a123.g.akamai.neta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... · Vantage Energy Uinta, LLC...

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Intermountain Region Ashley National Forest Duchesne Ranger District June 2009

Vantage Energy Uinta, LLC Ashley National Forest Oil and Gas Exploration Project Ashley National Forest Duchesne Ranger District Environmental Assessment

Vantage Energy Uinta, LLC Ashley National Forest Oil and Gas Exploration Project

Lead Agency USDA Forest Service

Ashley National Forest

Responsible Official J.R. Kirkaldie, District Ranger

Duchesne/Roosevelt Ranger District

For Further Information Contact David Herron, Forest Geologist

Duchesne Ranger District

85 West Main

Duchesne, UT 84021

(435) 781-5218

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDAs TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer


i

Table of Contents

Executive Summary

1.0 Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need ......................................................................... 1 1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Document Structure ........................................................................................................ 2 1.3 Summary of the Proposed Action ................................................................................... 3 1.4 Background ..................................................................................................................... 3

1.4.1 Relationships Among Agencies ...................................................................3 1.4.2 Leases and Stipulations ................................................................................5

1.5 Purpose and Need for Action .......................................................................................... 6 1.6 Forest Plan Conformance ............................................................................................... 6 1.7 Decision Framework....................................................................................................... 7 1.8 Public Involvement ......................................................................................................... 7 1.9 Issues .............................................................................................................................. 8

2.0 Chapter 2 – Alternatives.................................................................................... 9 2.1 Existing Oil and Gas Development .............................................................................. 10 2.2 Alternative 1 – The No Action Alternative .................................................................. 10 2.3 Alternative 2 – The Proposed Action ........................................................................... 11

2.3.1 Federal Exploration Units ..........................................................................12 2.3.2 Location and Access ..................................................................................12

2.3.3 Design Features ..........................................................................................13 2.3.4 Construction ...............................................................................................14

2.3.5 Drilling, Completion, and Testing Operations ...........................................18 2.3.6 Production ..................................................................................................20

2.3.7 Operations and Maintenance......................................................................21 2.3.8 Abandonment, Reclamation, and Monitoring ............................................23

2.4 Alternative 3 – Buried Pipelines ................................................................................... 24 2.4.1 Construction ...............................................................................................24

2.4.2 Abandonment, Reclamation, and Monitoring ............................................26 2.5 Surface Disturbance Summary ..................................................................................... 26

3.0 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ...... 32 3.1 Chapter Components .................................................................................................... 32

3.1.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................32 3.1.2 Direct and Indirect Impacts ........................................................................32

3.1.3 Cumulative Impacts ...................................................................................33 3.1.4 Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions ....................................................35

3.2 Geology, Geohazards, Mineral Resources, and Paleontology ...................................... 36 3.2.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................36 3.2.2 Environmental Consequences – The No Action Alternative .....................40 3.2.3 Environmental Consequences – The Proposed Action ..............................40

3.2.4 Environmental Consequences – Buried Pipeline Alternative ....................41 3.2.5 Cumulative Impacts ...................................................................................42

3.3 Water Resources ........................................................................................................... 42 3.3.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................42 3.3.2 Environmental Consequences – The No Action Alternative .....................48 3.3.3 Environmental Consequences – The Proposed Action ..............................48


ii

3.3.4 Environmental Consequences – Buried Pipeline Alternative ....................51

3.3.5 Cumulative Impacts ...................................................................................52 3.4 Air Quality and Climate ............................................................................................... 53

3.4.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................53 3.4.2 Environmental Consequences – The No Action Alternative .....................63 3.4.3 Environmental Consequences – The Proposed Action ..............................64 3.4.4 Environmental Consequences – Buried Pipelines .....................................69 3.4.5 Cumulative Impacts ...................................................................................69

3.5 Soils .............................................................................................................................. 70 3.5.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................70 3.5.2 Environmental Consequences – The No Action Alternative .....................75

3.5.3 Environmental Consequences – The Proposed Action ..............................76 3.5.4 Buried Pipeline Alternative ........................................................................78

3.5.5 Cumulative Impacts ...................................................................................79 3.6 Vegetation and Wetlands .............................................................................................. 80

3.6.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................80

3.6.2 Environmental Consequences – The No Action Alternative .....................83 3.6.3 Environmental Consequences – Proposed Action .....................................84 3.6.4 Environmental Consequences – Buried Pipeline Alternative ....................85

3.6.5 Cumulative Impacts ...................................................................................85 3.7 Wildlife and Fisheries ................................................................................................... 86

3.7.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................86 3.7.2 Environmental Consequences – The No Action Alternative .....................99

3.7.3 Environmental Consequences – The Proposed Action ..............................99 3.7.4 Environmental Consequences – Buried Pipelines ...................................107

3.7.5 Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................109 3.8 Livestock and Range .................................................................................................. 109

3.8.1 Affected Environment ..............................................................................109

3.8.2 Environmental Consequences – The No Action Alternative ...................110 3.8.3 Environmental Consequences – The Proposed Action ............................112 3.8.4 Environmental Consequences – Buried Pipelines ...................................113

3.8.5 Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................113 3.9 Cultural Resources and Native American Concerns .................................................. 114

3.9.1 Affected Environment ..............................................................................115 3.9.2 Environmental Consequences – The No Action Alternative ...................118

3.9.3 Environmental Consequences – The Proposed Action ............................118 3.9.4 Environmental Consequences – Buried Pipelines ...................................119

3.9.5 Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................120 3.10 Transportation and Recreation .................................................................................... 120

3.10.1 Affected Environment ..............................................................................120 3.10.2 Environmental Consequences – The No Action Alternative ...................122

3.10.3 Environmental Consequences – The Proposed Action ............................122 3.10.4 Environmental Consequences – Buried Pipelines ...................................123 3.10.5 Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................124

3.11 Noise ........................................................................................................................... 124 3.11.1 Affected Environment ..............................................................................125 3.11.2 Environmental Consequences – The No Action Alternative ...................125


iii

3.11.3 Environmental Consequences – The Proposed Action ............................126

3.11.4 Environmental Consequences – Buried Pipelines ...................................127 3.11.5 Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................127

3.12 Visual Resources ........................................................................................................ 127 3.12.1 Affected Environment ..............................................................................127 3.12.2 Environmental Consequences – The No Action Alternative ...................128 3.12.3 Environmental Consequences – The Proposed Action ............................128 3.12.4 Environmental Consequences – Buried Pipelines ...................................129

3.12.5 Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................129 3.13 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice ............................................................... 129

3.13.1 Affected Environment ..............................................................................129

3.13.2 Environmental Consequences – The No Action Alternative ...................131 3.13.3 Environmental Consequences – The Proposed Action ............................131

3.13.4 Environmental Consequences – Buried Pipelines ...................................132

3.13.5 Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................132 3.14 Special Management Areas ........................................................................................ 132

3.14.1 Affected Environment ..............................................................................132 3.14.2 Environmental Consequences – The No Action Alternative ...................132 3.14.3 Environmental Consequences – The Proposed Action ............................133


3.15 Potential Wilderness and Inventoried Roadless Areas ............................................... 133 3.15.1 Affected Environment ..............................................................................133

3.15.2 Environmental Consequences – The No Action Alternative ...................136 3.15.3 Environmental Consequences – Proposed Action ...................................136


3.16 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources .......................................... 139 3.17 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts ........................................................... 140

4.0 Chapter 4 – Consultation and Coordination ................................................ 141 4.1 Federal, State, and Local Agencies ............................................................................ 141 4.2 Tribes .......................................................................................................................... 141 4.3 List of Preparers ......................................................................................................... 141

5.0 Chapter 5 – References ................................................................................. 143


iv

Listing of Tables

Table 1-1 Issues Identified from Scoping to be Analyzed in Depth ...............................................

Table 2-1 Past and Current Oil and Gas Activity, Project Area .....................................................

Table 2-2 Summary of Proposed Project Activity and NEPA Compliance ...................................

Table 2-3 Surface Disturbance Associated with Project Action Alternatives ................................

Table 2-4 Summary of Action Alternative Environmental Effects ................................................

Table 3-1 Past, Ongoing, and Foreseeable Surface Disturbance, Project Area ..............................

Table 3-2 Project Area Streams Beneficial Use Classification ......................................................

Table 3-3 STORET Post-1994 Water Quality Data in the Vicinity of the Project Area ................

Table 3-4 Utah Beneficial Use Classification Numeric Water Quality Standards .........................

Table 3-5 Climatic Data, Duchesne, UT (1906-2005) ....................................................................

Table 3-6 Climatic Data, Nutters Ranch, Utah (8/ 1/1963 to 5/31/1986) .......................................

Table 3-7 Atmospheric Stability Class Frequency of Occurrence .................................................

Table 3-8 Estimated Background Air Pollutant Concentrations in the Uintah Basin & AAQS ....

Table 3-9 Emissions from Existing and Projected Oil & Gas Production Projects ........................

Table 3-10 HAP Reference Exposure Levels and Reference Concentrations ..................................

Table 3-11 UDAQ Toxic Screening Levels (TSLs) .........................................................................

Table 3-12 Estimated Emissions from the Proposed Action ............................................................

Table 3-13 Proposed Action and Monitored Background Impact Summary ...................................

Table 3-14 Project Area Soil Characteristics ....................................................................................

Table 3-15 Short-term Impacts to Project Area Soils .......................................................................

Table 3-16 Proposed Disturbance within Vegetative Communities .................................................

Table 3-17 Ashley National Forest Management Indicator Species ................................................

Table 3-18 Elk Wildlife Management Subunits ...............................................................................

Table 3-19 Mule Deer Wildlife Management Subunits ....................................................................

Table 3-20 Anthro Complex Sage Grouse Lek Counts ....................................................................

Table 3-21 Grazing Allotments within the Project Area ..................................................................

Table 3-22 Surface Disturbance by Allotment .................................................................................

Table 3-23 Loss of Productive Grazing Use by Allotment ..............................................................

Table 3-24 Project Area Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Classes ................................................

Table 3-25 Sound Level Comparisons ..............................................................................................

Table 3-26 Project Area Potential Wilderness Areas .......................................................................

Table 3-27 Project Area Inventoried Roadless Areas .......................................................................

Listing of Figures

Figure 1-1 Project Area Location Map ........................................................................ Appendix A

Figure 1-2 Project Area Proposed Wells, Federal Leases, and Units .......................... Appendix A

Figure 2-1 Project Area Existing and Approved Oil and Gas Development ............... Appendix A

Figure 2-2 Proposed Action Access Roads and Wells ................................................. Appendix A

Figure 2-3 Proposed Action Pipelines and Wells ........................................................ Appendix A

Figure 2-4 Conceptual Production Layout ...................................................................................22

Figure 3-1 Eocene Stratigraphy in the Vicinity of the Project Area ...........................................38

Figure 3-2 Project Area Geology ................................................................................. Appendix A

Figure 3-3 Project Area Water Resources .................................................................... Appendix A


v

Figure 3-4 Five Mile Station Wind Rose .....................................................................................56

Figure 3-5 Horse Ridge Wind Rose .............................................................................................56

Figure 3-6 Project Area Soil Resources ....................................................................... Appendix A

Figure 3-7 Project Area Existing Roads ....................................................................... Appendix A

Figure 3-8 Project Area Recreation Opportunity Spectrum ......................................... Appendix A

Figure 3-9 Project Area Visual Quality Objectives ..................................................... Appendix A

Figure 3-10 Project Area Special Management and Potential Wilderness Areas .......... Appendix A

Figure 3-11 Project Area Inventoried Roadless Areas ................................................... Appendix A

Appendices

Appendix A Maps

Appendix B Lease Stipulations

Appendix C Scoping Notice and Mailing List

Appendix D Analyzed Scoping Comments

Appendix E Non-analyzed Scoping Comments

Appendix F Project Design Features

Appendix G Migratory Birds Listing


vi

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

Acronym Meaning

AGRC Utah Automated Geographic Reference Center

ANC acid neutralizing capacity

ANF Ashley National Forest

APD application for permit to drill

AQI air quality index

AQRV air quality related value

bbl barrel (42 gallons)

BBS North American Breeding Bird Survey

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

BMP best management practice

BTEX benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene

CAA Clean Air Act

CASTNET Clean Air Status and Trends Network

CEQ Council for Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

cfa cubic feet per second

COA condition of approval

CRCT Colorado River cutthroat trout

CSU controlled surface use

CWA Clean Water Act

dBA A-weighted decibel

DCWD Duchesne County Weed Department

DR Decision Record

dv deciview

EA environmental assessment

EIS environmental impact statement

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ESA Endangered Species Act

FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act

FO Field Office

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact

FSH Forest Service Handbook

FSM Forest Service Manual

gpm gallons per minute

HAP hazardous air pollutant

HP horsepower

HUC Hydrologic Unit Code

ID Team interdisciplinary team

IMPROVE Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments

INFISH Inland Native Fish Strategy

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

LRMP land and resource management plan

MACT maximum available control technology

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act

mg/l milligrams per liter

μeq/l micro equivalents per liter

mph miles per hour

MIS management indicator species

MSDS Material Safety Data Sheet

MSO Mexican spotted owl

NAAQS national ambient air quality standards

NADP National Atmospheric Deposition Program


vii

Acronym Meaning

NCDC National Climate Data Center

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NESHAP National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

NFMA National Forest Management Act

NFS National Forest System

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOx nitrous oxides

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

NSO no surface occupancy

OHV off-highway vehicle

PDSI Palmer Drought Severity Index

PIF Partners In Flight

PM2.5 particulate matter, 2.5 microns or less diameter

PM10 particulate matter, 10 microns or less diameter

ppm parts per million

PSD prevention of significant deterioration

psi pounds per square inch

RAWS remote automated weather station

RFD reasonable foreseeable development

RIP recovery and implementation plan

RNA Research Natural Area

ROW right-of-way

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer

SIP State Implementation Plan

SOx sulfur oxides

SOPA Schedule of Proposed Actions

STORET Storage and Retrieval system (EPA water quality)

SUP surface use plan

TDS total dissolved solids

TL timing limitation

TMDL total maximum daily load

TPY tons per year

TSS total suspended solids

UAQB Utah Air Quality Board

UDAQ Utah Division of Air Quality

UDEQ Utah Department of Environmental Quality

UDOGM Utah Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining

UDWR Utah Division of Wildlife Resources

UGA Utah Geological Association

UGS Utah Geological Survey

U.S.C. United States Code

USFS U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

VOC volatile organic compound

VPA Vernal Planning Area

VQO Visual Quality Objective

WRCC Western Regional Climate Center


1

Executive Summary

Vantage Energy Uinta, LLC (Proponent) proposes to conduct various operations affecting 15

proposed or existing wells located on 14 proposed or existing well pads. The Proponent

proposes to drill, complete, test and produce eight exploratory oil and natural gas wells from

seven well pads on federal oil and gas leases on USFS lands. The Proposed Action would

require the construction of well pads, upgrading of existing access roads and construction of new

roads, installation of production facilities, and construction of a gas-gathering pipeline system

and associated facilities. The wells would be drilled to test principally the Green River and

Mesaverde formations. For seven additional locations previously NEPA-approved through the

testing phase, the Proposed Action would be limited to upgrading of existing roads to production

operation quality, installation of production facilities and construction of gas-gathering pipelines.

The proposed well sites are located in the eastern portion of the South Unit of the Ashley

National Forest in portions of Townships 6 and 7 South, Ranges 3 to 6 West, Uinta Special

Meridian. Total short-term (approximately three to five years) surface disturbance would be

approximately 109.8 acres and total long-term (life-of-project) disturbance would be

approximately 36.7 acres.

The proposed project could adversely affect elements of the human environment. Specific

design elements have been incorporated into the project plan to minimize environmental impacts.

This Environmental Assessment comprises the analysis required of federal actions under the

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In addition to the proposed project, the Alternative

of No Action and an alternative considering buried pipelines were analyzed to determine

potential effects unrelated to the proposed project and to determine potential effects unresolved

by design of the proposed project, respectively. With the incorporation of included design

elements and based upon the results of scoping, no additional action alternatives were considered

for analysis. No additional alternatives were considered but not analyzed in detail.

In accordance with requirements of NEPA, the Forest Service Decision Maker will determine

whether this Environmental Assessment has adequately evaluated the effects of the two proposed

alternatives on the human environment, whether either of the action alternatives would result in

"significant" adverse impacts, as defined by the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR

1508.27), and in the absence of such impacts, which of the alternatives to approve.

1.0 Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

1.1 Introduction

This Environmental Assessment (EA) discusses the purpose, need, and potential short- and

long-term environmental impacts of the Proponent's proposed oil and gas exploration project, in

compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C § 4321-4347, as amended).

The Proposed Action would occur on federal surface within three federal oil and gas exploration

units comprising 63,372 acres of federal oil and gas leases within the South Unit of the Ashley

National Forest (ANF) and on Forest lands outside the units. The surface is managed by the

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USFS). The Project Area is defined as the area

of South Unit east of Township 7 West, an area of approximately 88,558 acres. All but 31 acres


2

of the Project Area is federal surface managed by the USFS with the remainder being privately

owned. The general location of the Project Area is indicated in Figure 1-1 (Appendix A).

Federal jurisdiction of the Project is divided between the USFS and the U.S. Department of

Interior Bureau of Land Management (BLM) which manages the federal mineral estate. As the

surface management agency, the USFS will be the lead agency for the NEPA analysis of the

project.

Impacts from the Proposed Action would principally involve surface disturbances from use,

construction, or improvement of roads, construction of well sites and drilling of wells, and

installation of production equipment and pipelines. Should the wells prove to be economically

productive, the Proponent would complete the wells to allow future production.

1.2 Document Structure

The USFS prepared this Environmental Assessment in compliance with the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and other relevant federal and state laws and regulations and

in conformance with the Ashley National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP)

(USFS, 1986). This Environmental Assessment discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative

environmental impacts that would result from the Proposed Action and alternatives. The

document is organized into the following parts:

Purpose and Need (Chapter 1): This chapter includes information on the history of the project

proposal, the purpose of and need for the project, the Proponent's proposal, and the agency’s

response to and potential alternative proposals for achieving that purpose and need. This chapter

also details how the Forest Service informed the public of the proposal and how the public

responded.

Alternatives (Chapter 2): This chapter provides a more detailed description of the Proposed

Action as well as any alternative methods for achieving the stated purpose. This discussion also

includes possible mitigation measures. Finally, this chapter provides summary tables (Table 2-3

and Table 2-4) of the environmental consequences associated with each alternative. For this EA,

alternatives considered include the Proposed Action, an alternative considering buried pipelines,

and the No Action alternative.

Environmental Consequences (Chapter 3): This chapter describes the environmental effects of

implementing the proposed action and other alternatives. This analysis is organized by resource

area. Within each section, the affected environment is described first, followed by the effects of

the No Action Alternative that provide a baseline for evaluation and comparison of the other

alternatives that follow.

Consultation and Coordination (Chapter 4): This section provides a list of preparers and

agencies consulted during the development of the environmental assessment.

References (Chapter 5): This section provides a list of references used to support the

environmental analyses.


3

Appendices: The appendices provide maps and more detailed information to support the

analyses presented in the environmental assessment.

Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of the Project Area resources, may

be found in the project planning record located at the ANF Duchesne Ranger District Office in

Duchesne, Utah.

1.3 Summary of the Proposed Action

The Proponent proposes to drill, test, complete, and produce oil and gas exploratory wells within

three federal exploration units located on the eastern portion of the South Unit of the ANF. The

wells would be drilled to test the productive potential of the Green River and/or Mesaverde

formations at depths ranging from approximately 2,000 to 13,000 feet below the surface. The

wells would be drilled from 14 well pads and would initially involve the drilling and production

of 15 wells, including two from a single pad. Seven of the well locations, and all operations

involved in drilling, testing, and completing these wells, have been previously approved under

prior NEPA decisions. For these wells, the Proposed Action is limited to the upgrading of

existing roads and installation of production equipment. Three of these previously approved

wells have already been drilled.

In addition to construction of well pads, the Proposed Action would involve upgrading

(reconstruction) of certain existing roads and construction of some new roads. For successful

wells, operations would include installation of production equipment, and installation of surface

pipelines to produce natural gas and allow a realistic evaluation of the ultimate productive

potential of the wells over a period of several years. Access for most of the project would use

existing roads and all of the pipelines would be installed immediately adjacent to the access

roads to minimize surface disturbance and habitat fragmentation. Less than one mile of new

roads would be constructed. Wells considered to be non-productive would be plugged and

abandoned and reclamation of associated surface disturbance would commence immediately.

1.4 Background

1.4.1 Relationships Among Agencies

A number of federal, state, and local governmental agencies have authority over various aspects

of oil and gas development in the Project Area. They include the USFS, the BLM, and the State

of Utah.

According to the terms of the 1920 Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C § 181-263, as amended), the

BLM is the agency authorized to manage federal mineral interests on federal or split estate lands.

All of the wells planned under the Proposed Action would be drilled into federal minerals. The

Vernal Field Office of the BLM in Vernal, Utah, manages federal mineral interests in the Project

Area. The Duchesne Ranger District Office in Duchesne manages the USFS surface within the

Project Area.


4

Forest Service Management Responsibilities

Programmatic environmental concerns are addressed during USFS land and resource

management planning processes as directed by the National Forest Management Act of 1976

(NFMA) (16 U.S.C § 1600). The objective of the land and resource management plan is to guide

all natural resource management activities and establish management standards and guidelines.

Current management direction is defined in the ANF LRMP (USFS, 1986). With respect to oil

and gas development, the USFS regulates surface resource impacts while supporting sound

energy and minerals exploration and development.

The USFS has no statutory responsibility for issuing and supervising lease applications and oil

and gas operations, but makes recommendations to the BLM to protect surface resources and to

prevent conflicts with other plans, activities, and programs of the Forest. For mineral licenses,

permits, and leases, the USFS cooperates with the BLM to ensure that its management goals and

objectives are achieved, that impacts upon the surface are mitigated to the maximum degree

possible, and that the land affected is rehabilitated. The USFS responds to BLM proposals to

issue mineral leases and permits after a review of the ANF LRMP and approves or disapproves

the applicant's Surface Use Plan of Operations (SUPO) per Forest Service Manual FSM

2822.04c and 2822.31e. In doing so, the USFS conducts a well-specific environmental analysis,

using the procedures in FSM 1950, to evaluate what impacts the Proposed Action, or an

alternative action, would have on surface resources and other users. USFS authority over oil and

gas leasing and permitting decisions is defined in the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing

Reform Act of 1987 (30 U.S.C. 226g, et seq.).

BLM Management Responsibilities

Mineral leasing decisions made by the BLM result in a contractual commitment from the United

States to allow for development by the Proponent in accordance with stipulations and restrictions

incorporated within the lease. The BLM issues oil and gas leases, including leases on National

Forest lands, in accordance with the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 226). The BLM’s

responsibility extends to environmental protection, public health, and safety associated with oil

and gas operations on public lands. The BLM is responsible for oil and gas permitting in the

Project Area. Responsibilities include processing Applications for Permit to Drill (APDs),

conducting compliance inspections and enforcement actions for drilling and production

operations, safety production verification and site maintenance; and abandonment inspections of

drilling locations.

The lessee's right to drill and develop the leasehold cannot be denied; however, the BLM has the

authority to deny individual APDs and the USFS has the authority to disapprove an applicant's

SUPO and to deny Special Use Permits necessary to secure rights-of-way (ROWs). Agency-

imposed Conditions of Approval (COAs) that would render a proposed operation economically

or technically unfeasible are not consistent with the lessee's rights.


5

State of Utah Responsibilities

Oversight of oil and gas development on federal lands is shared with the State of Utah. A State

of Utah APD or copies of the federal APD must be filed with, and approved by, the Division of

Oil Gas and Mining of the Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDOGM). Use of water for

drilling purposes or construction activities altering stream channels may require approval from

the Division of Water Rights. The State History Division of the Utah Department of Community

and Culture is consulted on cultural resource inventories conducted for development projects on

federal lands. Utah is a primacy state for enforcement of the Clean Air Act and for issuance of

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits under authority of the

Clean Water Act.

1.4.2 Leases and Stipulations

In response to increased interest in oil and gas development within the Uinta Basin, in 1997 the

USFS completed an environmental impact statement (EIS), the Western Uinta Basin Oil and Gas

Leasing EIS (USFS, 1996; USFS, 1997). This EIS analyzed potential impacts from oil and gas

leasing and development within the Uinta National Forest and the southern portion of the Ashley

National Forest. The Record of Decision (USFS, 1997) included amendments to the Uinta and

Ashley LRMPs and authorized leasing of substantial portions of the analyzed area, including

large portions of the Ashley South Unit, and determined appropriate protective lease stipulations.

Leases included within the current Project Area resulted from leasing decisions made as a result

of this process.

The Proposed Action involves the drilling of 15 wells located on 10 federal oil and gas leases

within the Project Area. The lease stipulations are indicated in Appendix B. A map illustrating

the well locations and federal leases within the Project area is included as Figure 1-2

(Appendix A).

The leases encompassing the Proposed Action were acquired in July 1998 and in March and

April 1999 from both competitive and non-competitive lease offerings. The leases are held

100 percent by Exxon Mobil Corporation or by Medallion Exploration. Subsequently, right to

explore for oil and gas on the leases has been acquired by the Proponent from the lessees. Three

federal oil and gas exploration units were approved by BLM in August 2008, and are indicated in

Figure 1-2 (Appendix A).

A federal oil and gas lease conveys to the lessee ―the right to use so much of the leased lands as

is necessary to explore for, drill for, mine, extract, remove and dispose of all the leased resource

in a leasehold (43 C.F.R. § 3101.1-2).‖ The preamble to final USFS leasing regulations

(55 Fed. Reg. 10,423, 10,430, March 21, 1990), states that ―leases that are issued for National

Forest System lands should vest the lessee with the right to conduct oil and gas operations

somewhere on the lease.‖ This right is qualified only by:

stipulations attached to the lease;

restrictions deriving from specific, nondiscretionary statutes; and


6

such reasonable measures as may be required by the Authorized Officer to minimize

adverse impacts to other resource values, land uses or users not addressed in the lease

stipulations at the time operations are proposed.

Under terms of the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, the Secretary of

Agriculture has the authority to regulate all surface disturbing activities associated with

development of oil and gas leases on National Forest lands. The Secretary's authority extends to

approval of the surface plans of operations, requirements for surface reclamation, and

determination of bonding requirements in conformance with the Forest Service's mandate to

protect other natural resources and values potentially affected by oil and gas development.

1.5 Purpose and Need for Action

The purpose and need for the Forest Service is to respond to a formal proposal from the

Proponent to exercise its existing oil and gas lease rights, and to evaluate the environmental

impacts of its proposal. This environmental analysis is needed, per the National Environmental

Policy Act, to disclose potential effects from implementation of the proposal, and to provide

information needed to make and document the required Forest Service decisions. These

decisions should be consistent with the previous USFS decisions and lease obligations, including

the Western Uinta Basin Leasing EIS, with rights granted by the oil and gas leases, and with

direction from the Forest Plan and Department and Agency policy and direction.

Exploration and development of Federal oil and gas leases by private industry is an integral part

of the oil and gas program of the USFS under authority of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 as

amended, the Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, the Federal Land Policy and

Management Act of 1976, the National Materials and Minerals Policy, Research and

Development Act of 1980, and the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987.

The Proponent's purpose and need for the proposed exploration program is to determine the

feasibility of producing oil or natural gas resources from various rock layers beneath the surface

of the Ashley National Forest. The Proponent has acquired exploration rights on issued leases

within the South Unit of the Ashley National Forest consistent with the decision reached by the

Record of Decision (1997) for the Western Uinta Basin Leasing EIS. The proposed drilling

program would provide the geologic and production data necessary to determine if economic

quantities of oil or gas exist within and may be commercially recovered from their lease area,

and if so, to allow for the recovery and sale of these products.

1.6 Forest Plan Conformance

Existing management prescriptions permit mineral development in most areas (USFS, 1986, pgs.

IV-43 through IV-44). The LRMP maintains the goal to "provide orderly exploration,

development, and production of mineral and energy resources consistent with the use and

protection of other resource values." The 1997 LRMP amendment (USFS, 1997) functions as an

addition to the Plan standards and guidelines for minerals and energy management, provides new

direction for issuing oil and gas leases, and provides stipulations with may be attached to such

leases. The Proposed Action conforms with the Ashley National Forest LRMP, as amended.


7

1.7 Decision Framework

This EA will principally evaluate impacts to surface resources from proposed activities described

in the Proponent's Surface Use Plan of Operations (SUPO). The SUPO is submitted to the BLM

as part of the federal APD package in response to requirements in the Decision Notice. The

USFS decision maker will determine:

which alternative, or combination of alternatives, will be used as a basis for the

Proponent's SUPO;

whether the Proposed Action, or an alternative action, involves the potential for

significant impacts, and if so, whether or not an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

will need to be prepared; and

whether the Proposed Action, or an alternative action, is in conformance with applicable

land and resource management plans and programmatic plans developed under NEPA.

Assuming that the decision maker concludes that the analysis supports a Finding of No

Significant Impact (FONSI) to affected resources, the results of this process will be issued in the

Decision Notice for the EA. The BLM will review the Decision Notice will determine which

additional approval conditions may be required for protection of mineral resources, and will be

responsible for approving federal APDs.

1.8 Public Involvement

A notice ("Scoping Notice") describing the Proposed Action and requesting public comment was

published in the Uintah Basin Standard newspaper on October 14, 2008. The Proposed Action

was included in the Ashley National Forest quarterly Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) for

the fourth quarter of 2008, accessible at:

http://www.fs.fed.us/sopa/components/reports/sopa-110401-2008-10.html

In addition, the Scoping letter and legal notice were posted on the Ashley National Forest web

site. Letters describing the proposed project and soliciting comment were also mailed to

potentially interested public citizens and groups, governmental agencies and the Ute tribe. The

formal public comment period ended November 14, 2008. Forest Service specialists were also

consulted and an eleven-person Interdisciplinary Team (ID Team) was appointed by the

Roosevelt/Duchesne District Ranger in a Project Initiation Letter on October 3, 2008.

A copy of the Scoping Notice and a listing of addressees of mailed copies of the Scoping Notice

are included as Appendix C. Comments were received from six respondents. A summary of the

comments received, the identity of the respondent, and a reference to the section of the EA in

which the comment is discussed is contained in Appendix D. Originals of the communications

from respondents are available for inspection at the Duchesne Ranger District Office, Duchesne,

Utah.

http://www.fs.fed.us/sopa/components/reports/sopa-110401-2008-10.html


8

1.9 Issues

The USFS separated potential issues identified from scoping into those which would or would

not be analyzed in depth. Issues to be analyzed in depth are defined as those directly or

indirectly caused by implementing the Proposed Action. Issues not analyzed in depth were

identified as those:

outside the scope of the Proposed Action;

already decided by law, regulation, Forest Plan, or other higher level decision;

irrelevant to the decision to be made; or

conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence.

The Council for Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations require this delineation in

Sec. 1501.7, ―…identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues which are not significant or

which have been covered by prior environmental review (Sec. 1506.3)…‖(46 FR 18026,

March 23, 1981). A list of issues not analyzed in detail for this EA and reasons regarding their

categorization is provided in Appendix E.

The USFS identified a number of issues raised during scoping which require in-depth analysis.

These issues were organized by resource areas. These issues have been summarized and listed

by resource area in Table 1-1. These issues form the core of Chapter 3 of this EA, which

addresses environmental consequences of the Proposed Project.

Table 1-1 Issues Identified from Scoping to be Analyzed in Depth

Resource Issue

Policy Cumulative impacts analysis of various forest management activities and their effects on special status species and compliance with the Ashley NF LRMP

Geology, Geohazards, Mineral Resources, and Paleontology

Potential impacts to scientifically important fossil resources

Water Impacts from leakage of pit fluids, tanks, fuels, or site chemicals

Impacts to area springs

Potential impacts from increased sedimentation or other degradation to local watersheds, and from alteration of debris flow fans and drainage patterns

Air Quality and Noise Cumulative and direct impacts to air quality

Impacts associated with project-associated noise

Soils Potential impacts to soils, including increased local soil erosion

Reclamation requirements for preservation of topsoils

Vegetation and Wetlands Cumulative impacts associated with the existing roads network and future fire treatments

Procedures used to facilitate successful reclamation

Potential for spread of invasive species

Potential impacts to aquatic and riparian habitats

Wildlife and Fisheries Potential direct and cumulative impacts to wildlife, including big game species

Potential impacts to aquatic species

Potential impacts to Forest Management Indicator Species


9

Resource Issue

Special Status Species Potential impacts to migratory birds and other avian species

Specific impacts to sage-grouse populations and habitat

Potential impacts to aquatic species within and downstream of the Project Area

Cultural Resources Potential impacts to identified cultural sites

Potential Native American concerns regarding changes in the landscape

Visual Resources Alterations to scenic viewsheds and potential conflicts with Visual Quality Objectives

Special Management Areas Potential impacts to inventoried roadless and potential wilderness areas

2.0 Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Alternatives are required for a proper NEPA analysis, but alternatives must be "reasonable" and

must accommodate the purpose and need of the project. To be viable, alternatives must be

technically and economically feasible, and should respond to the range of potential issues.

Issues of concern for the Project have been identified by the USFS in response to public and

internal scoping. The Proponent and the USFS have identified design features as well as

appropriate additional measures to minimize adverse impacts from implementation of one of the

action alternatives. The USFS is committed to the application of these mitigation measures in

the interest of minimizing potential impacts from the Proposed Action.

Three alternatives have been considered in this EA:

The No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would preclude development of the Proposed

Action as described. Oil and gas development would likely continue on BLM, tribal, private,

and state mineral estates in the vicinity of the Project Area. Previously approved oil and gas

development would also continue within the Project Area. The No Action Alternative provides a

baseline for comparison of effects associated with action alternatives.

The Proposed Action (Alternative 2), which would include the drilling of eight exploratory wells

from seven well pads, the installation of production facilities on these eight wells and on the

locations of seven additional previously approved wells, upgrading of existing access roads and

construction of new well pad access roads, and installation of surface pipelines to all of the wells

to transport gas off the Forest.

Buried Pipeline Installation (Alternative 3), which would be identical to the Proposed Action,

except that all of the proposed pipelines would be buried. Burial of pipelines would eliminate

the visual impact of above ground pipe, but would increase the amount of cleared vegetation.

Burial would also reduce the potential for damage to the pipe.


10

2.1 Existing Oil and Gas Development

As of December 2008, in addition to 20 plugged and abandoned oil and gas exploratory holes,

there were 44 wells listed as being productive, productive but shut-in, actively drilling or

completing, approved locations, or with NEPA approval without a filed state APD within the

Project Area. Because directional drilling technology has been or is likely to be employed in

some instances, the 44 wells would occupy fewer than 44 well pads. Three of those indicated as

drilling include wells whose production facilities comprise part of the proposed project. Most of

the producing, drilling, and shut-in wells are located on Berry Petroleum leases in the northern

portion of the Project Area (UDOGM, 2008). A summary of the past and current oil and gas

development activity in the Project Area is indicated in Table 2-1.

Table 2-1 Past and Current Oil and Gas Activity, Project Area

Operator Status Wells

Past

Various Plugged and Abandoned 20

Present

Berry Petroleum Producing Oil 11

Berry Petroleum Shut-in Gas 3

Berry Petroleum Operations Suspended 1

Unknown Shut-in Gas 2

Vantage Uinta, LLC Drilling (Gas Anticipated) 3

Berry Petroleum Drilling (Oil Anticipated) 5

Vantage Uinta, LLC Active APD 1

Berry Petroleum Active APD 5

EOG Resources Active APD 1

Berry Petroleum Approved NEPA, no APD filed 12

Total Present 44

2.2 Alternative 1 – The No Action Alternative

A No Action Alternative is intended to provide a benchmark that enables the decision-maker to

compare the magnitude of environmental effects among alternatives to existing management

conditions.

Within the Project Area, implementation of the No Action Alternative would not preclude

additional oil and gas development. In addition to existing productive wells, development

already approved by previous NEPA decisions would still likely occur. For seven proposed

federal well locations, NEPA compliance has been previously approved through the drilling and

completion stages in prior EA decisions (USFS, 2005; USFS, 2006; USFS, 2006a). One of these

previously approved wells was drilled, capped, temporarily abandoned, and re-entered for

completion and testing purposes in 2008 (Ashley 2 Federal). Two additional locations

(Gilsonite 1-20 and Nutters Canyon 1-2) had wells drilled, completed, and testing begun in the

fall of 2008. No construction or drilling activities have yet occurred at four additional NEPA-

approved locations.


11

A map illustrating existing and approved oil and gas development within the Project Area is

indicated in Figure 2-1 (Appendix A). Because some of the existing wells are multiple wells

from a single well pad, not all the wells display at the map scale. No wells are shown for which

APDs have not yet been filed.

Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed project would not be approved and project-

related disturbance analyzed in this EA would not occur. The existing environment would be

subject to previously approved oil and gas development, but there would be no new

environmental consequences (including production from previously approved wells) from the

proposed project as a result of selecting this alternative. Existing surface management activities,

such as livestock grazing and wildlife habitat projects, would continue as they are currently

implemented.

