united states department of the interior bureau of...

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-0000-2017-0001-EA

July 2017

BERRY PETROLEUM COMPANY SOUTH UNIT

LEASE REINSTATEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management

Utah State Office 440 West 200 South, Suite 500

Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 (801) 539-4026

Berry Petroleum Company South Unit Lease Reinstatement

i

Contents 33TCHAPTER 1.33T 33TIntroduction33T .................................................................................................................. 1

33T1.1.33T 33TBackground33T ................................................................................................................................... 1 33T1.2.33T 33TDecisions to be Made and Purpose and Need33T ............................................................................... 3 33T1.3.33T 33TConformance with Land Use Plans33T ............................................................................................... 4

33TCHAPTER 2.33T 33TAlternatives33T ................................................................................................................... 5 33T2.1.33T 33TNo Action Alternative33T ................................................................................................................... 5 33T2.2.33T 33TProposed Action Alternative33T ......................................................................................................... 5

33TCHAPTER 3.33T 33TAffected Environment and Environmental Consequences33T ....................................... 8 33T3.1.33T 33TReasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario33T........................................................................... 8

33T 33T 33TNo Action Alternative33T ........................................................................................................... 8 33T 33T 33TProposed Action33T .................................................................................................................... 8

33T3.2.33T 33TGreater Sage-grouse Habitat33T ......................................................................................................... 9 33T 33T 33TAffected Environment33T ........................................................................................................... 9 33T 33T 33TImpacts Analysis33T ................................................................................................................. 10

33T3.3.33T 33TGreenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change33T ....................................................................... 12 33T 33T 33TAffected Environment33T ......................................................................................................... 12 33T 33T 33TImpact Analysis33T .................................................................................................................. 13

33T3.4.33T 33TAir Quality (Winter Ozone)33T ........................................................................................................ 15 33T 33T 33TAffected Environment33T ......................................................................................................... 15 33T 33T 33TImpact Analysis33T .................................................................................................................. 15

33T3.5.33T 33TWater Resources33T ......................................................................................................................... 17 33T 33T 33TAffected Environment33T ......................................................................................................... 17 33T 33T 33TImpact analysis33T.................................................................................................................... 19

33T3.6.33T 33TWetlands and Riparian Areas (Floodplains)33T ............................................................................... 19 33T 33T 33TAffected Environment33T ......................................................................................................... 19 33T 33T 33TImpact Analysis33T .................................................................................................................. 19

33T3.7.33T 33TResources/Issues Dismissed from Additional Analysis33T .............................................................. 20 33T 33T 33TSocioeconomics33T .................................................................................................................. 20 33T 33T 33TInventoried Roadless Areas33T ................................................................................................ 20 33T 33T 33TGeology and Minerals33T ......................................................................................................... 20 33T 33T 33TPaleontology33T ....................................................................................................................... 20 33T 33T 33TSoils33T .................................................................................................................................... 21 33T 33T 33TVegetation33T ........................................................................................................................... 21 33T 33T 33TWildlife (Non Sage-grouse)33T ................................................................................................ 21 33T 33T 33TGrazing33T ................................................................................................................................ 21 33T 33T 33TCultural Resources33T .............................................................................................................. 21 33T 33T 33TRecreation33T ........................................................................................................................... 22 33T 33T 33TPotential Wilderness Areas33T ................................................................................................. 22 33T 33T 33TTransportation33T ..................................................................................................................... 22 33T 33T 33TVisual Resources33T ................................................................................................................. 22

33TCHAPTER 4.33T 33TConsultation and Coordination33T ................................................................................. 23 33T4.1.33T 33TCooperating Agency33T ................................................................................................................... 23


ii


1

UTU77328 Class II Reinstatement Environmental Assessment

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background Federal oil and gas lease UTU77328 was issued on July 1, 1998, for 1890.4 acres of land within the South Unit of the Ashley National Forest (ANF), located in Duchesne County, Utah. The lease area includes approximately 223 acres of private surface in Sower’s Canyon (Map 1). Development of lease UTU77328, as well as others to the north and east, was delayed until an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for Berry Petroleum’s (Berry) South Unit Master Development Plan (South Unit MDP). On February 21, 2012, a Record of Decision (ROD) [USFS 2012a] was signed by the United States Forest Service (FS) approving a modified version of Berry’s South Unit MDP. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) adopted the South Unit MDP EIS by signing its own ROD on October 22, 2012 [BLM 2012]. The RODs approved a conceptual development scenario of approximately 167 multi-well pads to explore for and extract oil and gas on the leases within the South Unit MDP. On April 10, 2015, the ANF released the South Unit MDP – Supplemental Information Review (SIR) [USFS 2015a]. The SIR identified new information regarding sage-grouse, air quality, hydrology, non-native invasive plants, and management of inventoried roadless area (IRAs) and examined the analysis in the 2012 FEIS (Final EIS).

After the FS and BLM signed the RODs, Berry submitted 5 applications for permits to drill (APDs) for oil and gas wells on or into lease UTU77328. On November 1, 2013, the FS approved the Surface Use Plan of Operation (SUPO) for the 3-7-65 well pad on lease UTU77328 and the 15-6-65 well pad on lease UTU77327. The APDs were subsequently approved by the BLM on January 30, 2014.

Berry failed to pay the annual rental for UTU77328 to the Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR) on time, and the lease terminated on July 1, 2014. Berry was not notified of the lease’s termination status until October 8, 2014, and, in the interim, had drilled the five wells on/into lease UTU77328 pursuant to the approved APDs. Four of the wells were drilled from the 3-7-65 well pad in the northwest corner of the lease, and one was drilled from the off-lease pad, 15-6-65. These five wells are capable of production, but have been shut-in since shortly after Berry was informed of the change in the lease termination (shut-in refers to closing the valves at the wellhead so the well no longer flows or produces).

A terminated lease can be reinstated, but under applicable regulations is subject to increased rental and royalty rates (43 CFR § 3108.2-2). Berry submitted a petition to the BLMP0F

1P for a class

II reinstatement of oil and gas lease UTU77328 on December 4, 2014. Upon reinstatement, Berry would be able to resume production from the five completed wells, subject to BLM

1 Although the majority of the lease is on Forest System surface, the BLM is the agency tasked by Congress to administer oil and gas leases for Federal mineral estate, after having received consent to lease from the surface management agency.


2

approval of sundry notices. Construction of additional drill pads and the drilling of additional wells within lease UTU77328 would be in accordance with the terms of the leases, and applicable approved Surface Use Plans of Operations (SUPO) and APDs. Prior to reinstatement of an oil and gas lease, BLM policy, as outlined in Washington Office (WO) Instruction Memorandum (IM) No. 2013-177 [BLM 2013], requires the BLM to do the following:

1. Ensure reinstatement of the lease would be in conformance with the existing Resource Management Plan (RMP).

2. Evaluate the adequacy of existing NEPA analysis and documentation related to the lease parcel; and

3. Complete any necessary new or supplemental NEPA analysis and documentation if the existing NEPA analysis and documentation are inadequate in light of any new information that has become available or resource issues that have arisen since the BLM originally issued the lease.

