authorization, change in land designation, or new or modified regulation is approved; existing fluid mineral leases are managed through Conditions of Approval (COAs) applied at the time the BLM and Forest Service approve an Application for Permit to Drill (APD) COMMENT: We support the BLM/FS’s recognition of valid existing rights. However, the LUPA/DEIS offers no explanation of what constitutes valid existing rights and how they relate to the new land use management options considered in the planning document. We advise that it be clearly stated in the Final LUPA/EIS that the new stipulations proposed in the Preferred Alternative will not apply to lands already under valid, existing oil and gas lease. Further, each oil and gas lease contains lease covenants made by the lessee, which can be express or implied. Implied covenants are unwritten promises that impose duties on the lessee and protect the lessor. The courts generally recognize implied covenants such as the right to produce and market, protect from drainage, to reasonably develop, further explore, to operate prudently and properly, and to explore based on economic justification. It is important for the LUPA/EIS to recognize that oil and gas leases are existing rights that cannot be modified by a land use plan. Sierra Club v. Peterson, 717 F.2d 1409, 1411 (D.C. Cir. 1983); Solicitor’s Opinion M-36910, 88 I.D. 909, 912 (1981). Once BLM has issued a federal oil and gas lease without an NSO stipulation, and in the absence of a nondiscretionary statutory prohibition against development, the BLM cannot completely deny development on the leasehold. As such, BLM has no legal authority to impose mitigation measures, such as an NSO Condition of Approval (COA) if it would exceed the terms and conditions of previously issued lease. These principles are particularly important given the fact that discussions regarding new protections for the GRSG could impose debilitating limitations on existing leases that were not anticipated at the time the leases were purchased in good faith from the federal government. Such qualifiers are consistent with current rules and policies of the BLM and must be clearly disclosed in the planning documents. CHAPTER 1 1.1.1 This [GRSG] habitat falls into one of the two following categories:

Preliminary Priority Habitat (PPH): Areas that have been identified as having the highest conservation value to maintaining sustainable GRSG populations. These areas include breeding, late brood-rearing, and winter concentration areas.

Preliminary General Habitat (PGH): Areas of occupied seasonal or year-round habitat outside of PPH.


COMMENT: We are concerned the maps used in the LUPA/DEIS to identify PPH and PGH have been drawn so broadly that many areas that do not meet the criteria for these habitat classifications are included in these classifications. We point out that the maps were initially accompanied by a disclaimer that they were not appropriate for use at the project level. The 1-Km resolution datasets and 1:2,000,000 scale maps typically used in the BLM planning process may be viable tools for multi-state or sub-continental planning efforts, but they become totally meaningless at field office or even county level. With respect to the GRSG, datasets and mapping at these scales grossly mischaracterize historic and potential habitat by including non-habitat as well as overlooking microhabitat characteristics, especially in diverse and fragmented landscapes. Likewise, threats to GRSG are also entirely overestimated when using sub-continental scale mapping, such as that used by this planning effort, in particular for the GRSG. Most of the conventional literature regarding GRSG starts with the assertion that ~60% of historic range has been lost. This is based on work done by Schroeder et al in 2004, and has become the cornerstone of mainstream GRSG research. It too is at a 1:2,000,000 scale and provides the basis for much of the USFWS and BLM policy regarding GRSG. Of great concern, however, is the fact that this scale provides wholly unsuitable data when conducting any analysis or planning at FO level. Given the fact that the Preferred Alternative would require a mitigation ratio for lands within PPH, the inadequacy of the current maps is alarming, particularly due to the prospect of mitigation being required in an area that does not actually contain GRSG habitat simply because it was included within the boundaries of PPH. The agencies need to significantly refine the maps being used for designating PPH and PGH to improve their accuracy to ensure that restrictions and limitation are utilized ONLY for those areas that meet the habitat criteria. 1.2. Description of the Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Area - The planning area is the geographic area within which the BLM and Forest Service would make decisions during this planning effort. The planning area boundary includes all lands regardless of jurisdiction. COMMENT: We recommend excluding the “checkerboard” lands adjacent to the railroad line from the designation of PPMA. This railroad corridor also includes the Interstate-80 corridor as well as areas of private lands with ranchettes, rural communities, and some industrial development which hold little opportunity for suitable GRSG habitat. Moreover, the federal agencies have little or no management jurisdiction over these lands. Therefore, they should be removed from PPMA. 1.3 Purpose and Need - “The BLM and the Forest Service are preparing LUPAs with associated EISs for LUPs containing GRSG habitat. This effort is needed to respond to the USFWS’s March 2010 “warranted, but precluded” ESA listing petition decision…The USFWS identified the principal regulatory mechanisms for the BLM and the Forest Service as conservation measures embedded in LUPs. Changes in management of GRSG habitats are necessary to avoid the continued decline of populations across the species’ range. These plan amendments will focus on areas affected by threats to GRSG habitat identified by the USFWS in the March 2010 listing decision.”


“The major threats identified by USFWS within BLM and Forest Service-administered lands in the Nevada and Northeastern California Sub-region include: Oil and Gas Development–fragmentation of GRSG habitat due to mineral exploration and development…” [Emphasis added] COMMENT: While we recognize that the BLM/FS were directed to rely upon the measures developed by the NTT as outlined in Instruction Memorandum (IM) No. 2012-044, the clear bias against oil and gas prevalent in the NTT report markedly contradicts the provisions of the ESA and the Data Quality Act (DQA) as well as DOI Order No. 3305 on scientific integrity, which stipulates that DOI employees and contractors “must never suppress or alter, without new scientific or technological evidence, scientific or technological findings or conclusions.” As previously discussed, this blanket assumption is inaccurate and has caused the agencies to develop fatally flawed and unwarranted management restrictions in nearly all the management alternatives analyzed in the DEIS. Under NEPA, the BLM/FS must analyze the impacts of a proposed federal action. The process requires the agencies to address their divergent missions, laws and policies early in the NEPA process. The process should not have moved forward until differences were addressed in an agreed‐upon methodology as provided for in the CEQ report Modernizing NEPA Implementation (September, 2003). In accordance with 40 CFR Section 1501.6(a)(2), the lead agency must use, to the maximum extent practicable, the environmental analysis and recommendations of cooperating agencies consistent with its own responsibilities as lead agency. Otherwise, the EIS can be found to be inadequate. 1.4.3. Ecoregional Context and Landscape Planning Approach - The BLM’s landscape approach includes Rapid Ecoregional Assessments (REAs), which provide a framework for integrating science and management. COMMENT: We are concerned this approach may be wholly inadequate for use in the planning process because, rather than utilizing site-specific data; it relies upon probability models to determine potential impacts. Many of the modeling techniques used in evaluating the GRSG have been proven inaccurate when compared to site-specific studies referenced throughout these comments. 1.5.1 Issues Eliminated from Detailed Analysis - Predator population control COMMENT: While we recognize that the Nevada Game and Fish Department (NVGFD) is responsible for addressing the issue of predation, it remains a serious concern with respect to the GRSG and must not be completely ignored by the agencies in the LUPA/DEIS. We question why the agencies have chosen to completely ignore this specific threat in its analysis since predation is a critical issue that must be fully considered directly in the Environmental Consequences and associated management actions of the LUPA/DEIS. In Chapter 1, the LUPA/DEIS specifically identifies the COT and the NTT reports as two main references in its review of alternatives and potential management actions. Although USFWS (2010) previously recognized predation as a factor related to the decline in GRSG distribution and abundance, neither the COT report, the NTT report nor this LUPA/DEIS address the potential of predation to affect populations


of GRSG in NV. Of particular note, neither report nor this LUPA/DEIS suggest measures that could reduce predation. A number of studies have reported findings related to GRSG predation which need to be considered by the agencies in the planning process. For example, Dinkins et al (2012) reported “Depredation of nests and predation of chicks can be two of the most influential factors limiting GRSG productivity.” Dinkins (2013) reported that GRSG hen survival was negatively correlated with golden eagle density. Coates et al (2008) report that nest predation is the primary cause of nest failure in GRSG. Webb et al (2012) stated that predation of GRSG nests was the most common cause of nest failure (84.7 percent) followed by direct predation on the female (13.6 percent). Bui et al (2010) reported that nesting ravens are responsible for most GRSG predation. Dzialak et al (2011) found that the spatial patterns of risk during GRSG nesting and brood rearing suggested a human-mediated increase in predator abundance or effectiveness as a potential cause of increased risk (i.e., predator subsidization). Watters et al (2002) found that Richardson’s ground squirrels were the primary predators of GRSG nests with some predation by corvids (e.g., ravens) and badgers. Baxter et al (2007) found that non-native red fox is an effective predator on GRSG in Utah and threaten to extirpate the GRSG from the study area if not controlled. Bedrosian and Craighead (2010) suggest that limiting the population growth of non-native red fox in the Jackson Hole study area would benefit GRSG. Kirol (2012) reported that predation is a major factor contributing to GRSG chick survival. Coates (2007) reported that ravens and badgers were the primary predators on GRSG nests and at high population densities; ravens can substantially reduce GRSG reproduction. Coates and Delechanty (2004) found that raven population reductions through poisoning resulted in GRSG nesting success of 73.6 percent compared to expected nest success of 42.6 percent. Coates and Delechanty (2010) report that raven abundance has increased an estimated 300 percent in the United States and as much as 1,500 percent in some parts of the western United States. Cote and Sutherland (1997) reported that removing predation often has a large positive effect on hatching success and post-breeding populations of target birds. Dinkins et al (2012) found that GRSG select nesting and brood-rearing areas with fewer avian predators. 1.5.2. Issues Identified for Consideration in the Nevada and Northeastern California Sub-region Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs: ● Energy and Mineral Development—Limitations on energy and mineral development COMMENT: This issue statement is entirely inadequate because it ignores the federally mandated multiple-use directive of the agencies. As pointed out previously in these comments, both agencies are required by law to provide for reasonable growth of mineral development on federal lands, not prohibit their progress. The agencies must reconsider its view of oil and gas and mineral development when preparing the final LUPA/EIS recognizing that valid existing rights must be honored, even in GRSG habitat, and that as multiple-use agencies, limitations on energy and development is not a statutory goal.


CHAPTER 2 The BLM and Forest Service developed this LUPA/EIS to provide management direction for over 43 million acres of land administered by the BLM and FS in the Great Basin Region. This LUP/EIS analyzes alternatives that address threats to GRSG habitat identified in the USFWS listing decision. COMMENT: The planning approach utilized by the agencies is flawed. The agencies have followed the lead of the NTT and COT reports and the demands of “conservation” groups, which assume virtually all uses would have a detrimental impact on the GRSG and its habitat and therefore must be significantly curtailed through new or augmented regulatory mechanisms. Little consideration has been given to the impacts associated with specific program activities, in particular oil and gas leasing, exploration and development. Rather, the LUPA/DEIS subscribes to the erroneous presumption that impacts from oil and gas activities are significant and would result in substantial impacts to the GRSG and its habitat. As a result, the range of alternatives is deficient because all alternatives follow the basic principles of (1) avoiding the impact of an activity; (2) minimizing impacts by limiting the degree of activity; and (3) mitigating for an impact by improving or enhancing GRSG habitat as recommended in the NTT and COT reports. As such, all but Alternatives A and E are weighted toward extreme protection measures, with minimal difference between Alternatives B, C, D, the preferred alternative, and F, which are designed to diminish the rights of lessees as well as future leasing and development within the study area by relying upon sweeping land use changes that would adversely affect tens of millions of acres of public lands and minerals, and the communities that depend upon them. Therefore, we recommend that the BLM/FS adopt Alternative E as their preferred alternative because it is based upon the best available science and utilizes more appropriate management requirements than the universal closures and NSO stipulations described in Alternatives B, C, D and F. The general approach of the LUPA/DEIS is based on how threats to sage-grouse, as identified by the USFWS and its COT report, could be addressed by applicable BLM/FS land management programs in order to strengthen regulatory mechanisms the USFWS will be reviewing as part of their listing decision. The NTT report followed a similar process, a program-by-program analysis of how each BLM/FS Service program may result in impacts to sage-grouse or sage-grouse habitat. However, in each of these approaches there is no perspective provided regarding the relative importance of a land management program-specific impact. Consequently, the alternative development (at least Alternatives B, C, D, and F) clearly focuses only on program level actions. The alternatives are all designed to limit implementation of each BLM/FS program which could be construed to pose a threat to GRSG, regardless of whether a purported threat constitutes a significant and valid risk. Hence, the agencies are singly focused on eliminating such threats without considering the degree of impact certain uses may actually have on the species. Once again, this one-size-fits-all approach to land management is fatally flawed and needlessly extreme because it fails to take into account the scale of perceived threats when applying new highly restrictive conservation measures. 2.4. Alternatives Considered in Detail – A, B, C, D, E, and F


COMMENT: The BLM/FS intend to rely upon an undefined assessment of whether sage grouse populations are healthy, stable, or increasing. For example, none of the population trend diagrams in the LUPA/DEIS contain any confidence intervals around population estimates. This renders the interpretation of any trends derived from those data as meaningless. Consequently, with the exception of Alternative E (the NV Plan), the LUPA/DEIS elevates speculative benefits of management prescriptions for sage grouse above other land use activities, in clear violation of the agencies’ multiple use mandate. In an effort to fast-track the planning process, the BLM/FS have relied upon outdated data and opinion in reports and papers, rather than more current data and information. It also utilized the recommendations of the NTT and the COT reports, which were influenced by special interest groups involved in litigation rather than utilizing a transparent and inclusive public process. Moreover, the BLM/FS chose to give conservation group’s unprecedented access to the planning process by agreeing to analyze three separate alternatives (we have included the NTT alternative in this classification for the reasons stated above) that propose unwarranted restrictions on multiple-use activities. These alternatives unfairly weighted the planning process in favor of conservation measures designed to thwart any reasonable attempt to properly manage the GRSG using the best available science, rather it utilizes the flawed scientific approaches championed by a select cadre of scientists. As a result of the severely weighted planning process, BLM/FS selected Alternative D which they profess reflects a “balance” of uses while protecting GRSG. Nevertheless, the LUPA/DEIS is deficient in that it does not include conservation strategy for analyzing treats or their specific cause and effect mechanisms, and then mitigating the mechanisms that underlie each threat within the BLM’s adaptive management framework. That approach for GRSG was clearly articulated in the publication by Ramey, Brown, and Blackgoat (2011).16 2.4.4. Alternative D – Preferred Alternative Alternative D is the BLM and Forest Service, Nevada and Northeastern California Sub-region’s adjustments alternative, which emphasizes balancing resources and resource use among competing human interests, land uses, and the conservation of natural and cultural resource values, while sustaining and enhancing ecological integrity across the landscape, including plant, wildlife, and fish habitat. COMMENT: The Preferred Alternative does not represent a balance among uses because it completely ignores the agencies’ multiple-use mission, perpetuates bad science and would implement punitive measures for all users of public lands on nearly 18 million acres within the study area. In formulating the Preferred Alternative, the agencies have relied upon outdated and statistically invalid lek-count data collection to estimate sage grouse population trends as a basis for management. The lack of resolution in these data, their non-random sampling, and the fact that GRSG populations are known to fluctuate, means that it would be impossible to discern any pattern in the data that could be used to guide

16

Ramey, R.R., L.M. Brown, and F. Blackgoat. 2011. Oil and gas development and Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus): A review of threats and mitigation measures. The Journal of Energy Development 35(1):49-78.) (Attachment C)


management actions in a timely manner, or that would be scientifically defensible. Consequently, this alternative would result in a virtual state of paralysis imposed on almost all land use activities. For example, an NSO stipulation without the possibility of waiver, exception or modification would be imposed on over 12 million acres of purported priority habitat, ignoring the likelihood that not all this acreage contains viable or actual habitat due to the unrefined scale used to identify and map PPH. In view of this highly flawed management approach, we strongly urge the agencies to retain a practical degree of flexibility to ensure that such restrictions are enforced only in areas where it can be demonstrated that high-value habitat exists. Without such flexibility, the agencies will thwart innovative technological and mitigation advances in favor of no activity at all, which will not benefit the communities that rely upon multiple-use activities, will prevent the development of new energy and mineral resources, and will deny the revenue generated to the state and federal governments by these activities, not to mention access to strategically important resources. The agencies incorrectly assume that operators can simply utilize direction or horizontal drilling methods to access lands subject to an NSO stipulation. While producers often choose to employ directional or horizontal drilling methods to recover their targeted resource, such decisions are based upon a host of factors that include geology, technological feasibility and economic viability. While this technology is often viewed as a simple solution by those who do not have a firm grasp on the complexities of oil and natural gas development, it must be acknowledged that the utility of directional or horizontal drilling methods is limited in many ways. Moreover, it must also be recognized that pad sizes associated with directional drilling of several wells from a single pad will increase to accommodate additional well bores. While surface issues may give rise to considering directional or horizontal techniques, the federal land management agencies must accept that these decisions can only be made with careful consideration of many other factors that influence a project’s viability. Therefore, it is unreasonable to impose a requirement across the study area that could render a well uneconomic or infeasible, particularly in cases where existing leases do not require the use of alternative drilling techniques.

Rejecting use applications or nominations that cannot be adequately mitigated and where the agencies have discretion to do so

COMMENT: There are certain criteria that must be met before an agency can reject an application to develop a lease. Permitted actions on a lease are subject to valid existing rights, which must be acknowledged in the LUPA/EIS. Furthermore, the term “adequately mitigated” is vague and unacceptable. Specific criteria are needed to avoid confusion. Additionally, nomination of a lease does not constitute a mitigable action because it does not involve any type of surface disturbance. Moreover, there is no leaseholder associated with a mere nomination that could be held accountable for any mitigation actions. Only after a lease has actually issued will a responsible party be available. This item must be revised to acknowledge valid rights cannot be denied and to remove the term “nominations.”

Applying RDFs and mitigation measures at a level that will offset immediate and long-term effects of the disturbance


COMMENT: The RDFs and mitigation measures identified by the NTT routinely reflect a lack of understanding of the process of developing oil and gas. See our specific comments on Appendix A. We strongly recommend that BLM modify the RDFs to acknowledge their use is limited to cases where they are technologically feasible, practical and warranted.

Prescribed mitigation ratios to offset the immediate and long-term effects of the disturbance COMMENT: The LUPA/DEIS indicates the agencies intend to impose mitigation ratios to offset the effects of disturbance. It is imperative that LUPA/DEIS provide well-defined information regarding the structure of such a mitigation system in order to allow stakeholders to provide comments on an effective metric for determining how best to minimize and mitigate any losses of resources. However, we have been unable to find any other reference to what this mitigation ratio would be in the LUPA/DEIS. Furthermore, we have found no reference to any scientific basis for determining an appropriate ratio or any scientific proof that such mitigation is needed and that it has, in fact, been proven effective in GRSG management. Absent clear and publically available documentation that confirms a mitigation ratio is an effective tool in conserving the GRSG, we question the agencies’ motivation and authority for utilizing a mitigation disturbance ratio as part of the management objectives in the planning documents.

Conducting restoration in advance of disturbance (such as through the State of Nevada’s mitigation banking process)

COMMENT: This concept needs to be fully explained. The term “restoration” appears incorrect because restoration cannot occur on something that has not been disturbed. Restoration is defined as “restoring something to its former condition;” whereas reclamation is defined as “bringing something back to a suitable condition for use, as cultivation or habitation.” If the action is to take place before surface disturbance, we believe BLM/FS actually intends to require habitat “enhancement,” which is defined as “improving or adding to the strength or other desirable quality of something.” In general, if the primary objective is to bring sagebrush back to an acceptable trajectory to suitable habitat after surface disturbance, the term is “reclamation,” not “restoration.” With respect to oil and gas activities, we presume that an agreement between the operator and the agency would be reached which would establish the parameters of the project along with reclamation or enhancement expectations, initial goals and timing. Once initial goals have been reached, the project should be allowed to proceed as planned, keeping in mind that the mitigation project is ongoing. The NV Plan indicates that credit would be given for appropriate mitigation, “Project proponents may receive credit for mitigation activities regardless of land ownership (i.e. federal, state or private lands).” The LUPA/DEIS needs to explain in detail how they will manage reclamation credits and mitigation, including how enhanced, mitigated and reclaimed acreages will be calculated. 2.5.2. Monitoring for the Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy Appendix E


COMMENT: We recognize the need to monitor the implementation and effectiveness of the LUPA. However, the agencies have not provided adequate specificity regarding how this will be accomplished. The LUPA/DEIS merely describes the type of approach that will be taken to implement a monitoring framework. Without something closer to a final product, it is impossible to clearly understand and comment on such a policy. This raises real issues with NEPA compliance−particularly when results from the monitoring framework will lead to management changes through adaptive management. The final sentence of Appendix E states, “The BLM and USFS will consider public comments and collaborate with other agencies to finalize the Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse LUPA/EIS Sage-grouse Monitoring Plan.” It is unclear how the commenting process will be handled; i.e., will BLM provide a Federal Register notice of availability for comment? Will public meetings be held across the state or region to receive input to from industry and interested citizens? Further, once a final Monitoring Plan is actually created, will an amendment to the LUPA be required? Again, we have serious procedural and substantive concerns regarding how BLM/FS intend to handle this critical issue. We are concerned that these monitoring tools are intended to be the measure of success regarding implementation of the DEIS. We strongly recommend that the numerous ecological sites throughout PPMAs, PPGAs, PPH and PGH that do not contain GRSG habitat for a variety of other reasons be recognized and incorporated into the initial monitoring baseline to ensure they are accounted for and not counted toward habitat disturbance. As previously discussed in these comments, the COT Report fails to meet the best available science standard of the ESA and the standards of objectivity, utility and transparency required by the Data Quality Act. For example, the “threats” identified by the USFWS were combined into three simple categories: sagebrush, non-habitat (human footprint), and energy and mining. This approach is scientifically flawed because it ignores the fact that anthropogenic disturbance is not the only factor which can cause an area not to contain GRSG habitat. Effectiveness Monitoring: The BLM and the USFS will analyze the monitoring data to characterize the relationship among the disturbance, implementation actions, and habitat condition at the appropriate and applicable geographic scale or boundary to accomplish effectiveness monitoring for the Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse LUPA/EIS. COMMENT: The BLM/FS need to discuss how they will handle monitoring the effectiveness of mitigation practices. Given the various mitigation policies being adopted through this LUPA/DEIS (Appendix D), the relative effectiveness of such practices must be an integral part of any monitoring program. Of particular concern is that no provision is included for those measures which reclaim or enhance habitat either onsite or offsite related to a project. A tracking system for identifying habitat improvements must be included in the implementation plan, one which does not rely exclusively or extensive on the Geographic Information Systems (“GIS”) because it would be managed by a federal agency with tight budgets and limited staff hours for database management. Given funding constraints, it is uncertain that staff or critical technology updates will be available for a new tracking database.


2.5.3. Adaptive Management COMMENT: The adaptive management strategy described in the LUPA/DEIS would identify “science-based” soft and hard adaptive management triggers; address how data from the Monitoring Framework will be used to gauge when triggers are met; and charter an adaptive management working group (“AMWG”) to assist with responding to soft triggers. When available, the agencies will consider population trend data from WAFWA and/or state wildlife agencies. More detail is needed to fully explain this proposed AM process and where it has been successfully implemented. Similarly, it is vague when, how or whether new field data will be collected and tracked by the agencies. The trigger structure needs to be more fully explained in the context of when NSO, TL, CSU or other measures that may be imposed or relaxed based upon new findings. Since “hard triggers” are when agencies will take “immediate action” to stop “continued deviation” from conservation objectives, such these measures would likely require subsequent NEPA analysis. These are glaring examples of regulatory over-reach that will have vast implications for industry, agriculture, local communities, jobs and the economy. An AMWG will be comprised of BLM, FS, USFWS, local governments and applicable State Game and Fish agencies. We strongly recommend that industry also be represented on the AMWG, because industry has a vested interest in how AM is applied. Of additional concern is that the BLM/FS have not identified funding for the group. We question whether the agencies may convene such a group with such enormous responsibility without clearly defined roles, adequate representation and specific statutory authorization. TABLE 2.4 - Description of Alternative Goals and Objectives Page 83 - Goal D-Lease-FM 1: Manage the Federal Fluid Mineral Estate to meet National energy needs in a development framework that gives priority consideration to maintaining or increasing GRSG populations and distribution. COMMENT: This goal is outright unattainable given that the Preferred Alternative would impose NSO stipulations throughout nearly 18 million acres of purported GRSG habitat. Additionally, the agencies have proposed a plethora of extreme mitigation measures and unnecessary RDFs clearly designed to thwart nearly all future exploration or development activities within GRSG habitat. The agencies have made no attempt to arrive at a reasonable balance between managing for GRSG and other multiple-use activities. Rather, they have simply subscribed to the erroneous presumptions that all uses of public lands would result in negative impacts to GRSG. As we have pointed out earlier in these comments, these assumptions have not been properly and scientifically validated or justified in the LUPA/DEIS and are principally based upon activities that were initiated over a decade ago prior to the recent major concerns associated with GRSG. Finally, they fail to take into account significant advances in practices and technology to protect GRSG and its habitat now routinely employed by the oil and gas industry.


TABLE 2.5 - DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Page 100 - Action D-SSS-AM 8: The BLM and Forest Service would coordinate with the Nevada Sagebrush Technical Team on the application of the Conservation Credit System (once it is established) for mitigation of activities that disturb GRSG habitat within Nevada where the application of the mitigation would occur on or the credit would be applied to disturbance on Public or National Forest Lands. COMMENT: Adoption of such a credit program must be subject to additional NEPA review in order to give the public and stakeholders an opportunity to review and comment on the plan prior to implementation. We also recommend that the agencies explain in thorough detail how credits for enhancement, reclamation and mitigation will be managed, including how such acreages will be calculated. All such actions must receive equitable credits in any future Conservation Credit System. Page 101- Action D-SSS-DIS 1: When developing or modifying water developments on public lands in PPMAs and PGMAs, use RDFs to mitigate potential impacts from West Nile virus. COMMENT: According to data from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) the risk to avian species from West Nile virus (WNv) has declined to virtually nothing since 2003. This is an example of where only a portion of the available information is presented to justify onerous and unfounded mitigation requirements. Rather than focusing on the minimal threat of WNv, BLM/FS must more appropriately focus their attention on widespread predation of GRSG. In an effort to avoid Cx. Tarsalis breeding, the requirements recommended by the NTT report could actually increase larval habitat for Culicoides sonorensis, a vector of blue tongue disease. The proposal to trade one viral vector habitat for another can hardly be construed as beneficial to GRSG populations within the planning area. Without question, the mortality impact of Culicoides sonorensis on wild ruminants’ populations would be far more devastating than WNv in Nevada’s semi-arid region. In fact, not only are food sources such as white-tail and mule deer populations currently under attack in Montana by epizootic hemorrhagic disease virus (EHDV), cattle infections have also been reported resulting in economic loss due to EHDV elsewhere (Ruder, M.G., Parasites and Vectors 201, 5:236). Therefore, these management approaches on produced waters clearly are not in the best interests of the Nevada mammalian food sources or mammalian related economics. Page 249 - Action B-FFME 7: Require unitization when deemed necessary for proper development and operation of an area (with strong oversight and monitoring) to minimize adverse impacts on GRSG according to the Federal Lease Form, 3100-11, Sections 4 and 6. COMMENT: This action item misinterprets the legal purpose of unitization as established by law. According to BLM’s own draft Handbook on Unitization and findings by the Interior Board of Land Appeals, the principal purpose of establishing a unit is to facilitate exploration in undeveloped areas and to maximize the production of oil and gas and revenue for the federal government. Units are not established for the protection of resources; rather, they are based on economics and reservoir engineering designed to provide technical benefits to all unit participants.


Moreover, BLM has no authority to require non-federal lessee and mineral owners to enter into federal units. Significant surface acreage and mineral estate can be privately held within the unit boundary; and, BLM/FS have no authority to require non-federal lessee and mineral owners to enter into federal units. Page 252 - Action D-FM 1: In un-leased federal fluid mineral estate in PPMAs apply a NSO stipulation and do not allow for waivers, exceptions, or modifications to that stipulation. Upon expiration or termination of existing leases within PPMAs, apply the same stipulation as above. COMMENT: See previous comments regarding the need for waivers, exceptions, and modifications. Pg. 253 - Action D-FM 3: Allow geophysical exploration within PPMAs and PGMAs that does not result in crushing of sagebrush vegetation or create new or additional surface disturbance. Heliportable drilling methods, articulated rubber-tired vehicles that “leave no trace,” and vibroseis geophysical operations conducted on existing roads and bladed shoulders would be allowed. Geophysical operations would be subject to TLs and CSU stipulations established for GRSG in PPMAs and PGMAs. COMMENT: It is clearly inappropriate for the LUPA/DEIS to dictate specific techniques for conducting geophysical operations. While heliportable drilling for seismic operations can be a useful tool in certain, limited situations, there are abundant and equally effective measures that allow for the same or similar impact mitigation in GRSG habitats which the LUPA/DEIS fails to even mention, much less analyze. The following is an abbreviated list of Best Management Practices that is recommended and applied by both BLM and the geophysical industry. These techniques have proven highly effective in minimizing or in many cases eliminating impacts to sage brush/GRSG: • Off-set tracking for all wheeled vehicles • Smooth or non-aggressive tires (vibrators) • Limited or no “back-tracking” on the same route(s) • Elimination of ATVs/UHVs off-road • Vibrating on existing roads • On-snow or frozen ground buggy drilling/vibrating • Hand raking of buggy/vibrator tracks visible from traveled roads Application of a reasonable mix of the above techniques has been shown to successfully avoid impacts to sage brush. Of particular importance is that extensive monitoring has shown that balloon tired four wheelers and foot traffic have diminutive impacts, indeed much less effect on the environment than wild horse traffic on public lands. Moreover, we question whether BLM/FS have fully considered the safety, noise or economic ramifications of this proposal. We also question the reasoning for requiring helicopter-portable seismic exploration when seasonal restrictions will be in effect. CHAPTER 3 Pg. 113 - Current Conditions Leasable Minerals Oil and Gas - There are two major oil- and gas-producing basins in the planning area: Railroad Valley and Pine Valley. Both valleys currently have production in oil only.


Table 3-52, Acres of Oil and Gas Leases in GRSG Habitat, there are more than 1,586,200 acres of authorized oil and gas leases in PPH and PGH. As shown in Table 3-53, Acres of Oil and Gas Leases Held by Production in GRSG Habitat, there are 4,400 acres held by production in PPH and PGH. Table 3.53, Acres of Oil and Gas Leases Held by Production in GRSG Habitat – 4,400 acres in PGH and PPH Table 3-54, Acres of Oil and Gas Wells in GRSG Habitat, shows the acres of wells in the planning area. Figure 3-14, Existing Oil and Gas Leases and Wells, shows the oil and gas lease areas and the oil and gas leases in production in the planning area. COMMENT: The data depicted in the tables referenced above clearly indicate that the purported “threat” from oil and gas development on the GRSG is currently miniscule. The planning area includes 1,586,200 acres of authorized oil and gas leases in PPH and PGH out of more than 18 million acres of federal mineral estate. Of this, only 4,400 acres (less than 0.28%) of the leased area is held in production within PPH and PGH. Further, surface disturbance related to these wells is limited to 800 acres (approximately 0.05% of the total leased area). Information on these tables fails to even reference the stipulations and conditions of approval already imposed on these operations, not to mention the additional mitigation measures required by the agencies, all of which have been designed to protect the GRSG and its habitat. A such, the use of one-size-fits all NSO stipulations on oil and natural gas development throughout GRSG habitat fails to coincide with the low threats from oil and natural gas activities in these areas. If oil and gas exploration and development are to continue in the planning area, the agencies must revise their actions by taking into account local conditions to ensure the requirement to support domestic energy production, geothermal and oil and gas is met. (42 USC §13201 et seq.) CHAPTER 4 4.3. Greater Sage-Grouse and Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat 4.3.1. Methods and Assumptions Indicators of impacts on GRSG are as follows: ● Direct habitat loss ● Habitat fragmentation ● Disruption to species life history requirements ● Population loss ● Habitat degradation ● Habitat restoration/improvement COMMENT: The impact assessments for all alternatives appear to analyze the proposed actions in the context of the COT and NTT reports; however, we reiterate the fact that the these reports provide no original data or quantitative analyses nor a comprehensive unbiased review of scientific literature on GRSG ecology, behavior, and management. Major points of criticism of these reports were addressed previously in these comments and we object to their use as a basis for management actions in the LUPA/DEIS. 4.3.2. Nature and Type of Effects


Pg. 18-19 Locatable, Leasable, and Salable Minerals Management The industrial activity associated with energy and mineral development produces noise and human activity that disrupt the habitat and life-cycle of GRSG. All studies which assess impacts of energy development on GRSG have found negative effects on populations and habitats (Naugle et al. 2011). COMMENT: This LUPA/DEIS section claims “All studies which assess impacts of energy development on GRSG have found negative effects on populations and habitats (Naugle et al. 2011).” First, Naugle et al 2011 did not evaluate “all studies,” rather they studied a select few that support a small group of scientists’ preconceived notions. Naugle’s review ignored or misinterpreted several other studies, including Taylor et al (2007)17, Taylor et al (2010), and Harju et al (2010) among a host of others. It is also important to note that Naugle’s emphasis has historically been focused on limited areas within Management Zone 2 (Powder River Basin and Pinedale, WY), which contain significantly different habitat, threats and impacts than those found in Nevada. Of even greater importance is that Taylor et al (2007) (in publication) analyzed six oil and gas development areas and one control area (Harju et al. 2010 used the same seven areas) (in publication) in Wyoming with various degrees and ages of activity to determine GRSG population trends relative to intensity and timing of oil and gas development. They report that: • GRSG population trends are consistent among populations regardless of the scope or age of

energy development fields, and that population trends in the six development areas mirror trends state-wide;

• Application of the BLM standard GRSG stipulations appear to be effective in reducing the impact of oil and gas development on male-lek attendance;

• Male lek attendance in areas that are not impacted by oil and gas development is generally better than areas that are impacted;

• Displacement from impacted leks to non-impacted leks may be occurring; research is needed to assess displacement and its implications for developing GRSG conservation strategies;

• Lek abandonment was most often associated with two conditions, including high density well development at forty-acre spacing (sixteen wells per square mile), and regardless of well spacing when development activity occurred within a quarter-mile lek buffer;

• Extirpation of GRSG has not occurred in any of the study areas; • Long-term fluctuations in GRSG population trends in Wyoming reflect processes such as

precipitation regimes rather than energy development activity; however, energy development can exacerbate fluctuations in GRSG population trends over the short-term.

Another study conducted in the Wyoming Pinedale Anticline conducted by Ramey et al, (2011)18 reported that current stipulations and regulations for oil and gas development in GRSG habitat are largely based on studies from the Jonah Gas Field and Pinedale Anticline. These and other intensive

17

Taylor, R., M. Dzialak, L. Hayden-Wing. 2007. Greater sage-grouse populations and energy development in Wyoming. Accessed March 2013 at http://bogc.dnrc.mt.gov/reports.asp 18

Id


developments were permitted decades ago using older, more invasive technologies and methods. The density of wells is high due to the previous practice of drilling many vertical wells to tap the resource (before the use of directional and horizontal drilling of multiple wells from a single surface location became more common) and prior to concerns over GRSG conservation. These fields and their effect on GRSG are not necessarily representative of GRSG responses to less-intensive energy development. Recent environmental regulations and newer technologies have lessened effects to GRSG. Nevertheless, as pointed out earlier in these comments, even without highly specialized mitigation requirements, the GRSG populations in these areas exceed Wyoming state averages. Clearly, scientists studying GRSG have widely varying interpretations concerning effects of oil and gas development on population trends. The BLM/FS need to consider results of studies conducted by Ramey et al (2011) and Taylor et al (2007) in addressing the effects of oil and gas development on GRSG and GRSG habitat in NV. Noise associated with oil and gas development may have played a factor in habitat selection and a decrease in lek attendance by GRSG (Holloran 2005). Recent studies in oil and gas areas indicate that continuous noise levels, and even intermittent road traffic, reduce lek attendance when levels approach 10 decibels over ambient conditions (Patricelli in review). COMMENT: See comments on Appendix A. 4.14.1. Fluid Minerals Pg. 183 –

Applying COAs, which include RDFs (per Appendix A) and conservation measures outlined in Chapter 2 (Table 2-5, Description of Alternative Actions), to existing leases would directly impact fluid mineral operations.

COMMENT: See comments on Valid Existing Rights and Appendix A.

Requiring master development plans and unitization could cause direct impacts on fluid minerals through increased costs of fluid mineral extraction by delaying the permit approval process until such additional site-specific planning efforts are completed. However, unitization typically has been initiated at the operator’s discretion.

COMMENT: See our previous comment on forced unitization. APPENDIX A - REQUIRED DESIGN FEATURES COMMENT: Appendix A largely consists of design features enumerated in the NTT report which are ostensibly needed to protect GRSG in both PPH and PGH. However, no scientific data or documentation have been provided or even cited that substantiate any of these RDFs have ever been proven effective. Absent sufficient scientific evidence, these measures simply represent matters of opinion rather than scientific facts. As stated earlier in these comments, the NTT relies upon an unproven one‐size‐fits‐all


approach that fails to take into account local conditions, including unique habitat and threats and socio‐economic factors. Consequently, the NTT RDFs are repeatedly needlessly restrictive, scientifically unfounded and ignore specific cause and effect mechanisms. Further, they were designed without any benefit of tracking and testing of the effectiveness of currently required BMPs and mitigation measures. Furthermore, many the RDFs ignore that a variety of valid existing rights are held throughout the planning area. It is crucial for the BLM/FS to acknowledge these rights and honor them, regardless of the RDFs selected for implementation. The agencies must also acknowledge they have no legal authority to require implementation of these measures on existing lease holdings. We recommend that BLM/FS reexamine the RDFs and mitigation measures to ensure they are technically feasible, appropriate and retain an adequate level of flexibility when their use is contemplated for use on a site-specific basis. Prior assessment of RDFs on a “site‐specific basis” is also vital and applying them only when “reasonable” makes sense and is appropriate. Since some of these design features may prove effective only in certain instances, we recommend they be incorporated as “preferred” or “suggested”, rather than “required.” BLM/FS must acknowledge that site-specific circumstances will typically dictate whether certain design features are technically feasible, economic, or appropriate. They must not be assumed to be universally effective or applicable. Therefore, instead of utilizing a list of rigid RDFs, we recommend the agencies keep a list of practical best management practices (BMP) that can be applied based upon site-specific circumstances as appropriate. With respect to split estate lands, the BLM/FS need to specify how the rights of private landowners will be protected. Intrinsically, the LUPA/DEIS needs to incorporate proper mechanisms for working with landowners and lessee’s in order to avoid unnecessary delays in proposed activities. Additionally, clearly defined parameters must be incorporated into each monitoring and mitigation plan, i.e., scope, requirements, costs and timing. We recommend that BLM/FS work with operators, other land users as well as the NVGFD in order to establish a reasonable and workable monitoring program. Additionally, in order to avoid conflict and confusion, the monitoring program must be well‐defined before it is required for project activities. ALTERNATIVES C, D, AND F The following comments are relevant for RFDs in both PPMA and PGMA. • “Locate roads to avoid important areas and habitats.” COMMENT: This requirement is vague and ambiguous. Clarification of what is meant by “important areas” and “habitats” is necessary. Further, preferences of landowners must be major factors in any such decisions. • Coordinate road construction and use among ROW or SUA holders. COMMENT: Not all users may be able to coordinate activities on roads. Some authorization holders may pre-date others and activities may not coincide among users. We recommend modifying this RDF


as follows: “Coordinate road construction and use among right-of-way or special use authorization holders consistent with rights granted.” • Construct road crossings at right angles to ephemeral drainages and stream crossings. COMMENT: Any crossings of ephemeral drainages or streams will likely be subject to Sections 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act. Therefore, this requirement must be reworded as follows to include these sections: “Construct road crossings at right angles to ephemeral drainages and stream crossings subject to the requirements of Section 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act.” • Establish trip restrictions or minimization through use of telemetry and remote well control (e.g.,

Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition). COMMENT: We understand why BLM/FS believe this is a good practice; however, this technology is not always feasible due to the limited economic conditions associated with lower performing wells. The economics associated with some leases may also be a factor that would not allow telemetry to be installed. Consequently, this requirement must be subject to operational considerations and economic viability. The agencies must also consider the fact that remotely monitoring a site does not always adequately identify all operational considerations. In order to conduct safe and effective oil and gas operations, certain on-site inspection and maintenance activities are crucial and must be regularly conducted. We recognize that it may be warranted to place limitations on access to well locations during critical seasons for certain activities, such as construction activities (e.g. well pads, roads, pits) or limiting the number of trips allowed. However, basic maintenance and operation activities are vital to maintaining safe, effective, and environmentally sound operations.