All of the Project Area has been leased for oil and gas exploration and development, following

the 1997 Western Uinta Basin Oil and Gas Leasing EIS decision to lease these lands. The

Proponent’s leases grant them the exclusive right to explore for and produce any oil and gas

resources that may be located within their lease area, including construction of developments and

facilities reasonably needed to conduct prudent exploration and production.

Selection of this alternative would not preclude other oil and gas activities or proposals within

the South Unit.

2.3 Alternative 2 – The Proposed Action

The Proposed Action includes various operations affecting 15 proposed or existing wells located

on 14 proposed or existing well pads. The Proponent proposes to drill, complete, test and

produce eight exploratory oil and natural gas wells from seven well pads on federal oil and gas

leases on USFS lands. The Proposed Action would require the construction of well pads,

upgrading of existing access roads and construction of new roads, installation of production

facilities, and construction of a gas-gathering pipeline system and associated facilities. The wells

would be drilled to test principally the Green River Formation (at depths of 2,000 to 6,000 feet)

and the Mesaverde Formation (at depths of 8,000 to 13,000 feet). For seven additional locations

previously NEPA-approved through the testing phase, the Proposed Action would be limited to

upgrading of roads to allow for production operations, installation of production facilities, and

construction of gas-gathering pipelines. With the exception of construction of approximately

3,000 feet of pipeline on private surface, all proposed activities would occur on surface managed

by the Ashley National Forest.

In summary, the Proposed Action includes the following activities which are analyzed in this

EA:

Installation of production facilities and construction of pipelines for seven previously

approved locations and seven new locations, including one location containing two

proposed wells;


12

Upgrades to existing Forest System roads to all-weather status for access to all 14

proposed well pad locations and construction of new, short access roads to connect to the

existing roads; and

All aspects of the construction, drilling, completion, testing, and production (including

pipeline installation) of eight new wells on seven newly-proposed well pads.

The Proposed Action does not include any activities associated with well pad construction,

drilling, completion, or testing operations for seven well locations previously approved under

prior NEPA decisions and these activities are not analyzed as direct or indirect impacts in this

EA. They are, however, analyzed as cumulative impacts.

A summary of the proposed wells and activities is indicated in Table 2-2. The Proponent would

comply with all applicable federal, state, county, USFS, and Bureau of Land Management

(BLM) regulations while performing construction, drilling, completion, and production

operations.

The proposed wells represent attempts to extend oil and gas production into areas which are not

currently productive. Any proposal for drilling additional wells would require additional

analysis in compliance with NEPA. Gas from the Proposed Action would be transported outside

the Forest across federal surface managed by other agencies. Approval of pipelines in these

areas would require additional NEPA compliance under management of those agencies.

2.3.1 Federal Exploration Units

The proposed well sites are located in the South Unit of the Ashley National Forest at distances

ranging from approximately 17 to 38 miles southwest of Myton, Utah, in Duchesne County. The

Proponent has established three federal exploratory oil and gas exploration units containing 23

federal leases comprising 63,373 acres on the Forest. The Project Area includes the portions of

the units located on the Forest plus non-unitized Forest surface crossed by project pipelines, a

total of approximately 88,000 acres. The locations of the three units are illustrated in Figure 1-2

(Appendix A).

2.3.2 Location and Access

All of the seven approved well pads and the seven proposed well pads (eight wells) would be

accessed by traveling west from Myton on U.S. Highway 40, then south, mainly on existing

roads maintained by the Duchesne County Road Department at distances ranging from 1.4 to 8.8

miles from Myton. Three of the locations would utilize Tabby Canyon Road and would require

a right-of-way (ROW) across lands belonging to the Ute Indian Tribe. The existing roads lead to

a network of Forest System roads. To minimize environmental impacts, all of the proposed

locations have been situated near existing roads and construction of new roads would be limited

to generally short well pad access roads to the seven newly-proposed locations.


13

2.3.3 Design Features

A number of design features have been incorporated into the Proposed Action by the Proponent.

These features, which are intended to reduce project-related impacts to the human environment,

have been organized by resource affected and included as Appendix F.

Cultural resource inventories have been completed for all of the well pads and road and pipeline

corridors with the exception of approximately 0.7 mile of expanded access road and pipeline

corridor to the Nutters Canyon 1-2 location and some additional required re-routes around several

potentially eligible archaeological sites. Paleontological inspections have been conducted on some

of the well pads previously and excavation of well pads and roads would be monitored in

compliance with USFS requirements discussed during the APD pre-approval on-site inspection.

Table 2-2 Summary of Proposed Project Activity and NEPA Compliance

Well Unit Location Status Proposed Operations

LOCATIONS WITH NEPA APPROVAL THROUGH DRILLING AND COMPLETION

Ashley Federal 2 AFU 26-6S-5W Drilled Recompletion operations in progress. Road upgrade, production equipment and pipeline installation.

Quitchampau 1-15 SCU 15-6S-6W APD Road upgrade, production equipment and pipeline installation.

Nutters Canyon 1-2 AFU 2-7S-5W Drilled Completion operations in progress. Road upgrade, production equipment and pipeline installation.

Gilsonite 1-20 GDU 20-6S-3W Drilled Completion operations in progress. Road upgrade, production equipment and pipeline installation.

Road Hollow 1-35 AFU 35-6S-6W APD Road upgrade, production equipment and pipeline installation.

Chokecherry 1-5 AFU 5-7S-4W Proposed Road upgrade, production equipment and pipeline installation.

Ashley Federal 3 GDU 23-6S-4W Proposed Road upgrade, production equipment and pipeline installation.

LOCATIONS REQUIRING NEPA APPROVAL FOR ALL OPERATIONS

Wild Horse 1-11 SCU 11-6S-6W Proposed Well pad, drill and complete, road upgrade, production equipment, and pipeline installation.

SCU 66-1-14 SCU 1-6S-6W Proposed Well pad, drill and complete, road upgrade, production equipment, and pipeline installation.

AFU 65-28-32 AFU 29-6S-5W Proposed Well pad, drill and complete, road upgrade, production equipment, and pipeline installation.

AFU 64-19-11 AFU 19-6S-4W Proposed Two wells drilled directionally from one pad. Well pad, drill and complete, road upgrade, production equipment, and pipeline installation. AFU 64-18-41 AFU 18-6S-4W Proposed

GDU 63-6-23 GDU 6-6S-3W Proposed Well pad, drill and complete, road upgrade, production equipment, and pipeline installation.




14

2.3.4 Construction

Construction would be completed in compliance with the Surface Operating Standards for

Oil and Gas Exploration and Development, 4th

Edition (Gold Book) (BLM and USFS, 2007).

Personnel and equipment performing construction, drilling, and completion operations would

commute from the Vernal/Duchesne area daily.

Access Roads

Approximately 126.9 miles of primary highway and Forest System roads are situated within the

Project Area, including 38.7 miles of Duchesne County-maintained roads (USFS, 2009). Access

to the proposed well pads would utilize existing county-maintained and Forest System roads

(Figure 2-2, Appendix A). These roads would be upgraded, as necessary, to all-weather

operations status. New road construction, involving less than one mile of proposed roads, would

be limited to well pad access from the existing roads. Access to four of the 14 well pads would

be directly from county roads. Upgrades to county-maintained roads would be performed by the

Proponent and would comply with requirements of the Duchesne County Roads Department.

County-maintained roads are principally surfaced with natural materials, bladed semi-annually,

and maintained to a nominal 24-foot travel width (Curtis, 2009). Approximately 24.0 miles of

county-maintained roads would be used for crossing Forest lands. These road segments are not

analyzed in this EA.

Forest System roads are surfaced with native materials and in the Project Area are evaluated as

mainly unimproved (Class 4) or light duty (Class 3), with ROWs of 12 and 24 feet, respectively.

The county-maintained segments are principally rated as light duty (USFS, 2009). The Proposed

Action would involve the use and upgrade to approximately 23.3 miles of existing Forest roads,

in addition to use of the county-maintained roads. All upgrades and new construction would

meet the construction parameters described below.

Existing Forest System roads used for project access mainly continue off the Forest as county-

maintained or tribal roads and meet the standards for Forest Service collector roads. The Wild

Horse Ridge Road would be classified as a Forest Service local road. Existing access roads to be

upgraded and newly constructed access roads would use a 30-foot ROW. The existing and

proposed roads would utilize an 18-foot running surface with, in most cases, two feet of drainage

control structures on either side.

Site-specific modifications to planned road upgrades would follow USFS on-site inspections and

comply with required Conditions of Approval (COAs). Intervisible turnouts would be installed

as necessary. Bridges, gates, cattleguards, or fencing would be installed as required by the USFS

or maintained as necessary to provide access to the proposed wells. Prior to upgrading, an

existing road would be cleared of snow cover and allowed to dry completely. Upgrading would

not be conducted during muddy conditions. If mud holes were to develop, they would be filled

in, and detours around them would be avoided. Constructed roads would be built to the same

specifications as upgraded roads. Upgrading may include ditching, drainage improvements,

graveling, crowning, and capping the roadbeds as necessary to provide safe usage. Surfacing

may be necessary, depending upon weather conditions at the time of drilling. If materials other

than native materials found on the well pad were needed to upgrade the road, Proponent would


15

obtain materials from permitted sources located off the Forest. Construction materials would not

be removed from USFS lands.

Road drainage crossings would generally consist of dips/low water crossings associated with dry

creek drainages. They would be designed to prevent siltation or accumulation of debris.

Culverts would be installed where required by the USFS and according to Gold Book guidelines

regarding sizing and placement. Erosion of drainage ditches would be prevented by diverting

water at frequent intervals using cutouts.

Roads would be constructed or upgraded to the minimum degree required to safely accomplish

the drilling and testing phases. If a well is found to be productive, more permanent

improvements, such as installation of additional road base, could be made to provide long-term

use consistent with USFS collector-class road standards. Such improvements would not result in

additional surface disturbance.

Road construction equipment could include dozers, graders, dump trucks, water trucks, and

pickups. A typical construction crew would consist of up to six workers plus a supervisor

conducting operations during daylight hours. Upgrading of all of the necessary portions of the

access roads and construction of new roads is expected to take up to six weeks. Workers would

commute from the Duchesne/Roosevelt areas daily.

Approximately 23.3 miles of existing Forest System roads, in addition to the county-maintained

portions of the Forest roads network, may require upgrading to ensure safe access to project

facilities. These upgrades would result in new disturbance (additional to the existing road

disturbance) of approximately 50.9 acres. In addition, 0.8 mile of new roads would be

constructed which would comprise an additional disturbance of 2.6 acres. Thus, total net new

short-term road disturbance on the Forest resulting from the Proposed Action would be

approximately 53.5 acres. Long-term road disturbance would be approximately 30.2 acres.

Well Pads

Wells would be drilled to test either the Green River Formation, the Mesaverde Formation, or both.

Well pads for either objective, including space for the reserve pit, would typically be less than

2.0 acres in size. Including cuts and fills and spoil pile storage, well pad disturbance would be

approximately 365 feet by290 feet for an initial, short-term disturbance of approximately 3.0 acres.

Following interim reclamation of successful wells, long-term disturbance for the life of the wells

would be approximately 1.0 acre. Eight of the wells would be partially situated over prior well pads

to reduce the amount of new disturbance. Two of the wells (AFU 64-18-41 and AFU 64-19-11)

would be directionally drilled from the same well pad.

As indicated above, NEPA compliance for well pad construction, drilling, and testing for seven

of the wells has been previously completed. Proponent's operations with respect to construction,

drilling, testing, and completing these wells would comply with the prior NEPA approvals and

the analysis of these operations for these wells is not included in this EA.


16

Well pad construction would require removal of the upper six inches of topsoil, or whatever is

available, which would be stockpiled adjacent to the location. Any remaining subsoil would also

be separately stockpiled for use during reclamation operations. Soil piles unreclaimed for more

than 10 months would be stabilized through use of a cover crop or method of similar

effectiveness. Erosion controls would be installed as necessary to minimize off-site transport of

sediment from disturbed areas. Proponent would develop a Project Stormwater Pollution

Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to use in managing erosion and would provide a copy of the plan to

the USFS.

The reserve pits would be designed to hold volumes of up to approximately12,250 barrels (bbls.)

of fluid with two feet of freeboard and would be constructed within the cut side of the well pad.

The reserve pits would be approximately 75 feet by 150 feet and 12 feet deep with 1.5:1 sloping

sides. A flare pit, if used, would be located at least 100 feet from the wellhead in direction

downwind of the prevailing wind direction, or at a distance approved by the USFS Authorized

Officer.

Portable toilets would be used for human waste during construction, drilling, and completion

operations. The toilets would be emptied as required and the waste trucked to an approved

disposal facility. Trash would be stored in a covered cage and the contents would be trucked to

an approved landfill following completion of operations or as necessary.

Well pad construction equipment would include equipment and crew sizes similar to that used

for road construction. Well pad construction would be confined to daylight hours. The seven

well pads would result in approximately 20.7 acres of new short-term disturbance and 6.5 acres

of long-term disturbance.

Gas-gathering System

Each of the target formations is expected to produce variable amounts of natural gas which

would require transport from the Project Area through pipelines. Green River oil wells in the

vicinity produce variable amounts of oil-associated natural gas. Mesaverde wells are anticipated

to be productive principally of natural gas and some condensate. The amounts, quality, and

pressures of gas from each formation are expected to differ sufficiently to require transport in

separate pipeline systems. The Proposed Action is exploratory in nature, with the possibility of

drilling unsuccessful wells or wells that could be marginally successful initially and would

require two or more years of production to determine ultimate commercial viability. To

minimize disturbance to the surface from an exploratory program, a system of surface pipelines

would be used. All of the pipeline ROWs would be located adjacent to existing or proposed

access roads. Where two pipelines were required, they would be laid adjacent to one another in a

common ROW. Proposed pipeline routes are indicated in Figure 2-3 (Appendix A). Analysis

of pipelines to all of the 15 proposed wells is included in this EA.

Green River Formation Pipelines

Green River oil wells are expected to produce lower volumes of associated gas at lower

pressures, typically 100 psi or less, than would Mesaverde natural gas wells. The pipeline


17

diameter would depend upon gas volumes and pressures, but would not be expected to exceed

approximately eight inches. The pipe would be composed of polypropylene or polyethylene of

sufficient thickness to contain a maximum allowable working pressure (MAWP) consistent with

Green River production in the area.

Mesaverde Formation Pipelines

Mesaverde gas wells in the Project Area are expected to produce with higher initial gas pressures

than that anticipated from Green River wells. Mesaverde gas pipelines would be constructed of

steel or cross-linked polyethylene of sufficient thickness to contain a maximum allowable

working pressure (MAWP) consistent with production from the formation in the area. Diameter

of the Mesaverde pipe is not expected to exceed eight inches. In some circumstances, depending

principally on flowing pressures, Green River and Mesaverde gas may be commingled in the

same pipeline.

Proponent would install surface pipelines within a 25-foot temporary ROW adjacent to a 30-foot

permanent road ROW. The ROW would not be cleared of vegetation, except where the ROW

temporarily diverges from the road to avoid certain cultural sites. Equipment operating from the

roads would place assembled pipe segments along the edge of the road and among any existing

vegetation. In these areas, the only surface disturbance would amount to the approximately three

feet width actually occupied by up to two pipelines positioned next to one another. In cultural

re-route areas, a 50-foot temporary ROW would be cleared to permit installation. Approximately

3.3 miles of pipeline ROW would diverge from the adjacent road to avoid cultural sites. Pipe

would be assembled in the ROW and placed along one side of the cleared area.

Pipe would be laid along the side of the roads prior to assembly, and temporary gaps in the

unassembled pipe segments would be maintained to allow passage of equipment or other land

users across the ROW. Pipeline segments would be assembled and dragged into place or lowered

using backhoes or sidebooms. Longer sections of pipeline would be capped at the ends until the

sections are joined. Where sharp bends in the adjacent road occur, the pipe could be installed in

more of a straight line through the brush, but clearing of vegetation is not expected to be necessary.

Any bends to the pipe would be in conformance with safe operational practices. Temporary use

areas (TUAs) on Forest land are not anticipated as nearby well pads would typically be used for

pipe storage and possibly some assembly. Valving and pipe cleaning device ("pigs") launchers

and receivers would be installed as necessary following determination of gas content and

volumes. Where pipelines need to cross roads, the pipe would be buried to a minimum of five

feet using methods discussed under Alternative 3.

The pipeline would be tested for its ability to maintain pressure using air, natural gas, or water.

Assuming a maximum 8-inch diameter for each pipeline, the total volume of each pipeline would

be approximately 86,000 cubic feet, or 2.0 acre-feet. Testing with water would likely be done in

stages, with much of the water being re-used and only pipe sections between block valves filled

at any one time. Since the location of block valves, timing of pressure testing, and substance

used for the pressure test are undetermined at this time, a maximum water use of approximately

4.0 acre-feet has been assumed for purposes of this EA. Water used for hydrostatic testing


18

would be obtained from the same sources that would provide drilling and completion water

(Section 2.2.5).

Pipeline installation equipment could include bladers, sidebooms, load trucks, dozers, and

pickups. Pipeline installation would typically use a crew of approximately six to eight workers

employed during daylight hours. A single crew is anticipated to be capable of installing

approximately five miles of above ground pipeline per week. Assuming all the pipelines are

installed above ground, implementation of the Proposed Action would result in a maximum of

approximately 35.8 acres of short-term surface disturbance. All of the surface disturbance from

pipeline installation is considered to be reclaimed following installation, so there would

essentially be no long-term disturbance.

2.3.5 Drilling, Completion, and Testing Operations

Operations Common to All Wells

As indicated previously, NEPA compliance through the drilling, completion, and testing phases

of seven of the wells has been previously approved and is not included in the Proposed Action.

The operational methods described here comply with the operations approved in those previous

EA Decision Notices.

Equipment utilizing the roads to each well would consist of tractor trailer trucks carrying drilling

rig components, a self-propelled completion rig, transport for several house trailers, flat bed

trucks carrying pallets of equipment and materials, water trucks, and fuel trucks. After the

drilling rig is brought to a specific location and assembled, daily traffic would consist primarily

of fuel, water, periodic delivery of tubular goods on tractor trailer trucks, and pickup trucks.

Wireline trucks may also access the location in order to provide quantitative petrophysical

evaluations of the formations. Pickup trucks transporting drilling and service company

personnel would access the drilling location daily. Drilling operations would occur 24 hours per

day, seven days per week.

Trucks would be used to transport water used for drilling to each location. Water would be

obtained from approved local sources, including municipal sources of Duchesne, Myton, or

Roosevelt. Other sources include local contractors with valid permits for commercial

distribution. Potential commercial water sources include, but are not necessarily limited to:

Harvey's Pond (Utah Division of Water Rights [UDWR] permits 47-1358 and 47-1350)

Moon's Pond (UDWR permit 43-177)

RN Industries commercial well (UDWR permit 43-1028)

The surface holes for each well would be drilled with air/air mist or aerated water. A KCl or

freshwater-based drilling fluid would be used as the drilling fluid for the remainder of the

operation for both Green River and Mesaverde wells. No oil-based muds would be used.

All cuttings and fluids used during drilling and testing operations would be contained in the

reserve pits. Water from the drilling fluids and recovered during testing operations would be


19

disposed of by removal and transport to an authorized disposal site. The reserve pits would be

lined with a minimum 12-mil plastic liner and would be constructed to prevent leaks or

discharges. If a pit were constructed in abrasive bedrock, the pit would be lined with felt

padding prior to installation of the plastic liner. The reserve pits would be fenced on three sides

during drilling and completion operations. The fourth side would be fenced as soon as the

drilling or completion rig is moved off the location. Spills of oil, produced water, or other

produced fluids would be cleaned up and disposed of in accordance with appropriate regulations.

Control of subsurface pressures would be accomplished using an appropriately designed mud

program and blowout preventer equipment rated to anticipated formation pressures in

compliance with provisions of BLM Onshore Oil and Gas Order 2. Subsurface aquifers and

potential mineral-bearing formations would be protected by use of steel casing. Surface casing

would be set below the depth of all known aquifers and cemented to the surface. All parameters

of the drilling, casing, cementation, and pressure control programs for federal wells would be

reviewed by a BLM petroleum engineer prior to APD approval to ensure compliance with

applicable regulations. No abnormal pressure zones or hydrogen sulfide-bearing zones are

anticipated to be encountered during the drilling of these wells.

Facilities used during drilling and completion operations would include three to four trailers used

by the drilling supervisor, mudlogger, and possibly other personnel. Sewage would be contained

in portable, self-contained chemical toilets and trash would be contained in a sealable container.

Fuel for the drilling rig and light plant would be stored in a tank located away from the rig.

Following completion of drilling of each well, wireline geophysical logs would be run in the well

bore to determine the potential productivity of the well. In the event that drill stem tests were

conducted, operations would be performed in compliance with provisions of Onshore Oil and

Gas Order 2. In the event that the well appears to be capable of commercial production,

completion operations would commence, beginning with setting of production casing.

During completion operations, the drilling rig would be moved off the location and a self-

contained completion rig would be moved to the well site. Completion activities include setting

and cementing casing within the well bore and applying well stimulation treatments such as

hydraulic fracturing. Completion activities would typically occur during daylight hours.

Testing procedures would involve flowback of the well following stimulation treatments. Gas

and fluids would be separated using temporary separation equipment. Gas produced during

testing would be flared. Produced liquid hydrocarbons would be stored in temporary steel tanks

and trucked off site as required. Produced water would be stored within the reserve pit, in

conformance with requirements of BLM Onshore Oil and Gas Order 7, or in steel tanks. Water

stored in the tank would be trucked from the location.

Drilling operations for each well would involve an average of up to 20 workers. Equipment used

would include varying numbers of equipment delivery trucks, sufficient trips by (typically) 100 bbl

capacity water trucks to transport water for drilling and completion fluids, and up to approximately

10 pickups. Completion operations would include perforation of potentially productive horizons

and hydraulic fracturing of these horizons. Proponent anticipates that multiple zones in each well


20

could be completed. During fracture operations, there would be seven to eight frac tanks on

location, including six water tanks, one flowback tank, and one clean water/circulating tank.

Equipment on location would include high-pressure pump trucks, equipment trucks, a small crane,

a frac van, and pickups, for a total of 12 to 16 pieces of equipment on site. Up to 25, and an

average of 10, personnel may be on the location during completion operations.

Green River Formation Wells

Drilling operations would require approximately 7 to 10 days for Green River wells, depending on

total depth of the well. Drilling a well would require approximately 5,000 bbls. (210,000 gallons)

of water and completion activities would require approximately 6,000 bbls. (252,000 gallons) of

KCl-treated water. Completion and testing operations would last approximately 30 days,

depending on the number of zones tested.

Mesaverde Formation Wells

Drilling operations would require approximately 30 days for Mesaverde wells, depending on total

depth of the well. Drilling a well would require approximately 15,000 bbls. (630,000 gallons) of

water, and completion activities would require approximately 2,500 bbls. per productive zone, or

up to 12,500 bbls. (525,000 gallons) for a typical well. Completion and testing operations would

last approximately 60 to 90 days, depending on the number of zones tested. Up to five potentially

productive intervals could be expected to be tested in a typical well.

Assuming that all of the eight proposed new wells are drilled into the Mesaverde Formation, the

total water needed for drilling and completion purposes would be up to approximately 220,000 bbls.

(9,240,000 gallons).

2.3.6 Production

Installation and operation of production facilities are proposed for all 15 of the previously

approved and newly proposed wells analyzed in this EA. Well production facilities could include

the well head, heater-treater/separator, meter house, valves, piping, and a combination

separator/gas meter that would be housed in a small building on each location. Green River wells

may include a natural gas-fired or propane-fired pumping unit and on-site propane storage tanks.

Each location would include two or more 200 to 400 bbl. tanks for storage of produced water

and/or liquid hydrocarbons. The characteristics of Green River oils in the Project Area suggest that

oil storage tanks would likely require heating using gas-fired heaters supplied by produced gas or

propane. Additional variable-sized containers of fuel oil, methanol, or other chemicals required for

production may be stored on location. A berm or equivalent containment structure capable of

containing 120 percent of the capacity of the largest tank would surround all tanks. All load lines

and valves would be placed inside the containment. The traveled portion of the production site

would be covered with gravel as necessary for all-weather access following installation of

production facilities. All above ground structures would be painted a color specified by the

USFS to minimize visual contrast with the surrounding landscape.

Produced water would be trucked from the location to an approved disposal facility as required.

The final disposal method would be selected following a determination of actual projected water


21

volumes. Liquid hydrocarbons would be trucked off-site for sale. The frequency of produced

water disposal and liquid hydrocarbon retrieval truck trips would be determined following onset of

production.

Installation of production equipment on a well pad would not result in additional surface

disturbance for either Green River or Mesaverde well pads. A conceptual layout of a typical

production location is illustrated in Figure 2-4.

Following processing by well site production equipment, natural gas would be transported

through either the Green River or Mesaverde pipelines. During the exploration and confirmation

phase of the project, it is anticipated that gas transport would be north across tribal lands. The

low-pressure Green River pipelines would be connected to pipelines on tribal lands which are

under suction. Gas would move through the Mesaverde pipelines under the influence of the

higher flowing pressures from this formation. No well-site or field compression facilities are

proposed for this project.

2.3.7 Operations and Maintenance

Roads

Proponent would perform ongoing maintenance on access roads during all operations in

accordance with USFS and/or County standards, as applicable.

Wells

Each producing well would be visited by a maintenance worker ("pumper") daily to monitor the

well. Proponent will evaluate the feasibility of installation of telemetry equipment to remotely

operate and monitor wells, thereby reducing the number of well site visits. Periodically, downhole

maintenance operations (workover) on a well may be required. A workover uses a unit similar to a

completion rig to perform a variety of maintenance procedures and keep the well operating as

efficiently as possible. These repairs generally occur during daylight hours and are typically of

short duration. The typical workover would require approximately three days; however, workover

operations can range from one to 10 days, with a small number requiring more than 10 days and

crew sizes of two to 10 workers. The frequency of workover operations cannot be predicted, but

one workover every two to five years of the well's life would by typical. A workover would not

result in additional surface disturbance.

Gas-gathering System

The pipelines and pipeline ROWs would be periodically inspected to look for evidence of leaks

and ascertain the condition of the pipe. The lines would be periodically cleaned of water and

hydrocarbon fluids by pumping a cleaning device ("pig") through the pipe. Recovered water and

hydrocarbon fluids would be disposed of in a manner consistent with disposal of produced water

and reserve pit fluids.


22

Figure 2-4 Conceptual Production Layout


23

Weeds and Invasive Species

Surface disturbance and vehicle traffic associated with oil and gas development can increase the

risk for transport, establishment, and spread of weed populations. Well maintenance personnel

would be provided with an illustrated guide to noxious weeds and invasive species determined to

pose a risk of establishing or expanding populations within the field and would monitor any

occurrences. Reports to the operator of such occurrences would be made quarterly. Occurrences

of noxious weeds and invasive species within the Project Area and facilities would be controlled

by the Proponent using a licensed contractor as directed by the USFS.

2.3.8 Abandonment, Reclamation, and Monitoring

In the event a new well is considered incapable of sustaining commercial production, it would be

plugged and abandoned following testing. Gravel used for surfacing the well pad would be

removed and, if possible, used to surface other well pads in the area. Anticipated well life for

productive wells would be up to 30 to 40 years, following which the wells would be plugged and

abandoned. All well plugging operations would be in compliance with provisions of Onshore

Oil and Gas Order 2 and regulations of UDOGM. All surface structures would be removed.

Valving for gas pipelines would be removed. Pipelines would be depleted to atmospheric

pressure, subjected to final pigging to purge liquids, and pipe sections would be removed from

the Forest.

Interim Reclamation

For a completed location, interim reclamation would be performed on all areas of the access

roads and well pads not needed after drilling and completion operations are finished. The pad

size would be reduced to that sufficient to permit safe flow of truck traffic and ongoing

maintenance operations. Disturbed areas of access road ROWs outside the running surface and

associated drainage structures would be reseeded according to specifications of the USFS and in

conformance with Gold Book guidelines.

The reserve pit fluids would be allowed to evaporate before backfilling the pit with the

stockpiled subsoil. Any hydrocarbon residue floating on the pit surface would be removed.

Cuttings from drilling operations would be spread out and allowed to dry prior to being placed in

the pit for burial. The plastic liners would be torn and perforated before backfilling the reserve

pits to avoid trapping precipitation. Portions of the well pad not required for ongoing operations

would be recontoured to the approximate natural contours. After the stockpiled pit topsoil is

spread over the pit areas, the surfaces above the reserve pit would be seeded per USFS

specifications to re-establish native vegetation. The rat and mouse holes would be filled and

compacted from bottom to top immediately after the release of the drilling rig. Excess topsoil

from the storage piles remaining after pad recontouring would be spread along disturbed areas of

the access roads and seeded. Topsoil would be spread over the recontoured pad to a depth of

approximately six inches, if possible. The area on the contour would be ripped and seeded. The

remainder of the well pad would comprise long-term disturbance.


24

Final Reclamation

If a well were determined to be unproductive, or at the end of its productive life, its entire

location would be reclaimed according to USFS requirements. Reclamation procedures would

be the same as indicated for interim reclamation, except that the entire well pad would be

reclaimed. The entire well pad, including all cut and fill slopes, would be recontoured to the

approximate natural contours. Site-specific elements of well pad reclamation planning would be

described in the Surface Use Plan of Operations (SUPO) included with each federal APD

package.

The upgraded access road to an unproductive well would be reclaimed or left according to USFS

instruction. Where necessary, the road would be recontoured to approximate the original

topography and cuts and fills would be reduced. The road surface would be prepared as directed

by USFS prior to reseeding. Upgrades of existing roads and ways would be reclaimed in a

manner similar to that used for constructed roads if requested by the USFS. Seeding of the

pipeline ROWs would be done, as necessary, in the same manner as that performed for road

reclamation. Any cleared and stockpiled slash would be spread over the re-seeded areas to assist

in revegetation success.

All seeding of disturbed areas would use seed mixes and occur at timing specified by the USFS.

Only certified weed-free seed would be used. Reclamation efforts would be conducted and

monitored by a contractor experienced with successful reclamation projects. Reports on

reclamation success would be made annually to the USFS. Revegetation efforts would be

continued until soil erosion from disturbed areas has been controlled and the vegetative cover is

at least equal to that present in adjacent undisturbed areas. Plant composition would include

species at least as desirable as those in adjacent undisturbed areas.

2.4 Alternative 3 – Buried Pipelines

Alternative 3 would be identical to the Proposed Action (Alternative 2) in the contexts of

construction and reclamation of well pads and roads, drilling and completion operations, and

production and maintenance. However, all pipelines would be buried under this alternative,

which alters the method of proposed pipeline construction, alters some pipeline operations, and

alters pipeline decommissioning and abandonment.

2.4.1 Construction

The diameters and composition of Green River and Mesaverde gas pipelines would be as

discussed under Alternative 2, the Proposed Action. Pipeline ROWs would be sited in the same

locations as discussed under Alternative 2 and indicated in Figures 2-2 and 2-3 (Appendix A),

and, where possible, would be located adjacent to existing or proposed access roads. If both

low-pressure and high-pressure pipelines were installed at the same time, the two pipelines

would be buried in a common trench to reduce unnecessary surface disturbance. Should the two

pipelines not be installed simultaneously, the second pipeline would be installed in the same

ROW and offset from the initial pipeline by a minimum of 10 feet of separation for safety

reasons.


25

Wells drilled only to test the Green River Formation would be limited to installation of low-

pressure pipelines. Most wells are anticipated to be drilled to the deeper Mesaverde Formation

and to produce high-pressure gas. For these wells, initial production would therefore be

anticipated to require a high-pressure pipeline. Should such wells also be evaluated as being

likely to also produce from the Green River Formation, Proponent may elect to install a low-

pressure pipeline at the same time as installation of the Mesaverde pipeline. Alternatively, the

Green River pipeline may be installed subsequently at the onset of Green River production.

Proponent would install buried pipelines in a 50-foot temporary ROW located adjacent to, in

most cases, the access road 30-foot permanent ROW. A 25-foot permanent pipeline ROW

would be maintained, but reclaimed. Pipeline segments would be welded or zaplocked together

on disturbed areas in or near the location, whenever possible. New gathering pipelines would be

installed parallel to and within approximately 10 feet of access roads unless precluded by

topography or by gathering system constraints. Temporary use areas (TUAs) on Forest land are

not anticipated as nearby well pads would typically be used for such purposes. If TUAs are

needed, they would be located within the existing exploration units on areas cleared for cultural

resources and permitted by Sundry Notice. The exact parameters of pipeline installation would be

determined at the time of the onsite inspection with the USFS. Pipe assembly parameters would

be as discussed in Section 2.2 for surface-installed pipelines.

Brush and trees would be cleared from the ROW using a dozer. Excavation would be done using

a trencher or backhoe. Slash from clearing would be stored on the far side of the ROW for

subsequent use in reclamation. Where drainages are crossed, installation would occur below

scour depth. Trenches would be excavated with backhoes. A trencher would be used only if

backhoes are not available. The pipe would be buried to a minimum depth of three feet in a

trench that had been previously compacted. Excavation would be limited to the area of the

trench. At any road crossings, pipe would be buried to a minimum depth of five feet. The pipe

would be assembled on the surface and dragged into the trench.

In cases in which rock or gravel are encountered in the trench, the bottom of the trench would be

padded with sand or other approved material to prevent contact of rock with the pipe. Sand or

other padding material would be obtained from approved sources located off the Forest.

Cathodic protection would be installed along the pipe to control corrosion in accordance with

industry engineering standards.

Topsoil would be separately stockpiled from underlying material along the far side of the trench

for use in reclamation. Following successful pressure testing, the trench would be backfilled and

compacted and topsoil spread back across the disturbed surface. Rock or large pieces of gravel

would not be placed in direct contact with the pipe. Above-ground markers signifying the

underground pipeline would be placed along the route, where appropriate.

Crossings of stream channels would be conducted in conformance with the State of Utah Stream

Alteration General Permit, U.S. Army Corps of Engineer requirements and conditions imposed

by the USFS. No fisheries are present within the Project Area and channel crossing would use

open-cut excavation in accordance with best engineering practices and as directed by the USFS

during on-site inspections. To the extent feasible, stream crossings would be conducted during


26

low flow conditions for perennial streams or no flow conditions for intermittent and ephemeral

stream channels. Following installation, the stockpiled soil would be used to return the channel

banks to as close to pre-construction topography as possible. Bank stabilization and armoring of

the channel cut would be as indicated in COAs determined during the on-site inspection.

Cleaning and pressure testing of the installed pipeline would be the same as described under

Alternative 2.

Pipeline installation equipment could include bladers, backhoes, sidebooms, dozers, dump

trucks, and pickups. Buried pipeline installation would typically use a crew of approximately six

to eight workers employed during daylight hours. A single crew is anticipated to be capable of

installing approximately two miles of buried pipeline per week. Assuming all the pipelines were

buried, construction of the Proposed Project would result in a maximum of approximately

362.6 acres of short-term surface disturbance. All of the disturbance would be reclaimed

following installation, so there would be no long-term disturbance.

2.4.2 Abandonment, Reclamation, and Monitoring

At the end of productive life, above ground facilities including valving for buried pipelines

would be removed. Pipelines would be depleted to atmospheric pressure, subjected to final

pigging to purge liquids, cut off well below the surface, sealed at both ends, and abandoned in

place in compliance with UDOGM regulations. Any remaining disturbed portions of the ROW

would be reseeded with a seed mix specified and at the timing directed by the USFS. Only

certified weed-free mix would be used. Following seeding, any cleared slash would be

recovered from the stockpile and spread over the surface to assist in revegetation success.

Reclamation monitoring efforts and success criteria would be the same as described for the

Proposed Action.

2.5 Surface Disturbance Summary

Implementation of Alternative 1, the No Action alternative, would not result in project-related

surface disturbance. Implementation of Alternatives 2 or 3 would result in disturbance to the

surface that would be both short-term, until completion of interim reclamation (typically three to

five years), and long-term, for the life of the project (up to 40 years). Much of the access road

disturbance and some of the well pad disturbance would overlie existing, unreclaimed surface

disturbance.

Disturbance associated with county-maintained roads has not been analyzed for this EA. Where

analyzed road upgrades would occur, the existing surface disturbance associated with the road has

been subtracted to indicate disturbance directly attributed to the action alternatives. Similarly,

where well pads overlie previously unreclaimed old well locations, the existing disturbance has

been subtracted from the proposed pad construction disturbance. With the exception of

approximately 3,000 feet of pipeline on private surface, all proposed activities would occur on

surface managed by the Ashley National Forest. Short-term surface disturbance on private

surface would be approximately 0.2 acres for the Proposed Action and 3.4 acres for the Buried

Pipeline alternative. There would be no long-term disturbance. Prior to construction on private


27

surface, Proponent would secure valid Surface Use Agreements (SUAs) from the private surface

owners. A summary of estimated surface disturbance for the two action alternatives, including

the portion on private surface, is indicated in Table 2-3.

A listing of the environmental consequences from the action alternatives which are analyzed in

Chapter 3 is summarized in Table 2-4.


28

Table 2-3 Surface Disturbance Associated with Project Action Alternatives

Proposed Disturbance Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Alternative 3 – Buried Pipelines

Disturbance Type Short-term Long-term Short-term Long-term

Facility Size or ROW

(ft./acs.)