In order to comply with WO IM No. 2013-177, the BLM and FS have determined preparation of an environmental assessment (EA) is necessary to evaluate any new information and changed circumstances subsequent to the completion of the EIS for the lease. This EA tiers to the following documents:

• BLM, Vernal Field Office Resource Management Plan FEIS 2008

• BLM, Monument Butte Oil and Gas Development Project FEIS 2016

• USFS, Ashley National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan FEIS and ROD, 1986, and subsequent amendments

• USFS, Western Uinta Basin Oil and Gas Leasing and Forest Plan Amendment FEIS and

ROD, 1997

• USFS, Berry Petroleum South Unit Oil and Gas Master Development Plan FEIS and the FS and BLM RODs, 2012

• USFS, Greater-sage Grouse Utah Plan Amendment FEIS and ROD, 2015

The portion of the lease on National Forest System (NFS) surface is within Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) 0401010 (Sowers Canyon East) and 0401011 (Cottonwood) (Map 1-1). Lease UTU77328 is excepted from the roadless rule in accordance with its Section 294.12(b): “Notwithstanding the prohibitions in paragraph 9a) of this section, a road may be constructed or reconstructed in an inventoried roadless area if the responsible official determines that one of the following circumstances exists:…(7) A road is needed in conjunction with the continuation, extension or renewal of a mineral lease on lands that are under lease by the Secretary of Interior as of January 12, 2001”. Lease UTU77328 was effective July 1, 1998.


3

Map 1-1Roadless Area Within Lease Proposed for Reinstatement

1.2. Decisions to be Made and Purpose and Need Pursuant to the Mineral Leasing Act (MLA) of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 181 et. seq.) as amended by the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 and the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and in accordance with FS regulations at 36 CFR 228 Subpart E and the MOU between the Department of Interior BLM and the Department of Agriculture FS Concerning Oil and Gas Leasing and Operations (2006), lands within the National Forest System may not be leased by the BLM over the objection of the Forest Service. WO IM No. 2013-177 requires the BLM to obtain consent from the appropriate surface management agency before the approval of a lease reinstatement. Further, prior to a lease being reinstated, the lessee must accept any new lease stipulations and notices identified as necessary by the BLM and the surface management agency.

The decision for the FS is whether or not to consent to reinstatement of the lease by BLM, and whether to condition consent with any new lease stipulations and notices. The BLM’s decision is whether to reinstate the lease with additional BLM notices and stipulations or deny the petition for reinstatement.


4

The Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 181 et. seq.) mandates that a valid lease be in place when extracting federally owned fluid minerals. Without reinstatement, development of and production from the lease would be further delayed, possibly to the point of requiring the abandonment and plugging of the wells already drilled. This would result not only in a loss of revenue for Berry, but also for Duchesne County, the State of Utah and the Federal government, and loss of production of oil and gas resources. If the lease is reinstated, Berry could extract the oil and gas contained within it. In addition to recouping its investment in the lease, Berry would pay royalties to both the United States and the State of Utah, which would directly and indirectly enhance employment opportunities and economic conditions in Duchesne County. The purpose of the proposed action is for the BLM to reinstate the lease and allow its continued development by enabling the lessee to resume extracting and drilling for oil and gas.

Both the BLM and the FS must comply with the MLA and the relevant regulations and policies pursuant to the Act by responding to the petition for reinstatement. Specifically, 30 U.S.C. § 181 states that the deposits of oil and gas owned by the United States “shall be subject to disposition in the form and manner provided by this chapter…” and 30 U.S.C. § 188 (c)(d)(e) authorizes the Secretary of Interior to reinstate leases. 43 CFR 3108.2-3, states “the authorized officer (BLM) may, if the requirements of the section are met, reinstate the lease with new royalty and rental rates”. The need for the proposed action is to respond to the proponent’s petition for a class II reinstatement of oil and gas lease UTU77328.

1.3. Conformance with Land Use Plans The proposed action is in conformance with the Ashley National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (ANFLRMP) [USFS 1986], as amended by the Western Uinta Basin Oil and Gas Leasing and Forest Plan Amendment FEIS/ROD [USFS 1997], and the Greater Sage-grouse Utah Plan Amendments ROD [USFS 2015c]. The Western Uinta Basin Oil and Gas Leasing and Forest Plan Amendment FEIS and ROD classified the lands within lease UTU77328 as open to oil and gas leasing. The proposed action is also in conformance with the BLM Vernal Field Office Resource Management Plan (RMP), 2008. The Federal mineral estate within the Field Office boundaries is, by statute, administered by the BLM, and the BLM may make decisions in regards to the surface use in regards to Federal mineral development and in regards to the leasing of Federal minerals regardless of surface ownership.


5

CHAPTER 2. ALTERNATIVES

2.1. No Action Alternative Under the no-action alternative, lease UTU77328 would not be reinstated. Without a lease or other land use authorization, existing facilities and roads would be removed and the land reclaimed, and there could be no recovery of oil and gas.

2.2. Proposed Action Alternative The proposed action is for the BLM to approve Berry’s petition for a class II reinstatement of oil and gas lease UTU77328 subject to the existing lease stipulations (Attachment A) and the additional lease stipulations and notices identified below.

Prior to approval by the BLM, the FS, as the surface management agency of the majority of acres in the lease, would consent to reinstatement of the lease with the addition of the following stipulation derived from the FS Greater Sage-grouse Utah Plan Amendments and ROD (Standard GRSG-M-FMUL-ST-074) [USFS 2015]:

NO SURFACE OCCUPANCY STIPULATION Anthro Mountain Habitat Management Area (AMHMA)

No surface occupancy or use is allowed on the lands described below:

Anthro Mountain Habitat Management Area as identified in the FS Greater Sage-grouse Utah Plan Amendments Record of Decision, 2015 (Map 2).

For the purpose of: protecting, enhancing and restoring greater sage-grouse habitat.

Modifications: None

Waiver: None

Any changes to this stipulation will be made in accordance with the land use plan and/or the regulatory provisions for such changes. (For guidance on the use of this stipulation, see BLM Manual 1624 and 3101 or FS Manual 1950 and 2820).

The BLM would also add the following standard BLM stipulations:

CULTURAL RESOURCES STIPULATION

This lease may be found to contain historic properties and/or resources protected under the National Historic Preservation Act, American Indian Religious Freedom Act, Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, Executive Order 13007, or other statutes and executive orders. The BLM will not approve any ground disturbing activities that may affect any such properties or resources until it completes its obligations under applicable requirements of the NHPA and other authorities. The BLM may require modification to exploration or development proposals to protect such properties, or


6

disapprove any activity that is likely to result in adverse effects that cannot be successfully avoided, minimized or mitigated. (H-3120 at 35).

THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES STIPULATION

The lease may now and hereafter contain plants, animals, and their habitats determined to be threatened, endangered, or other special status species. BLM may recommend modifications to exploration and development proposals to further its conservation and management objectives to avoid BLM approved activity that will contribute to a need to list such a species or their habitat. BLM may require modification to or disapprove a proposed activity that is likely to result in jeopardy to the continued existence of a proposed or listed threatened or endangered species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of a designated or proposed critical habitat. BLM will not approve any ground-disturbing activity that may affect any such species or critical habitat until it completes its obligation under requirements of the Endangered Species Act, as amended, 16 U. S. C. § 1531 et seq., including completion of any required procedure for conference or consultation.

The BLM would also add the following lease notices to lease UTU77328:

AIR QUALITY MITIGATION MEASURES LEASE NOTICE

The lessee is given notice that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in coordination with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Utah Department of Air Quality, among others, has developed the following air quality mitigation measures that may be applied to any development proposed on this lease. Integration of and adherence to these measures may help minimize adverse local or regional air quality impacts from oil and gas development (including but not limited to construction, drilling, and production) on regional ozone formation. • All internal combustion equipment would be kept in good working order. • Water or other approved dust suppressants would be used at construction sites and

along roads, as determined appropriate by the Authorized Officer. • Open burning of garbage or refuse would not occur at well sites or other facilities. • Drill rigs would be equipped with Tier II or better diesel engines. • Vent emissions from stock tanks and natural gas TEG dehydrators would be

controlled by routing the emissions to a flare or similar control device which would reduce emissions by 95% or greater.