“Do not issue rights-of-way or special use authorizations to counties on newly constructed energy development roads, unless for a temporary use consistent with all other terms and conditions included in this document.”

COMMENT: These special use authorizations are typically written to the user of the roads. The county may take authority for the road later, but not typically at issuance. Requiring “all other terms and conditions be included” is too broad. We recommend modifying this measure to read “Ensure rights-of-way or special use authorizations on newly constructed roads are issued using only appropriate terms and conditions included in this document.”

“Use dust abatement on roads and pads.” COMMENT: This RDF needs to be rewritten to specify what type of dust abatement will be required, i.e., chemical applicants or water.

“Close and rehabilitate duplicate roads.” COMMENT: Careful consideration of what constitutes “duplicate roads” is essential. An agency may believe a road to be a duplicate when actually it may not be the case for other land users or landowners


in the vicinity. We recommend revising this RDF as follows: “Close and rehabilitate duplicate roads only after careful consideration of current and future use of the road by permit holders and landowners in the vicinity.” • Cluster disturbances, operations (fracture stimulation, liquids gathering, etc.), and facilities. COMMENT: Clustering disturbances is not always feasible due to surface limitations, landowner preferences, and safety considerations. While clustering may make sense in certain situations, it is simply not achievable in every case. We recommend inserting “to the extent possible” at the beginning of this RDF. • Use directional and horizontal drilling to reduce surface disturbance. COMMENT: See our previous comments on direction and horizontal drilling. • Apply a phased development approach with concurrent reclamation. COMMENT: The term “phased development” is vague and requires clarification because it is subject to a variety of interpretations. We oppose phased development which only allows certain portions of a leasehold or unit to be developed over time until that portion is plugged or abandoned before proceeding to another portion of the leasehold or unit. This approach is infeasible since the life of a well is generally long-term. Moreover, it would constitute a clear violation of existing lease terms, particularly since this terminology has never been utilized on the federal lease form. BLM is required to ensure that leased federal minerals are fully developed and that production on non-federal leases does not drain federal minerals. Given the extent of non-federal mineral ownership within certain parts of the planning area, a phased development constraint could easily result in a situation where production on non-federal leases drains federal minerals. With these concerns in mind, we recommend that the “phased development approach” be removed altogether. • Place liquid gathering facilities outside of priority areas. Have no tanks at well locations within

priority areas (minimizes perching and nesting opportunities for ravens and raptors and truck traffic). Pipelines must be under or immediately adjacent to the road (Bui et al. 2010).

COMMENT: This requirement is unclear and will lead to operational confusion. Placing liquid gathering facilities inside priority areas would reduce truck traffic, which would be more advantageous to the GRSG. Further, if liquid gathering or trucking is not allowed inside priority areas, there would be no way to remove liquid production from the lease. This RDF conflicts with standard operational practices, is not feasible and must be eliminated. • Design or site permanent structures which create movement (e.g., a pump jack) to minimize

impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse.


COMMENT: This requirement lacks scientific justification. Since neither the NTT nor COT reports have identified any scientific data that correlate movement and distances relative to GRSG response, we recommend this RDF be eliminated. • Cover (e.g., fine mesh netting or use other effective techniques) all drilling and production pits

and tanks regardless of size to reduce sage-grouse mortality. COMMENT: Fine mesh netting is not practical and needs to be eliminated from this RDF because it is not only extremely difficult to deploy, it is also difficult to maintain. We suggest a more flexible approach. It is unclear why tanks are included. • Control the spread and effects of non‐native plant species (Evangelista et al. 2011) (e.g., by

washing vehicles and equipment). COMMENT: This RDF does not explain how this objective would be implemented. Where would wash areas be located and how would the runoff associated with them be managed? Can the fluid and associated substances be hauled off, injected or disposed of at a facility onsite and are special permits required? This RDF attempts to address concerns regarding a perceived problem but fails to fully consider the ramifications of such a requirement. What solution do the BLM/FS intend to utilize for the general public or recreationalist crossing public lands on motorized and non-motorized forms of transportation and how this issue will enforced? • Use only closed-loop systems for drilling operations and no reserve pits. COMMENT: Closed loop systems for drilling operations are utilized in sensitive areas where they are technically feasible and economically viable for the operator. However, many drilling rigs are not equipped for closed loop drilling. Also, even if a closed system were available on a drilling rig, some type of pit will be needed for drilling cuttings. This RDF must be revised to provide the flexibility to allow this as an option where feasible. We also note that this requirement conflicts with the previous RDF which calls for netting pits. It is unclear whether BLM/FS have considered the impact that additional truck traffic hauling fluids out of the area could have on GRSG habitat. It must also be recognized that additional truck traffic may require road upgrades, which could defeat the purpose of the RDF. It may be more reasonable to install GRSG-safe fences in the majority of instances.

• Restrict pit and impoundment construction to reduce or eliminate threats from West Nile virus

(Doherty 2007). • Remove or re-inject produced water to reduce habitat for mosquitoes that vector West Nile

virus. If surface disposal of produced water continues, use the following steps for reservoir design to limit favorable mosquito habitat

COMMENT: See previous comments on WNv.


• Limit noise to less than 10 decibels above ambient measures (20-24 dBA) at sunrise at the

perimeter of a lek during active lek season (Patricelli et al. 2010, Blickley et al. In preparation). COMMENT: We strongly object to ambient noise levels being set at a range of 20 to 24 dBA. This ambient noise range was determined from average noise readings of studies conducted in national parks and wilderness areas, as well as minimum noise readings taken in the Pinedale area in Wyoming. Importantly, this noise level has not been proven to be representative of average ambient noise on multiple-use lands outside of wilderness and national parks and is not scientifically supported anywhere, much less NV. Of concern is that this requirement would be difficult, if not impossible, to achieve. As such, any reference to 20 to 24 dBA as an ambient noise level must be disregarded and removed. • Require noise shields when drilling during the lek, nesting, broodrearing, or wintering season. COMMENT: This requirement is unacceptably broad. Noise shields can take any number of shapes and forms. It is important to realize that noise shields cannot be used at a site without being engineered for safety factors, such as wind load. They must be carefully anchored, potentially with a foundation, to meet wind load requirements depending upon the material used to build the shield. Additionally, larger well pads may be needed to accommodate the configuration of a shield. It is also important to consider the attenuation of noise from a site to receptors such as leks, nesting, and brood rearing. Also, simply stating that noise shields are required during wintering seasons is excessive and unjustifiable if drilling is occurring in areas where noise attenuation is not an issue. This RDF needs to be completely revised to provide more operational direction and flexibility. • Locate new compressor stations outside PH and design them to reduce noise that may be directed

towards PH. COMMENT: This RDF was poorly conceived. There are many considerations when siting compressor stations, such as the engineering and design constraints inherent to the functionality of gathering systems. With regard to directing compressor station noise away from priority habitat, proximity to other receptors, such as homes, must also be considered. Additionally, this requirement must be revised to account for technical feasibility, as well as landowner preferences if private land is involved. • Restore disturbed areas at final reclamation to the pre‐disturbance landforms and desired plant

community. COMMENT: If the disturbance is on private land, this RDF must be subject to the preference of the landowner. • Implement irrigation during interim or final reclamation for sites where establishment of

seedlings has been shown or is expected to be difficult due to dry conditions. COMMENT: We recommend that the BLM/FS revise this RDF to reflect that irrigation needs to be done in a manner that will prevent vegetation from being unable to withstand drought conditions after the


irrigation has been removed. Also, it is unclear whether the impact of irrigation activities on GRSG and its habitat been considered. APPENDIX G - LEASABLE MINERAL STIPULATIONS, WAIVERS, MODIFICATIONS, AND EXCEPTIONS COMMENT: BLM/FS’s intent to impose NSO and timing restrictions throughout GRSG habitat is excessive, punitive and lacks scientific validation. It is vital for the agencies to retain the flexibility to waive, except or modify any stipulation, regardless of the type of habitat is involved, if project-specific data show they are unnecessary. We remind the agencies that prior to any project NEPA analysis, the proponent is required to conduct baseline studies and this may occur over one or more years. It is crucial for such data to be fully considered and all restrictions reviewed in light of the collected data. SSUS-4: Seasonal Protection within four (4) miles of active GRSG leks from March 1 through May 15. SSUS-5: Seasonal Protection of GRSG wintering areas from November 1 thru March 31. SSUS-6: Seasonal protection of GRSG brood rearing habitat from May 15 to August 15 COMMENT: Prohibition on surface disturbance within 4 miles of a lek, including during the lekking and early brood-rearing period or wintering areas is unwarranted and excessive because there is no specific cause and effect mechanism cited. The prohibition is solely based upon the subjective opinion of the NTT and opinions expressed in select reports and publications. The LUPA/DEIS effectively proposes “protecting” large areas (~50 square miles) of potentially non-habitat and marginal habitat surrounding each lek without any demonstrable benefit to GRSG populations. Moreover, it ignores the fact that there may more appropriate conservation actions suited to local ecological conditions. We recommend elimination of these needlessly restrictive stipulations. APPENDIX H - OIL AND GAS REASONABLY FORESEEABLE DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO This reasonably foreseeable development (RFD) scenario serves as a basis for analyzing environmental impacts resulting from future leasing and development of federal oil and gas resources within the decision area over the next 20 years. COMMENT: It is our understanding that Noble Energy has publically announced plans for future development within the planning area and that the disturbance associated with this development is projected to be a mere 500 acres of total disturbance, including roads. This information does not appear to be included in the RFD, which is an oversight that needs to be corrected. APPENDIX O - ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY COMMENT: Federal land management agency decisions directly affect social conditions. The public land management changes proposed in the LUPA/DEIS will likely be in place in perpetuity, rather than the standard 20 years of a planning document. Therefore, it is crucial for a multitude of economic factors to be carefully considered. A decision to prohibit or severely constrain future oil and gas exploration or leasing on BLM surface, BLM-administered mineral estate and FS surface would most certainly have a direct effect on the social and economic conditions in Nevada. This analysis not only fails to adequately review the economic and social impact that could result from dramatic changes in public land management, the oil and gas economic value is significantly underestimated because it fails


to include lease rentals, bonuses, and royalties paid to the state and federal treasuries. Therefore, because it does not adequately inform the public about the social and economic changes that would be incurred, the report is incomplete and inaccurate. Moreover, each alternative fails to portray the costs of implementation. We question how members of the community can understand the true impact of an alternative when the BLM/FS have not identified the costs to implement them. This is a serious, and likely, fatal flaw. We recommend that the BLM/FS clearly identify their implementation costs of the individual alternatives. The economic impact of oil and gas permitting, exploration and development within the Planning Area, in both current and future production zones, must also be identified. Such an analysis is critical in making an objective decision for future resource management. The range of alternatives cannot be properly reviewed without these estimates. CONCLUSION In conclusion, we understand the agencies’ efforts to develop a statewide strategy which demonstrates to the USFWS that regulatory certainty for protection of the Sage-grouse is in place, which would obviate the need to list the species. However, BLM/FS must not only fully recognize state and local conservation plans and efforts, but must also utilize common-sense measures to conserve and protect the species and its habitat while allowing critically important economic activity to continue in the planning area. It is, therefore, imperative for the BLM/FS to ensure their plan takes into account the best available science when devising a realistic and practical land use strategy. This has not been accomplished. As discussed in these comments, BLM/FS have been instructed to rely upon the recommendations of the NTT and COT reports which failed to take an unbiased approach to developing a rational strategy for conservation of the GRSG, particularly with respect to oil and gas leasing and development activities. To summarize, the NTT and COT reports are flawed because they have: • Failed to use the best available science; • Relied only upon select scientific information which supported its preconceived conclusions; • Grossly misrepresented of the impact of oil and gas operations on GRSG; • Relied upon disproportionate influence from a small group of specialist “advocates;” • Demonstrated clear bias against voluntary conservation; • Promoted unnecessarily restrictive recommendations; • Failed to accurately define priority habitat; and • Failed to obtain credible peer review. We strongly urge the agencies to adopt the management procedures and processes established in the NV Plan. It is a state-of-the-art, scientifically valid management approach that must be given a chance to work without undue interference and with full cooperation from the Department of Interior. We also take this opportunity to incorporate by reference the comments on the Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage Grouse Draft Land Use Plan Amendment and Environmental Impact Statement submitted by the Nevada Mining Association and the Nevada Cattlemen's Association.


We appreciate this opportunity to provide you with our comments and concerns. Please do not hesitate to contact Claire Moseley at 303-506-1153 if you have any questions or would like to discuss our views in greater detail.

Sincerely,

Claire Moseley Kathleen Sgamma Executive Director VP, Government & Public Affairs Public Lands Advocacy Western Energy Alliance Attachments – Under Separate Cover Attachment A - Review of Data Quality Issues in A Report on National Greater GRSG Conservation Measures Produced by the BLM GRSG National Technical Team (NTT) Dated December 21, 2011. Dr. Rob Ramey, III, Wildlife International Inc.

Attachment B - Rob Roy Ramey, Data Quality Issues in the Greater SageGrouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Conservation Objectives: Final Report, p.1 (October 16, 2013)

Attachment C: Ramey, R.R., L.M. Brown, and F. Blackgoat. 2011. Oil and gas development and Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus): A review of threats and mitigation measures. The Journal of Energy Development 35(1):49-78.)


ADDITIONAL LITERATURE CITED Baxter, R.J., K.D. Bunnell, J.T. Flinders, D.L. Mitchell. 2007 Impacts of predation on Greater Sage-Grouse in Strawberry Valley, Utah. Transactions of the 72and North American Natural Resources Conference. Predator-Prey Workshop. Portland, Oregon. Baxter, R.J., R. L. Larson, and J.T. Flinders. 2013. Survival of resident and translocated Greater Sage-Grouse in Strawberry Valley, Utah: A 13-year study. Journal of Wildlife Management 77(4):802-811. Bedrosian, B. and D. Craighead. 2010. Sage-Grouse completion report 2007-2009. Craighead Beringia South. Unpublished Report. Kelly, Wyoming. Bui, T. 2009. The effects of nest and brood predation by common ravens (Corvus corax) on Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) in relation to land use in western Wyoming. Master of Science Thesis. University of Washington. Bui, T, J.M. Marzluff, and B. Bedrosian. 2010. Common raven activity in relation to land use in western Wyoming: Implications for Greater Sage-Grouse reproductive success. The Condor 112(1): 65-78.. The Cooper Ornithological Society. Cote, I.M. and W. J. Sutherland. 1997. The effectiveness of removing predators to protect bird populations. Conservation Biology 11(2):395-405. Coates, P.S. 2007. Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) nest predation and incubation behavior. Ph.D. Dissertation. Idaho State University. Coates, P.S. and D. J. Delehanty. 2010. Nest predation of Greater Sage-Grouse in relation to microhabitat factors and predators. Journal of Wildlife Management. Management and Conservation Article. Coates, P.S., J. W. Connelly, and D. J. Delehanty. 2008. Predators of Greater Sage-Grouse nests identified by video monitoring. J. Field Ornithology 79(4):421-428. Dzialak, M.R., C.V. Olson, S. M. Harju, S. L. Webb, J.P. Mudd, J.B. Winstead, and L.D. Hayden-Wing. 2011. Identifying and prioritizing Greater Sage-Grouse nesting and brood-rearing habitat for conservation in human-modified landscapes. PLoS ONE 6:10. www.plosone.org. Dinkins, J. B. 2013. Common raven density and Greater Sage-Grouse nesting success in southern Wyoming: Potential conservation and management implications. All Graduate Theses and Dissertations. Paper 1700. http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd/1700 Dinkens, J.B., M.R. Conover, C.P. Kirol, and J.L. Beck. 2012. Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) select nest sites and brood sites away from avian predators. The Auk 129(4):600-610.


Kirol, C.P. 2012. Quantifying habitat importance for greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) population persistence in and energy development landscape. Master of Science Thesis. University of Wyoming. North Dakota Game and Fish Department. (2013). Management plan and conservation strategies for Greater Sage-Grouse in North Dakota, Prepared by Aaron C. Robinson, North Dakota Game and Fish Department, Bismarck, North Dakota. Ramey, R.R., L.M. Brown, and F. Blackgoat. 2011. Oil and gas development and Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus): A review of threats and mitigation measures. The Journal of Energy Development 35(1):49-78. Ramey, R.R. 2013a. Data quality issues in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Greater Sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Conservation Objectives: Final Report (Dated 2013). Unpublished Report. Wildlife Science International, Inc. Taylor, R., M. Dzialak, L. Hayden-Wing. 2007. Greater sage-grouse populations and energy development in Wyoming. Accessed March 2013 at http://bogc.dnrc.mt.gov/reports.asp Webb, S.L., C.V. Olson, M.R Dzialak, S.M. Harju, J.B. Winstead, and D. Lockman. 2012. Landscape features and weather influence nest survival of a ground-nesting bird of conservation concern, the Greater Sage-Grouse, in human-altered environments

1

Review of Data Quality Issues in A Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation

Measures Produced by the BLM Sage-Grouse National Technical Team

(NTT) Dated December 21, 2011

Dr. Rob Roy Ramey II

Wildlife Science International, Inc. Prepared for Western Energy Alliance

September 19, 2013

Executive Summary In 2011, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) formed the National Technical Team (NTT) to develop a report outlining new or revised regulatory mechanisms to protect and conserve the greater sage-‐grouse and its habitat on BLM-administered lands. Members of the NTT included resource specialists and scientists from BLM, state wildlife agencies, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). BLM is now incorporating select regulatory mechanisms from the NTT report into Resource Management Plans (RMP), which are land use planning documents that are developed to set long-term management policies. According to the NTT, the report “provides the latest science and best biological judgment to assist in making management decisions.” In reality, the NTT report represents a partial presentation of scientific information to justify a narrow range of preferred conservation measures and policies that will be imposed as land use regulations by the BLM. In contrast, an objective scientific review would have led to a broadening of conservation alternatives for decision makers to choose from. Misrepresenting the Impact of Oil and Gas Operations The NTT presents a biased view of oil and gas operations by conveying that “impacts are universally negative and typically severe." The NTT then selectively presented information in support of its conclusions, while ignoring contrary information. Key assertions in the NTT report are both biased and in error, especially the frequently repeated, but erroneous assumption, that a temporary decrease in lek counts immediately adjacent to active wells is equivalent to a population decline. The NTT recommendations rely on older research that focuses on areas with full-field development, like the Jonah gas field in Wyoming, where currently-used sophisticated mitigation or restoration technologies were either unavailable or still being developed. The NTT fails to acknowledge that this situation has substantially changed due to the

2

advent of advanced reclamation, methods to limit surface disturbance, and other protective measures that are now mainstream in development that takes place in habitat areas. Further, the research that supports the one-size-fits-all recommendations in the NTT does not represent less intensive development scenarios. Disproportionate Scientific Influence At present, a small number of sage grouse specialist-advocates have had what appears to be a disproportionate influence on formulating federal policy on sage grouse, including their overlapping participation in preparation the NTT and the FWS Conservation Objective Team (COT) reports, and authorship of the highly influential U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) sage grouse monograph. More diverse expertise and viewpoints are clearly needed. Downplaying Voluntary Conservation The NTT regarded voluntary conservation efforts on private land as inferior to federal land acquisition and management. This view is contrary to what has been espoused as the “new paradigm” of cooperative conservation. There are numerous published papers on the success of private land conservation versus a federal "command and control" approach. Failure to Utilize Best Available Science The NTT report did not acknowledge or make use of best available scientific and commercial data, which shows the substantially lessened impacts of oil and gas operations on sage grouse as a result of new technologies, expanded mitigation efforts, more stringent stipulations, and BMPs. This includes information that had been compiled by the BLM and provided to the NTT. The NTT omits numerous scientific papers and reports on oil and gas mitigation measures for sage grouse, the mitigation of raven predation on sage grouse, the fact that sage grouse disperse over greater distances than previously thought, and that they traverse (fly) over or around roads, agricultural areas, and oil and gas development. Undefined Priority Habitat Recommendations for management of priority habitat were made without any definition or quantification of priority habitat themselves. The NTT present no data showing that hypothetical migration and connectivity corridors depicted on maps actually exist. Unnecessarily Restrictive Recommendations The NTT report recommended numerous one-size-fits-all regulatory prescriptions, and made no allowance for recommendations for including local sage grouse conservation plans (i.e. county-level, working group, or private land) that have tailored conservation

3

measures to local conditions, including unique habitat and threats, and socio-economic factors. The new best management practices (BMP) proposed by the NTT are unnecessarily restrictive, are not supported by scientific information, and do not address specific cause and effect mechanisms that are known to be deleterious to sage grouse. The imposition of new BMPs was made without any tracking and testing of the effectiveness of currently required BMPs. Disturbance Thresholds Disturbance thresholds recommended by the NTT are arbitrary and do not have a sound scientific basis. They are based upon the opinions of authors, and selective citation of information rather than data. These thresholds include:

• 3% surface disturbance cap • one well per section cap • 4-mile no surface occupancy buffers • noise limited to less than 10 decibels above 20-24 dBA.

These thresholds are founded on the erroneous assumption that a temporary disturbance of sage grouse from a local area equates to a population decline. The NTT makes no mention of the fact that previously predicted population declines, in cited studies have failed to come true, particularly in the Pinedale area in Wyoming. Buffers around Leks The presumed necessity of 4-mile radius NSO buffer around sage grouse leks is based upon the subjective opinion of the NTT and selected authors. The practical effect of such a restriction would be to "protect" vast areas of non-habitat and marginal habitat with no demonstrable benefit to sage grouse populations. The area of this 4-mile radius circle surrounding each lek is 50 square miles. Noise Recommendations The NTT's one-size fits all noise recommendations for oil and gas operations are not scientifically sound. They were based on the subjective opinions of the authors of cited studies rather than data. The cited studies, all performed by one research group, used substandard equipment and employed methods that were inconsistent with professional data collection and reporting standards in the industry that are used to ensure unbiased and systematic data collection. The underlying data in the cited noise studies is not public. What is being proposed for noise thresholds is an impossible to achieve standard found in an idyllic wilderness setting; BLM land that is administered for multiple uses is not pristine wilderness.

4

Sagebrush Cover Goal The NTT presents no scientific data that a one-size-fits-all goal of 70% sagebrush cover in Priority Habitat is: 1) scientifically defensible, 2) achievable, 3) would result in stable sage grouse populations, and 4) would not result in irreparable harm to other species, and 5) would not negatively affect local economies. Lack of Credible Peer Review There is no evidence that accepted standards for scientific peer review were followed in the supposedly scientific peer review of the NTT report. There is no evidence that each of the comments and issues raised by the "peer reviewers" of the NTT report were either corrected or rebutted in writing by the NTT, as is the accepted practice in scientific peer review. It does a disservice to the field of science to call such a casual solicitation of comments a valid "peer review." To date, the BLM has not released the reviews themselves but only selected excerpts from the reviews. The recommendations of the NTT were tailored to be consistent with legal settlements with environmental litigants rather than an unbiased assessment of conservation alternatives. The NTT's description of "science" makes no mention of hypothesis testing or potential falsifiability. Instead, the NTT relies on a subjective interpretation of results which is a clear departure from the scientific method. The fact that the NTT started with their preferred conservation measures, and then sought to justify them, reveals that the NTT misused the scientific method in order to reverse-engineer their recommendations. Issues Raised by National BLM Officials Complaints raised by national BLM officials reveal that the agency is being set up to fail because the NTT sets unrealistic goals that BLM could never achieve (i.e. 70% sage brush cover), and there are internal inconsistencies that makes the NTT's recommendations vulnerable to legal challenge. Conclusion The BLM cannot rely on the biased opinions and selective presentation of information to support a recommendation that is unsupported by data. The BLM cannot rely on studies that purport to document a negative effect yet consistently fail to produce data that show such a negative effect. The NTT not only violates the BLM's multiple use mandate, but elevates sage grouse concerns above human health, safety, and economic prosperity.

5

Detailed Review 1) The "science" behind the NTT report was designed to support conservation measures preferred by the NTT rather than review alternative conservation measures in an objective manner. 1.1) The opening paragraph of the December 6, 2011 NTT meeting notes describes, "the purpose of the meeting was to strengthen the science behind the existing conservation measures." This and subsequent statements reveal that instead of using the objective, scientific method to evaluate and rank the effectiveness of alternative conservation actions, the NTT biased their recommendations by only seeking scientific support for "existing" conservation measures that were preferred by the NTT. 1.2) By seeking scientific justification for preferred (i.e. predetermined) conclusions, the NTT biased approach was outside the realm of standard scientific practice, which is to objectively consider all potential alternatives (hypotheses) and all information available, including contrary data. 1.3) Documented discussions of the NTT team (from meeting notes and e-mails) reveal that virtually the entire focus of the team was discussion of policy, rather than scientific issues, and this deficiency was also noticed in the peer reviews of the report. NTT meeting notes do not contain and references to scientific papers, data, or measured discussion of alternative conservation measures. Instead, the discussions were focused almost entirely on justification of preferred conservation measures and finding the documentation to bolster these. The following excerpt from a Dec 13, 2011 11:52 AM e-mail from Raul Morales (the NTT team leader for the BLM) to the NTT illustrates how the NTT and the National Policy Team sought to bolster support for its preferred conservation measures rather than develop an objective evaluation of alternatives (underline added for emphasis):

"I just wanted to update everyone on what has happened since my last email to you all. There was an NPT call shortly before Thanksgiving. I was not on this call but what the NPT [National Policy Team] charged me to do was to reconvene small team of NTT members (mainly scientist folks) and with the help of a WAFWA (Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies) appointed scientist (former Colorado Division of Wildlife Director, Tom Remington) they asked that we further strengthen the science underpinnings to our conservation measures. Also, that this effort needed to be completed before the release of the NOI which happened last Friday." "In addition, comments had been received from other external reviewers, and reviewers suggested the measures needed to be grounded in the best available science to be defensible. In addition, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) wanted to ensure the science is strong so the conservation measures could effectively inform policy negotiations at the National Policy Team level.

6

So, the National Policy Team agreed the next step was for the National Technical Team to reconvene and review how the conservation measures are supported by existing science."

The excerpt is contrary to the portrayal of the NTT report as an objective scientific review of alternatives. Instead, the NTT chose to rationalize pre-determined conclusions. Further, the NTT made selective use of published papers, reports, and opinion that supported their preferred conservation measures while ignoring other sources of information that did not. The NTT meeting notes and e-mails contain numerous instances where the scientific rationale for particular conservation measures or restrictions were based upon nothing more than subjective opinion of the NTT authors. As a result, the NTT does not represent "a summary of the best available scientific information for the conservation of Sage-Grouse" as stated by Secretary Salazar in his December 18, 2012 letter to Representative Hastings. Instead, the NTT report represents a partial presentation of scientific information to justify a narrow range of conservation measures that will be imposed as land use regulations by the BLM. 1.4) The NTT report represented a narrowing of policy and management alternatives. Provided below is an excerpt from March 23, 2012 comments by the American Petroleum Institute to the BLM regarding "Notice of Intent, December 9, 2011, To Prepare Environmental Impact Statements and Supplemental Environmental Impact Statements To Incorporate Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures Into Land Use Plans and Land Management Plans."

A National Sage Grouse Strategy should lead to broadening rather than narrowing policy and management alternatives. As noted by a well-known scholar of science and science policy (Pielke 2004): “Addressing the significance of science for decision making requires an ability to clearly distinguish policy from politics. For science, a policy perspective implies increasing or elucidating the range of alternatives available to decision makers by clearly associating the existing state of scientific knowledge with a range of choices. The goal is to enhance freedom of choice. By contrast, a political perspective seeks to decrease the range of alternatives (often to a single preferred option) available to policy makers, i.e., to limit the scope of choice.” From the API comments: "Ideally, development of a National Sage Grouse strategy would involve the development of a range of policy alternatives that are informed by science. In contrast, the BLM’s National Technical Team appears to be narrowing the range of policy alternatives, based upon blanket setback distances, NSO requirements, and seasonal restrictions. The strategy must respect outstanding commitments and agreements between BLM and its multiple use constituents such as leases, permits, ROWs and conditions of approvals for projects that have been approved by BLM. Failure to do so would only lead to litigation and provide a disincentive to the BLM

7

and companies to innovate in ways that address the underlying causes of specific threats and that will benefit sage grouse and responsible development of oil and gas in the long run. API recommends that alternatives be developed which promote development and application of innovative approaches to management of oil and gas resources within Greater Sage-grouse habitats."

1.5) Additional API comments identify the NTT's specific narrowing of alternatives on the unleased and leased fluid mineral estate:

Unleased Federal Fluid Mineral Estate: a narrowing of alternatives Two narrow alternatives are presented, Alternative A: closing priority sage grouse habitat areas to fluid mineral leasing, and Alternative B: allowing leasing when there is checkerboard ownership and a mitigation plan developed that will bring long-term population increases. Alternative B does not acknowledge that it may not be possible to meet the condition that the sage grouse population in the proposed lease area be increased through mitigation above its current number (i.e. because it is already high, prior to leasing). A more reasonable set of alternatives would include a range of population level responses that take into account natural population fluctuations (e.g. an expected percentage of change over current number over the life of the field). Also, alternatives are needed that address not only population and habitat variables but also the socioeconomic impacts associated with reduced oil and natural gas production from the federal mineral estate. Leased Federal Fluid Mineral Estate: a narrowing of alternatives As we had noted earlier, the 3% threshold, a four-mile NSO around leks, and seasonal restrictions are unnecessarily restrictive in light of available scientific information. They do not address the underlying and mitigatable cause and effect mechanisms that can result in impacts to sage grouse.

1.6) If the BLM is to develop a truly objective and effective conservation strategy for sage grouse, the following alternatives need to be considered:

1.6.1) Conservation measures and BMPs must be organized around specific threats to sage grouse and address their cause and effect mechanism(s).

1.6.2) A broader range of conservation alternatives and a greater diversity of choices needs to be available for decision-makers to implement conservation alternatives suitable to local conditions.

1.6.3) All scientific information and data, not just selective use of information, needs to be made available and considered by the BLM in developing the science based conservation alternatives. The agency must employ a strong inference approach (hypothesis testing) rather than rely on subjective opinions and selective use of information.

8

1.7) The following API comment succinctly provides the solution to NTT Report's lack of objectivity and scientific inference:

A strong inference approach is needed to address threats to sage grouse In addressing threats identified by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), we propose that the BLM formulate multiple, alternative hypotheses regarding the specific cause and effect mechanisms of each threat. Then the agency should deduce testable (e.g. potentially falsifiable) predictions, and establish thresholds for testing these against the available scientific data. This strategy of strong inference has the greatest potential for rapid advancement of scientifically informed decision making (Platt 1964; Rehme et al. 2011). This is especially important to adaptive management as proposed by the BLM. API believes that if BLM elects not to employ this approach, the agency must disclose in the strategy and subsequent RMP amendments the scientific uncertainty that is present concerning specific cause and effect mechanisms affecting Greater Sage-grouse persistence.

Organize BMPs around threats A more potentially effective strategy for developing conservation measures (including BMPs) is to organize them in such a way that they address the specific cause and effect mechanisms that underlie each threat that is potentially deleterious to sage grouse. In this way, BMPs may be seen as a set of alternatives that can be used singly, or in combination, to address specific threats, as local circumstances require. An example of this approach is described in the text and Table 1 of Ramey, Brown, and Blackgoat (2011). Site specific conditions must be taken into account We hope that the BLM will acknowledge the importance of site-specific conditions in determining the most effective and efficient mitigation that can be applied. For example, topography influences sound transmission, while the technology being employed at a production site affects all aspects of noise being generated, including time on site, staffing needed, and amount of truck traffic. Therefore, taking into account local conditions can increase the options available for effectively mitigating oil and gas development. Tracking and testing effectiveness of BMPs There is currently no administrative mechanism at the BLM that allows the agency to track and test the effectiveness of previously required Best Management Practices (BMPs). Establishing such a database and making it public would provide a good starting point for the evaluation of any existing or newly proposed BMPs. Compare the effectiveness of current versus proposed BMPs Prior to new BMPs being imposed, it would be advisable for the BLM to describe why currently required BMPs are inadequate, as compared to new ones (such as those proposed in Appendix D). This approach would provide a more defensible scientific basis for any new BMPs.

9

2) The NTT report is biased. 2.1) The NTT report presents a biased view of oil and gas development: "that impacts are universally negative and typically severe." The NTT report selectively presented information, while ignoring information contrary to their preferred conservation measures, including information that was presented to the NTT during their August 2011 meeting. As a result, three key assertions in the NTT report are both biased and in error. Those assertions include:

The primary potential risks to sage grouse from energy and mineral development are: 1) Direct disturbance, displacement, or mortality of grouse. 2) Direct loss of habitat, or loss of effective habitat through fragmentation and reduced habitat patch size and quality. 3) Cumulative landscape-level impacts (Bergquist et al. 2007, Walston et al. 2009, Naugle et al. 2011). There is strong evidence from the literature to support that surface disturbing energy or mineral development within priority sage grouse habitats is not consistent with a goal to maintain or increase populations or distribution. None of the published science reports a positive influence of development on sage grouse populations or habitats. Breeding populations are severely reduced at well pad densities commonly permitted (Holloran 2005, Walker et al. 2007a). Magnitude of losses varies from one field to another, but findings suggest that impacts are universally negative and typically severe.

This statement is not supported by the data. Instead, it is based upon:

a) A subjective interpretation of results by the authors of the cited studies (i.e., where no hypothesis testing was used). b) The frequently repeated but erroneous assumption that a temporary decrease in lek counts immediately adjacent to active wells is equivalent to a population decline. (The alternative hypothesis, that displacement from affected leks is temporary or that birds, particularly juveniles, relocate elsewhere, was not considered.).

The NTT report cannot cite statistically valid population estimates from multiple populations that show declines specifically due to oil and gas development because no such data exist. 2.2) The NTT report does not present any credible description of the specific mechanisms that explain why sage grouse could be affected to the point that

10

population declines could occur. This is a key issue addressed in the scientific review published by Ramey, Brown, and Blackgoat (2011). In that paper, the authors articulate the specific cause and effect mechanisms that underlie each threat, as well as the experimental data required totest them, and the specific types of mitigation required to ameliorate them. The NTT report, in contrast, made unsupported blanket statements and regulatory prescriptions that did not address specific threats and their underlying mechanisms. 2.3) Contrary to assertions made in the NTT report, data and analyses from the State of Wyoming (available to the NTT), show that population trends across that state synchronously fluctuate, showing peaks in male lek attendance in 2000 and 2007. Additionally, the most heavily developed region, the Upper Green River Basin (Pinedale Planning Area) has consistently been above state-wide trends in male lek attendance (Wyoming Game and Fish 2012). Additionally, the earliest study cited in support of the blanket approach (Holloran 2005) did not acknowledge that the BLM had intentionally waived stipulations on the Pinedale Anticline in order to facilitate research on impacts without these stipulations. Therefore, the impacts reported by Holloran (2005) do not correspond to impacts under stipulations required at the time, nor account for current (and dramatically reduced) impacts under more recent and stringent stipulations. And finally, Holloran's (2005) population scenarios and predictions of population decline have simply failed to come true (see additional discussion of this issue in Section 6 below), yet the NTT report continue to rely on this falsified information. If conservation measures are to be science-based, all evidence must be taken into account, including contrary evidence. The NTT report has failed in this most basic requirement of science. 2.4) The NTT report recommendations relied on research from past periods dominated by intense drilling in heavily developed areas (e.g. Pinedale), and where older, denser development (e.g. Jonah field) and more invasive technologies were used, along with little mitigation or no restoration (see Ramey et al. 2011 for an extensive review). 2.5) While sage grouse have been found to avoid areas of intensive development, such avoidance is not uniform among locations, or among individual birds, especially when there is a lower density of development, or in older fields that have already been developed (Harju et al. 2010; Taylor et al. 2010; Ramey et al. 2011). The impact of the oil and gas operations on sage grouse is not as clear-cut, nor as negative, as the NTT report claims. 2.6) The NTT report did not cite either Taylor et al. (2010) or Ramey et al. (2011) even though both of these papers were made available to the BLM (for additional information, see comment 3.4 below). 2.8) The issue of independence and transparency was raised previously in public comment (by the American Petroleum Institute) but not subsequently addressed by the BLM. Below is an excerpt from March 23, 2012 comments by the American

11

Petroleum Institute to the BLM regarding "Notice of Intent, December 9, 2011, To Prepare Environmental Impact Statements and Supplemental Environmental Impact Statements To Incorporate Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures Into Land Use Plans and Land Management Plans."

Greater independence, diversity, and transparency in the scientific advice relied upon by BLM will benefit sage grouse conservation in the long run. BLM should take this opportunity to seek greater independence and breadth of opinion and expertise in the review and application of scientific information to support development of sage grouse management policy, conservation measures, adaptive management, and BMPs. By recognizing the more diverse scientific and technical expertise available, the BLM can increase the number of management options available for consideration, as well as increase the overall effectiveness of its National Sage Grouse Strategy. At present, a small number of sage grouse specialist/authors have had what appears to be a disproportionate influence on formulating federal policy on sage grouse, which has also limited the diversity of opinions and expertise available to decision makers. This includes the recent and highly Influential Greater Sage-Grouse: Ecology and Conservation of a Landscape Species and Its Habitats (Knick and Connelly 2011). This monograph figured prominently in the “warranted but precluded” Endangered Species Act (ESA) listing decision on sage grouse and in the recent NTT Report. Neither of these documents employ a hypothesis testing approach (or mention the term). The data used in several of the most influential monograph papers are not publicly available, which precludes an independent assessment and is contrary to the Information Quality Act, Department of Interior's information quality guidelines (requiring that reproducibility "shall generally require sufficient transparency about data and methods that an independent reanalysis could be undertaken by a qualified member of the public," (Department of Interior 2002)), as well as recent White House policy directives (Obama 2009; Holdren 2010, 2011). The review standards established by the National Academies address these issues and may be found at http://www.nationalacademies.org/coi/index.html. By implementing these standards, National Academy of Sciences has sought to diversify its review panels with independent experts from diverse disciplines and backgrounds in order to “conceive new ways of thinking about a problem” and “to provide a balance of perspectives.” Because the effects from future RMP amendments will potentially affect multiple use constituents and state economies, API strongly recommends that BLM adopt these review standards for future activities related to the development of a National Sage Grouse Strategy.

2.9) Comments by one of the most influential members of the NTT could be construed as having a less than objective viewpoint. NTT e-mails written by a highly influential member of the NTT and sage grouse program

12

leader for the USFWS, Dr. Pat Diebert, were obtained from a FOIA request by the State of Idaho. In several of these communications, Diebert referred to herself in as Gorilla Woman, an apparent self-comparison to the impassioned, gorilla advocate/researcher, the late Dian Fossey. In the e-mails (below), Diebert expressed the following opinions:

1) against regulatory assurances provided by instructional memoranda, 2) for greatly expanded buffers around priority habitat, 3) for greatly expanded buffers around leks, 4) for a requirement that off-site mitigation be required for existing leases (that would have been illegal if implemented), 5) for arbitrary addition of grazing restrictions, and 6) against non-lethal wild horse and burro management.

2.9.1) In the following passage (on page 1135), Diebert apparently did not consider Instructional Memoranda (IMs) to be enough of a regulatory mechanism for the conservation of sage grouse, without addressing the specifics of these or whether they meet the standards of PECE policy.

"Comment [p6]: I think this was placed here as a reminder that the IM already calls for this. But, it shows up again later. My only concern is again, that IMs are not enough for regulatory mechanisms. If this reference is for more than a reminder/placeholder, policy is necessary. [Deibert]"

2.9.2) The following proposed addition by Diebert (on page 1135) called for an additional buffer to surround designated priority habitat. This recommendation was made without reference to any data. This recommendation did not make it into the final NTT:

"Priority habitats must include a buffer along their outer perimeter (but within the designated priority habitats) to reduce or remove the impacts from development occurring outside priority areas. The conservation benefit of priority habitats, particularly small ones, could be negated if development outside, but adjacent to those areas results in negative impacts to sage-grouse within the priority habitats, even though the priority habitats are not directly impacted. [Deibert] Comment [UF&WS8]: This is added after discussions with folks regarding surface disturbance. It’s a key point that should not be lost (although it might be better worded!)."