Count or ROW Length (mis.)

Total Acres


(ft./acs.)


Total Acres


(ft./acs.)


Total Acres


(ft./acs.)


Total Acres

Well Pads (1)

New Well Pads 3.0 7 21.0 1.0 7 7.0 3.0 7 21.0 1.0 7 7.0

Existing Unreclaimed Pad (2)

-0.5 1 -0.5 -0.5 1 -0.5 -0.5 1 -0.5 -0.5 1 -0.5

Total Net Well Pads 20.5 6.5 20.5 6.5

Access Roads

Upgraded Existing Roads 30.0 23.3 84.8 22.0 23.3 62.2 30.0 23.3 84.8 22.0 23.3 62.2

Newly-constructed Roads 30.0 0.7 2.6 22.0 0.7 1.9 30.0 0.7 2.6 22.0 0.7 1.9

Existing Road Disturbance (2)

-12.0 23.3 -33.9 -12.0 23.3 -33.9 -12.0 23.3 -33.9 -12.0 23.3 -33.9

Total Net Access Roads 53.5 30.2 53.5 30.2

Gas-gathering Pipelines

Pipelines (3)

3.0 47.6 17.3 0.0 47.6 0.0 50.0 47.6 288.6 0.0 47.6 0.0

Added ROW, Arch Re-routes 47.0 3.3 18.5 0.0 3.3 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.0

Total Pipelines 35.8 0.0 288.6 0.0

Total Project, ANF 109.8 36.7 362.6 36.7 (1)

Includes estimates for eight new wells on seven new well pads. (2)

Existing road and well pad disturbance has been subtracted (negative numbers in table) to calculate only new project disturbance. (3)

Disturbance includes 0.2 acres and 3.4 acres short-term disturbance on private surface for Alternatives 2 and 3, respectively.


29

Figure 2-4 Summary of Action Alternative Environmental Effects

Resource Proposed Action Buried Pipeline Alternative

Geology, Geohazards, and Mineral Resources

Topography would be affected by cuts and fills associated with construction.

Pipeline installation would cross alluvial fans in some areas.

Commercial quantities of oil or gas may be discovered.

Effects of this alternative would be similar to those of the Proposed Action, with proportionally greater surface disturbance from cuts and fills.

Paleontology Construction excavation has the potential to disturb or reveal fossil resources.

Effects would be similar to those of the Proposed Action with proportionally greater surface disturbance.

Water Resources Construction activities could increase the potential for sediment transport into local drainages, particularly in Gilsonite Draw Unit.

Minimal or negligible impacts to ground water are anticipated, other than groundwater use for drilling and completing the wells.

Effects would be similar to those of the Proposed Action with proportionally greater surface disturbance and sediment transport potential.

Sediment transport into Sowers Creek would be more likely under this alternative because of pipeline excavation.

Air Quality Construction phase air emissions would include equipment exhaust and fugitive dust.

Drilling and completion emissions would include equipment exhaust, fugitive emissions, and temporary natural gas flares.

Production phase emissions would include equipment emissions, pump engine exhaust, and tank losses.

Project emissions are estimated to negligibly impact air quality related values.

Effects would be identical to those of the Proposed Action, except for greater emissions from construction equipment and fugitive dust associated with pipeline excavation and burial.

Soil Resources Soils would be disturbed by construction activities. Areas occupied by soils on sideslopes of canyons would be at highest risk for erosion. The highest potential for compaction would be associated with canyon bottom soils.

Effects would be similar to those of the Proposed Action, but proportionally greater as a result of the increased surface disturbance associated with pipeline excavation and installation.


30


Vegetation and Wetlands

Vegetative cover would be removed as a consequence of construction and upgrading of existing roads and some vegetation loss would persist until completion of interim and final phases of reclamation. Loss would be greatest among grasslands, shrub/scrub, and evergreen forest communities.

No wetlands would be directly affected.

No special status plant species would be affected.

The potential for introduction or spread of invasive species would be increased.

Effects would be similar to those of the Proposed Action, but impacts to vegetation would be proportionally greater as a result of clearing a wider ROW for buried pipeline installation.

Wildlife and Fisheries The principal effect to wildlife would be loss of habitat resulting from surface disturbance. Animals could also be displaced temporarily by noise and traffic associated with construction and drilling.

Increased human presence during construction and drilling could temporarily displace individual animals.

The minor amount of new road construction (0.7 mile) is not anticipated to increase habitat fragmentation.

Fisheries would not be affected and impacts to endangered species would be limited to water use impacts on the endangered Colorado River fish.

Long-term noise impacts in the vicinity of well pumping units could displace some individuals.

Effects would be similar to those of the Proposed Action. Habitat loss would be greater in proportion to the higher level of surface disturbance associated with pipeline excavation and burial.

Clearing of the pipeline ROW could increase habitat fragmentation.

Livestock and Range Surface disturbance would result in the short-term loss of up to 48 Animal Unit Months of forage.

Following reclamation, forage value may be improved over initial conditions.

Effects would be similar to those of the Proposed Action, but greater surface disturbance would result in the loss of up to 146 Animal Unit Months of forage.

Cultural Resources and Native American Concerns

Cultural resources could be directly affected by surface disturbance associated with construction activities and clearing of pipeline ROWs.

Improved access to the Project Area could facilitate opportunities for looting.

Traditional Cultural Properties have not been identified in the vicinity of the project.

Effects would be similar to those of the Proposed Action, but greater surface disturbance would result in a greater potential for disturbance of cultural sites.


31


Transportation and Recreation

For the duration of the project, and particularly during construction and drilling phases, Forest System and County roads in the area would experience higher traffic volumes and heavier equipment use.

Elevated noise levels and increased human activity could degrade dispersed recreation experiences. Some areas of Recreation Opportunity Spectrum semi-primitive motorized and semi-primitive non-motorized classes would be converted to the roaded natural classification.

Effects would be similar to those of the Proposed Action.

Noise Short-term construction and drilling noise and long-term production noise from pumping units would negatively affect wildlife in the vicinity and recreation experience.

Effects would be similar to those of the Proposed Action. Construction noise would last somewhat longer due to pipeline excavation and burial.

Visual Resources Implementation of the Proposed Action would result in alterations to the landscape and would result in localized changes in color, form, and line that would be typical of a more industrial appearance.

Effects would be similar to those of the Proposed Action.

Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice

The Proposed Action would have negligible to minor positive short-term impacts area communities and potentially beneficial long-term economic impacts.

There would be no adverse impacts to economically disadvantaged or minority populations.

Effects would be identical to those of the Proposed Action.

Special Management Areas

The Lance Canyon Research Natural Area would not be affected.

Effects would be identical to those of the Proposed Action.

Potential Wilderness and Inventoried Roadless Areas

The Proposed Action would result in road upgrading, well pad construction, and pipeline installation in certain Inventoried Roadless Areas, principally on Wild Horse Ridge, Jeep Trail Ridge, and in Road Hollow.

Almost all of the Proposed Action would be located outside Potential Wilderness Areas.

Effects would be similar to those of the Proposed Action. More surface would be disturbed in IRAs as a result of pipeline excavation and burial.


32

3.0 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.1 Chapter Components

Chapter 3 represents the core of the NEPA environmental analysis process. Project Area

resources are discussed as they currently exist and as they would be affected by the Proposed

Action or other alternative actions. This discussion is organized by resource area among all

considered physical, biological, or human resources. Each resource discussion includes:

affected environment,

direct and indirect impacts, and

cumulative impacts.

3.1.1 Affected Environment

NEPA documents are required to describe the environment of the area(s) to be affected or

created by the alternatives under consideration (40 CFR § 1502.15). This section describes the

current state of each resource.

3.1.2 Direct and Indirect Impacts

Project impacts may include:

Direct impacts, which are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place.

Indirect impacts, which are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed

in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect impacts may include growth-

inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use,

population density or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural

systems, including ecosystems (40 CFR § 1508.8).

Effects to environmental resources or values may be either beneficial (positive) or detrimental

(negative) and may vary in duration from short-term, typically less than five years, to long-term

which would encompass project life and may be permanent in the absence of successful

restoration or reclamation. Effects anticipated for this project may be negligible or minimal

(little or no effect to the resource), low (effects are difficult to detect and cause minimal change

to the resource), and moderate (effects which are readily apparent and which cause measurable

changes to the resource, but which do not result in the loss or productive use of the resource).

Substantial effects would be those which would cause permanent changes to a resource and

could result in the loss or inability to make productive use of the resource.


33

3.1.3 Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impacts are those impacts on the environment which result from the incremental

impact of the Proposed Action or an alternative when added to other past, present, and

reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or

person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor

but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time (40 CFR § 1508.7).

The contribution to an action from incremental impacts may vary depending upon resource.

Air quality effects, for example, may result from distant air pollutant contributions because of the

mobile nature of the resource. Effects to more static resources, such as geology, are likely to

result from a much smaller area of influence. Because of the dispersed nature of disturbance

from the Proposed Action within a larger Project Area, the area of cumulative impacts effects for

most resources is coincident with the Project Area. The area of influence analyzed for

cumulative impacts is indicated for each resource.

The following activities were considered for cumulative effects on resources from the proposed

project action alternatives:

Past Actions:

Road development

Oil and gas exploration and development

Ongoing Actions:

Ongoing cattle grazing activities

Recreational uses (including hiking, camping, hunting, etc.)

Ongoing oil and gas exploration and development

Authorized Future Actions:

Prescribed burns

Wildlife habitat improvement projects

Proposed oil and gas exploration and development

Reasonably foreseeable future oil and gas exploration and development

3.1.3.1 Past Actions

Road Improvements – The Project Area has been impacted by past road development projects

associated with oil and gas development, livestock management actions, and habitat treatments.

Development of these roads has altered the natural characteristics of the landscape and has also

increased access to otherwise remote areas. Approximately 127 miles of Forest System roads cross

the Project Area. Of these, approximately 38.7 miles are maintained by Duchesne County to

standards equivalent to Forest System collector class roads. A small segment of U.S. Highway 191

crosses the northwestern corner of the Project Area in Indian Canyon. Using estimated values for


34

the average disturbance width for the different road classes, estimated existing surface disturbance

associated with roads in the Project Area is approximately 260 acres (USFS, 2009).

Oil and Gas Exploration and Development – According to records of the Utah Division of Oil,

Gas, and Mining (UDOGM), there have been 45 wells drilled for oil or gas within the Project

Area. Twenty of the wells have been plugged and abandoned, 11 are producing, five are shut-in,

nine are listed as being at some stage of the drilling process. An additional 19 locations have

been approved through the NEPA process. An additional 12 drilling applications have been

returned by UDOGM without approval or the drilling permits have not been exercised and no

surface disturbance was incurred. Most of the previously drilled wells have been located

adjacent to or close to existing roads and little access road construction was required. Current oil

and gas development disturbance within the Project Area is estimated to be approximately

169 acres (USFS, 2009a). The 20 plugged historical wells are assumed to have been reclaimed.

3.1.3.2 Ongoing Actions

Cattle Grazing – Past and present effects of grazing include utilization by livestock of key browse

species on big game winter range. However, over the total allotments, use by cattle of key browse

species is less than 20 percent and is expected to remain under this threshold to meet the standards

and guidelines of the Forest Plan (USFS, 1986). Approximately 1,000 acres of habitat

improvement project will be completed in 2009 and an additional 3,100 acres have been completed

since 2006 (Christensen, 2009).

Recreation – The terrain and setting of the Project Area provide ample resources for dispersed

recreational use such as hiking, hunting, and off highway vehicle (OHV) use. Access to USFS

properties is possible over several Duchesne County-maintained roads which cross lands

belonging to the Ute Indian Tribe to the north (Figure 2-2, Appendix A). Additional roads

crossing the Tribal lands are managed by the Tribe. For non-Tribal members to use Tribal roads,

an access permit must first be obtained. Recreational use of the Project Area is limited by the

lack of developed recreational facilities, such as campgrounds or picnic areas. Overall, there is

minimal evidence of visitor management and site modification in the area. Although recreational

activity in the project area is low, these activities would add to the cumulative effects of the

proposed project.

3.1.3.3 Authorized Future Actions

Wildlife Habitat Treatments – In 2006, the Roosevelt and Duchesne Ranger District proposed

to improve wildlife habitat by deterring the encroachment of pinyon, juniper, and Douglas fir

trees into shrub communities, which are critical for wildlife in the Anthro Mountain area.

Targeted shrub communities consist of two types. The first consists of chained areas in pinyon

and juniper forests. These openings were chained in the 1970s to enhance forage for wild and

domestic ungulates. Shrub communities in the chained openings include Wyoming big

sagebrush, birch-leaf mountain mahogany, and rubber rabbitbrush. Currently, these openings are

at risk due to the encroachment of pinyon and juniper trees. The second type consists of shrub

communities that have not been mechanically treated and include mountain big sagebrush, black

sagebrush, and birch-leaf mountain mahogany. Barring disturbance, conifer will eventually


35

suppress and ultimately replace the existing shrubs. Trees being removed are principally those

with main trunks less than six inches in diameter.

Approximately 7,820 acres are scheduled to be mechanically treated under the USFS proposal.

Removal of encroaching conifers is done by hand crews using chainsaws. Cut materials are left

on the site, without piling, slashing, or burning. Treatments are planned to occur from mid-

summer to fall over a 10-year period. As of January 2009, approximately 3,100 acres had been

completed and an additional 1,000 acres are planned to be completed in 2009 (Christensen,

2009). Existing roads or foot travel are used to access the Project Area and no new roads have

been or would be constructed.

Travel Management Plan – The Ashley National Forest has begun work on an EIS to evaluate

the impacts associated with designating certain travel routes as suitable for off-highway vehicle

(OHV) use and closing other routes to such traffic. The travel plan would apply to the

Roosevelt/Duchesne and Flaming Gorge ranger districts (USFS, 2007).

Oil and Gas Development – Berry Petroleum Company is the proponent for an oil and gas

development EIS currently being conducted within portions of the Project Area (north of the

Vantage units). Approval of the Proposed Action would result in the drilling of up to 400

vertical and directional wells to the Green River Formation within a 25,900-acre project area. In

addition, development activities would involve the construction of up to 100 miles of new access

roads and upgrades to 21 miles of existing roads plus up to 100 miles of above ground and buried

pipelines mostly adjacent to proposed or existing roads. If approved, new short-term disturbance

associated with this project is projected to be approximately 1,363 acres (USFS, 2009a).

3.1.4 Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions

Large portions of the South Unit of the Ashley National Forest, and all of the Project Area, have

already been leased for oil and gas exploration and development. If the current exploration and

development proposals discover or confirm economic quantities of oil and natural gas, or if other

leaseholders decide to explore for oil and gas on adjacent existing leases, then it is reasonably

foreseeable that considerably more drilling and development activities would be proposed within

the South Unit. Actions for which application has been made, including the current 400 well oil

and gas development proposal, are considered to be reasonably foreseeable.

At this point, the scale, distribution, and total disturbance from future exploration or

development proposals on the South Unit is uncertain, being dependent on many factors which

cannot be accurately predicted or determined from existing data. Therefore the actual potential

impacts from future drilling and development cannot be accurately determined. Even if

economic oil or gas resources were identified, the steep topography would limit the amount of

wells that could be drilled in many areas of the South Unit. If only trivial amounts of oil and gas

are discovered within the Project Area, as a result of current exploration proposals, then it is

reasonably foreseeable that little additional exploration of development would be proposed, and

that the proposed disturbances would be reclaimed.


36

A summary of past, ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable surface disturbance estimates for the

Project Area is indicated in Table 3-1.

Table 3-1 Past, Ongoing, and Foreseeable Surface Disturbance, Project Area

Type of Impact Description Short-term Long-term

(acres) (%) (acres) (%)

Past

Roads 135 miles 260 0.3% 260 0.3%

Oil and Gas Development (1)

20 wells 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Ongoing

Habitat Treatments Anthro Mountain 3,100 3.5% 3,100 3.5%

Recreation Dispersed 0 0.0% 0 0.0%


44 wells 169 0.2% 79 0.1%

Berry Petroleum 29 wells 59 0.1% 42 0.0%

Vantage Uinta, LLC 15 wells 110 0.1% 37 0.0%

Foreseeable

Habitat Treatments Anthro Mountain 4,720 5.3% 4,720 5.3%


400 wells 1,363 1.5% 649 0.7%

TOTAL 9,781 11.0% 8,887 10.0% (1)

Plugged and abandoned well data from UDOGM. (2)

Berry Petroleum 2006 EA and this EA. (3)

Draft Berry Petroleum Oil and Gas Development EIS.

3.2 Geology, Geohazards, Mineral Resources, and Paleontology

Specific comments regarding issues associated with geology, geohazards, mineral resources, or

paleontology were not received during public scoping. USFS internal scoping indicated

concerns regarding potential impacts to paleontological resources.


3.2.1.1 Topography and General Geology

The Project Area is located near the southwestern margin of the Uinta Basin physiographic

province, proximal to the boundary with the Book Cliffs province to the south (Stokes, 1977).

Topography consists of a northeasterly-sloping upland dissected by moderately to deeply-incised

northeasterly trending, mainly intermittent, stream channels. Drainage is to the Duchesne River,

located approximately 15 miles north of the Project Area. Topography consists of a series of

northeasterly-southwesterly trending ridges between the channels. Elevations in the Project Area

range from approximately 9,200 feet in the west central portion of the area to less than 6,400 feet

where the Left Fork of Antelope Creek crosses the northern boundary of the Project Area. Areas

of steep slope may be susceptible to slope movement. Within the Project Area, canyon wall

slopes tend to be greatest in the western portions, exceeding 50 percent in portions of Indian and

Sowers canyons and over 80 percent in some of the side canyons. To the east, canyon depths

lessen and typical slopes are typically less, such as around 20-30 percent in much of the

Right Fork of Antelope and Chokecherry canyons.


37

With the exception of Quaternary alluvial deposits found in the base of major drainages and

Quaternary landslide deposits in some places within Sowers Canyon and its tributary canyons,

surface geology within the Project Area consists entirely of exposures of the Middle Eocene

Green River and Uinta formations (Weiss et al., 1990). Eocene rocks within the greater Green

River, Uinta, and Piceance basins of Wyoming, Utah, and Colorado exhibit highly complex

interfingering relationships of sediments of lacustrine origin alternating with those of fluvial and

shoreline origin. The stratigraphy of the Wasatch-Colton, Green River, and Uinta formations is not

accurately portrayed as a simple succession (Sullivan, 1980; Grande, 1984). Approximately

46,387 acres (52 percent) of the Project Area is underlain by rocks of the Green River Formation,

which represent principally lacustrine depositional environments of ancient Lake Uinta. The lake

was one of several occupying regional intermontane basins during Eocene time. Approximately

37,846 acres (43 percent) of the Project Area is underlain by rocks of the lower Uinta Formation

(Wagonhound Member), which represent fluvial and shoreline basin infill sediments, semi-

contemporaneous and successive to the Green River environments. The remaining 4,325 acres

(5 percent) of the Project Area is underlain by Quaternary alluvial fill or landslide deposits (Weiss

et al, 1990). A stratigraphic column illustrating the complexity of Eocene stratigraphic

relationships in the vicinity of the Project Area is indicated in Figure 3-1.

A geologic map illustrating the Project Area is indicated in Figure 3-2, Appendix A, based on

Weiss (1990) and Harty (1992).

3.2.1.2 Geologic Hazards

Potential geologic hazards include earthquakes, landslides and debris flows, and potential for

floods.

Earthquakes result in ground motion, which may be highly destructive, and the potential for

liquefaction. Liquefaction involves the sudden loss of bearing strength of water-saturated sandy

soils resulting from ground motion. The Project Area is located in an area rated as having a low

probability of strong ground shaking and a low probability of damaging liquefaction events

(Utah Geological Survey, 1997; Mabey and Youd, 1989). The nearest faulting known from

Quaternary times is the poorly-understood Duchesne-Pleasant Valley Fault System, located

approximately 12-15 miles north of the Project Area. The east-west orientation of these faults,

which is perpendicular to the north-south trend of most known active faulting in Utah, suggests

that there is little probability for significant earthquake activity associated with this system of

faults. The Strawberry Fault, located approximately 30 miles northwest of the Project Area may

have the potential to produce locally damaging earthquake motion (Black et al., 2003).


38

Figure 3-1 Eocene Stratigraphy in the Vicinity of the Project Area

Sources: NCEAS, 2007; Alderks, 2006; Rasmussen et al., 1999; Rasmussen et al., 1999a; Grande, 1984; and

Weiss et al., 1990.

Landslides and debris flows involve the failure of slopes under the influence of gravity. Debris

flows involve the input of water into the failing material and are geologically rapid events.

Landslides may occur rapidly, as rock falls and slides, or more slowly, over a period of years, as

slumps. Landslides are among the most commonly occurring geological hazards in Utah and the

Utah Geological Survey has mapped the landslide and debris flow potential of the entire state.

The depth of the failure plane is the most important predictor of the rapidity of movement, with

shallow (less than 10 feet) planes commonly resulting in the most rapid motion and highest

potential for life-threatening events. Several areas of Quaternary identified landslides of

unknown historical motion have been mapped in Sowers Canyon and in four tributary canyons

on the south side of Sowers Canyon. All of these mapped landslide areas are located well away

from any facility to be constructed under implementation of the Proposed Action. Although

small debris flows may be common in drainage bottoms over much of the Project Area, none of

the proposed well pads is located near a mapped landslide (Weiss et al., 1990; Harty, 1992). The


39

Chokecherry 1-5 and Road Hollow 1-35 proposed well pads are located on or adjacent to alluvial

or debris flow fans, movement on which could pose a hazard to installed production facilities or

pipelines. One third of the length of the proposed surface pipelines (15.6 miles) would be

installed in canyons floored with alluvial sediments. In several places in Sowers and Left Fork

of Antelope canyons, the pipeline ROW would cross portions of alluvial fans, potentially

susceptible to downslope movement.

Flood hazards in the vicinity of the Project Area are limited to the lower portions of drainage

channels. Only the proposed Chokecherry 1-5 and Road Hollow 1-35 well pads are located in

areas potentially susceptible to flooding or debris flow activity.

3.2.1.3 Mineral Resources

Known commercial mineral resources in the vicinity of the Project Area are limited to oil and

gas production. The Project Area is located within the prolific Uinta Basin petroleum province

immediately south of significant oil production in the Brundage Canyon, Antelope Canyon, and

Monument Butte fields. The shut-in Sowers Canyon Field is located within the Project Area

(Chidsey and Wakefield, 2005) and consists of two wells drilled in 1976 and 1977 by an operator

no longer in business. The wells were Green River tests. Virtually all of the production to date

in the area is oil from the Green River Formation located at depths less than 7,000 feet

(UDOGM, 2008).

Potential minerals of commercial interest in the vicinity of the Project Area include sodium

carbonate, zeolite deposits elsewhere in the Green River Formation, near the town of Duchesne

(UGA, 1990) and possibly veins of gilsonite, which are productive in Uintah County to the east.

3.2.1.4 Paleontology

The Uinta and Green River formation rocks underlying the Project Area are known to contain

significant vertebrate fossil resources in many locations. The USFS uses a planning tool, the

Probable Fossil Yield Classification System, to estimate the probabilities that specific geologic

units may contain fossils of scientific importance. The system was developed by the

Paleontology Center for Excellence and the USFS Region 2 Paleo Initiative in 1996 and was

tested in certain national forests (USFS, 2001). Essentially the same system has recently been

adopted by BLM to assess paleontological resources on lands managed by that agency (BLM,

2007). The system uses a numeric rating system of low potential (1) to very high potential (5).

For both USFS and BLM, formations with high PFYC ratings may require monitoring during

surface-disturbing activities. Formal assignment of PFYC rankings is in progress. Depending

on the agency, formation PFYC rankings may be set locally or at state or regional offices.

However, both the upper Green River Formation and all of the Uinta Formation in the Uinta

Basin would certainly be ranked as 4 or 5 (BLM, 2008).

A paleontological survey over portions of the South Unit within the Project Area was completed

by a USFS geologist in support of the Sowers Seismic and Well Exploration Environmental

Assessment during the summer of 2003. Some important paleontological resources were

identified, but these were restricted to a few specific and relatively thin rock layers. The remains


40

identified consisted of isolated bones, rather than articulated skeletons (USFS, 2005). The recent

discovery and recovery of an excellent crocodilian fossil from within the Project Area

demonstrates the possibility for recovery of additional significant vertebrate fossils from the

overall project area (Herron, 2005).

The sites of each of the seven well pads approved by prior NEPA decisions were examined for

paleontological resources during onsite inspections by USFS personnel. Minor plant fossils were

identified adjacent to some of the proposed sites, but these were not deemed to be scientifically

important. No vertebrate or otherwise scientifically important fossils were identified, which

would be impacted by the proposed actions. However, such paleo resources could be discovered

as a result of well pad construction at some of the sites.

During construction of well pads and access roads to the Gilsonite 1-20 and Nutters Canyon 1-2

locations, monitoring of ground disturbance was conducted by a qualified contract

paleontologist. The Gilsonite 1-20 well pad is located where the Wagonhound Member of the

Uinta Formation contacts the Douglas Creek Member of the upper Green River Formation. The

location contained abundant, scientifically important plant remains (Herron, 2009) and a poorly

preserved turtle shell fragment (Sandau, 2008). The Nutters Canyon 1-2 location is sited in the

Parachute Creek Member of the upper Green River Formation. Much of the well pad

construction revealed material previously disturbed by construction of an earlier well pad on the

same site. Fossil material observed included gar scales and bone fragments, some plant remains,

and highly weathered turtle shell fragments (Sandau, 2008a). Prior to the drilling of the Ashley 2

Federal well, a USFS geologist examined the proposed drill site and monitored some of the

construction. Only minimal fossil debris was found which was not of scientific importance.

3.2.2 Environmental Consequences – The No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed project would be prohibited and no additional

impacts to topography and physiography would occur. Topography and physiography would

continue to be modified by natural processes and may be otherwise impacted by other activities,

including previously approved oil and gas development. Natural processes would continue to

operate on areas of existing landslides. Impacts to paleontological resources would be limited to

ongoing erosion and construction of approved oil and gas facilities.

3.2.3 Environmental Consequences – The Proposed Action

3.2.3.1 Direct and Indirect Impacts

Direct impacts to topography would result from cut and fill operations used to create drilling

pads and from construction and upgrades to access roads. As indicated in Table 2-3, direct

short-term surface disturbance resulting from the Proposed Action would be approximately

109.8 acres, or 0.08 percent of the Project Area, and 36.7 long-term acres. None of the activities

associated with construction and drilling of the proposed wells or installation of production

facilities and surface pipelines is anticipated to have any effect on areas of unstable slopes, nor

are these activities likely to create or induce new landslides. However, in several places in

Sowers and Left Fork Antelope canyons, the pipeline ROW would potentially cross the toe


41

slopes of alluvial fans. Design elements incorporated within the Proposed Action would

minimize the potential for mobilization of alluvial fan debris flows at the Road Hollow 1-35 and

Chokecherry 1-5 proposed locations.

The potential for flood hazards exists for the Road Hollow 1-35 and Chokecherry 1-5 locations.

The presence of an entrenched channel and elevated pad at the Road Hollow 1-35 location would

mitigate the potential for flood hazards at that site.

Excavation of bedrock associated with construction of well pads and roads would disturb

geologic strata, potentially containing fossils of scientific importance. A general pedestrian

survey of areas to be disturbed by the Proposed Action would be conducted by a USFS geologist

or contract paleontologist. Where the potential for exposure of scientifically important fossils

could occur, monitoring during construction would be required. All of the wells pads and much

of the proposed access road disturbance would be located in formations of high potential for

paleontological resources. If paleontological resources of potential scientific importance are

discovered, construction activities would be halted and the USFS notified of the occurrence

immediately. A qualified paleontologist would then determine the significance of the find and

make site-specific recommendations for fossil recovery, avoidance, or other appropriate

mitigation at that time. Operations in the area of the discovery would not resume until

authorization to proceed has been received from the USFS.

Implementation of the Proposed Action would result in an increase in understanding of the

geology in the vicinity of the Project Area and potentially result in the discovery of commercial

quantities of oil or gas.

No indirect impacts to geological and scientifically important paleontological resources are

anticipated.

3.2.4 Environmental Consequences – Buried Pipeline Alternative


Direct and indirect impacts to geological resources would be similar to those for the Proposed

Action, however the installation of buried pipelines would considerably increase the amount of

short-term disturbance to topography and bedrock strata. As indicated in Table 2-3,

implementation of this alternative would result in approximately 362.6 acres of short-term

disturbance, or 0.4 percent of the Project Area, and 36.7 long-term acres. Pipeline burial would

reduce the potential for impacts from flooding along the 15.6 miles of ROW located within

canyon bottoms.

Approximately 32.1 miles of the pipeline (two thirds of the total) would be located in areas of

high potential for paleontologic resources. Buried installation in these areas would result in

approximately 193 acres of surface disturbance to high potential formations, whereas surface

installation of pipe would not result in disturbance to bedrock. Conversely, monitoring and fossil

recovery from pipeline trenches could add to the existing understanding of the geologic history

in the area.


42

No indirect impacts to geological and scientifically important paleontological resources are

anticipated.


The cumulative impacts analysis area (CIAA) for geology, paleontology, and mineral resources is

the Project Area and the Ute tribal lands within 1/2 mile of the South Unit to the north. The

projects considered are ongoing development along the south borders of the tribal lands (five

approved APDs within 1/2 mile of the ANF boundary) and the 400-well proposed drilling project

on the ANF south of the tribal lands and outside of the existing oil and gas exploration units. All

of these wells target the currently productive Green River Formation. Assuming these wells are

mostly successful, the expansion of existing areas of Green River oil production would continue

across the north-central portion of the South Unit. The Proposed Action and Alternative 3 would

add 109.8 and 362.6 acres of short-term disturbance, respectively, to past, ongoing, and foreseeable

short-term disturbance of 9,781 acres, including 1,532 acres of oil and gas development.

Implementation of either action alternative would result in an incremental increase in surface

disturbance, hydrocarbon extraction, conflicts with landslide and debris flow localities, and

damage to paleontological resources within the CIAA.

3.3 Water Resources

Public and internal scoping revealed concerns with project-related potential impacts from:

leakage of pit fluids, storage tank fluids, or site chemicals;

damage to area springs; and

increased sedimentation or other degradation to local watersheds.


3.3.1.1 Surface Water

The Project Area is principally drained by a series of moderately to deeply-incised northeasterly

trending, mainly ephemeral and intermittent, streams flowing to the Duchesne River. The Project

Area is located largely within the Duchesne River watershed, a tributary of the lower Green River

within the Upper Colorado River Basin (Figure 3-3, Appendix A). The Duchesne River watershed

drains an area of approximately 2,640 square miles. The watershed is identified by 4th Order

Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 14060003. A small portion of the northeastern Project Area is

located within the 4th Order HUC 14060005 Lower Green River - Desolation Canyon watershed,

which drains approximately 1,910 square miles. A very small portion of the Project Area is drained

by the Left Fork of Indian Canyon Creek, lying within the Strawberry River watershed (4th Order

HUC 14060004), which is itself a tributary to the Duchesne River. This portion of the Project Area

is crossed by the perennial Left Fork Indian Creek. The watershed drains an area of 1,150 square

miles (Seaber et al., 1987).

Almost all of the project activities occurring within or affecting wells and production facilities in

the Sowers Canyon and Ashley Forest federal exploration units would be located within the


43

Duchesne River watershed. A small portion (1.56 miles) of the proposed pipeline in the Left Fork

Antelope Canyon crosses the northwest corner of the Gilsonite Draw federal exploration unit and

the proposed Ashley 3 Federal well location is located adjacent to the pipeline. All of the pipeline

and the well location are located within the Duchesne River watershed. All of the rest of the

proposed facilities within the Gilsonite Draw unit are located in the Lower Green River –

Desolation Canyon watershed with drainage to the east via Pariette Creek. No project-related

activities would occur within the Strawberry River watershed and it will not be discussed further

in this EA.

Beneficial uses identified by the State of Utah for surface waters in the vicinity of the Project

Area are indicated in Table 3-2.

Table 3-2 Project Area Streams Beneficial Use Classification

Beneficial Use Class

Beneficial Use Description 4th Order Watersheds

1C Protected for domestic purposes with prior treatment by treatment processes as required by the Utah Division of Drinking Water.

Duchesne River tributaries

2B Protected for secondary contact recreation such as boating, wading, or similar uses.

Duchesne River tributaries, Lower Green – Desolation Canyon tributaries

3A Protected for cold water species of game fish and other cold water aquatic life, including the necessary aquatic organisms in their food chain.

Duchesne River tributaries

3B Protected for warm water species of game fish and other warm water aquatic life, including the necessary aquatic organisms in their food chain.

Lower Green – Desolation Canyon tributaries

3D Protected for waterfowl, shore birds and other water-oriented wildlife not included in Classes 3A, 3B, or 3C, including the necessary aquatic organisms in their food chain.

Lower Green – Desolation Canyon tributaries

4 Protected for agricultural uses including irrigation of crops and stock watering.

Duchesne River tributaries, Lower Green – Desolation Canyon tributaries

Source: UDWQ, 2006.

Water quality monitoring has been conducted by the Division of Water Quality in three streams

draining the Project Area: For this EA, water quality data since 1995 were examined. Information

was retrieved from the EPA STORET (STOrage and RETrieval) water quality database (EPA,

2009). The monitor sites, locations, and their dates of activity are indicated in Table 3-3.


44

Table 3-3 STORET Post-1994 Water Quality Data in the Vicinity of the Project Area

Watershed – Tributary Monitor Site

Number Location Active

(1)

Duchesne – Sowers Creek 4934240 NE Sec. 4, T6S, R5W, near northern ANF boundary

7/2001 - 10/2007

4934250 SW Sec. 4, T6S, R5W, near northern ANF boundary

5/1987 - 6/2004

4934260 SW Sec. 24, T6S, R6W 6/1993 - 9/1995

4938420 SE Sec. 4, T6S, R5W, in Mine Hollow, near northern ANF boundary

7/2001 - 5/2004

Duchesne – Antelope Creek 4934280 C NW Sec. 23, T6S, R4W 7/2003 - 6/2006

4934230 NE Sec. 10, T4S, R3W, 12 miles downstream of Project Area

10/1980 - 6/2006

Lower Green - Pariette Draw Creek

4933480 NE Sec. 34, T8S, R18E, 30 miles downstream of Project Area

7/1993 - 11/2001

Source: EPA, 2009. (1)

Total time of activity. Not all values sampled during entire active period.

Important water quality indicators near the Project Area include levels of total dissolved solids

(TDS), total suspended solids (TSS), pH, dissolved oxygen, phosphorus, selenium, and boron.

The State of Utah has established numeric standards for some Project Area water quality

parameters, as indicated in Utah Administrative Rule 317-2-14, and reproduced in Table 3-4.

Table 3-4 Utah Beneficial Use Classification Numeric Water Quality Standards

Parameter 1C 2B 3A 3B 3D 4

pH 6.5 - 9.0 6.5 - 9.0 6.5 - 9.0 6.5 - 9.0 6.5 - 9.0 6.5 - 9.0

Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) (mg/l)

Irrigation

Stock-watering

1,200

2,000

Minimum Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l) 6.5 5.5 5.0

Phosphorus (mg/l) 0.05 0.05 0.05

Selenium (mg/l) 0.05 0.0046 0.0046 0.0046 0.05

Boron (mg/l) 0.75

Temperature (C) 20 27 27

Source: Utah Administrative Rule R317-2-14 (UDAS, 2009).

There is currently no State of Utah numeric standard for TSS (UDAS, 2009). Former standards

were 90 mg/l for Class 2B and 35 mg/l for Class 3A. TSS levels, when taken in context with

other water quality data, are an indicator of the overall health of the stream.

Sowers Creek

Approximately 5.3 miles of proposed pipeline and two well pads (Wild Horse Ridge 1-11 and

SCU 66-1-14) would be located on or immediately adjacent to the 6th order drainage divide

between Tabby Canyon and Sowers Canyon. Tabby Canyon is itself tributary to Sowers

Canyon. Pipeline and well pad development would occur about 1/2 mile from Tabby Creek and

almost two miles from Sowers Creek.


45

Approximately 7.2 miles of proposed pipeline would be located within the bottom of Sowers

Canyon and Sowers Canyon tributary Road Hollow. Almost all of the pipeline ROW would be

situated within 600 feet of Sowers Creek. The AFU 65-28-32 well pad would be located in the

upper reaches of the Wire Fence Canyon watershed, tributary to Sowers Canyon. The well pad

location is 1/2 mile from the 6th order drainage divide between Sowers Canyon and Nutters

Canyon and more than six miles from the confluence of intermittent Wire Canyon Creek and

Sowers Creek.

Sowers Creek is the only perennial stream in the Project Area except for the small northwestern

corner crossed by Left Fork Indian Canyon Creek. The total Sowers Creek watershed occupies

approximately 66,000 acres. STORET data record three acidity exceedances from two sites near

the ANF boundary in the fall of 2003. The Class 4 TDS irrigation standard has been exceeded

20 times since 2001 at all three monitors along the northern boundary of the ANF. The

maximum recorded salinity was 4,224 mg/l from the Mine Hollow monitor in September 2002.