• Low bleed or no bleed pneumatics would be installed on separator dump valves and other controllers.

• During completion, flaring would be limited as much as possible. Production equipment and gathering lines would be installed as soon as possible.

• Well site telemetry would be utilized as feasible for production operations. • Stationary internal combustion engine would comply with the following standards:

2g NOx/bhp-hr for engines <300HP; and 1g NOx/bhp-hr for engines >300HP. Additional site-specific measures may also be employed to avoid or minimize effects to local or regional air quality. These additional measures will be developed and implemented in coordination with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Utah


7

Department of Air Quality, and other agencies with expertise or jurisdiction as appropriate based on the size of the project and magnitude of emissions.

FEDERAL FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT STANDARD LEASE NOTICE

To mitigate potential impacts to floodplains, activities would be limited or precluded within the 500 year base flood level (area subject to flooding by the 0.2 percent annual chance flood) or the 100 year base flood elevation plus 3 feet (Executive Order 13690 amending Executive Order 11988).


8

CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

3.1. Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario This EA incorporates by reference all relevant analysis within the South Unit MDP FEIS and SIR and utilizes the development scenario from the approved alternative of that EIS to analyze any residual indirect impacts of reinstating the lease that were not previously analyzed and disclosed. It also incorporates by reference the Air Quality Cumulative Impact Analysis from the 2016 Monument Butte Oil and Gas Development Project FEIS. This EA also incorporates by reference the analyses from the EISs associated with the Ashley National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan [USFS 1986] and its amendments and the BLM Vernal Field Office Resource Management Plan [BLM 2008] (as discussed below in the LUP conformance section)

Most of the indirect impacts of reinstating lease UTU77328 have been analyzed and disclosed as the direct impacts of development in the South Unit MDP FEIS and RODs [USFS and BLM 2012]. Since this EA tiers to the FEIS, the existing analysis is either found to be adequate or supplemented to demonstrate the agencies’ NEPA compliance prior to reinstatement of the lease.

No Action Alternative Under the no action alternative, lease UTU77328 would not be reinstated and would remain in terminated status. No additional wells would be drilled on or into the lease. The existing wells would eventually be plugged and abandoned and the lease pad reclaimed.

Proposed Action The reasonably foreseeable development scenario (RFDS) is included to provide information to determine if there would be further indirect impacts from developing the lease than were disclosed in the EISs listed in the Background Section of this document. All operations on lease UTU77328 would be conducted in accordance with Appendix A of the South Unit MDP FEIS and ROD [USFS 2012], regulations (43 CFR 3000 and 3160; 36 CFR 228 Subpart E), Onshore Oil and Gas Orders (Onshore Orders) and Notices to Lessees.

Any further development of this lease is speculative, but would proceed according to the selected alternative of the South Unit MDP FEIS, which analyzed the effects from the construction of up to 12 potential well pads along with the drilling of up to 25 wells, depending on which locations would be approved. The FEIS also analyzed the installation of a compressor station and the construction of several miles of road. The South Unit MDP ROD determines and describes the types and limits of future development the Forest would allow within the lease area. No additional well pads would be constructed in the Anthro Mountain Habitat Management Area (AMHMA) as the proposed action is to reinstate the lease with an NSO stipulation for that portion intersecting the AMHMA. The applicable conditions of approval (COAs) developed in the FS Greater Sage-grouse Utah Plan Amendments and ROD would be applied. However, sage-grouse mitigation in the South Unit Oil and Gas Development ROD that are more conservative than standards or guidelines in the Utah Plan Amendment ROD would be followed.


9

One well pad has been constructed and 4 wells drilled on the lease, with one additional well drilled into the lease from the surface of a different lease. The five existing shut-in lease wells whose surface facilities are within the AMHMA would resume operations under the conditions of approval (COAs) from the approved APDs, Appendix A of the South Unit MDP FEIS and ROD [USFS 2012] and the FS Greater Sage-grouse Utah Plan Amendment FEIS and ROD [USFS 2015].

3.2. Greater Sage-grouse Habitat

Affected Environment Lease UTU 77328 intersects the AMHMA for the Greater-sage Grouse (Map 2). Impacts to the AMHMA, (direct, indirect, and cumulative) from development were disclosed in the South Unit MDP FEIS [USFS 2012] and in the 2015 Greater Sage Grouse Utah FEIS [USFS 2015b]. Also, the SIR [USFS 2015a] was released in April, 2015 that included an evaluation of sage-grouse information that became available after the 2012 South Unit MDP ROD [USFS 2012]. The sage-grouse evaluation in the SIR, and analysis from both FEIS documents are incorporated in this analysis by reference.

In 2015 the Greater Sage-grouse ROD and Ashley National Forest Plan Amendment [USFS 2015c] was released which amended the Ashley Forest Plan with sage-grouse conservation measures which are very similar to the 10 mitigation measures to avoid or minimize impacts to greater sage-grouse (sage-grouse) included in the 2012 FEIS. According to mapping in this amendment, the northwest portion of the lease overlaps 314 acres of the AMHMA (approximately 3.1 miles or greater from the nearest lek) and the southeast portion of the lease overlaps 5.5 acres (approximately 1.25 miles or greater from the nearest lek) for a total of 319.5 acres of overlap [USFS 2012, USFS 2015b, USFS 2017]. The northwest portion of the lease that overlaps the AMHMA (314 acres) is located on a ridge, which is separated from the primary sage-grouse habitat by a prominent canyon [USFS 2012, USFS 2017]. The nearest sage-grouse locations on this ridge are more than 4 miles to the southwest of the lease area [USFS 2012, USFS 2017, UDWR 2017]. Surface disturbance within the AMHMA is currently 1.2% [USFS 2015b, USFS 2015c]. The Utah Greater Sage-grouse Amendment ROD limits surface disturbance within the AMHMA to 3% [USFS 2015b, USFS 2015c]. The ROD also states that any new oil and gas lease within the AMHMA must include a no surface occupancy (NSO) stipulation. Thus, new well pads and roads would be prohibited in those portions of the lease that overlap the AMHMA.

The South Unit MDP ROD was signed 3 years prior to the Greater Sage-grouse Utah Plan Amendments ROD and included mapped sage-grouse habitat that differs from the AMHMA in the Greater Sage-grouse Utah Plan Amendments ROD. According to mapping from the South Unit MDP ROD, the lease overlaps 40 acres of sage-grouse habitat (nearly 4 miles from the nearest lek), which is located in the northwest portion of the lease [USFS 2012] (Map 3-1). This sage-grouse habitat (40 acres) is located on a ridge, which is separated from the primary Anthro sage-grouse habitat by a prominent canyon [USFS 2012, USFS 2017]. The nearest sage-grouse locations on this ridge are more than 4 miles to the southwest of the lease area, and no leks occur on this ridge [sage-grouse telemetry maps in USFS 2012b, USFS 2017, UDWR 2017]. Surface disturbance within the South Unit MDP ROD mapped sage-grouse habitat is 0.74% [USFS 2012, USFS 2014]. This ROD limits surface disturbance in sage-grouse habitat to 5% [USFS 2012, USFS 2014].


10

The AMHMA sage-grouse population has fluctuated over time with decreases and increases, which have largely been due to weather and predation [Christensen 2015, USFS 2016]. The population has increased over the last few years (2014 – 2016) with male counts on leks being the highest (64, 76, and 73 males counted, respectively) that have been recorded since data collection of the AMHMA population began [USFS 2016].