2.9.3) In the following passage (page 1138), a recommendation was made for offsite mitigation (on existing leases) and that this recommendation was "science-based" when no data or supporting scientific literature were cited:

"Route construction within priority habitat areas will be limited to realignments of existing designated routes to enhance other resources only if that realignment maintains or enhances sage grouse habitat. Use existing roads, or realignments as described above, to access valid existing rights that are not yet developed. If valid existing rights cannot be accessed via existing roads, then any new road constructed must be built to the absolute minimum standard necessary, and the surface disturbance added to the total disturbance in the priority area. If that disturbance

13

exceeds 2.5 % for that area, then off-site mitigation is necessary (see discussion above). [Deibert] (subject to valid existing rights requiring access) [Deibert]– {science based}" [Note: the text strike outs were inserted by Diebert.]

2.9.4) Note that earlier on this same page, there was a suggested arbitrary cap on route density, based on so-called professional judgment, that is nothing more than subjective opinion: "Reduce route density to a maximum of 2 mi/mi2) in priority sage-grouse habitat areas. (citation/professional judgment)" 2.9.5) In the following passage (page 1142 of FOIA response), Diebert apparently attempted to expand the NTT report recommendation to include a 12-mile radius buffer around leks (or a total of 452 square miles surrounding each lek). This proposed change was made without any sound scientific basis. If implemented, a 12 mile radius buffer would encompass an area nearly 400 times larger than that current 0.6 mile buffer and 9 times the land surface area of the NTT's final proposed 4 mile buffer.

"Managing landscapes (12 mile radius around leks) of priority habitats for 70% sagebrush and 30% potential habitat approximates the amount of sagebrush habitat necessary for increased likelihood of habitat use, nest success, and population persistence (citations).Within priority sage-grouse habitat areas where current sage-grouse habitat is less than 70%, the conservation focus for habitat restoration should include an objective that achieves >70% of sage-grouse habitat in advanced structural stages and appropriate amounts of understory vegetation relative to site potential. (citation) The remaining 30% could include areas of juniper encroachment, non-sagebrush shrublands that are periodically used by sage-grouse, annual grasslands, degraded native plant communities, and non-native perennial grasslands that potentially can be rehabilitated or enhanced and is capable of supporting sagebrush or currently helps to maintain sage-grouse. [Deibert]"

2.9.6) In the following passage (from page 1143), Diebert added llamas and alpacas to the grazing species that need to be managed for sage grouse, even though there is no scientific research cited that suggests these species are an issue for sage grouse. It appears that this recommendations was based entirely on her and R. Sell's (BLM) personal opinions. Similarly, a third member of the team (D. Kemner) added goats to this list.

"Implement management actions (grazing decisions, AMP/Conservation Plan development, or other agreements) to modify grazing management to meet seasonal sage-grouse habitat requirements. Consider singly or in combination changes in: 1) Season or timing of use, 2) Numbers of livestock, 3) Distribution of livestock use, 4) Intensity of Use , and Type of Livestock (cattle, sheep, horses). Comment [p34]: Do we want to add llamas and alpacas here? We see a lot of that in WY. [Deibert] Comment [p35]: Good addition- keep. [RASell] Comment [p36]: Add goats [DKemner]"

Additionally, the NTT report exhibited poor scholarship in citing Briske et al. (2011) in support of these restrictions, as Briske et al. (2011) makes no mention of horses, llamas, alpacas and goats, at all. This is another example of how the NTT simply sprinkled

14

references into the text to support preferred conservation measures (i.e. predetermined conclusions.) 2.9.7) In the following e-mail excerpts (on page 1145), Diebert indicates what could be construed as a preference for lethal management of wild horses and burros ("here are my non-violent offerings" ) contrary to current and humane BLM management of these species under the Wild Horse and Burro Act. And, suggested language to exclude corrals, traps, helicopter landing pads from sage grouse priority habitats, all of which would otherwise aid in the management of wild horses and burros in ways that would be compatible with sage grouse:

"Do not permit staging areas for wild horse round-ups (i.e. corrals, traps, helicopter landing pads) in sagegrouse priority habitats. Where wild horses and burros are having detrimental effects on sage-grouse habitats implement appropriate range management projects to reduce these impacts (e.g. fencing, water developments). These projects should be placed outside sage-grouse priority habitats. If that is not possible, then the projects should not result in further damage to sage-grouse or their habitats. [Deibert] [Comment [p41]: I don’t know all the right BLM language, but here are my non-violent offerings.]"

2.10) Voluntary conservation efforts on private land were treated as inferior to federal land acquisition and management by the NTT report. 2.8.1) The NTT report assumes that voluntary conservation measures on private land are inferior to federal land management, and requires a regulatory "command and control" approach, including the transfer of private lands into the federal domain (land tenure adjustment). Similarly, the NTT assumes that local and State sage grouse plans are similarly inferior as there is no mention of these in the NTT report and reference to appropriate regional plans and involvement of stakeholder groups was deleted from the draft cover letter on Instructional Memoranda as follows:

"All RMPs containing Greater Sage-grouse occupied habitat must consider these measures, including when the plan is being revised, amended, or supplemented. following regionally-appropriate, science based conservation measures shall be incorporated into BLM land use planning efforts, utilizing coordinated and cooperative stakeholder engagement."

[Note: this excerpt is from page 1,499-1,500 of the attached file, SG NTT Emails Fall 2011 Attachments_Redacted.pdf.] The importance of voluntary conservation on private land and its contribution to species recovery has been recognized by numerous scholars of the Endangered Species Act, including the current Deputy Assistant Secretary of Fish and Wildlife and Parks, Michael Bean, who has authored multiple papers on the subject (i.e., Bean 1998, 1999, 2002). 2.10.2) The NTT report's bias against conservation on private land is contrary to the numerous published papers by ESA scholars for voluntary conservation incentives on private land, rather than typical federal regulatory “command and control” which has failed in large measure to recover species (Adler 2008, 2011; Baur et al. 2009; Bean 1998, 1999, 2002; Keystone Center 2006; Paulich 2010; and most recently, Ruhl 2012). In addition, there is a broad range of first and second generation conservation measures

15

available to private landowners and cooperating agencies, beyond conservation easements. These are detailed below. None of these were discussed as viable alternatives to federal acquisition of private land or encumbering it in perpetuity with conservation easements (as recommended in the NTT Report). The list below illustrates the broad range of incentive-based conservation alternatives available for private land but not considered in the NTT report:

First Generation Incentive Mechanisms 1. Habitat Conservation Plans 2. Safe Harbor Agreements 3. Candidate Conservation Agreements 4. Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances 5. Fee simple acquisition Second Generation Incentive Mechanisms Conservation Easements: 6. Conservation Easements (in perpetuity, tax benefit) 7. Term conservation Easements (i.e., 20 to 30 years, no tax benefit)) 8. Post development and restoration conservation easements (currently used

on some reclaimed mine sites in Colorado) Market-Based Approaches: 9. Subsidies/tax credits in exchange for specific conservation efforts 10. Conservation Banking 11. Tradable development rights 12. Conservation leasing Information-Based Programs: 13. Technical assistance for private land conservation, mitigation, and

habitat enhancement 14. Government-private quasi-partnerships and collaborative planning

efforts Performance-Based Programs: 15. Performance bonds (promotes innovation and is suited to local

conditions rather than relying on one-size-fits-all restrictions)

2.11) This issue above was raised previously in public comment (by the American Petroleum Institute) but not subsequently addressed by the BLM. Provided below is an excerpt from March 23, 2012 comments by the American Petroleum Institute to the BLM regarding "Notice of Intent, December 9, 2011, To Prepare Environmental Impact Statements and Supplemental Environmental Impact Statements To Incorporate Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures Into Land Use Plans and Land Management Plans."

Land tenure adjustment: is non-federal land management inferior? The proposed conservation measures assume that non-federal land management

16

(private or state lands) is inferior to federal land management. This view is contrary to what has been espoused as the “new paradigm” of cooperative conservation (and is in fact reflected in a recent FWS solicitation for public comments on the subject of incentives for voluntary conservation actions under the ESA, at Federal Register Volume 77, Number 51 (Thursday, March 15, 2012) at Pages 15352-15354. The transfer of private lands to federal ownership also reduces the property tax base, thus impacting local communities.

This is a key issue to many stakeholders because the NTT appears to be insensitive to private landowners who may not wish to encumber their land, but also the needs of local governments that seek to maintain their property tax base (rather than have private lands acquired by the federal government). 3) Errors of omission 3.1) The NTT Report did not acknowledge or make use of best available scientific and commercial data in its report, specifically that which shows the substantially lessened impacts of oil and gas operations on sage grouse as a result of new technologies and BMPs that address specific threats. 3.1.1) The NTT Report omitted mention of information provided to them during their meetings. Most importantly, in Appendix 5 of the NTT meeting notes of August 2011, a powerpoint presentation titled: Managing Oil and Natural Gas was presented. This presentation was included in the meeting notes that were released under FOIA. The presentation documented the BLM's process for permitting drilling, as well as: 1) documentation of interim reclamation, 2) final reclamation and restoration, 3) fluid mineral conservation measures in priority sage grouse habitat, 4) best management practices (BMPs) to minimize wildlife habitat fragmentation and loss on local and landscape levels, 5) reductions in pad size to minimize disturbance, 6) use of oak and plastic mats, 7) interim reclamation of well pads, 8) interim reclamation of roads, 9) development planning to reduce impacts, 10) use of directional drilling and multiple wells drilled from one pad, 11) one point of access for each well pad, 12) burial of water, gas, and electrical lines, 13) the use of liquids gathering systems to reduce truck traffic, noise, disruption of wildlife and the fragmentation of their habitat. 3.1.2) The NTT Report also failed to mention readily available technical information on modern oil and gas well technology and wildlife mitigation best management practices, including that which had been compiled by the BLM and released on its website:

http://www.blm.gov/bmp/technical info_pdfs_ppt_text/WO1_WildlifeMgmt_BMPs_Slideshow.pdf http://www.blm.gov/bmp/Technical_Information.htm

3.1.3) This issue was raised previously but not addressed by the BLM. Provided below is

17

an excerpt from March 23, 2012 comments by the American Petroleum Institute to the BLM regarding "Notice of Intent, December 9, 2011, To Prepare Environmental Impact Statements and Supplemental Environmental Impact Statements To Incorporate Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures Into Land Use Plans and Land Management Plans:"

A National Sage Grouse Strategy should consider innovations in oil and gas operations that have reduced the impacts of these operations on habitats and wildlife. The NTT appears to be unfamiliar with technologies developed and currently in use by the oil and gas industry that are designed to increase efficiency and safety of operations, while simultaneously reducing environmental impacts. A contributing factor to this lack of familiarity is the fact that the majority of studies on oil and gas industry impacts are based upon decades old technology in intensively developed areas. As noted in a recent paper on the subject,

“Current stipulations and regulations for oil and gas development in sage grouse habitat are largely based on studies from the Jonah Gas Field and Pinedale anticline. These and other intensive developments were permitted decades ago, using older, more invasive technologies and methods. The density of wells is high, largely due to the previous practice of drilling many vertical wells to tap the resource (before the use of directional and horizontal drilling of multiple wells from a single surface location became widespread), and prior to concerns over sage grouse conservation. This type of intensive development set people’s perceptions of what future oil and gas development would look like and what its impact to sage grouse would be. These fields, and their effect on sage grouse, are not necessarily representative of sage grouse responses to less intensive energy development. Recent environmental regulations and newer technologies have lessened the threats to sage grouse.” (Ramey, Brown & Blackgoat 2011).

The strategy and subsequent revisions or amendments to RMPs should incorporate information and knowledge not only from experts in wildlife biology but also engineers and other industry specialists who develop and implement the types of technological innovations that improve the efficiency of oil and gas operations and reduce their environmental impacts.

3.4) The NTT Report did not cite or otherwise make use of a key scientific review paper by Ramey, Brown, and Blackgoat (2011) "Oil and gas development and greater sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus): a review of threats and mitigation measures", even though copies of this paper were personally handed to Director Abbey and Assistant Director Poole by the lead author on September 16, 2011. The paper, was published in 2011 in The Journal of Energy and Development (Volume 35, Number 1, Pages 49-78). 3.5) The NTT Report virtually ignored one of the primary threats to sage grouse: predation. Research has shown that the predators on sage grouse are generalists, meaning that they

18

prey on other species as well, and in some cases their populations are subsidized by human sources of food. Sage grouse eggs are preyed upon by red foxes, coyotes, badgers, ravens, and black-billed magpies. Common predators of juvenile and adult sage grouse include golden eagles, prairie falcons (as well as other raptors), coyotes, badgers, and bobcats. Younger birds (especially broods) are preyed upon by ravens, red fox, northern harrier, ground squirrels, snakes, and weasels. However, of these predators, ravens are the most abundant and have the greatest impact. The NTT Report included an error of omission by ignoring a substantial body of literature about raven predation on sage grouse (and other species), its deleterious effect on survivorship and recruitment, and the integrated management strategies that can reduce losses of sage grouse. In fact, the word "raven" was mentioned only once in the NTT report (on page 63 and only in regards to suggesting that there be "no tanks at well locations within priority areas (minimizes perching and nesting opportunities for ravens and raptors).") Moreover, there were only two references to predation of any sort on sage grouse. In contrast, the body of literature ignored by the NTT Report includes but is not limited to: Boarman 1993; Boarman 2003. Boarman et al. 1995; Boarman and Heinrich. 1999; Boarman et al. 2006; Bedrosian and Craighead 2010; Bui 2009; Cagney et al. 2010; Christiansen 2011; Coates 2007; Coates and Delehanty. 2004; Coates et al. 2008; Coates and Delehanty 2010; Conover et al. 2010; Cote and Sutherland 1997; DeLong 1995; Gregg et al. 1994; Heinrich et al. 1994; Moynahan et al. 2007; Preston 2005: Ramey, Brown, and Blackgoat 2011; Schroeder and Baydack. 2001; Snyder et al. 1986, Sovada et al. 1995; Watters et al. 2002; and Webb et al. 2009. The NTT Report avoided mention of management of predators on sage grouse in areas of greatest risk of predation, and chose instead to treat this threat as a byproduct of human activities that can be regulated (i.e. land health assessments and emphasizing vegetation cover as a means to measure and mitigate livestock use; or increasing landscape level habitat connectivity). Such passive control will do nothing to reduce the immediate and long-term threat of high raven populations. In the same way, the NTT Report's recommended conservation measures fail to address the fundamental fact that predators, such as ravens (a major predator on sage grouse eggs and broods), are heavily subsidized by humans, to the point where they exceed historic levels in some areas by as much as 1,500%. In such cases, management of some predator populations, especially where predators like ravens are abundant and sage grouse mortality is high, is needed to ensure that sage grouse populations are not depressed by a known and easily mitigated source of mortality.

This point is underscored by the fact that USDA-APHIS Animal Damage Control began controlling ravens in landfills across southern Wyoming in 2012 at the request of the Wyoming Game and Fish Dept., using the avicide DRC-1339 (Wyoming Game and Fish 2012, USDA/APHIS/Wildlife Services 2013). Large raven populations cause a variety of health and safety problems at landfills and industrial sites, and the food subsidy that ravens gain from these also results in a higher than natural population density of this species.

Ravens are clever and highly adaptable in their behavior, which allows them to opportunistically exploit food resources associated with humans (e.g. landfills, road kill,

19

unattended food, and in some cases, livestock operations). As a result of these and other unintended food subsidies, raven populations have greatly expanded in the West. This, in turn, has impacted many species, including desert tortoises, marbled murrelets, least terns, California condors, and sage grouse. While reducing subsidies available to predators is one approach, it is unlikely to be effective unless coupled with active / lethal control of raven populations (Coates and Delehanty 2010). Case in point, Coates and Delehanty (2004), reported a 73.6% nest success in sage grouse following raven control compared to a mean expected nest success of 42.6% (based on 14 studies from 1941-1997).

The BLM cannot rely on the selective use of information, nor should it ignore a major body of literature and experimental data on predator management.

3.6) Recommendations for management of priority habitat were made without any quantification of priority habitat or consistent definition of what constitutes an active lek. Under Objectives, the NTT Report fails to provide any quantifiable, biological basis for areas that are considered to be priority sage grouse habitats that they propose to protect from anthropogenic disturbance with recommended conservation measures. For at least one of the components of priority sage grouse habitats, migration and connectivity corridors, the NTT Report admits on page 52 that they cannot be defined: “Almost no information is available regarding the distribution and characteristics of migration corridors for sage-grouse (Connelly et al. 2004).” The significance of this data deficiency is clear and has far reaching implications: 3.6.1) First, without a precise definition or clear cut criteria, there is potential for large areas that have a zero or near zero probability of sage grouse use to be defined as essential to migration and connectivity, even though there may be no empirical data demonstrating their regular use by sage grouse or their importance to population viability. This has the secondary effect of diverting resources away from higher priority habitat and threats of greater importance, while imposing unnecessary and scientifically indefensible regulatory burdens, as detailed in our analysis of the proposed 4-mile buffers and 3% NSOs. 3.6.2) Second, data show that sage grouse behavior can be affected by certain types of anthropogenic disturbance more than others, which can result in localized avoidance, but the effect of any of these disturbances or development on migration rates is unknown. However, data from Lyon (2000), Bush (2009), Tack et al. (2011), and more recent papers, all reveal that sage grouse traverse (fly) over or around roads, agricultural areas, and oil and gas development, and distances up to 300 km from their natal lek. 3.6.3) Third, experience with other ESA listings has shown that imprecisely defined characterizations of essential habitat, such as “priority habitat,” have a strong likelihood of being re-designated as “critical habitat.” This means that errors and flawed scientific analyses become institutionalized in regulatory decisions, regardless of their lack of accuracy. And once such designations are institutionalized, they are difficult to revise, even when new data become available. Inevitably this results in litigation to correct the

20

errors, such as the case of Agua Caliente vs. Scarlett (bighorn sheep critical habitat was reduced by nearly half because it was not scientifically or legally defensible). 4) The NTT Report's recommendations are based upon outdated information 4.1) In addition to the outdated information and perceptions regarding the oil and gas industry (identified above), and errors of omission (identified above), the NTT Report relied on outdated information and perceptions regarding the dispersal ability of sage grouse, which have been grossly underestimated. Recent research, using genetics and GPS tracking devices, has revealed that sage grouse disperse, and in some cases migrate, over much greater distances than previously thought. The implications of this increased dispersal ability for management of the birds are that: 1) there is greater genetic and demographic connectivity of populations than previously thought, and 2) that sage grouse disperse over or around roads, rivers, agricultural fields, and oil and gas development. Collectively, this new information changes how populations are defined, namely that models previously relied upon (i.e. Knick and Hanser 2011), which underestimate this dispersal ability, are in error. The following excerpt illustrates the emphasis on connectivity in the NTT Report, and reliance on Knick and Hanser (2011):

- Conserve, enhance or restore sage-‐grouse habitat and connectivity (Knick and Hanser 2011) to promote movement and genetic diversity, with emphasis on those habitats occupied by sage grouse.

- Assess general sage-‐grouse habitats to determine potential to replace lost priority habitat caused by perturbations and/or disturbances and provide connectivity (Knick and Hanser 2011) between priority areas.

- These habitats should be given some priority over other general sage-‐grouse habitats that provide marginal or substandard sage-‐grouse habitat.

- Restore historical habitat functionality to support sage-‐grouse populations guided by objectives to maintain or enhance connectivity. Total area and locations will be determined at the Land Use Plan level.

- Enhance general sage-‐grouse habitat such that population declines in one area are replaced elsewhere within the habitat.

Despite their obvious importance, the contrary scientific studies were not cited in the NTT Report.

Provided below is a succinct summary of this issue and a necessary correction that was previously identified by the American Petroleum Institute in their March 23, 2012 comments to the BLM:

Sage grouse dispersal occurs over greater distances than previously thought, and this has implications for the NTT’s proposed conservation measures We acknowledge that managing habitats to retain connectivity is an important long-term goal of conservation efforts for many species, including sage grouse. However, it is clear that the dispersal abilities have been consistently underestimated in the

21

development of habitat use and population persistence models (i.e. Garton et al. 2009, 2011; Knick and Hanser 2009, 2011; Makela and Major 2011). Therefore, it is important for the BLM and the NTT to acknowledge recent genetic data and results by Bush (2009) and Bush et al. (2011). These studies utilized assignment tests to identify the source population of sage grouse that had dispersed, and isolation-by-distance measures to quantify the overall degree of genetic linkage among populations. In addition, ongoing studies (including Tack et al. 2011) have employed satellite global positioning system transmitters that have revealed dispersal of sage grouse over much greater distances and more frequently than previously thought. These studies are highly significant to the BLM’s conservation efforts for the following reasons: 1) Male and female sage grouse disperse and migrate over greater distances (many over 100km and some up to 300 km) than documented by traditional radio tracking studies, thus requiring a recalibration of assumptions used in habitat connectivity models (Lyon 2000; Bush 2009; Tack et al. 2011; Thompson 2012). 2) Sage grouse are capable of dispersing long distances and are able to do so over and around areas of fragmented habitat and human development. This means that presumed movement corridors do not necessarily require the same high-level of protection as Priority Habitat and could be classified as General Habitat or as a third, less restrictive category that takes into account this new information. 3) A higher level of long distance dispersal and a greater genetic linkage among sage grouse populations, even across fragmented landscapes and among peripheral populations, indicates that extinction predictions that figured prominently in the ESA listing decision (Garton el al. 2009, 2011) were overestimated. This is because long distance dispersal and gene flow (even when as low as one successful breeding migrant per generation among populations) will tend to maintain effective population sizes over time, as well as increase the potential for re-colonization should a population become locally extirpated. 4) The methodologies utilized by Bush (2009), Bush et al. (2011), Tack et al. (2011) could be used to identify the natural features and/or human development that result in absolute barriers to dispersal. In turn this will inform the type and extent of development that could proceed in habitat deemed important for connectivity.

More recent studies have revealed even greater connectivity of populations (i.e. Thompson 2012). 5) One size fits all neither benefits sage grouse nor local communities. 5.1) Conservation measures are tailored to local circumstances. The NTT Report recommended numerous one-size-fits-all regulatory prescriptions (i.e. four mile buffers, 3% percent anthropogenic disturbance thresholds, and BMPs), and made no allowance

22

for recommendations to include county-level sage grouse conservation plans that tailor conservation measures to local conditions, including unique habitat and threats, and socio-economic conditions. Instead, the only "local" plans mentioned in the NTT Report are State-level plans. The strategy of excluding local sage grouse plans and locally-appropriate conservation measures from the implementation of the NTT Report can also be found in Secretary Salazar's response to Chairman Hastings: "The BLM believes that no single set of conservation objectives will apply across the entire multi-state range, or even within the area of a single state. Greater Sage-Grouse conservation efforts need to be defined at a local scale and be supported by the best available science." It is also inconsistent with DOI's response to question #12, " As noted in the NTT Report, in some cases conservation measures identified in the Report will need to be modified based on local ecological conditions or new information." The BLM violates its multiple use mandate if it follows the NTT' Report's one size fits all recommendations, focusing entirely on sage grouse and excluding local communities (as equals at the table) in developing locally appropriate conservation measures. 5.2) As proposed, the Best Management Practices (BMPs) listed in Appendix D are unnecessarily restrictive, are not supported by scientific information, and do not address specific cause and effect mechanisms that are known to be deleterious to sage grouse. Additionally, no comparative analysis is provided that demonstrates the inadequacy of currently required BMPs under local conditions with those proposed in Appendix D. There is currently no administrative mechanism at the BLM that allows the agency to track and test the effectiveness of previously required BMPs. Establishing such a database and making it public would provide a good starting point for the evaluation of any newly proposed BMPs. It is arbitrary and capricious for the BLM to require untested BMPs while imposing new ones and additional (untested) conservation measures. As noted previously, the BLM must organize BMPs around threats, and local, site-specific conditions must be taken into account to develop scientifically defensible conservation measures. 5.3) The NTT Report puts sage grouse above people and other resources in proposing to defend sage brush stands against fire. For example, "On critical fire weather days, pre‐position additional fire suppression resources to optimize a quick and efficient response in sage‐grouse habitat areas." If implemented, this NTT Report recommendation would represent a violation of BLM's multiple use mandate and a violation of the public trust in that agency to protect human life and property as its first priority. This issue of putting fire suppression priority on sage grouse, above human life and property, was previously identified by the American Petroleum Institute in their March 23, 2012 comments to the BLM:

23

"Fuels Management: prioritization It could be construed that the NTT Report may be putting the goal of sage grouse habitat preservation above the creation of fuel breaks that serve as defensible space to protect human safety and infrastructure. Before the BLM adopts this strategy they may wish to consider the social, economic, and environmental implications of a similar requirement that led to the loss of dozens of homes in Stephen’s kangaroo habitat during a wildfire in 1993. Fuel breaks can also prevent the spread of fire from developed areas to sage grouse habitat, thus fuel breaks can serve as important conservation measures."

The advocacy of single-minded sage grouse experts in development of the NTT, under the banner of sage grouse conservation, not only violates the BLM's multiple use mandate, but could result in the institutionalization of bias against human safety and property in favor of sage grouse. The exclusion of local plans and local decision makers in the process further underscores this issue while undermining the BLM's mission: "To sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of America’s public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations." 6) Disturbance thresholds recommended by the NTT Report are arbitrary and do not have a sound scientific basis. If conservation measures are to be science-based, all scientifically defensible alternatives must be weighed, all evidence must be taken into account (including contrary evidence), and the studies that recommendations are based upon must be reproducible. As demonstrated below, the NTT Report resoundingly failed to do this in its recommendations regarding: - 3% surface disturbance thresholds - 4-mile NSO (no surface occupancy) buffers, - noise limited to less than 10 decibels above 20-24 dBA, and - 70% sagebrush cover in priority habitat. 6.1) The scientific "support" for 4-mile NSO buffers and 3% surface disturbance thresholds is based on the erroneous assumption that a temporary disturbance of sage grouse from a local area under development equates to a population decline. 6.1.1) It is incorrect for the NTT Report to claim that the cited studies "present the most complete picture of cumulative impacts and provide a mechanistic explanation for declines in populations" when these studies never documented a population decline. The NTT report states, "Long-‐term studies in the Pinedale Anticline Project Area in southwest Wyoming present the most complete picture of cumulative impacts and provide a mechanistic explanation for declines in populations. Early in development, nest sites were farther from disturbed than undisturbed leks, the rate of nest initiation from disturbed leks was 24 percent lower than for birds breeding on undisturbed leks, and 26 percent fewer females from disturbed leks initiated nests in consecutive years (Lyon and Anderson 2003)."

24

The NTT Report omitted the fact that Lyon and Anderson's (2003) data were inadequate for: 1) achieving statistical significance in comparisons of nest initiation and nest success in disturbed versus undisturbed areas, and 2) demonstrating a population decline. Instead, the presumed biological significance of their statistically insignificant results were based upon belief, as the following excerpt from Lyon and Anderson (2003) shows: "Finally, even though nest initiation between disturbed and undisturbed hens was not statistically significant, we believe lower initiation rates for disturbed hens were biologically significant and could result in lower overall sage grouse productivity." Lyon and Anderson (2003) also stated that, "Hens captured on disturbed leks demonstrated greater movements from capture lek to nest than hens from undisturbed leks. Hens from disturbed leks nested approximately twice as far from capture leks as did hens from undisturbed leks. Our random nest vegetation analysis indicated no significant differences in nesting habitat between disturbed and undisturbed areas, suggesting that nest habitat was not influencing sage grouse hen movements." This is expected, as animals that are disturbed by human activity will sometimes move away from it. However, it does not mean that the result will be a population decline. The NTT Report failed to mention that there has been no deleterious, population-level effect reported by these authors (i.e., decline in male lek attendance or overall abundance across the Pinedale Project Planning Area where most of the cited research occurred). The NTT Report also fails to mention that Holloran (2005), using much larger sample sizes (n=213 vs. n=77), reported nest success that was virtually identical and not significantly different between disturbed and undisturbed areas, compared to Lyon and Anderson's (2003) results. The IQA requires that information used by agencies be based upon verifiable and repeatable data, and not based upon opinion. Moreover, the NTT Report cannot selectively use results from Lyon and Anderson (2003) to support its recommendations, while failing to state that they were statistically insignificant and contrary to more recent and comprehensive data. 6.1.2) The NTT Report states, "As development progressed, adult females remained in traditional nesting areas regardless of increasing levels of development, but yearlings that had not yet imprinted on habitats inside the gas field avoided development by nesting farther from roads (Holloran 2005). The most recent study confirmed that yearling females avoided infrastructure when selecting nest sites, and yearling males avoided leks inside of development and were displaced to the periphery of the gas field (Holloran et al. 2010). Recruitment of males to leks also declined as distance within the external limit of development increased, indicating a high likelihood of lek loss near the center of developed oil and gas fields (Kaiser 2006). The most important finding from studies in Pinedale was that sage-‐grouse declines are explained in part by lower annual survival of female sage-‐grouse and that the impact on survival resulted in a population-‐level decline (Holloran 2005)."

25

The NTT Report, however, fails to mention several key facts about the Holloran (2005) study that are contrary to this statement. As an initial matter, Holloran (2005) was an unpublished dissertation that did not employ any hypothesis testing. Instead, Holloran (2005) used subjective interpretations of his results, or the equivalent of creating "just so stories" to explain results in light of a particular viewpoint. That is not science, it is subjective opinion. Additionally, the following data quality issues are identified in the study by Holloran (2005) that are relevant to the BLM's continued reliance on it as a basis for decision making: 6.1.3) Holloran (2005) only speculated on potential causal mechanisms of population decline, as his data and study design were focused only on localized effects. Additionally, Holloran admitted that, "Identifying causes of population declines has remained elusive." And the "displacement theory" favored by Holloran (2005) does not provide any test of the hypothesis that local, temporary displacement of yearling sage grouse from areas under intensive development has led to population-level declines. 6.1.4) Holloran (2005) does not provide any data that population declines have occurred, or that density-dependent effects have occurred in nearby areas, only that the results suggest that these might occur or have the potential to occur. He wrote, "The results from this study suggest that dispersal from developed areas could be contributing to population declines. Although the proportion of potentially displaced adult and yearling males and yearling females breeding and nesting in areas removed from gas field infrastructure is unknown, offsite populations could be artificially enhanced by gas development. Because of potential density-dependent influences on breeding and nesting success probabilities (LaMontagne et al. 2002, Holloran and Anderson 2005), maintenance of these enhanced populations could require increasing the carrying capacity of offsite habitats." Holloran (2005) also wrote that, "Adult male displacement and low juvenile male recruitment appear to contribute to declines in the number of breeding males on impacted leks. Additionally, avoidance of gas field development by predators could be responsible for decreased male survival probabilities on leks situated near the edges of developing fields (i.e., lightly impacted leks). Although site-tenacious adult females did not engage in breeding dispersal in response to increased levels of gas development, subsequent generations avoided gas fields, as suggested by the temporal shift in nesting habitat selection and differences in habitat selection by yearling and adult females. This suggests that the nesting population response is delayed avoidance of natural gas development. The results suggest that male and female greater sage-grouse displacement from developing natural gas fields contributes to breeding population declines." As one can readily see, this "strong science" relied upon by the NTT Report depends upon speculation, hypothetical worst-case scenarios coming true, and creating just-so-stories to explain results. It does not rely on hypothesis testing.

26

6.1.5) The NTT Report makes no mention of the fact that Holloran (2005, page 82, Table 2) reported that the probability of survival was predicted to be higher (61.5 +6.4%) in disturbed areas than in less impacted areas (29.6 +18.1%) or control areas (48.5 +14.4%). This result is contrary to Holloran's (2005) own assertions regarding supposed population impacts. 6.1.6) The NTT Report makes no mention of the fact that Holloran's (2005) predicted population declines (-8.7 to -24-4% annually) have simply failed to come true. Recent analysis of male lek-attendance trends by the State of Wyoming has instead found that the sage grouse population has been increasing since 1990, a clear refutation of Holloran's predictions of population decline. It is the litmus test of science that when such predictions fail to come true, the hypotheses/theories they are based upon are simply wrong (Platt 1964). The BLM cannot rely on studies cited that have been so clearly falsified. 6.1.7) The purported impacts reported by Holloran (2005) were not based on full disclosure of the facts. Holloran (2005) did not acknowledge that the BLM had intentionally waived required mitigation stipulations on the Pinedale Anticline in order to facilitate his research on impacts to sage grouse without stipulations. It is a serious error of omission for the NTT Report to uncritically cite Holloran's (2005) conclusion that stipulations on the Pinedale Anticline were ineffective, when the stipulations were not actually in place. The BLM cannot rely on information that contains such errors of omission. 6.1.8) The NTT Report omits any mention of the fact that more recent and stringent stipulations are found in the Pinedale Planning Area, along with:

1) more extensive mitigation and restoration efforts in the Pinedale Planning Area (see http://www.wy.blm.gov/jio-papo/index.htm for a list of mitigation projects and data on surface disturbance and reclamation efforts), 2) advances in technology and efficiency documented in Ramey et al. (2011) and the BLM presentations to the NTT, "Managing Oil and Gas" and "Best Management Practices" (available in Appendix 5, pp 48-55 of the August 29 to September 2, 2011 meeting summary) have been implemented since Holloran's (2005) study was conducted (from 1997 to 2003).

All of the information above was available to the NTT, including copies of Ramey et al. (2011). It is a violation of the IQA for the BLM to base recommendations of the NTT Report upon information containing such errors of omission. 6.1.9) NTT failed to mention that Holloran (2005) did not provide any data that had shown a deleterious, population-level effect across the Pinedale Planning Area (i.e., Upper Green River Basin portion of the Wyoming basin population); nor any data showing consistently lower level of fitness for birds that nested father from roads. 6.2) The 3% anthropogenic disturbance threshold is based upon biased opinion and

27

selective citation of information rather than data. Provided below is an excerpt from March 23, 2012 comments by the American Petroleum Institute to the BLM regarding "Notice of Intent, December 9, 2011, To Prepare Environmental Impact Statements and Supplemental Environmental Impact Statements To Incorporate Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures Into Land Use Plans and Land Management Plans."

“Professional judgment” and the 3% anthropogenic disturbance threshold The “professional judgment” calling for a 3% anthropogenic disturbance threshold in priority habitats does not address specific threats, nor take into account the type of disturbance, local conditions, or mitigations that are to be used. This professional judgment is not the result of an independent quantitative assessment but is the opinion of a small number of collaborators who share a similar point of view. Additionally, the earliest study cited in support of the 3% anthropogenic disturbance threshold (Holloran 2005), did not acknowledge that the BLM had intentionally waived stipulations on the Pinedale Anticline in order to facilitate research on impacts without these stipulations. Therefore, the impacts reported by Holloran (2005) do not correspond to impacts under stipulations required at the time, nor account for current impacts under more recent stipulations and BMPs. And finally, none of the authors cited in support of this professional judgment had removed the artifact of a natural cyclical population fluctuation that repeatedly occurs over a broad area during the course of this and other studies. If conservation measures adopted by the BLM are to be science-based, all evidence must be taken into account, including contrary evidence. The cited studies (Johnson et al. 2011, and Naugle et al. 2011a,b) are not as definitive as claimed with regards to susceptibility of sage grouse to either discrete or diffuse disturbance. First, Johnson et al. (2011) utilized extremely weak statistical inference and there are simply not enough years of data to reliably support inferences with single variables, much less multiple variables. And, second, Naugle et al. (2011b) presented a partial review of the scientific literature on energy development and sage grouse. Naugle was an author on four of the seven reports and papers used in the review, and the majority of the papers focused on impacts to sage grouse in intensively developed areas.

Also, Walker et al. (2007) advocated for a 3% disturbance cap based upon opinion rather than data, "...we believe the conservation strategy most likely to meet the objective of maintaining or increasing sage-‐grouse distribution and abundance is to exclude energy development and other large scale disturbances from priority habitats, and where valid existing rights exist, minimize those impacts by keeping disturbances to 1 per section with direct surface disturbance impacts held to 3% of the area or less." However, Walker et al. (2007) did not test any percent disturbance caps. Instead they modeled sage grouse response in lek attendance in terms of distance(s) from potential sources of disturbance. Therefore, Walker et al.'s (2007) support for a 3% disturbance cap, represents nothing more than the opinions of the authors that were stated in the conclusions of the paper.

28

The BLM cannot rely on the biased opinions and selective presentation of information to support a recommendation that is unsupported by data. 6.3) The one well per section requirement lacks a sound scientific basis. 6.3.1) NTT Report failed to mention that Holloran (2005) made very specific recommendations regarding one well per section that were not based upon his testing of that threshold in his analysis. Holloran (2005) wrote, "Maintaining well densities of ≤1 well per 283 ha (approximately 1 well per section) within 2 mi of a lek could reduce the negative consequences of gas field development." However, Holloran (2005) did not test impacts at this density versus other well densities. Instead, he reported on leks affected by different numbers of impacts in each of four quadrants in the cardinal directions, and predictions based upon correlations at a scale of 3 km. Data, significance tests, and scatterplots of those correlative analyses were not reported by Holloran (2005), making the scientific rationale for his one-well-per-section not reproducible. The BLM cannot rely on unsupported opinion and irreproducible analyses as the basis for recommendations made in the NTT Report. 6.3.2) No mention is made in the NTT Report of the fact that five years after the original Holloran study was released (Holloran 2005), Holloran et al. (2010) did not document any population loss, only temporary displacement of sage grouse. Holloran et al. (2010) wrote the following about their results, "Leks that recruited more than the expected number of males were significantly farther from drilling rigs, producing well pads, and main haul roads compared to leks that recruited fewer males than expected (Table 1). Additionally, leks that recruited more males than expected were significantly farther from main haul roads than leks that recruited the same number of males as expected." In other words, only leks near the drilling rigs were affected and males from those leks tended to move to leks farther from active development. These missing males did not die off and the population did not crash, no negative demographic effect on the population was found. The BLM cannot rely on studies that purport to document a negative effect (i.e. Holloran 2005), yet consistently fail to do produce data that show such a negative effect. 6.3.3) The NTT Report continued with this biased summary of the literature, "High site fidelity but low survival of adult sage-‐grouse combined with lek avoidance by younger birds (Holloran et al. 2010) resulted in a time lag of 3–4 years between the onset of development activities and lek loss (Holloran 2005). The time lag observed by Holloran (2005) in the Anticline matched that for leks that became inactive 3–4 years after natural gas development in the Powder River Basin (Walker et al. 2007a). Analysis of seven oil and gas fields across Wyoming showed time lags of 2–10 years between activities associated with energy development and its measurable effects on sage-‐grouse populations (Harju et al. 2010)." And that "Long-‐term studies in the Pinedale Anticline Project Area in southwest Wyoming present the most complete picture of cumulative impacts and provide a mechanistic explanation for declines in populations." However, there has been no decline in the sage grouse population in the Pinedale

29

Planning Area (Upper Green River Basin). Instead, data and analyses performed by the Wyoming Department of Game and Fish reveal that between 1990 and 2012 there has been a consistent increase in sage grouse (measured in male lek attendance and male density per square mile; Wyoming Game and Fish 2012). The information relied upon by the NTT Report is simply wrong. 6.4) The 4-mile NSO does not have a sound scientific basis. 6.4.1) The NTT Report portrays the cited studies as documenting the negative effects of oil and gas development with a great deal of scientific certainty, "Impacts as measured by the number of males attending leks are most severe near the lek, remain discernible out to >4 miles (Holloran 2005, Walker et al. 2007, Tack 2009, Johnson et al. 2011), and often result in lek extirpations (Holloran 2005, Walker et al. 2007). Negative effects of well surface occupancy were apparent out to 3.1 miles, the largest radius investigated, in 2 of 7 study areas in Wyoming (Harju et al. 2010). Curvilinear relationships show that lek counts decreased with distance to the nearest active drilling rig, producing well, or main haul road and that development within 3 to 4 miles of leks decrease counts of displaying males (Holloran 2005)." And, "All well-‐supported models in Walker et al. (2007) indicate a strong negative effect, estimated as proportion of development within either 0.5 miles or 2 miles, on lek persistence. A model with development at 4 miles had less support, but the regression coefficient indicated that negative impacts within 4 miles were still apparent. Two additional studies reported negative impacts apparent out to 8 miles on large lek occurrence (>25 males; Tack 2009) and out to 11.7 miles on lek trends (Johnson et al. 2011), the largest scales evaluated." However, the NTT Report fails to mention any of the methodological issues with these studies (detailed in this IQA), or the fact that none reported a population-level decline in sage grouse (rather than a localized effect on rates of male lek attendance near the disturbance). 6.4.2) The NTT Report does not mention that Walker et al. (2007) used model selection procedures that were not statistically reliable because they used nine predictor variables, with just nine years of data, to compare 19 models, in an attempt to identify combinations of predictor variables that would potentially explain patterns in the data. However, for model selection to work properly, the number of predictor variables must be smaller in comparison to the number of observations (in this case, the number of years of data). Additionally, for model selection to be scientifically defensible, the predictor variables are best narrowed down in advance based on plausible cause and effect mechanisms and tests for independence among variables, procedures that Walker et al. (2007) did not employ. Finally, the results of Walker et al. (2007) were confounded by the obvious location of at least 9 out of 35 inactive leks immediately adjacent to Highway 14, Highway16, and Interstate 90 (see figure below). Therefore, the NTT Report's reliance on Walker et al. (2007) as a basis for very precise predictions about sage grouse population responses is not scientifically sound.