With that exception, no sample has exceeded the stock-watering standard and the most recent

monitoring, from station 4934240 at the Forest boundary, showed no exceedances in 2006 and

2007. TDS values were not recorded from monitor 4934260. Phosphorus standard exceedances

were recorded eight times in 2001 and 2002 and elevated levels were noted at each of the

northern boundary sites. Phosphorus levels were also exceeded twice at the Forest boundary

monitor in 2007. Phosphorus levels were not recorded from monitor 4934260. Selenium was

not sampled at monitor 4934260, but 23 samples from the downstream monitor sites along the

ANF boundary were below the standard for all classes. Boron was measured only at station

4934240 and all six samples taken in 2006 and 2007 exceeded the Class 4 standard to a

maximum value of 2.06 mg/l.

Dissolved oxygen has been below the Class 3A standard three times since 2000 at the ANF

boundary monitors, in the June-September period, with levels as low as 3.4 mg/l in 2003.

Samples from the Forest boundary monitor during 2006 and 2007 did not show violations of the

standard. The only dissolved oxygen sample from monitor 4934260 (September 1995) exceeded

the standard at 8.2 mg/l. Class 3A temperature standards were met at all upstream and

downstream monitors except for one slight exceedance (20.4°) at site 4934250 in June 2002.

The highest recorded TSS levels, up to 388 mg/l, have been recorded in June and July, at times

of high runoff. There were a total of 13 exceedances of the old Class 3A standard at both

upstream and downstream monitors, including exceedances in 2006 and 2007 (EPA, 2009).

A USGS gaging station (#09288900) was formerly located on Sowers Creek approximately

1/2 miles upstream of the point at which the creek exits the ANF. Flow data were collected at

this station for 23 years from 1964 through 1986. The Sowers Creek watershed above the station

is 40.6 sq. miles in area. Average annual stream flows varied from a low of 0.51 ft3/sec (1977)

to a high of 12.0 ft3/sec (1983). Highest mean daily flows typically occur in May and June with

values of 10 to 11 ft3/sec. The highest daily flow recorded during the 23 years averaged

451 ft3/sec (August 12 1983) (USGS, 2009).


46

Nutters Creek

Nutters Creek occupies a 6th order watershed which is tributary to Sowers Creek. Approximately

16.8 miles of pipeline ROW and 3.0 miles of road upgrades would be located along the drainage

divide between Nutters Canyon and Sowers Canyon to the west or Right Fork Antelope Canyon to

the east. The AFU 64-18-11/19-11 dual well pad would be located on the drainage divide. Almost

all of the Proposed Action would be located at least 1/2 mile horizontally and several hundred feet

vertically above the intermittent creek.

Nutters Creek occupies a watershed of approximately 12,250 acres. No water quality data are

available for Nutters Creek.

Antelope Creek

Approximately 8.8 miles of proposed pipeline ROW would be located within the 6th order

watershed occupied by Left Fork Antelope Creek and largely within 300 feet of the channels of

Left Fork Antelope and Chokecherry creeks.

The Left Fork Antelope Canyon watershed occupies approximately 18,765 acres. STORET

water quality station 4934280 was located in Left Fork Antelope Canyon within a few hundred

feet of the previously approved Ashley 3 Federal well site. Data were collected for

approximately three years, 2003-2006 and were limited to flow measurements. The data appear

to have been lost from the STORET database as no values are recorded. The next closest water

quality monitor (4934230) for Antelope Creek is sufficiently far from the Project Area (12 miles

downstream) as to be useful only as a general indicator. Antelope Creek is on the state's 2006

303(d) listing of impaired waters. The stream is non-supportive of the Class 4 standard for TDS

(UDWQ, 2006a). The stream is assessed as Category 5A in the Utah biennial water quality

report, requiring a total maximum daily load (TMDL) assessment. Since 1994, all 27 samples

from monitor 4934230 have exceeded the TDS irrigation standard and the maximum level was

measured in May 2006 (3,104 mg/l). Phosphorus levels exceeded the 3A standard 12 of 54 times

and TSS levels exceeded the old 3A standard 14 of 27 times measured. Other parameters

discussed above were within or nearly within acceptable levels (EPA, 2009).

Pariette Draw Creek

Approximately 0.7 mile of proposed pipeline ROW is located within the Lower Wells Draw 6th

order watershed, comprising 10,050 acres. Approximately 8.8 miles of proposed pipeline ROW,

3.6 miles of upgraded road, and the GDU 63-5-11 and the GDU 63-7-31 well pads would be

located within the Gilsonite Draw 6th order watershed, comprising 14,100 acres. The GDU

63-6-23 well pad and 0.2 mile of new road would be located on the drainage divide between

these watersheds. Both 6th order watersheds drain to Pariette Draw Creek and are part of the

Lower Green River-Desolation Canyon 4th order watershed.

The closest water quality monitor to the Project Area is more than 30 miles downstream, rendering

those data unreliable as indicators of Project Area conditions. Pariette Draw Creek is on the state's

2006 303(d) listing of impaired waters. The stream is non-supportive of Class 4 standards for TDS


47

and boron, and for Class 3A standards for selenium (UDWQ, 2006a). The stream is assessed as

Category 5A in the Utah biennial water quality report, requiring a TMDL assessment. Monitor

4933480 recorded 49 of 63 samples above the Class 4 irrigation standard for TDS and 34 of 63

samples above the Class 4 stock-watering standard for TDS. Maximum recorded value was

4,262 mg/l (April 1996). Twenty-nine of 33 samples exceeded the Class 4 standard for boron and

23 of 54 samples exceeded the Class 3B standard for selenium (EPA, 2009).

The elevated levels for water quality indicators discussed above can have deleterious effects on

many fish species, however no fish are present within or near the Project Area. Fish species are

discussed in Section 3.7.1.

3.3.1.2 Floodplains

Well developed floodplains are present along the channels of the major drainages within the

Project Area, particularly in the lower (northern) reaches. The floodplains in Sowers and Indian

canyons, unlike those of other streams in the Project Area, normally contain water year-round

and these are the only perennial streams in the Project Area (USFS, 2005). Active channels tend

to be well-incised, with flow confined to the entrenched portion of the channel during the vast

majority of the year. High flows occur during spring runoff or summer storm events during

which flow rates 5-20 times normal base rate are not uncommon (data from the former Sowers

Creek gaging station). Developed floodplain widths vary from around 300 feet to up to about

1,000 feet along Sowers Creek.

3.3.1.3 Groundwater

There are no permitted water wells located within the Project Area and no project well would be

drilled within two miles of a permitted water well (UDWR, 2009). The shallowest bedrock

aquifer in the Project Area is likely to be the Douglas Creek Member of the Green River

Formation, which is water-productive along the southern margins of the Uinta Basin. The

aquifer typically consists of fluvial, irregularly-bedded sandstone and siltstone units (Robson and

Banta, 1995). Only one water well is located within one mile of the Project Area, in NE

Section 34, T5S, R6W, and this well appears likely to be located within that portion of the

Green River Formation. The floodplain of Sowers Creek contains water year-round (USFS,

2005) and presents the possibility of a groundwater source in the Quaternary alluvial fill.

There are 34 springs which have been mapped within the Project Area by the USFS or the USGS

(AGRC, 2009). The locations have been determined from existing map review and not

necessarily field checked. Some of the mapped locations are in upland sites not obviously

associated with geologic contacts suggesting potential errors in the dataset.

3.3.1.4 Water Rights

The Forest holds 16 approved or perfected surface water rights within the Project Area. Four of

the rights affect Sowers Creek, two are for reservoirs, and the remainder are associated with

various springs, mostly near the major drainages or their tributaries. There are no permitted water

wells or underground water rights located within the Project Area (UDWR, 2009; UDWR, 2009a).


48

3.3.1.5 Wild and Scenic Rivers

There are no rivers in the State of Utah which have been designated as wild, scenic, or

recreational under the terms of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (NWSRS, 2009).

Segments of the Green River some 20 miles east of the Project Area have been determined to be

suitable for possible inclusion into the nation's Wild and Scenic River System by the BLM as a

result of recent revisions to the Vernal and Price field offices RMPs. A tentative designation of

"scenic," under the terms of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, has been applied to the Vernal Field

Office segment and a tentative designation of "wild" has been applied to the Price Field Office

segment (BLM, 2008; BLM, 2008a). No formal nomination to Congress for consideration has

been made, but BLM will protectively manage these segments to avoid mineral development,

OHV travel, and loss of visual character.

Forest Service Region 4 has recently completed an evaluation of the suitability of inclusion of

river segments on National Forest lands within the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

The ROD for the EIS evaluating rivers suitability served as amendments to the LRMPs of the

affected forests. No stream segments within or near the Project Area were deemed suitable for

possible recommendation for nomination to Congress for inclusion within the National Wild and

Scenic Rivers System. Accordingly, there will be no further discussion of Wild and Scenic

Rivers in this EA.


Implementation of the No Action Alternative would deny the Proponent's project and no project-

related disturbance would occur. However, previously approved projects could result in

5.0 acres of surface disturbance within the Sowers Creek watershed and 5.0 acres within the

Left Fork Antelope Creek watershed. The Quitchampau 1-15 well pad would be located almost

two miles from Sowers Creek. The other well pads would all be located immediately adjacent to

Road Hollow, Chokecherry, or Left Fork Antelope Canyon creeks and would have the highest

potential for sediment transport into drainages. Ongoing impacts from grazing, recreation, and

other ANF management activities would continue at previous levels with commensurate effects

on water resources.


Four of the proposed well pads, 2/3 of the proposed pipeline ROW, and 85 percent of the

proposed new or upgraded roads would be located in upland areas a minimum of 2,000 feet from

the nearest principal (6th order) drainages or 700 feet from minor intermittent drainages, with the

exception of 2.4 miles of road in Road Hollow and an unnamed drainage upstream of the GDU

63-5-11 location. Three of the proposed well pads, 20 percent of the pipeline ROW, and

15 percent of the proposed roads network would be located in an upland area, but mostly within

a few hundred feet of the upper reaches of local intermittent drainages. Approximately 1/3 of the

proposed pipeline ROW would be located within 500 feet of the channels of Road Hollow,

Sowers, Chokecherry, or Left Fork Antelope Canyon creeks. All construction would be in

compliance with Proponent's SWPPP to reduce the potential for sediment runoff into local

drainages.


49


Surface Water

Direct impacts to surface water associated with implementation of the Proposed Action could

include:

increased sediment runoff from ground disturbed by well pad construction and road

upgrading,

increased sediment runoff from upslope flows diverted around well pads,

potential for constraint of stream channels by well pad construction, and

potential for leakage of site chemicals or fluids into nearby streams.

The principal potential direct impact to surface water would be increased sedimentation derived

from construction activities. In general, the Proponent would employ standard construction Best

Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize transport of disturbed soil into nearby watercourses.

Because five of the seven new proposed well pads (Wild Horse 1-11, SCU 66-1-14, AFU 65-28-

32, AFU 64-19-11/64-18-41, and GDU 63-6-23) would be located in upland (ridge-top) areas,

impacts to adjacent watersheds are anticipated to be negligible. In these upland and ridge-top

locations, low angle slopes and limited channel development naturally limit the extent of erosion

and sedimentation that takes place. No impacts are expected from these locations to downstream

areas. The highest potential for sediment impacts to local watershed would be to the uppermost

reaches of intermittent streams in the Gilsonite Draw Unit. Well pad construction could result in

minor reductions in available channel width next to the locations of the GDU 63-5-11 and the

GDU 63-7-31 well pads. The access road and pipeline ROW would cross these channels.

Drainage areas of the watersheds above these two locations are approximately 380 and 100

acres, respectively. Proponent would follow guidelines in the Inland Native Fish Strategy

(INFISH) EA and Finding of No Significant Impact (USFS, 1995) and maintain all pad sides and

corners a minimum of 50 feet from the edge of defined stream channels, which may include

ephemeral drainages with no established riparian vegetation. In the event construction occurs on

the site of an existing pad (such as at the GDU 63-5-11 location), there will be no further

reduction in existing channel constraints, but the 50-foot buffer may not be realized.

All of the road construction would occur in upland areas at least 700 feet from the nearest

intermittent drainage, except for approximately 2.4 miles of upgrade (about 5.0 acres) to an

existing road next to an unnamed intermittent drainage upstream of the GDU 63-5-11 location

and in Road Hollow. Construction in compliance with Proponent's SWPPP and included project

design features and the distance of most road construction from local drainages should minimize

or eliminate sediment transport into these drainages from road construction.

Because all pipelines would be laid on the surface, there are no sediment transport impacts

expected from pipeline installation.

All produced fluids and liquid chemicals would be stored in tanks within bermed structures of

sufficient size to contain 120 percent of the volume of the largest tank. A KCl or freshwater-

based drilling mud would be used as the drilling fluid and would be contained within steel


50

circulation tanks and/or the lined reserve pit. Powdered mud for use in the well may be stored

on-site. The mud would be contained within waterproof bags. Fluids used for hydraulic

fracturing would be contained within steel tanks and would be on location only during

completion operations.

Groundwater

Direct impacts to groundwater associated with implementation of the Proposed Action would

include:

the potential for spills of petroleum or hazardous materials at well sites seeping into local

near-surface aquifers, and

the potential for contamination of aquifers from leakage of drilling fluids or other well

bore substances.

Water-bearing strata would be penetrated by each of the proposed wells. As indicated in Section

2.1.3, well casing specifications in compliance with regulations of the Utah Division of Oil, Gas,

and Mining and BLM Onshore Oil and Gas Order 2 would effectively protect aquifers from

contamination by drilling fluids from any wells drilled in connection with the proposed project.

No project well would be drilled within two miles of any permitted water well and there are no

permitted water wells within the Project Area. Implementation of the Proposed Action would

require up to 220,000 bbls. (28.35 acre-feet) of groundwater obtained from commercial sources

for drilling and completing eight wells. These sources are permitted for industrial use and there

would be no impacts to water rights.

Only one of the proposed well pads would be located within one mile of a mapped spring, the

AFU 64-18-41/19-11 pad, which is situated approximately 4,000 feet from an unnamed mapped

spring in the Right Fork of Antelope Canyon. Eleven springs are located near the proposed

pipeline ROWs. Installation of surface pipeline would not be anticipated to affect these springs.

Hydraulic fracturing is a well completion technique which would likely be employed on some or

all of the proposed wells. In a hydraulic fracturing job, fracturing fluids consisting primarily of

water and sand are injected under high pressure into the producing formation. Water typically

makes up 99 percent of the liquid phase of fracturing fluids. Some fracturing fluids also contain

a gelling agent to make the fluid more viscous and better able to carry the sand ("proppant") that

is necessary to hold the fractures open and allow the oil or gas to make its way to the well.

Fracturing fluids may also contain very limited amounts of other materials depending on the

nature of the formation being fractured. The fluid is pumped into a well bore at pressures

sufficient to create fractures in the producing formation. It is important to note that the

substantial majority of the fracturing fluids are recovered as the well is brought into production

and do not remain in the ground. Regulation of this technology has typically been done by state

oil and gas regulatory bodies (API, 2008).

Because of the generation of fluid-transporting fractures, concerns have been expressed by some

environmental organizations and other groups that hydraulic fracturing processes could

contaminate groundwater resources. These concerns have particularly been raised regarding the


51

use of the technology for coalbed methane (CBM) wells. In conventional oil and gas development,

such as that planned for the Proposed Action, target reservoirs are typically separated from usable

groundwater aquifers by hundreds or thousands of feet of impermeable rock. In contrast, many

CBM reservoirs exist adjacent to or serve as usable aquifers. The technology is also commonly

used to stimulate low permeability gas reservoirs, including some targets of the Proposed Action.

As a result of these concerns, and in response to legal challenges opposing hydraulic fracturing

particularly in CBM reservoirs, EPA in conjunction with the Groundwater Protection Council

conducted an evaluation of the safety of hydraulic fracturing technology in CBM reservoirs

either used as or potentially in communication with underground sources of drinking water

(USDWs). The study was both theoretical, in calculating possible impacts of fracturing, and a

review of the extensive available scientific and engineering literature on the subject (more than

200 peer-reviewed studies). Although thousands of CBM wells are subjected to hydraulic

fracturing stimulation annually, EPA did not find confirmed evidence that drinking water wells

have been contaminated by hydraulic fracturing fluid injection into CBM wells. The study noted

that in some cases, diesel fuel has constituted a portion of the fracture fluid. Diesel contains

benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene compounds (BTEX) which are federally regulated

under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) of 1974. Because of concerns about introduction of

BTEX compounds into USDWs, EPA reached a Memorandum of Agreement with the

companies responsible for more than 95 percent of CBM hydraulic fracturing jobs to eliminate

the use of diesel from fracturing fluids injected directly into USDWs (EPA, 2004).

Subsequently, under the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congress clarified the SDWA to maintain

the system of state regulation of hydraulic fracturing. Congress also reserved the option to

potentially regulate fracturing technology under the SDWA where diesel was used as a

component of the fracturing fluids (API, 2008).

Compliance with existing regulations would ensure that adverse impacts to surface water and

groundwater resources would be minimized or eliminated and there would be no effects to

existing beneficial uses.

No indirect impacts to water resources were identified.


Direct impacts to water resources would be identical to the Proposed Action for access road and

well components. Burial of pipelines would result in 252.8 acres of short-term disturbance

additional to that resulting from the Proposed Action, with proportionally greater opportunities

for transport of sediment into watersheds. Approximately 2/3 of this disturbance would occur in

mostly upland areas hundreds or thousands of feet from local ephemeral drainages. In these

areas, project design features and compliance with Proponent's SWPPP would minimize impacts

from sediment transport.

Approximately 97.0 acres of the pipeline ROW would be installed in canyon bottoms of Road

Hollow, Sowers Canyon, Left Fork Antelope Canyon, and Chokecherry Canyon. In these areas,

pipeline installation would occur, in some areas, within a few hundred feet of principal area


52

(6th

order) streams. Design features would also minimize impacts in these areas, but the closer

proximity to perennial and intermittent channels would proportionally increase the possibility of

transporting construction-related sediment into these drainages.

Pipeline installation would not occur within 200 feet of any mapped spring, except for five

locations along Nutters and Jeep Trail ridges. None of these mapped springs is identified as a

spring on the USGS topographic map and all are in upland locations. If these springs were field

confirmed, it is likely that the USFS would require re-routes around the springs as COAs of the

Decision Notice of this EA. Potential impacts to springs from implementation of this alternative

are anticipated to be low and short-term.


The Proposed Action and Buried Pipeline alternatives would result in 109.8 acres and

362.6 acres, respectively, of short-term surface disturbance dispersed within the 88,000 acres of

the eastern part of the South Unit of the ANF. Project activities would occur within the

134,000 acres of eight 6th order watersheds, which is taken to be the analysis area for cumulative

impacts. In addition to those impacts indicated in Table 3-1, approximately 736 active

(producing or permitted) oil and gas wells are located within the area of these watersheds, for an

additional estimated short-term surface disturbance of approximately 1,840 acres, assuming a

short-term well pad impact in the Brundage Canyon Field area of 2.5 acres (BIA, 2006). The

principal potential effect from the Proposed Action is an increase in sediment loading to area

watersheds. Other actions which could cause sediment loading include ongoing grazing

activities, vegetation cover removal or modification from mechanical treatments or prescribed

burns, and other oil and gas development. For the long-term (life of project), sediment loading

would continue to be the anticipated principal impact to area watersheds. Impacts would be

similar to those from short-term disturbance, but incrementally less for this and other oil and gas

projects as a result of interim reclamation. Sediment transport would be principally from

unreclaimed portions of well pads and roads and would continue to be controlled in conformance

with Proponent's SWPPP.

Increased sediment load from the Proposed Action would incrementally contribute to cumulative

load from these other activities. However the small scale of the Proposed Action and Buried

Pipeline Alternative compared to the other foreseeable actions, incorporation of mitigation

measures and design elements, and the ephemeral or intermittent nature of most channels in the

vicinity of development would minimize the project’s contribution to cumulative impacts and

result in negligible cumulative impacts for water.


53

3.4 Air Quality and Climate

Scoping indicated general concerns related to project-related impacts to air quality.

Air is the most mobile resource discussed in this EA and potential effects to air resources may be

far-reaching. Air quality indicators include:

the concentration of air pollutants,

visibility, and

the potential for atmospheric deposition effects and surface water acidification.

Factors affecting air quality include:

area topography,

climate, and

the chemical nature, quantity, and distribution of emissions.

These factors interact to determine the process of horizontal and vertical dispersion of near-

surface air pollutants.


The Project Area is situated along the southern margin of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration's Utah Airshed 9 (NOAA, 2003). The airshed comprises the Uinta Basin and

higher elevations within the ANF on the north and south, including the High Uintas. The project

area is located in the southern foothills of the Uintah Basin. The Uintah Basin is bordered by the

Wasatch Range to the west, which extends north and south through the middle of the state, and

the High Uintah Mountains to the north, which extend east and west through the northeast

portion of the state. The elevation of the project area ranges from approximately 6,400 ft to

9,400 ft.

3.4.1.1 Climate

Meteorology and Precipitation

The air quality of any particular area is controlled primarily by regional climate, regional and

local topography, and the magnitude and distribution of air emissions. The climate of the

proposed Project Area is semi-arid continental, with low relative humidity, high evaporation

potential, cold winters, and hot summers.

Prevailing synoptic-scale westerly air masses originating from the Pacific Ocean are typically

interrupted by the western mountain masses before reaching the Uintah Basin. As a result, the

region receives relatively low amounts of precipitation. Summer thunderstorms provide the

greatest amounts of rainfall, primarily in the higher elevations of the southern portion of the

Basin. Precipitation within the Uintah Basin is related to elevation: precipitation increases with

elevation due to orographic uplift effects.


54

No weather reporting stations are located within the Project Area, so climatic conditions must be

inferred from stations in the vicinity. A summary of climatic data from Duchesne, located

approximately 33 miles north of the project area at an elevation of 5,520 feet, is provided in

Table 3-5. A summary of climactic data from the Nutters Ranch station, located south of the

project area at an elevation of 5,790 feet, is presented in Table 3-6.

Table 3-5 Climatic Data, Duchesne, UT (1906-2005)

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Ann

Average Max. Temp. (

oF)

31.2 37.7 50.1 61.7 71.6 80.6 87.1 84.8 76.3 63.3 46.6 33.8 60.4

Average Min. Temp. (F)

4.6 11.4 22.7 30.6 38.4 45.4 52.4 50.8 41.6 31.4 19.6 8.9 29.8

Average Total Precipitation (in.)

0.55 0.59 0.68 0.74 0.85 0.80 0.92 1.23 1.07 0.97 0.53 0.59 9.52

Average Total Snowfall (in.)

6.1 5.8 3.6 1.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 2.6 5.7 25.7

Source: WRCC 2009.

Table 3-6 Climatic Data, Nutters Ranch, Utah (8/ 1/1963 to 5/31/1986)

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual

Average Max. Temperature (F)

35.3 42.0 51.6 61.4 71.9 81.3 87.7 85.4 77.1 65.3 49.4 36.6 62.1

Average Min. Temperature (F)

6.4 11.5 22.4 29.8 38.5 46.4 53.6 51.3 42.2 31.2 20.1 9.2 30.2

Average Total Precipitation (in.)

0.56 0.53 1.16 1.02 1.10 0.86 1.19 1.37 1.08 1.16 0.71 0.85 11.57

Average Total SnowFall (in.)

6.1 9.0 6.1 4.1 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.3 5.4 12.4 45.6

Source: WRCC 2009.

Overall, the area is typically mild, with an annual mean temperature of 45°F. However,

abundant sunshine and rapid nighttime cooling result in a wide range of daily temperatures.

Wide seasonal temperature variations typical of a mid-continental climate are also common.

Average temperatures range from 20°F in January to 70°F in July.

Winds and Atmospheric Stability

Wind data within the project area have not been directly measured. Local terrain effects will

influence the wind profiles specific to the project area. Short-term (to 30 days) wind

measurements are available for two Remote Automated Weather Station (RAWS) sites in the

vicinity of proposed activities:

Five Mile, southeast of the Project Area, at 8,000 feet elevation, and

Horse Ridge, west of the Project Area, at 8,480 feet elevation.


55

Figures 3-4 and 3-5 show wind roses for these two sites. Data are shown for calendar year 2008.

The average wind speeds for Five Mile and Horse Ridge stations were 8.0 and 6.1 miles per

hour, respectively.

Atmospheric dispersion is a measure of the atmosphere’s capacity to diminish the concentration

of atmospheric pollutants. Atmospheric dispersion is related to prevailing wind speed and

direction, atmospheric stability, and mixing heights. The light to moderate prevailing winds that

characterize the Project Area facilitate transport and dispersion of pollutants. Warmer

temperatures during daylight hours also tend to facilitate atmospheric dispersion; however, calm

periods and nighttime cooling enhance air stability and inhibit air pollutant transport and

dilution. Temperature inversions are common during the winter months in the Uintah Basin in

its lower elevations, including the Project Area. Inversions can hinder air pollutant dispersion by

preventing lower level air masses from mixing with higher altitude air masses. Although

temperature inversions can occur during the summer, daytime ground-level heating rapidly leads

to inversion break-up.

The degree of stability in the atmosphere is also important to the dispersion of emitted pollutants.

During stable conditions, vertical movement in the atmosphere is limited and the dispersion of

pollutants is inhibited. Temperature inversions can result in very stable conditions with virtually

no vertical air motion, thereby restricting dispersion. Conversely, during unstable conditions,

upward and downward movement in the atmosphere prevails, and the vertical mixing of

pollutants in the atmosphere is enhanced.

Atmospheric stability can be categorized by stability classes ―A‖ through ―F‖, with ―A‖

representing a high degree of atmospheric turbulence, and ―F‖ representing a high degree of

atmospheric stability. A ―D‖ stability represents a neutral atmosphere. Table 3-7 presents the

frequency distribution of the atmospheric stability classes for the region. Slightly stable (Class E)

atmospheric conditions occur the plurality of the time (31.6 percent), followed by neutral

conditions (27.1 percent) and moderately stable conditions (16.3 percent).

Table 3-7 Atmospheric Stability Class Frequency of Occurrence

Stability Class Frequency of Occurrence

A – Strongly Unstable 9.9%

B – Moderately Unstable 6.5%

C – Slightly Unstable 8.5%

D – Neutral 27.1%

E – Slightly Stable 31.6%

F – Moderately Stable 16.3%

Total 100.0%

Source: UDAQ 1998.


56

Figure 3-4 Wind Rose, Five Mile Station

Figure 3-5 Wind Rose, Horse Ridge Station


57

3.4.1.2 Existing Air Quality

The Uinta Basin is currently an attainment area for all criteria pollutants (EPA, 2009b). Minimal

monitoring data exist for the vicinity of the Project Area. Regional air modeling has been done

for the revision of the Bureau of Land Management resource management plans for the Vernal,

Utah, and Glenwood Springs, Colorado resource management areas (BLM, 2005a).

Criteria Pollutants

The nearest air quality monitoring station in Duchesne County is located near Myton,

approximately 25 miles northeast of the center of the Project Area, and is limited to measurement

of background concentrations of PM10. The annual mean measurement of PM10 in 2006 was

8 μg/m3, compared to the EPA air quality standard of 150 μg/m

3 (EPA, 2006a).

The air quality index (AQI) for Duchesne County provides an indication of local air quality. A

higher AQI value indicates a greater level of air pollution and corresponding health concern. An

AQI value of less than 50 indicates good air quality and a value of greater than 100 indicates

unhealthy air, especially for sensitive people. The maximum measurement taken in Duchesne

County in 2006 was 17, or good (EPA, 2006b). Available data suggest that NAAQS standards

have been met within Duchesne County (USFS, 2005).

Estimated background criteria pollutant concentrations for the Uintah Basin are shown in

Table 3-4. The estimated background concentrations of all criteria pollutants are well below the

primary NAAQS. Collection of representative ambient air quality monitoring data remains the

best indicator of potential air pollution impacts and degradation within a region. As a result,

development of a widespread monitoring network throughout the region is currently being

investigated by the UDAQ and USFS in cooperation with several oil and gas operators in the

area. The expansion of this monitoring network will provide the mechanism by which a baseline

can be established and to monitor future cumulative changes in the air quality of this portion of

the Uintah Basin.

Although comprehensive air quality monitoring data are not available specifically within this

region of the state, PM10 monitoring data are available just north of the project area near Myton,

Utah as part of the EPA AirData Program (EPA, 2006a). As illustrated in Table 3-4, recent

monitoring data suggests PM10 values consistent with Uintah Basin background estimates.

The Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) provisions of the Clean Air Act, limit

incremental increases of specific pollutant concentrations above a legally defined baseline level.

Many national parks and wilderness areas are designated as PSD Class I. The PSD program

protects air quality within Class I areas by allowing only slight incremental increases in pollutant

concentrations. Areas of the state not designated as PSD Class I are classified as Class II. For

Class II areas, greater incremental increases in ambient pollutant concentrations are allowed as a

result of controlled growth. The area surrounding the project is designated as PSD Class II. The

PSD increments for Class I and Class II areas are shown in Table 3-8. The nearest Class I area

to the project area is Arches National Park, which is approximately 100 miles away.


58

Background Emissions Sources

Emission sources near the Project Area primarily consist of oil and gas exploration and

production activities associated with the drilling and operation of approximately 318 wells

located in the vicinity of the proposed project in the Antelope Creek, Brundage Canyon, Sowers

Canyon, Chokecherry Canyon, and Matthews fields. Emissions associated with oil and gas

development in and near the Project Area include:

Table 3-8 Estimated Background Air Pollutant Concentrations in the Uintah Basin and Applicable Ambient Air Quality Standards (µg/m3)

Pollutant Averaging

Time Background

Concentrationa

Primary NAAQS

PSD Increments

Class I Class II

Carbon monoxide 1-hour 6,984 40,000 - -

8-hour 4,236 10,000

Nitrogen dioxide Annual 10 100 2.5 25

Ozone 1-hour 157 235 - -

8-hour 105 157 - -

PM10 24-hour 28 (24.6

b) 150 8 30

Annual 10 (9.2b) 50 4 17

PM2.5 24-hour 25 35 -- --

Annual 9 15 -- --

Sulfur dioxide

3-hour 20 1,300 25 512

24-hour 10 365 5 91

Annual 5 80 2 20 a Source: BLM 2005b.

b Source: Tribal PM10 monitor near Myton, Utah (EPA 2006a). 24-hour PM10 represents the average of 1st

maximum 24-hour values from 2002 through 2006. Annual PM10 represents the annual average from 2002 through 2006.

Exhaust emissions, primarily CO, NOx, and HAPs from natural gas fired compressor

engines used in production and transportation of natural gas;

Natural gas dehydrator emissions of BTEX and n-hexane;

Engine emissions, primarily NOx, from pump jacks and crude oil tank heaters;

VOC emissions from crude oil storage tanks and loadout facilities;

Gasoline and diesel-fueled vehicle tailpipe emissions of VOCs, NOx, CO, SO2, PM10,

and PM2.5; and

Fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5) from construction activities, vehicle traffic on unpaved

roads and wind erosion in construction areas.

Source-specific monitors measure the emissions from some oil and gas facilities in Duchesne

County. The nearest monitored source of emissions to the Project Area in 2005 is the Monument

Butte Compressor Station located approximately 15 miles east of the eastern project boundary

(EPA, 2006a).


59

Table 3-9 presents existing and projected emissions from oil and gas production from Brundage

Canyon, Lake Canyon and Berry Petroleum, located adjacent to the Project Area to the north.

Table 3-9 Emissions from Existing and Projected Oil and Gas Production Projects

Project Operation

Emissions (TPY)

NOx CO VOC Formal-dehyde

HAPs

Brundage Canyon Gas Compression 145.7 118.0 121.7 11.6 31.0

Gas Plant 28.6 39.4 9.2 2.1 0.3

Well Production 914.6 754.7 5081.0 -- --

Total Emissions 1070.4 912.4 5211.9 13.7 31.3

Berry Petroleum ANF Well Production 74.8 59.2 164.3 2.3 8.4

Lake Canyon Gas Compression 329.4 329.4 200.3 30.6 67.6

Well Production 291.3 247.1 1537.9 --- --

Total Emissions 620.7 576.5 1738.2 30.6 67.6

Nearby Project Total Emissions

1765.9 1548.1 7114.4 46.6 107.3

Source: BIA, 1997; BIA, 2004; EPA, 2005b (AP-42 calculations); USFS, 2006f; BIA, 2006.

On August 29, 2007, a Notice of Intent to prepare an environmental impact statement was

published in the Federal Register (FR, Vol. 72, No. 167, Pages 49696 – 49697) for Berry

Petroleum to develop up to 400 oil and gas wells in the South Unit of the Ashley National Forest

Service . Estimated emission types from well production would be expected to be similar to the

Lake Canyon and Brundage Canyon projects.

Hazardous Air Pollutants

Hazardous air pollutants are those pollutants known or suspected to cause cancer of other serious

health effects, such as reproductive effects or birth defects, or adverse environmental impacts.

The EPA has classified 189 air pollutants as HAPs. Examples of listed HAPs associated with the

oil and gas industry include formaldehyde, BTEX compounds (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene

and xylenes) and normal hexane (n-hexane).

No applicable Federal of State of Utah ambient air quality standards exist for assessing HAP

impacts to human health. The significance criteria used to assess HAP impacts are reference

concentrations (RfC) for chronic inhalation exposure and Reference Exposure Levels (RELs) for

acute inhalation exposures. Table 3-10 lists RELs and RfCs relevant to typical emissions from

oil and gas operations. The RfC represents the maximum concentration at which no appreciable

risk of harmful health effects would occur with the human population (includes sensitive

subgroups such as children and the elderly) from continuous (i.e., annual average) inhalation

exposure. The REL is the maximum acute concentration (i.e., one-hour average) for which no

adverse health effects would occur with the human population. RfC and REL guideline values

are applicable for non-cancer health effects.


60

Table 3-10 HAP Reference Exposure Levels and Reference Concentrations

Hazardous Air Pollutant Reference Exposure Level

(REL, 1-hour Average) (μg/m3)

Reference Concentrationa (RfC, Annual Average

) a

(μg/m3)

Benzene 1,300b 30

Toluene 37,000b 400

Ethylbenzene 350,000c 1,000

Xylenes 22,000b 100

n-Hexane 390,000c 200

Formaldehyde 94b 9.8

a EPA Air Toxics Database, Table 1 (EPA, 2002).

b EPA Air Toxics Database, Table 2 (EPA, 2002).

c Immediately Dangerous to Life of Health (IDLH)/10, EPA Air Toxics Database, Table 2 (EPA, 2002) since REL

not available.

The Utah Department of Environmental Quality – Air Quality Division (UDAQ) developed

Toxic Screening Levels (TSLs) in 2000 to evaluate HAP ambient air releases during the air

permitting process. The TSLs are derived from Threshold Limit Values (TLVs) published in the

American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists’ (ACGIH) ―Threshold Limit

Values for Chemical Substances and Physical Agents (ACGIH, 2003). These values are not

regulatory standards, but screening level thresholds for suggesting when additional information

is required to evaluate potential health and environmental impacts. Table 3-11 lists the TSL for

each HAP relevant to typical emission from oil and gas operations.

Table 3-11 UDAQ Toxic Screening Levels (TSLs)

Pollutant and Averaging Period

Toxic Screening Levelb

(μg/m3)

Benzenea (24-hour) 53

Toluene (24-hour) 6,280

Ethylbenzene (1-hour) 54,274

Ethylbenzene (24-hour) 14,473

Xylene (1-hour) 65,129

Xylene (24-hour) 14,473

n-Hexane (24-hour) 5,875

Formaldehyde 37 a An acute TSL for benzene exists, but the UDAQ references the chronic

TSL because it is more stringent than the acute TSL. a Source: Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Air Quality Division

(2000).

Greenhouse Gases

Certain atmospheric components including water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide

(N2O) and methane (CH4) have the ability to act as ―greenhouse gases‖ by absorbing incident

solar radiation reflected from the ground and increasing ambient air temperatures similar to that

observed inside a glass greenhouse. Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas (GHG).

However, anthropogenic deforestation and industrial processes in the last 200 years have


61

increased emissions of other GHGs, particularly CO2. The possible long-term effects of

increased GHG concentrations in the atmosphere and their possible role in contributing to

climate change have become an increasing concern. The atmospheric concentration of CO2 has

increased by 35 percent in the last 150 years to approximately 379 parts per million (ppm).

Observed average temperature increases in various parts of the world have been

contemporaneous with increased GHG concentrations in the atmosphere. Governmental

initiatives to control GHG emissions have resulted from this observed trend and from future

projections of this trend continuing by certain computer climate projection models (IPCC, 2007).

In the U.S., the primary source of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission is fossil fuel

combustion. Burning of coal, oil and natural gas accounted for 82 percent of 2006 GHG

emissions. Fossil fuels are responsible for supplying approximately 85 percent of U.S. primary

energy needs and approximately 98 percent of estimated anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Nitrous

oxide is another product of fossil fuel combustion and methane is also emitted by petroleum

production operations (EIA, 2008). The U.S. Supreme Court on April 2, 2007 ruled that the

U.S. EPA had authority to regulate GHGs as pollutants and required EPA to determine whether

these gases cause or contribute to global warming (Ranchod, 2007). In 2008, Congress directed

EPA to publish a mandatory GHG reporting rule based on their existing authority under the

Clean Air Act. EPA published an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in response to the

Court decision in July 2008 (EPA, 2008).