Map 3-1 Lease UTU77328 and Greater Sage-grouse Habitat

Impacts Analysis

3.2.2.1. No Action Alternative

Under this alternative, no action would occur. Therefore, there would be no impacts to sage-grouse and no further discussion under this alternative is warranted.

3.2.2.2. Proposed Action

Since there will be a NSO stipulation in sage-grouse habitat upon reinstatement of this lease, there will be no new surface disturbance to sage-grouse habitat; thus eliminating possible impacts to sage-grouse habitat from this lease reinstatement. However, there is an existing well pad (3-7-65) and associated road that occurs within the 314 acres of the AMHMA that overlaps the northwest portion of the lease (Map 3-2). This well pad includes the existing infrastructure


11

of 4 shut-in wells. The pump-jacks for these wells are not currently operating, but would be upon reinstatement of the lease. This would result in noise produced from the pump-jacks, as well as, noise from associated truck traffic and maintenance of these wells. To avoid or minimize impacts to sage-grouse, the operation and maintenance of these wells would be under the COAs from the approved APDs, the standards and guidelines from the Greater Sage-grouse Utah Plan Amendments ROD and the South Unit MDP ROD. Included in these standards/guidelines and mitigations are timing and noise restrictions to reduce impacts to sage-grouse during the breeding season.

Map 3-2 Lease UTU777328 and Existing Pads and Roads

Additionally, mapped sage-grouse habitat from both the Greater Sage-grouse Utah Plan Amendments ROD and the South Unit MDP ROD contain some areas that are not actually sage-grouse habitat. The 3-7-65 well pad falls into one of those areas and is surrounded by mature pinon/juniper. Thus, impacts to sage-grouse from the operation of these 4 wells would be even less than if this well pad was actually located in sage-grouse habitat.

Furthermore, the 3-7-65 well pad is nearly 4 miles away from the nearest lek, is in an area that is distal from a lek and that has no documented sage-grouse use (located in an area that is more than 4 miles from the nearest sage-grouse location on the same ridge), is located on a ridge that is separated from the primary Anthro Mountain habitat by a prominent canyon, and is in an area of existing clustered oil and gas infrastructure. These reasons alone demonstrate the


12

unlikelihood that these 4 existing wells going into production on this well pad would have any impacts to the Anthro Mountain sage-grouse population or its habitat.

Thus, because of the NSO stipulation, the rationale discussed above regarding the 4 existing wells, as well as, the operation of these wells following the standards/guidelines in the Greater Sage-grouse Utah Plan Amendments ROD and mitigations in the South Unit ROD; it is determined that this lease reinstatement is unlikely to add additional impacts to the Anthro Mountain sage-grouse population than what was concluded in the South Unit MDP FEIS and ROD. Because of this same rationale, it is also determined that this lease reinstatement is compliant with the intent of the Greater Sage-grouse Utah Plan Amendments ROD [USFS 2015].

3.2.2.3. Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impacts to sage-grouse and their habitat were analyzed in detail in the 2012 South Unit MDP FEIS and Biological Evaluation, and the 2015 Greater Sage-Grouse Utah Plan Amendments FEIS [USFS 2015b, USFS 2012a, USFS 2012b]. These documents’ cumulative impact analyses are incorporated in this EA by reference, as well as the sage-grouse discussion in the SIR [USFS 2015a, USFS 2015b, USFS 2012a, USFS 2012b].

Since no additional impacts to sage grouse are anticipated as a result of the proposed action, no additional cumulative impacts would be expected.

3.3. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change

Affected Environment Greenhouse gases are often presented using the unit of Metric Tons of CO2 equivalent (MT CO2e) or Million Metric Tons (MMT CO2e), a metric to express the impact of each different greenhouse gas in terms of the amount of CO2 making it possible to express greenhouse gases as a single number. For example, one ton of methane would be equal to approximately 28-36 tons of CO2 equivalent, because it has a global warming potential (GWP) 28-36 times that of CO2. [EPA, 2017a]

As defined by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the GWP provides the “ratio of the time-integrated radiative forcing from the instantaneous release of one kilogram of a trace substance relative to that of one kilogram of CO2.” The GWP of a greenhouse gas is used to compare global impacts of different gases and used specifically to measure how much energy the emissions of one ton of gas will absorb over a given period of time (e.g. 100 years), relative to the emissions of one ton of CO2. The GWP accounts for the intensity of each GHG’s heat trapping effect and its longevity in the atmosphere. The GWP provides a method to quantify the cumulative effects of multiple GHGs released into the atmosphere by calculating carbon dioxide equivalent for the GHGs.

● Carbon dioxide (CO2), by definition, has a GWP of one regardless of the time period used because it is the gas being used as the reference. CO2 remains in the climate system for a very long time; CO2 emissions cause increases in the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 that will last thousands of years (EPA, 2017a).

● Methane (CH4) is estimated to have a GWP of 25 times that of CO2 over 100 years. CH4 emitted today lasts about a decade on average, which is much less time than CO2. But


13

CH4 also absorbs much more energy than CO2. The net effect of the shorter lifetime and higher energy absorption is reflected in the GWP. The methane GWP also accounts for some indirect effects, such as the fact that methane is a precursor to ozone, and ozone is in itself a greenhouse gas (EPA, 2017a).

● Nitrous Oxide (N2O) has a GWP of 265-298 times that of CO2 for a 100-year timescale. N2O emitted today remains in the atmosphere for more than 100 years, on average [EPA, 2017a].

Impact Analysis


Under the No Action alternative, indirect GHG emissions may occur from the use of heavy equipment to reclaim the drill pad and road within the lease.


There would be no GHG emissions as a direct result of the Proposed Action, which is administrative in nature – i.e., reinstatement of the lease. Nevertheless, the BLM recognizes that GHG emissions are a potential effect of the subsequent fluid mineral exploration and/or development of any lease which is reinstated. Oil and gas activities may lead to the installation and production of new wells, which may consequently produce an increase in GHG emissions. The primary sources of GHG emissions include the following:

● Fossil fuel combustion for construction and operation of oil and gas facilities – vehicles driving to and from production sites, engines that drive drill rigs, etc. These produce CO2 in quantities that vary depending on the age, types, and conditions of the equipment as well as the targeted formation, locations of wells with respect to processing facilities and pipelines, and other site-specific factors;

● Fugitive CH4 – CH4 that escapes from wells (both gas and oil), oil storage, and various types of processing equipment. This is a major source of global CH4 emissions. These emissions have been estimated for various aspects of the energy sector, and starting in 2011, producers are required under 40 CFR 98, to estimate and report their CH4 emissions to the EPA; and

● Combustion of produced oil and gas – it is expected that future operations would produce marketable quantities of oil and/or gas. Combustion of the oil and/or gas would release CO2 into the atmosphere. Fossil fuel combustion is the largest source of global CO2.

Indirect Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Indirect greenhouse gas emissions from speculative future oil and gas well drilling and production on the lease parcel was calculated assuming 20 additional wells would eventually be drilled and up to 25 wells would be operating on the lease. Total Greenhouse Gas Warming Potential (GWP), which includes direct emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide from an oil or gas producing well is estimated based on using a generic emissions calculator resulting in emissions of 1,192 tons per year CO2-e for a single operational well, and 2,305 tons per year CO2-e for a single drill rig. Drilling the five existing wells would have resulted in 11,525


14

tons of CO2-e and drilling the 20 more projected would result in 46,100 tons of CO2-e. The 25 wells are projected to emit 29,800 tons of CO2-e a year for the lives of the wells.