30

6.4.3) The cited analyses produced by Johnson et al. (2011) are not reliable statistical inferences and it is hard to imagine that such a weak paper was ever published. The authors examined 62 different predictor variables, using only 11 years of lek count data for the response variable, in seven different sage grouse management zones. Reliability was further compounded by the fact that 37% of the lek counts used by Johnson et al. (2011), had only four years of data associated with them. As a result, Johnson et al. (2011) is an example of an extremely weak approach to statistical inference and a poorly planned “data-fishing expedition.” There are simply not enough years of data to support inferences with single variables, much less several variables, and certainly not the 62 variables studied by Johnson et al. (2011). Johnson et al. (2011) only reported Pearson correlation coefficients (r), rather than r2 and its significance, which is not common practice and illustrates the lack of meaningful signal in the data. The scatterplot figures illustrate the main result: that there are no significant correlations between predictor and response variables. Instead, there were random clouds of points. The authors resorted to LOESS smoothing in an attempt to identify potential patterns in the data that did not otherwise have any statistical significance. (LOESS smoothing allows one to portray a pattern or trend, where none exists.). 6.4.4) Despite the obvious issues (discussed above), the authors of Johnson et al. (2011) reported on "trends" and discussed the potential importance of these in the paper. Johnson et al. (2011) would not be considered publishable in reputable scientific journals. If it had undergone a rigorous and independent peer-review, it would have been rejected. The fact that Johnson is employed by the USGS, the same agency as S. Knick (the editor of the sage grouse monograph and author of nine papers in it) raises questions about the

31

independence and adequacy of peer review of this paper. The fact that two of the NTT members (D. Naugle and S. Knick) were also authors on the sage grouse monograph, and S. Knick was one of its editors, raises further issues about the lack of independence of the NTT Report and the validity of the scientific information that the NTT Report relied upon to formulate their recommendations. 6.4.5) Tack (2009) is an unpublished master's thesis. D. Naugle was the chairperson of Tack's thesis committee (he was also chairperson for Walker and Doherty's dissertation committees). Like previous studies, Tack (2009) did not report on a population level effect. Instead, he compared probabilities of occurrence between males at small and large leks, with varying levels of human impact. As discussed previously, it is erroneous to assume that a local displacement of males from leks to other areas equates to a population-level negative impact. 6.4.6) The primary rationale presented by the NTT Report, that the majority of nests are located within 4-miles of a lek and therefore a NSO area is a minimally required conservation measure in priority habitat, is not sound. That rationale is:

"Past BLM conservation measures have focused on 0.25 mile No Surface Occupancy (NSO) buffers around leks, and timing stipulations applied to 0.6 mile buffers around leks to protect both breeding and nesting activities. Given impacts of large scale disturbances described above that occur across seasons and impact all demographic rates, applying NSO or other buffers around leks at any distance is unlikely to be effective. Even if this approach were to be continued, it should be noted that protecting even 75 to >80% of nesting Conservation hens would require a 4-‐mile radius buffer (Table 1). Even a 4-‐mile NSO buffer would not be large enough to offset all the impacts reviewed above. A 4-‐mile NSO likely would not be practical given most leases are not large enough to accommodate a buffer of this size, and lek spacing within priority habitats is such that lek-based buffers may overlap and preclude all development."

Yet, there are no data that show that a 4-mile buffer addresses any specific threat to sage grouse (i.e. predation, functional disturbance of leks from noise or activity), or that such a buffer would result in any quantifiable benefit to sage grouse in terms of increased survivorship or reproduction. Instead, the presumed necessity of 4-mile NSO buffers is solely based upon the subjective opinions expressed in the NTT Report and the citation of correlative studies regarding local lek counts, none of which can identify any causal mechanism for what was only shown to be a localized and transient effect, rather than a population wide permanent negative effect. The supposed population wide-effect is assumed by cited authors and the NTT Report but has never been demonstrated. The 4-mile NSO is not only indefensible, it diverts valuable conservation effort away from specific threats in specific circumstances, in favor of a one-size-fits all approach that does not address specific threats or their underlying mechanisms. 6.4.7) The presumed necessity of the 4-mile buffer is clearly refuted by data from the Pinedale Planning Area (Wyoming Game and Fish 2012, and supporting Wyoming Game

32

and Fish sage grouse lek count data). This data clearly show(s) a population increase, despite the fact that intensive energy development has occurred in the Jonah, Labarge, and Pinedale Anticline, and much of it in excess of a 3% disturbance threshold and within 4-miles of leks that remained active (see well data from the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, disturbance data from the PAPO JDMIS and PDMIS databases, and lek location and count data from Wyoming Game and Fish Department). 6.4.8) The NTT Report also presents a case that because a majority of sage grouse hens captured at a particular lek nest within 4-miles of that lek, a blanket 4-mile NSO is required around every lek. That requirement is regardless of the quality, extent, or actual occupancy of the habitat contained therein. Each such "4-mile NSO" would result in over 50 square miles per lek of land that would be off-limits (50.24 square miles to be exact), even if there were only one or two male sage grouse in attendance, and that attendance need not be continuous from year to year. The practical effect of such a restriction would be to "protect" vast areas of non-habitat and marginal habitat, with no demonstrable benefit to sage grouse. And finally, the definition of an active lek is left by the NTT Report as arbitrarily vague and inconsistent. One footnote describes it as: "Each State may have a slightly different definition of lek, active lek, inactive lek, occupied, and unoccupied leks. Regional planning will use the appropriate definition provided by the State of interest." And the glossary defines it as: "Any lek that has been attended by male sage-‐grouse during the strutting season." For the reasons detailed above, the 4-mile NSO buffer recommended by the NTT Report is neither scientifically nor legally defensible under the IQA. 6.5) The NTT Report's one-size fits all noise recommendations for oil and gas operations are not scientifically sound. The studies cited in support of the NTT Report's recommendations (Patricelli et al. 2010; Blickley et al., in preparation; Blickely and Patricelli, in press) were the first of their kind in attempting to discern potential effects of noise on sage grouse. However, these studies, all performed by one research group, were fraught with numerous flaws in their documentation of methods, lack of data, assumptions, and erroneous interpretation of results. Clearly lacking was any involvement by professional acousticians, or use of professional data collection and reporting standards in the industry. As a result, the cited studies cannot be viewed as anything more than preliminary and cannot be used as the basis of regulations by the BLM. Those recommendations, listed in Appendix D. Best Management Practices for Fluid Mineral Development in the NTT Report are:

"Limit noise to less than 10 decibels above ambient measures (20-‐24 dBA) at sunrise at the perimeter of a lek during active lek season (Patricelli et al. 2010, Blickley et al. In preparation). Require noise shields when drilling during the lek, nesting, brood rearing, or wintering season."

33

Ambient sound levels of 20-24 db(A) and a 10 db(A) limit above these proposed in the NTT Report is another one-size-fits-all recommendation that is not representative of local conditions and is unrealistically low for windy areas where the research was conducted. The proposed noise levels are unsupported by any sort of unbiased, systematic data collection across seasons, and they are made without any knowledge of what thresholds would limit sage grouse reproduction or survivorship. 6.5.1) The cited studies provided no evidence of sage grouse population decline as the result of anthropogenic sound produced by the oil and gas industry. None of the noise studies cited in the NTT Report, Patricelli et al. (2010), Blickley et al. (in preparation), or Blickely and Patricelli (in press) had actually found a population decline in sage grouse as a result of noise from oil and gas operations. As with NTT Report recommendations for a 3% disturbance cap and 4-mile no surface occupancy (NSO) buffers, the cited studies did not find a population level effect but only a transient period of disturbance to sage grouse at leks where the playbacks occurred. There was no data reported that the levels of fecal corticosteroid metabolites in male sage grouse at the affected leks had resulted in reduced fitness (e.g. decreased reproductive capabilities and/or decreased survivorship that have led to any detectable population decline in the study area). The BLM cannot assume that there is a negative, population level effect in the absence of data. And the BLM cannot ignore the fact that the population trends in male sage grouse lek attendance and density in the study area (Upper Green River Basin portion of the Wyoming basin population) have been consistently above state average and increasing since 1990 (data from Wyoming Game and Fish 2013). 6.5.2) The data used in the noise studies cited by the NTT Report are not public and the authors relied on speculation to support their claims. The underlying data used by the cited noise studies are not public, and therefore, the results are not reproducible. No data were reported from: 1) objectively-measured noise generated during various phases of drilling activities, 2) noise generated during production, 3) road noise, or 4) the occurrence of these over a 24 hour period. No data were reported on the environmental parameters under which any data were collected, or the ambient sound levels in the study area based upon professional standards (which include wind). Instead, the authors cited "unpublished data" and speculation about the accuracy of their playback noise levels, in support of their claims (emphasis in bold below):

"We played drilling noise and road noise on leks at 70 dB(F) sound pressure level (unweighted decibels) measured 16 m directly in front of the speakers (Fig. 1 & Supporting Information). This is similar to noise levels measured approximately 400 m from drilling rigs and main access roads in Pinedale, Wyoming (J.L.B and G.L.P., unpublished data).

34

"To minimize disturbance, we took propagation measurements during the day. Daytime ambient noise levels are typically 5-10 dBA higher than those in the early morning (J.L.B and G.L.P., unpublished data) and are likely higher than those heard by birds at a lek." "For leks treated with drilling noise, recordings from 3 drilling sites were spliced into a 13-minute mp3 file that played on continuous repeat. On leks treated with road noise we randomly interspersed mp3 recordings of 56 semi trailers and 61 light trucks with 170 30-second silent files to simulate average levels of traffic on an access road (Holloran 2005). Noise playback on experimental leks continued throughout April in 2006, from mid February or early March through late April in 2007, and from late February through late April in 2008. We played back noise on leks 24 hours/day because noise from deep natural-gas drilling and vehicular traffic is present at all times."

There was no data presented in the cited studies that the playback sound was an accurate rendition of actual frequencies and sound pressure levels from oil and gas operations as measured at set-back distances required by the BLM, or that it occurred at the same levels 24 hours a day. Instead, the authors relied upon "unpublished data" or speculation. The BLM cannot rely upon data that are not publicly available (unverifiable data), or speculation, as the basis for its decision making. 6.5.3) The NTT Report did not accurately portray the methods and results of the studies by Patricelli et al. (2010) and Blickley et al. (in preparation). 6.5.3.1) As an initial matter, Patricelli et al. (2010) is an unpublished, 16-page powerpoint presentation, it is not a scientific paper or report. 6.5.3.2) Recordings of operations and traffic noise were played back at the edges of leks at sound pressure levels in excess of what they would be on the majority of lands managed by the BLM where oil and gas operations occur. While a 0.25 mile buffer has been the minimum set back distance required by the BLM, most oil and gas operations are found at far greater distances from leks (Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission well data and Wyoming Game and Fish lek count and location data). Thus, the reported effects on sage grouse were biased in the cited studies to achieve a negative response by sage grouse rather than measure responses from sound pressure levels as they would occur at the required set back distances. 6.5.3.3) Blickley et al. (in press) maximized projected sound from recordings at the edges of leks, which were as high as the noise levels occurring within 200m of a busy freeway (as measured across an open field with traffic loads of greater than 50,000 cars per day, or 55-70 decibels as shown in Figure 2 of Reijnen et al. 1995). Below, is a relevent excerpt from Blickley et al. (in press):

35

"Drilling-noise recordings were broadcast on experimental leks at an equivalent sound level (Leq) of 71.4±1.7 dBF (unweighted decibels) SPL re 20 µPa (56.1±0.5 dBA [A-weighted decibels]) as measured at 16 meters; on road-noise leks, where the amplitude of the noise varied with the simulated passing of vehicles, noise was broadcast at an Lmax (maximum RMS amplitude) of 67.6±2.0 dBF SPL (51.7±0.8 dBA)."

The fact that authors broadcast such high levels of noise in such close proximity to leks biased the results, an error of omission by the authors and the NTT Report that cites them and proposed regulations based upon their recommendations. 6.5.3.4) The NTT Report cannot have it both ways, claiming a negative effect on sage grouse populations but admitting that there was "low statistical support for a cumulative effect of noise over time" in the study by Blickley et al. (in press). As noted above, there are no data showing a long-term cumulative decline in the sage grouse population in the Pinedale Planning Area. 6.6) The cited research was an amateurish attempt to reproduce the sounds of oil and gas development using substandard equipment that was wholly unsuited to the task of accurately recording and playing back traffic and sounds from oil and gas operations. Deficiencies in Blickley et al.'s equipment are detailed below. 6.6.1) Microphone: According to the manufacturer (http://en-us.sennheiser.com/k6-microphone-system), "the ME 62 [microphone used by Blickley et al.] is an omni-directional microphone head suitable for K6 and K6P powering modules. It can be used for reporting, discussions and interviews. The ME 62 is particularly suitable for good reproduction of 'room' ambience and 'spaced omni' stereo recording. Matt black, anodized, scratch-resistant finish." 6.6.2) Recorder: The Marantz model PMD670 used by Blickley et al. does not offer high-resolution (88.2 or 96 KS/s) sampling rates, its metering characteristics are unknown, and it is limited to 16/48 recording and thus is not considered a high-resolution recorder. It retails online for $700. 6.6.3) Playback speakers: The speakers used in the study were standard outdoor speakers camouflaged as rocks and designed for background music playing in home, hotel, and amusement park applications. They were not designed for accurately reproducing industrial sounds. The specifications for the speakers may be found on the manufacturers website: http://www.ticcorp.com/specifications_tfs14.pdf. The speakers were powered by 12 volt car batteries rather than 120 volt AC power and a car stereo amplifier of unknown make and model was used to boost the output. Packed into each simulated rock speaker housing was a 10" woofer with an injection molded

36

cone, a 5.5" midrange cone, and 2" soft dome tweeter. The size and quality of the speakers, and the small speaker housing, severely limits the physical capability of the system to accurately reproduce either low or high frequency sound produced by oil and gas operations or traffic. As a result of substandard equipment and lack of expertise in sound recording and reproduction, Blickley et al. (in press) resorted to placing their speakers at the edge of leks and to playing their systems at high levels in order to elicit a behavioral response. This is a biased approach to obtain a preferred result. The BLM cannot rely on biased research in its decision-making. 6.7) The recommended noise levels are not based upon any standardized, repeatable data collection, or accepted methods of sound measurement. 6.7.1) The methods used by Blickley et al. (in press), and reported results did not contain any credible, professional analysis of local ambient sound levels or oil and gas noise (e.g. the type, duration, frequencies, sound pressure levels, and power of sound produced by different oil and gas drilling or production operations; equipment being recorded); or employ the use of professionally accepted standards, such as International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standards for quantifying industrial and traffic noise (http://www.iso.org/iso/home/standards.htm). The standards not followed by the cited studies include, but are not limited to: ISO 1996-1:2003 Acoustics -- Description, measurement and assessment of environmental noise -- Part 1: Basic quantities and assessment procedures; ISO 9613-2:1996 Acoustics -- Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors -- Part 2: General method of calculation; ISO 4871:1996 Acoustics -- Declaration and verification of noise emission values of machinery and equipment; ISO 532:1975 Acoustics -- Method for calculating loudness level; ISO 7196:1995. Acoustics -- Frequency-weighting characteristic for infrasound measurements; ISO 8297:1994 Acoustics -- Determination of sound power levels of multisource industrial plants for evaluation of sound pressure levels in the environment -- Engineering method; and IEC 61672-1:2002(E) - Electroacoustics, Sound level meters -- Part 1: Specifications). 6.7.2) Blickley et al. did not employ any sound propagation models in their study to quantify the confounding effect of temperature, relative humidity, topography, ground cover and surface porosity, wind direction, the direction noise was generated from, the geographic extent of the noise, its duration, frequency of occurrence, or permanence, (Attenborough 2007). Nor did they provide any correlation of their playbacks compared to the industrial and traffic sources they had attempted to duplicate. Furthermore, no graphic equalizer was used which would have allowed for the adjustment of sound pressures in different frequency ranges (at standardized 1/3 octave band frequencies), and no measurement of sound pressure levels was taken in front of playback speakers, which together would have allowed for the accurate reproduction of the sound at the same frequencies and sound pressure levels as the original noise. Therefore, BLM cannot base regulations upon no data and results based upon arbitrary methods that are not compliant

37

with accepted professional standards in the noise control industry (i.e. Bies and Hansen 2009; ISO). 6.8) Noise limits recommended in the NTT Report are biased downward. 6.8.1) What is being proposed for noise thresholds is an "impossible to achieve" standard found in an idyllic wilderness setting, on quiet days when the wind does not blow, the leaves do not rustle, birds do not sing, humans are completely absent, streams are not close by, and no aircraft fly overhead. While this may be appropriate for management of anthropogenic sound in the wilderness areas of some national parks (Lynch et al. 2011), it is not appropriate and would be impossible to achieve on most of the BLM lands in the West that are administered for multiple uses. 6.8.2) There are no data to justify the minimum sound levels used as a basis in Blickley et al.'s (in press) recommendations, or the supposed "disruptive activities" that an increase of 10dbA above these would cause. There are no data to show that the minimum levels recommended by the NTT Report occur for extended periods of time in any of the sage grouse core areas, including the Pinedale Planning Area. 6.8.3) The NTT Report, or cited studies, did not present the results of other studies of noise generated by the oil and gas industry (especially in the Pinedale Planning Area), even though those studies and data were available at the time the NTT Report was being prepared (i.e., Harvey 2009). 6.8.4) The cited studies were biased in a way to find a measurable impact, the speakers were increased from two to four during the course of the study, and the sound pressures measured in front of the speakers, and effect on sage grouse, were made without regard to the increased sound gradient created by their close distance (i.e.due to the physics of sound attenuation over distances, also known as a the inverse square law, where sound decreases four times for every doubling of distance from its source) as compared to leks at the required BLM setback distances of 0.25 or 0.6 miles. 6.8.5) A scientifically defensible, alternative approach to studying the effects of noise on sage grouse is outlined in laboratory and field experiments by Ramey, Brown, and Blackgoat (2011). Those approaches, when combined with sound modeling conducted by certified engineering firms (that were based on local environmental and land use conditions and professional standards) would provide a comprehensive approach to identifying and effectively mitigating noise that would adversely affect sage grouse populations. These would be based upon demonstrated cause and effect mechanisms of different noise characteristics (i.e., frequencies, duration, and sound pressure levels).

6.9) The noise thresholds proposed by the NTT Report represent a precautionary approach based on an undemonstrated assumption that there is a deleterious, population-level decline in sage grouse as a result of noise associated with oil and gas operations. This is a clear violation of the IQA which required reproducible results based upon data, not presumed effects based upon potential effects.

38

6.10) The NTT Report promotes the arbitrary and capricious application of restrictions to one industry and not another. Using the same rationale as proposed in the NTT Report (and supporting literature), the BLM should establish "no-fly zones" for commercial, recreation, military, and research aircraft over or near sage grouse core areas. Establishing "no-fly zones" would eliminate this source of anthropogenic noise that would exceed proposed limits. However, the lack of such restrictions underscores the fact that the NTT Report singled out and proposed limits only to the oil and gas industry, despite the fact that aircraft can produce noise levels that exceed the proposed thresholds (Wyle 2008; Barber et al. 2010), and more than 50% of recordings in national parks document some form of aircraft noise (Fristrup et al. 2010). A similar argument could be made concerning noise from traffic unrelated to the oil and gas industry. 7) A goal of 70% sagebrush cover in Priority Habitat does not have a sound scientific basis. 7.1) The NTT Report presents no scientific data that a one-size-fits-all goal of 70% sagebrush cover in Priority Habitat is: 1) scientifically defensible, 2) achievable, 3) would result in stable sage grouse populations (rather than addressing specific threats) and 4) would not result in irreparable harm to other species (including candidate or sensitive species), and 5) would not unnecessarily have a negative effect on local economies. 7.2) Conservation measures were developed based on guesswork. The meeting summary from Monday, August 29 clearly shows that the NTT was proposing conservation measures without the benefit of knowing how priority and general sage grouse habitat were being mapped, nor what those maps would eventually look like [bold type for emphasis was added]:

Raul Morales, Sage-Grouse National Technical Team Lead, welcomed everyone to the workshop and thanked them for coming. He said the first priority is to develop conservation measures for the important, high priority sage-grouse habitat areas. Raul noted this group will not be developing the priority areas, which is a separate, ongoing effort, but this group should think about how the conservation measures will be applied to those areas. Raul said the second priority for the week is to determine how to manage for those sage-grouse habitat areas that fall outside of the priority areas. Raul noted that each day there would be a presentation on one of BLM’s programs and then the group would work together to develop conservation measures related to that program. Raul said the measures should be based on science and that politics should be left out; politics will be addressed when the National Policy Team reviews the document. Raul said it is important to create a defensible document and annotate throughout the document when recommendations are based on science, inferred from science, or based on professional judgment.

39

NTT meeting notes from Tuesday, December 6, 2011 (page 6) states:

"The group discussed disturbance thresholds extensively. Key points and questions that emerged from discussion included: There is a lot of research (at least 14 papers) related to disturbance impacts from oil and gas, and the take home message is that there are no positive benefits from disturbance and impacts are typically severe." However, the NTT Report did not cite 14 papers in support of this assertion, nor do any of the papers on this subject use the language that "impacts are typically severe." If this were the case, then why has sage grouse lek attendance and male density increased in the Pinedale Planning Area and been consistently above statewide averages since 1990?] "What is the correct metric to use to generate recommendations on disturbance thresholds?" [If member(s) of the NTT were asking this question, then it is clear that the NTT did not have a sound scientific basis for establishing metrics in the first place.] "Most studies on oil and gas disturbance impacts are correlative and observational. This presents an issue for this NTT effort because we are taking observational/correlative research and trying to extract thresholds to influence implementation on the ground." [This issue underscores the fact that the NTT could cite no studies that actually reported a measurable demographic impact on the study population. Therefore, proposed thresholds were arbitrary and based on opinion rather than upon rigorous testing of different thresholds against empirical demographic data.] "There are no studies that cite 5% cumulative impacts as acceptable. In addition, we know from a GIS modeling effort that 5% disturbance is too much." [The NTT Report cites no such GIS modeling effort. The BLM cannot base restrictions upon data and studies that are not public.] "There is no support for a 2.5% disturbance threshold in the literature. The science on disturbance is based on number of well pads/acre." [If the research on disturbance is based on pads per acre in a particular location, then it is arbitrary for the NTT to convert that number (which is never stated) into an arbitrary 2.5 percent disturbance threshold. No research is cited that supports this "science."] "In general, disturbance causes two types of impacts: 1) yearlings move, and 2) imprinted females that stay die at higher rates." [What the NTT completely missed here is the fact that neither of these necessarily leads to a population

40

decline. From a demographic perspective, if yearlings move to nearby areas, with no associated density dependent mortality, then there will be no population decline. And if imprinted females remain and presumably die at a higher rate, what matters most is that the affected proportion of the population must be large enough (and at a rate of mortality high enough) to have any detectable effect on rate of population growth. To date, there has not been such a detailed analysis of sage grouse demography.] "What is the most appropriate metric to use? Acres disturbed or number of disturbances over a spatial extent?" [This record underscores the arbitrary nature of the NTT Report's disturbance thresholds, because yet a third arbitrary unit of measure is introduced: number of disturbances over a spatial extent.] "A concept paper in Casper, Wyoming on thresholds of energy development showed a 3% disturbance can be tolerated." [If true, then this study completely refutes the basis of a 2.5 or 3% surface disturbance threshold. However, the NTT Report does not cite this paper. This is an example of selective citation or exclusion of information in the NTT Report.] "Naugle's book chapter reviews the science on disturbance thresholds." [The NTT Report does not acknowledge that Naugle himself is an author on three chapters in this book, Energy Development and Wildlife Conservation in Western North America, which he is also the editor of. Also, three of Naugle's former graduate students were authors on four chapters: K. Doherty, B. Walker, and J. Tack. Therefore, in producing this book, Naugle was reviewing his own work as well as that of his former graduate students and close collaborators. Such a collection of chapters cannot be reasonably viewed as independent and unbiased.] "Should one additional well pad in each section (so a total of two well pads) trigger mitigation?" [Again, this illustrates the arbitrary and capricous nature of the NTT Report's recommendation on disturbance thresholds: these were made without a sound scientific basis. There is no rigorous testing behind consideration of any of the surface disturbance thresholds, save a potential paper that was not cited in the NTT Report.] "Can we apply the oil and gas threshold (from existing scientific research) to all human disturbance?" [There is no basis for this but it became the NTT Report's recommendation for implementing the 3% disturbance cap.] "Should anthropogenic disturbances be in a separate category than natural disturbances? What constitutes an anthropogenic disturbance?" [The NTT clearly was having issues with definitions, and in this case, fire was arbitrarily included in the 3% disturbance cap.]

The NTT meeting notes from Wednesday, December 7, 2011 (listed below) further indicate the arbitrary nature of recommended disturbance thresholds. In the final version

41

of the NTT, just two weeks later, the NTT recommended a 3% disturbance cap and that disturbance include "diffuse disturbance", including the acreage in livestock grazing and that burned in wildfires. However, none of the cited literature actually tested for combinations of discrete and diffuse disturbance, therefore its utility is speculative. The BLM cannot rely on speculation as a basis for its decision-making.

"Whether the 2.5% disturbance threshold was meant to apply toward disturbances that could not be identified as 1 discrete disturbance." "Science exists to support the disturbance threshold of 1 disturbance/640 acres, but not necessarily for a 2.5% disturbance threshold." "Although solid literature exists to support the 1 well/640 acre threshold, this disturbance is not good." "Whether the disturbance objective should be restated to generally exclude large anthropogenic disturbances from priority habitats and manage other disturbances below 2.5%." "Whether the 2.5% threshold should be used as a trigger for mitigation." "Justifying the 2.5% threshold based on the best professional judgment that evolved based on the NTT's exhaustive review of literature."

7) The presumption that peer review of the NTT Report was adequate is rebutted. 7.1) In the following excerpt from a December 18, 2012 letter from Secretary Salazar of the Department of Interior to Representative Hastings:

Q: Was the NTT Report document peer reviewed according to the Department’s Data Quality Act requirements? If yes, please provide copies of all peer review documents. R: The BLM followed the Department’s Data Quality Act policy and sought a peer review commissioned by the Nevada Department of Wildlife Director, Mr. Ken Mayer. Mr. Mayer serves on the National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy National Policy Team. Mr. Mayer commissioned an outside review of the conservation measures in a draft version of the NTT Report by six scientists. A report of their comments is enclosed. A subset of the National Technical Team members met in Phoenix from December 6-8, 2011, to address many of these scientists’ comments and further articulate and document the scientific basis for the recommended conservation measures. These were incorporated into the final NTT Report.

42

There is no evidence that accepted standards for scientific peer review were followed in the supposedly scientific peer review of the NTT Report. As an initial matter, the "peer review" of the NTT Report was conducted by Ken Meyer of the Nevada Department of Game and Fish. In searching scientific journals, no evidence was found that: 1) Mr. Mayer has ever served as an editor or associate editor of a scientific journal, 2) has organized a scientific peer review previously using the accepted standards of scientific peer review, 3) served as a peer reviewer at a scientific journal, or 4) has himself ever published a peer reviewed scientific paper in a reputable scientific journal. Mr. Meyer was subsequently removed from his position as Director of Nevada Game and Fish in 2012. 7.2) Most importantly, there is no evidence that each of the comments and issues raised by the "peer reviewers" of the NTT Report were either corrected or rebutted by the NTT, or that any responses by the NTT were ever submitted and subsequently reviewed by Mr. Meyer. If this supposed peer review was conducted properly, Mr. Meyer would have acted in the same role as an editor or associate editor of a scientific journal to accept or reject these responses, or require another round of review with a revised report. Instead, publicly available evidence points to the observation that peer reviewer comments were passed on to the NTT, and a select subset of the NTT subsequently decided amongst themselves which comments and issues they would address or not address. This is not how scientific peer review works. And it does a disservice to the field of science to call such a casual solicitation and passing on of comments to the NTT a "peer review." 7.3) Evidence of the inadequacy of the supposed "peer review" of the NTT Report is further illustrated by the fact that substantive issues raised by some of the peer reviewers were never corrected in the NTT Report. To illustrate this deficiency, comments listed below were ignored or inadequately addressed in the final NTT Report (see below). 7.4) The names and affiliations of the peer reviewers are not public, nor were any conflict of interest statements requested of reviewers. The peer reviews themselves, along with the information provided to the reviewers and questions asked of them, are not publicly available. All that is public are selected excerpts from the peer reviews provided to Chairman Hastings at the Committee on Resources by the Secretary Salazar. A previous request by Western Energy Alliance for all of the information provided to NTT Report "peer reviewers", the questions asked of them, their names and affiliations, is unfulfilled. 7.5) In the following excerpt from the NTT meeting summaries, it is apparent that the organizers of the NTT effort appeared to have had their practice of the scientific method backwards (i.e. starting with a conclusion and working backwards to justify it): "In addition, comments had been received from other external reviewers, and reviewers suggested the measures needed to be grounded in the best available science to be defensible. In addition, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) wanted to ensure the

43

science is strong so the conservation measures could effectively inform policy negotiations at the National Policy Team level. So, the National Policy Team agreed the next step was for the National Technical Team to reconvene and review how the conservation measures are supported by existing science." Requested correction: As the accepted practices in scientific peer review were not followed by the NTT (i.e. authors must accept comments by incorporating them into a revised report and provide a rebuttal to each of the review comments that they disagree with, stating the reasons for the disagreement) the BLM must correct the record by stating that the NTT Report was not peer reviewed. 7.6) Peer review of the NTT Report was inadequate because each of the comments received were not incorporated, or rebutted, by the NTT in writing, as is the accepted practice in scientific peer review. According to the December 18, 2012 letter from Secretary Salazar of the Department of Interior to Representative Hastings: a scientific peer review of the NTT Report was conducted by six scientists who were organized by Ken Mayer of the National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy National Policy Team and Nevada Department of Fish and Game. According to the notes from the NTT meeting on December 6-8, 2011 in Phoenix, the NTT discussed and addressed only a very limited number of comments raised by these reviewers and there is no evidence that the NTT addressed or rebutted specific reviewer comments, or that Ken Meyer, the organizer of the NTT Report's "peer review," had referred the comments, corrections, and rebuttals received. According to NTT meeting notes provided by Secretary Salazar letter in his letter to Representative Hastings (page 10), only two issues were considered to be key: "Key comments received from reviewers include 1) prohibiting fuels management in known winter ranges is too restrictive, and 2) potential irrelevance of the conservation measure suggesting site potential will be lower than 15%." However, the following reviewer comments (those available in Secretary Salazar's letter) were not addressed by the NTT and remain valid issues with the scientific accuracy of the NTT Report"

7.6.1) "There is no discussion of the seasonal requirements of sage-grouse to provide managers a context for their actions. There are limited references to the state-level sage-grouse plans. A good deal of effort went into these plans and they contain valuable information that should be incorporated into the planning process." 7.6.2) "There seems to be no focus on identifying the limiting habitats as a first step.

44

How can managers be expected to prioritize their efforts if there is no analysis of which habitats are most limiting?" 7.6.3) "If we are to maintain sage-grouse habitat it will be critical to identify and understand the risks to each particular habitat type. There seems to be limited discussion of risk analysis in the sections I reviewed." 7.6.4) "If the document is to be applied across the sage-grouse range it does not make sense to use specific numbers (15% sagebrush cover or 12 inches of precipitation) on plant communities that vary tremendously over even small distances. Use concepts that make ecological sense (site potential or risk factor), rather than trying to simplify our complex landscapes." 7.6.5) "They develop a list of conservation strategies that apply to priority habitat and don't define it?? The definition they gave could be changed to "to be determined." The devil is completely in that detail. Even using core area is inadequate, in that many "cores" are based only on leks, and may or may not include other important seasonal habitat. I understand the need and desire to have a flexible definition to accommodate variation across the range, but far better to have a base definition to which states can append other criteria as necessary, than to defer the definition." 7.6.6) "The document is an odd mix of scientific citations and policy decisions, with no real tie between the two. I expected a science document that reviewed the literature, laid out what is known about program area impacts to sage grouse, and where the uncertainties lie. The science review would lead to a range of numbers and alternative approaches, which would then segue into a policy document that described the approach chosen. The science team would develop the science document, the program managers the policy outcome emanating from it. This seems a strange blend of policy loosely backed by citations, with no analysis of the science. Because there is no iteration of the rational scientific basis for the very prescriptive strategies, 1 would anticipate strong blowback by Industry and by Environmental groups, the former finding it over-reaching and the latter inadequate." 7.6.7) "All activity plans should explicitly address PECE considerations, i.e., the certainty of implementation and certainty of effectiveness. Given the budget situation for the foreseeable future, plan projections of rosy success are often nothing more than happy bullroar. I've seen it too many times before." 7.6.8) "Space and time (1) A central premise in ecology is the notion that ecological processes unfold in both space and time. Lack of consideration of space, and particularly (in this document) time is a critical mistake that, to me, renders this document problematic, if not dangerous. Let’s consider both dimensions and how they might influence the current document...The point of all this is that in ecological systems that operate in both space and time, we cannot categorize either disturbance or management actions in the absence of considering the temporal component."

45

7.6.9) "Overlooking the temporal aspects of ecological disturbances such as fire promotes a species-centric focus in which disturbance effects are characterized using the intellectually pedestrian notions of “good” or “bad” without consideration of the specific temporal context within which these disturbances unfold. This, in turn, reinforces a focus on sage-grouse, rather than a focus on the ecology of the ecosystems to which the integrity of sage-grouse habitat is subservient." 7.6.10) "Thus, the appropriate management actions, and in this case the order of appropriate management actions, is strongly tied to ecological site. This concept needs to be specifically addressed to avoid on-the-ground problems for BLM. I would recommend either 1) sufficiently vague language to allow for flexibility at more local scales, 2) explicitly recognizing the need for reliance on ESDs, or, ideally, 3) both." 7.6.11) "The document also misses the mark when it comes to larger scale variation associated with inter and intraregional variation in plant community ecology. This is a serious omission." 7.6.12) "If this document is to be effective in defining conservation measures on a range-wide basis, it must take into account the considerable large-scale variation in plant community ecology present within the range of sage-grouse. Otherwise, we are faced with species-centric generalizations of the effects of ecological processes that may or may not represent ecological reality." 7.6.13) "I would suggest that language directing managers to consider future climate change in determining seeded species be taken out. Present knowledge of climate change is not at the stage (i.e. accurate enough) where we can predict future climate to the extent that we are designing seed mixes based on those predictions and we have enough problems to worry about with restoration success in the present climate." 7.6.14) "What happens when potential of the ecological site is at odds with stated sage-grouse habitat requirements? This could be clarified by specifically incorporating Ecological Site Descriptions and not using cut-off values such as 15% sagebrush canopy cover." 7.6.15) "The notion that grazing privileges in sage-grouse areas should be retired when base property is transferred or a current operator is willing to retire such privileges assumes grazing is automatically a problem and can’t be used as a tool for habitat management. It also assumes that grouse are the highest and best use of the land...this HAS to be addressed before these guidelines become policy or serious problems will arise. What about FLPMA...where does it fit into the picture?" 7.6.16) "The notion that no treatments will be allowed in known winter range seems a bit draconian. What if winter habitat is also breeding habitat? Dave Dahlgren’s research has demonstrated how small patch-scale sagebrush reduction treatments

46

can be used to create beta diversity that improves grouse habitat while retaining sagebrush dominance at large scales. Again, the issue of spatial scale." 7.6.17) "Document suggests not using fire to treat sagebrush in less than 12-inch precipitation zones. I generally agree with this, but at the same time I have a problem with making these broad generalizations about ecosystems, the properties of which vary strongly across sites and over time." 7.6.18) "Almost all of the emphasis is on preventing additional habitat loss or degradation on BLM land, with relatively little effort spent on strategies to improve existing habitat." 7.6.19) "The document suffers from a 1-size fits all approach that lacks context. Lumping all sage grouse seasonal habitats in all locations across the range regardless of population size or relative importance of the population into either “priority sage grouse habitats” or “general sage grouse habitats” strikes me as tremendously over simplistic. When combined with very prescriptive direction, it may lead to strong opposition, which may lead to weak application of the IM. The definition for priority habitat is circular, in that “highest conservation value to maintain sustainable Greater sage grouse populations” is also not defined. There are as many definitions for core areas as there are states, most at present are lek-based and therefore don’t consider brood rearing or winter habitats unless they occur within whatever buffer is used. The definition for general habitat is occupied habitat, so in that case why not just use occupied habitat? I would expand that however to include ‘unoccupied but potentially suitable habitat.” 7.6.20) "Priority habitat must be defined before this document goes out for wider review, rather than kicking that can down the road. The elements that must be included would be lek/nesting habitat (rather than using arbitrary buffers may want to include proportions of nesting hens included and let the buffer vary with habitat quality and local characteristics), late brood- rearing habitats, and winter concentration areas. It would be far preferable to have a base definition that is amended locally, than to have no definition and allow each state and potentially Field Office to develop their own." 7.6.21) "There is no performance aspect or adaptive management component. The document begins by stating that the following conservation measures are designed to achieve population and habitat objectives stated in this report, yet that is the only time population and habitat objectives are mentioned. What happens if the conservation measures don’t achieve population and habitat objectives? Some type of rigorous adaptive management must be the final conservation strategy, where the effectiveness of these measures, and the degree to which sage grouse habitat and populations are conserved by these measures (in the face of other threats), are constantly evaluated and reassessed. There is a sentence on monitoring that says a monitoring strategy for sage-grouse and sagebrush will be developed for adaptive management purposes, but this ignores the critical feedback aspect of adaptive

47

management, where data collections feed back to change management strategies where necessary." 7.6.22) "Structural range improvements, including fencing, corrals, livestock handling structures etc., are prohibited within priority habitats unless they conserve, enhance or restore sage grouse habitat. It is impossible to determine whether they conserve, enhance or restore sage grouse habitat or not without some explicit criteria as to when they do and when they don’t that is context and scale relevant." 7.6.23) "I have always had a problem with this “Rangeland Health” thing. I understand it to a point, but the reality is that the health is in the eye of the beholder. Is a big sagebrush/bunchgrass habitat with 10% sagebrush cover and good perennial grass densities less healthier than 20% sagebrush cover and less perennial grasses? Remember, good long-lived perennial grass densities are the best way to suppress cheatgrass fuel loads that is critical in protecting sage grouse habitats. The 20% big sagebrush cover may very well be suppressing the much needed long-lived perennial grasses. Also, plant measurements taken by numerous individuals, even with a strict protocol, have high error, so in many cases the data you analyze does not represent on-the-ground situations. You risk not achieving stated goals and objectives due to this disconnect between data collected and on-the-ground realities." 7.6.24) "It is very difficult to modify grazing systems in the arid west. With such variations in forage productions the climate does not offer annual predictions, therefore livestock are put out on the range during drought years in the same manner as during rare wet years. Our rangelands simply do not provide the flexibility to accommodate the livestock producer without some kind of financial hardship. Most livestock producers are lacking winter allotments and have to feed or supplement their stock at a high cost, therefore they are chewing at the bit to get their livestock back on the range early and keep them out their as long as possible. One of the best ways to manage livestock is to get the cowboy back on the horse and to focus on the distribution part of the management." 7.6.25) "You want this effort to be achievable then be careful when placing the livestock industry on the defensive, the only ones that make out are the lawyers. I once had a livestock operator in Colorado tell me that it was “hard to swallow someone coming in and decreasing his equity in such a closed minded fashion, how would they like it if I came in and took out a bedroom and bathroom out of their home”. He ended up selling his property to a developer. If this mentality is consistent out there, wildlife in general could pay a price." 7.6.26) "How many of these wet meadows are private? How does this affect the ability to meet these management goals? Here they are discussing building fences, earlier they discussed removing fencing. Is fencing harmful to sage grouse? Again, simply placing a cowboy back on the range will reduce hot season grazing! Building a fence around so many riparian areas will only increase maintenance and repair which may add disturbances to the overall area and in most cases place the livestock

48

producer in a position where they are spending time repairing fence on top of farming/mechanic duties rather than moving and actively managing livestock. Don’t these fences just add perches for predators?" 7.6.27) "Is the Federal Government going to go into the business of managing their own livestock? In the part about retiring grazing permits I have this question: Only about 7% of Nevada is considered mountain brush habitat, whereas Wyoming big sagebrush is the major plant community. Where is the fuels management? The removal of livestock will most likely result in increased bunchgrasses/fuel loads in the mountain brush habitats. These fuel loads will probably result in increased wildfires in these habitats that will burn critical sagebrush communities. In the Wyoming big sagebrush communities, the perennial bunchgrasses are largely gone and cheatgrass is now the dominant herbaceous vegetation. Whether cheatgrass is 1” high or 12” high it will still produce seed and build seed banks. Even though wildfires occur with the presence of livestock, the reduction of such grazing would result in extreme build-ups of fuel loads. Again, resulting in further loss of critical shrub communities. The simple removal of livestock will not result in the return of healthy big sagebrush/bunchgrass communities, especially in Wyoming big sagebrush communities." 7.6.28) "Seems like the first thing to do [Retirement of Grazing Privileges] is to assess the effects of retiring the grazing. If the result of no grazing is increased risk of fire, then it might be worth reconsidering." 7.6.29) "Woefully inadequate measures [for Wild Horse and Burros Management]. While managing wild horses and burros to AML levels in priority sage grouse habitats would be a good start, the AML levels themselves must be re-evaluated and in almost all cases lowered to conserve sage grouse habitat." 7.6.30) "Pretty short addressing of the horses/burros issue. If you are going to mention fencing, water hole dispersal etc., with livestock then even with a proper management level of horses you need to address hot season use and the degradation of these water holes by horses and burros." 7.6.31) "I do think some additional flexibility is called for [in section on Minerals]. The exceptions to the NSO state that if the entire lease is within 3.1 miles of a lek or a winter concentration area (which will not be uncommon), then the pad must be placed in the “most distal” part of the lease. Depending on topography and other habitat aspects, the most distal portion of the lease may or may not be the best place to put the pad from a sage grouse perspective, and some exception that is demonstrably beneficial to sage grouse should be allowed." 7.6.32) "I generally support the BMPs as mandatory conditions of approval, but the process needs to recognize that Industry frequently finds better ways to do things more quickly than BMPs are modified, so any mandatory aspect needs to allow for better approaches to be approved."