3.4.1.3 Air Quality Related Values

The Clean Air Act Section 162(a) identified a number of areas (Class I and sensitive Class II

areas) for which special protections are authorized and in which new emissions are limited by

PSD regulations. These include most national parks and wilderness area. The nearest Class I

area to the Project Area are the Arches and Canyonlands National Parks, located approximately

100 miles to the south.

Air Quality Related Values (AQRVs) thresholds, including potential air pollutant effects on

visibility and the acidification of lakes and streams, are applied to PSD Class I area sets a level

of acceptable change for each AQRV. The AQRVs reflect the land management agency’s policy

and are not legally enforceable standards. The High Uintas Wilderness in the ANF and Dinosaur

National Monument, located approximately 45 miles north and 60 miles northeast of the center

of Project Areas, respectively, are Class II sensitive areas. All of Utah, which is not classified as

Class I or Class II sensitive, including the Project Area, is Class II with respect to PSD (UAQB,

2004).

Visibility

Visibility can be defined as the distance one can see (a standard visual range) or by the ability to

perceive changes in color, contrast, and detail. The most commonly used reference for the latter

method is the deciview (dv), which is defined as a change in visibility which is just perceptible to

the average person. Scattering and absorption of light by fine pollutant particles results in the

development of haze and consequent visibility reduction. Fine (diameter less than 2.5 microns)

particulate matter (PM2.5) is the main cause of visibility impairment. Such materials can occur


62

naturally or from human activity. Products of combustion processes or secondary formation in

the atmosphere by photochemical processes tend to make up the majority of PM2.5 samples.

The Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) Program was

established among representatives of federal, regional, and state organization in 1985. There are

no IMPROVE monitoring stations located within either the vicinity of the Project Area or the

Uinta Basin (Airshed 9). The closest are located in the Lone Peak Wilderness and Arches

National Park, approximately 75 miles northwest and 100 miles southeast of the center of the

Project Area, respectively, and in the Flat Tops/Eagles Nest/Maroon Bells Wilderness Areas,

approximately 190 miles southeast.

Background visibility data are not available for the Uinta Basin. Visibility data measured at

Canyonlands National Park over the years 1988 through 1997 indicate that under poor conditions

visibility ranged from 61 to 80 miles while under the best conditions, visibility ranged from

107 to 144 miles. As measured in 1997, sulfates in the atmosphere resulting predominantly from

utility and industrial boilers, were the primary contributor to visibility degradation, followed by

soil dust resulting from unpaved roads, construction and agricultural activities (EPA, 2005a).

A standard annual visual range of 151 miles has been reported for Canyonlands National Park in

the year 2000 (BLM, 2006).

Atmospheric Deposition

The transfer of air pollutant to terrestrial or aquatic surfaces comprises atmospheric deposition,

reported as the rate of mass deposited per given area (kg/ha/year). Pollutants are removed from

the atmosphere by both wet (precipitations) and dry (gravitational settling and surface adherence

of gaseous pollutants) depositional processes. While atmospheric deposition can involve

numerous air pollutants, the deposition of acids, such as sulfuric acid (H2SO4) and nitric acid

(HNO3) is of particular concern.

Atmospheric deposition can lead to the introduction of acid into surface waters. The ability of

surface water bodies to resist acidification, the acid neutralizing capacity (ANC), is a measure of

the health of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Commonly called acid rain, acid deposition

occurs when SO2 and NOx emissions are transformed in the atmosphere and returned to the

earth as dry deposition or in rain, fog or snow. Higher acidity in rain or snow is observed

downwind (often at significant distances) from areas with many large sources of SO2 and NOx.

These oxides react with water to form sulfuric and nitric acids.

Acid neutralizing capacity is expressed in units of micro-equivalents/liter (µeq/l). The relative

sensitivity to acidification of surface water bodies is indicated by ANC values as:

ANC = 25-100 µeq/l: sensitive to atmospheric deposition

ANC = 10-25 µeq/l: very sensitive to atmospheric deposition

ANC < 10 µeq/l: extremely sensitive to atmospheric deposition

Surface water acidification data are not available for the vicinity of the Project Area. Regional

studies conducted over the past two decades suggest a slight increase in NOx emissions but low


63

calculated nitrogen deposition rates. Separate studies of sulfate deposition indicate decreasing

rates, opposite to the nitrogen trend. Bulk summer samples collected within the ANF indicated

concentrations for both sulfur and nitrogen compounds of less than 2 mg/1 (USFS, 2005).

A survey of acid neutralizing capacity of approximately 25 High Uintas Wilderness lakes done

since 1980 showed that most had ANC values of less than 100 µeq/l during that period. Some

lakes exhibited low ANC approaching 30 µeq/l. Overall, model studies suggest a decrease in

acid buffering capacity for lakes in the West and suggest that ANC concerns should be included

in the permitting process for any long-term emission sources in the Project Area (USFS, 2005).

Wet Deposition

Wet deposition is monitored by the National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP), a

consortium of a large number of federal, regional, and state agencies and academic institutions.

The program has established a nationwide network of more than 250 monitoring stations which

regularly assess precipitated air pollutants. There are five active monitoring stations in Utah, but

none is located in the Uinta Basin. The closest to the Project Area are the Murphy Ridge and

Green River stations, located approximately 95 miles to the northwest and 65 miles to the south,

respectively. An inactive station at Cedar Mountain on the San Rafael Swell, approximately

50 miles to the south, was only operative during 1981-1984 (NADP, 2006). Because of the

distances from the Project Area and local nature of pollutant precipitation, data from existing

stations are not considered representative of the Project Area.

Dry Deposition

The EPA’s Clean Air Status and Trends Network (CASTNET) is the principal source for data

relating to dry deposition of atmospheric pollutants and rural ozone levels. CASTNET operates

more than 70 monitoring sites nationally. Each station monitors weekly average atmospheric

concentrations of sulfate, nitrate, ammonium, sulfur dioxide, and nitric acid, hourly ambient

ozone concentrations and meteorological conditions required for calculating dry deposition rates.

The closest active monitoring station, and the only station in Utah, is located in Canyonlands

National Park, 100 miles to the southeast. An inactive station operating 1989-1993 was located

near the Yellowstone Guard Station in the North Unit of the ANF, approximately 50 miles

northeast of the Project Area (EPA, 2009a; USFS, 2005). Because of the distances from the

Project Area and local nature of pollutant deposition, data from the existing and inactive stations

are not considered representative of the Project Area


Emissions associated with the Proposed Action would not occur if this alternative were chosen.

The air emission impacts associated with existing oil and gas operations, roads, and vehicles

would remain and additional wells could be developed as allowed by prior NEPA decisions.

Ambient air concentrations of regulated pollutants would be expected to increase as field

development continues to expand in areas within and near the Project Area.


64



Emissions would be released to the atmosphere during well site construction, drilling, and

completion activities and during well operations. Air quality impacts from these activities would

depend on the amount, duration, location, and characteristics of potential emissions, as well as

meteorological conditions. The location of the proposed project site at higher elevations within

the Uintah Basin reduces the potential for formation of inversions at project locations. The

distance between the proposed project site and nearest communities reduces the potential for

significant air quality impacts from project-related activities.

Air quality impacts are limited by state and federal regulations, standards, and implementation

plans established under the CAA and administered by the Utah Department of Environmental

Quality, Air Quality Division (UDAQ). Under the CAA and FLPMA, agencies cannot authorize

any activity that does not comply with applicable local, state, and federal air quality laws,

statutes, regulations, standards, and implementation plans. The UDAQ would have the primary

authority and responsibility to review construction applications for facilities. The UDAQ would

require emissions permits, fees, and control devices prior to construction and/or operation, as

applicable. Therefore, emissions associated with the Proposed Action would be evaluated by the

UDAQ and subject to requirements imposed upon project sources that project-related emissions

would not adversely affect human heath and the environment.

AP-42 methodology (EPA, 1995a; EPA, 1995b; EPA, 1996) was used to quantify impacts from

the largest emissions sources. To estimate construction-related and operational emissions that

would result from project implementation, the most conservative scenario was examined in order

to present a ―worst-case‖ look at the amount of emissions that may be generated. Construction,

drilling and completion operations for the eight new wells are estimated to occur within one year.

Thus, this analysis assumes that all drilling would take place during one year. If construction

operations were to occur over the longer time frame, annual impacts to air quality would be

proportionally diminished.

An air quality technical support document contains details of the calculations used to compute air

quality impacts (McVehil-Monnett, 2009). A copy is available in the project record located at

the Duchesne Ranger District Office.

Project Construction

Project emissions during construction activities would primarily result from:

well pad and road construction/use of earth moving equipment,

vehicle and equipment travel on unpaved roads,

drilling rig emissions, and

support vehicle emissions.


65

During construction, the primary impact to air quality would result from fugitive dust arising

from earth work during site and access road preparation and construction. Fugitive dust

emissions would also occur from wind blown erosion across the new well pads and soils piles

near the well sites; however, these impacts would be reduced after interim reclamation

reestablishes growth on portions of the well pad not needed for long-term use.

Fugitive dust generated by vehicles at a given location would be localized, short-term, and

intermittent. Limited visibility may result on roads from vehicle use in dry conditions. Road and

well site construction would be conducted in various locations throughout the Project Area

during daylight hours over the length of the drilling window, which will extend for a period of at

least four years. Water and gravelling will be applied to roads utilized during active construction

and well drilling and completion activities to reduce fugitive dust from vehicle traffic. Water

application to unpaved roads can reduce the generation of fugitive dust by 30 to 50 percent

(BLM, 2003a). Watering and graveling are assumed to reduce dust by at least 50 percent.

Temporary and localized increases in atmospheric concentrations of NO2, CO, SO2, and VOCs

would result from exhaust emissions of worker’s vehicles, heavy construction vehicles, drilling

rigs, and other machinery, equipment and tools. Exhaust emissions from drilling rigs and other

construction equipment would be temporary at any particular well site and localized. The

primary pollutant emitted by the operation of drilling rigs would consist of NOx emissions,

which would be short-term over a 10- to 30-day drilling period and localized near the well site.

This variation in drilling duration is due to the relative difficulty in drilling the deep wells,

particularly in the Mesaverde formation, versus the shallow wells. Considering the number of

wells drilled from each formation, a weighted average of all wells is approximately 23 days.

Their contribution to an increase in NOx emissions and acid deposition would be temporary,

limited to the drilling time frame.

Exhaust emissions from vehicles during drilling operations would also constitute a primary

source of NOx emissions. They would also be short-term and localized near well sites and roads

and would be distributed over the Project Area. Vehicle emissions produced in association with

each well would primarily occur during the 91-day period of drilling (23 days average) and

completion (68 days). The EPA regulates vehicle exhaust emissions through the implementation

of standards for new vehicles.

Project Operations

Project emissions during operations activities would primarily result from:

equipment operation at individual well sites, including treaters, heaters, oil tank storage,

and pump jacks, and

vehicular emissions for operational and maintenance support.

Road use following the construction phase would be limited to periodic maintenance activities

by industry. Control and monitoring of well production would typically result in daily visits to

wells by maintenance personnel. Fugitive dust and exhaust emissions generated by vehicles at


66

and on-route to a given location would be localized, short-term, and small. Vehicles used to

access the proposed wells would release NOx emissions.

Flares may be used temporarily during testing operations after a well is completed. Flares are

used to dispose of unrecoverable gas emerging concurrently with the crude oil. During flaring,

gaseous methane reacts with atmospheric oxygen to form carbon dioxide and water. Emissions

from flaring include unburned hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide (CO), and other partially burned

and altered hydrocarbons. Acetylene (a non-HAP) is typically formed as a stable intermediate

product; however, acetylene formed in combustion reactions may react further to form

polycyclic hydrocarbons (a HAP). Flaring operations usually achieve 98 percent combustion,

such that hydrocarbon and CO emissions amount to less than two percent of the hydrocarbons in

the gas stream (EPA, 2005b). Since flaring would be infrequent and of short durations,

emissions were not estimated.

The use of pumping units, stock tanks, treaters, and heaters used to separate the liquid

hydrocarbons from the gas would result in the emission of NOx, CO, VOCs, and HAPs.

Working and breathing losses of VOCs would result from displacement of the vapors within a

tank as it is being filled and due to changes in tank temperature and pressure throughout the day

and year.

Table 3-12 summarizes the estimated construction and operation emissions associated with the

Proposed Action.

Table 3-12 Estimated Emissions from the Proposed Action

Facility

Emissions (TPY)

NOx SO2 CO VOC Formaldehyde HAPs PM 10 PM 2.5

Drilling rig emissions 53.0 0.9 12.1 1.6 - - - - - - 1.3 1.1

Construction site emissions - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.11 0,05

Construction vehicle emissions - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7.8 1.2

Ajax pump jack engine (1 at each well) 16.2 - - - 16.2 8.6 --- --- - - - - - -

Crude oil treater (1 at each well) 1.01 - - - 0.21 0.11 --- --- - - - - - -

crude oil tank heaters (2 at each well) 3.9 - - - 0.8 0.2 --- --- - - - - - -

crude oil tanks (2 at each well) - - - - - - --- 106.5 --- --- - - - - - -

Maintenance Vehicle - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5.6 0.9

TOTAL emissions resulting from the Proposed Action

74.1

0.9

29.3

117.0

- - -

- - -

14.8

4.2

Source: EPA, 1995a, 1995b, 1996 (AP-42 calculations).

Near-Field Air Quality Impacts

Criteria Pollutants

Estimates of the potential ambient air impacts from well construction, drilling, completion and

production activities were estimated by using a table showing maximum impacts adjacent to a

single well presented in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Desolation Flats


67

Natural Gas Field Development (BLM, 2003b). This table shows approximate maximum

impacts for predominantly Green River Formation well sites and impacts from Mesaverde wells

would be expected to be similar during short-term periods. However, annual impacts would be

underestimated for the Mesaverde wells because the duration of drilling and completion would

be approximately three times longer than the Green River Formation wells. This factor is

considered by multiplying the maximum annual impacts for drilling and completion by three.

Maximum impacts for a single well and the maximum cumulative impact from two co-located

wells were also estimated. This approach provides a conservative estimate of cumulative

impacts from proposed action wells since each well is at least one mile apart and actual ambient

air impacts any particular location would be dictated by the closest wells or well. Since there

will be one well pad containing two wells, the total impact estimates for construction, drilling,

completion and production assume that two new wells would be co-located.

Table 3-13 presents a comparison of maximum Proposed Action impacts added to the monitored

background concentrations representative of the region surrounding the project area to applicable

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and PSD Class II increments. The Proposed

Action impacts consider the scenario where two wells are co-located since the proposed action

will have one well pad site with two wells. Since a maximum single well impact is not provided

for PM2.5, a representative PM2.5 to PM10 fraction of 0.19 was applied to the PM10 ambient air

impact estimates. This fraction is based on the ratio of 0.18/0.97 tpy in Table 3-8 for PM

emissions from construction.

Table 3-13 Proposed Action and Monitored Background Impact Summary

Pollutant Averaging

Period

Maximum Estimated

Concentration (µg/m3)

PSD Class II

Increment (μg/m3)

Background Concentration

(µg/m3)

Total Impact (μg/m3) NAAQS

NOX Annual 3.8 25 5.0 8.8 100

CO 1-hour 877.7 -- 6,984 7,961.6 40,000

CO 8-hour 383.2 -- 4,236 4,619.2 10,000

SO2 3-hour 11.9 512 20 31.8 1,300

SO2 24-hour 4.6 91 10 14.6 365

SO2 Annual 0.1 20 5 5.1 80

PM10 24-hour 47.4 30 28 75.4 150

PM10 Annual 0.3 17 10 10.3 50

PM2.5 24-hour 9.0 -- 25 34.0 35

PM2.5 Annual 0.02 -- 9 9.0 15

Table 3-13 shows that the Proposed Action operations with monitored background

concentrations will maintain compliance with applicable NAAQS during the construction,

drilling, completion and production phases. Estimated maximum impacts from the Proposed

Action would be below applicable PSD Class II increments, except for 24-hour PM10.

However, the cited maximum impact is for the construction phase and maximum 24-hour impact

estimates during each of the remaining project phases would range from only 0.1 to 10.0 μg/m3

during the production and completion phases, respectively.


68

Hazardous Air Pollutants

As presented in Table 3-10, HAP emission estimates are negligible and resultant ambient air

impacts would be considerably below applicable ACGIH and UDAQ health guideline values.

Thus, the Proposed Action would insignificantly contribute to existing ambient air HAP

concentrations in the Project area.

Greenhouse Gases

Potential GHG emissions from the Proposed Action will primarily be from the diesel-fired

drilling rig and the tank heaters and pump jack used during well production operations. The

small magnitude of the estimated combustion emissions from the Proposed Action would be

expected to generate similarly insignificant amounts of GHG emissions.

Air Quality Related Value Impacts

Visibility

Estimated pollutant emissions from the Proposed Action would insignificantly contribute to

cumulative visibility impacts at the nearest Class I and sensitive Class II areas. The maximum

24-hour emissions of pollutants contributing to visibility degradation (i.e., NOx, SO2 and PM)

would occur during construction and drilling operations. Maximum 24-hour emissions from

well production would be less than half of the well development phase emissions.

The draft revised FLAG (Federal Land Manager Air Quality Related Values Workgroup) Phase I

Report, dated June 27, 2008 (FLAG, 2008), suggests that a source should be deemed as

insignificantly contributing to visibility impacts at a Class I area if the ratio of estimated

maximum annual emissions to distance from the Class I area is less than ten. Since the closest

distance to a Class I area is approximately 75 miles (12 km.), Proposed Action annual emissions

would need to be greater than 1,200 tons per year of the sum of NOx, SO2 and PM annual

emissions. Table 3-12 shows that estimated annual emissions of these three pollutants are

considerably less than 1,200 tons per year.

Deposition

The low levels of estimated pollutant emissions from the Proposed Action would be considerably

less than the deposition analysis thresholds for nitrogen and sulfur deposition. Proposed Action

deposition impacts would minimally contribute to cumulative deposition impacts at the nearest

Class I and sensitive Class II areas.

No indirect impacts to air quality resulting from the Proposed Action have been determined.


69

3.4.4 Environmental Consequences – Buried Pipelines


The proposed alternative (Alternative 3) of burying the pipelines constructed for oil and gas

gathering would have a short-term maximum disturbance of 288.6 acres as compared to

17.3 acres for laying pipeline on the ground. Long-term surface disturbance would be zero for

both pipeline installation alternatives. Therefore, any differences in air quality impacts between

these two alternative would occur only while the pipeline is installed.

Direct impacts from pipeline burial would include additional particulate emissions from surface

soils removal by heavy equipment and additional fuel combustion emissions of particulates,

NOx, CO, SO2, VOCs and HAP VOCs from the heavy equipment. Pipeline burial is anticipated

to be installed at a rate of approximately two miles per week. Since up to 47 miles of pipeline

would be installed, the total duration of additional short-term air emissions from pipeline burial

is estimated to be approximately six months (i.e., 24 weeks). Prompt implementation of ROW

reclamation would stabilize replaced soil materials and limit potentials for potential increased

dust volumes from temporary to short-term.

Indirect impacts from the additional short-term air emissions would be their potential deposition on

surrounding soils, vegetation and water bodies. However, these impacts would be minimal because

discernible effects on surrounding soils, vegetation and water bodies require long-term exposure.


The Vernal Resource Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement (VRMP FEIS)

(BLM, 2008b) integrated the Book Cliffs and Diamond Mountain RMPs with the Vernal RMP,

documented in the Draft Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement

(BLM, 2005b). The VRMP FEIS also integrated the impact evaluation of Alternative E,

performed as a supplement to the Vernal RMP DEIS that was submitted on October 5, 2007.

Alternative E is designed to provide the same protection to lands with wilderness characteristics,

regardless if they are or are not designated as a Wilderness Study Area (WSA). This alternative

does not affect oil and gas development already considered in the Vernal RMP DEIS. The

cumulative impact discussion on air quality in the VRMP FEIS largely references the discussion

in the Vernal RMP DEIS and does not present any updated conclusions concerning air quality

impacts. Therefore, the following discussion on cumulative air impacts based on the Vernal

RMP DEIS still represents the most recent available information.

The Vernal RMP DEIS evaluated the cumulative impacts associated with emission sources in the

Uinta Basin. The sources considered included over 6,300 oil and gas wells, vehicle emissions,

and prescribed burns. Modeling was performed to determine whether applicable ambient air

quality standards and PSD increments would be exceeded as a result of developing oil and gas

wells in the Uinta Basin. The modeling results indicated that the NAAQS, averaging times, and

PSD increments would not be exceeded (BLM, 2005b).

A principal concern associated with oil and gas development is the increase in PM10 emissions

resulting from fugitive dust. As oil and gas development continues to expand in the Uinta Basin,


70

fugitive dust emissions would continue to increase. Fugitive dust emissions from project wells

would incrementally contribute to the particulate matter released to the atmosphere.

HAPs emissions were modeled based upon maximum concentration values. The result of the

HAPs models indicated that there are no long-term cancer risks resulting from exposure both

near and far away from their sources (BLM, 2005b). HAPs emissions from project wells would

incrementally contribute to the HAPs released to the atmosphere.

The Vernal RMP DEIS predicted that no changes in visibility would result from oil and gas

development at its modeled level at three federal Class I areas and six Class II areas, including

the HUW and Dinosaur National Monument. Oil and gas operations associated with the

Proposed Action would contribute to a portion any change in visibility but would not exceed the

modeled amount for oil and gas activities in the Uinta Basin.

Acid deposition and acid neutralizing capacity were also modeled for the Vernal RMP DEIS. The

results indicated that values for sulfur and nitrogen deposition would be far below the applicable

thresholds that would result in adverse effects. ANC thresholds were not exceeded for modeled

lakes, which included lakes in the Uinta Basin designated by the U.S. Forest Service (BLM, 2005b).

NOx and SO2 emissions would contribute to a portion any increase in acid deposition and change in

the ANC but would not exceed the modeled amount for oil and gas activities in the Uinta Basin.

In conclusion, the cumulative effects to air quality resulting from project development are

expected to be less than the emissions estimated to result from the development analyzed by the

Vernal RMP DEIS.

3.5 Soils

Internal scoping by the USFS identified general, anticipated issues of post-disturbance

acceleration of erosion and soil loss, compaction of soil materials on well pads and access roads,

and associated loss of soil productivity necessary for successful stabilization of disturbed soils by

applying appropriate reclamation and revegetation measures.


The USFS has identified and characterized 12 soil associations as mapping units within the Project

Area (Figure 3-6, Appendix A) (USFS, 2006; USFS,2009d). Soils comprising the mapped soil

units are developing mostly in residuum of the upland plateau and bench surfaces; in residuum and

colluvium of the sideslopes below plateau surfaces, ridges, hilltops, and on sides of canyons; and in

alluvium of the canyon bottoms. Sandstones, mudstones, siltstones, claystones, and shales of the

Uinta and Green River formations are principal parent materials. Gullying is prevalent throughout

the principal drainages, their main tributaries, and some individual sideslopes. Further evidence of

accelerated erosion conditions is observed loss of soil from steeper, south-facing slopes. USFS

indicates overgrazing may be the main cause of past and ongoing active soil loss from uplands and

down-cutting of drainage bottoms. Table 3-13 characterizes the key attributes and limitations of

the 12 soil associations and their main components.


71

Table 3-14 Project Area Soil Characteristics

Soil Type

Project Area Components Slope/Aspect Depth

Dominant Vegetation

Water Erosion Potential

Reclamation Potential / Limitation*

Acres %

Upland - Plateau and Structural Bench Surfaces

AP130 3,275.3 3.7% 65% Lithic Calciborolls, loamy-skeletal 20% Aridic Calciborolls, loamy-skeletal

5 - 15% / N

16 - 25% / not N or S**

moderately deep shallow - moderately deep

pinyon-juniper

pinyon-juniper

low - moderate moderate - high

fair / available soil, coarse fragment content poor-fair / available soil, coarse fragment content, slope-erodibility

AP150 7,829.5 8.8% 45% Typic Haploborolls, loamy-skeletal 25% Lithic Haploborolls, loamy-skeletal 20% Typic Calciborolls, fine-loamy

5 - 15% / N

5 - 15% / N

5 - 15% / N

shallow - deep shallow - deep moderately deep

sagebrush/perennial grasses



low - moderate low - moderate low - moderate

fair / available soil, coarse fragment content fair / available soil, coarse fragment content good - fair / slope-erodibility

Upland - Plateau, Ridge, Hill, and Canyon Sideslopes

AC 110 AP 110

6,560.5 7.4% 60% Lithic Ustic Torriorthents, loamy-skeletal 30% Rock outcrop

40 - 80% / S

40 - vertical / NA

shallow

NA

sparse pinyon-juniper

NA

high

NA

poor / available soil, coarse fragment content, slope-erodibilty NA

AP115 7,993.6 9.0% 60% Lithic Ustic Torriorthents, loamy-skeletal 15% Typic Calciborolls, loamy-skeletal 10% Borollic Calciothids, loamy-skeletal

40 - 80% / S-W

30 - 65% / N

40 - 65% / N

very shallow moderately

deep - deep moderately deep - deep


shrub/grass

pinyon-Douglas fir-juniper

high

high

high

poor / available soil, coarse fragment content, slope-erodibilty poor / coarse fragment content, slope-erodibilty poor / coarse fragment content, slope-erodibility

AP120 8,049.9 9.1% 60% Lithic Ustic Torriorthents, loamy-skeletal 30% Borollic Calciorthids, loamy-skeletal

30 - 65% / S

15 - 30% / N

shallow

moderately deep


pinyon-juniper

high

moderate - high

poor / available soil, coarse fragment content, slope-erodibilty fair to poor / coarse fragment content, slope-erodibilty

AP125 16,201.8 18.3% 35% Borollic Calciorthids, loamy-skeletal 35% Lithic Ustic Torriorthents, loamy-skeletal 20% Typic Calciborolls, loamy-skeletal

40 - 60% / N

40 - 65% / S

25 - 45% / N

moderately deep - deep shallow

moderately deep - deep

pinyon-juniper-Douglas fir


shrub/grass

high

high

high

poor / coarse fragment content, slope-erodibility poor / available soil, coarse fragment content, slope-erodibilty poor / coarse fragment content, slope-erodibilty


72

Soil Type


Dominant Vegetation



Acres %

AP135 2,698.4 3.0% 50% Borollic Calciorthids, loamy-skeletal 20% Borollic Lithic Calciorthids, loamy-skeletal 20% Typic Calciborolls, fine-loamy

10 - 30% / N 25 - 45% / S 5 - 20% / not N or S

deep shallow - moderately deep deep

sagebrush/perennial grasses pinyon-juniper sagebrush/perennial grasses

moderate - high high moderate - high

fair to poor / coarse fragment content, slope-erodibility poor / available soil, coarse fragment content, slope-erodibility good to fair / slope-erodibility

AP140 7,803.8 8.8% 45% Borollic Calciorthids, loamy-skeletal 25% Lithic Ustic Torriorthents, loamy-skeletal 15% Aridic Calciborolls, fine-loamy

10 - 30% / N 10 - 25% / S 3 - 10% / NA

moderately deep - deep shallow deep

pinyon-juniper sparse pinyon-juniper sagebrush/perennial grasses

moderate - high moderate - high low - moderate


AP145 1,943.1 2.2% 45% Borollic Calciorthids, loamy-skeletal 25% Lithic Ustic Torriorthents, fine-loamy 15% Aridic Calciborolls, fine-loamy

10 - 30% / N 10 - 25% / S 3 - 10% / not N or S

moderately deep - deep shallow deep

pinyon-juniper sparse pinyon-juniper sagebrush/perennial grasses

moderate - high moderate - high low - moderate


AP155 13,688.8 15.5% 45% Typic Haploborolls, loamy-skeletal 30% Calcic Pachic Cryoborolls, loamy-skeletal 15% Borollic Lithic Calciorthids, loamy-skeletal

15 - 45% / NA 10 - 30% / N 15 - 40% / S

deep moderately deep - deep shallow

sagebrush/perennial grasses aspen sparse pinyon-juniper-grass

moderate - high moderate - high moderate - high

fair to poor / coarse fragment content, slope-erodibility fair / coarse fragment content, slope-erodibility poor / available soil, coarse fragment content, slope-erodibility

AC160 AP160

7,582.1 8.6% 45% Typic Haploborolls, loamy-skeletal 25% Calcic Cryoborolls, loamy-skeletal 15% Lithic Ustic Torriorthents, loamy-skeletal

40 - 65% / not N or S 50 - 70% / N 50 - 70% / S

deep moderately deep - deep shallow

shrub/ grasses aspen, Douglas fir sparse pinyon-juniper-grass

high high high

fair to poor / coarse fragment content, slope-erodibility poor / coarse fragment content, slope-erodibility poor / available soil, coarse fragment content, slope-erodibility


73

Soil Type


Dominant Vegetation



Acres %

Lowland - Valley/Canyon Bottoms

AP200 4,931.1 5.6% 55% Ustic Torrifluvents, fine 30% Ustic Torriorthents, clayer-skeletal

2 - 5% / not N or S 5 - 20% / not N or S

deep deep

sagebrush/greasewood/grass sagebrudh/perennial grasses

low low - high

good to fair / alkalinity fair / coarse fragment content, slope-erodibility

TOTAL 88,558.0 100.0%


74

3.5.1.1 Upland Soils – Plateaus and Structural Benches

Soils of the plateau and bench surfaces are mostly bouldery, stoney, or gravelly loam topsoils

over loamy to fine-loamy skeletal (35 percent or more by volume of rock fragments) subsoils

(Table 3-13). These soils are shallow to moderately deep (with inclusions of deep soils), well

drained, and with slope ranges of sloping to very steep (5 to 25 percent)(USFS, 2006b).

The mostly loamy-skeletal topsoil textures over loamy- to clayey-skeletal substrate

characteristics of these plateau and bench soils pose mostly low to moderate potentials for

accelerated water erosion depending on:

coarse fragment content (reduced erosion potential with increasing coarse fragment

content),

slope (accelerated erosion and soil loss increase with slope), and

amount of protective vegetative cover (increased cover decreases soil erosion and loss).

The fine-loamy soil textures for the swales and locations where soil is developing in shales are

more erodible if disturbed, but reduced slopes of these areas limit potentials for accelerated

erosion to low to moderate.

The potential for compaction is moderate for the limited areas of fine-loamy soils and low for the

majority of the plateau and bench landscapes that support loamy-skeletal soils at these proposed

locations. Potential for successful reclamation and revegetation of these soils after disturbance is

limited by:

the availability of adequate quantities of topsoil and subsoil material for suitable growth

media,

high coarse fragment content, and

the availability of adequate soil moisture to support the establishment of protective

vegetative cover.

Soil compaction can increase stability in the short-term. However, compacted soils can increase

erosion rates by decreasing infiltration of water (precipitation or runoff) thereby increasing

surface flows and soil erosion. Compacted soils can also reduce plant cover by adversely

affecting the availability of moisture and oxygen in the root zone.

3.5.1.2 Upland Soils – Plateau, Ridge, Hill, and Canyon Sideslopes

Soils of the sideslopes in the Project Area are mostly bouldery, stoney, channery, and gravelly

loams over loamy skeletal subsoils (Table 3-13). These soils are mostly shallow to moderately

deep on south facing slopes, well drained, and with slope ranges of steep to very steep (10 to 80

percent). North facing slopes support principally moderately deep-to deep, well drained, steep to

very steep (10 to 65 percent) soils. Slopes of rock outcrops exceed 80 percent at a number of

locations within the Project Area.


75

The mostly loamy-skeletal topsoil textures over loamy-skeletal substrate, for all but the soils of

the swales, pose high potential for accelerated erosion. Although the erosion-limiting high

coarse fragment content is present for many of these soils on steep slopes, the forces of water

erosion resulting from steepening of slope are not controlled by coarse fragment content. It is in

these soils on steep slopes, especially those south-facing, that have been most affected by

accelerated erosion and soil losses, particularly in those areas where protective vegetation has

been limited by overgrazing. Again, the reduced slopes of the swale bottoms limit potentials for

accelerated soil erosion to low to moderate.

The potential for compaction is again moderate for the limited-in-extent, fine-loamy soil

component to low for the more prevalent loamy-skeletal component. Potential for successful

reclamation and revegetation of these soils after disturbance is limited by:

soil stability and/or the retention of suitable soil materials as dictated by slope steepness

and water erosion,

the availability of soil materials to be replaced after disturbance,

high coarse fragment contents, and

the availability of adequate soil moisture to support the establishment of protective

vegetative cover.

3.5.1.3 Lowland – Valley and Canyon Bottoms

The valley/canyon bottom soils are developing in alluvial floodplains of the canyon drainage and

overlying and inter-fingered alluvial fan deposits from tributary drainages (Table 3-13). Floodplain

soils are mostly non-gravelly loamy to clayey, very deep (multi-layers of buried soil horizons),

mostly well drained, with slopes ranging from nearly level to gently sloping (2 to 5 percent).

Alluvial fan soils are very gravelly loams and clay loams, deep, well drained, with slopes ranging

from gently sloping to moderately steep (5 to 20 percent). Both of these soils pose low to moderate

potentials for accelerated water erosion depending on the same factors discussed under upland soils.

The potential for excessive compaction is moderate to high for the fine floodplain soils

(depending on moisture content) and low to moderate for the clayey-skeletal alluvial fan soils.

Potential for successful post-disturbance reclamation and revegetation of these soils is limited

primarily by the availability of adequate soil moisture to support the establishment of protective

vegetative cover. In some locales, the presence of elevated levels of salinity/alkalinity (areas of

greasewood dominance) can hinder reclamation efforts for floodplain soils. High coarse

fragment content and slope induced accelerated erosion along with moisture availability are

potential limiting factors for reclamation of alluvial fan soils. Effects of soil compaction are as

discussed for upland soils above. The potential for problems stemming from soil compaction is

greater in these bottomland soils, due to higher proportion of clay-sized particles in the soil

fraction, than is the case for upland soils.


Selection of the No Action Alternative would deny the Proposed Action and no proposed

project-related impacts to soils would occur. However, the completion of previously NEPA-


76

approved oil and gas actions and facilities could result in an initial total short-term disturbance of

up to 29.1 acres comprised of 6.2 acres of soils on upland plateaus and benches, 7.3 acres of soils

on upland sideslopes, and 15.6 acres in lowland canyon bottomlands (Table 3-14). Residual

long-term disturbance would total 12.6 acres comprised of 3.4 acres of plateau/bench soils,

3.2 acres of sideslope soils, and 6.0 acres of bottomland soils. Additional effects to soils within

the Project Area would continue at levels controlled by USFS management activities.



Direct impacts on soils would result from the clearing of vegetation, salvage of topsoil materials,

and the blading (cutting and filling) associated with the construction of new roads, upgraded

roads, new well pads, and pipelines. Similar impacts to vegetation and topsoil would be

anticipated for new access road ROWs, those portions of existing access roads where upgrading

would be required, well pad construction, and surface pipeline construction. With the exception

of surface pipeline construction, all construction would require vegetation clearing, soil salvage,

blading to design specifications including cuts and fills where necessary. Vegetation clearing

and ROW leveling that would require soil salvage and blading for surface pipeline construction

and placement would be minimized and limited to specific segments/locations necessitating soil

disturbance for optimizing pipeline integrity and safety. Upgrading access roads may also

require blading and some cuts and fills in steeper areas. For new access roads and upgraded

roads, topsoil would be bladed to one side of the travelway and used in reclaiming the portion of

the ROW outside the travelway.

A total of 109.8 acres of short-term disturbance, or 0.12 percent of the Project Area, would result

from implementation of the Proposed Action (Table 2-3). The initial total short-term

disturbance would be comprised of 57.1 acres of soils on upland plateaus and benches, 36.5 acres

of soils on upland sideslopes, and 16.2 acres in lowland canyon bottomlands (Table 3-14).

Potentials for soil loss due to accelerated erosion of disturbed soils, including cut and fill slopes,

would be greatest for the 36.5 acres of upland sideslope soils with hazards for accelerated

erosion and soil loss generally increasing with steepness of slope. The erosion hazard would

persist until road and well pad construction is completed at which time soil stabilizing and

reclamation measures would be implemented per engineering design and Applicant-committed

Design Features. Erosion hazards would be mostly low to moderate for disturbed soils mapped

as upland plateau and bench soils and lowland alluvial bottomland soils.