Downstream Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Downstream emissions are those that occur from combustion of the hydrocarbons produced from the wells. Currently, the total production for the lease from the five existing wells is 47,011 barrels of oil and 38,859 Mcf of natural gas. Downstream GHG emissions are also only calculated for carbon dioxide based on combustion of the product using an EPA emissions factor of 0.43 Metric tons of CO2 per barrel of oil and 0.054717 MT of CO2 per Mcf of gas [EPA, 2017b] [EIA 2016] which has resulted in 22,340.98 MT of CO2 emissions.

Future downstream emissions are estimated based on an average cumulative production rate of 22,958 barrels of oil and 68,026 Mcf of gas over the life of a well, based on the production history for a two mile radius around the location of the existing wells [Utah DOGM, 2016]. Using the reasonably foreseeable development scenario (RFDS) of up to 25 wells and subtracting the emissions calculated for the known production, the downstream GHG emissions can be estimated at 317,512 MT for the lease.

As it is not possible to assign a “significance” value or impact to these numbers, the emissions estimates themselves are presented as a proxy for impact. This is consistent with the guidance in BLM WO PIM No. 2017-003 [BLM 2017].

Uncertainties of GHG Calculations

Although this EA presents a quantified estimate of potential GHG emissions associated with reasonably foreseeable oil and gas development, there is uncertainty in GHG emission estimates due to uncertainties with regard to eventual production volumes and variability in flaring, construction and transportation.

End Uses

The estimates above provide possible indirect emissions through combustion of oil and gas extracted from the lease. A rough estimate was possible using publicly available information and using estimates from future production for reasonably foreseeable development. With respect to the rough estimates of indirect CO2 emissions, it should be noted that it is a difficult to discern with certainty what end uses for the fuels extracted from a particular leasehold might be reasonably foreseeable.

It is important to note that the agencies do not exercise control over the specific end use of the oil and gas produced from any individual federal lease. They have no authority to direct or regulate the end use of the produced oil and/or gas. As a result, the agencies can only provide an estimate of potential GHG emissions using national approximations of where or how the end use may occur because oil, condensate, and natural gas could be used for combustion of transportation fuels, fuel oils for heating and electricity generation, as well as production of asphalt and road oil, and the feedstocks used to make chemicals, plastics, and synthetic materials.

Availability of Input Data

In light of the difficulties in attributing specific climate impacts to individual projects, the CEQ recommends agencies use the projected GHG emissions as a proxy for assessing a Proposed


15

Action’s potential climate change impacts. Estimates were made based on readily available data and reasonable assumptions about potential future development. If developed, there are notable differences in the potential for emissions related to a wide variety of variables, including the production potential of the well, economic considerations, regulatory considerations, and operator dynamics, to name a few

Monetizing Costs and Benefits: Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases

Guidance states that “NEPA does not require monetizing costs and benefits” and allows for agency discretion in including monetized assessment of the impacts of GHGs in NEPA documents [BLM 2017]. The BLM finds that including monetary estimates of the social cost of GHGs (SC GHG) in its NEPA analysis for this Proposed Action would not be useful. Since the BLM is not doing a cost-benefit analysis in this NEPA document, we do not believe monetizing only SCC GHG would be instructive.

3.3.2.3. Cumulative Impact Analysis

Since climate change and global warming are global phenomena, for purposes of this NEPA analysis, the analysis presented above about the direct and indirect effects of GHG emissions from the proposed actions is also an analysis of the cumulative effects of the proposed actions. The BLM has determined that this analysis adequately addresses the cumulative impacts for climate change from the proposed action, and therefore a separate cumulative effects analysis for GHG emissions is not needed.

3.4. Air Quality (Winter Ozone)

Affected Environment Although air quality was analyzed in Section 3.2 (pages 46-81) of the South Unit MDP FEIS and the analysis was found to still be adequate by the SIR prepared by the FS in 2015, the EPA lowered the ozone standard from 75 ppb to 70 ppb in 2015. Designations of non-attainment areas, which may include parts of the Uinta Basin, are due in October, 2018.

Currently, the nearest non-attainment area for ozone includes portions of Sublette, Lincoln and Sweetwater counties in Wyoming, an area over 130 miles north of the lease area. This area was classified as a “marginal” non-attainment area by the EPA, effective July 20, 2012. The possible non-attainment classifications are Marginal, Moderate, Serious, Severe and Extreme. Non-attainment areas with a ‘‘lower’’ classification have ozone levels that are closer to the standard than areas with a ‘‘higher’’ classification. Areas in the lower classification levels have fewer and/or less stringent mandatory air quality planning and control requirements than those in higher classifications.

Impact Analysis


Under the No Action alternative, a negligible amount of ozone precursors may be emitted from heavy equipment reclaiming the drill pad and road.


16


In the South Unit MDP FEIS, modeling and qualitative emissions analyses were conducted for criteria pollutants sulfur and nitrogen deposition, acid neutralizing capacity calculations for sensitive lakes, visibility and ozone, as well as the greenhouse gases CO2 and CH4. Due to the complexity of running air quality models and qualitative emissions, the calculations were done only for the proposed action alternative in the FEIS, since that alternative was anticipated to have the greatest impacts. Mitigation measures that were incorporated in the ROD were developed to reduce impacts to air quality (pages 21-22 of the FS ROD). The 2012 air quality analysis was re-examined on pages 6 and 7 in the 2015 SIR [USFS 2015c] with a particular emphasis on the winter ozone issue in the Uinta Basin.

The South Unit is outside the non-attainment area recommended by the Utah Governor in 2016. (UoG 2016). However, since the prevailing winds in the region originate predominantly from the west-northwest (BLM 2016 p. 3-3) emissions from the development of lease UTU77328 could contribute to the area of non-attainment. This impact would have been captured in the cumulative impact analysis of the FEIS prepared by the BLM for the Monument Butte Oil and Gas Development Project [BLM 2016]. Closed loop drilling of the wells, which is required by the South Unit MDP FEIS would minimize the contribution by reducing the amount of Volatile Organic Compounds, the precursers to ozone.

The BLM would add the following lease notice to the parcel:

AIR QUALITY MITIGATION MEASURES

The lessee is given notice that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in coordination with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Utah Department of Air Quality, among others, has developed the following air quality mitigation measures that may be applied to any development proposed on this lease. Integration of and adherence to these measures may help minimize adverse local or regional air quality impacts from oil and gas development (including but not limited to construction, drilling, and production) on regional ozone formation.

• All internal combustion equipment would be kept in good working order.

• Water or other approved dust suppressants would be used at construction sites and along roads, as determined appropriate by the Authorized Officer.

• Open burning of garbage or refuse would not occur at well sites or other facilities.

• Drill rigs would be equipped with Tier II or better diesel engines.

• Vent emissions from stock tanks and natural gas TEG dehydrators would be controlled by routing the emissions to a flare or similar control device which would reduce emissions by 95% or greater.

• Low bleed or no bleed pneumatics would be installed on separator dump valves and other controllers.

• During completion, flaring would be limited as much as possible. Production equipment and gathering lines would be installed as soon as possible.

• Well site telemetry would be utilized as feasible for production operations.


17

• Stationary internal combustion engine would comply with the following standards: 2g NOx/bhp-hr for engines <300HP; and 1g NOx/bhp-hr for engines >300HP.

Additional site-specific measures may also be employed to avoid or minimize effects to local or regional air quality. These additional measures will be developed and implemented in coordination with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Utah Department of Air Quality, and other agencies with expertise or jurisdiction as appropriate based on the size of the project and magnitude of emissions.