49

7.6.33) "Prioritizing off-site mitigation to priority habitat areas, and to the population impacted makes sense, but the whole question of when mitigation is required, to what degree, and even what constitutes mitigation needs a great deal more development. This document is silent on that, which leaves it entirely to field discretion. The currency of mitigation needs to be developed, with credit given for mitigation over and above that required." 7.6.34) "Prohibiting Fuels Management treatments in known winter range is too restrictive. There may be situations where the fuels treatment is small enough or in higher precipitation zones with ample forage where treatments will be beneficial (i.e., where winter range is also brood habitat). Similarly, excluding fire in areas with less than 12-inches of annual precipitation is also too restrictive, as size of treatment definitely matters." 7.6.35) "Clarify/define the terms "native seeds" and "non-native seeds". Does this mean locally collected seeds, the same species of seeds collected from anywhere (BLM has had problems in the past with, for example, sagebrush seed being planted that was collected hundreds of miles away from where it was collected. Not good.), or truly exotic species?" 7.6.36) From the NTT Report draft, section on Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation, the reviewer comment was made regarding the following statement in the NTT Report: "Consider potential changes in climate when proposing post-fire seedings using native plants. Selecting native plants adapted to a warmer climate with more variable precipitation should be considered given the longevity of native plants." "Reviewer comment: There is no basis for this suggestion. To date there is no research I am aware of showing that plant species are changing their ranges. And the movements are likely to be so slow that managers will be able to adapt without introducing new species (in other words those species will have become part of the system by the time we need to actively consider them in seeding mixes). We have enough trouble establishing the existing native species on most sites. I know Interior is under pressure to "respond " to climate change, so if you must, put in a statement to the effect that species mixes will be adjusted as information on changes in species ranges becomes available." [The final language in the NTT Report did not address this issue with their minor changes: "Consider potential changes in climate (Miller at al. 2011) when proposing post-‐fire seedings using native plants. Consider seed collections from the warmer component within a species’ current range for selection of native seed. (Kramer and Havens 2009)."] 7.6.37) "It is very theoretical to suggest using species that are more adapted to warmer or drier climates (assisted succession) in a management plan. Are you

50

suggesting seeding Wyoming big sagebrush in a mountain big sagebrush zone? This approach, which we have worked with for 10+ years, suggests that it works. Do you really want to make management decisions of this magnitude off of a theory? ... Far too often seed mixes are put together under what looks good on paper or someone’s ecological site description, rather than what are the chances we can get this species established and help prevent further degradation! After all, this effort is to protect and enhance sage grouse habitat, right?" 7.6.38) "In the effort to restore sagebrush densities, it should be noted that there are levels of big sagebrush which are detrimental to big sagebrush itself. Once the big sagebrush reaches higher percent covers, long-lived perennial grasses will decrease, cheatgrass will then be the void and fire will follow. It always amazes me how many folks miss the point that cheatgrass starts under the shrub, excellent safe-site with litter and moisture, and then mines the site out into the interspaces. Sagebrush does not suppress cheatgrass." 7.6.39) "Sagebrush over-stories should be more defined and managed by the local resource managers specific to the site since it is of “highest priority”. I truly see the concern because we are not very good at restoring or protecting sagebrush, but sitting back and hoping that the sagebrush community is not destroyed has not worked. We aged big sagebrush communities (both mountain and Wyoming) and found the ages from 20-75 yrs of age. Mountain big sagebrush built small numbers of seed banks but really not enough to sustain itself without some type of outside help. No seed banks were recorded from Wyoming big sagebrush communities. The return of Wyoming big sagebrush on our 28 yr old plots is absent, yet the mountain big sagebrush community had various return rates from 15% cover in 10 years to only 8% cover in 15 yrs at another site. These goals and objectives need to be flexible and more lenient or they will never be achieved for some habitats. The reality is that in many of these habitats we would be ecstatic to have 10% sagebrush cover!!!"

8) The recommendations in the NTT Report were tailored to be consistent with ongoing settlement negotiations with environmental litigants. 8.1) A Dec 13, 2011 11:52 AM, e-mail from Raul Morales (<[email protected]>), the NTT team lead for the BLM, (with the Subject: The latest on the NTT Report) provides evidence that the NTT Report recommendations were influenced by ongoing settlement negotiations with environmental litigants over land use plans, rather than an unbiased assessment of conservation alternatives:

"This small team met last week in Phoenix for 2 1⁄2 days and we are currently in the process of formatting and updating the NTT report to reflect the efforts of the science team last week. Our timeframe is to complete the “updated” draft NTT report by COB tomorrow so I can ship it back to DC. Due to concerns by solicitors in DC the NTT report will look different. However the content is generally the same and due to the science review we did make changes to the Goals and Objectives section, some

51

conservation measure in fluid minerals have been updated (i.e. 2.5% has been changed to 3% with rationale). The Policy recommendation change has undergone significant clarification again based on solicitor concerns in DC. The solicitor concerns with the Policy recommendation piece stems from ongoing litigation discussions they currently having with litigants over BLM’s recently completed LUPs. Once I have the updated NTT report I will ship out this new report to everyone. WO is planning to soon issue (after the receive the newest NTT report) a BLM-wide IM that will explain how to use the conservation measures in planning."

9) Use of strong inference is absent from the NTT Report. 9.1) A truly scientific, "strong inference approach" is needed to address threats to sage grouse or much effort will be wasted, to the detriment of sage grouse, as well as collateral economic damage to affected communities and economic activity. The NTT Report is touted as a scientific review document and includes an appendix on "Scientific Inference." However, there is no mention of the term “hypotheses” or “hypothesis testing” in Appendix B or anywhere else in the NTT Report, or potential falsification of hypotheses. The NTT Report mentions the scientific method in one sentence but clearly misrepresents its definition and application. Instead, the primary papers cited in support of NTT Report recommendations rely on a subjective interpretation of results or blind acceptance of model selection results. 9.2) The NTT Report fails to mention the most basic requirement of scientific inference: that the cited studies, whether published or not, be reproducible, and that requires that the data be publicly available. The approach emphasized in the NTT Report is to rely on so-called "quality" published, peer reviewed studies, and when these do not exist, "managers have to resort to best professional judgment and/or unpublished studies." However, none of the data sets used in the studies cited in the NTT Report to justify the 4 mile buffer, 3% disturbance cap, or noise levels, are in the public domain. 9.3) The BLM needs to correct its description of science in the NTT Report. As noted in the March 23, 2012 comments by the American Petroleum Institute to the BLM regarding "Notice of Intent, December 9, 2011, To Prepare Environmental Impact Statements and Supplemental Environmental Impact Statements To Incorporate Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures Into Land Use Plans and Land Management Plans."

A strong inference approach is needed to address threats to sage grouse In addressing threats identified by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), we propose that the BLM formulate multiple, alternative hypotheses regarding the specific cause and effect mechanisms of each threat. Then the agency should deduce testable (e.g. potentially falsifiable) predictions, and establish thresholds for testing these against the available scientific data. This strategy of strong inference has the greatest potential for rapid advancement of scientifically informed decision making (Platt 1964; Rehme et al. 2011). This is especially important to adaptive management as proposed by the BLM. API believes that if BLM elects not to employ this approach, the agency must disclose in the strategy and subsequent RMP amendments

52

the scientific uncertainty that is present concerning specific cause and effect mechanisms affecting Greater Sage-grouse persistence.

9.4) In order to implement sound, scientific investigations and their use by the BLM, it is essential that the proper data be gathered and used in a well-defined and effective adaptive management strategy. An additional comment by the American Petroleum Institute further illustrates this issue:

Monitoring of Sage-grouse and Sagebrush Habitats The monitoring of sage grouse populations is an essential component of adaptive management. Yet, the resolution of male lek counts is limited, and there is no demonstrated correspondence between male lek counts and actual population number or trends. Given the profound level of investment that is being asked of local communities and the American public to implement a series of far-reaching conservation measures to benefit sage grouse, the development of improved methods for censusing sage grouse populations is critically important. To address this issue, we suggest that the BLM issue a competitive Request for Proposals to generate new ideas on how to improve upon existing lek counts or develop new methods for obtaining reliable data on sage grouse population distribution, abundance, and trends. Such a competitive approach offers the best opportunity for innovation.

We add that the solution the NTT proposes is for the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) to convene a technical group to develop ways to better estimate sage grouse distribution and abundance. We find this recommendation to be an abdication of responsibility by the NTT. According to the National Sage Grouse Strategy, the NTT is a group of sage grouse scientific experts chartered as a scientific and technical forum to:

• Understand current scientific knowledge related to the greater sage-grouse. • Provide specialized sources of expertise not otherwise available. • Provide innovative scientific perspectives concerning management approaches

for the greater sage-grouse. • Provide assurance that relevant science is considered, reasonably interpreted,

and accurately presented; and that uncertainties and risks are acknowledged and documented.

• Provide science and technical assistance to the RMT and Regional Interdisciplinary Team, on request.

• Articulate conservation objectives for the greater sage-grouse in measurable terms to guide overall planning.

• Identify science-based management considerations for the greater sage-grouse (e.g., conservation measures) that are necessary to promote sustainable sage-grouse populations, and which focus on the threats in each of the management zones.

We further note that a fundamental bias with WAFWA is that it is comprised primarily of career state and federal biologists, and therefore, is not independent of the NTT (or the BLM and USFWS). If the BLM continues to rely on such conflicted and non-

53

independent sources of information, confirmation bias is assured to continue in its decision making process, just as it has in the development of the NTT Report. Confirmation bias is a phenomenon that is frequently found in the interpretation of scientific research (MacCoun 1998; Nickerson 1998; Moore et al. 2010).

9.5) The NTT Report's description of adaptive management exhibits a divergence from established guidelines that were designed to foster transparency and accountability in adaptive management. This issue is succinctly described in the following comment by the American Petroleum Institute:

Adaptive management details are needed NTT Report’s presentation of adaptive management appears different than that utilized by the U.S. Department of Interior (DOI). For example, the NTT Report makes no mention of the role of stakeholders in the document, or the process by which alternative management actions are identified for decision making. The key elements of adaptive management in DOI guidelines include: - Ensure stakeholder commitment to adaptive management for duration of enterprise - Identify clear, measurable, and agreed-upon objectives - Evaluate management effectiveness over time - Identify management actions for decision-making - Model different benefits and costs as outputs of management through time - Design and implement a monitoring plan

10) The BLM is being set up for failure by the NTT Report. 10.1) E-mail exchanges among NTT members and BLM staff reveal that there were valid complaints raised by BLM staff about unrealistic goals being set in the NTT Report that the BLM could not achieve. This included the immediate effect of shutting down any minor development, and potential operations, in areas that have a surface disturbance in excess of 3%. Furthermore, Jim Perry of the BLM pointed out an important internal inconsistency in the NTT Report that makes it subject to legal challenge: if 50-70% of the acreage needs to be in sagebrush cover for long-term sage-grouse persistence, then 30-50% non-sagebrush will not cause harm to the birds. However, the fact that NTT added a 3% disturbance cap is not consistent with the 10-16 fold increase allowed under a 50-70% sagebrush requirement (where 30-50% is allowed to be in non-sagebrush). 10.1.1) The following e-mail communications from Jim Perry to the NTT points out this issue and also illustrating why the NTT needed to drop its arbitrary <3% disturbance and 50-70% sagebrush thresholds.

From: Perry, Jim To: Morales, Raul; Fielder, Dwight Cc: Kniola, Benjamin E; Bargsten, Travis D; Perry, Jim; Wells, Steven Subject: RE: NTT Report and Transmittal Letter Date: Thursday, December 22, 2011 6:28:14 AM

54

Attachments: 2011_1221_Final_NTT_Report [edits made by NTT].docx Raul and Dwight, Thanks for making those edits and for mentioning NSO in the Transmittal memo to the NPT! I’m confused why the “Locatable Minerals” BMPs did not get changed to “Solid Minerals” in the Appendix?!? Last night’s edits opens a new, very serious question…. It may be too late to address this in the report, but it is one we will need to address in our outreach to the field…. It appears to me the BLM is being unnecessarily set up for immediate failure across the priority habitats. Nearly all contain roads, pipelines, power lines, homes, farms, well pads, etc…. Science says 30 – 50% in non-sagebrush cover is okay (see quote below), but the NTT Report says 3% in anthropogenic features is the NTT recommended maximum (see quote below). Am I missing something, is it worded poorly, or is this a misapplication of professional judgment and science? The report now makes this scientifically-based assertion: Within priority habitat, a minimum range of 50-70% of the acreage in sagebrush cover is required for long-term sage-grouse persistence (Aldridge et al. 2008, Doherty et al. 2010, Wisdom et al. 2011). That leaves an allowance of 30 - 50% in non-sage-brush cover. So how was the 3% maximum cap on surface anthropogenic features derived based on “professional judgment”? (see footnote) 3% is a long way from 30 – 50% Manage priority sage-grouse habitats so that discrete anthropogenic disturbances cover less than 3% of the total sage-grouse habitat regardless of ownership. Anthropogenic features include but are not limited to paved highways, graded gravel roads, transmission lines, substations, wind turbines, oil and gas wells, geothermal wells and associated facilities, pipelines, landfills, homes, and mines. iii iii Professional judgment as derived from Holloran 2005, Walker et al. 2007, Doherty et al. 2008, Doherty et al. 2011, Naugle et al. 2011a,b. o In priority habitats where the 3% disturbance threshold is already exceeded from any source, no further anthropogenic disturbances will be permitted by BLM until enough habitat has been restored to maintain the area under this threshold (subject to valid existing rights). Jim

10.1.2) Dave Naugle's response to Jim Perry's question is below. There are no studies that show 50-70 sagebrush cover is needed for population persistence. In fact, numerous populations fall short of that, especially in the southern part of the range (i.e. the Parachute - Piceance - Roan (PPR) population, which has approximately 12% sagebrush cover and is naturally fragmented by topography, aspen stands, and conifer stands. Additionally, Schroeder et al. (2004) documented numerous historic sightings of sage grouse well outside the areas dominated by sagebrush.

From: Dave Naugle

55

To: Morales, Raul Subject: RE: NTT Report and Transmittal Letter Date: Thursday, December 22, 2011 9:52:44 AM Raul, You have it right…the 50-70% is a minimum acreage of sagebrush habitat necessary over broad scales to maintain a population. I’m not a big fan of setting “minimums” because that is then the number everybody tries to achieve. In reality, many cores surpass this 50-70% minimum because they were delineated around the best remaining habitats. The non-sagebrush sites within cores may be naturally fragmented or the result of past anthropogenic impacts. Regardless, we cannot further litter the cores with additional anthropogenic impacts without expecting impacts to populations. We got off track on the NSO and drainage issue because some view non-sagebrush habitat inside cores as a throw away developable area. But additional impacts anywhere inside cores increases cumulative impacts beyond the site of the new well pad. Thus the limit of 1 pad per square mile and a 3% cap on additional footprint. We’ve progressed in our thinking past individual lek buffers to now delineate whole cores at appropriately large scales that encompass all seasonal habitats necessary to support a population. We will still see impacts from 1 pad per square mile and a 3% cap on new anthropogenic disturbances. I hope these end up being acceptable losses that still respect valid existing rights. I suspect the NTT Team would be very leery of endorsing any additional impacts inside cores. The NPT can determine if existing laws or other issues preclude NTT recommendations; but that is a policy issue not a technical one. Happy holidays Raul, Dave From: Morales, Raul [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2011 8:18 AM To: Dave Naugle Subject: Fw: NTT Report and Transmittal Letter Dave, see Jim's comments below regarding 50-70% sagebrush cover and 3% anthropogenic disturbance. Let me make sure I can explain this and see if I have it right. Anthropogenic feature are being limited to 3% to limit direct impacts to sagebrush habitat loss but more importantly impacts to sage grouse (direct or indirect) as a

56

result of these features on the landscape. The 50-70% sagebrush cover is really a minimum range for healthy habitats and that if the remaining habitat were all anthropogenic then the 50-70% would not be effective to sustainable SG populations. If the remaining 30-50% was in some other plant seral stage (recent burn or annual grassland) at least there is still habitat to be reclaimed or evolve over time back to a sage brush ecosystem. Do I have this right? Anything you would add so I can be prepared for questions like this in the future?

10.1.3) The final exchange between Naugle and Perry indicate that these issues remain unresolved. However, two additional issues stand out clearly: 1) if the 3% disturbance cap is implemented along with the goal of 50-70% sagebrush cover, then the non-essential remaining 30-50 percent should not be regulated as if it were essential - otherwise the BLM will find itself in a legal challenge; and 2) without having developed its priority habitat and sage brush cover maps first, the NTT Report included guesswork as to the percentages of sagebrush and anthropogentic disturbance.

From: Dave Naugle To: Morales, Raul Subject: RE: NTT Report and Transmittal Letter Date: Thursday, December 22, 2011 12:27:39 PM Yeah…this is what I’m afraid of, we’re cutting individual words and losing context out of email transmissions, never a wise thing to do on big decisions. I’m happy to talk with you all on the phone but this is a poor way to do this. Plus I feel like I’m speaking for the entire NTT which is way out of line. Dave From: Morales, Raul [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2011 1:19 PM To: Dave Naugle Subject: Fw: NTT Report and Transmittal Letter Does what Jim says make sense to you? From: Perry, Jim Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2011 12:37 PM To: Morales, Raul; Fielder, Dwight Cc: Kniola, Benjamin E; Bargsten, Travis D; Wells, Steven; Perry, Jim Subject: RE: NTT Report and Transmittal Letter Raul, Here are two main points from Dave…. and both statements make sense and are fine with me. But my question is not answered and my concerns remain. Is the NTT report in error? Please see my recommendation at the bottom. Dave said….. “You have it right…the 50-70% is a minimum acreage of sagebrush habitat necessary over broad scales to maintain a population. “ “Thus the limit of 1 pad per square mile and a 3% cap on additional footprint.” The key words from Dave are “additional footprint”

57

But here is what the NTT Report actually says in the quotes below. (Rather than 50%-70% in sagebrush habitat (the minimum needed on a broad scale to maintain a population based on Science), the priority habitat must already, today, have over 97% in sagebrush habitat or else no development is permitted.) 100% - 3% = 97% • Manage priority sage-grouse habitats so that discrete anthropogenic disturbances cover less than 3% of the total sage-grouse habitat regardless of ownership….. o “In priority habitats where the 3% disturbance threshold is already exceeded from any source, no further anthropogenic disturbances will be permitted by BLM until enough habitat has been restored to maintain the area under this threshold (subject to valid existing rights).“ o In this instance, an additional objective will be designated for the priority area to prioritize and reclaim/restore anthropogenic disturbances so that 3% or less of the total priority habitat area is disturbed within 10 years. I do not understand the logic in this….at least not the way it is worded in the NTT report. RECOMMENDATION: The report should say something like, …”the amount of sagebrush habitat in the priority habitat areas, as of the date of this plan amendment, is a baseline, and additional anthropogenic surface disturbances must not increase the anthropogenic surface footprint by more than 3% ” The NTT bullet points above need to be removed from the report as it conflicts with science. Jim

58

Literature Cited Adler, J.H. 2008. Money or nothing: the adverse environmental consequences of uncompensated land use controls. Boston College Law Review 49:301-366. Adler, J.H. 2011. The Leaky Ark. The American. October 5, 2011. Available at http://www.american.com/archive/2011/october/the-leaky-ark/ Attenborough, K. 2007. Sound Propagation in the Atmosphere. In Springer Handbook of Acoustics, ed. T.D. Rossing (New York: Springer), pp. 113–48. Barber, J., K. Crooks, and K. Fristrup. 2010. The costs of chronic noise exposure for terrestrial organisms. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 25:180–189. Baur, D.C., M.J. Bean, and W. R Irvin. 2009. A Recovery Plan for the Endangered Species Act. Environmental Law Reporter 39:10006-10011 Bean, M.J. 2002. Overcoming Unintended Consequences of Endangered Species Regulation. Idaho L. Rev. 38:409-414. Bean, M.J. 1999. Testimony before the House Resources Committee on Implementation of the Endangered Species Act. May 26, 1999. Bean, M.J. The Endangered Species Act and Private Land: Four Lessons Learned From the Past Quarter Century, 28 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 10,701, 10,706 (1998) Bedrosian, B and D. Craighead 2010. Anthropogenic influences on Common Ravens in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Unpublished poster presentation. Available at: http://beringiasouth.org/ecology-of-the-common-raven. Accessed 10 August 2013. Bies, D.A. and C.H. Hansen. 2009. Engineering Noise Control: Theory and Practice, Fourth Edition. Spon Press (Taylor and Francis, NY, NY). Blickley, J.L., D. Blackwood, and G.L. Patricelli. In preparation. Experimental evidence for avoidance of chronic anthropogenic noise by greater sage-‐grouse. University of California-‐Davis, California, USA. Blickely, J.L. and G.L. Patricelli. In press. Potential acoustical masking of greater sage-‐grouse display components by chronic industrial noise. Ornithological Monographs. Boarman, W. I. 1993. When a native predator becomes a pest: a case study. Pages 191–206 in S. K. Majumdar, E. W. Miller, D. E. Miller, E. K. Brown, J. R. Pratt, and R. F. Schmalz, editors. Conservation and resource management. Pennsylvania Academy of Science, Philadelphia, USA.

59

Boarman, W. I. 2003. Managing a subsidized predator population: reducing common raven predation on desert tortoises. Environmental Management 32:205–217. Boarman, W.I., R. J. Camp, M. Hagan, W. Deal. 1995. Raven abundance at anthropogenic resources in the western Mojave Desert, California. Report to Edwards Air Force Base, CA. National Biological Service, Riverside, CA. Boarman, W. I., and B. Heinrich. 1999. Common raven (Corvus corax). Account 476 in A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The birds of North America. The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C., USA. Account 476 in A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The birds of North America. The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C., USA. Boarman, W. I., M. A. Patten, R. J. Camp, and S. J. Collis. 2006. Ecology of a population of subsidized predators: common ravens in the central Mojave Desert, California. Journal of Arid Environments 67:248–261. Bui, T.D. 2009. The effects of nest and brood predation by common ravens (Corvus corax) on greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) in relation to land use in western Wyoming. M.S. Thesis, University of Washington. 48 pp. Bui, T-V. D., J. M. Marzluff and B. Bedrosian. 2010. Common raven activity in relation to land use in Western Wyoming: implications for greater sage-grouse reproductive success. The Condor 112(1):65-78. Bush, K. 2009. Genetic diversity and paternity analysis of endangered Canadian Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus). Ph.D. dissertation, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Bush, K.L., C.L. Aldridge, and J.E. Carpenter, et al. 2010. Birds of a feather do not always lek together: genetic diversity and kinship structure of greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) in Alberta. The Auk 127(2):343−353. Bush, K.L., C.K. Dyte, B.J. Moynahan, C.L. Aldridge, H.S. Sauls, A.M. Battazzo, B.L. Walker, K.E. Doherty, J. Tack, J. Carlson, D. Eslinger, J. Nicholson, M.S. Boyce, D.E. Naugle, C.A. Paszkowski, and D.W. Coltman. 2011. Population structure and genetic diversity of greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) in fragmented landscapes at the northern edge of their range. Conservation Genetics 12:527–542. Cagney J., E. Bainter, B. Budd, T. Christiansen, V. Herren, M. Holloran, B. Rashford, M. Smith and J. Williams. 2010. Grazing influence, objective development, and management in Wyoming’s greater sage-grouse habitat. University of Wyoming College of Agriculture Extension Bulletin B-1203. Laramie.

60

Coates, P.S. 2007. Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) nest predation and incubation behavior. Ph.D. Thesis, Idaho State University, Boise, ID. 191 pp. Coates, P.S. and D.J. Delehanty. 2004. The effect of raven removal on sage grouse nest success. Proc. 21st Vertebrate Pest Conference (R.M. Timm and W.P. Gorenzel, Eds.) Published by the University of California, Davis. pp12-20. Coates, P.S., J.W. Connelly, and D.J. Delehanty. 2008. Predators of greater sage-grouse nests identified by video monitoring. Journal of Field Ornithology 79:421-428. Coates, P.S. and D.J. Delehanty. 2010. Nest predation of greater sage-grouse in relation to microhabitat factors and predators. Journal of Wildlife Management 74(2):240-48. Conover, M.R., J.S. Borgo, R.E. Dritz, J. B. Dinkins and D. K. Dahlgren. 2010. Greater sage-grouse select nest sites to avoid visual predators but not olfactory predators. The Condor 112(2):331-336. Cote, I.M. and W.J. Sutherland. 1997. The effectiveness of removing predators to protect bird populations. Conservation Biology 11:395-405. DeLong, A.K., J.A. Crawford, and D. C. DeLong. 1995. Relationship between vegetational structure and predation of artificial sage grouse nests. Journal of Wildlife Management 59:88–92. Doherty, K.E., D.E. Naugle, H.E. Copeland, A. Pocewicz, and J.M. Kiesecker. 2011. Energy development and conservation tradeoffs: systematic planning for Greater Sage-Grouse in their eastern range. Pp. 505–516 in S.T. Knick and J.W. Connelly (editors). Greater Sage-Grouse: ecology and conservation of a landscape species and its habitats. Studies in Avian Biology (vol. 38), University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. Fristrup, K., D. Joyce, and E. Lynch. 2010. Measuring and monitoring soundscapes in the national parks. Park Science, 26(3):1-8. Winter 2009-2010. Available at http://www.nature.nps.gov/ParkScience/index.cfm?ArticleID=344&Page=1. Accessed August 5, 2013. Gregg, M.A., J.A. Crawford, M.S. Drut, and A.K. DeLong. 1994. Vegetational cover and predation of sage grouse nests in Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management 58:162–166. Harju, S.M., M.R. Dzialak, R.C. Taylor, L.D. Hayden-Wing, and J.B. Winstead. 2010. Thresholds and time lags in effects of energy development on greater sage-grouse populations. Journal of Wildlife Management 74:437-448. Harvey Inc., K.C. 2009. Pinedale Anticline Project Area sage grouse monitoring, noise monitoring report. Prepared by K.C. Harvey, Inc., 376 Gallatin Park Drive, Bozeman, MT 59715. August 14, 2009. Heinrich, B., D. Kaye, T. Knight and K. Schaumburg 1994. Dispersal and Association

61

among Common Raven. The Condor 96(2):545-551 Holloran, M.J. 2005. Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) population response to natural gas field development in western Wyoming. Dissertation, Department of Zoology and Physiology, University of Wyoming, Laramie. Holloran, M.J., R.C. Kaiser, and W.A. Hubert. 2010. Yearling greater sage-‐grouse response to energy development in Wyoming. Journal of Wildlife Management 74:65–72. Keystone Center. 2006. The Keystone Working Group on Endangered Species Act Habitat Issues, Final Report. Available at http://www.keystone.org/spp/documents/ESA Report FINAL 4 25 06 (2).pdf. Lynch, E., D. Joyce, and K. Fristrup. 2011. An assessment of noise audibility and sound levels in U.S. National Parks. Landscape Ecology 26:1297–1309. MacCoun, R.J. 1998. Biases in the interpretation and use of research results. Annual Review of Psychology 49:259-287. Moore, D. A., L. Tanlu, and M. H. Bazerman (2010) Conflict of interest and the intrusion of bias. Judgment and Decision Making 5(1):37–53. Moynahan, B. J., M. S. Lindberg, J. J. Rotella, and J. W. Thomas. 2007. Factors affecting nest survival of greater sage-grouse in northcentral Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:1773–1783. Nickerson, R. S. (1998) Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises. Review of General Psychology 2(2):175-220. Patricelli, G.L., J.L. Blickley, and S. Hooper. 2010. Incorporating the impacts of noise pollution into greater sage-‐grouse conservation planning. 27th Meeting of the Western Agencies Sage and Columbian Sharp-‐tailed Grouse Technical Committee Workshop. Twin Falls, Idaho, USA. Paulich, N. 2010. Increasing private conservation through incentive mechanisms. Stanford Journal of Animal Law & Policy 3:106-158. Pielke, Roger A. Jr. 2004. When scientists politicize science: making sense of controversy over The Skeptical Environmentalist. Environmental Science & Policy 7:405–417. Platt, J.R., 1964. Strong inference. Science 146:347-353 Preston, M.L. 2005. Factors Affecting Winter Roost Dispersal and Daily Behaviour of Common Ravens (Corvus corax) in Southwestern Alberta. Northwestern Naturalist, Vol. 86, No. 3 (Winter, 2005), pp. 123-130.

62

Ramey, R.R., L.M. Brown, and F. Blackgoat. 2011. Oil and gas development and greater sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus): a review of threats and mitigation measures. The Journal of Energy and Development 35(1):49-78. Rehme, S.E., L.A. Powell, and C.R. Allen. 2011. Multimodel inference and adaptive management. Journal of Environmental Management 92:1360-1364. Reijnen, R., R. Foppen, C. Ter Braak, and J. Thissen.1995. The effects of car traffic on breeding bird populations in woodland. II. Reduction of density in relation to the proximity of main roads. Journal of Applied Ecology 32:187-202. Ruhl, J.B. 2012. The Endangered Species act’s fall from grace in the Supreme Court. Harvard Environmental Law Review. 36:487-532. Sage-grouse National Technical Team. 2011. Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures. Available at http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/co/programs/wildlife Par.73607.File.dat/GrSG%20Tech%20Team%20Report.pdf Schroeder, M.A. and R.K. Baydack. 2001. Predation and the management of prairie grouse. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29:24–32. Snyder, N.F.R., R.R. Ramey, and F.C. Sibley. 1986. Nest-site biology of the California condor. Condor 88:228–241. Sovada, M.A., A.B. Sargeant and J.W. Grier. 1995. Differential effects of coyotes and red foxes on duck nest success. Journal of Wildlife Management 59:1-9. Taylor, R.C., B. Russell, B.P. Taylor. in prep. Greater sage-grouse populations and energy development in Wyoming. Thompson, T.R. 2012. Dispersal ecology of greater sage-grouse in northwestern Colorado: evidence from demographic and genetic methods. Doctoral dissertation, University of Idaho. USDA/APHIS/Wildlife Services. 2013. Letter from R.J. Merrell, District Supervisor, SW District Wyoming, USDA/APHIS/WS to Whom it may concern. 2pp. Walker, B.L., D.E. Naugle, and K.E. Doherty. 2007. Greater sage-‐grouse population response to energy development and habitat loss. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:2644-‐2654. Watters, M.E., T.L. McLash, C.L. Aldridge, and R.M. Brigham. 2002. The effect of vegetation structure on predation of artificial greater sage grouse nests. Ecoscience 9:314–319.

63

Webb, W.C., W.I. Boarman, and J.T. Rotenberry. 2009. Movements of juvenile common ravens in an arid landscape. Journal of Wildlife Management 73(1):72-81. Wyle. 2008. Noise basics and the effect of aviation noise on the environment. Unpublished report. El Segundo, CA, 48pp. Available from http://www.wyle.com/ServicesSolutions/science/EMMA/AcousticandVibrationConsulting/Resources/DocumentLibrary/NoiseGuidance/Pages/default.aspx Accessed August 6, 2013. Wyoming Game and Fish. 2012. Wyoming Sage-Grouse Population Trends 1995-2012. Unpublished presentation of analyses by Tom Christiansen, Wyoming Game and Fish, Sage-Grouse Program Coordinator, Cheyene, Wyoming. 14pp. Wyoming Game and Fish. 2012. Letter from S. Talbott, Wyoming Game and Fish Director to R. Krischke, Wyoming State Director, USDA/APHIS Wildlife Services. Dated 3 April 2012. 3pp. Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 2013. Wyoming sage-grouse population lek count data.

1

Data Quality Issues in the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service’s Greater Sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Conservation Objectives:

Final Report (Dated February 2013)

Dr. Rob Roy Ramey II Wildlife Science International, Inc.

Prepared for Western Energy Alliance October 16, 2013

Executive Summary

The Sage Grouse Conservation Objectives Team Report (COT Report) was prepared by five representatives from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and ten from State agencies in a collaborative effort to develop rangewide conservation objectives for the Greater sage-grouse, and to inform USFWS’ upcoming Endangered Species Act (ESA) listing decision. While the COT Report is intended only to serve as a guidance document to federal agencies, states, and others, there are several data quality issues with the report that should be taken into consideration before it used as to guide state and federal conservation efforts for the species. There was no opportunity for public input or comment on the COT Report prior to its release. The COT report is not a scientific document The COT Report is not a scientific document, as there are no original data or quantitative analyses used in developing the report, nor is there a comprehensive and unbiased review of all of the available scientific literature about conservation of the species. Instead, the COT Report provides a limited and selective review of the scientific literature and unpublished reports on sage-grouse as a basis for its conservation objectives and proposed actions. As a result, outdated information and beliefs are perpetuated in the COT Report. The COT overstates some threats to sage grouse while downplaying others The COT Report makes a number of dramatic statements about the status of sage-grouse, such as the need to "stop the bleeding" (of projected population declines and habitat losses). The COT Report's approach elevates hypothetical threats that have never been shown to cause sage grouse population decline to the level of real threats, while selectively ignoring well-documented sources of high sage grouse mortality, including predation and hunting. The COT Report's limited and selective evaluation of threats ignores a major body of scientific literature on predation (especially predation by ravens) and experimental data on predator management. The population predictions used in the COT threats analysis were based on an analysis that contains methodological bias and error The COT Report's threats analysis, population definitions, current and projected numbers

2

of males, and probability of population persistence, are entirely based on the paper by Garton et al. (2011). However, there are serious methodological biases and mathematical errors in this paper. The data and programs used in that highly influential paper are not public, and therefore, the results are not reproducible. The COT's ranking of threats to populations and Sage Grouse Management Zones is subjective There is no evidence of any reproducible, quantitative methodology used in assigning rankings to threats in each population and sage grouse management zone, or in discussion of specific Priority Areas of Conservation (PAC) in Appendix 1. Instead, the ranking of threats in the COT Report is entirely subjective. Population trends are to be determined using substandard data and methods The COT proposes that no credit be received for restoration efforts until there is demonstrated sage-grouse use or positive population trend. The COT Report does not acknowledge the well-documented finding that male lek counts provide only a crude non-random, statistically invalid estimate of population trends. That lack of resolution in the data translates into the potential for no credit to be given for restoration and mitigation efforts. The COT proposes calling out the Air National Guard and other measures to protect sage grouse habitat and hypothetical "connectivity corridors" The COT proposes to prioritize suppression of fire in sage brush including, "policy changes that allow access to more fire suppression resources, such as Air National Guard Mobile Airborne Firefighting Units" to "immediately suppress fire in all sagebrush habitats." This includes the suppression of fires in so-called "identified connectivity corridors." However, these corridors are hypothetical only and have not been documented in the wild. If implemented, this policy change would represent an arbitrary, capricious, and scientifically unreasonable agency action. The COT proposes "enforceable temporary measures" The COT proposes that if adequate regulatory mechanisms cannot be implemented by specific deadlines, "then enforceable temporary measures should be considered in order to ensure threats will be at least temporarily ameliorated until such time that an effective regulatory mechanism can be implemented." However, the COT fails to mentions what those "enforceable temporary measures" would include, which agency would be charged with enforcing them, if they would be enforced on private land, or the criteria that would be used to determine if they are an "adequate regulatory mechanism." An unintended consequence of the COT Report is that it provides an administrative record which litigants can then use in court to argue that additional regulation is needed for sage grouse or to challenge agencies that have not enacted “enforceable temporary measures.”

3

The ESA requires that decisions must be based upon best available scientific and commercial data, and not "best available science" The COT states that, "All proactive voluntary conservation efforts should use the best available science." However, to be consistent with the ESA and the IQA, this language needs to be changed to best available scientific and commercial data. The COT uses new, subjective terms to evaluate risks to sage grouse The COT Report uses new, subjective terms from the Significant Portion of the Range Policy to qualitatively describe the status of populations of a species being considered for ESA listing: redundancy, resiliency, and representation. To this list, the COT added a new, subjective term: resistance. None of these terms are quantifiable and all are open to broad interpretation. Others have also recognized this deficiency and have pointed it out to the USFWS. Opened-ended research funding and conflicts of interest The COT team calls for additional "key research" to resolve "uncertainties" in sage-grouse management and for "effecting sage-grouse and sagebrush persistence." However, without a list of specific questions and how the answers would change management decisions, this is simply a carte blanche request for research funding, and subverts a conservation program into a long-term research program with no mention of how the research will be funded or who will decide how funding is to be allocated. The COT does not evaluate any of its proposed conservation actions under PECE The COT proposed that sage-grouse conservation strategies undertaken by state agencies should consider using the criteria identified in the Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts (PECE), but does not state whether any of its proposed conservation actions meet the requirements of PECE. The USFWS cannot recommend that new conservation measures and regulations be imposed without first ensuring that they meet the PECE requirement. The COT Report erroneously evaluates threats using a single category for all energy production, despite substantial differences in the type and permanence of impacts The COT Report does not acknowledge the fact that renewable energy projects have a uniformly permanent impact on the landscape while oil and gas development has a mix of temporary and permanent impacts. Blending these two vastly different types of energy production into one threat category is contrary to the best available scientific and commercial data, and counter-productive to sage-grouse conservation. The COT Report relies on erroneous information for priority habitat mapping, evaluation of threats, and population risk assessments

4

This report also highlights a number of problems with the evaluation of threats and population risk assessments in the Colorado Plateau Management Zone, Power River Basin, and associated PACs discussed in the COT Report's Appendix A - Management Zone And Population Risk Assessments.