77

Table 3-15 Short-term Impacts to Project Area Soils

Soil Type

No Action Alternative

Proposed Action Alternative

Buried Pipeline Alternative

(acres) (%) (acres) (%) (acres) (%)

Upland – Plateau Surfaces

AP130 3.5 0.00% 21.3 0.02% 51.6 0.06%

AP150 2.7 0.00% 35.8 0.04% 97.2 0.11%

Upland – Sideslopes

AP110 0.0 0.00% 1.6 0.00% 5.0 0.01%

AP115 0.0 0.00% 0.7 0.00% 2.8 0.00%

AP120 0.0 0.00% 0.2 0.00% 3.4 0.00%

AP125 0.0 0.00% 0.0 0.00% 0.0 0.00%

AP135 1.7 0.00% 5.8 0.01% 11.3 0.01%

AP140 0.0 0.00% 22.3 0.03% 66.4 0.08%

AP145 0.0 0.00% 2.0 0.00% 6.1 0.01%

AP155 5.6 0.01% 3.9 0.00% 12.7 0.01%

Lowland – Canyon Bottoms

AP200 15.6 0.02% 16.2 0.02% 106.0 0.12%

TOTALS 29.1 0.03% 109.8 0.12% 362.6 0.41%

Potentials for high soil compaction of soils would be greatest for lowland floodplain soils

supporting roads and well pads. However, compaction may pose limits on successful

reclamation/revegetation of the upland well locations and their respective access roads and road

upgrades as well. Local conditions at a well pad or along an access road may make the soils at a

specific location susceptible to severe, plant-growth-limiting compaction. Moderate levels of

compaction would be anticipated for construction on upland plateau and bench soils and the

lowland alluvial fan soils. Low to moderate levels of compaction would be expected for the

skeletal upland sideslope soils with moderate levels anticipated for the swale bottom soils. High

and moderate soil compaction should be mitigated through mechanical treatment to break up

compacted soils as part of a successful reclamation program.

Interim reclamation, including compaction mitigation, and revegetation of those portions of new

access road and upgraded access road construction ROWs and those parts of the seven proposed

well pads, and the reclamation of the surface pipeline ROW would reduce the areas of soil

impacted for the long-term (greater than three to five years) to 36.7 acres (0.04 percent) of the

88,558-acre Project Area (Table 3-14). Residual long-term disturbance would total 36.7 acres

comprised of 17.8 acres of plateau/bench soils, 13.6 acres of sideslope soils, and 5.3 acres of

bottomland soils. Implemented measures would limit potential for accelerated erosion and

mitigate excessive soil compaction where present.

Remaining new access road and upgraded road running surface would be maintained for the

duration of the exploration action for each well, and then allowed to return to a condition subject

to level of use, forces of erosion, and application of maintenance by the USFS. The un-

reclaimed portion of a well pad following the completion of exploratory testing would be

maintained by the Proponent to allow access to the well location.


78

Successful interim and final reclamation of soils disturbed by implementation of the Proposed

Action may be limited by the availability of topsoil material (more organic-rich, surface soil

layer), the quality of the available or salvaged topsoil, and the high erosion potential or hazard

posed especially by most of the soils occupying the upland sideslopes. Available topsoil,

particularly on many upland soils, are likely naturally thin (less than 4 inches), and/or coarse

fragment content is likely high. Both conditions would result in low nutrient and moisture

holding capacity and diminished ability to support the reestablishment of vegetation as part of

reclamation. Both interim reclamation efforts and final reclamation of disturbed soils could be

adversely affected by these soil limitations.

Site-specific measures outlined in the Surface Use Plan of Operations attached to each well’s

APD and ROWs’ Conditions of Approval for off-lease pipelines would be implemented in

cooperation with the USFS to optimize interim and final reclamation success for the well pads,

access roads, and pipelines. Reclamation measures, including reseeding, would be repeated until

a satisfactory stand of established vegetation is achieved. Indirect impacts of stream

sedimentation would be controlled by implementation of soil stabilizing and reclamation

measures.

3.5.4 Buried Pipeline Alternative


Direct impacts to soils from implementing this alternative would be similar to those described

above for the Proposed Action; however the burial of the 47.6 miles of pipeline would involve

the disturbance of an additional 253 acres of soils to clear, blade, and trench the pipeline

construction ROW. A total of 362.6 acres of short-term disturbance, or 0.41 percent of the

Project Area, would result from implementation of the Proposed Action (Table 3-14). The

initial total short-term disturbance would be comprised of 148.8 acres of soils on upland plateaus

and benches, 107.8 acres of soils on upland sideslopes, and 106.0 acres in lowland canyon

bottomlands. Potentials for soil loss due to accelerated erosion of disturbed soils, including cut

and fill slopes, would be greatest for the 107.8 acres of upland sideslope soils with hazards for

accelerated erosion and soil loss generally increasing with steepness of slope. The erosion

hazard would persist until road, well pad, and pipeline construction is completed at which time

soil stabilizing and reclamation measures would already have been or would be implemented per

engineering design.

Interim reclamation of the proposed facilities and the application of final reclamation measures

to the construction ROWs for the buried pipelines would again reduce the areas of soil impacted

for the long-term (greater than three to five years) to 36.7 acres (0.04 percent) of the 88,558-acre

Project Area. Residual long-term disturbance would total 36.7 acres comprised of 17.8 acres of

plateau/bench soils, 13.6 acres of sideslope soils, and 5.3 acres of bottomland soils.

Soils stabilization and reclamation measures would be applied as described above for the

Proposed Action. Although burial of the pipelines would cause more soil disturbance in the

short term, compliance with the application of measures described for the Proposed Action

would minimize long-term impacts to the soil resource.


79


Implementation of the Proposed Action or Buried Pipeline Alternative would result in 109.8 acres

and 362.6 acres, respectively, of short-term surface disturbance dispersed within the 88,855 acres

of the Project Area. The Project Area represents the CIAA for soils.

Cumulative soils impacts would result from past, current, and future removal of protective

vegetative cover and disturbance of soils by excavation, blading, vehicle tracking, and/or

compaction. Short-term impacts of three years or less and long-term impacts of greater than

three years would include the loss of vegetative productivity and accelerated soil erosion and loss

from construction of well pads, access roads, and pipelines, and habitat treatments. These effects

would persist until active reclamation and revegetation (oil and gas development) and/or natural

recovery (habitat treatments) stabilize disturbed soils and restores productivity.

Past, ongoing, and foreseeable short-term and long-term disturbance is estimated at 9,781 acres

and 8,887 acres, respectively, including 1,532 acres of short-term disturbance and 738 acres of

long-term disturbance from oil and gas development (Table 3-1). The remaining acreages for

both short- and long-term effects are 7,820 acres for habitat treatment on NFS lands and

260 acres of existing roads within the Project Area/CIAA. Short-term cumulative soil impacts

would total an estimated 9,781 acres from principally past, ongoing, and future proposed oil and

gas exploration and development activity, habitat treatments, and existing roads within the

88,558-acre Project Area (11.0 percent of the Project Area). For long-term cumulative soil

impacts, the estimated 8,887 acres of past, ongoing, and future disturbance would include the

proposed 36.7 acres for the Proposed Action (10.0 percent of the Project Area).

Cumulative soils impacts for disturbed acreage under the Buried Pipeline Alternative would total

approximately 10,034 acres of short-term disturbance. Long-term cumulative disturbance would

remain as determined for the Proposed Action, 8,887 acres, as the additional short-term

disturbance of the alternative’s buried pipeline construction methodology would be reclaimed

after construction.

Mechanical treatment of 7,820 acres as part of ongoing and future habitat improvement

treatments within the Project Area (Table 3-1) would alter the type of vegetative cover, but

would likely not reduce the percent cover; therefore, this action should not contribute to

cumulative soil erosion and loss impacts. Some soil compaction and/or soil loosening could

occur within the 7,820 acres from vehicles used to mechanically treat encroaching conifers, but

the acreage affected would likely be limited and short-term or temporary (one year or less) in

duration with the amelioration of compacted soils resulting from seasonal wetting and drying and

freezing and thawing.

Long-term uses of the Project Area for livestock grazing and recreation, including hunting,

would continue. Under the current Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP), production

and management directives would remain constant until at least the next LRMP for the South

Unit of the ANF is authorized and implemented.


80

3.6 Vegetation and Wetlands

Scoping comments relating to vegetation and wetlands included:

Cumulative impacts associated with the existing roads network and future fire treatments;

Potential for spread of invasive species; and

Potential impacts to aquatic and riparian habitats.


3.6.1.1 Vegetation Communities

The Project Area lies within the Tavaputs Plateau Section of the Nevada-Utah Mountains Semi-

Desert - Coniferous Forest - Alpine Meadow Province of the USFS ecological subregions

classification system. Precipitation ranges from 8-35 inches, annually, with higher elevations

receiving much of the annual total in the form of snow (USFS, 1994). The Anthro Plateau is

characterized by long, dissected canyons with comparatively flat, open bottoms. These are cut

through calcareous sandstones and marly, shale-like mudstones of the Green River and Uinta

Formations (USFS, 2006b). Vegetative communities were analyzed for all NFS lands within the

South Unit located east of and including Township 6 South, Range 6 West (Project Area) and

include barren, evergreen forest, deciduous forest, shrub/scrub, grasslands, wetlands, and

disturbed areas. Acreages, percentages, and short-term disturbance totals of vegetative

communities as they pertain to each alternative are outlined in Table 3-15 and described in detail

below.

Table 3-16 Proposed Disturbance within Vegetative Communities

Vegetative Communities

Acres Within East South

Unit Project Area %

Proposed Action

Alternative Disturbance

(Acres)

Proposed Action

Disturbance (%)

Buried Pipeline


(Acres)

Buried Pipeline


(%)

Barren 8,624.9 9.8% 12.4 11.3% 47.9 13.2%

Evergreen forest 41,009.2 46.3% 28.5 26.0% 92.1 25.4%

Deciduous forest 1,983.0 2.2% 0.0 0.0% 0.2 0.1%

Shrub/scrub 30,386.1 34.3% 28.4 25.9% 135.1 37.2%

Grasslands 3,704.8 4.2% 33.6 30.6% 53.3 14.7%

Wetlands 152.7 0.2% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0%

Disturbed Areas 2,697.8 3.0% 6.8 6.2% 33.8 9.3%

Totals 88,588.5 Acres 100% 109.8 100% 362.6 100%

Acreages and communities derived from the Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project (USGS, 2004).

Barren

The barren vegetation community consists of bare or sparsely vegetated landscapes, generally

less than 10 percent plant cover, found on steep cliff faces, narrow canyons, smaller rock

outcrops, and open table lands. This community is primarily composed of sedimentary rocks,

but can also include igneous and metamorphic bedrock types. The vegetation in the barren


81

vegetative community is characterized by very open and scattered trees and shrubs with a sparse

herbaceous layer in some areas. Common species include common pinyon pine (Pinus edulis),

ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), juniper species (Juniperus spp.), mountain mahogany

(Cercocarpus intricatus), and other short shrub and herbaceous species. Approximately

8,624.9 acres, (9.8 percent) of the Project Area is vegetated with the barren community (USGS,

2004).

Evergreen Forest

The evergreen forest vegetation community is widespread throughout the South Unit of the ANF.

Most commonly this vegetation type is composed of pinyon-juniper woodlands, but a small portion

of evergreen forest is composed of mixed conifer. These woodlands occur in warm, dry sites on

mountain slopes, mesas, plateaus, and ridges. At lower elevations, this community is dominated

by Utah juniper (Juniperus osteosperma) while in mid-level elevations a co-dominated community

is found which transitions to an upper elevation community dominated by pinyon pine. Understory

layers are variable and may include greenleaf manzanita (Arctostaphylos patula), big sagebrush

(Artemisia tridentata), mountain mahogany, blackbrush (Coleogyne ramosissima), muttongrass

(Poa fendleriana), and other species. Pinyon-juniper communities form a band within the

Tavaputs Plateau starting at elevations of 6,000 feet and generally not existing past 8,000 feet but

can extend up to 8,500 feet (Goodrich and Neese, 1986). Approximately 41,009.2 acres

(46.3 percent) of the Project Area is represented by the evergreen forest community (USGS, 2004).

Deciduous Forest

Stands of aspen (Populus tremuloides) are present at higher elevation areas within the South

Unit. Some aspen stands intermingle with Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), especially on the

north faces of canyon slopes. An understory of snowberry (Symphoricarpos spp.), thimbleberry

(Rubis parviflorus), or other shrub species is commonly found in this vegetative community

(USGS, 2004). These communities are best developed on moist concave exposures between

7,500 to 8,500 feet (Goodrich and Neese, 1986). No project related disturbance is planned

within the deciduous forest community, although 1,983 acres (2.2 percent) of this vegetation

community is represented within the Project Area (USGS, 2004).

Shrub/Scrub

Most commonly, the shrub/scrub community is composed of sagebrush steppe which is found

above, in, and just below the pinyon-juniper zone (Goodrich and Neese, 1986). At lower

elevations the shrub/scrub community is composed of dense greasewood (Sarcobatus

vermiculatus) stands where saline soils are present, while big sagebrush-dominated communities

are found at mid-level elevations (Goodrich and Neese, 1986). These communities are often

associated with various grasses including salina wildrye (Elymus salina), thiskspike wheatgrass

(Elymus lanceolatus), smooth brome (Bromus inermis), crested wheatgrass (Agropyron

cristatum), junegrass (Koeleria macrantha), Sandberg bluegrass (Poa sandbergii), and needle

and thread (Stipa comata) (Goodrich and Neese, 1986). Black sagebrush (A. nova) is found in

shallow, rocky soils high in carbonates (Goodrich and Neese, 1986) while on deeper soils

Mountain big sagebrush (A. tridentata ssp. vaseyana var. pauciflora) is the dominant species

(Goodrich and Neese, 1986). Throughout these communities other shrubs and forbs are present


82

and likely include milkvetch (Astragalus spp.), dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), rubber

rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus nauseosus), yellowbrush (Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus) and lupine

(Lupinus spp.) (Goodrich and Neese, 1986; USFS, 2005b). Approximately 30,386 acres

(34.3 percent) of the Project Area is represented by the shrub/scrub vegetative community

(USGS, 2004).

Grasslands

Grassland communities within the South Unit are usually composed of a mosaic of two or three

plant associations with one of the following dominant bunch grasses: Salina wildrye (Elymus

salinus), thiskspike wheatgrass (Elymus lanceolatus), bluebunch wheatgrass (Pseudoroegneria

spicata). The subdominants include junegrass (Koeleria macrantha), blue grama (Bouteloua

gracilis), and Sandberg bluegrass (Poa secunda). In the ANF, these grasslands are intermixed

with stands of Douglas fir, aspen, or pinyon-juniper communities. Approximately 3,704 acres

(4.2 percent) of the Project Area is represented by the grasslands vegetation community (USGS,

2004).

Wetland

The wetland vegetation community is limited to stream banks within the South Unit of the ANF.

Emergent vegetation such as wiregrass (Juncus arcticus) and Nebraska sedge (Carex nebraskensis)

occur along the stream banks with willows (Salix spp.) occasionally present in the floodplain. This

vegetation community stops where the floodplain ends and where greasewood and sagebrush start

to occur. No project related disturbance is planned within the wetland vegetative community,

although approximately 152.7 acres (0.2 percent) of the Project Area is represented by this

community (USGS, 2004).

Disturbed

Disturbed vegetation communities within the South Unit of the ANF include chained pinyon-

juniper woodlands. Black sagebrush (Artemisia nova), rubber rabbitbrush, Wyoming big

sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata var. Wyomingensis), Russian wildrye (Elymus junceus), crested

wheatgrass, and Indian ricegrass (Stipa hymenoides) are established in the chainings. Disturbed

vegetative communities comprise approximately 2,697 acres (3.0 percent) of the Project Area

(USGS, 2004).

3.6.1.2 Wetlands and Riparian Areas

In this portion of the ANF, wetlands and riparian habitats are primarily confined to drainages

with perennial water bodies. Sowers Canyon, which has shrubby riparian vegetation in the lower

portions of the drainage along Sowers Creek, is the only drainage in the vicinity of the Project

Area that supports wetland or riparian habitats. The dominant species in the Sowers Creek

riparian habitat is coyote willow (Salix exigua). Trees are not present in the vicinity of the

project and riparian areas are sparse and limited in extent to within the drainage.


83

3.6.1.3 Non-Native Invasive Species

Invasive and non-native species have been identified on the ANF. Several of these species are

also designated as county listed noxious weeds. The ANF identifies and controls noxious weed

populations using chemical, mechanical, and fire treatments. A total of 13 noxious weeds have

been identified as a concern for Duchesne County (DCWD, 2005). These species include:

perennial pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium), white top (Cardaria draba), Russian knapweed

(Centaurea repens), leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula), musk thistle (Carduus nutans), Dyers woad

(Isatis tinctoria), scotch thistle (Onopordum acanthium), purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria),

field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), quackgrass (Elytrigia

repens), Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia), and spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa).

The ANF has identified three species that are the primary concern on the South Unit including

musk thistle, Russian knapweed, and white top. These species are present on the South Unit and

are likely to be present in the vicinity of the Project Area (USFS, 2005c). On the ANF, they are

predominantly found in canyon bottoms. A noxious weed inventory (on file in Duchesne Ranger

District office) identifies sites currently being treated.

A USFS Intermountain Region map of noxious weed infestation by national forest identifies the

South Unit of the ANF as having only 0 to 1 percent currently infested by noxious weeds (USFS,

2000).

3.6.1.4 Special Status Plants

The federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) and the USDA Forest Service

Sensitive Plant Program Handbook R4 Amendment for Sensitive Plant Listing (FSH 2609.25)

identify listed threatened, endangered, and USFS sensitive plant species and their critical habitats.

A list of federal threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate plant species that are known to

occur in Duchesne County, Utah was obtained from the USFWS (USFWS, 2009). Additional

information on these species can be found in the Biological Assessment that was prepared for this

project (on file at the Duchesne Ranger District). In addition, the USFS Region 4 identifies

sensitive plant species that may occur on the ANF. Additional information on these species can

be found in the Biological Evaluation that was prepared for this project (on file at the Duchesne

Ranger District). Special Status plant species are not present in the vicinity of project activities

and are not discussed further in this Environmental Assessment.


Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed project would not be approved. Impacts to

vegetation would be limited to up to 29.1 acres of short-term and 12.6 acres of long-term

disturbance from previously approved oil and gas exploration projects. Vegetation would

continue to be modified by natural processes and other previously permitted activities, including

approved oil and gas development, wildlife habitat treatments, grazing, or other authorized

activities. Impacts that are likely to occur as a result of previously permitted activities include

disturbance of native vegetation and increased potential for the introduction or spread of noxious

weeds and invasive species.


84

3.6.3 Environmental Consequences – Proposed Action


The proposed action would result in direct impacts to 109.8 acres short-term and up to 36.7 acres

of long-term disturbance to vegetation as indicated in Table 2-3. Disturbance would involve

clearing of vegetation from each of the well pads, and the new proposed access roads, and

upgrades of existing access roads leading to these sites. Impacts to vegetation resources have

been minimized during the design of the Proposed Action by utilizing one existing unreclaimed

well pad and approximately seven miles of existing access roads. Where possible, upgrades to

existing access roads will be minimized to the amount necessary for safe travel. Proposed

disturbance for road upgrades would occur adjacent to existing roads and would increase the

width of the traveling ROW. Approximately 0.7 mile of new access road would be constructed.

As a result of new access road construction, approximately 2.6 acres of vegetation would be

disturbed in the short term with approximately 1.9 acres remaining as long-term disturbance.

Indirect impacts to vegetation resources would be limited to the increased potential for the

introduction or spread of invasive species or noxious weeds.

Project activities would have minor overlap with wetland habitats. Upgrades to existing roads

would be constructed adjacent to Sowers Creek and a surface pipeline would be placed adjacent

to the upgraded road. No direct impacts to wetlands would be anticipated as a result of project

activities. Indirect impacts to wetlands could result from project related ground disturbance.

Indirect impacts could include invasion of wetland habitats by weedy species or increased

sedimentation from project related erosion. Due to project design features that include

monitoring the Project Area for weeds and controlling any weed infestations, this potential

impact is not anticipated. The potential for increased sedimentation would be minor based on the

minor amount of surface disturbance. In addition, surface disturbance in the vicinity of wetlands

would be limited to upgrades and maintenance of existing roads.

On completed locations, interim reclamation would be performed on all areas of the access roads

and well pads not needed after drilling and completion operations (if performed) are finished.

These reclaimed areas would be seeded with USFS-approved seed mixtures. Vegetation re-

establishment would likely take several years to return to the pre-disturbance condition.

Infestations of Russian knapweed, musk thistle, and white top have been identified near the

Project Area. Noxious weed seeds may be transported and spread by vehicles during proposed

operations. Dried soil on the underside of vehicles can contain seeds of noxious weeds, and

seeds may be spread in the proposed action area. Noxious weeds are more likely to invade areas

with disturbed soil and a seed source for noxious weeds and other invasive species may be

present.

Weed management in the Project Area may be necessary to prevent weed infestation and to

ensure adequate reclamation. The Proponent will monitor the Project Area for noxious weeds

and invasive species for three years following the exploration activities. Weed control will

include applying USFS-approved herbicides or by mechanical means.


85


Under the buried pipeline alternative, impacts to vegetation would be similar to the Proposed

Action. The buried pipeline alternative would result in up to 362.6 acres short-term and up to

36.7 acres of long-term disturbance to vegetation. Impacts to vegetation would be expressed to a

greater extent as a result of the Buried Pipeline Alternative, as indicated in Table 2-3. These

impacts would be small compared to the overall extent of the Project Area. Due to the larger

amount of surface disturbance associated with the Buried Pipeline Alternative, and the proposed

pipeline ROW placed adjacent to Sowers Creek, the potential for erosion and sedimentation

would be increased. Approximately 5 miles of pipeline would be constructed adjacent to County

Road and Sowers Creek resulting in approximately 30 acres of new ground disturbance. While

the new pipeline ROW would be situated with the road between the Pipeline ROW and Sowers

Creek, additional ground disturbance within Sowers Canyon is likely to result in increased

erosion and sedimentation in wetland habitats along Sowers Creek.

Despite the larger amount of surface disturbance associated with the Buried Pipeline Alternative,

introduction and spread of invasive species and noxious weeds are not anticipated. Weed

management and control measures would be the same for each action alternative and are

anticipated to effectively prevent the spread of weeds for all ground disturbance.


The cumulative impacts analysis area (CIAA) consists of the Project Area. Other historic,

ongoing, and proposed activities in the Project Area and on the South Unit of the ANF include

livestock grazing, mineral development, vegetation treatments, weed control, and other past or

future activities. These activities would result in short-term and in some cases, long-term,

cumulative vegetation loss. Damage to vegetation may increase soil erosion, reduce the quality

of visual resources, and modify or remove wildlife habitat. The Proposed Action would

incrementally add to the expected short-term disturbance on the South Unit of the ANF.

Implementation of the Proposed Action would contribute an additional 109.8 acres of short-term

disturbance to the existing and foreseeable disturbance of 9,781 acres within the CIAA.

Implementation of this alternative would affect approximately 0.12 percent of the CIAA.

Cumulative impacts would result from past, current, and future removal of vegetation prior to

well pad construction and road upgrades and various range and habitat improvement activities.

Surface disturbance from the Proposed Action represents approximately 0.1 percent of the area

of the South Unit of the ANF and approximately 1 percent of the reasonably foreseeable direct

cumulative vegetation impacts.

Implementation of the Buried Pipeline Alternative would contribute 362.6 acres of short-term




86

3.7 Wildlife and Fisheries

Scoping comments related to wildlife and fisheries included:

Potential direct and cumulative impacts to wildlife, including big game species;

Potential impacts to aquatic species;

Potential impacts to migratory birds and other avian species;

Specific impacts to sage-grouse populations and habitat;

Potential impacts to Canada lynx;

Potential impacts to Mexican spotted owl; and

Potential impacts to aquatic species within and downstream of the Project Area.


Wildlife within the Project Area includes a variety of mammals and birds common to

sagebrush/grassland and aspen/conifer habitats. Common species in the Project Area include

mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), elk (Cervus elaphus), pronghorn (Antilocapra americana),

coyote (Canis latrans), cottontail (Sylvilagus spp.), common raven (Corvus corax), greater sage

grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus), and mountain bluebird (Sialia currucoides). Raptors are

addressed under the subsections below (Migratory Birds, Threatened & Endangered, and

Sensitive & MIS). Sowers Creek is the only perennial stream in the Project Area which would

be affected by project activities. Indian Canyon watershed occupies a very small area in the

extreme northwestern portion of the proponents lease area. This watershed would not be

affected by any project-related activities, and will not be discussed further.

Sowers Creek was surveyed by USFS personnel during the 2004 and 2008 field season and

found to be a fishless stream (USFS, 2005d; USFS, 2009b). There are various small springs

throughout the Project Area, but none of these springs support fisheries. The nearest fisheries

are downstream near the confluence of Sowers Creek and the Duchesne River with the nearest

fishery of concern greater than ten miles downstream from the Project Area. Any further

discussion related to fisheries in this document will be focused on threatened, endangered,

sensitive, and management indicator species.

3.7.1.1 Migratory Birds

This section discusses U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) Birds of Conservation Concern

(Migratory Birds) and Utah Partners in Flight (PIF) Priority Species that have the potential to

occur within the Project Area.

The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) of December 8, 2008 between the USFS and

USFWS to promote the conservation of migratory birds, provides direction for managing

migratory birds. This direction includes evaluating the effects of agency actions on migratory

birds, focusing on species of management concern along with their priority habitats and key risk

factors. The MOU furthers directs to the extent practicable: evaluate and balance long-term

benefits of projects against any short- or long-term adverse affects when analyzing, disclosing,


87

and mitigating the effects of actions; pursue opportunities to restore or enhance migratory bird

habitat in the project area; and consider approaches, to the extent practicable, for identifying and

minimizing take that is incidental to otherwise lawful activities (USFS, 2008a).

The Utah Partners in Flight working group completed a statewide avian conservation strategy

(Parrish et al., 2002). The strategy identifies ―priority species‖ for conservation due to declining

abundance or distribution, or vulnerability to various local and/or range-wide risk factors. This

list of priority bird species is intended to be used as a tool for federal and state agencies to

prioritize bird species that should be considered for conservation action (Parrish et al., 2002).

One application of the strategy and priority list is to give these birds specific consideration when

analyzing effects of proposed management actions, and to implement the recommended

conservation measures where appropriate.

A complete list of PIF Priority Species and USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern that have the

potential to occur on the ANF are identified with their scientific names and habitat associations

in Appendix G. A number of these species have the potential to occur within the Project Area

or in the vicinity of project activities and are discussed, along with their habitat associations, in

the following section. The three-toed woodpecker and flammulated owl are also considered

Forest Service Sensitive Species. For a discussion on these species, refer to the Sensitive

Species Section of this document and the Biological Evaluation that was prepared for this project

(On file at the Duchesne Ranger District Office).

Sagebrush-grassland

Sagebrush-grassland habitats are known to support several migratory and non-migratory bird

species. This habitat type occurs in the Project Area and the Brewer’s sparrow, sage sparrow,

black-throated gray warbler, greater sage grouse, loggerhead shrike, golden eagle, and

ferruginous hawk are often associated with this habitat. Habitat for these species is present at the

proposed well sites and along roads proposed for upgrades. These species are known to either

nest or forage in sagebrush-grassland habitats. Migratory species may be present during nesting

season and non-migratory species like the sage grouse and golden eagle may be present year-

round (Parrish et al., 2002).

Pinyon-juniper Woodland

Pinyon-juniper woodlands are present in the vicinity of project activities. This habitat supports

several migratory bird species. These species include black-throated gray warbler, loggerhead

shrike, pinyon jay, gray vireo, and Virginia’s warbler. This habitat type is common within the

elevational range of project activities and is present in the vicinity of each of the proposed wells.

Riparian

Shrubby riparian vegetation is present along Sowers Creek. Road upgrades along Sowers Creek

may occur in the vicinity of shrubby riparian habitats. The broad-tailed hummingbird is

associated with the mountain riparian and has the potential to be present along Sowers Creek. In

addition to the broad-tailed hummingbird which is a species of conservation concern, Lincoln


88

sparrow and song sparrow are MIS that utilize riparian habitats and may be present in the

vicinity of project activities.

Coniferous Forest and Aspen

In addition to pinyon-juniper woodlands, black-throated gray warbler, pygmy nuthatch, three-

toed woodpecker, Williamson’s sapsucker, and Virginias warbler are also associated with the

ponderosa pine and conifer/aspen habitats, and the red-naped sapsucker is associated with the

aspen habitat type (NatureServe, 2009; Parrish et al., 2002). The golden eagle may use all these

habitats for foraging (NatureServe, 2009; DeGraaf et al., 1991). Forested habitats are not present

within the Project Area, however aspen habitats are present in the vicinity of project activities.

3.7.1.2 Fisheries

Fisheries are not present within the Project Area. One perennial stream, Sowers Creek is present

within portions of the Project Area affected by project activities. Sowers Creek was surveyed by

ANF fisheries biologists from 2004 to 2008 and determined to be a fishless stream (USFS, 2005d;

USFS, 2009b). While the Project Area is not known to support fisheries, fisheries are present

downstream from Sowers Creek in the Duchesne River.

3.7.1.3 Threatened and Endangered Species

Federally listed threatened, endangered, and candidate species known to occur in Duchesne

County, Utah are identified by the USFWS (USFWS, 2009). These species are analyzed in the

Biological Assessment prepared for this project (on file at the Duchesne Ranger District office,

Duchesne, Utah). Species identified as having the potential to occur within the project area of

being impacted by project activities are discussed further in the following sections.

Bonytail

Specific habitat requirements of the bonytail are not well known because the species was

extirpated from most of its historic range prior to extensive fishery surveys. It is a very rare

species in the Colorado River Basin, with only a few individuals having been found in the last

decade (USFWS, 2002a). Very low numbers may occur in the Gray Canyon of the Green River,

which is approximately 65 miles south of the Project. Critical habitat has been designated for

this species within Duchesne County, Utah (USFWS, 2006). The species is considered adapted

to mainstem rivers where it has been observed in pools and eddies. Suitable aquatic habitats that

the bonytail would utilize are not present in the vicinity of project activities; however, water used

for this Project would be acquired from water sources within the Colorado River Basin. Any

water depletions from the Colorado River Basin which alter water conditions, impede fish

movements, or reduce potential habitat are considered to have an adverse effect on Colorado

River fish.


89

Colorado Pikeminnow

The range of the Colorado pikeminnow is restricted to the Upper Colorado River basin, upstream

of Glen Canyon Dam (USFWS, 2002b). Adult Colorado pikeminnow use a variety of habitat

types, depending on time of year, but mainly utilize shoreline runs, eddies, backwater habitats,

seasonally flooded bottoms, and side canyons. They are most abundant in the upper Green River

(between the mouth of the Yampa River and head of Desolation Canyon) and lower Green River

(between the Price and San Rafael Rivers) (USFWS, 2002b). Critical habitat has been

designated for these species in the Green River in Carbon, Emery, and Grand Counties (USFWS,

2006). Suitable aquatic habitats that the Colorado pikeminnow would utilize are not present in

the vicinity of project activities; however, water used for this Project would be acquired from

water sources within the Colorado River Basin. Any water depletions from the Colorado River

Basin which alter water conditions, impede fish movements, or reduce potential habitat are

considered to have an effect on Colorado River fish.

Humpback Chub

Suitable habitat for this fish species is characterized by a wide variety of riverine habitats,

especially canyon areas with fast currents, deep pools, and boulder habitat (USFWS, 2002c).

This species originally inhabited the main stem of the Colorado River from what is now Lake

Mead to the canyon areas of the Green and Yampa River Basins. Currently, the species appears

to be restricted to the Colorado River at Black Rocks and Westwater Canyon of the Green River,

and Yampa Canyon of the Yampa River (USFWS, 2002c). Suitable aquatic habitats that the

humpback chub would utilize are not present in the vicinity of project activities; however, water

used for this Project would be acquired from water sources within the Colorado River Basin.

Any water depletions from the Colorado River Basin which alter water conditions, impede fish

movements, or reduce potential habitat are considered to have an effect on Colorado River fish.

Razorback Sucker

This species inhabits warm water reaches of large rivers in areas that include deep runs, eddies,

backwaters, and flooded off channel environments (USFWS, 2002d). The largest population is

known to occur in the upper Green River between the confluence of the Yampa River and the

confluence of the Duchesne River. Adult suckers also occur in the Colorado River near Grand

Junction, Colorado, although numbers are very low (USFWS, 2002d). Critical habitat has been

designated for this species in the Green River in Carbon, Duchesne, Emery, Uintah and Grand

Counties (USFWS, 2006). Suitable aquatic habitats that the razorback sucker would utilize are

not present in the vicinity of project activities; however, water used for this Project would be

acquired from water sources within the Colorado River Basin. Any water depletions from the

Colorado River Basin which alter water conditions, impede fish movements, or reduce potential

habitat are considered to have an effect on Colorado River fish.

3.7.1.4 Management Indicator Species

The National Forest Management Act of 1976 provides direction for selecting management

indicator species for national forest planning. MIS are the species which will represent the


90

wildlife and aquatic resources in estimating the effects of management alternatives; and the

species for which habitat will be monitored as directed in the Land and Resource Management

Plan. MIS are discussed in greater detail in the MIS specialist report that was prepared for this

project (on file at the Duchesne Ranger District Office). Management Indicator Species for the

ANF are listed in Table 3-16. Species that are identified as Management Indicator Species that

do not have suitable habitat within the Project Area are discussed in further detail in the

Management Indicator Species Specialist Report (On file at the Duchesne Ranger District Office).

Table 3-17 Ashley National Forest Management Indicator Species

Common Name Scientific Name Habitat Indicator

or Listing Rationale

Habitat Present

in Project Area

Analysis in Impacts Section?

Elk Cervus elaphus Economic Value Yes Yes

Mule deer Odocoileus hemionus Economic Value Yes Yes

Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis Old Growth Timber Yes Yes

Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos Cliffs and Rock Yes Yes

Warbling vireo Vireo gilvus Deciduous Woodlands Yes Yes

Lincoln’s sparrow Melospiza lincolnii Riparian Shrubs Yes Yes

Sage grouse Centrocercus urophasianus

Sagebrush Yes Yes

White-tailed ptarmigan Lagopus leucurus Alpine Meadow No No

Cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarki spp. Aquatic No No

Macroinvertebrates

Epeorus ssp, Ephemerella doddsi, Ephemerella inermis, Zapada spp. and Chironomidae

Aquatic Yes Yes

Red-naped sapsucker Sphyrapicus nuchalis Deciduous Woodlands Yes Yes

Song sparrow Melospiza melodia Riparian Shrubs Yes Yes

Elk

Elk are listed as a MIS for the Forest because of their economic importance as a hunted species

(USFS, 1986). Elk have an extremely variable diet and therefore live in a variety of habitats in

Utah. Elk consume a combination of grasses, forbs, and shrubs and have large water

requirements. Elk prefer ranges within 1/2 mile of water sources, however, some herds will

travel greater distances for water (UDWR, 2005).

The ANF has 1,016,350 acres of big game summer range and 316,900 acres of big game winter

range. The ANF primarily provides forage for elk during the spring, summer, and fall. The

majority of big game winter range occurs on adjacent BLM, State, and private lands (USFS, 1986).

The ANF occupies portions of five of the state's wildlife management subunits. Elk population

objectives and estimates within these subunits are outlined in Table 3-17 below.


91

Table 3-18 Elk Wildlife Management Subunits

Wildlife Management Subunits Population Objective Winter Population Estimate in 2007

North Slope, Daggett 1,300 1,000

South Slope, Vernal 2,500 2,770

South Slope, Yellowstone 5,500 5,600

Nine Mile, Anthro 700 1050

Wasatch Mountains, Avintaquin 1,2500 1300

Data taken from UDWR, 2007.

With the exception of the Daggett subunit, the elk population objectives are nearly met or exceeded

within each of the subunits on the ANF. The Daggett subunit is at approximately 75 percent of the

population objective. As indicated in the table above, the winter 2005 population estimate for the

Nine Mile Anthro subunit was above the population objective by approximately 3 percent.

Elk populations may be recovering from the recent drought and increasing due to the decrease in

cow elk hunting permits in 2004. The number of permits was reduced from 10,952 in 2003 to

6,802 in 2004 to help increase populations and improve range conditions (UDWR, 2004a).

The Nature Conservancy identifies elk as being ―Apparently Secure‖ in Utah and ―Secure‖

throughout most of the species' range in the western U.S. (NatureServe, 2009). Based on the

available data in the MIS report which has been described above, it appears that the elk

population on the Forest is stable, sustains an annual harvest, and remains viable. Based on the

data described above, it also appears that the Ashley National Forest provides elk habitat that is

well distributed across the Forest and is sufficient to sustain elk on the Forest.

Mule Deer

Mule deer are listed as a MIS for the Forest because of their economic importance as a hunted

species (USFS, 1986). Mule deer occur in a wide variety of habitats in Utah. They are found in

nearly all of the state although they are less common in desert areas. Mule deer graze on

herbaceous plants during the spring and summer, and browse current year’s growth of leaves and

stems of shrub species during the fall and winter (UDWR, 2008). They rely on areas that

provide a mosaic of habitats that offer food, cover, and water. Mule deer are native ungulates

that occur within the Project Area. Mule deer population objectives and population estimates for

the five wildlife management subunits in which the ANF occurs are outlined in Table 3-18.

Table 3-19 Mule Deer Wildlife Management Subunits

Wildlife Management Subunits Population Objective Population Estimate

North Slope Unit* 6,200 5,100

South Slope, Vernal 13,000 10,030

South Slope, Yellowstone 13,000 11,500

Nine Mile Unit** 8,500 4,150

Wasatch Mountains, Avintaquin 3,200 1,650

1) Data taken from UDWR, 2007. *North Slope, Daggett is a subunit within this unit. **Nine Mile, Anthro is a subunit of this unit.


