BLM comment instructions/Fracking

  • The April 2019 DRAFT EIS report is here.
  • Map of open leases here.
  • The government docs on this “project” are kept here.
  • Click and you get this.


Once you click to comment at the lower right, you will see this.

BLM comment formHere’s the “tips” the BLM provides for leaving comments.
Substantive comments (rather than broad statements) are most effective. Substantive comments focus on specific issues that pertain to and help refine information and language. For example, substantive comments might:

  • Present additional information or data sources pertaining to draft information or proposed management.
  •  Help to clarify or further refine the range of alternatives.
  • Recommend a specific modification to a proposed management action.
  • Identify and substantiate a specific concern related to a proposed resource use or restriction.

Avoid submitting comments that:

  • Provide broad opinion favoring or opposing proposed management with no supporting data.
  • Are presented as vague open-ended questions rather than clear statements.
  • Do not pertain to the planning area.
  • Reference data, but lack a citation with supporting or corrective data.
  • Are identical form letters. They are considered one comment.

Petition signatures are also considered one comment.

The Draft EIS lays out 5 alternatives. Your answer should reference these alternatives. We would like to continue the ban on fossil fuel drilling indefinitely, which is currently not offered under any “Alternative”.

The No Action Alternative reflects management under the previous land use plans, as carried-forward in the 2012 FEIS. Alternative B, the Proposed Plan, was adopted in the 2014 RMP.

Alternative A: Alternative A (No Action) would continue current management practices as the No Action alternative required by NEPA, under the 1997 Caliente RMP and 1984 Hollister RMP, as amended.

Alternative A maintains the same level of well development as it currently exists. Therefore, barring some other development, the emissions from conventional and hydraulically fractured wells would remain at the current levels.”(pg 54)

Alternatives B-E: “The same number of new wells would be developed by hydraulic fracturing under each of the Action Alternatives. A range of zero to four new wells per year, or up to 40 total wells over the 10-year span of the 2014 RMP, would be developed by hydraulic fracturing under Alternatives B through E.” These descriptions are quoted from the EIS report. (This is just an estimate based on current rates of fracking. (pg. 53))

  • Alternative B (Proposed Plan) balances resource conservation and ecosystem health with the production of commodities and public use of the land. This alternative reflects changes made after the publication of the Draft RMP/Draft Environmental Impact Statement as a result of public comment and internal analysis (September 2011).
  • Alternative C emphasizes conserving cultural and natural resources, maintaining functioning natural systems, and restoring natural systems that are degraded.
  • Alternative D tracks Alternative C in all aspects except livestock grazing. This alternative eliminates livestock grazing for the life of the plan from the public lands where the 2014 RMP provides administrative direction for the livestock-grazing program.
  • Alternative E emphasizes the production of natural resources commodities and public use opportunities. Resource uses such as recreation, livestock grazing, mining, and oil/gas leasing, consistent with BLM guidance and constraints, would be emphasized.