5

Detailed Review

The Sage Grouse Conservation Objectives Team Report (COT Report) was prepared by five representatives from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and ten from State agencies in a collaborative effort to develop rangewide conservation objectives for the sage-grouse, and to inform the upcoming 2015 Endangered Species Act (ESA) listing decision. A settlement agreement, rather than a transparent public process, determined the date of that decision. Moreover, there was no opportunity for public input or comment on the Sage Grouse Conservation Objectives Team Report. 1) The COT Report is not a scientific document. 1.1) The COT Report is not a scientific document, as there are no original data or quantitative analyses used in developing the report, nor is there a comprehensive and unbiased review of all of the available scientific literature. Instead, the COT Report provides a limited and selective review of the scientific literature and unpublished reports on sage grouse as a basis for its conservation objectives and proposed actions. As a result, outdated information and beliefs are perpetuated in the COT Report (i.e. purported impacts are not necessarily representative of actual impacts due to less intensive energy development, newer technologies, and required mitigation measures). 1.2) As this is not a scientific document, it is incongruous that it was submitted for "scientific peer review." To date, copies of these peer reviews have been requested under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) but have not been made public by the USFWS. 2) The COT overstates some threats to sage grouse while downplaying others. 2.1) The COT Report made a number of dramatic statements about the status of sage grouse, such as the need to "stop the bleeding " (of projected population declines and habitat losses). However, the COT Report failed to acknowledge that in the 2010 ESA-listing decision, data from states revealed that there were an estimated 535,542 sage grouse occupying 13 states and provinces in western North America. Moreover, the COT Report omits any mention of hunting as the most well documented source of sage grouse mortality, with a documented 207,433 sage grouse killed between 2001 and 2007, and on-going sage grouse hunting continues to this day. In contrast, proposals are put forth to regulate activities that have never been shown to cause sage grouse population decline. The COT Report's approach elevates hypothetical threats to the level of real threats while selectively ignoring known sources of sage grouse mortality. 2.2) Predation, one of the most well documented threats to sage grouse, was not given adequate treatment by the COT Report. Only one citation was provided by the COT in support of predator management (Hagen 2011). That literature review was an incomplete source of information because:

2.2.1) It did not include all available significant information, including numerous papers that were available on the subject (especially predation by ravens) but were

6

not cited (these include: Boarman 1993; Boarman 2003; Boarman et al. 1995; Boarman and Heinrich 1999; Boarman et al. 2006; Bedrosian and Craighead 2010; Bui 2009; Cagney et al. 2010; Christiansen 2011; Coates 2007; Coates and Delehanty 2004; Coates et al. 2008; Coates and Delehanty 2010; Conover et al. 2010; DeLong 1995; Heinrich et al. 1994; Moynahan et al. 2007; Preston 2005; Ramey, Brown, and Blackgoat 2011; Snyder et al. 1986, Sovada et al. 1995; Watters et al. 2002; and Webb et al. 2009). One of the most significant research papers that was not cited was Coates and Delehanty (2004). They reported a 73.6% nest success when predators were managed compared to a mean of 42.6% when they were not managed, based on 14 studies from 1941-1997.

2.2.2) Hagen (2011) found fault with most studies that reported a positive effect from predator management rather than providing an impartial assessment. Only a single paragraph in Hagen (2011) was devoted to "Predator Control as a Conservation Tool."

2.2.3) Subsequently Hagen (2011) concluded that the effectiveness of managing predation on sage grouse was generally in the short term (although no long-term studies exist).

2.3) Additionally, the COT Report dropped the ranking of predation as a threat in Priority Areas for Conservation (PAC) in the final version of its report using the following rationale, "Though threats such as infectious diseases and predation may be significant at a localized level, particularly if habitat quantity and quality is compromised, they were not identified by FWS as significant range-wide threats in our 2010 warranted finding (75 FR 13910)." This statement, however, misrepresents the fact that the 2010 decision devoted three pages to predation as a threat to sage grouse, and that predation is a documented threat to numerous local sage grouse populations (see papers cited above). Therefore, predation needs to be included in any objective and complete analysis of threats to sage grouse. 2.4) The COT Report, like the NTT Report, treated this threat as a byproduct of human activities or habitat modifications that can be regulated. However, as noted in a review of the NTT Report, it is clear that "such passive control will do nothing to reduce the immediate and long-term threat of high raven populations. In the same way, the NTT [and COT] Report's recommended conservation measures fail to address the fundamental fact that predators, such as ravens (a major predator on sage grouse eggs and broods), are heavily subsidized by humans, to the point where they exceed historic levels in some areas by as much as 1,500%. In such cases, management of some predator populations, especially where predators like ravens are abundant and sage grouse mortality is high, is needed to ensure that sage grouse populations are not depressed by a known and easily mitigated source of mortality." 2.5) The COT Report's dismissal of the management of predators (because it only has "been effective on local scales for short periods, but its efficacy over broad ranges or over long timespans has not been demonstrated") fails to mention that it was not attempted on a regional scale until 2012, when the USDA-APHIS Animal Damage Control began controlling ravens in landfills across southern Wyoming using the avicide

7

DRC-1339 at the request of the Wyoming Game and Fish Dept. (Wyoming Game and Fish 2012a, USDA/APHIS/Wildlife Services 2013). Large raven populations were found to cause a variety of health and safety problems at landfills and industrial sites, and the food subsidy that ravens gain from these also resulted in a higher than natural population density. Large-scale raven control at those sites was implemented after extensive research and review of the literature and data (Wyoming Game and Fish 2012a, USDA/APHIS/Wildlife Services 2013). If the USFWS relies on the COT Report's limited and selective evaluation of threats, it would be ignoring a major body of scientific literature on raven predation and experimental data on predator management.

3) The population predictions used in the COT Report's threats analysis were based on an analysis that contains methodological bias and error. 3.1) The COT Report's threats analysis, population definitions, current and projected numbers of males, and probability of population persistence, are entirely based on the paper by Garton et al. (the 2009 and 2011 versions of this paper are virtually identical). It is the most frequently cited paper in the COT Report and the basis of population predictions in the USFWS 2010 listing decision, where it was cited it 62 times. Other scientists who have reviewed Garton et al. (2009, 2011) have reported serious methodological biases and mathematical errors in that paper (see reviews commissioned by the Colorado Division of Wildlife and summarized by CESAR 2012; copies of the reviews and report by CESAR are attached). It is unconscionable, and indicative of an inadequate peer review and editorial process, that all of the reviewer comments were ignored by the USFWS in the 2010 listing decision and in the final published version of Garton et al. (2011). The data and programs used in that highly influential paper are not public, and therefore, the results are not reproducible. 4) The COT Report's ranking of threats to populations and Sage Grouse Management Zones is subjective. 4.1) There is no evidence of any reproducible, quantitative methodology used in assigning rankings to threats in each population and sage grouse management zone (Table 2), or in discussion of specific PACs in Appendix 1. Instead, the ranking of threats in the COT Report is entirely subjective. 4.2) The ranking of threats in the draft COT Report was initially determined by a vote count of opinions of COT members, with the treats ranked from A through H, depending upon the presumed "severity" of the threat and how "imminent" the threat was (Table 1, below). "Unknown" was a category used in both reports for the cases of inadequate information. In the final COT report however, the ranking system changed. In most, but not all, cases the draft COT threat rankings of A to D (or "substantial, imminent" to "moderate, non-imminent"), and F to G (or "widespread, low severity" and "slight threat", were collapsed in the final COT Report of "Y" (or the "threat is present and widespread"). The draft COT Report threat ranking of "E" (or threat "localized,

8

substantial" was made equivalent to "L" (or "threat present but localized") in the final COT Report. And a draft COT Report ranking of "H" (or "unthreatened") became "L" (or "threat present but localized").

Table 1. Comparison of threat rankings from Table 2 of the draft and final COT Reports. Draft COT Report Final COT Report

A = Substantial, Imminent B = Moderate, Imminent C = Substantial, non-imminent D = Moderate, Non-imminent E = Localized, Substantial F = Widespread, Low Severity G = Slight threat H = Unthreatened U = Unknown

Y = threat is present and widespreadY = threat is present and widespread Y = threat is present and widespread Y = threat is present and widespread Y = threat is present and widespread Y = threat is present and widespread Y = threat is present and widespread, or L = threat present but localized L = threat present but localized, or N = threat is not known to be present U = Unknown

4.3) The COT Report does not present any data that could be used in a rigorous evaluation of the threats. There is no evidence that any quantitative methodology was used to assign rankings in the final COT Report such that an independent reevaluation of the rankings would be reproducible. Moreover, these new rankings were not consistently applied. For example, the new ranking of "L" ("threat present but localized") in the final COT Report was applied to the Wyoming Basin population for the threats of mining, and conifers, even though the previous category was "H" ("unthreatened"). This arbitrary reassignment of threat ranking between drafts elevated the perceived threat level to this population and others. Similarly, the final COT Report assigned the previous threat category of "G" ("slight threat") to either "Y" ("threat is present and widespread") or to "L" ("threat present but localized"). If threats are to be evaluated objectively for each population, then data and reproducible methodologies are required, rather than subjective assessments used in COT Report. 5) Population trends are to be determined using substandard data and methods. 5.1) The COT proposes that no credit be received for restoration efforts until there is demonstrated sage-grouse use or positive population trend. However, the COT says nothing about: 1) how many years of monitoring will be required to show positive trends, 2) how much of a population increase would be required, 3) how these data would be

9

adjusted for natural population fluctuations and the uncertainty of statistically invalid trends estimated from only counting males at a nonrandom sample of leks. 5.2) Of the three issues above, the most critical one that the COT does not acknowledge is the fact that male lek counts provide only a crude, non-random, and statistically-invalid estimate of population trends. These issues are well documented (Walsh et al. 2004; WAFWA 2008). Statistically robust alternative methods exist for estimating population trends (i.e. the sentinel lek count method or stratified random sampling, as proposed and tested by Garton et al. 2007); however, the COT makes no mention of this superior method or alternatives. The continued use of this substandard method for gathering data and estimating population trends compromises the ability of any interested party to objectively evaluate the effectiveness of conservation measures undertaken to benefit sage grouse. That lack of resolution translates into the potential for no credit to be given for restoration and mitigation efforts (because the resolution is inadequate to determine if these conservation measures result in positive changes to sage grouse populations). 6) The COT proposes calling out the Air National Guard to protect sage grouse habitat and hypothetical "connectivity corridors." 6.1) The COT proposes to: "Implement policy changes that allow access to more fire suppression resources, such as Air National Guard Mobile Airborne Firefighting Units" to "immediately suppress fire in all sagebrush habitats." This includes the suppression of fires in so-called "identified connectivity corridors." However, these corridors are hypothetical only and have not been documented in the wild. If implemented, this policy change could represent an arbitrary, capricious, and scientifically unreasonable agency action. Moreover, such a misallocation of resources could elevate the protection of sagebrush above the health and safety of humans. It is also contrary to the Air National Guard's stated peacetime mission, which is to, "provide protection of life, property and preserve peace, order and public safety." 6.2) The COT also recommends other agency actions to prioritize suppression of fire in sage brush, without evaluation of the annual cost or the degree to which they would compromise the protection of human health and safety. These actions would unreasonable if they do not explicitly put human health, safety, and property first. The proposed actions include:

"b. Re-allocate fire response resources (crews, equipment, etc.) to important sage-grouse habitats. Identify where resources are lacking and provide those resources to decrease response time to fires in sage-grouse habitats." With firefighting resources unquestionably stretched thin across the western United States, it is both unreasonable and irresponsible for the COT to propose that these critical resources be allocated to protecting sage-grouse habitat. "c. Establish defensible fire lines in areas where: (i) effectiveness is high, (ii) fire risk

10

is likely, and (iii) negative impacts from these efforts (e.g. fragmentation) are minimized. Avoid use of any vegetative stripping in healthy, unfragmented habitats, unless fire conditions and local ecological conditions so warrant." This is another unreasonable and irresponsible COT recommendation. Wildland fire containment primarily occurs as a result of cutting firelines (removing vegetation) with machinery and hand tools, except in cases where natural features such as roads, or in rare cases, wetline can be used to contain the fire or set backfires. "d. Carefully consider the use of backfires within PACs to minimize the potential for escape and further damage to sage-grouse and sagebrush habitats." This is another unreasonable and irresponsible COT recommendation. The decision to set backfires as a control measure during a wildland fire is the responsibility of the Incident Commander, whose primary objectives are extinguishment and the protection of life and property, not sage-brush. "f. Remove pinyon-juniper stands which are highly flammable (stands where trees are the dominant vegetation and the primary plant influencing ecological processes (Phase 3; Miller et al. 2008)) in low elevation sagebrush habitats." This is a worthwhile objective, although primarily from the perspective of increasing the availability of sage grouse habitat in areas that have been limited by pinyon-juniper encroachment (Miller et al. 2011). "h. Provide incentives for suppressing fires in sagebrush habitats." The COT provides no examples of what such incentives would include. "i. Federal land management agencies should consider placing additional firefighting resources and establish new Incident Attack Centers in or adjacent to PACs." This is another unreasonable and irresponsible COT recommendation that would result in the reallocation of wildland firefighting resources away from locations where they have been sited to protect human health, safety, and property.

7) The COT Report proposes "enforceable temporary measures." 7.1) The COT Report proposed that if adequate regulatory mechanisms cannot be implemented by specific deadlines, "then enforceable temporary measures should be considered in order to ensure threats will be at least temporarily ameliorated until such time that an effective regulatory mechanism can be implemented." However, the COT Report fails to mention what those "enforceable temporary measures" would include, which agency would be charged with enforcing them, if they would be enforced on private land, or the criteria that would be used to determine if they are an "adequate regulatory mechanism." The language of the COT Report is similar to that of activists and litigants, who in 2012, called upon the Western Governors for an “enforceable interstate compact to effectuate their collective commitment to sage-grouse conservation” and "regulate private land uses that threaten Sage-grouse." And that these

11

enforceable measures be imposed "to ensure that private land owners meet their stewardship obligations for sage-grouse." 7.2) An unintended consequence of the COT Report is that it provides an administrative record that litigants can then use in court to argue that additional regulation is needed for sage grouse. The fact that the COT fails to provide any detail on enforceable measures leaves open their interpretation to the Court. The COT, by failing to provide detail and guidance, has effectively abrogated its stated responsibility to "serve as guidance for federal land management agencies, state sage-grouse teams, and others in focusing efforts to achieve effective conservation for this species." 8) The ESA requires that decisions must be based upon best available scientific and commercial data, and not "best available science." 8.1) The COT states that, "All proactive voluntary conservation efforts should use the best available science." However, to be consistent with the ESA and the IQA, this language needs to be changed to best available scientific and commercial data. 8.2) Although the COT makes the claim that it lists, "sources of data used by states to develop Priority Areas for Conservation (PAC) maps for each state," no details on the data files were provided. Lacking are the location of where these data are archived, who is responsible for curation, the conditions under which those data were shared with the COT, and attributes of these data (i.e. methods of collection and associated metadata). In short, while the COT makes claims about how "this report delineates reasonable objectives, based upon the best scientific and commercial data available at the time of its release," none of the cited sources of data are publicly accessible. It is a violation of the IQA that the underlying data used in such a highly influential document are not specified, or available for independent analysis by informed members of the public. 9) The COT uses new, subjective terms to evaluate risks to sage grouse. 9.1) The COT Report uses new, subjective terms from the Significant Portion of the Range Policy to qualitatively describe the status of populations of a species being considered for ESA listing: redundancy, resiliency, and representation. To this list, the COT added a new, subjective term: resistance. None of these terms are quantifiable and all are open to arbitrary interpretation. Others have also recognized this deficiency and have pointed it out to the USFWS. For example, the following is an excerpt from Alaska Oil and Gas Association and American Petroleum Institute's comments on Draft Policy on Interpretation of the Phrase “Significant Portion of its Range” in the Endangered Species Act’s Definitions of “Endangered Species” and “Threatened Species,” Docket No. FWS-R9-ES-2011-0031:

12

Develop and Incorporate Quantifiable and Objective Standards The Draft Policy does not provide a uniform or quantifiable standard for interpretation of the SPR language, including the term “significance.” Instead, the Services have chosen to rely on qualitative criteria: We evaluate biological significance based on the principles of conservation biology using the concepts of redundancy, resiliency, and representation (Schaffer and Stein 2000). These concepts also can be expressed in terms of the four viability characteristics used more commonly by NMFS: Abundance, spatial distribution, productivity, and diversity of the species. Resiliency (abundance, spatial distribution, productivity) describes the characteristics of a species that allow it to recover from periodic disturbance. 76 Fed. Reg. at 76994. API and AOGA are concerned that proposed SPR Policy may purposefully avoid quantifiable standards and thresholds, using definitions that fail to provide objective, repeatable method(s) for evaluating listing decisions. In our view, this approach puts species conservation at a disadvantage, results in unnecessary litigation, and places a heavy burden on society. The Services have an opportunity here to define the criteria by which species are listed more precisely, place more limited and quantifiable definitions on disputable terms, and insure that ESA listing decisions are based on scientific evidence. This concern is shared by scientists and agency staff, including those involved in listing decisions (D’Elia and McCarthy 2010). Those authors clearly articulated the problem: The imprecision of terms leaves broad latitude for determining which species fit into a particular category. That latitude, although seen by some as providing flexibility to address a wide variety of individual circumstances, can result in subjective rather than repeatable or transparent decisions (USDOI 2007). Failure to clearly articulate how vulnerability assessment decisions are made undermines their credibility and erodes public confidence in the agencies responsible for developing the assessments (Shelden et al. 2001, USDOI 2007). Moreover, this lack of clarity can result in litigation (e.g., Western Watersheds Project v. Jeffrey Foss and Gale Norton, 2005), diverting resources from the implementation of species recovery actions, ultimately to the detriment of species conservation efforts.1 The scientific commentators also provided specific recommendations to address this issue. “To increase transparency and efficiency in imperiled species categorization systems, we recommend that the FWS and NMFS establish

1 Jesse D'Elia and Scott McCarthy, Time Horizons and Extinction Risk in Endangered Species Categorization Systems, BioScience, 60(9):751-758 (2010), available at http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1525/bio.2010.60.9.12.

13

quantitative criteria (including both time horizons and risk of extinction) for categorizing species as threatened or endangered (e.g., Gerber and DeMaster 1999, IUCN 2001, DeMaster et al. 2004) through policy or regulation.” Id. Their specific recommendations for the development of these criteria are briefly listed below: 1. Establish time horizons based on explicit probabilities of endangerment. 2. Develop guidelines for using population viability analysis in categorization

decisions. 3. Consider the desirable characteristics of species categorization systems. 4. Use a team approach and consult experts. The authors conclude: “A case-by-case approach to explicitly defining analysis time horizons [as is done now] is likely to be plagued by inconsistencies in time horizons selected and the rationales for them. These inconsistencies increase the likelihood of capricious decision making and legal vulnerability (Office of the Solicitor 2009).” Id. And, “[e]stablishing an explicit framework for making categorization decisions gives a level of certainty and credibility to a process that is otherwise subject to political and socioeconomic influences.” Id. We urge the Services to act upon their recommendations before issuing a final SPR Policy.

9.2) We follow this analysis with a request to the USFWS: please provide quantitative definitions for "redundancy," "resiliency," and "representation" for use in the COT Report. 10) The COT Report promotes opened-ended research funding without acknowledgement of ongoing conflicts of interest. 10.1) The COT team calls for additional "key research" to resolve "uncertainties" in sage grouse management and for "effecting sage-grouse and sagebrush persistence." However, without a list of specific questions and how those answers would change management decisions, this is simply a carte blanche request for research funding. It subverts a conservation program into a long-term research program with no mention of how the research will be funded or who will decide how funding is to be allocated. 10.2) This issue is further exacerbated by the fact that much of the "science" being relied upon by the USFWS and BLM in decision making on sage grouse was produced by a small number of sage grouse researchers. These researchers write papers together and review each other’s work (including their own) and subsequently serve on the highly influential NTT and COT teams (CESAR 2012). This is inconsistent with accepted scientific practice and the Department of Interior's information quality guidelines. Instead, the COT needs to foster greater independence by suggesting "key research

14

projects" and then allowing an independent scientific and policy team to prioritize and solicit competitive proposals. Such an approach would avoid any appearance of cronyism. 11) The COT Report does not evaluate any of its proposed conservation actions under the Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When Making Listing Decisions (PECE). 11.1) To date, the USFWS has avoided mention of which conservation measures would meet the PECE requirement or any quantitative criteria by which they could be objectively evaluated. This leaves open to question the effectiveness of numerous conservation actions that have been recommended by the COT (and the NTT). The COT report is notable (in comparison to the NTT Report) in recommending that conservation plans should "use local data on threats and ecological conditions, including status of local sage-grouse populations and their associated habitats." However, the COT Report fails to acknowledge the practical limitations of obtaining population trend data and how such data limitations could ultimately have the unintended consequences of justifying "enforceable temporary measures," or preventing the allocation of credit for mitigation effort, simply because the data do not provide sufficient resolution (or statistical confidence) to detect increasing trends. It is scientifically unreasonable for the COT to require population monitoring as the basis of regulation, when it knows full well that the data and methods for estimating population trends are inadequate for the task. 11.2) The COT Report's proposed objective to "Develop and implement proactive, voluntary conservation actions," is consistent with numerous papers by ESA scholars. The COT also proposes that "Sage-grouse conservation strategies should consider using the criteria identified in the FWS/NOAA Fisheries Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts (PECE) when Making Listing Decisions (Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 60/Friday, March 28, 2003; Appendix B) to help evaluate its likely implementation and effectiveness." However, the COT Report does not provide a single example of a sage grouse conservation plan that is consistent with the PECE Policy. Nor does it appear than any sage grouse conservation plans have been approved by the USFWS. To date, the USFWS has not provided specific comment on conservation plans (that this reviewer was able to find), such that local agencies may at least be assured of approval under PECE if the plans are modified in specific ways to suit the USFWS. Thus, there is no reasonable assurance that the substantial investments that state and local governments, or private landowners, have undertaken can be expected to secure a PECE approval. Similarly, there is no assurance from the USFWS that specific conservation measures recommended in the COT or NTT reports (both of which include USFWS staff as authors), if adopted, would meet the PECE policy. 12) The COT Report erroneously evaluates threats using a single category for all

15

energy production, despite substantial differences in the type and permanence of impacts. 12.1) The COT Report does not acknowledge the fact that renewable energy projects (wind, solar, and geothermal) have a uniformly permanent impact on the landscape (solar arrays and wind turbines), while oil and gas development has a mix of temporary and permanent impacts. Blending these two vastly different types of energy production into one threat category is contrary to the best available scientific and commercial data, and counter-productive to sage grouse conservation (because specific threats and their underlying cause and effect mechanisms are not adequately addressed). 12.2) Furthermore, while projected oil and gas development were based on actual well data, known oil and gas deposits, and lease sales that overlap sage grouse habitat, wind development is primarily based on undeveloped and unleased commercial wind potential (i.e. as in Doherty et al. 2011). Thus, it is erroneous for the COT Report to base its threats ranking, and for the USFWS to base its policy decisions, on a combined analysis of two vastly different types of energy development, one of which is primarily based on speculation. 12.3) In order to be unbiased, the COT Report should have analyzed the two types of energy development separately, then overlaid their projected impacts to sage grouse in a common unit that reflects each development's impact(s) to sage grouse. 13) Two examples are provided below of erroneous information used in the COT Report's Appendix A - Management Zone And Population Risk Assessments. This appendix detailed the threats to each PAC and population listed in Table 2 of the COT Report. The issues raised in the following examples apply to other populations as well. 13.1) How the COT Report's review of quasi-extinction risks and population trends uses erroneous information: An example from the Powder River Basin review. As an initial matter, both of the cited papers, Garton et al. (2011) and Taylor et al. (2012) were modeling exercises based upon lek count data (discussed previously in this review), and as a result, estimates derived from those data have extremely large errors and low statistical confidence. Garton et al. (2011) made predictions for sage grouse populations across the West, 30 and 100 years into the future, starting from 2007. However, the models used to develop these predictions had extremely low resolution. For example, the 26 models used by Garton et al. (2011) had adjusted r2 values ranging from 0 to 0.682, and the next closest value was 0.498, and the average r2 was only 0.257. This indicates that the models, on average, did not explain 75% of the variation in the data sets. (In the case of the Powder River Basin the r2 was only 0.315). Adding to this error, neither Garton et al. (2011) nor Taylor et al. (2012) accounted for the effect of documented population fluctuations that are the result of climatic fluctuations (i.e. Wyoming Game and Fish 2012b; Blomberg 2012) on their trend estimates.

16

Taylor et al. (2012) used data from 2003 to 2009, a period of population fluctuation that peaked in 2006 and then declined (a fact not mentioned by Taylor et al. (2012) nor acknowledged by the COT Report). This omission is relevant because the study period began in 2003 during the low point of a population fluctuation, continued through a population peak in 2006, and ended with a downward trend in 2009, potentially biasing results. It is also significant that Taylor et al. (2012) contains a number of overstatements and omissions. For example, "Findings reflect the status of a small remaining sage-grouse population that has already experienced an 82% decline within the expansive energy fields (Walker et al. 2007a), a level of impact that has severely reduced options for delineating core areas that are large enough and in high enough quality habitats to sustain populations." However, while this statement is dramatic, the reality of the situation is quite different. Walker et al.'s (2007) estimates had confidence intervals so large that they render the estimates meaningless (i.e., a rate of increase in coal bed methane fields of 0.65 with a 95% confidence interval between 0.34 and 1.25, as 34 to 125% annual increase). Furthermore, although male lek counts declined from 2001 through 2004, they rebounded in 2005. This was an observation not acknowledged in Taylor et al. (2012) but consistent with sage grouse population fluctuations statewide (Wyoming Game and Fish 2012b). COT Report stated that, "Garton et al. (2011) reported a minimum male count for this population at 3,042." However, Garton et al. (2011) included two different numbers for male sage grouse counted in the Powder River Basin in 2007, a discrepancy: "The Gompertz model with declining time trend implies the Powder River population of sage-grouse will fluctuate around carrying capacity which will decline from 3,042 males attending leks in 2007 to only 312 males attending leks in 2037 to going extinct with only two males attending leks in 2107 if this trend continues at the same rate in the future. The 2007 count of 5,397 males is estimated to be about 2,000 males higher than the carrying capacity of the region." Both Garton et al. (2011) and Taylor et al. (2012) used model selection procedures. As described by Taylor et al. (2012) in simple terms, their results were derived "using a statistical technique (AIC) that is akin to using a dial to tune a radio to pick up the strongest signal." However, in equally simple terms it can be argued that model selection procedures, like the strongest signal on a radio dial, is not necessarily where the most accurate information comes from. 13.2) How the COT Report relies on erroneous information for priority habitat mapping and evaluation of threats: An example from the Colorado Plateau Management Zone and associated PACs. Regarding the Colorado Plateau Management Zone and Parachute-Piceance-Roan PAC, the COT Report states, "Priority habitats are well mapped and include all high use habitat (which includes breeding, summer, and winter habitat within 4 miles of all

17

known leks) and linkage zones to Management Zone 2 to the north. There is no known connectivity with Utah (Management Zone 3 to the west) due to natural habitat fragmentation and large areas of nonhabitat." This is in error. There are genetic data that provide evidence of connectivity to Utah contained in Apa (2010). And, as discussed below, the priority habitats are not “well-mapped” but mapped at low resolution and contain large areas of non-habitat and marginal habitat. The COT Report states, "The Parachute-Piceance-Roan Basin population appears to be captured within priority areas for conservation, and representation appears to be captured adequately. Priority areas for conservation capture 60 percent of the occupied range in this population and also include 100 percent of all known active leks and all habitats that were modeled "high probability of use" within four miles of a lek that has been active in the last 10 years." This statement is a misrepresentation of the best available scientific and commercial data. First, the COT does not mention the fact that the PAC contains large areas of marginal habitat and non-habitat in a naturally fragmented landscape produced by dense conifer and aspen stands, shrubs, meadows, and rugged topography. High-resolution vegetation mapping (hyperspectral data) and modeling of the PPR sage grouse habitat (using habitat parameters specific to the PPR population) by Garfield County (2012), and previously by Heather Sauls in Garfield and Rio Blanco Counties (2008), both concur with this conclusion. These two habitat-mapping efforts were based on best available data in the public domain. When compared to the low resolution PAC map for the PPR population, these analyses show that approximately 80% of the mapped PAC is non-habitat. Second, the location data upon which the low-resolution Preliminary Priority Habitat Map is based (produced by the Colorado Parks and Wildlife), are not in the public domain, and there is no written assurance that they ever will be accessible for independent review and reanalysis. Furthermore, requests for these data under legally binding data-share and non-disclosure agreements have been met with refusal by CPW. Thus, the CPW maps of the PPR and northwestern Colorado used by the COT, and by the BLM in its RMP revisions (including maps based upon Rice et al. 2012 where the data are scaled down to 1-km grid cells resulting in a massive 4,000% loss of information, are not reproducible). Use of these maps by federal agencies as a basis for decision-making is a clear violation of the Information Quality Act requirements. The COT Report fails to mention the inconsistency in definition of an "active lek" between that used in the scientific literature and that used to map the PPR PAC. The scientific literature defines an active sage grouse lek as locations where two or more males have been observed and documented actively courting females in the last two years (Doherty et al. 2011). The "active lek" criteria applied to the PPR for habitat maps used by the COT is: a site where at least one male was observed lekking within the past 10 years (whether the lek was surveyed or not before or following that observation). Moreover, the COT Report does not acknowledge that the CPW lek-count and lek location data set for the PPR contain numerous missing cells, and that even locations where a single male was observed 7 years ago, with three years of missing data before that, is still considered an "active" lek. It is arbitrary, capricious, and scientifically unreasonable for federal agencies to use inconsistent definitions as a basis for regulatory

18

decisions, and for it to rely on such an arbitrarily low threshold. To further emphasize this point, if no males were in attendance at a lek for potentially nine years, then just how were the un-bred female sage grouse going to produce eggs and nest within 4 miles of that "active" lek? Clearly, immaculate conception has not been documented to occur in sage grouse. The COT Report states, "Redundancy is not captured within this population because it is relatively small (three year running average number of males is 93) and somewhat isolated." The COT Report provides no genetic or dispersal data with which to conclude that this population is isolated from other nearby populations. The COT does not provide any quantifiable definition of "redundancy," nor any data with which to conclude that the population lacks "redundancy." However, genetic data and analyses do exist for northwestern Colorado and Utah that are contrary to this assertion. Those data have an especially large sample size for the PPR population (n=65). Those data and results (Apa 2010), not mentioned by the COT Report, reveal that levels of genetic diversity in mitochondrial DNA and microsatellite markers are comparable to other populations in Colorado, and there is extensive shared variation among populations. That study reported, "This analysis of the PPR population compared with 5 other Greater Sage-grouse populations in Colorado revealed that the genetic make-up of PPR is generally consistent with the other 5 populations. Using mtDNA sequence data, 5 of the 8 haplotypes found in PPR (66% of the PPR birds) were also found in the other populations in Colorado." "The mtDNA neighbor-joining network (Fig. 2), which was constructed using FST genetic distances among populations, suggests that PPR is more closely related to North Park, Cold Springs, and Blue Mountain, than to Middle Park and Eagle. The fact that PPR is not shown to have branch lengths longer than the other Colorado populations suggests that it is not genetically distinct from all other Colorado Greater Sage-grouse populations."

Additionally, the levels of genetic variation are comparable to those in other populations in Colorado, and indistinguishable when the most appropriate measure; expected heterozygosity is used (as DNA obtained from feathers are more likely to contain closely related individuals and bias results towards heterozygote deficiency, making expected heterozygosity based on allele frequencies and more representative parameter). The COT Report states, "There is some potential for connectivity to the north to the Wyoming Basin population in Management Zone 2. Linkage habitats have been included in mapping efforts." The data, however, are contrary to assertions made in the COT Report in justification of its arbitrary linkage habitat maps. Instead, the data reveal a broader genetic linkage, including nearby populations and in Utah. This conclusion is more consistent with recent genetic and GPS tracking studies that show sage grouse can disperse over much greater distances and over/around land uses that were previously thought to contribute to fragmentation (i.e. Bush 2009; Bush et al 2011; Tack et al. 2011; Thompson 2012). As noted previously in this review, linkage habitat maps used by the COT Report are purely speculative and cannot be relied upon as a basis for decision-making.

19

Data on lek locations and attending male numbers from Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) show that currently active (2012) sage grouse leks occur on, or immediately adjacent to, roads, pipeline corridors, and well pads in the area. This is a direct contradiction to, and refutation of, assertions in the COT Report that, "Representation and redundancy are at risk within this population due to its small size, energy development and the associated infrastructure, especially road development." And, "Advances in drilling technology and rapid natural gas demand and subsequent rising prices have led to a significant increase in natural gas drilling activity. Road and infrastructure are also ranked high as they are closely related to energy production." While oil and gas development can contribute to sage grouse avoidance and mortality in specific ways (see review by Ramey, Brown, and Blackgoat 2011), it is counter-productive to conservation efforts for the COT Report to make wholesale negative assertions. The COT states, "A large majority of PACs are privately owned, mostly by energy companies. Energy and mineral development is the highest ranked threat to sage-grouse in this area." However, the fact that much of the land in the PPR is privately owned by energy companies means that adequate funding is available for implementation of mitigation and habitat restoration efforts to benefit sage grouse populations. This has been the case for the Pinedale Planning Area of Wyoming, where oil and gas development, mitigation, and sage grouse numbers have all increased (lek count data from Wyoming Game and Fish). These are facts not acknowledged by the COT. Literature Cited Apa, A.D. 2010. Seasonal Habitat Use, Movements, Genetics, and Vital Rates in the Parachute/Piceance/Roan Population of Greater Sage-Grouse. Colorado Division of Wildlife (now Colorado Parks and Wildlife), Grand Junction, Colorado. Unpublished report. Bedrosian, B and D. Craighead 2010. Anthropogenic influences on Common Ravens in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Unpublished poster presentation. Available at: http://beringiasouth.org/ecology-of-the-common-raven. Accessed 10 August 2013. Boarman, W. I. 1993. When a native predator becomes a pest: a case study. Pages 191–206 in S. K. Majumdar, E. W. Miller, D. E. Miller, E. K. Brown, J. R. Pratt, and R. F. Schmalz, editors. Conservation and resource management. Pennsylvania Academy of Science, Philadelphia, USA. Boarman, W. I. 2003. Managing a subsidized predator population: reducing common raven predation on desert tortoises. Environmental Management 32:205–217. Boarman, W.I., R. J. Camp, M. Hagan, W. Deal. 1995. Raven abundance at anthropogenic resources in the western Mojave Desert, California. Report to Edwards Air Force Base, CA. National Biological Service, Riverside, CA.

20

Boarman, W. I., and B. Heinrich. 1999. Common raven (Corvus corax). Account 476 in A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The birds of North America. The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C., USA. Account 476 in A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The birds of North America. The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C., USA. Boarman, W. I., M. A. Patten, R. J. Camp, and S. J. Collis. 2006. Ecology of a population of subsidized predators: common ravens in the central Mojave Desert, California. Journal of Arid Environments 67:248–261. Bui, T.D. 2009. The effects of nest and brood predation by common ravens (Corvus corax) on greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) in relation to land use in western Wyoming. M.S. Thesis, University of Washington. 48 pp. Cagney J., E. Bainter, B. Budd, T. Christiansen, V. Herren, M. Holloran, B. Rashford, M. Smith and J. Williams. 2010. Grazing influence, objective development, and management in Wyoming’s greater sage-grouse habitat. University of Wyoming College of Agriculture Extension Bulletin B-1203. Laramie. CESAR (Center for Environmental Science, Accuracy & Reliability). 2012. Ecology And Conservation Of Greater Sage-Grouse: A Landscape Species And Its Habitats: An analysis of the four most influential chapters of the monograph. Analysis prepared by staff at the Center for Environmental Science, Accuracy and Reliability (CESAR), Sacramento, California, www.bestscience.org. 1 February 2012. 43pp. Coates, P.S. 2007. Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) nest predation and incubation behavior. Ph.D. Thesis, Idaho State University, Boise, ID. 191 pp. Coates, P.S. and D.J. Delehanty. 2004. The effect of raven removal on sage grouse nest success. Proc. 21st Vertebrate Pest Conference (R.M. Timm and W.P. Gorenzel, Eds.) Published by the University of California, Davis. pp12-20. Coates, P.S., J.W. Connelly, and D.J. Delehanty. 2008. Predators of greater sage-grouse nests identified by video monitoring. Journal of Field Ornithology 79:421-428. Coates, P.S. and D.J. Delehanty. 2010. Nest predation of greater sage-grouse in relation to microhabitat factors and predators. Journal of Wildlife Management 74(2):240-48. Conover, M.R., J.S. Borgo, R.E. Dritz, J. B. Dinkins and D. K. Dahlgren. 2010. Greater sage-grouse select nest sites to avoid visual predators but not olfactory predators. The Condor 112(2):331-336. Cote, I.M. and W.J. Sutherland. 1997. The effectiveness of removing predators to protect bird populations. Conservation Biology 11:395-405.

21

D'Elia, J. and S. McCarthy. 2010. Time Horizons and Extinction Risk in Endangered Species Categorization Systems. BioScience 60(9):751-758. URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1525/bio.2010. DeLong, A.K., J.A. Crawford, and D. C. DeLong. 1995. Relationship between vegetational structure and predation of artificial sage grouse nests. Journal of Wildlife Management 59:88–92. Doherty, K.E., D.E. Naugle, H.E. Copeland, A. Pocewicz, and J.M. Kiesecker. 2011. Energy development and conservation tradeoffs: systematic planning for Greater Sage-Grouse in their eastern range. Pp. 505–516 in S.T. Knick and J.W. Connelly (editors). Greater Sage-Grouse: ecology and conservation of a landscape species and its habitats. Studies in Avian Biology (vol. 38), University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. Garton, E.O., D.D. Musil, K.P. Reese, J.W. Connelly, and C.L. Anderson. 2007. Sentinel lek-routes: an integrated sampling approach to estimate Greater Sage-Grouse population characteristics. Pages 31-41 In: K.P. Reese and R.T. Bowyer (eds.). Monitoring populations of sage-grouse. College of Natural Resources Experiment Station Bulletin 88. University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho. Garton, E.O., J.W. Connelly, C.A. Hagen, J.S. Horne, A. Moser, and M.A. Schroeder. 2009 . Greater Sage-Grouse population dynamics and probability of persistence. In: Knick, S.T. and J.W. Connelly (eds.) Ecology and Conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse: A Landscape Species and Its Habitats. Studies in Avian Biology. Originally available at: http://sagemap.wr.usgs.gov/monograph.aspx. Archived copy available at: http://web.archive.org/web/20100527124712/http://sagemap.wr.usgs.gov/monograph.aspx Accessed October 1, 2011. Garton, E. O., J. W. Connelly, J. S. Horne, C. A. Hagen, A. Moser, and M. A. Schroeder. 2011. Greater Sage-Grouse population dynamics and probability of persistence. Pp. 293–381 in S. T. Knick and J. W. Connelly (editors). Greater Sage-Grouse: ecology and conservation of a landscape species and its habitats. Studies in Avian Biology (vol. 38), University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. Hagen, C. A. 2011. Predation on Greater Sage-Grouse: facts, process, and effects. Pp. 95–100 in S. T. Knick and J. W. Connelly (editors). Greater Sage-Grouse: ecology and conservation of a landscape species and its habitats. Studies in Avian Biology (vol. 38), University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. Heinrich, B., D. Kaye, T. Knight and K. Schaumburg. 1994. Dispersal and Association among Common Raven. The Condor 96(2):545-551. Miller, R. F., S. T. Knick, D. A. Pyke, C. W. Meinke, S. E. Hanser, M. J. Wisdom, and A. L. Hild. 2011. Characteristics of sagebrush habitats and limitations to long-term conservation. Pp. 145–184 in S. T. Knick and J. W. Connelly (editors). Greater Sage-

22

Grouse: ecology and conservation of a landscape species and its habitats. Studies in Avian Biology (vol. 38), University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. Moynahan, B. J., M. S. Lindberg, J. J. Rotella, and J. W. Thomas. 2007. Factors affecting nest survival of greater sage-grouse in northcentral Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:1773–1783. Preston, M.L. 2005. Factors Affecting Winter Roost Dispersal and Daily Behaviour of Common Ravens (Corvus corax) in Southwestern Alberta. Northwestern Naturalist, Vol. 86, No. 3 (Winter, 2005), pp. 123-130 Ramey, R.R., L.M. Brown, and F. Blackgoat. 2011. Oil and gas development and greater sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus): a review of threats and mitigation measures. The Journal of Energy and Development 35(1):49-78. Snyder, N.F.R., R.R. Ramey, and F.C. Sibley. 1986. Nest-site biology of the California condor. Condor 88:228–241. Sovada, M.A., A.B. Sargeant and J.W. Grier. 1995. Differential effects of coyotes and red foxes on duck nest success. Journal of Wildlife Management 59:1-9. USDA/APHIS/Wildlife Services. 2013. Letter from R.J. Merrell, District Supervisor, SW District Wyoming, USDA/APHIS/WS to Whom it may concern. 2pp. Watters, M.E., T.L. McLash, C.L. Aldridge, and R.M. Brigham. 2002. The effect of vegetation structure on predation of artificial greater sage grouse nests. Ecoscience 9:314–319.