92

The Project Area occurs within the Nine Mile Wildlife Management Unit for mule deer.

Populations in this unit, as well as the other four units, are below current objectives set by

UDWR. Utah’s deer population is primarily controlled by harvest; however, drought conditions

from 2001 through 2003 may be partially responsible for the reduced population. Mule deer

populations may be recovering from the recent drought and increasing in response to reduced

hunting pressure. The number of doe permits was reduced from 3,605 in 2003 to 2,155 in 2004

to help increase populations and improve range conditions (UDWR, 2004a).

The ANF has 1,016,350 acres of big game summer range and 316,900 acres of big game winter

range. The ANF primarily provides forage for mule deer during the spring, summer, and fall.

The majority of big game winter range occurs on adjacent BLM, State, and private lands (USFS,

1986).

The Nature Conservancy identifies mule deer as being ―Secure‖ throughout Utah and most of the

species' range in the western U.S. (NatureServe, 2009). Based on the available data that has been

described above, and in the MIS report, it appears that the mule deer population on the Forest is

stable to slightly decreasing, but sustains an annual harvest and remains viable. Based on the

data described above, it also appears that the Ashley National Forest provides mule deer habitat

that is well distributed across the Forest and is sufficient to sustain mule deer on the Forest.

Northern Goshawk

The northern goshawk is the MIS for mature and old growth forest habitats on the ANF. It is

also considered a USFS sensitive species and is discussed as a sensitive species in the Forest

Sensitive section.

This species inhabits coniferous, deciduous, and mixed forests in North America and prefers to

forage in closed canopy forests with moderate tree densities as compared to young forests

(Graham et al., 1999). A goshawk's home range may be up to 6,000 acres and has three main

habitat components (nesting, post fledgling area, and foraging area) within this home range.

Nesting areas are typically 30 acres in size and may include more than one nest. The post-

fledgling area (PFA) is 420 acres in size and surrounds the nest area (Reynolds, 1992). The post-

fledgling area typically includes a variety of forest types and conditions, but it should contain

patches of dense trees as well as developed herbaceous areas and shrubby understory, snags,

downed logs and small openings. These attributes are needed to provide the necessary habitats

for hunting, security and prey species. The foraging area is approximately 5,400 acres and

surrounds the post-fledgling area (Reynolds, 1992).

The ANF has been annually monitoring northern goshawks since 1991. The occupancy rate of

known territories has fluctuated since data collection began. The ANF uses the recommended

monitoring protocol which uses both known and random territories and establishes occupancy

based on a minimum of three visits. Based on data obtained through monitoring, no goshawk

territories have been identified and no sightings have been recorded within or near the proposed

well sites, however suitable goshawk habitat is present in the vicinity of the Proposed Action.

The closest goshawk nest cluster is approximately 4.5 miles to the southwest of the Project Area

and has not been active since 2000 (USFS, 2006c).


93

ANF data further suggest that territory occupancy was consistent between 1992 and 2000,

declined from 2001-2003, and increased again in 2004 and 2005. The decrease in occupancy in

2001-2003 is likely related to long-term drought or other weather parameters. Occupancy has

fluctuated since the date that data collection began and 2008 showed no production (attributed to

a heavy winter and a late cold spring). Statistical analysis in 2006 showed the goshawk

population trend across the Forest appears to be stable (USFS, 2006d; Dalton, 2008). It also

appears that the Forest supports a viable goshawk population and continues to provide well-

distributed habitat across the Forest for this species. Data collection in 2007 did not show any

variance from the statistical analysis of 2006. Since, production in 2008 was likely affected by a

heavy winter and a late cold spring, the production in that year was out of the norm, and

production in 2009 and subsequent years is likely to show similar production rates as those

observed prior to 2008.

Golden Eagle

The golden eagle is a management indicator for cliffs and rocks. Golden eagles nest and roost in

cliffs and large trees, and forage over open country (DeGraaf et al., 1991). They are found in

open areas, prairies, and wooded areas. They begin laying eggs in early March in Utah and the

incubation time is approximately 43-45. Young can fly at 60-77 days and the fledging period is

therefore approximately mid July (NatureServe, 2009). They feed mainly on small mammals

(rabbits, marmots, and ground squirrels), insects, snakes, birds, juvenile ungulates, and carrion

(NatureServe, 2009). Habitat for the golden eagle occurs within the Project Area. Golden eagles

have been observed in the Project Area hunting sage grouse off of the Nutters Ridge grouse lek

(USFS, 2006c).

Nature Conservancy data show golden eagle populations in Utah to be ―apparently secure‖

(NatureServe, 2009). Recorded sightings of golden eagles on the ANF appear to be distributed

across the ANF with the majority of sightings occurring within the last four years (USFS, 2006d).

Based on the available data for the Ashley National Forest, Utah, and Wyoming (Nature

Conservancy data, BBS data, ANF data), it is estimated that the golden eagle population trend on

the Forest is stable but at low numbers. It is also estimated that the Ashley National Forest

provides golden eagle habitat that is well distributed across the Forest and is sufficient to sustain

golden eagles on the Forest (USFS, 1986; USFS, 2006d).

Red-naped Sapsucker and Warbling Vireo

The red-naped sapsucker was formerly considered the same species as the yellow-bellied

sapsucker (NatureServe, 2009). The red-naped sapsucker and warbling vireo are management

indicators for deciduous woodlands, primarily aspen and riparian cottonwood. In the Northern

Rockies, the red-naped sapsucker is most abundant in cottonwood and aspen forests, but also

observed in other riparian cover types. This sapsucker is a primary cavity nester, excavates a

nest hole in a snag or a living tree with a dead or rotten interior, and shows a strong preference

for aspen (NatureServe, 2009). The sapsucker drills rows of small holes in broad-leaved trees

and drinks the sap that flows from these holes. They may also feed on insects caught in the sap.

Red-naped sapsucker young fledge by mid July and warbling vireo young leave the nest at the

end of June (NatureServe, 2009).


94

The warbling vireo is most abundant in open deciduous and mixed deciduous-coniferous

woodland, riparian forest and thickets, pine-oak association, orchards, and parks. Usually nests

at end of branch in a deciduous tree, 9-18 meters above ground, or 1-3.5 meters above ground, in

shrub or orchard tree. This vireo usually forages in trees on caterpillars, beetles, grasshoppers,

ants, spiders, and some berries (NatureServe, 2009).

Nature Conservancy data show red-naped sapsucker populations in Utah to be ―apparently

secure‖ (NatureServe, 2009). Based on the available data for the ANF and for Utah (Nature

Conservancy data, BBS state wide data, BBS data on the ANF and surrounding the ANF, ANF

bird transects and sighting records), it is believed that red-naped sapsucker and warbling vireo

population trends on the Forest are stable. It is also believed that the Ashley National Forest

provides habitat that is well distributed across the Forest and is sufficient to sustain populations

of the red-naped sapsucker and warbling vireo (USFS, 2006d).

Lincoln’s Sparrow and Song Sparrow

Lincoln’s sparrow and song sparrow are indicators of riparian shrubs. These species are

generally found along streams, wet meadows, riparian thickets, and brushy forest edges. They

forage on insects and seeds, and nest on the ground in concealing vegetation (NatureServe,

2009). Home range for both species is approximately 0.4 hectares (1 acre). Lincoln’s sparrows

occasionally have two broods a year and song sparrows have two broods and sometimes three a

year (NatureServe, 2009).

Suitable habitat for Lincoln’s and song sparrows is present within the Project Area along Sowers

Creek and it is likely that these species are present. A recent review of woody riparian

vegetation (including willows and other riparian shrubs) on the ANF revealed mostly stable

levels of woody plants in riparian areas (Goodrich, 2004). Nature Conservancy data show

Lincoln’s sparrow populations in Utah to be ―Apparently Secure‖ (NatureServe, 2009).

Nature Conservancy data shows song sparrow populations in Utah to be ―apparently secure‖

(NatureServe, 2009). Based on the available data for the ANF and for Utah (Nature

Conservancy data, BBS state wide data, BBS data on the ANF and surrounding the ANF, ANF

bird transects and sighting records), it is believed that both the Lincoln’s sparrow and song

sparrow population trends on the Forest are stable. It is also believed that the Ashley National

Forest provides habitat (20,700 acres) that is well distributed across the Forest and is sufficient to

sustain Lincoln’s sparrows and song sparrows (USFS, 2006d).

Sage Grouse

This species is a management indicator for sagebrush habitat. It is also a Forest Service sensitive

species, and is discussed further under the Forest Sensitive Section. Sage grouse populations are

allied closely with sagebrush habitats, because sagebrush habitats play an important role for

nesting and wintering grouse (Connelly et al., 2000).

Greater sage grouse populations and leks in the Northeastern Region of Utah have been divided

into 10 breeding complexes that had a total of 51 leks. These breeding complexes are based on

geographic boundaries and groupings of leks. The Project Area is situated entirely within the


95

Anthro Mountain Breeding Complex. There are six active leks within this complex. Four leks

have been documented within the vicinity of the Project including the Wire Fence, Nutters

Ridge, Cracker Grove, and Alkali leks.

In Utah, sage grouse are hunted and their populations controlled in part by harvest. In 2006,

223 two-bird permits were issued in the Uinta Basin, and 235 grouse were harvested (UDWR,

2006). Within the Uinta Basin sage grouse hunting is restricted within Hunt Unit #003, which is

located in the northeastern portion of Uintah County and extending into southern Dagget County

(UDWR, 2009). The Anthro sage grouse complex located within the Project or any other

complexes located in Duchesne County are not currently hunted.

The Wire Fence, Nutters Ridge, Cracker Grove, and Alkali leks are present in the Project area.

The Nutters Ridge lek and the Cracker Grove lek are located along the existing county road

which would be used to access the AFU 65-28-32, Nutters Canyon 1-2, Ashley Federal 2, and

the AFU 64-16-42/-19/11 wells. All proposed well pads have been located over 1/2 mile away

from the sage grouse leks. Count data collected in 2007 and 2008 for the leks within the Anthro

complex are located below in Table 3-20. There was a decrease in the count of male attendance

at leks within most of the breeding complexes in the Region in 2008. However these lower

counts were unexpected since prior year counts within the Region indicated an increase and/or

stable trends. The cause of the decrease may be attributed to harsh winter conditions that

extended into the breeding season. Table 3-20 reflects the decrease in counts from 2007 to 2008

of the leks that are within and near the project.

Table 3-20 Anthro Complex Sage Grouse Lek Counts

Lek Count (2007) Count (2008)

Alkali 24 8

Nutters 8 8

Wire Fence 6 0

Cracker Grove 1 0

Nature Conservancy data in Utah identifies sage grouse as being ―Imperiled‖ (NatureServe,

2009). In Utah, the species is also considered upland game and the populations are controlled in

part by harvest. Based on the available data discussed above, and in the MIS report, it is

believed that the greater sage grouse population on the Forest is viable, stable, and in the last five

to ten years there appears to be a slight upward trend (USFS, 2006d). It also appears that sage

grouse are well distributed throughout its limited range on the Forest.

Macroinvertebrates

Macroinvertebrates are one indicator of stream habitat and water quality, which is used in

conjunction with other water quality measures. Forest-wide macroinvertebrate populations have

been monitored on the ANF since the early 1980s. The Forest-wide trend for macroinvertebrates

has been steady for the past 20 plus years with an average Biotic Condition Factor (BCI) that

exceeds 75 (the Forest Plan minimum value). The genera of macroinvertebrates identified in the

Forest Plan include: (Mayflies) Epeorus ssp, Ephemerella doddsi, Ephemerella inermis,


96

(Stoneflies) Zapada spp., and the true fly family Chironomidae. These species are widespread

and common on the ANF.

Although macroinvertebrates as a group are widely distributed across the ANF, there is a high

degree of variability in species within or between sites (USFS, 2006d). In addition, consistent

information is not available across the ANF to track specific macroinvertebrate species. Indices

have been developed that reflect changes due to management activities, but this does not strictly

fit the definition of MIS, which requires population trend monitoring of specific taxa. In

addition, it can be difficult to define what comprises a population (reach, stream, subbasin) to

monitor. Sampling results can vary depending on timing of the sample taken because, while the

organism may be on the planning unit, the aquatic lifestage may or may not be yearlong and

some lifestages may be more easily collected than others. Macroinvertebrates may not be

―cyclic,‖ but they are frequently flow-dependent, which in turn is climate-dependent.

Based on the available data for the ANF, macroinvertebrate populations on the ANF are

estimated to be stable. It is also estimated that macroinvertebrate populations on the ANF are

viable and are distributed throughout aquatic habitats on the ANF.

3.7.1.5 Sensitive Species

USFS Region 4 sensitive species that occur on the ANF are analyzed in a Biological Evaluation

prepared for this project. Species identified as having the potential to occur within the project

area or the potential to be impacted by project activities are analyzed further in the following

sections. Additional information on sensitive species and discussions of sensitive species that do

not have the potential to occur in the Project Area can be found in the Biological Evaluation (on

file at the Duchesne Ranger District office, Duchesne, Utah).

Northern Goshawk

In Utah, most of the 421 known nests were located during surveys of Forest projects. These

nests occur in mid-elevation (6,000 feet) to high-elevation (10,000 feet) sites, which are currently

occupied by mature quaking aspen or coniferous forests (Graham et al., 1999). Many of the

documented goshawk territories on the ANF are associated with lodgepole and aspen cover types

(USFS, 2006d). However, some nests in Utah have been documented in the spruce/fir type

(Graham et al., 1999). Nest areas are occupied from early March until late September, when

fledglings are no longer dependent upon the post fledgling area (PFA) (Reynolds, 1992). The

Goshawk Amendment to the ANF LRMP (USFS, 2000a) also considers the nesting period to be

this same period. According to ANF monitoring data, young usually fledge from early July to

early August (approx. 43 days of age) and are dependent upon the PFA until approximately

65 days of age (August – mid September), at which time the fledglings venture further away

from the PFA (Dewey, 1998; Dewey, 1999a; Dewey, 1999b). Between 1996 and 1999, 33 adult

goshawks on the ANF had radio-tags and were followed (Paulin, 1998; Dewey, 1999b). Some of

the goshawks that breed on the ANF are yearlong residents and some migrate short distances

(Paulin, 1998).


97

Based on data obtained through monitoring and project level surveys, no nesting territories have

been identified and no observations have been recorded within or near the Project Area (USFS,

2006c). Potentially suitable goshawk habitat is present in the vicinity of the Proposed Action.

The closest goshawk nest cluster is approximately 4.5 miles to the southwest of the Project Area

and has not been active since 2000 (USFS, 2006c). For more information on northern goshawk,

refer to the Biological Evaluation prepared for this project. (On file at the Duchesne Ranger

District Office.)

Greater Sage Grouse

Sage grouse are also considered a MIS for the ANF and are discussed under Management

Indicator Species. Sage grouse have been hunted in Utah since 1951 and are classified as an

upland game species by the Utah legislature. The species requires a variety of seasonal habitats

for breeding, nesting, brood rearing and wintering. These habitat requirements include large

expanses of sagebrush communities with a diversity of grasses and forbs in healthy riparian

ecosystems. Sagebrush habitats play an important role in the survival of nesting and wintering

sage grouse (Connelly et al., 2000). A large percent of each seasonal habitat must be in later

seral stage ecological condition to meet the requirements of grouse.

The center of breeding activity for sage grouse is the ―lek‖ or strutting ground. These areas are

typically characterized as open areas surrounded by sagebrush habitats. Mating occurs on the lek

and typically the same locations are used each year for breeding. Nesting usually takes place

within 1-2 weeks after mating. Nests are typically under sagebrush plants with overhead cover

and forbs available as food for the young. Early brood rearing habitat consists of more open

sagebrush with a higher amount of forbs and insects. Dietary choices transition between

September and December when the brood rearing diet consisting mainly of forbs transitions to a

diet composed almost exclusively of sagebrush. Winter habitat consists of sagebrush that is

exposed above the snow at least 10 to 12 inches. This provides both food and cover for

wintering sage grouse. Wintering grouse primarily feed on sagebrush leaves and will

opportunistically feed on insects, forbs, and other succulent vegetation when available (UDWR,

2002). The breeding and nesting season for sage grouse is March through early June for the

Anthro Mountain population (USFS, 2006c).

As indicated in the Management Indicator Species section, Wire Fence, Nutters Ridge, Cracker

Grove, and Alkali leks are present in the Project area and one potential lek location, Jeep Trail

lek, is within the project area. The Nutters Ridge lek and the Cracker Grove lek are located

along the existing county road which would be used to access the AFU 65-28-32, Nutters

Canyon 1-2, Ashley Federal 2, and the AFU 64-16-42/-19/11 wells. Jeep trail lek is located on

the road between the Ashley Federal #2 and the AFU 64-16-42/-19/11. All proposed well pads

have been located over 1/2 mile away from the sage grouse leks. Recent lek attendance counts

for the Anthro Complex are discussed in the Management Indicator Species section and

Table 3-19, above.


98

Flammulated Owl

This species breeds from British Columbia, through the western U.S. to Central America

(McCallum, 1994). This owl is found in the lower coniferous forest of yellow pine, Douglas fir,

and aspen. It may also occur in the upper juniper belt (Behle, 1981). Limited maneuverability

may be a factor in this species preference for foraging in open forests (McCallum, 1994). Their

preference for yellow pine and/or Douglas-fir has been linked to prey availability (McCallum,

1994). Aspen habitats are present west of the access road leading to the AFU 28-32 well. The

species is not known to occur in this area; however, the species has been observed in aspen

habitat and therefore, has the potential to occur in the vicinity of project activities.

American Three-toed Woodpecker

This species occur in high-elevation coniferous forests, or conifer mixed with aspen (Parrish et

al., 2002). This species has been found in lodgepole, Douglas fir, spruce/fir and mixed conifer

on the ANF (USFS, 2006c). American three-toed woodpeckers excavate a new cavity for

nesting each year. Trees used for both nesting and foraging average 11" Diameter Breast Height

(dbh) or more. Management recommendations include maintenance of some snags greater than

12" dbh with some bark still present.

Spotted Bat

This species is likely to occur throughout Utah as it has been documented in each surrounding

state. These mammals are found in habitats ranging from lowland riparian in the desert shrub

community, sagebrush-rabbitbrush, ponderosa pine forest, montane grassland, and montane

forest and woodland (Fitzgerald et al., 1994). This bat roosts in caves and in cracks or crevices

in cliffs and canyons. The breeding and birthing period for the spotted bat is usually over by

June. Spotted bats feed primarily on moths and beetles in clearings in pine forests. In

southeastern Utah, spotted bats fed on small insects within 2 meters of the ground (NatureServe,

2009). Desert shrub, sagebrush-rabbitbrush, grassland, and shrubby riparian habitats are present

within the Project Area and have the potential to support spotted bats. The species has been

observed in Alkali Canyon (Perkins, 2002).

Townsend’s Big-eared Bat

This species occurs in various habitats and elevations, but in Utah it is primarily found in shrub

steppe and pinyon-juniper habitats (NatureServe, 2009). The bat is most commonly found

within cave habitats and has been located in two caves on the ANF. They have been found at

elevations between 3,300 and 8,850 feet in Utah (Oliver, 2000). Population trends of most bat

species are poorly understood. In Utah, western big-eared bat is considered common, indeed one

of the most common bat species in the state (Oliver, 2000). Maternity colonies of up to a

thousand or more individuals form in March and April, and are generally located in caves, mines,

or buildings. In winter both sexes hibernate in mines and caves. Townsend’s big-eared bat is

very susceptible to human disturbance. Disturbance of a maternity colony or hibernating group

often causes the bats to abandon the site (NatureServe, 2009). Human disturbance from

recreational cave use is a potential threat to Townsend’s big-eared bats. Cave habitats are not


99

present within the Project Area; however vegetative communities commonly used for foraging

are present and the species may occur in the vicinity of the Proposed Action.


Under the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action would not be approved. Therefore, the

direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to wildlife resources as a result of this alternative would

be limited to previously authorized activities such as grazing, oil and gas development,

vegetation treatments, and recreation. Up to approximately 29.1 acres of short-term disturbance

and 12.6 acres of long-term disturbance could result from previously authorized activities. These

impacts may result in the loss of available habitat for wildlife species, reduction of available

forage, and a reduction of the prey base. These impacts are minor when compared to the

available wildlife habitat in the eastern portion of the South Unit.


Impacts to wildlife resources under the Proposed Action would result from surface disturbance

or alteration of native habitats, noise, increased human presence, animal displacement, changes

in species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. The Proposed Action would result in

approximately 109.8 acres of short-term disturbance and approximately 36.7 acres of long-term

disturbance. The severity of impacts on terrestrial wildlife would depend on factors such as the

sensitivity of the species, seasonal use patterns, type and timing of project activity, and physical

parameters of species habitat (e.g., topography, cover, forage, and climate).

The primary impact on terrestrial wildlife from this project would be the loss of habitat due to

ground disturbing activities. Construction activities may cause temporary animal displacement

and direct loss of wildlife. Construction alternatives may also contribute to habitat fragmentation

in the South Unit.

Noise disturbance associated with road upgrades, drilling, and increased vehicular traffic in the

Project Area may impact wildlife. Typically, animals will either avoid noise sources or become

accustomed to the increased noise levels. The impact depends on the type and duration of noise,

individuals or species that are exposed, distance, buffering capacity of vegetation and topography

in and adjacent to the disturbance area. It is anticipated that noise from the Proposed Action may

result in high enough levels to impact wildlife in the Project Area. However, because project

activities are short-term (approximately 10 weeks at each location) and localized, noise impacts

to wildlife would also be short-term and are only likely to affect individuals.

Increased human presence in the vicinity of project activities will likely displace individuals

from the immediate vicinity of project-related activities. Displacement of wildlife is likely to

occur throughout the duration of construction activities. Displacement of individuals may also

occur during routine well visits and during maintenance operations. Impacts to wildlife are also

likely to be proportional to the size of the operational work force, overall land use, concurrent

recreational demand (e.g., hunting, OHV use), and other activities of the region. Construction

activities in the Project Area would displace wildlife into adjacent habitats, which may or may


100

not be suitable for the species in question. This displacement could lead to increased inter-

specific and intra-specific competition, reproductive failure, mortality, and increased stress.

The proposed project would utilize some existing roads and construction of new access roads

would be limited to approximately 0.7 mile. New habitat fragmentation would be avoided along

the approximate seven miles of existing road where upgrades would occur. The Project Area is

known to support various recreation opportunities and public use of the area is common (USFS,

2009c). Implementation of the Proposed Action is not likely to increase public use of the area

for recreation or OHV use.


Impact analyses for migratory birds will focus on those species that are on the PIF Priority

Species list and the USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern list. Migratory bird species that are

also Management Indicator Species or Forest Sensitive will be addressed in the MIS and Forest

Sensitive sections.

Disturbance to migratory birds would be temporary, and project-related impacts should not have

a measurable effect on migratory bird populations. Direct impacts to migratory birds would not

occur as a result of the Proposed Action. Indirect impacts would be limited to a reduction of

available habitat and displacement of individuals from project habitats due to noise or increased

human presence. Operational impacts from the Proposed Action would be temporary and are not

anticipated to have substantial impacts to migratory birds.

Sagebrush- Grassland

Approximately 62.0 acres of sagebrush and grasslands habitats would be disturbed as a result of

the Proposed Action. This disturbance will remove suitable habitat for several species including

the Brewer’s sparrow, sage sparrow, black-throated gray warbler, greater sage grouse,

loggerhead shrike, golden eagle, and ferruginous hawk. The overall disturbance would be

negligible in comparison to the existing sagebrush-grassland habitat on the eastern portion of the

South Unit. Large expanses of suitable habitat for these species would still be available in

adjacent areas.

Since migratory bird species associated with sagebrush/grassland habitats nest on the ground

(sage grouse) or in the canopy of sagebrush (Brewer’s sparrow and sage sparrow), there is

potential for nests to be disturbed by the Proposed Action. This potential impact is unlikely due

to the majority of the disturbance occurring adjacent to existing roads. Roadside habitats

immediately adjacent to existing roads are less likely to support nesting birds immediately

adjacent to the roadway. Nesting habitat for the ferruginous hawk would not be disturbed since

ground nesting by this species immediately adjacent to an existing road would be very unlikely.

Potential impacts to nesting migratory birds are anticipated to be minimal and would be limited

to shrub nesting species within the footprint of the proposed development.


101

Coniferous Forest and Aspen Forest

Construction activities would disturb approximately 24 acres of woodland habitats. These

habitats would primarily be limited to pinyon juniper woodlands with limited stands of

interspersed spruce. Disturbance would not occur in aspen woodlands. Disturbance to woodland

habitats will result in a reduction of available nesting habitat for migratory bird species

associated with these habitat types such as the pygmy nuthatch, broad-tailed hummingbird, three-

toed woodpecker, Williamson’s sapsucker, red-naped sapsucker, and flammulated owl, Habitats

affected by the proposed project are primarily pinyon juniper woodlands and are not likely to

support populations of these species. Impacts are likely to be limited to individuals. Habitats for

golden eagle, Swainson’s hawk, and ferruginous hawk would not be modified or disturbed by the

Proposed Action. Potential impacts to species that nest in pinyon juniper woodlands would

include loss of habitat and a temporary increase in noise and human presence in adjacent open

habitats. Noise disturbances may cause temporary displacement of individuals in aspen stands

and other coniferous forest habitats near development areas as well; however, due to the amount

of available habitat in surrounding areas, these impacts are expected to be minimal.

Wetland and Riparian

No project related disturbance is anticipated to occur in wetland or riparian habitats. Impacts to

species that utilize these habitats would be limited to temporary noise disturbance and increased

human presence. Increased noise and human presence may lead to the displacement of

individual broad-tailed hummingbirds and other migratory bird species that depend on riparian

habitat. This displacement is anticipated to be short-term and minimal.

Implementation of the Proposed Action is anticipated to cause minor impacts to migratory bird

populations or their habitat. These potential impacts would be limited to individuals and have

minimal effects to migratory bird an PIF species in the long term


Potential impacts to threatened and endangered species would be limited to the endangered

Colorado River fish. No other threatened or endangered species have been identified as

occurring within the Project Area or being impacted by project activities.

The endangered Colorado River fish species including the bonytail chub, Colorado pikeminnow,

humpback chub, and razorback sucker are affected by activities that deplete or degrade the flow

of downstream waters into the Upper Colorado River Basin.

Direct impacts to aquatic species have the potential to result from erosion and sedimentation

caused by construction. Project related surface disturbance is anticipated to be minimal and no

soil loss is expected as a result, and due to the great distance from the Project to the nearest

occupied habitats in the Green River, sediment flow to occupied habitats is unlikely. Therefore,

since the endangered Colorado River fish are not present within the Project and erosion or


102

sedimentation is not anticipated, no direct impacts are anticipated for the endangered Colorado

River fish.

Consumptive water use reduces flows throughout the Upper Colorado River Basin, leading to

indirect impacts caused by cumulative habitat losses for aquatic species. Vantage would obtain

all water for drilling through permitted water sources. The permitted water sources would

reduce the overall flow within the Upper Colorado River Basin. Total water requirements for

drilling and completion of the wells would be approximately 28.4 acre-feet. Water depletions of

less than one hundred acre-feet would constitute a small depletion. Therefore, project

implementation ―may affect, and is likely to adversely affect,‖ the endangered Colorado River

fish.

The Recovery and Implementation Program (RIP) for Endangered Fish Species in the Upper

Colorado River Basin was established in 1988 to mitigate for water depletion impacts to these

endangered fish species. Under the RIP, any water depletions from tributary waters within the

Colorado River Drainage are considered to jeopardize the continued existence of these fish

species; however, the USFWS has determined that sufficient recovery of these fish species has

occurred and that the RIP for small depletions (annual average depletions of 100 acre-feet or

less) acts as the reasonable and prudent alternative to avoid jeopardy to the endangered fishes.

The provisions for the RIP were based upon appropriate legal protection of the instream flow

needs of the endangered Colorado River fishes. To ensure the survival and recovery of listed

fish species, any single incremental withdrawal of 100 acre-feet (annual average) or more would

require the water user to make a payment to the Recovery Program. The fee would be applied to

the annual average depletion from the Green River aquifer. Depletions of less than 100 acre-feet

would not require payment to the Recovery Program. Due to the minor withdrawals associated

with this project, no additional mitigation or payments are required.

3.7.3.3 Forest Service Management Indicator Species and Forest Sensitive

Elk and Mule Deer

There would be approximately 109.8 acres of short-term and 36.7 acres of long-term disturbance

to elk and mule deer spring/fall, summer, or year round habitats. This disturbance would result

from the clearing of vegetation on the five well pads and portions of roads that are upgraded.

This is less than one percent of the total elk and mule deer (88,000+ acres) habitat across the

Project Area (UDWR, 2006a). Big game populations in Utah are primarily controlled by harvest

and temporary disturbances from construction activities are likely to have minimal direct effects

on these species. Construction activities will be short term and big game habitats in the Project

Area will again be available to the species following construction.

Due to the small amount of habitat disturbed in relation to the amount of available habitat,

reclamation of portions of the well pads and roads, project noise disturbances occurring outside

of the critical winter and calving/fawning seasons and ranges, project activities being temporary,

and displacement being temporary, it is determined that the Proposed Action may impact

individuals in the short-term, but would have minimal long-term effects on elk or mule deer.

Long-term production phase impacts would be limited to noise in the vicinity of pumping units

associated with Green River wells, daily visits to the wells by a field maintenance person,


103

periodic truck visits to the well locations, and occasional (every few years) temporary workover

operations. Winter range exclusion stipulations would preclude winter construction operations

over areas of identified crucial winter habitat. The project is not anticipated to affect the trend of

elk or mule deer populations on the ANF or impair the ability of the ANF to provide well-

distributed habitat for these species.

Northern Goshawk

Since the proposed Project would disturb only minor amounts of woodlands or forested habitat,

and would take place predominantly in open country, minimal impacts to this species would

occur. Potential impacts to this species would be limited to increased noise and human presence

in the vicinity of potentially suitable habitats from project related activities that may temporarily

displace individual goshawks into adjacent habitats. However, there are no known goshawk

territories in the vicinity of the Project. The nearest known goshawk nest is at least 4.5 miles

from the nearest Project activity and this nest has not had documented activity since 2000

(USFS, 2009c). Therefore, the proposed project would not occur within any nesting area, PFA,

or territory.

In the event that nearby habitats were occupied by goshawk, displacement of individuals could

occur if goshawks were using habitats near the Project Area and would likely only last the

duration of construction activities. This potential impact is not anticipated and would be minor

due to the amount of available habitat in the vicinity of the project, and the project not occurring

within or near any known goshawk territory. Therefore, it is determined that the proposed

project may impact this species, but is compliant with standards in the Goshawk Amendment. It

is also determined that the proposed Project is not likely to impact goshawks, and would not

cause a trend toward their federal listing .It is further determined that the project would not

affect the trend in the goshawk population on the ANF or impair the ability of the ANF to

provide well-distributed habitat for this species.

Golden Eagle

Since the Proposed Action would not remove or disturb any cliff habitats, nesting golden eagles

are not likely to be impacted by project activities. Project activities would take place

predominantly in open country and may displace individual golden eagles that use Project Area

habitats for foraging. Impacts from project activities would be temporary and localized and

habitats within the project area would be available for the species again following construction.

Project activities would result in up to 109.8 acres of short term disturbance or up to 362.6 acres

of disturbance under the buried pipeline alternative out of approximately 88,550 acres of

available foraging habitat for golden eagle.

Because habitat for this species would be minimally disturbed, no known golden eagle nests are

present in the vicinity of project activities, and the temporary nature of project construction,

impacts to golden eagles would be limited to temporary displacement of individuals. For the life

of the project, individuals may avoid well pads containing noise-generating pumping units.

Therefore, the Proposed Action may impact individuals for the life of the project, but is not

likely to cause a change in the species current trend in the golden eagle population or viability on


104

the ANF. The Proposed Action will not impair the ability of the ANF to provide well distributed

habitat for this species.

Red-naped Sapsucker and Warbling Vireo

Since the Proposed Action would not remove or directly disturb any deciduous woodlands, red-

naped sapsuckers and warbling vireos are not likely to be directly impacted by project activities.

Project activities would take place predominantly in open country and may displace individual

red-naped sapsuckers and warbling vireos that occupy aspen woodlands that are adjacent to

project activities. Impacts to these species would be limited to temporary noise disturbance from

construction and drilling activities and long-term noise disturbance from pumping unit-equipped

well pads near suitable habitat. Potential impacts to these species are anticipated to be negligible

due to the minor and short-term noise disturbance near suitable habitat and the amount of

available habitat for these species.

Because habitat for these species would not be disturbed, no known occurrence of red-naped

sapsucker or warbling vireo have been documented in the vicinity of project activities, and the

temporary nature of the Project, impacts to these species would be limited to temporary

displacement of individuals. Therefore, the Proposed Action may impact individuals, but is not

likely to cause a change in these species current trends or viability on the ANF. The Proposed

Action will not impair the ability of the ANF to provide well distributed habitat for the red-naped

sapsucker or warbling vireo.

Lincoln’s Sparrow and Song Sparrow

Since the Proposed Action would not directly disturb riparian habitats, impacts to Lincoln’s

sparrow and song sparrow are likely to be limited to temporary construction displacement of

individuals. Long-term displacement from noise generated at well pads equipped with noise

generating pumping units would not occur as no proposed well pads are located in this habitat.

Project activities would take place predominantly in open country and may displace individual

Lincoln’s sparrow and song sparrow that occupy shrubby riparian habitat along Sowers Creek

near project activities. Potential impacts would be limited to temporary noise disturbance and

increases in human presence.

Lincoln’s sparrow and song sparrow have not been documented in the vicinity of project

activities; however, suitable habitat is present along Sowers Creek and therefore, the potential for

impacts exist. Impacts to these species are anticipated to be minor and limited to the temporary

displacement of individuals. This potential impact would be minimal due to the presence of

habitat for these species along most of Sowers Creek and in many other areas on the ANF.

Therefore, the Proposed Action may impact individuals, but is not likely to cause a change in

current population trends for these species on the ANF. The Proposed Action will not impair the

ability of the ANF to provide well distributed habitat for the Lincoln’s sparrow or song sparrow.


105

Greater Sage Grouse

The proposed Project is located in proximity of five sage grouse leks. Construction activities

associated with the Proposed Action would involve the removal of approximately 28.4 acres of

sagebrush habitats. This disturbance would amount to a minor fraction of the available sage

grouse habitat (30,386 acres) on the eastern portion of the South Unit. More importantly, the

Nutters Ridge and the Cracker Grove leks are located on a County road, which is currently used

to access existing well locations. This road would be upgraded and maintained for us as access

for multiple proposed wells.

Impacts to sage grouse as a result of the Proposed Action would include loss or alteration of nesting

habitat, increased noise, increased human presence, and direct loss. The Proposed Action would

result in approximately 28.4 acres of short-term disturbance within sagebrush habitats.

Sage grouse typically nest in sagebrush habitats in the vicinity of leks (Connelly et al., 2000).

Disturbance of sagebrush habitats in the vicinity of lek locations may reduce available nesting

habitat for the species. Further, sage grouse have been observed to reduce attendance or abandon

lek sites in areas with increased road development (Walker et al., 2007; Holloran, 2005; Braun,

1998). Compared to hens near undisturbed leks, sage grouse hens that used leks within

approximately two miles from oil and gas development moved further away from leks to nesting

areas and had lower nest initiation rates (Lyon and Anderson, 2003). Sage grouse hens that

initiated nesting further from roads experienced greater brood survivorship than hens that nested

near roads (Lyon and Anderson, 2003). Noise from oil and gas facilities including compressor

stations and pumpjacks could interfere with strutting birds at lek locations leading to reduced

breeding success or abandonment of lek locations. Increased vehicular traffic associated with

development is likely to increase mortality of sage grouse due to collisions with vehicles.

Recent studies have documented that oil and gas development in sage grouse habitats lead to

population declines and lek abandonment (Holloran, 2005; Walker et al., 2007). Studies have

also documented that potential impacts were indiscernible at 1-12 wells within 32.2 km2 (2-mile

radius) of a lek (~1 well / 1 mi2) (Doherty, 2008). Within the Project Area, and specifically in the

vicinity of sage grouse leks, the Proposed Action combined with existing well locations and

previously permitted locations are under this threshold. Above this threshold, 13-39 wells within

32.2 km2, lek inactivity is anticipated to double (Doherty, 2008).

Project design features have been developed to minimize direct and indirect impacts to sage

grouse. These protection measures include:

No construction or drilling will occur within usable sage-grouse habitat between April 1

and May 31,

No well pads or production facilities (excluding surface pipelines) will be located within

1/4 mile of a sage-grouse lek,

Human activity within 0.6 mile of a sage-grouse lek will not be allowed between March 1

and May 30 during a period 1 hour before to 3 hours after sunrise, unless required to

access the area in the event of an emergency, and


106

Upgrades to existing roads would be minimized to the extent necessary for safe travel

within 1/4 mile of sage grouse leks.

Mitigation – Measures protective of sage grouse additional to those incorporated in project

design features will include:

Sage grouse chicks are known to hatch as late as the second week of June in the Project

Area (Christensen, 2009). Accordingly, the USFS will require that no construction or

drilling will occur within usable sage grouse habitat between April 1 and June 15.