Below are examples of State requirements subsequent to the 2012 South Unit MDP ROD:

Utah Rule R307-503 requiring auto ignitors for flaring systems.

(1) Flares used to control emissions of volatile organic compounds shall be equipped with and operate an auto-igniter as follows:

(a) All open flares and all enclosed flares installed on or after January 1, 2015, shall be equipped with an operational auto-igniter upon installation of the flare.

(b) All enclosed flares installed before January 1, 2015 in Duchesne County or Uintah County shall be equipped with an operational auto-igniter by December 1, 2015, or after the next flare planned shutdown, whichever comes first.

(c) All enclosed flares installed before January 1, 2015 in all other areas of Utah shall be equipped with an operational auto-igniter by April 1, 2017, or after the next flare planned shutdown, whichever comes first.

Utah Rule R307-504 requirements for hydrocarbon liquid and production water tank truck loading.

Tank trucks used for intermediate hydrocarbon liquid or produced water shall be loaded using bottom filling or a submerged fill pipe.

3.4.2.3. Cumulative Impacts

The cumulative impact analysis for air quality in the 2016 Monument Butte FEIS is incorporated by reference. On pages 5-4 to 5-6, it disclosed cumulative air quality impacts for the entire Uinta Basin. The cumulative impacts to air quality from the South Unit MDP, which includes the development on lease UTU77328, were analyzed in Section 3.2 (pages 46-81) of the South Unit MDP FEIS. There would be no additional cumulative impacts from reinstatement of the lease beyond those already analyzed in the South Unit MDP FEIS [FS 2012a] and the Monument Butte FEIS [BLM 2016].

3.5. Water Resources

Affected Environment In the time since signing of the 2012 ROD for the South Unit MDP, the State of Utah has issued no additional nonpoint load reduction strategies or best management practices specific to oil and gas operations in area watersheds beyond those issued in the 2007 Duchesne River Total


18

Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for Total Dissolved Solids and the 2010 Pariette Draw TMDL for Total Dissolved Solids, Selenium, and Boron.

Since the 2012 ROD was signed, the Final 2012-2014 Utah Integrated Report (303d/305b listing) was partially approved by the EPA. The three sections encompassing the lease associated with this EA are within the Antelope Creek watershed. In this recent Integrated Report, the Antelope Creek watershed was listed as impaired for the additional parameters of arsenic and selenium [Utah 2014, USFS 2015]. To date no additional TMDL studies have been issued for these new parameters, or for boron, for which the watershed was listed in 2008 (see Table 1 below).

Table 1 Utah Division of Water Quality, 2012-2014 Integrated Report, Impaired Assessment Units Downstream of Forest Service Administered Portions of the South Unit MDP Area

Assessment Unit Impairment Parameter

Impaired Beneficial Use Class

Year First Listed

TMDL Completed

TMDL priority

Antelope Creek and tributaries from Duchesne River to headwaters

TDS 4 1998 yes ( 2007)

boron 4 2008 no low

arsenic 1C 2014 no low

selenium 3A 2014 no low

Pariette Draw Creek and Tributaries from Green River to headwaters

TDS 4 1998 yes (2010)

boron 4 1998 yes (2010)

selenium 3A 1998 yes (2010)

temperature 3B 2014 no low

The EPA’s partial approval of the 2012-2014 Integrated Report extended to all waterbodies on the lists with the exception of waters within Indian country, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1151. The South Unit MDP area falls within the original 1860’s exterior boundary of the Uintah Valley Indian Reservation, predecessor to the current Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation. With the partial approval of the Integrated Report, the EPA maintains that state water quality standards do not apply to waterbodies within the lease area [EPA 2015].

The EPA may treat Indian tribes in the same manner as states for the purposes of establishing water quality standards and administering other Clean Water Act programs within their reservations. The Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation is one of the Tribal reservations which to date has not applied for Treatment as State status for setting water quality standards. From October to December 2016 the EPA opened a comment period for an ongoing proposal to


19

establish water quality standards on reservation lands where the Tribes have not applied to establish them under Treatment as State status [EPA 2016]. To date, this EPA proposal is still under environmental analysis

Impact analysis


There would be no impact to water resources from the No Action Alternative.


Water resources were analyzed in Section 3.6 (pages 110-127) of the 2012 South Unit MDP FEIS and in the updated analysis in the SIR [USFS 2015a]. Analysis disclosed potential impacts from proposed development alternatives to surface and groundwater resources in the Antelope Creek and Pariette Draw watersheds. Best management practices, onshore orders and additional operating requirements developed in the 2012 ROD would avoid or reduce the risk of potential water resource impacts (pages 26-27 of the ROD).

As part of the operating requirements set for the lease, Berry conducts water quality monitoring of Sowers Creek on a quarterly basis, at sites established on the upstream and downstream boundaries of the lease. Current parameters monitored include petroleum constituents, organic compounds and other general water quality parameters including: arsenic, boron, selenium and TDS, for which the downstream waterbodies are listed as impaired by the State of Utah.

3.6. Wetlands and Riparian Areas (Floodplains)

Affected Environment Impacts to wetlands and riparian areas were analyzed in Section 3.7 (pages 127-130) of the South Unit MDP FEIS. Wetlands and riparian areas would be avoided, with 150 foot buffers for floodplains and 50-100 foot buffers for ephemeral drainages. On January 30, 2015, Executive Order 13690 was issued, which mandates limiting or precluding activities within 500 year floodplains.

Impact Analysis


There would be no impacts to floodplains or wetlands from the No Action Alternative.


Under the buffer requirements for ephemeral channels, perennial channels and riparian vegetation established in the 2012 South Unit MDP ROD, there is potential that facilities could be placed within the 500-year floodplain, risking water contamination in severe flood events.

To prevent impacts within the 500-year floodplain, the BLM would add the following lease notice:


20

FEDERAL FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT STANDARD

To mitigate potential impacts to floodplains, activities would be limited or precluded within the 500 year base flood level (area subject to flooding by the 0.2 percent annual chance flood) or the 100 year base flood elevation plus 3 feet. (Executive Order 13690 amending Executive Order 11988.)

3.7. Resources/Issues Dismissed from Additional Analysis

Socioeconomics Socioeconomic impacts were analyzed in Section 3.16 (pages 281-311) of the South Unit MDP FEIS. Impacts to the social and economic resources of the area surrounding the project area include increased pressure on the local schools, water systems and social services and increased revenues to Federal, state and local governments. Socioeconomic impacts are also disclosed in Section 1.2.

Inventoried Roadless Areas Impacts to Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) were analyzed in Section 3.13 (pages 244-266) of the 2012 South Unit MDP FEIS and updated in the 2015 SIR. Impacts to the IRAs would include fragmentation within the two units. The analysis also included effects of the alternatives on the nine roadless characteristics of the IRAs: soil, water and air resources, sources of public drinking water, diversity of plant and animal communities, habitat for threatened and endangered species dependent on large undisturbed areas of land, primitive and semi-primitive classes of recreation, reference landscapes for research study or interpretation, landscape character and integrity, traditional culture properties and sacred sites, and other locally unique characteristics.

Geology and Minerals Geology and minerals were analyzed in Section 3.3 (pages 82-90) of the South Unit MDP FEIS. Impacts to topography and economic geology resource potential were analyzed and disclosed for all alternatives. Potential impacts to the topographic character of the project would result from construction of oil- and gas-related infrastructure including well pads and access roads. Visible impacts would be greatest during the drilling and completion phases of the project. The primary potential direct impact to mineral resources would be the depletion of recoverable oil and natural gas from the Green River Formation.