Webb, W.C., W.I. Boarman, and J.T. Rotenberry. 2009. Movements of juvenile common ravens in an arid landscape. Journal of Wildlife Management 73(1):72-81. WAFWA (Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies). 2008. Greater sage-grouse population trends: an analysis of lek count databases 1965-2007. Unpublished report by the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Sage- and Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse Technical Committee, provided to K. E. Mayer, Chair, Bird Committee, Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Cheyenne, WY. Walsh, D.P., G.C. White, T.E. Remington, and D.C. Bowden. 2004. Evaluation of the lek-count index for greater sage-grouse. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32(1):56-68. Walsh, D.P., J.R. Stiver, G.C. White, T.E. Remington, and A.D. Apa. 2010. Population estimation techniques for lekking species. Journal of Wildlife Management 74(7):1607–1613. Wyoming Game and Fish. 2012a. Letter from S. Talbott, Wyoming Game and Fish

23

Director to R. Krischke, Wyoming State Director, USDA/APHIS Wildlife Services. Dated 3 April 2012. 3pp. Wyoming Game and Fish. 2012b. Wyoming Sage-Grouse Population Trends 1995-2012. Unpublished presentation of analyses by Tom Christiansen, Wyoming Game and Fish, Sage-Grouse Program Coordinator, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 14pp.

THE JOURNAL OF ENERGY

AND DEVELOPMENT

Rob Roy Ramey II, Laura M. Brown, and

Fernando Blackgoat,

“Oil and Gas Development and Greater Sage Grouse

(Centrocercus urophasianus): A Review of Threats

and Mitigation Measures,”

Volume 35, Number 1

Copyright © 2011

www.iceed.org

OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT AND GREATER SAGEGROUSE (CENTROCERCUS UROPHASIANUS): A

REVIEW OF THREATS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

Rob Roy Ramey II, Laura M. Brown, and Fernando Blackgoat*

Introduction

Concern exists over the demonstrated and potential deleterious effects of oiland natural gas development on greater sage grouse (Centrocercus uropha-

*Rob Roy Ramey II earned a B.A. in biology and natural history from the University of CaliforniaSanta Cruz, a master’s degree in wildlife ecology from Yale University, and a Ph.D. in ecology andevolutionary biology from Cornell University. He conducted postdoctoral research at the University ofColorado at Boulder and the Center for Reproduction of Endangered Species at the San Diego Zoo. Hisprofessional positions have included: Curator of Vertebrate Zoology at the Denver Museum of Nature &Science, consulting Science Advisor to the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Interior, and ScienceAdvisor for the Council for Endangered Species Act Reliability. He founded Wildlife ScienceInternational, Inc., conducts original research, and consults on Endangered Species Act scientific issues.

Laura MacAlister Brown received a master’s degree in wildlife ecology from Yale University and aPh.D. in conservation biology from Cornell University. Her doctoral dissertation addressed the effects ofhabitat fragmentation on tropical forest bird populations. She was formerly a research assistant at theBioacoustics Research Program at the Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology and is currently a writer, editor,and consultant on endangered species issues with Wildlife Science International, Inc.

Fernando Blackgoat holds a B.S. in geology from Northern Arizona University. He has been in theenergy industry his entire professional life, first as a geologist and later as an advisor on federal landsissues, including leasing and land-use planning; the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); stateand federal oil and gas regulation and land-use legislation; endangered species actions, and projectplanning. His portfolio includes the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish andWildlife Service, and state and national oil and gas trade associations. He is currently USP PiceanceEnvironmental Advisor, ExxonMobil Production Company, in Houston, Texas.

The authors acknowledge support from the American Petroleum Institute. This paper wasinitiated by, researched, and wholly written by the authors. All conclusions are those of the authorsand should not be attributed to the sponsoring organization.

The Journal of Energy and Development, Vol. 35, Nos. 1 and 2Copyright � 2011 by the International Research Center for Energy and Economic Development(ICEED). All rights reserved.

49

sianus) populations in the intermountain region of the western United States.Numerous studies have been undertaken to assess the impacts of this development,and agencies have implemented policies and regulations that have the potential tominimize deleterious effects on sage grouse.1 In 2010 the U.S. Fish and WildlifeService (USFWS) found that sage grouse are warranted as a ‘‘threatened’’ speciesunder the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) but are currently precluded by otherpriorities.2 This ‘‘warranted but precluded’’ ESA decision has resulted in addi-tional regulations, mitigation measures, and conservation efforts.

To date, research on the impacts of oil and natural gas development has focusedon quantifying the number of male sage grouse counted at leks (i.e., mating dis-play areas), survivorship of juveniles and adults, and/or distribution of sage grouserelative to development.3 The majority of this published research has focused onchanges in lek attendance by male sage grouse each spring. These data have beenused in predictive models to assess lek persistence (and presumably populationpersistence) under various development scenarios. Male lek counts are the mostprevalent data on sage grouse currently available, which may explain the volumeof research that utilizes them. Authors assessing lek counts typically have assumedthat sage grouse avoidance of energy development leads to sage grouse populationdeclines.4 However, to date population-level impacts have not been demonstrated,in part due to the limitations of lek count data for inferring population number.That is, lek counts of males may not reflect the overall population numbers as theydo not reflect numbers of males in non-lek habitats, females, and young.5

Research on the effects of oil and gas development primarily has emphasizedthe patterns of grouse response to intensive development in the immediate andsurrounding area (i.e., declining lek counts, avoidance of infrastructure, and, insome cases, lower survivorship). Generalized models have been developed andused to predict outcomes of development scenarios on various time horizons.6

Some of this body of research has been used as a basis for policy and regulations tominimize impact to sage grouse populations.7 It also has been proposed as a basisfor ‘‘conservation trade-offs,’’ where companies forfeit their development rights inexchange for rights elsewhere, and to justify ‘‘landscape-level’’ management (i.e.,large scale).8

Recent calls for prioritization of conservation efforts and trade-offs based onset-back distances from oil and gas infrastructure to sage grouse leks do not takeinto account the specific causes of sage grouse avoidance, mortality, or potentialpopulation-level effects.9 Recent agency permit requirements and land manage-ment practices have been predicated on set-back distances from oil and gas in-frastructure to sage grouse leks. The focus on set-back distances provides onlya finite set of options for land managers and permitees alike. Because this ap-proach does not take into account the specific causes of sage grouse avoidance,mortality, or potential population-level effects, it is of limited effectiveness to sagegrouse conservation and management. A more comprehensive approach should

THE JOURNAL OF ENERGY AND DEVELOPMENT50

incorporate performance standards that are based on an understanding of specificcause and effects of oil and gas infrastructure impacts on sage grouse (i.e., noise,predation, disease), as well as consideration of habitats other than leks (i.e.,nesting, brood rearing, and winter habitats).

One recent author, M. Holloran, is of the opinion that stipulations to mitigate theeffects of oil and gas development on sage grouse only are effective if the sagegrouse exhibit zero response to the development (i.e., their response is identical tocontrol area grouse).10 Several others have suggested that we must assume that sagegrouse avoidance of oil and gas development leads to population-level impacts,even if data are lacking.11 These precautionary approaches imply that the threatsposed by the oil and gas industry to sage grouse are not well understood and that it isdifficult to achieve effective mitigation. Applying decision theory or risk analysis tothis situation offers a potentially useful way to overcome this uncertainty.12

The purpose of this paper is to move beyond the description of sage grouseresponses to energy development and review current information in an attempt tounderstand why these responses may occur. To achieve this objective, we reviewprevious research that identified the general threat categories of oil and gas de-velopment to sage grouse. We selected six direct and indirect threats from oil andgas to sage grouse, based on a review of published information as well as plausiblecause-and-effect mechanisms (table 1). The six threats include: noise, human ac-tivity, predation, habitat fragmentation and/or loss, strike hazards, and West Nilevirus.13 We give special attention to noise because it has not been addressed in detailelsewhere. For each of these threats we (1) identify the specific sources of eachthreat, (2) the likely cause-and-effect mechanisms that could lead to a behavioraland/or demographic impact, and (3) recommend specific mitigation measures thatcould be implemented to minimize these effects in an adaptive managementframework (table 1). Next, we treat the specific sources of threats (number 1 above)as working hypotheses in terms of their congruence (or lack thereof) with existingdata or, where there are currently little or no data, their plausible effect on sagegrouse populations. We then propose experimental approaches that could be used totest the efficacy of potential mitigation (as suggested by D. Naugle et al.) anddiscuss the potential value of this and current mitigation measures.14

The significance of this strategy to sage grouse conservation is threefold. First,it allows for a more efficient allocation of conservation effort by focusing onthreats that matter most to the conservation of local populations affected by oil andgas development. Second, it allows for the design of mitigation that is tailored tothe circumstances, rather than relying on one-size-fits-all buffer zones or timingrestrictions. And third, the effectiveness of mitigation measures can be evaluatedusing a hypothesis-testing approach, which is at the philosophical core of science-based adaptive management.15 In other words, are there additional ways in whichmitigation measures could be implemented to minimize the impact of oil and gasdevelopments on sage grouse?

OIL/GAS DEVELOPMENT AND GREATER SAGE GROUSE 51

Tab

le1

AN

AL

YS

ISO

FP

OT

EN

TIA

LT

HR

EA

TS

TO

SA

GE

GR

OU

SE

FR

OM

OIL

AN

DG

AS

DE

VE

LO

PM

EN

TA

ND

TH

EIR

MIT

IGA

TIO

N

Pre

sum

edT

hre

at

So

urc

eo

fT

hre

at

Lik

ely

Mec

ha

nis

mo

fIm

pa

ctP

ote

nti

al

Co

nse

qu

ence

toS

ag

eG

rou

seP

ote

nti

al

Mit

iga

tio

n

1)

No

ise

Dri

llin

go

per

atio

ns

(no

ise

fro

m:

site

pre

p.,

dri

llin

g,

pu

mp

ing

and

pro

cess

ing

of

dri

llm

ud

,fr

ack

ing

,p

ow

erg

ener

atio

n)

Dis

rup

tio

no

fm

atin

gv

oca

liza

tio

ns

and

/or

abil

ity

tod

etec

tp

red

ato

rs,

ann

oy

ance

Av

oid

ance

beh

avio

r,in

crea

sed

risk

of

pre

dat

ion

No

ise

mo

del

ing

and

mit

igat

ion

,in

crea

seef

fici

ency

,re

du

ced

ensi

ty,

seas

on

alre

stri

ctio

ns

Gas

com

pre

sso

rfa

cili

ties

(co

mp

ress

or

and

coo

lin

gfa

nn

ois

e)

Dis

rup

tio

no

fm

atin

gv

oca

liza

tio

ns

and

/or

abil

ity

tod

etec

tp

red

ato

rs,

ann

oy

ance

Av

oid

ance

beh

avio

r,in

crea

sed

risk

of

pre

dat

ion

No

ise

mo

del

ing

and

mit

igat

ion

Tra

ffic

(no

ise

fro

m:

equ

ipm

ent

tran

spo

rtfo

rsi

tep

rep

.an

dd

rill

ing

,p

rod

uce

dw

ater

dis

po

sal,

crew

rota

tio

n,

mai

nte

nan

ce)

An

no

yan

ceA

vo

idan

ceb

ehav

ior

No

ise

mo

del

ing

and

mit

igat

ion

inro

add

esig

n,

incr

ease

effi

cien

cyto

red

uce

road

use

,se

aso

nal

rest

rict

ion

s,lo

wer

spee

d

2)

Hu

ma

na

ctiv

ity

Oil

and

gas

crew

s/p

erso

nn

el(t

he

larg

est

nu

mb

erd

uri

ng

dri

llin

gp

has

e)

An

no

yan

ce,

per

ceiv

edas

pre

dat

ors

(du

eto

hu

nti

ng

inar

ea)

Av

oid

ance

beh

avio

rS

cree

nin

go

fac

tiv

ity

fro

mv

iew

,re

du

ceam

ou

nt

of

acti

vit

y,

rest

rict

hu

nti

ng

inar

ea

Ref

use

Att

ract

ssc

aven

ger

sth

atar

ep

ote

nti

alp

red

ato

rsA

vo

idan

ceb

ehav

ior,

incr

ease

dri

sko

fp

red

atio

n

BM

Ps

toel

imin

ate

refu

se,

inst

all

anti

-per

chd

evic

es (con

tin

ued

)


Tab

le1

(conti

nued

)A

NA

LY

SIS

OF

PO

TE

NT

IAL

TH

RE

AT

ST

OS

AG

EG

RO

US

EF

RO

MO

ILA

ND

GA

SD

EV

EL

OP

ME

NT

AN

DT

HE

IRM

ITIG

AT

ION

Pre

sum

edT

hre

at

So

urc

eo

fT

hre

at

Lik

ely

Mec

ha

nis

mo

fIm

pa

ctP

ote

nti

al

Co

nse

qu

ence

toS

ag

eG

rou

seP

ote

nti

al

Mit

iga

tio

n

3)

Pre

da

tio

nA

ttra

ctin

gav

ian

and

terr

estr

ial

pre

dat

ors

(e.g

.,ra

ven

s,fo

xes

,co

yo

tes)

Incr

ease

inp

red

ato

rsco

mm

ensa

lw

ith

hu

man

sA

vo

idan

ceb

ehav

ior,

incr

ease

dri

sko

fp

red

atio

n

Rem

ov

ere

fuse

and

road

kil

l,in

stal

lan

ti-p

erch

dev

ices

,so

nic

det

erre

nts

,p

red

ato

rco

ntr

ol

Att

ract

ing

pre

ysp

ecie

s(e

.g.,

rab

bit

san

dro

den

ts)

Incr

ease

inp

rey

abu

nd

ance

lead

ing

toan

incr

ease

inp

red

ato

rsA

vo

idan

ceb

ehav

ior,

incr

ease

dri

sko

fp

red

atio

n

Inst

all

anti

-per

chd

evic

es,

sonic

det

erre

nts

,pre

dat

or

con

tro

l

Po

wer

lin

esP

ow

erp

ole

sac

tas

pre

dat

or

per

ches

Av

oid

ance

beh

avio

r,in

crea

sed

risk

of

pre

dat

ion

Inst

all

anti

-per

chd

evic

es,

bu

ryp

ow

erli

nes

incr

itic

alar

eas

4)

Ha

bit

at

loss

or

fra

gm

enta

tio

n

Acc

ess

road

sH

abit

atd

egra

dat

ion

and

rem

ov

alR

edu

ced

carr

yin

gca

pac

ity

Co

nse

rvat

ion

trad

eoff

s,ti

min

gan

dse

aso

nal

rest

rict

ion

sin

crit

ical

area

s

Dri

llin

gan

dp

rod

uct

ion

pad

sH

abit

atd

egra

dat

ion

and

rem

ov

alR

edu

ced

carr

yin

gca

pac

ity

Co

nse

rvat

ion

trad

eoff

s,re

sto

rati

on

(co

nti

nue

d)


Tab

le1

(conti

nued

)A

NA

LY

SIS

OF

PO

TE

NT

IAL

TH

RE

AT

ST

OS

AG

EG

RO

US

EF

RO

MO

ILA

ND

GA

SD

EV

EL

OP

ME

NT

AN

DT

HE

IRM

ITIG

AT

ION

Pre

sum

edT

hre

at

So

urc

eo

fT

hre

at

Lik

ely

Mec

ha

nis

mo

fIm

pa

ctP

ote

nti

al

Co

nse

qu

ence

toS

ag

eG

rou

seP

ote

nti

al

Mit

iga

tio

n

5)

Str

ike

ha

zard

sT

raff

icM

ort

alit

yR

edu

ced

surv

ival

Red

uce

spee

dan

dad

dsi

gn

age

incr

itic

alar

eas

Wir

efe

nce

sM

ort

alit

yR

edu

ced

surv

ival

Inst

all

fen

cem

ark

ers,

red

esig

nfe

nce

s

Po

wer

lin

esM

ort

alit

yR

edu

ced

surv

ival

Incr

ease

vis

ibil

ity

of

po

wer

lin

es(e

spec

iall

yg

rou

nd

wir

es),

bu

ryp

ow

erli

nes

,

6)

Wes

tN

ile

viru

sC

BM

po

nd

sM

osq

uit

ob

reed

ing

Red

uce

dsu

rviv

alL

arv

icid

es,

red

uce

mo

squ

ito

bre

edin

gh

abit

atv

iap

on

dd

esig

n


The issue of sage grouse and oil and gas development is similar to that of caribouin the North Slope Alaska oil fields. Some local disturbance/displacement impactsinitially were suspected. These were assumed to be definitive, and it was speculatedthat they would have population-level impacts. These perceptions persist, despiteevidence that local disturbances to caribou can be effectively mitigated, and evidencethat the Central Arctic caribou population has grown dramatically from an estimated5,000 in 1978 to 66,772 in 2008, or since the oil fields were developed.16 Populationfluctuations tend to be cyclic. It is important to note that there is no hunting in the oilfields, which may contribute to habituation of caribou to human activity.17 Com-parative assessments with other species and other energy developments can provideinsights that aid in the planning of sage grouse management.

Potential Threats to Sage Grouse from Oil and Gas Development

Anthropogenic Noise: C. Braun et al. and M. Holloran suggested that noisegenerated by oil and gas exploration and development may affect sage grouse lekattendance and rates of population increase, although they did not specify cause-and-effect mechanisms beyond potential avoidance of drilling, production facili-ties, and roads due to noise.18 M. Holloran reported that lower lek attendanceoccurred downwind of gas production facilities and therefore was likely due tonoise generated by those facilities.19

We believe it benefits the discussion to make the distinction between anthro-pogenic sound and noise. Not all sound is noise and the difference (at least amonghumans) can be subjective. Thus, we define noise as a subset of sound that causesconsistent avoidance, interferes with a critical signal (e.g., detection of predators orselection of mates), or has a deleterious effect on the majority of individuals ofa species.20 Anthropogenic sound and noise are generated by numerous human ac-tivities, including the process of oil and gas development and production. The effectsof noise range from negligible to annoying, and at the extreme, impact the health ofindividuals.21 The effects of and responses to noise can vary among species andamong individuals within a species. Responses to noise depend upon susceptibilityto frequency, intensity, tone(s), and duration. Thus, sensitivity to noise depends uponmore than how loud it is. Topography and environmental factors also play an im-portant role in the attenuation and propagation of sound (and noise). These factorsinclude wind speed, temperature, vegetation cover, and the medium through whichthe sound is propagating (e.g., air, ground, or water). For example, a strong pre-vailing wind will cause sound waves propagating upwind to be ‘‘bent’’ upwards,deflecting their energy, while sound waves propagating downwind will be ‘‘bent’’downwards, thus increasing their effect at ground level over a greater distance.22

Sound Measurement: The variable most commonly used to measure sound pres-sure levels and exposure, A-weighted decibels or dB(A), is based upon a


weighting that simulates the frequency range of human hearing (i.e., most sensi-tive in the range of 1,000 to 8,000 hertz (Hz) but audible between 20 to 20,000Hz). Because dB(A) is measured on a logarithmic scale, a reduction of measuredsound by 10 dB(A) results in sound being reduced by half. Although in widespreaduse (primarily in the United States), the dB(A) weighting gives a low weighting tosound below 500 Hz, and does not adequately account for acoustical energy below20 Hz, making it a poor choice for evaluating exposure to low frequencies andinfrasound (that has very long wavelengths).23 Also, since dB(A) is based uponhuman hearing response, it is not universally applicable to other species, whichmay be more sensitive to sound. As a result of these limitations, alternativemeasures such as C- or Z-weighting (which have a flatter response curve overthe frequency range 10 to 20,000 Hz) are increasingly used in addition toA-weightings to measure sound exposure.24 When these sound pressure levels aregraphed over the range of frequencies, at one-third octave band frequencies, anunbiased and complete picture of exposure may be obtained. Such a detailedanalysis also is required to identify the type of sound that is considered to be noise(as per our definition): the presence of tones (tonal noise); the presence of lowfrequency noise; fluctuating, intermittent or periodic noise; and impulsive noise.In addition, time-averaged measures (Leq) are used to quantify exposure.

Two acoustic properties of sound are important to understanding the change inintensity as the distance between source and observer increases. First is the inversesquare law: unobstructed sound intensity will decrease by a factor of four witheach doubling of distance from its source. This means that sound intensity dropsoff relatively quickly and with each doubling of distance the resulting intensitydrops by about 6 dB.25 This decrease continues until the sound is masked byambient sounds of equivalent intensity and is no longer noticeable above back-ground. For example, broadband noise produced by a heavily traveled freewaymeasured at 75 dB(A) may take 800 meters or more to diminish to near back-ground levels across an open field.26

The second acoustic property of note—the attenuation of pure tones (sound ina narrow frequency range) through air—is directly proportional to the square of itsfrequency (assuming humidity and temperature are held constant). Therefore, higherfrequency sound is more quickly attenuated. Conversely, low frequency sound andinfrasound (that has very long wavelengths) are least subject to attenuation and cantravel far greater distances though the air, water, and ground. This makes sound inthese frequency ranges more difficult and expensive to control.27 An everyday ex-ample of how low frequency sound and infrasound travel is the pounding of distantsurf during a winter storm that is ‘‘felt’’ as much as it is heard.

Avian Hearing: In most cases, the range of hearing for many birds is thought toapproximate that of humans, although there are some notable exceptions.28 Forexample, M. Theuricha et al. reported that human sensitivity to sound frequenciesabove 3,000 Hz is greater and below 50 Hz is lower than that of guinea fowl


(Numida meleagris) and pigeons (Columbia livia).29 These species were twice assensitive as humans to pure tones below 10 Hz, and pigeons were almost 50 dB(A)more sensitive than humans in the region of 1 to 10 Hz.30 Guinea fowl weresensitive down to 2 Hz and pigeons down to 0.05 Hz.31

How Noise Could Affect Sage Grouse: Noise from oil and gas operations mayimpact sage grouse in several ways. First, noise may mask display calls of malesage grouse, especially if it overlaps in frequency. Second, noise can mask thesound of approaching predators, thereby turning noisy areas into population‘‘sinks’’ where sage grouse mortality is higher. Consequently, sage grouse will/ormay learn to avoid it.32 Third, broadband noise may be simply annoying abovea certain threshold, causing sage grouse to avoid it or areas where there are an-noying tones. And fourth, noise (and some otherwise benign anthropogenicsounds) may act as an environmental clue that an area poses a higher risk ofpredation (i.e., by species commensal with humans, or humans themselves in areaswhere sage grouse are hunted) or that individuals come to associate noise withother hazards such as the risk of being struck by vehicles.33 Each of these potentialimpacts can be treated as a potentially falsifiable hypothesis and tested againstexperimental data to refine our understanding of acoustic threats to sage grouse. Itis possible that more than one of these factors is involved in sage grouse avoidanceof areas where oil and gas development exceeds a certain threshold. It is importantto keep in mind that different populations may have different responses to thesame types and levels of noise, depending on local factors (e.g., topography, wind,food, cover, and other habitat features).

The behavioral or physiological sensitivity of sage grouse to different frequenciesof sound has not been studied to the extent it has been in other birds. It is known,however, that male sage grouse produce sounds during courtship that could be maskedby anthropogenic noise. These vocalizations both attract females to leks in the springand serve in courtship displays at leks.34 As reported by M. Dantzker et al. and A.Krakauer et al., these vocalizations consist of mechanically generated wing ‘‘swishes,’’two or three low-frequency ‘‘coos’’ (around 40 to 70 Hz), several broadband ‘‘pops’’with a low frequency component (down to around 10 Hz), and two higher frequencywhistles (600 to 3,200 Hz) that appear to function only over short ranges.35

The fact that sage grouse are a ground-nesting and ground-feeding speciesmakes them more vulnerable to mammalian predators. Consequently, they may bemore sensitive to low frequency sounds and infrasound transmitted through theground than arboreal bird species. Regardless of the specific mechanism, noise hasthe potential to decrease available habitat if sage grouse avoid it, and thus po-tentially lowers the carrying capacity of the population.

Anthropogenic Sound and Noise from Oil and Gas Development: To date, pub-lished information on the effects of oil and gas operations on sage grouse has notspecifically addressed the potential effects of sound produced by various sources,


their frequency signatures, or intensities. In considering the effects of noise on sagegrouse and its potential mitigation, it is important to separate it into its sources,frequencies, sound levels, and spatial arrangement. We therefore start by dividingpotential major sources of noise in oil and gas operations into the following threecategories: (1) drilling, casing, and hydraulic fracturing operations that are poweredby large diesel engines, generators, and pumps; (2) compressor stations used toboost natural gas pressure obtained from wells for through transport pipelines; and(3) heavy equipment, trucks, and other traffic that are used to construct roads, pads,and facility sites, to transport materials, equipment, and staff, and to remove pro-duced water and liquid hydrocarbons (condensate) from well sites.

We also acknowledge that gas flaring, pipelines that are above ground, andinjection wells are potential sources of noise to sage grouse but consider them tobe of secondary importance compared to the three primary and more prevalentsources listed above. Gas-processing facilities are another noise source but, be-cause of their larger footprints (20 acres or more) and complexity, such facilitiesare typically located in areas outside sage grouse habitat, so noise from gas plantsare of secondary importance.

All three of the major sources of noise produce broadband sound across a widerange of frequencies as well as low frequency sound (less than 1000 Hz) andinfrasound (less than 20 Hz, which is felt as a low rumble or vibration, rather thanheard). The latter of these can propagate long distances (i.e., several kilometers).Some diesel engines, compressors, or other machinery also may produce specifictones, which alone may be annoying and/or may interfere with acoustic com-munication among sage grouse.

Anthropogenic Sound and Noise from Drilling Operations: Prior to drillinga well(s), an access road and drilling pad are constructed and reserve pits areexcavated. The duration of site and road construction ranges from a few weeks toseveral months due to topography, weather and permit conditions, and length ofaccess roads. The drilling rig is then raised and infrastructure to power and supportthe drilling operation is installed. This involves numerous heavy trucks, dozens ofstaff, and up to two weeks to complete. Following this stage is around-the-clockoperation of the drilling rig, during which time surface casing is set and cemented,and intermediate and bottomhole sections of wellbores are drilled and casing in-stalled. Actual drilling may be limited to several weeks (for shallow or single boreholes) but can span more than 20 months if multiple wells are drilled from a pad.The advent of deviated (less than 20 degrees from vertical) and horizontal dril-ling (greater than 75 degrees from vertical) has meant greater efficiency (morewells can be drilled from one pad) and is an innovation that reduces the overallfootprint—and impact—of gas field development.

The primary sources of sound and noise associated with oil and gas drillingoperations are the large diesel motors and diesel-powered generators. These


motors power drill bits, drive mud pumps that circulate mud to lubricate the wellbore, and remove rock chips, as well as power winches to pull and replace drillstrings, pump casing cement, operate shaker tables (to remove rock chips fromdrilling mud), and provide lighting and power.

It is well known that large diesel engines produce high levels of broadbandsound as well as low frequency sound and infrasound. The latter two are producedby diesel impulsiveness (knocking), cylinder-to-cylinder and individual cylinderfiring variation, and mechanical vibration. The transmission of low frequency andinfrasound is particularly acute if the source is not isolated from the ground.36

An additional source of low frequency sound in drilling operations is the shakertables that are attached rigidly to circulation tanks, which in turn serve as lowfrequency sound transducers. In other words, vibrations are transferred to the tankand the ground in much the same way that sound transducers operate in the audioindustry. This source of low frequency sound can travel long distances (greaterthan 1 km).

Anthropogenic Sound and Noise from Natural Gas Compressors: Compressorsare installed near wellheads, along gas lines, and at compressor stations to providepressure for efficient transport in pipelines. Compressors and compressor stationsvary widely in type (i.e., reciprocating, rotary screw, centrifugal, or axial), in sizefrom tens to thousands of horsepower, and from single compressors near one ormore wellheads to large mainline compressor stations in the distribution network.Therefore, they differ widely in frequency signatures and sound pressure levels.Some produce virtually no discernable sound.

Compressors are one of the more permanent and ubiquitous potential noiseproducers because of their continuous operation. However, compressors are notnecessarily permanent fixtures: well pressures decline over time and line-pressurechanges occur when other wells are taken off the distribution system or newproduction is added to the system. These variables may alter the type, size, ornumber of compressors at a location over time and the amount of noise generated.Compressors in natural gas production fields, such as those in sage grouse habitat,are primarily powered by natural gas-fired engines and are one source of con-tinuous sound and potential noise that could affect sage grouse. Other sourcesinclude large cooling fans that are necessary to dissipate the substantial amount ofheat generated by gas compressors. Very large cooling fans used on compressorsof greater than 1,500 horsepower (hp) also can produce infrasound (perceived asa low beat). Moreover, compressors, cooling fans, and the power units that drivethem produce pure tones and modulating frequencies, which are more likely to beannoying to humans than sound in the broadband spectrum. Electric motors arebeing used to drive compressors in some areas. Although the use of electric motorsin these instances is driven by a need to reduce air emissions, electric motors maybe effective for noise mitigation in fields that have electric power.


The fact that there is substantial variation in noise levels and frequency sig-natures produced by compressor stations means that the effects on sage grousecould vary widely among sites as well as near a single compressor site over time.Evaluating the impact of compressor stations on sage grouse leks or other sagegrouse habitat based solely on their proximity yields an incomplete picture.37

Thus, an experimental approach that quantifies sage grouse responses to differentanthropogenic sound signatures (frequencies, intensity, and tones) is thereforeneeded, along with a spatial and temporal analysis of sage grouse responses tocompressor noise. If sage grouse are fitted with satellite global positioning system(GPS) transmitters (rather than traditional very high frequency (VHF) trans-mitters), higher resolution data could be obtained.

To date, four studies have measured local effects of sound (and noise) gener-ated by natural gas compressor stations on passerines: one along a proposedpipeline route in the Canadian arctic, another in Canada’s boreal forest, and two inpinyon-juniper woodlands in northwestern New Mexico. The first study usedartificial compressor noise to simulate 60 to 83 dB(C) noise and its effects onLapland longspurs (Calcarius lapponicus).38 Observers found no significant ef-fects of this sound source on clutch size or the density of breeding birds. Thesecond study reported a one-third reduction in overall passerine bird density closeto compressor stations.39 A related study by the same research group on ovenbirds(Seiurus aurocapilla) reported reduced pairing success and significantly morefirst-time breeders near compressor stations (75 to 90 dB(A) at the source).40 Theauthors conjectured that reduced avian diversity could have been due to somespecies being susceptible to masking of territorial defense calls or predator de-tection from noise generated by compressor stations. The third study found ap-proximately the same number of species and total number of birds observed atcontrol and compressor sites, although species varied in their response.41 Somespecies were negatively impacted, such as the spotted towhee, while others, suchas house finch and juniper titmouse, were more abundant at compressor sites. Thefourth study also found different responses of species to compressor noise, butreported decreased nest predation by scrub jays and nest parasitism by brown-headed cowbirds near compressors.42 These studies underscore the variation inresponse among species to sound (and noise) generated by compressor stations.They further underscore the lack of accounting for variation in compressor noiseoutput, the spatial arrangement of compressors, or the mitigating effects of soundabatement measures (if they were installed). None of the studies were designed toaddress population level effects.

Anthropogenic Sound and Noise from Traffic on Access Roads: Sound and noisegenerated by field-related vehicle use is an inescapable but mitagateable conse-quence of oil and gas development and operations. The typical noise from heavy-laden diesel powered trucks on highways is further amplified/exacerbated by the


uneven, rough surface of gravel roads that results in excitation and deformation oftires and frames and subjects the vehicle to vertical oscillations that cause dynamicaxle loads or ‘‘axle hop.’’ This source of noise increases with speed and load and,in turn, generates low frequency acoustic waves that propagate through theground.43 This is in addition to noticeable diesel engine noise that is ubiquitouswith truck traffic. Similarly, passenger vehicles that are used to shuttle personnelare another source of noise and, like heavy trucks, these generate more noise pervehicle on gravel roads than on pavement.

Frequent truck traffic is associated with roads, well pads, rig mobilization (anddemobilization), and equipment assembly. In preparation for drilling, heavy trucksdeliver drill rigs, drillpipe, well casing, cement, drilling and well completionfluids, diesel fuel, and other equipment and materials, most of which are removedfrom the site (outside of casing pipe and cement) after completion of the well.After production starts, wells frequently produce naturally occurring salt wateralong with the oil or gas. The produced water is stored above ground in tanks untilit is moved by truck or pipeline to injection wells and it is pumped deep un-derground. Liquid hydrocarbons from gas wells and crude oil from oil wells alsomay be trucked or piped off site.

M. Holloran reported declining male sage grouse lek attendance with increasedproximity of roads to leks (e.g., main haul roads within three kilometers of leks,and a length of more than five kilometers of main haul road within three kilo-meters of leks) and increasing truck traffic (as determined from axle counters).44

Furthermore, nesting yearling females showed avoidance of road-related distur-bances when compared to adult females. A. Lyon and S. Anderson reported thatfemales tended to nest farther from roads and that the primary impact of energydevelopment was traffic-related; however, some female sage grouse nested nearroads and producing gas wells, suggesting that avoidance of these features was notabsolute.45 Avoidance appeared to be related to traffic levels and well density.

To quantify the effects on sage grouse, studies to date have utilized straight-linedistances, length of road segment in proximity to sage grouse leks and nests, andwhether or not a road was in sight. This is an area of study where sound modelingcould greatly increase our understanding of the effects of traffic noise by takinginto account topography, vehicle speed and load, variability (and periodicity) oftraffic density and road configuration in the mapping of sound levels and sagegrouse distribution in response to them.

Testing the ‘‘Noise Hypothesis’’: We concur with the view of C. Braun et al. that‘‘The effects of oil and gas developments on sage-grouse and other sagebrush-grassland avifauna are poorly understood because of the lack of replicated, welldesigned studies.’’46 This need not be the case. That sage grouse may avoid oil andgas infrastructure because of noise from drilling, compressors, and/or traffic onaccess roads is a plausible hypothesis that could be tested against data obtained


from laboratory and field studies as well as results from adaptive managementexperiments. Recognizing that there is variation in the type, size, age, and durationof each of these types of infrastructure along with variation in topography andenvironmental conditions is a necessary part of any experimental design. In andaround urban areas, where humans are impacted by oil and gas infrastructure,noise monitoring, modeling, and mitigation are well-established practices. Thesepractices could be applied when testing the above hypothesis on sage grouse.

Laboratory Studies: As with other species of birds, the sensitivity of sagegrouse to a range of frequencies—from infrasound to high frequency broadbandsound—could be determined by measuring auditory-evoked potentials andquantifying behavioral responses to sound of differing frequencies and intensity ina controlled laboratory setting.47 The fact that sage grouse spend the majority oftheir time on the ground and are a ground-nesting species (as compared to pas-serine species that are primarily arboreal), laboratory experiments should includelow frequency and infrasonic sound propagated through the ground (i.e., similar tothat produced by some oil and gas infrastructure).

Field Experiments: Variation in the types of oil and gas infrastructure and ob-served variation in the responses of sage grouse to that infrastructure means thata one-size-fits-all approach to quantifying impacts to sage grouse is in-appropriate.48 Noise monitoring and spatial noise modeling of infrastructure atmultiple sites is therefore essential when quantifying the characteristics of noiseand sage grouse response(s) to it.

To ascertain how sound generated from oil and natural gas development affectssage grouse behavior, we recommend that field experiments to compare sage grouseresponses to noise-mitigated and unmitigated operations be conducted during bothpre- and post-development periods. The information thus gathered could then beutilized in noise-modeling calculations to map the spatial and temporal intensityand dispersion of sound across the landscape. This could then be compared withdata on sage grouse distribution (i.e., using high-resolution GPS transmitter data)and lek counts, to test how sage grouse distribution or abundance is affected. Al-ternatively, noise mitigation could be fitted to existing infrastructure (e.g., gascompressors) or to infrastructure in the process of installation (e.g., drilling rigs),and sage grouse responses measured to mitigated versus unmitigated infrastructure.This would require a departure from the current approach of monitoring for com-pliance of the installation. Presently, there is no central, publicly accessible data-base on mitigation measures employed by the oil and gas industry for sage grouse.

A combined laboratory and field approach is necessary for quantifying sagegrouse responses to noise because of obvious confounding variables associatedwith oil and gas development: tall structures, human activity, lights, power lines,and potential attraction of predators to the area surrounding them. Similarly, theeffectiveness of conditions of permit approval employed by state and federalagency managers could be tested.


Noise Mitigation in the Oil and Gas Industry Could be Applied to Drilling andProduction in Sage Grouse Habitat: Noise mitigation approaches employed by theoil and gas industry have evolved due to industry’s experience in recent years withnatural gas development in and near urban areas such as the Barnett Shale thatunderlies Fort Worth, Texas, and its environs. In such locations, mitigation effortsbegin with base-line 24-hour ambient sound surveys to establish pre-developmentbackground levels. The results of these base-line surveys are used in combinationwith information on equipment used, the directionality of machine-generatednoise, topography, prevailing wind, and temperature to provide input data fornoise modeling to evaluate mitigated vs. unmitigated noise impacts and to developa noise abatement plan. Noise mitigation measures carried out under a noisemitigation plan may include enhanced mufflers on diesel engines and gas com-pressor engines, acoustically engineered sound barrier blankets and sound walls tosurround drilling and fracking operations, isolation of vibrating equipment fromthe ground (e.g., large diesel motors), isolation of shaker tables from holding tanksto prevent the latter from acting as a low frequency transducer, installing mufflerson compressors and surrounding them in sound walls or in soundproof buildings,adding silencers to compressor cooling fans, and scheduling truck traffic to reducenoise conflicts.

Directional and horizontal drilling techniques allow development of resourcesthat might otherwise be foregone.49 Development utilizing multiple wells (up to 20wellbores) on one wellpad and use of year round drilling are major innovations thateliminate the need for rig mobilizations and demobilizations and associated truckhauling (about 80 to 100 truckloads per rig move). The viability of drilling tech-niques is contingent on local geological conditions, drill depths, and reservoircharacteristics. Overall footprint and impact of drilling in an area have been reducedsignificantly through enhanced drilling techniques, advanced well completion de-signs that allow greater recovery of resources from fewer wellbores, and compre-hensive project planning that reduces surface disturbance and human presence (e.g.,fewer drilling pads, access roads, centralized gas treatment plants, co-location offacilities, placement of pipelines in one right-of-way, buried power lines, trans-portation planning, and remote well monitoring and control). Additionally, newergeneration drilling rigs and gas compressors tend to be more efficient and quieterthan older models.50 Although the noise from compressors is continuous, the factthat compressors are semi-permanent means they may be one of the more easilymitigated sources of noise. Loud compressors can be muffled with soundproofing.

If thresholds for sage grouse tolerance to noise can be determined, then per-formance standards could be established. This would be similar to limits forbroadband and low frequency noise that have been set for drill rigs and gascompressors in residential areas.51 The City of Fort Worth regulates noise gen-erated by oil and gas operations as low as the 16 Hz octave band frequency(Ordinance No. 18399-12-2008).


Human Activity: What constitutes a human activity that causes disturbance? Wenarrowly define human activity associated with oil and gas development as thepresence of humans working outside and on foot or on equipment (such as ona drill rig, site and pad construction, performing maintenance, or loading producedwater at a site). This distinguishes it from human activities covered under otherthreats (e.g., traffic).

Most of the published literature that addresses human disturbance to sage grouseor other species assumes that if individuals avoid human activity or take flight inresponse to humans, then the activity will eventually lead to a deleterious effect ontheir populations.52 However, human disturbance is of importance to populationsonly if it has a demographic consequence, ultimately manifested as a lowering ofcarrying capacity. This occurs when the total area of available habitat is reduced(due to the species avoiding areas of human activity) or the density of animals thatthe habitat can support is reduced (due to a decline in habitat quality caused by thedisturbance). In the case of sage grouse, reduction in male lek counts has beenassumed to equate with population losses. To our knowledge, this hypothesis hasnot been tested with probability-based population counts.

If human activities are geographically predictable and non-threatening, thenwildlife may habituate to them.53 Conversely, they may learn to associate humanswith danger. One aspect of sage grouse management that has the potential toaversely condition them to human activity is sport hunting: a reported 207,433sage grouse were harvested in the United States during 2001-2007.54 If sage grouseperceive humans as predators and associate them with danger (thus avoiding areasof human activity as a result), then the effects of human activity associated with oiland gas development will be amplified. Firearms are not allowed in oil and gasdevelopment areas for obvious safety reasons, but hunted sage grouse populationsfrequently overlap these areas and, therefore, can be expected to be conditionedaversely to human activity.55

It is possible that un-hunted sage grouse populations would habituate to humanactivity and noise associated with oil and gas development more readily thanhunted populations. This hypothesis is testable by comparing flight initiationdistances (and habitat use near energy development) in hunted vs. un-huntedpopulations.

If greater avoidance of human activities is found in populations that are hunted,then mitigation for energy development is straightforward: either do not huntgrouse in these populations (similar to caribou hunting restrictions near PrudhoeBay, Alaska) or screen human activities to the extent possible from sage grouse.