Paleontology Paleontology was analyzed in Section 3.4 (pages 90-100) of the South Unit MDP FEIS. Direct impacts could result from destruction due to construction-related excavations and indirect impacts could result from increasing public access and looting and vandalizing fossils. Mitigation measures were incorporated in the RODs that were developed.


21

Soils Impacts to soils were analyzed in Section 3.5 (pages 100-109) of the South Unit MDP FEIS. Impacts to soils include the loss and dilution of the surface soil, resulting in the loss of soil structure, organic matter, carbon and productivity. Mixing of soil materials from construction activities also risks increasing soil pH and salt content (pages 26-27 of the FS ROD). Mitigation measures contained within the ROD and Appendix B – Reclamation Plan [USFS 2012] help to protect soil resources.

Vegetation Impacts to vegetation were analyzed in Section 3.8 (pages 130-142) of the South Unit MDP FEIS. Direct impacts would include the removal of vegetation by clearing areas for construction. Indirect impacts to vegetation include adverse effects from invasion of undesirable plant species (non-native and/or noxious) and from fugitive dust, which could lead to decreased productivity in plant communities. Individuals of sensitive plant species could be crushed or uprooted, but surveys would be required prior to development and any sensitive plants found would be avoided.

Wildlife (Non Sage-grouse) Impacts to wildlife were analyzed in Section 3.9 (pages 143-210) of the South Unit MDP FEIS. Impacts to Federally Listed Species, Forest Service Sensitive Wildlife Species and Management Indicator Species would primarily be direct mortality to animals, disruption of nesting, habitat degradation or fragmentation, and indirect impacts from poaching or harassment. Mitigation measures that were incorporated in the RODs would reduce impacts to wildlife.

The standard stipulation added by the BLM to the lease would provide additional protection to Threatened and Endangered species.

Grazing Impacts to livestock and grazing were analyzed in Section 3.10 (pages 211-218) of the South Unit MDP FEIS. Impacts to the Antelope, Anthro, Cottonwood, Gilsonite and Sowers Canyon Allotments, primarily the short-term loss of available forage as a result of construction and production-related disturbance, were disclosed. Mitigation measures incorporated in the ROD were developed to reduce impacts to livestock grazing (page 24 of the FS ROD).

Cultural Resources Impacts to cultural resources were analyzed in Section 3.11 (pages 218-240) of the South Unit MDP FEIS. Although surveys would be conducted and direct impacts to cultural resources would be avoided, the FEIS disclosed possible impacts from inadvertent destruction of subsurface sites and visual impacts to Traditional Cultural Properties and historic sites. Indirect impacts could occur due to increased human presence resulting in looting and vandalism.

The standard stipulation added by the BLM to the lease would provide additional protection to cultural resources.


22

Recreation Impacts to recreation were analyzed in Section 3.12 (pages 240-244) of the South Unit MDP FEIS. Impacts to recreationalists, primarily hunters were disclosed.

Potential Wilderness Areas Impacts to potential wilderness were analyzed in Section 3.13 (pages 244-266) of the South Unit MDP FEIS. Impacts to the Cottonwood and Sowers Canyon East potential wilderness, consisting of the loss of acres of suitable for wilderness designation, were disclosed. The analysis included effects of the alternatives on the six wilderness characteristics: untrammeled, naturalness, undeveloped, opportunities for solitude and primitive and unconfined recreation, special features, and manageability as wilderness.

Transportation Impacts to transportation were analyzed in Section 3.14 (pages 266-272) of the South Unit MDP FEIS. The FEIS disclosed that traffic would increase within the project area, and on roads used to access the project area. Mitigation measures incorporated in the RODs would reduce impacts from increased traffic (page 25 of the FS ROD).

Visual Resources Impacts to visual resources were analyzed in Section 3.15 (pages 272-280 of the South Unit MDP FEIS). Visual resources would be adversely impacted due to the visual contrasts created by roads, drill pads and infrastructure. Mitigation measures incorporated in the RODs would reduce impacts to visual resources.


23

CHAPTER 4. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

4.1. Cooperating Agency This EA was prepared by the BLM with cooperation from the Ashley National Forest as the surface management agency-agency of special expertise. Resource Specialists from the Ashley National Forest reviewed the South Unit EIS and 2015 SIR for changed circumstances since the documents were prepared, and provided additional analysis for several sections, as indicated in Table 2.

Table 2 List of Preparers

Name Title/Agency Responsible for the following Section(s) of this EA

Sheri Wysong Fluid Minerals Leasing Coordinator/BLM Utah State Office

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change Wetlands and Riparian Areas (Floodplains)

Becky Hammond Minerals and Geology Program Manager/Intermountain Region Forest Service

Air Quality (Winter Ozone)

Bob Christensen Wildlife Biologist/Ashley National Forest

Greater Sage-grouse Habitat

Chris Plunkett Soil and Water Program Manager/Ashley National Forest

Water Resources

Dave Herron Geologist/Ashley National Forest

Document Review

Leann Colburn Environmental Coordinator/Ashley National Forest

Robin Naeve Fluid Minerals Branch Chief/BLM Utah State Office

Melinda Moffitt Natural Resource Specialist/BLM Utah State Office


24

References

BLM, 2008 - Bureau of Land Management Vernal Field Office Resource Management Plan FEIS and ROD BLM, 2012 - Bureau of Land Management Vernal Field Office, South Unit Oil and Gas Development Record of Decision October 22, 2012 BLM, 2013a - Washington Office Instructional Memorandum No. 2013-177 BLM, 2013b - 3120 Competitive Leasing Handbook BLM, 2016 - Monument Butte Oil and Gas Development Project EIS and ROD BLM, 2017 - Washington Office Permanent Instruction Memorandum No. 2017-003 Christensen, 2015 - Terrestrial Wildlife Monitoring Report March 2006-2015. Roosevelt/Duchesne Ranger District, Ashley National Forest. EIA, 2016 - Energy Information Agency (EIA) Volume 2, Energy, 2006; How do I convert between short tons and metric tons? Uhttp://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=7&t=7U. EPA, 2015 - Action Letter of Partial Approval Re: The State of Utah’s 2012 and 2014 Clean Water Act Section 303(d) Waterbody Lists, Reference 8EPR-EP, signed November 30, 2015. Available online at http://www.deq.utah.gov/ProgramsServices/programs/water/wqmanagement/assessment/currentIR2014.htm#approval, last accessed 01/18/2017.

EPA, 2016 - Federal Baseline Water Quality Standards for Indian Reservations. Proposed Rules. 40 CFR Part 131. Federal Register, Vol 81, No 189, p 66900 EPA, 2017a - Environmental Protection Agency, February 14, 2017, Understanding global warming potentials. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warming-potentials EPA, 2017b - Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Greenhouse Gases Equivalencies Calculator – Calculations and References https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gases-equivalencies-calculator-calculations-and-references UDWR, 2017 - Map of GPS Locations of Anthro Sage-Grouse 2015 - January 2017. UDOGM, 2016 - Utah Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining, Production Report, November, 2016 (updated , https://oilgas.ogm.utah.gov/pub/Publications/Reports/Prod/Well/Wel_Nov_2016.pdf USFS, 1986 - United States Forest Service, Ashley National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan FEIS and ROD USFS, 1997 - United States Forest Service, Western Uinta Basin Oil and Gas Leasing and Forest Plan Amendment FEIS and ROD

http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=7&t=7

http://www.deq.utah.gov/ProgramsServices/programs/water/wqmanagement/assessment/currentIR2014.htm#approval

http://www.deq.utah.gov/ProgramsServices/programs/water/wqmanagement/assessment/currentIR2014.htm#approval

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warming-potentials

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warming-potentials

https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gases-equivalencies-calculator-calculations-and-references

https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gases-equivalencies-calculator-calculations-and-references

https://oilgas.ogm.utah.gov/pub/Publications/Reports/Prod/Well/Wel_Nov_2016.pdf


25

USFS, 2012a, United States Forest Service, Berry Petroleum South Unit Oil and Gas Development Project FEIS and ROD, Ashley National Forest. Retrieved from https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=21014 USFS, 2012b, United States Forest Service, Biological Evaluation for the Berry Petroleum South Unit Oil and Gas Development Project FEIS and ROD, Ashley National Forest USFS, 2014, Sage-Grouse Mitigation and Disturbance Track Record for the South Unit Oil and Gas Development Project USFS, 2015a, South Unit Oil and Gas Development Project Supplemental Information Review Ashley National Forest, Pp 7-8. USFS, 2015b, United States Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Utah Greater Sage-grouse FEIS USFS, 2015c, United States Forest Service Greater Sage-grouse Utah Plan Amendments ROD, for Idaho and Southwest Montana, Nevada and Utah Land Management Plan Amendments Retrieved from: https://www.fs.fed.us/sites/default/files/great-basinROD-package-.pdf USFS, 2016, Anthro Mountain Sage-Grouse Lek Count Data 2002-2016 USFS, 2017, Maps of Anthro Sage-Grouse Habitat in Relation to the Lease UoG, 2016, Utah Office of the Governor, Letter to USEPA Region 8 https://deq.utah.gov/Pollutants/O/ozone/docs/2016-10-Utah-Governor-Ozone-Area-Recommendation.pdf UDWQ, 2007, Utah Division of Water Quality, TMDLs for Total Dissolved Solids in the Duchesne River Watershed. Prepared by Tetra Tech Inc. Fairfax, VA. Pp 62, 81-85, 133-145. Available online at http://deq.utah.gov/ProgramsServices/programs/water/watersheds/approvedtmdls.htm, last accessed 01/18/2017

Utah Division of Water Quality, 2009. Memorandum of Understanding Implementing the Nonpoint Source Water Quality Program in the State of Utah. FS# 09-MU-110460-027

Utah Division of Water Quality, 2010. TMDLs for Total Dissolved Solids, Selenium, and Boron in the Pariette Draw Watershed. Pp 73-75, 88-93. Available online at http://deq.utah.gov/ProgramsServices/programs/water/watersheds/docs/2010/11Nov/ParietteDrawTMDlFinal.pdf last accessed 01/18/2017

Utah Division of Water Quality, 2012-2014 Final Integrated Report, Chapter 5: River and Stream Assessment. Available online at http://www.deq.utah.gov/ProgramsServices/programs/water/wqmanagement/assessment/docs/2016/02feb/chapter_5_river_and_stream_assessments_final20122014ir.pdf last accessed 01/18/2017

https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=21014

https://www.fs.fed.us/sites/default/files/great-basinROD-package-.pdf

https://deq.utah.gov/Pollutants/O/ozone/docs/2016-10-Utah-Governor-Ozone-Area-Recommendation.pdf

https://deq.utah.gov/Pollutants/O/ozone/docs/2016-10-Utah-Governor-Ozone-Area-Recommendation.pdf

http://deq.utah.gov/ProgramsServices/programs/water/watersheds/approvedtmdls.htm

http://deq.utah.gov/ProgramsServices/programs/water/watersheds/docs/2010/11Nov/ParietteDrawTMDlFinal.pdf

http://deq.utah.gov/ProgramsServices/programs/water/watersheds/docs/2010/11Nov/ParietteDrawTMDlFinal.pdf

http://www.deq.utah.gov/ProgramsServices/programs/water/wqmanagement/assessment/docs/2016/02feb/chapter_5_river_and_stream_assessments_final20122014ir.pdf

http://www.deq.utah.gov/ProgramsServices/programs/water/wqmanagement/assessment/docs/2016/02feb/chapter_5_river_and_stream_assessments_final20122014ir.pdf

i

Attachment A Original Lease Stipulations

NO SURFACE OCCUPANCY OR USE is allowed on the lands described below (legal subdivision or other description).

a) Lands with steep slopes exceeding 35% on lands within:

T. 06S., R. 05W., Uinta Special Meridian Section 7: portions of lots 2-4, NE4, E2NW4, E2SW4, SE4 Section 8: portions of the entire section Section 18: portions of this entire section

b) Lands with geologic hazards or unstable soils:

T. 06S., R. 05W., Uinta Special Meridian Section 7: portions of lots 4, SE4SW4, S2SE4 Section 8: portions of N2NE4, SW4NE4, E2NW4, SW4NW4, W2SW4 Section 18: portions of lots 2-4, N2NE4, SW4NE4, E2NW4, NW4SE4

For the purpose of:

a) To preclude construction of well sites and related facilities such as tank batteries on slopes over 35% which would involve relatively large cut and fill slopes and would be difficult to rehabilitate; Western Uinta Basin Oil and Gas EIS (pg A-12)

b) To preclude surface disturbing activities on areas that have high erosion/stability hazard and would be difficult to reclaim; Western Uinta Basin Oil and Gas EIS (pg A-12)

Any changes to this stipulation will be made in accordance with the land use plan, the Oil and Gas Leasing EIS, and/or the regulatory provisions for such changes. (For guidance on the use of this stipulation, see BLM Manual 1624 and 3101 or FS Manual 1950 and 2820)

TIMING LIMITATION STIPULATION

No surface use is allowed during the following time period(s). This stipulation does not apply to operation and maintenance of production facilities.

a) April 1 to May 31 (Sage grouse habitat)

b) November 15 to April 30 (Elk winter and yearlong range)

On the lands described below:

a) T. 06S., R. 05W., Uinta Special Meridian Section 18: portions of SE4SE4

b) T. 06S., R. 05W., Uinta Special Meridian Entire lease

ii

For the purpose of (reasons):

a) to preclude initiation of new surface disturbance within critical sage grouse habitat which could interfere with breeding and nesting activities during the reproductive period; Western Uinta Basin Oil and Gas EIS (page A-14).

b) to preclude initiation of new surface disturbing activities within critical elk winter and yearlong range which would cause increased stress and/or displacement of animals during the critical time period; Western Uinta Basin Oil and Gas EIS (page A-15 and A-19).

Any changes to this stipulation will be made in accordance with the land use plan and/or the regulatory provisions for such changes. (For guidance on the use of this stipulation, see BLM Manual 1624 and 3101 or FS Manual 1950 and 2820.)

CONTROLLED SURFACE USE STIPULATION

Surface occupancy or use is subject to the following special operating constraints.

Sensitive plants/wildlife species: A survey will be conducted prior to surface disturbing activities to determine the possible presence of any sensitive plants/ wildlife species and operations will be designed and/or located so as not to adversely affect the viability of the species.

On the lands described below:

Sensitive plants/wildlife species on lands within: Entire lease

For the purpose of: to insure that proposed activities do not adversely affect the viability of any sensitive plant/wildlife species; Western Uinta Basin Oil and Gas EIS (p. A-19, A-20).

Any changes to this stipulation will be made in accordance with the land use plan, the Oil and Gas EIS, and/or the regulatory provisions for such changes. (For guidance on the use of this stipulation, see BLM Manual 1624 and 3101 or FS Manual 1950 and 2820.)

united states department of the interior bureau of...

Documents