Predation: The extent to which oil and gas development may result in increasedpredation on sage grouse has not been quantified, but plausible cause-and-effectmechanisms exist because species such as ravens, foxes, and coyotes are com-mensal with, and frequently subsidized by, humans. A recent review of published


and unpublished research about predation on sage grouse concluded that all of thepredators on sage grouse are generalists, meaning that they prey on other speciesas well.56 Sage grouse eggs have been preyed upon by red foxes (Vulpes vulpes),coyotes (Canis latrans), badgers (Taxidea taxis), common ravens (Corvus corax),and black-billed magpies (Pica hudsonia). Common predators of juvenile andadult sage grouse include golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos), prairie falcons (Falcomexicanus) as well as other raptors, coyotes, badgers, and bobcats (Lynx rufus).Younger birds are likely preyed on by common ravens, red fox, northern harrier(Circus cyaneus), ground squirrels, snakes, and weasels. More recent data usedcontinuous video monitoring of sage grouse nests to quantify predation rates andmicrohabitat parameters that favored predation.57 These authors documentedpredation on nests by common ravens and American badgers and reported that anincrease in one raven per 10-kilometer transect survey was associated with a 7.4percent increase in the odds of nest failure from raven predation. The probabilityof predation by ravens and badgers also increased with reduced shrub canopycover, suggesting a negative synergism for sage grouse between increasingpredator density and decreasing cover.

To address predation, several strategies have been proposed. C. Hagen sug-gested an untested, indirect approach: ‘‘The most effective long-term predatormanagement for sage-grouse populations may be through maintaining connec-tivity of suitable habitats.’’58 The author does not explain the mechanism by whichthis could reduce predation on sage grouse. In contrast, P. Coates and D. Delehanthyproposed a more specific approach, one that addresses the two primary mech-anisms they identified as contributing to sage grouse predation: (1) reduceinteractions between ravens and nesting sage grouse by managing raven pop-ulations (i.e., reduce abundance of this predator that is commensal withhumans) and (2) restore and maintain shrub canopy cover in sage grouse nestingareas to reduce the effectiveness of ravens and other predators on nestingsage grouse.59 The approach of P. Coates and D. Delehanthy represents a moreintegrated and science-based predator management strategy that addressesspecific cause-and-effect mechanisms, and could be tailored to specific cir-cumstances involving other predators on sage grouse in areas affected by oil andgas development.60

Other mitigation measures that address specific cause-and-effect mechanismsof predation include: (1) installation of anti-perch devices on power poles, fenceposts, structures, and equipment to discourage raptors and (especially) ravens fromperching in sage grouse habitat; (2) burial of power lines, thus completely elim-inating perches for raptors and ravens in critical nesting areas; (3) trash controlmeasures to eliminate food subsidies and attractants to ravens, magpies, red foxes,and coyotes (i.e., use of covered dumpsters with self-closing lids that cannot beleft open and clean worksite procedures); (4) discourage the use of oil and gasinfrastructure as den sites for mammalian prey (e.g., rabbits and rodents) that then


provide a subsidy to predators such as foxes and coyotes; and (5) removal of roadkilled animals that attract and provide a food subsidy to ravens, foxes, and coyotes.

Although the USFWS devoted an extensive discussion of this hazard in their2008 Interim Status Update, current stipulations by the Bureau of Land Man-agement and the State of Wyoming and best management practices (see http://www.oilandgasbmps.org/) address these issues in a limited way.61 That mitigationmeasures such as those listed above could result in sage grouse being more tolerantof oil and gas infrastructure (due to a lower perceived risk of predation) isa testable hypothesis.

Habitat Loss and Fragmentation: Sage grouse habitat loss and fragmentation isof serious concern to federal land managers. Significant direct losses result fromnatural events such as lightning-caused fires and noxious weed infestations,among others. Federal land managers make concerted efforts to minimize habitatloss and fragmentation through activity siting and mitigation of potential impacts.Direct losses from oil and gas development include construction of roads, drillingpads, and facility sites for compressor stations and related infrastructure to supportproduction operations. Indirect losses result from: habitat degradation, inadvertentcreation of population ‘‘sinks’’ due to increased predation, and sage grouseavoidance of oil and gas infrastructure (described elsewhere in this paper).62

Clearly, the direct loss of habitat is more permanent because it involves substantialearthworks and is therefore the most challenging to mitigate.

Spatial/Temporal Management: Modeling of hypothetical oil and gas build-outscenarios and avoidance of sage grouse core areas (defined from lek location andcount data) have been proposed as a means to prioritize the conservation of sagegrouse habitat and thereby reduce direct and indirect impacts of habitat loss andfragmentation.63 This may include forgoing development in core areas until eitherthe functional relationship between actual sage grouse population numbers andcore habitat is better understood or more effective mitigation measures are de-veloped. While these are important contributions in spatial analysis, a commonlimitation is the absence of temporal analysis. The latter is needed because the rateof development of oil and gas is highly variable and can be determined by con-ditions such as commodity prices, market conditions, new information aboutreservoir and production characteristics, and development of new drilling and wellcompletion technologies. Further, the duration of oil and gas production is finite(generally assumed to be 30 years) and their impacts are not necessarily permanentto sage grouse. After development and resource extraction has passed, sage grousepopulations have the potential to recover, especially if reasonable and prudentrestoration efforts are undertaken.64

An additional and significant limitation to these modeling efforts has been theirfailure to keep pace with technological advances. These advances have increasedthe efficiency of oil and gas drilling (fewer dry holes, fewer drill days, and


multiple-wellbores from one pad) and production (greater recovery using fewerwellbores), resulting in reduced surface footprints, less infrastructure, and reducednoise impacts. These advances have the potential to render obsolete those mod-eling efforts that were based on impact studies from a previous generation of oiland gas extraction technologies (circa 1970s and 1980s). Briefly, these techno-logical advances include the following.

1. Directional drilling can reduce surface disturbance by drilling multiple wellsfrom one drilling pad. This allows for a more efficient tapping of undergroundreservoirs of oil and gas (a 3.2 to 1 average production ratio compared to verticaldrilling) and can reduce both well pad density on the surface and the volumes ofdrilling waste generated by the activity.65

2. Steerable downhole motors and horizontal wellbores, that is, drilling mul-tiple deviated wellbores (as many as 20 wellbores) from one pad, are feasible insome areas, such as the Piceance Creek Basin. Horizontal wells are used in manyareas. Such applications greatly increase the effective radius of production fromone wellpad.

3. Materials technology advances in drill bits have made them more efficient.This reduces drilling time and rates of equipment failure. For example, the latest-generation polycrystalline diamond compact bits drill at a rate that is 150 to 200percent faster than similar bits just a few years ago. Small, mechanically assistedhigh-pressure water jet drills are in development.

4. Lightweight modular drilling rigs are deployed more easily and requirea smaller footprint.

5. Technology that allows measurement while drilling provides precise, real-time down-hole drilling data to allow more efficient and accurate drilling.

6. Slim-hole drilling, micro-holes, and coiled tubing are more efficient thanconventional drilling operations for extracting additional oil and gas from ma-ture fields or tapping into complex reservoirs. This is accomplished by drillingsmaller diameter holes (compared to a conventional 8-3/4 inch diameter hole)and using a more flexible, steerable, down-hole drilling apparatus. Drillingwaste volumes are lower, surface footprints are up to 75 percent smaller, andnoise impacts are reduced, e.g., at 1,300 feet a conventional well is around55 dB(A), while a coiled tubing unit’s noise level at the same distance is about40 dB(A).

The pace of technological improvements taking place in oil and gas de-velopment and their implementation in the field require that efforts to modelpotential impacts to sage grouse keep pace as well. To remain relevant, modelingefforts also need to acknowledge and incorporate information on new technologyand more effective mitigation measures for sage grouse, rather than rely onsimplifying assumptions regarding spatial scale of impacts (i.e., a one-size-fits-allapproach to quantifying impacts).66


Conservation Trade-Offs: One approach to mitigating direct loss of habitat is theuse of conservation trade-offs. These include land trades, mitigation banks, con-servation easements, lease buybacks, and other ways to set aside sage grousehabitat with a high-priority for conservation and management.67 While this doesnot alleviate direct and indirect impacts at specific sites or ensure that the level ofoff-site mitigation is equivalent to the level of on-site impact, it does providea mechanism for land preservation that can benefit sage grouse populationselsewhere. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in its ‘‘Policy for Evaluation ofConservation Efforts,’’ has collected information for a database (PECE); however,these data and analyses derived from them have not yet been made public.

Another approach to conservation trade-offs, but more specifically aimed atreducing threats on private lands, is Candidate Conservation Agreements withAssurances (CCAAs). This program is administered by the USFWS and designedto incentivize conservation efforts on private lands that will benefit a ‘‘candidate’’species while providing assurances that no additional requirements will be im-posed should a species subsequently be ESA-listed. (The 2010 ‘‘warranted butprecluded’’ decision on sage grouse means this species is now officially a candi-date for ESA-listing.) A similar program exists for public lands but does notprovide assurances. Although these programs hold promise, we are unaware of anyagreements having been implemented, owing to lack of alignment among partiesand state and federal agencies.

Habitat Restoration: Where habitat disturbance has occurred as a result of oil andgas development, it can be offset by reclamation efforts, and more effective res-toration approaches are under development.68 Although full reclamation is re-quired after well fields have been abandoned, it also can be implemented on aninterim basis in areas where development is still occurring. While sage grousehave repopulated areas previously abandoned, there has been a delay in themethods to: (1) encourage natural re-colonization, (2) enhance the success oftranslocations and augmentations, and (3) subsequently foster populationgrowth.69 One aspect of restoration research that has been overlooked in recentyears is the development of methods to attract sage grouse to (artificial) lek sites.70

This is an area of research that could benefit sage grouse conservation both in andnear energy development. Suggestions that there is no evidence populations willattain their previous size and reestablishment may take 20 to 30 years appear to usas problems to be solved rather than inevitabilities to be accepted.71

Strike Hazards: Wire strand and woven wire fences, road traffic, and distri-bution power lines are ubiquitous throughout the range of sage grouse and may bestrike hazards for sage grouse.72 These hazards are sometimes associated with oiland gas development. Fencing around oil and gas facilities is required by somemunicipalities for public safety (Evanston, Wyoming) and may be erected alongaccess roads to contain livestock. Power lines may be strung to provide electrical


power to infrastructure. Wire fencing and traffic are considered to be strike haz-ards because sage grouse typically fly low and fast to avoid predators. Power linescould pose a hazard to migrating sage grouse; however, the empirical evidencesupporting power lines as a strike hazard is lacking. The mortality that each ofthese strike hazards inflicts upon sage grouse is difficult to quantify, and mostaccounts are based on scattered, unpublished incidents that researchers happenedupon opportunistically.73 Once a carcass is scavenged, it is also difficult to dis-tinguish between mortality from a strike versus other causes.

The level of mortality from each of these three hazards could be quantifiedthrough the labor-intensive process of walking fence lines and power lines anddriving roads in search of dead sage grouse (at least daily). Such data are needed inareas where sound population data are available to quantify the proportion of thepopulation annually lost to these hazards and the habitat parameters associatedwith those losses. Only then would it be possible to rank the degree of threat posedby these hazards and prioritize mitigation.

Mitigation for each of these hazards already exists. Inexpensive fence markersto increase visibility to sage grouse have been developed for wire strand fencing.Although the amount of fencing that could be marked is staggering, areas ofhighest risk could receive higher priority.74 Power lines in areas deemed of highstrike risk to sage grouse could be buried or restrung on taller poles. This isa potentially expensive proposition, underscoring the need for quantifying the riskbefore prioritizing areas to be mitigated. And finally, in similar areas of high risk,vehicle traffic could be slowed and drivers alerted with training and signage.

West Nile Virus: In December 2009 the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)issued stipulations requiring comprehensive mosquito control at produced waterponds associated with energy development in areas where West Nile virus posesa threat to sage grouse.

This may include but is not limited to: a) the use of larvicides and adulticides to treat res-ervoirs; b) overbuilding ponds to create non-vegetated and muddy shorelines; c) buildingsteep shorelines to reduce shallow water and aquatic vegetation; d) maintaining the waterlevel below rooted vegetation; e) avoiding flooding terrestrial vegetation in flat terrain or lowlying areas; f) constructing dams or impoundments that restrict seepage or overflow; g) liningthe channel where discharge water flows into the pond with crushed rock, or use a horizontalpipe to discharge inflow directly into existing open water; h) lining the overflow spillway withcrushed rock and construct the spillway with steep sides to preclude the accumulation ofshallow water and vegetation; and i) restricting access of ponds to livestock and wildlife.

75

Subsequent to those policies, new recombinant larvicides have improved theefficacy of Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. Israelensis (Bti) to control mosquitolarvae. Newly developed bacterial strains that are 10-fold more toxic to mosquitolarvae than wild-type species of Bti and Bacillus sphaericus (Bs) are used incurrent commercial formulations.76


Despite these advances in mitigating potential effects of West Nile virus onsage grouse (or eliminating them entirely), recent papers have made no mention ofthese advances and have continued to associate energy development with in-creased risk of West Nile virus.77

Discussion

In this paper our first step was to distill the general threat of oil and gas de-velopment into specific threats to sage grouse, and then evaluate each threat basedon its cause-and-effect mechanisms. This process establishes the credibility ofeach threat, and then addresses the question of why sage grouse could be affectedby it. In some cases, additional research has been proposed to quantify aspectsof the threat. Next, we identified specific mitigation measures that could beimplemented in an adaptive management framework. This approach ensures thatprecautionary measures are reasonable, appropriately related to mitigation of aperceived threat, the level of risk (or reward) is quantified, and an experimentalapproach is used to fill in knowledge gaps.

Recent Regulations: Current stipulations and regulations for oil and gas de-velopment in sage grouse habitat are largely based on studies from the Jonah GasField and Pinedale anticline. These and other intensive developments were per-mitted decades ago, using older, more invasive technologies and methods. Thedensity of wells is high, largely due to the previous practice of drilling manyvertical wells to tap the resource (before the use of directional and horizontaldrilling of multiple wells from a single surface location became widespread), andprior to concerns over sage grouse conservation. This type of intensive de-velopment set people’s perceptions of what future oil and gas development wouldlook like and what its impact to sage grouse would be. These fields, and their effecton sage grouse, are not necessarily representative of sage grouse responses to less-intensive energy development.78 Recent environmental regulations and newertechnologies have lessened the threats to sage grouse.

Two instructional memoranda issued by the BLM and an Executive Order issuedby the Governor of Wyoming have sought to address potential impacts of surface-disturbing activities and disruptive activities to sage grouse both inside and outsideidentified sage grouse ‘‘Core Areas.’’79 These documents lay out regulations thatinclude timing, setback distance, and density restrictions to protect sage grouse leksas well as winter and brood-rearing habitat. For example, both BLM and Wyomingregulations limit development to one well pad or compressor station (‘‘energyproduction and/or transmission structures’’) per 640 acres, with a 5-percent limit onthe amount of sagebrush habitat disturbance within those 640 acres.

Of these regulatory documents, only the Wyoming Executive Order includesactual performance standards, and only two of those performance standards


partially address the potential threats raised in this review: (1) power lines must beraptor-proof, either by burying them or by installing anti-perching devices (al-though no mention is made of limiting raven perches or discouraging mammalianpredators, even though these cause the bulk of sage grouse nest mortality) and (2)the levels of new sources of noise are limited to 10 dB(A) above ambient at theperimeter of leks, with the acknowledgement that actual thresholds may be ad-justed pending results of ongoing research (although for reasons cited abovedB(A) is a scale inappropriate for quantifying low frequency noise). While thesenew regulations have potential to benefit sage grouse, they fall short in addressingthe likely mechanisms behind the threats to sage grouse (discussed in this paper)and rely on adaptive management in a limited way. The Executive Order assessessuccess or failure of mitigation (and adaptive response) on a case-by-case basisusing only monitoring data from the mitigated site (rather than utilizing data frommultiple mitigation projects or pooling data for a meta analysis). Similarly,‘‘adaptive management’’ is only mentioned once in the BLM Instructive Memo-randa.80 The effect of this piecemeal approach is twofold. First, it provides a dis-incentive for cooperative efforts (i.e., multi-company, multi-agency, multi-partner)to coordinate, and report on, monitoring of mitigation measures for their ef-fectiveness. And second, the limited (local) scope of this ‘‘adaptive manage-ment’’ strategy can stifle innovation.81

Presently, there is no central repository of information on mitigation measuresimplemented on behalf of sage grouse, nor their outcomes.82 In our view, this isa critical data gap that hampers sage grouse conservation and the effective miti-gation of oil and gas development in sage grouse habitat. It is difficult to learnfrom the experiences of others if those experiences are not shared.

To facilitate testing the effectiveness of mitigation measures, a more systematicapproach is needed. Currently, when mitigation is required by governmentalagencies, monitoring for compliance is customary. If greater effort were chan-neled towards monitoring the effectiveness of mitigation measures (i.e., sagegrouse responses), it would allow for a more rapid development of conservationmeasures.

A Need for Spatial and Temporal Management: Several authors have stated thatfederal and state governments and industries need to implement solutions ona large scale (i.e., ‘‘landscape-level’’ management).83 They suggest that one ap-proach is to forgo development in priority landscapes until new ‘‘best managementpractices’’ are implemented. This is reasonable, but implementation requiressharing of information and trust. However, J. Connelly et al. note that, althoughmining and oil and gas development can have negative impacts on sage grouse,populations can recover after the development has ceased.84 The critical point isthat both temporal and spatial management is needed. Development with sub-sequent restoration of areas with oil and gas resources can occur over time to


maintain populations over the range of the species. Coupled with development ofmore effective mitigation and recent, less-invasive technologies, this approachwould allow multiple objectives to be achieved without permanently excluding oiland gas extraction from large areas.

Conclusion

If sage grouse and energy development are to coexist successfully in the longterm and effective management be developed in a timely manner, it is imperativethat both threats and management actions be treated as potentially falsifiablehypotheses, rather than as certain knowledge.85 In other words, even hypotheticalthreats can be prioritized and subsequently investigated in a scientific manner. Incases where quantitative data are lacking, threats may be initially ranked based ontheir plausible cause-and-effect mechanisms and revised as additional data be-come available. In this process, mitigation measures that have been designed toaddress a specific threat may be treated as alternative hypotheses and their ef-fectiveness tested against quantitative thresholds. These can be laid out in a seriesof ‘‘if - then’’ statements in adaptive management plans. This same strategy can beused to set ‘‘triggers’’ for additional or alternative management actions. Sucha scientific approach to adaptive management increases the likelihood that con-servation effort will be allocated in a way to provide the greatest benefit.

NOTES

1U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, ‘‘Greater Sage-Grouse HabitatManagement Policy on Wyoming Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Administered Public Landsincluding the Federal Mineral Estate,’’ BLM Instruction Memorandum no. WY-2010-012 (Chey-enne, Wyoming: Bureau of Land Management, Wyoming State Office, December 29, 2009),hereafter Memorandum no. WY-2010-012, and ‘‘Oil and Gas Leasing Screen for Greater Sage-Grouse,’’ BLM Instruction Memorandum no. WY-2010-013 (Cheyenne, Wyoming: Bureau of LandManagement, Wyoming State Office, December 29, 2009), hereafter Memorandum no. WY-2010-013; and D. Freudenthal, ‘‘Greater Sage-Grouse Core Area Protection,’’ State of Wyoming, Officeof the Governor, Executive Order 2010-4, August 18, 2010.

2U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, ‘‘Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-MonthFindings for Petitions to list the Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) as Threatenedor Endangered,’’ The Federal Register, vol. 75, no. 55 (2010), pp.13909–14014.

3M.J. Holloran, ‘‘Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Population Response toNatural Gas Field Development in Western Wyoming,’’ (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wyoming,2005), p. 215; K.E. Doherty, D.E. Naugle, B.L. Walker, and J.M. Graham, ‘‘Greater Sage-GrouseWinter Habitat Selection and Energy Development,’’ Journal of Wildlife Management, vol. 72, no. 1(2008), pp. 187–95; M.J. Holloran, R.C. Kaiser, and W.A. Hubert, ‘‘Yearling Greater Sage-GrouseResponse to Energy Development in Wyoming,’’ Journal of Wildlife Management, vol. 74, no. 1(2010), pp. 65–72; and D.E. Naugle, K.E. Doherty, B.L. Walker, M.J. Holloran, and H.E. Copeland,‘‘Energy Development and Greater Sage-Grouse,’’ Studies in Avian Biology, (forthcoming).


4M.J. Holloran, op. cit.; D.E. Naugle et al., op. cit.; B.L. Walker, D.E. Naugle, and K.E.Doherty, ‘‘Greater Sage-Grouse Population Response to Energy Development and Habitat Loss,’’Journal of Wildlife Management, vol. 71, no. 8 (2007), pp. 2644–654; and K.E. Doherty, D.E.Naugle, and J.S. Evans, ‘‘A Currency for Offsetting Energy Development Impacts: Horse-TradingSage Grouse on the Open Market,’’ PLoS ONE, vol. 5, no. 4 (2010), e10339.

5D.P. Walsh, G.C. White, T.E. Remington, and D.C. Bowden, ‘‘Evaluation of the Lek-CountIndex for Greater Sage-Grouse,’’ Wildlife Society Bulletin, vol. 32, no. 1 (2004), pp. 56–68.

6M.J. Holloran, op. cit.; K.E. Doherty et al., ‘‘A Currency for Horse-Trading Sage Grouse on theOpen Market’’; S.M. Harju, M.R. Dzialak, R.C. Taylor, L.D. Hayden, and J.B. Winstead, ‘‘Thresholdsand Time Lags in the Effects of Energy Development on Greater Sage Grouse Populations,’’ Journalof Wildlife Management, vol. 74, no. 3 (2010), pp. 437–48; and H.E. Copeland, K.E. Doherty, D.E.Naugle, A. Pocewicz, and J.M. Kiesecker, ‘‘Mapping Oil and Gas Development Potential in the USIntermountain West and Estimating Impacts to Species,’’ PLoS ONE, vol. 4, no. 10 (2009), e7400.

7U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Memorandum no. WY-2010-012and Memorandum no. WY-2010-013.

8D.E. Naugle et al., op. cit.; K.E. Doherty et al., ‘‘A Currency for Horse-Trading Sage Grouse onthe Open Market’’; and H.E. Copeland et al., op. cit.

9K.E. Doherty et al., ‘‘Greater Sage-Grouse Winter Habitat Selection and Energy De-velopment,’’ and H.E. Copeland et al., op. cit.

10M.J. Holloran, op. cit.

11K.E. Doherty et al., ‘‘A Currency for Horse-Trading Sage Grouse on the Open Market.’’

12D.B. Resnik, ‘‘Is the Precautionary Principle Unscientific?’’ Studies in History and Philosophyof Biological and Biomedical Sciences, vol. 34, no. 2 (2003), pp. 329–44.

13M.J. Holloran, op. cit.; D.E. Naugle et al., op. cit.; and C.L. Aldridge and M.S. Boyce,‘‘Linking Occurrence and Fitness to Persistence: Habitat-Based Approach for Endangered GreaterSage-Grouse,’’ Ecological Applications, vol. 17, no. 2 (2007), pp. 508–26.

14D.E. Naugle et al., op. cit.

15R. Popper, ‘‘Science: Conjectures and Refutations,’’ in Conjectures and Refutations: TheGrowth of Scientific Knowledge (New York: Basic Books, 1962), and J.R. Platt, ‘‘Strong Inference:Certain Systematic Methods of Scientific Thinking May Produce Much More Rapid Progress thanOthers,’’ Science, vol. 146, no. 3642 (1964), pp. 347–53.

16M.A. Cronin, H.A. Whitlaw, and W.B. Ballard, ‘‘Northern Alaska Oil Fields and Caribou,’’Wildlife Society Bulletin, vol. 28, no. 4 (2000), pp. 919–22, and B. Lenart, ‘‘Central Arctic CaribouFieldwork Summary for 2008,’’ Fairbanks, Alaska, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Divisionof Wildlife Conservation, 2008.

17M. Cronin, W.B. Ballard, J. Truet, and R. Pollard, ‘‘Mitigation of the Effects of Oil FieldDevelopment and Transportation Corridors on Caribou, Final Report to the Alaskan Oil and GasAssociation,’’ Anchorage, Alaska, LGL Alaska Research Associates, Inc., 1994.


18C.E. Braun, O.O. Oedekoven, and C.L. Aldridge ‘‘Oil and Gas Development in Western NorthAmerica: Effects on Sagebrush Steppe Avifauna with Particular Emphasis on Sage-Grouse,’’Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, vol. 67 (2002), pp.337–49, and M.J. Holloran, op. cit.


20B. Kosko, Noise (New York: Penguin Books, 2006).

21U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Health and Safety Administration, ‘‘Section I: Whatis Considered ‘Noise’ and What are the Potential Health Effects?’’ available at http://www.osha.gov/dts/osta/otm/noise/health_effects/.

22K. Attenborough, ‘‘Sound Propagation in the Atmosphere,’’ in Springer Handbook ofAcoustics, ed. T.D. Rossing (New York: Springer, 2007), pp. 113–48.

23P.D. Schomer, Y. Suzuki, and F. Saito, ‘‘Evaluation of Loudness-level Weightings forAssessing the Annoyance of Environmental Noise,’’ Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,vol. 110, no. 5 (2001), pp. 2390–397.

24P.D. Schomer et al., op. cit., and H.G. Leventhall, ‘‘Low Frequency Noise and Annoyance,’’Noise & Health, vol. 6 (2004), pp. 59–72, available at http://www.noiseandhealth.org/text.asp?2004/6/23/59/31663.

25D. Ouis, ‘‘Annoyance from Road Traffic Noise: A Review,’’ Journal of EnvironmentalPsychology, vol. 21, no. 1 (2001), pp. 101–20.

26R. Reijnen, R. Foppen, C. Ter Braak, and J. Thissen, ‘‘The Effects of Car Traffic on BreedingBird Populations in Woodland. II. Reduction of Density in Relation to the Proximity of MainRoads,’’ Journal of Applied Ecology, vol. 32, no. 1 (1995), pp. 187–202.

27A.D. Pierce, ‘‘Basic Linear Acoustics,’’ in Springer Handbook of Acoustics, pp. 25–111.

28R.J. Dooling, ‘‘Avian Hearing and the Avoidance of Wind Turbines,’’ National RenewableEnergy Laboratory, unpublished report, NREL/TP–500–30844, June 2002.

29M. Theuricha, G. Langnera, and H. Scheicha, ‘‘Infrasound Responses in the Midbrain of theGuinea Fowl,’’ Neuroscience Letters, vol. 49, nos. 1–2 (1984), pp. 81–6.

30M.L. Kreithen and D.B. Quine, ‘‘Infrasound Detection by the Homing Pigeon: A BehavioralAudiogram,’’ Journal of Comparative Physiology A: Neuroethology, Sensory, Neural, and Be-havioral Physiology, vol. 129, no. 1 (1979), pp. 1–4, and M.L. Yodlowski, M.L. Kreithen, andW.T. Keeton, ‘‘Detection of Atmospheric Infrasound by Pigeons,’’ Nature, vol. 265 (1977),pp. 725–26.

31M.L. Kreithen et al., op. cit.; M. Theuricha et al., op. cit.; R. Klinke, ‘‘Avian HearingMechanisms and Performance from Infrasound to the Mid-frequency Range,’’ Acta XX CongressusInternationalis Ornithologici III (Christchurch, New Zealand, 1990); L. Schermuly and R. Klinke,‘‘Infrasound Sensitive Neurons in the Pigeon Cochlear Ganglion,’’ Journal of ComparativePhysiology A: Neuroethology, Sensory, Neural, and Behavioral Physiology, vol. 166, no. 3 (1990),pp. 355–63; and R.C. Beason, ‘‘Through a Bird’s Eye – Exploring Avian Sensory Perception,’’ Bird


Strike Committee Proceedings, 2003, Bird Strike Committee USA/Canada, 5th Joint Annual Meeting,Toronto, Ontario, August 18–20, 2003, available at http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/birdstrike2003/8.

32J.R. Barber, K.R. Crooks, and K.M. Fristrup, ‘‘The Costs of Chronic Noise Exposure forTerrestrial Organisms,’’ Trends in Ecology & Evolution, vol. 25, no. 3 (2010), pp. 180–89.

33C.L. Aldridge and M.S. Boyce, op. cit.

34R.M. Gibson, ‘‘A Reevaluation of Hotspot Settlement in Lekking Sage Grouse,’’ Animal Be-haviour, vol. 52, no. 5 (1996), pp. 993–1005; R.M. Gibson, J.W. Bradbury, and S.L. Vehrencamp,‘‘Mate Choice in Lekking Sage Grouse Revisited: the Roles of Vocal Display, Female Site Fidelityand Copying,’’ Behavioral Ecology, vol. 2, no. 2 (1991), pp. 165–80; M.S. Dantzker, G.B. Deane, andJ.W. Bradbury, ‘‘Directional Acoustic Radiation in the Strut Display of Male Sage Grouse Cen-trocercus urophasianus,’’ Journal of Experimental Biology, vol. 202, no. 21 (1999), pp. 2893–909;and A.H. Krakauer, M. Tyrrell, K. Lehmann, N. Losin, F. Goller, and G.L. Patricelli, ‘‘Vocal andAnatomical Evidence for Two-Voiced Sound Production in the Greater Sage-Grouse Centrocercusurophasianus,’’ Journal of Experimental Biology, vol. 212, no. 22 (2009), pp. 3719–727.

35M.S. Dantzker et al., op. cit. and A.H. Krakauer et al., op. cit.

36C. Morrison, A. Wang, and O. Bewes, ‘‘Measuring the Dynamic Stiffness of Resilient RailFastenings for Low Frequency Vibration Isolation of Railways, Their Problems and Possible So-lutions,’’ in Proceedings from the 11th International Meeting on Low Frequency Noise and Vi-bration and its Control, ed. G. Leventhall, (Maastricht, The Netherlands, August 30-September 1,2004), pp. 199–210; and M. Bodden and R. Heinrichs, ‘‘Diesel Sound Quality Analysis andEvaluation,’’ Forum Acusticum (2005), p. 4.

37C.E. Braun et al., op. cit.

38LGL Limited, ‘‘Chapter II, Effects of Gas Compressor Noise Simulator Disturbance toTerrestrial Breeding Birds, Babbage River, Yukon Territory, June 1972,’’ in Disturbance toBirds by Gas Compressor Noise Simulators, Aircraft, and Human Activity, eds. W.W.H. Gunnand J.A. Livingston (Anchorage, Alaska: Arctic Gas Biological Report Series 14, 1974), pp.49–96.

39E.M. Bayne, L. Habib, and S. Boutin, ‘‘Impacts of Chronic Anthropogenic Noise fromEnergy-Sector Activity on Abundance of Songbirds in the Boreal Forest,’’ Conservation Biology,vol. 22, no. 5 (2008), pp. 1186–193.

40L. Habib, E.M. Bayne, and S. Boutin, ‘‘Chronic Industrial Noise Affects Pairing Success andAge Structure of Ovenbirds Seiurus aurocapilla,’’ Journal of Applied Ecology, vol. 44, no. 1(2007), pp. 176–84.

41K.E. LaGory, Y-S. Chang, K.C. Chun, T. Reeves, R. Liebich, and K. Smit, ‘‘A Study of theEffects of Gas Well Compressor Noise on Breeding Bird Populations of the Rattlesnake CanyonHabitat Management Area, San Juan County, New Mexico,’’ unpublished report by Argonne Na-tional Laboratory for the U.S. Department of Energy, Contract W-31-109-Eng-38, Report DOE/BC/W-31-109-ENG-38-10, 2001.

42C.D. Francis, C.P. Ortega, and A. Cruz, ‘‘Noise Pollution Changes Avian Communities andSpecies Interactions,’’ Current Biology, vol. 19 no. 16 (2009), pp. 1415–419.


43G. Lombaert and G. Degrande, ‘‘Experimental Validation of a Numerical Prediction Model forFree Field Traffic Induced Vibrations by In Situ Experiments,’’ Soil Dynamics and EarthquakeEngineering, vol. 21, no. 6 (2001), pp. 485–97, and C. Ostendorf, ‘‘The Influence of a Noise Barrieron Nuisance Caused Vibrations,’’ in Proceedings from the 11th International Meeting on LowFrequency Noise and Vibration and its Control, pp. 221–38.


45A.G. Lyon and S.H. Anderson, ‘‘Potential Gas Development Impacts on Sage Grouse NestInitiation and Movement,’’ Wildlife Society Bulletin, vol. 31, no. 2 (2003), pp. 486–91.

46C.E. Braun et al., op. cit.

47R.J. Dooling, ‘‘Hearing in Birds,’’ in The Evolutionary Biology of Hearing, eds. D.B. Webster,R.R. Fay, and A.N. Popper (New York: Springer-Verlag, 1992), pp. 545–59.


49M.A. Gilders and M.A. Cronin, ‘‘North Slope Oil Field Development,’’ in The Natural Historyof an Arctic Oilfield, Development and the Biota, eds. J.C. Truett and S.R. Johnson (San Diego andLondon: Academic Press, 2000), pp. 15–23.

50P. Percival, ‘‘Sound Mitigation Technology Helps Oil and Gas Industry to Be a GoodNeighbor in Urban Areas,’’ Basin Oil and Gas, vol. 32 (2009), available at http://www.fwbog.com/index.php?page=article&article=163, accessed January 10, 2011.

51P. Percival, ‘‘Fort Worth Drilling Ordinance Serves as Model for Other Areas,’’ Basin Oil andGas, vol. 22 (2009), available at http://www.fwbog.com/index.php?page=article&article=167,accessed January 10, 2011.

52J.A. Gill, ‘‘Approaches to Measuring the Effects of Human Disturbance on Birds,’’ Ibis, vol.149 (Suppl. 1, 2007), pp. 9–14.

53Ibid.

54K.P. Reese and J.W. Connelly, ‘‘Harvest Management for Greater Sage-Grouse: A ChangingParadigm for Game Bird Management,’’ Studies in Avian Biology (forthcoming).

55T. Christiansen, ‘‘Hunting and Sage-Grouse: A Technical Review of Harvest Management ona Species of Concern in Wyoming,’’ unpublished report, Wyoming Game & Fish Department(2010), revised September 2010.

56C.A. Hagen, ‘‘Predation on Greater Sage-Grouse: Facts, Process, and Effects,’’ Studies inAvian Biology (forthcoming).

57P.S. Coates and D.J. Delehanty, ‘‘Nest Predation of Greater Sage-Grouse in Relation to Mi-crohabitat Factors and Predators,’’ Journal of Wildlife Management, vol. 74, no. 2 (2010), pp. 240–48, and C.A. Hagen, op. cit.

58C.A. Hagen, op. cit.

59P.S. Coates and D.J. Delehanty, op. cit.


60Ibid.

61U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, ‘‘Greater Sage-Grouse Interim Status Update,’’ unpublishedreport, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain-Prairie Region Wyoming Ecological ServicesOffice, October 31, 2008; U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Memo-randum no. WY-2010-012 and Memorandum no. WY-2010-013; and D. Freudenthal, op. cit.

62C.L. Aldridge and M.S. Boyce, op. cit.

63D.E. Naugle et al., op. cit.; H.E. Copeland et al., op. cit.; and K.E. Doherty, D.E. Naugle, H.Copeland, A. Pocewicz, and J. Kiesecker, ‘‘Energy Development and Conservation Tradeoffs:Systematic Planning for Greater Sage-Grouse in their Eastern Range,’’ Studies in Avian Biology,(forthcoming).

64J.W. Connelly, M.A. Schroeder, A.R. Sands, and C.E. Braun, ‘‘Guidelines to Manage SageGrouse Populations and their Habitats,’’ Wildlife Society Bulletin, vol. 28, no. 4 (2000), pp. 967–85.

65TheCapitol.Net, ‘‘Energy: Natural Gas: The Production and Use of Natural Gas, Natural GasImports and Exports, EPAct Project, Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Import Terminals and In-frastructure Security, Underground Working Gas Storage, Fischer-Tropsch Fuels from Coal, Nat-ural Gas, and Biomass, Gas Hydrates, Gas Shales, Hydraulic Fracturing, Alaska Natural GasPipelines,’’ Government Series, Compiled by TheCapitol.Net, Washington, D.C., 2010.

66H.E. Copeland et al., op. cit.

67Ibid.

68V. Huff, ‘‘From Reclamation to Restoration: Native Grass Species for Revegetation inNortheast British Columbia’’ (Master’s thesis, School of Environmental Studies, University ofVictoria, British Columbia, 2009), and D.B. Johnston, ‘‘Restoring Energy Fields for Wildlife,’’unpublished report, Colorado Division of Wildlife – Avian Research Program, Annual ProgressReport, February 23, 2010.

69D.E. Naugle et al., op. cit.

70R.L. Eng, E.J. Pitcher, S.J. Scott, and R.J. Greene, ‘‘Minimizing the Effect of Surface CoalMining on a Sage Grouse Population by a Directed Shift of Breeding Activities,’’ in The MitigationSymposium: a National Workshop on Mitigating Losses on Fish and Wildlife Habitats, ed. G.A.Swanson (U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, General Technical Report. RM-65,1979), pp. 464–68, and R.D. Rodgers, ‘‘A Technique for Establishing Sharp-Tailed Grouse inUnoccupied Range,’’ Wildlife Society Bulletin, vol. 20, no. 1 (1992), pp. 101–6.

71U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, ‘‘Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: 12-MonthFindings for Petitions to List the Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) as Threatenedor Endangered,’’ and C.E. Braun, ‘‘Sage Grouse Declines in Western North America: What are theProblems?’’ Proceedings of Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, vol. 78 (1998), pp.139–56.

72U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, ‘‘Greater Sage-grouse Interim Status Update’’; T. Christiansen,‘‘Fence Marking to Reduce Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Collisions andMortality Near Farson, Wyoming - Summary of Interim Results,’’ unpublished report, Wyoming


Game and Fish Department, October 26, 2009, p. 3; and Environmental Defense Fund, ‘‘An In-expensive Opportunity Exists to Reduce the Hazard to the Greater Sage Grouse and Lesser PrairieChicken from Wire Fencing,’’ unpublished report, Environmental Defense Fund, New York, Jan-uary 2009, available at http://www.edf.org/article.cfm?contentID=9126, accessed January 15, 2011.

73C.L. Aldridge and M.S. Boyce, op. cit., and J.W. Connelly, S.T. Knick, M.A. Schroeder, andS.J. Stiver, ‘‘Conservation Assessment of Greater Sage-Grouse and Sagebrush Habitats,’’ un-published report, Cheyenne, Wyoming, Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, 2004.

74Environmental Defense Fund, op. cit.

75U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Memorandum no. WY-2010-012 and Memorandum no. WY-2010-013.

76B.A. Federici, ‘‘Recombinant Bacterial Larvicides for Control of Important Mosquito Vectorsof Disease,’’ in Vector Biology, Ecology and Control, ed. P.W. Atkinson (Dordrecht, The Neth-erlands: Springer, 2010), pp. 163–76.

77B.L. Walker, D.E. Naugle, K.E. Doherty, and T.E. Cornish, ‘‘West Nile Virus and GreaterSage-Grouse: Estimating Infection Rate in a Wild Bird Population,’’ Avian Diseases, vol. 51, no. 3(2007), pp. 691–96; A. Schrag, S. Konrad, S. Miller, B. Walker, and S. Forrest, ‘‘Climate-ChangeImpacts on Sagebrush Habitat and West Nile Virus Transmission Risk and Conservation Impli-cations for Greater Sage-Grouse,’’ GeoJournal, published online August 15, 2010; and D.E. Naugleand B.L. Walker, ‘‘West Nile Virus Ecology in Sagebrush Habitat and Impacts on Greater Sage-Grouse Populations,’’ Studies in Avian Biology, (forthcoming).

78S.M. Harju et al., op. cit.

79U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Memorandum no. WY-2010-012and Memorandum No. WY-2010-013; and D. Freudenthal, op. cit.

80U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Memorandum no. WY-2010-012and Memorandum no. WY-2010-013.

81R.J. McLain and R.G. Lee, ‘‘Adaptive Management: Promises and Pitfalls,’’ EnvironmentalManagement, vol. 20, no. 4 (1996), pp. 437–48.

82Ibid.

83K.E. Doherty et al., ‘‘A Currency for Horse-Trading Sage Grouse on the Open Market.’’

84J.W. Connelly et al., ‘‘Guidelines to Manage Sage Grouse Populations and Their Habitats.’’

85K.R. Popper, op. cit.; J.R. Platt, op. cit.; and R.J. McLain and R.G. Lee, op. cit.


re: nevada and northeastern california greater sage grouse ... · production of oil and gas...

Documents