Current recommendations from the UDWR for sage grouse protection include avoidance

of well pads and production facilities within 1/2 mile of active leks (Christensen, 2009).

Accordingly, the USFS will require that such facilities comply with these

recommendations.

The proposed project would utilize some existing roads and construction of new access roads

would be limited to approximately 0.7 mile. New habitat fragmentation could occur as a result

of upgrading of the existing access road leading to the AFU 64-16-42/-19-11. This could

negatively affect the potential for new lek development in the vicinity of the road.

All of the development planned for the Proposed Action will comply with all design features and

additional mitigations. Therefore, the Proposed Action may impact individuals, but is not likely

to cause a change in current population trends for this species on the ANF. The Proposed Action

will not impair the ability of the ANF to provide well distributed habitat for sage grouse.

Flammulated Owl

Direct impacts to the flammulated owl as a result of the Proposed Action would likely not occur

as there would be no direct disturbance to the aspen woodland community. No flammulated

owls or nests have been documented in the vicinity of the Project Area. Indirect impacts that

could affect flammulated owls are limited to the disturbance of areas of suitable habitat adjacent

to suitable habitats. All impacts are anticipated to be minor due to the large amount of

surrounding available habitats in the ANF. Therefore, it is determined that the proposed Project

may impact individual flammulated owls, but would not cause a trend toward their federal listing

or loss of viability to their populations.

Three-toed Woodpecker

The three-toed woodpecker is known to occur at three different locations in the ANF within

lodgepole pine, Douglas fir, spruce/fir and mixed conifer forests. Although these habitat types are

present within the South Unit, their extent is minimal and they would not be directly affected by

the proposed Project. Although direct loss of preferred habitat is not anticipated as a result of the

Proposed Action, it is possible that three-toed woodpeckers may be present in adjacent habitats.

Increased noise in the area from project related construction activities may temporarily displace

individual three-toed woodpeckers into adjacent habitats. Displacement of individuals would

only occur if three-toed woodpeckers were using habitats near the Project Area and would likely


107

only last the duration of construction activities. This impact is anticipated to be minor due to the

amount of available habitat in the vicinity of the project.

Because habitat for three-toed woodpeckers would be minimally disturbed, most project noise

disturbances would be temporary and limited to the short duration of road upgrade activities and

drilling. Three well pads (Quitchampau 1-15, Nutters Canyon 1-2, and AFU 65-28-32) are

located within 1/4 mile of potential habitat. Should noise generating pumping units be installed

on these well pads, long-term noise disturbance would occur in the vicinity. It is determined that

the proposed Project may impact three-toed woodpeckers, but would not cause a trend toward

their federal listing or loss of viability to their populations.

Spotted Bat and Townsend’s Big-eared Bat

Because these species are known to forage over a variety of plant communities, implementation

of the Proposed Action would impact the area of available forage. Project activities are not

proposed in areas with rough terrain, cliffs, or caves and roosting and breeding habitat would not

be directly affected. These habitats may be present in the vicinity of project activities and

therefore, may support these species. Foraging habitat for these species would be disturbed as a

result of this project. Potential impacts from project activities would be temporary and limited to

disturbance from noise. Noise disturbance from project activities may result in temporary

displacement of individuals and long-term displacement from the immediate vicinity of well

pads which may contain pumping units. Displacement would be a minor impact due to the

amount of available habitat for the species and the short-term duration of most of the noise

disturbance. Townsend’s big-eared bat maternity roosting habitat and hibernacula habitat does

not exist within the Project Area.

Because habitat for these species would be minimally affected, the lack of Townsend’s big-eared

bat maternity roosting habitat and hibernacula habitat in the Project Area, and the project

activities being temporary, it is determined that the Proposed Action may impact, but would not

cause a trend toward federal listing of the spotted bat or Townsend’s big-eared bat.


Impacts to wildlife as a result of the Buried Pipeline Alternative would be similar to those

identified under the Proposed Action. In addition to those impacts discussed under the Proposed

Action, the Buried Pipeline Alternative would result in additional surface disturbance totaling

approximately 362.6 acres of short-term disturbance and 36.7 acres of long-term disturbance

which would be the same for both alternatives. Due to the placement of the Pipeline ROWs

adjacent to the project access roads and utilizing the access road ROWs during construction,

ground disturbance and habitat fragmentation would be reduced in comparison to cross country

pipeline routes. However, habitat fragmentation would be greater under the Buried Pipeline

Alternative as a result of expanding the width of existing roads and disturbing an additional

50 feet adjacent to the roadways for the buried pipeline ROW. Surface disturbance associated

with this alternative would also further reduce available forage for wildlife.


108


Potential impacts to migratory birds as a result of the Buried Pipeline Alternative would be

limited to additional loss of nesting and foraging habitats. Short-term impacts to individual

species would be similar to, but incrementally greater than, those discussed above under the

Proposed Action, to the degree of the increased construction disturbance and noise. Long-term

impacts would be the same as described above.


As described for the Proposed Action, no suitable habitat for any of the listed threatened,

endangered, or candidate species is present in the vicinity of proposed project activities. Therefore,

none of these species would be impacted by the increased surface disturbance proposed for the

Buried Pipeline Alternative.

No activities associated with the Buried Pipeline Alternative would have any direct impact on

any fisheries resources, and proposed water depletions for this alternative would remain the same

as those described in the Proposed Action. Therefore no additional impacts to the Endangered

Colorado River fish would occur as a result of the Buried Pipeline Alternative.

3.7.4.3 Forest Service Management Indicator Species and Forest Sensitive

The Buried Pipeline Alternative would directly disturb 362.6 acres of elk and mule deer habitat

for the short-term and 36.7 acres for the long-term. Construction activities would affect various

seasonal ranges, including some crucial winter range for both species. Impacts would be similar

to those anticipated for the Proposed Action, but short-term impacts would be incrementally

greater to the degree of the additional surface disturbance. Habitat fragmentation is not expected

to affect these big game species because of early reclamation of pipeline ROWs and upgrading

of existing, as opposed to construction of new, roads. Range exclusion stipulations would serve

to protect winter range and the long-term viability of populations of these animals on the ANF is

not anticipated to be threatened.

Impacts to sage grouse as a result of the Buried Pipeline Alternative would be incrementally

greater than those identified under the Proposed Action. The Buried Pipeline Alternative would

result in substantially greater short-term disturbance of sage grouse habitats. Surface disturbance

associated with this alternative would be immediately adjacent to the Nutters Ridge and Cracker

Grove leks. Increased surface disturbance at the lek locations may increase the potential for

abandonment of these leks. Incorporated project design features and additional mitigation

measures would reduce impacts by avoiding short-term presence of humans during critical

phases of the sage-grouse life cycle and by avoiding long-term placement of wells and

production facilities in the vicinity of leks.

Short term impacts to bird species (northern goshawk, golden eagle, red-naped sapsucker,

warbling vireo, Lincoln's sparrow, song sparrow, flammulated owl, and three-toed woodpecker),

would be similar to those of the Proposed Action, but incrementally greater to the extent of the

habitat disturbance and additional period and extent of noise generation from construction


109

activities. Long-term habitat disturbance and noise impacts would be the same as those

determined for the Proposed Action. Most foraging and reproductive habitat for these species

would not be directly affected by this alternative and the alternative would directly affect only a

small portion of available habitats within the South Unit. The long-term viability of these

species within this portion of the ANF would not be threatened.

Impacts to sensitive bat species as a result of the Buried Pipeline Alternative would be greater

than those identified under the Proposed Action. The Buried Pipeline Alternative would result in

an incrementally greater loss of foraging habitats for these species. Impacts to bat species would

still be considered minimal under this alternative.


The cumulative impacts analysis area (CIAA) for wildlife consists of the Project Area. This area

was selected as the cumulative effects area, because the area is sufficiently large and the

proposed development sufficiently widespread as to capture effects that may cumulatively affect

wildlife in and near the proposed project. Other historic, ongoing, and proposed activities in the

Project Area and on the South Unit of the ANF include livestock grazing, mineral development,

vegetation treatments, weed control, and other past or future activities. These activities would

result in short-term and in some cases, long-term, cumulative vegetation loss. Damage to

vegetation may increase soil erosion and adversely modify or remove wildlife habitat. The

Proposed Action would incrementally add to the expected short-term and long-term disturbance

on the South Unit of the ANF.

Implementation of the Proposed Action would contribute an additional 109.8 acres of short-term



Cumulative impacts would result from past, current, and future removal of wildlife habitat prior to

well pad construction and road upgrades and various range and habitat improvement activities.

Surface disturbance from the Proposed Action represents approximately 0.12 percent of the CIAA.




3.8 Livestock and Range

Specific comments relating to livestock and range resources were not received during public

scoping.


All or part of seven grazing allotments and 22 pastures within these allotments are located within

the Project Area. Information regarding these allotments is indicated in Table 3-20.


110

Non-structural range improvement projects have been implemented in the past to benefit range

resources and livestock production of allotments in the Project Area (USFS, 2005). Projects

have included pinyon-juniper chaining, prescribed sagebrush burns, chemical and plowing

treatments, seeding, and greasewood chaining. A system of structures exists for livestock

management in the area, including ponds, watering tanks, 9.8 miles of watering lines, guzzlers,

39.4 miles of fences, and cattle guards (USFS, 2009).


Implementation of the No Action Alternative could result in the surface disturbance of up to

29.1 short-term acres and 12.6 long-term acres from previously approved oil and gas exploration

projects. Anthro Mountain, Cottonwood, and Sowers Canyon allotments would lose productive

short-term use of 10.0 AUMs and long-term use of 4.4 AUMs. Effects of other ongoing

approved oil and gas development and production would continue as well as those effects

stemming from other land uses in the Project Area such as livestock grazing and recreational

activities.

A summary of amounts of surface disturbance within each allotment is indicated in Table 3-21.

A summary of the loss of productive grazing use within each allotment is indicated in

Table 3-22. The loss calculations assume a worst-case scenario in which all the lost acreage is

classified as productive range when, in reality, less than 1/4 of the total Project Area is

considered suitable for grazing activities.


111

Table 3-21 Grazing Allotments within the Project Area

Allotment Name Total Acres

Suitable Acres

Project Area

Acres

Suitable Project

Area Acs. Permit Season

Project Area

AUMS 1

Suitable Acres per

AUM

Antelope 26,573 5,292 26,573 5,292 200 12/1-3/23 995 5.32

Anthro Mountain 21,625 5,292 21,625 5,292 602 6/1-10/15 995 5.32

Cottonwood 10,876 4,565 10,815 4,539 321 6/16-10/15 1,739 2.61

Left Fork Indian Canyon 7,705 916 2,080 247 92 / 7h 6/16-10/15 142 1.74

North Gilsonite 3,101 1,002 3,101 1,002 125 12/15-3/31 1,542 0.65

South Gilsonite 4,633 2,722 4,633 2,722 150 11/1-3/1 505 5.39

Sowers Canyon 22,246 3,104 19,731 2,753 293 6/1-10/15 1,564 1.76

TOTALS 96,759 22,893 88,558 21,848 7,482

Source: Huber, 2009. 1 AUM stands for Animal Unit Month.


112

Table 3-22 Surface Disturbance by Allotment

Allotment Name




Short-term

Acres

Long-term

Acres

Short-term

Acres

Long-term

Acres

Short-term

Acres

Long-term

Acres

Antelope 5.5 3.1 15.9 5.0 68.3 5.0

Anthro Mountain 5.0 1.0 42.6 11.7 120.0 11.7

Cottonwood 13.5 6.6 19.5 8.5 48.5 8.5

Left Fork Indian Canyon 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

North Gilsonite 0.0 0.0 16.2 5.4 38.1 5.4

South Gilsonite 0.0 0.0 10.5 4.8 41.5 4.8

Sowers Canyon 5.1 1.9 5.2 1.4 46.2 1.4

TOTALS 29.1 12.6 109.8 36.7 362.6 36.7

Table 3-23 Loss of Productive Grazing Use by Allotment

Allotment Name




Short-term

AUMs

Long-term

AUMs

Short-term

AUMs

Long-term

AUMs

Short-term

AUMs

Long-term

AUMs

Antelope 1.0 0.6 3.0 0.9 12.8 0.9

Anthro Mountain 0.9 0.2 8.0 2.2 22.6 2.2

Cottonwood 5.2 2.5 7.5 3.2 18.6 3.2

Left Fork Indian Canyon 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

North Gilsonite 0.0 0.0 24.9 8.3 58.6 8.3

South Gilsonite 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.9 7.7 0.9

Sowers Canyon 2.9 1.1 3.0 0.8 26.3 0.8

TOTALS 10.0 4.4 48.3 16.3 146.6 16.3

Calculations assume worst-case scenario, with only productive range being affected.



As indicated in Tables 3-21 and 3-22, implementation of the Proposed Action would result in

short-term surface disturbance to 109.8 acres and long-term disturbance, following interim

reclamation, to 36.7 acres to six of the seven allotments located within the Project Area. There

would be no project activities situated within the Left Fork Indian Canyon allotment. Assuming

that all disturbance occurs within productive range, which is unlikely given that less than

24 percent of the Project Area is classified as suitable range, maximum impacts to grazing

activities would involve the short-term loss of productive use to 48.3 AUMs and the long-term

loss to 16.3 AUMs. Loss of vegetative cover and soil disturbance would increase the potential for

noxious weed infestation, both in short-term until interim reclamation measures are implemented

and seeded vegetation becomes established, and in the long-term where portions of well pads and

road travelways not reclaimed can support weed establishment.


113

Implementation of this alternative would result in pipelines and/or roads crossing four fence lines

in Sowers Canyon and Road Hollow, and four fence lines on Nutters and Jeep Trail ridges.

Disturbed gates or cattleguards would be replaced or repaired to conditions as good as or better

than that prior to construction.

The interim reclamation of portions of project-related disturbed areas in some upland shrub (sage

brush) and pinyon-juniper habitats would likely have a positive affect on livestock forage by

enhancing more palatable grass production over restoration of shrub and forest communities.

This positive affect on forage production with the seeding of palatable forage species would last

until the dominant shrub and forest species and associated understory reestablish themselves in

these reclaimed areas. Interim reclamation would also minimize indirect impacts by limiting the

establishment of noxious weeds, which if allowed to dominate would limit the availability of

suitable forage for livestock in these disturbed areas.

Indirect impacts to range would include the long-term potential for weed infestation along roads

serving the Project.



Implementation of the Buried Pipeline Alternative would result in effects identical to those for

the Proposed Action with respect to well pads and access roads construction and drilling and

production activities. Burial of Project pipelines would result in greater surface disturbance and

proportionally greater effects to grazing activities. As indicated in Tables 3-21 and 3-22,

implementation of this alternative would result in short-term surface disturbance to 362.6 acres

and long-term disturbance to 36.7 acres. Assuming all disturbance affected suitable range land,

there would be a short-term loss of productive use of 146.6 AUMs and a long-term loss of

productive use of 16.3 AUMs. Reclamation efforts and effects would be as indicated for the

Proposed Action, but would be of proportionally greater importance because of the greater levels

of surface disturbance.

A buried water pipeline is located close to the area proposed for pipeline installation along about

five miles of the Nutters Ridge County Road. Proponent would coordinate pipeline installation

activities with the USFS to avoid damage to the water pipeline.

Indirect impacts would be as indicated for the Proposed Action.


The cumulative impacts analysis area for livestock and range is taken to be the six grazing

allotments affected by the Proposed Action, an area of 89,054 acres which does not include the

small portion of the Project Area included within the Left Fork of Indian Canyon. Reasonably

foreseeable actions for this area are those indicated in Table 3-1.


114

Implementation of the Proposed Action would contribute 109.8 acres of short-term disturbance

to the existing and foreseeable disturbance of 9,781 acres within the CIAA. Implementation of

this alternative would affect approximately 0.08 percent of the CIAA. Cumulative impacts

would result from past, current, and future removal of vegetative forage prior to well pad

construction and road upgrades and various range and habitat improvement activities.




Cumulative impacts would result from the same activities as indicated for the Proposed Action.

Long-term uses of the Project Area for livestock grazing and recreational uses, including

hunting, would continue. Under the current Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP),

production and management directives would remain constant until at least the next LRMP for

the South Unit of the ANF is authorized and implemented. Grazing allotment records on the

ANF indicate that average forage use by livestock is traditionally 10 to 20 percent below the

permitted use threshold (USFS, 2005). Therefore, current soil production levels are adequate for

future forage and any minor loss of soil productivity from the Proposed Action and other current

or foreseeable actions would contribute negligibly to cumulative impacts. Recreational activities

would not affect forage availability nor contribute to cumulative livestock and range impacts.

3.9 Cultural Resources and Native American Concerns

Scoping revealed concerns with potential impacts to identified cultural sites and the potential for

Native American concerns associated with changes to the landscape.

Cultural resources may be identified as those resources either directly or indirectly related to the

material life ways of a cultural group or groups (36 CFR 296.3). Cultural resources may refer to

sites, areas, buildings, structures, districts, and objects which possess scientific, historic, and

social values. The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) provides eligibility criteria to

help federal agencies determine the significance of cultural resources and subsequent

management guidance.

Cultural resources are individually unique and non-renewable resources. Numerous federal

laws and policies govern their management and protection including: the Antiquities Act of 1906

as amended [16 USC 431-433], the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended

(NHPA)[16 USC 470 et seq.], the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 as amended

(ARPA)[16 USC 470aa-mm], and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act

of 1990 as amended (NAGPRA)[25 USC 3001 et seq.]. Section 106 of NHPA and the Act’s

implementing regulations (36 CFR Part 800) require that federal agencies follow a specific

evaluation process which is separate and distinct from the processes required by NEPA. The

NHPA process is being completed by the Forest in tandem with the NEPA process and provides

the necessary analysis required by NEPA.


115

The cultural resource review required by the NHPA includes several steps which are outlined in

36 CFR 800. The steps include:

1. identification efforts;

2. evaluation for NRHP eligibility;

3. determination of effects; and

4. resolution of adverse effects (if any).

All steps include consultation with the Utah State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and

concerned tribes. The first two steps of this process (identification efforts and evaluation for

NRHP eligibility) have been completed and are discussed under Section 3.9.1 below.


A Class I Inventory (file search) was conducted by Montgomery Archaeological Consultants,

Inc. (MOAC) at the State Historic Preservation Office in Salt Lake City in September 2008. The

file search indicated that 59 prior field surveys have been conducted on lands located within one

mile of the Project Area. Prior inventories were available for the period 1974 to 2007. A total of

37 of the prior inventories have been conducted since 1988. Identified sites were predominantly

prehistoric (87 percent), with lesser numbers of historic (7 percent) and multicomponent sites

(6 percent) (Stavish and Thomas, 2009).

In November 2008, a Class III cultural resource inventory was conducted by MOAC of the

Proponent's proposed SCU 66-1-14, Wild Horse 1-11, AFU 65-29-44, AFU 64-18-42 and AFU

64-19-11, GDU 63-6-23, GDU 63-7-21, and GDU 63-5-12 well locations, associated access and

pipeline corridors, and main access and pipeline routes. In addition, areas previously surveyed

around the Quitchampau 1-15, Road Hollow 1-35, Chokecherry 1-5, and Ashley Federal-3

locations were expanded. The survey area is located on the South Unit of the Ashley National

Forest, Duchesne County, Utah. Specifically, the survey area extends from Wild Horse Ridge in

the west to Gilsonite Draw in the east. The complete survey inventoried 1,445 acres, of which

1;407.8 acres occur on USFS lands, 34.8 acres on private land, and 2.4 acres on BLM land.

Non-USFS land surveyed includes some lands outside the current Project Area as well as some

private land crossed by a pipeline ROW within the Project Area.

The November 2008 inventory included an intensive level pedestrian survey, which is

considered sufficient to identify NRHP-eligible sites. At each proposed well location, a 40-acre

block was defined, centered on the well pad center stake. The interior of the well location was

examined for cultural resources by the archaeologists walking parallel transects spaced no more

than 15 meters apart. On several locations, previously or newly documented cultural resources

were encountered which are evaluated as being eligible for listing with the NRHP. In these

instances, additional acreage was surveyed to provide alternative locations for well placement.

The road access and pipeline corridors were surveyed to a maximum width of 200 feet (100 feet

on either side of the center line) by employing the same inventory methods as stated above. If

access and pipeline corridors were previously surveyed to 100 feet total width, an additional

50 feet was surveyed on either side to achieve a maximum width of 200 feet. If NRHP-eligible

resources were encountered, additional acreage was surveyed to provide alternative locations for


116

road or pipeline placement. Unless prevented by topography, the corner and center stakes of all

well locations as well as the centerline of all road and pipeline corridors and main access routes

were mapped using handheld Trimble GEO XH or XT GPS units. Ground visibility varied

throughout the project area, but was generally considered fair to good.

MOAC personnel identified, documented and evaluated all cultural resources in accordance with

the permit for archaeological investigations issued to MOAC by the USFS. Cultural resources

were recorded either as archaeological sites or isolated finds of artifacts. Sites were documented

by the archaeologists walking transects across the site, spaced no more than 3 meters (10 feet)

apart and marking the locations of cultural materials with pin flags. This procedure allowed

clear definition of site boundaries and artifact concentrations. At the completion of the surface

inspection, a Trimble GEO XH or XT GPS unit was employed to point-provenience diagnostic

artifacts, tools, and/or other relevant artifacts or features in reference to the site datum, a steel

rebar stamped with a temporary site number.

Archaeological sites were plotted on a 7.5' USGS topographic quadrangle, photographed, and

documented with site data entered on an Intermountain Antiquities Computer System (IMACS,

1990 version) inventory form. Isolated finds were defined as individual artifacts or light scatters

of items lacking sufficient material culture to warrant IMACS forms or to derive interpretation of

human behavior in a cultural and temporal context. Additionally, MOAC was requested to

collect all diagnostic obsidian artifacts as well as representative samples of prehistoric ceramics

for X-ray fluorescence and petrographic analysis, respectively. Collected artifacts include an

obsidian utilized flake and one prehistoric ceramic shard. All collected artifacts will be curated

at the College of Eastern Utah Prehistoric Museum, Price, Utah (Whiting, 2009).

The results from the November 2008 cultural resource inventory were submitted as a draft report

to the Forest Service in January 2009. After review, the Forest Service required that five sites

initially evaluated as non-eligible by MOAC be tested or re-evaluated to ensured the validity of

the NRHP evaluation. Testing would determine whether there could be buried artifacts

associated with these sites which would affect the eligibility determination.

MOAC will also inventory several additional routes in addition to the previous inventory

completed in November 2008. The routes will include the access road to Nutters Canyon Well

1-2 and pipeline access around two cultural sites.

3.9.1.1 Historic and Prehistoric Resources

The January 2009 Class III inventory resulted in the update of one previously identified site, re-

recordation of three sites, documentation of 44 new sites, and 36 isolated finds of artifacts.

Additionally, 22 previously documented sites were revisited during the current project. Of

inventoried sites, 26 are recommended as not eligible and 44 are recommended eligible for

inclusion into the NRHP.

The ineligible sites described in the January 2009 report include 18 prehistoric lithic scatters, two

historic inscriptions, one prehistoric rock shelter, one prehistoric firecracked rock concentration,


117

one prehistoric artifact scatter, one historic horse drive line, one historic can dump, and one

historic corral. Generally, these sites lacked all, or some combination, of the following:

artifact diversity,

artifact spatial patterning,

features,

temporal indicators,

potential for buried cultural material, or

site integrity.

In addition, these sites lack an association with themes or persons of prehistoric or historic

significance, do not include distinctive architectural features or methods of construction, and present

no additional research potential. All ineligible sites fail to address NRHP Criteria A through D.

Of the 44 recommended NRHP-eligible sites described in the January 2009 report, 31 are lithic

scatters, five are prehistoric temporary camps, five are prehistoric rockshelters, one is a

prehistoric surface quarry, one is a prehistoric artifact scatter, and one is a prehistoric rockshelter

and lithic scatter. Generally, these sites include all or some combination of the following:

artifact diversity,

artifact spatial patterning,

temporal indicators, or

features.

In addition, all 44 recommended eligible sites include the potential for cultural fill due to the

presence of either eolian or alluvial sediments. Buried cultural material may yield information

regarding site function and chronology as well as prehistoric subsistence strategies, land use

patterns, lithic material procurement, mobility, and trade. Therefore, these sites are all

recommended eligible for inclusion into the NRHP under Criterion D because they include the

potential to yield additional information important to the prehistory of the region (Whiting, 2009).

The Forest is currently in the process of consulting with the Utah SHPO and the Ute Tribe

regarding oil and gas exploration on the South Unit of the Forest to determine appropriate

avoidance, monitoring, and mitigation procedures for the current project. The Section 106

process required by 36 CFR 800 is being completed in tandem with the NEPA process and will

evaluate the potential effects to cultural resources sites which meet NRHP eligibility criteria.

3.9.1.2 Native American Concerns

Native American consultation efforts were made to:

identify and record places of traditional cultural importance,

identify specific concerns of tribes that may be affected by the Proposed Action,

determine potential impacts to cultural properties identified by consultation efforts, and

recommend measures consistent with applicable federal regulation to lessen impacts to

cultural properties.


118

Scoping letters were sent to several offices of the Ute Indian Tribe. Consultation with the Tribe

in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) is in progress.

This process is independent of analysis to cultural resources under NEPA. Approval of the

project under both NEPA and NHPA is required for action authorization.

The Project Area is known to contain sites of religious or traditional cultural importance to the

Ute Tribe. The Project Area is within the range of aboriginal lands and Tribal representatives are

evaluating the potential range of impacts to these lands in response to recent levels of oil and gas

development in the area (Rust, 2009).


Implementation of the No Action Alternative would deny the Proponent's proposal and no

project-related disturbance would occur. However, previously approved oil and gas projects

could result in up to 29.1 acres of short-term surface disturbance associated with four well pads

and access roads. Implementation of the No Action Alternative would not affect any historic

properties (Freudenberg and Montgomery, 2005; Whitfield, 2005; USFS, 2005).



Cultural Resources

Cultural resources are sensitive and irreplaceable resources that can be affected by a variety of

activities and actions. The value of a cultural resource is intrinsic and relates to the educational,

historical, cultural, aesthetic, and architectural properties of the resource. The Proposed Action

has the potential to affect cultural resources in a variety of both direct and indirect ways.

MOAC submitted a draft report to the Forest Service in January 2009 describing the results of a

cultural resource inventory of the report regarding the Proposed Action (Whiting, 2009) which

was reviewed by the Forest Archaeologist. The January 2009 report discusses 44 NRHP-eligible

sites which are considered "historic properties" as defined in 36 CFR 800.16. Approximately 37

of the NRHP-eligible sites in the report have the potential to be directly or indirectly affected by

the Proposed Action. Direct impacts could include disturbance or destruction of cultural artifacts

resulting from:

movement of heavy equipment on existing or upgraded roads across surface sites;

blading or excavation of roads and well pads at surface or subsurface sites; and

placement of surface pipeline segments on and movement of equipment along pipeline

ROWs and across sites during pipeline installation.

Potential indirect effects to cultural resources could occur from improved access for looters as a

result of upgrades to NFS roads in the Project Area. Approximately 0.7 mile of new dead-end

roads would be constructed, which would extend from existing roads to proposed well pads. The

quality of existing roads in the Project Area is generally adequate at this time to allow public


119

access. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Action is not anticipated to enhance public

access, whereby the potential for increased opportunities for illegal looting of cultural properties

would occur. The increased industrialization resulting from installation of production equipment

could indirectly affect cultural sites by degrading the natural context in the vicinity.

Wherever possible, well pads would not be located within 100 meters of identified cultural sites

and roads or pipelines would not be located within 30 meters of identified cultural sites. To the

extent possible, MOAC surveyed alternative facility sites to permit location of proposed facilities

outside the avoidance buffers. In situation where sites could not be avoided by the preferred

avoidance buffers, the potential effects to the sites will be reviewed by the Forest and the effects

resolved through consultation with the Utah SHPO, the Ute Tribe, and other consulting parties as

outlined in 36 CFR 800.

Mitigation – Approximately seven eligible sites are located proximal to proposed road upgrades

where engineering considerations render relocation of roads unfeasible. Accordingly, these

historic properties would be adversely affected by construction. Approval of the project in these

areas will require that MOAC prepare an approved mitigation plan and secure an ARPA testing

and recovery permit. Mitigation for direct effects may include archaeological testing,

archaeological excavation, public interpretation of the archaeology of the area, stabilization of a

site, or specific avoidance procedures uniquely designed for the site. All mitigation plans will be

reviewed by the Utah SHPO and the Ute Tribe.

Native American Concerns

The USFS has engaged in consultations with the Ute Tribe regarding oil and gas development on

the South Unit. To date, most of the direct consultation has been in conjunction with the

ongoing Berry Petroleum EIS, which is located within the Project Area. The same concerns

expressed by the Tribe regarding the EIS are applicable to this project. The principal concern is

that no Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs) are adversely affected by development. To date,

no TCPs have been identified as affected by this project. Final consultation with the Tribe would

occur at the same time as SHPO consultation on the project (Rust, 2009).



Cultural Resources

Implementation of this alternative would have direct and indirect impacts to cultural resources

identical to the Proposed Action with respect to well pad and access road construction.

Construction of buried pipelines would have the potential to encounter buried cultural resources

or human remains, particularly in areas of alluvial fill, such as along Road Hollow, Sowers

Canyon, Chokecherry Canyon, and Left Fork Antelope Canyon. In these areas, the USFS could

require monitoring of construction activities in areas deemed likely to yield buried artifacts. If

monitoring does not occur, there is increased potential for loss of buried cultural resources.


120

The burial of the pipeline would require a 50-foot wide ROW. Because of the higher levels of

surface disturbance associated with this alternative, the USFS would require that an additional

100-foot wide corridor of Class III inventory be conducted on the working side of the ROW, for

a total survey corridor width of 300 feet.

Native American Concerns

Native American concerns would be expected to be similar to those for the Proposed Action.


The area of analysis for cumulative impacts is the Project Area. Other past, present, or future

activities with the potential to affect cultural resources include ongoing grazing, recreational use,

prescribed burns, and current and potential future oil and gas activities. To the extent that such

activities could not avoid cultural resources, they would add incrementally to cumulative

impacts.

3.10 Transportation and Recreation

Scoping comments expressed concerns regarding potential impacts resulting from well pad

construction and road upgrading.


3.10.1.1 Transportation

Surface vehicle transportation within the Project Area consists of a network of Duchesne County

Roads and classified NFS roads that total approximately 126.9 miles of access ranging from

primary highway to 4-wheel drive roads (USFS, 2009) (Figure 3-7, Appendix A).

Approximately 38.7 miles of the Forest System roads are county-maintained roads accessing

parts of the Project Area, including 24.0 miles of county-maintained roads which would be used

by the Proposed Action. The county roads extend into the Project Area from tribal, BLM-

administered federal, state, and private lands to the north and east. These roads ultimately

connect with U.S. Highway 40 about 12 miles north of the Project Area. U.S. Highway 191

crosses approximately 1.6 miles of the northwest corner of the Project Area; however, no roads

within the Project Area connect with the highway.

The Forest System roads include 43.6 miles of bladed dirt (Light Duty Dirt Class 3C), 78.7 miles

of two-tracks (Unimproved Class 4), and 3.1 miles of 4-wheel drive roads (Class 5) connect with

the county roads and provide travel routes to accessible portions of the Project Area. All of the

county-maintained roads are included within Class 3C. Approximately 7.6 miles of USFS-

designated trail are mapped within the Project Area. Traffic in and around the Project Area is

primarily associated with livestock management, dispersed recreation, and oil and gas production

and development activities.


121

3.10.1.2 Recreation

In the Project Area, dispersed recreational opportunities include firewood gathering, Christmas

tree cutting, horseback riding, pleasure driving (OHV, ATV, and/or motorcycles), hunting,

wildlife observing, and limited snowmobile riding, and dispersed camping (USFS, 2005). Most

recreational use in the Project Area occurs in the fall during the hunting seasons for elk and mule

deer. During the summer, the Project Area (South Unit) is open to motorized vehicles, including

OHVs, ATVs, and motorcycles, on designated routes as shown on the ANF Travel Map for the

Roosevelt-Duchesne Ranger District (USFS, 2005a). These routes mostly coincide with the

network of county and NFS roads within the Project Area (Figure 2-2, Appendix A). During

the winter, NFS lands within the Project Area are open to all cross country travel by motorized

over-snow motorized vehicles when snow is at least 12 inches deep, with the exception of a

closure of an approximately 6 square mile area located in T7S, R4W. Within this restricted area,

all motorized over-snow vehicle activity is prohibited. No proposed oil and gas exploration

activity is proposed within this winter closure area. The absence of waters supporting a sport

fishery precludes any fishing opportunities in the Project Area. No developed recreational sites

are present in the Project Area.

To provide a framework for stratifying and defining classes of outdoor recreation settings or

environments in the Southern Unit of the ANF and in turn the Project Area, the USFS has

subdivided the NFS lands in the Project Area into three ROS classes (Figure 3-8, Appendix A).

Table 3-23 describes the classes found in the Project Area. Semi-primitive non-motorized

(SPNM) environments occupy approximately 13,390 acres (15 percent) of the Project Area.

Semi-primitive motorized (SPM) environments occupy approximately 46,895 acres (53 percent)

of the Project Area. The remaining 28,273 acres (32 percent) of lands within the Project Area

are occupied by areas classified as roaded natural (RN).

Table 3-24 Project Area Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Classes

Class Description

Semi-primitive (Motorized and Non-motorized)

Both Semi-primitive Non-motorized (SPNM)and Semi-primitive Motorized (SPM) classes are characterized by predominantly natural or natural-appearing landscapes. The size of these areas gives a strong feeling of remoteness from the more heavily used and developed areas. Within these settings, there are ample opportunities to practice wildland skills and to achieve feelings of self-reliance. The most significant difference between the semi-primitive non-motorized and motorized settings is the absence or presence of motorized vehicles.

Roaded Natural Roaded Natural (RN) landscapes are characterized by predominately natural-appearing settings, with moderate sights and sounds of human structures and activities, respectively. The overall perception is one of naturalness. Evidence of human activity varies from area to area and includes improved highways, railroads, developed campgrounds, small resorts and ski areas, livestock grazing, timber harvesting operations, watershed restoration activities, and water diversion structures. Roads and motorized equipment and vehicles are common in this classification setting. Density of use is moderate except at specific developed sites, and regulations on user behaviors are generally less evident than in the Urban and Rural classes.

Source: USFS, 1996 (Draft EIS Western Uinta Basin Oil and Gas Leasing).


122


Under the No Action Alternative, no additional changes or additional traffic from proposed oil

and gas exploration activities would occur on Duchesne County and NFS roads in the Project

Area. The existing 126.9 miles of road and their conditions would be maintained as managed by

the county and the ANF. However, the construction, drilling, completion, and testing of four

additional NEPA-approved wells; and the upgrade of approximately 8.8 miles of existing access

roads could result in an estimated short-term disturbance of up to 29.1 acres and a residual of

12.6 acres of long-term disturbance. The existing road network including approved upgrades

would continue to be used by livestock managers, USFS agency personnel, recreationists, and oil

and gas personnel for agricultural production, federal land management, dispersed recreational

activities, and energy exploration and production, respectively.



For the duration of the project, vehicle traffic as part of oil and gas exploration and development

activities would increase for parts of the road network in the Project Area. In addition to

increased traffic, approximately 0.7 miles of new access road would be constructed to well

locations, and approximately 23.3 miles of the existing road network would be upgraded. New

access road construction would result in the short-term disturbance (construction-related) of

approximately 2.6 acres and a residual long-term disturbance (life of project / post-interim

reclamation) of 1.9 acres. Upgrading of existing roads would result in short-term disturbance of

approximately 50.9 acres and a residual long-term disturbance of 28.3 acres. Surface pipeline

construction would result in short-term disturbance of approximately 35.8 acres adjacent to the

access roads and no residual long-term disturbance.

Up to approximately 45 days and 130 days of activity would be required for each Green River and

Mesaverde formation well, respectively, to complete road construction/upgrade activities and well

pad construction, well drilling, and completion and testing activities, and interim or final

reclamation of the well pad. During the well development and reclamation, approximately 20

40-foot tractor trailer combinations would make a maximum of two trips into and out of the well

location. On a daily basis, a maximum of 10 to 20 vehicles ranging from additional tractor trailers

to pickups would make round trips in and out of each well location for the duration of activity for

each well. Surface pipeline construction would require approximately 10 vehicles/trailers to

deliver equipment and 10 pickups for daily travel to and from the work locations.

The direct impact of increased vehicle use of County and NFS roads would likely increase wear

and tear on existing road conditions; however, the construction of new roads that meet USFS

specifications and the application of appropriate road upgrades and maintenance of the

improvements for those roads affected by heavy truck traffic and higher frequency of use would

repair or prevent damage for the duration of use in developing each exploratory well and

constructing pipeline. Maintenance activities would be coordinated with the County and USFS,

as appropriate.


123

For the duration of development activities for the 15 wells, use for purposes including recreation

by others of those roads into each well location may be impeded by the size and frequency of

vehicles supporting well development and pipeline construction. Road travel by others,

including motorized vehicles, bikes, and hikers may be delayed momentarily to more extended

periods in terms of hours by road use by the oil and gas exploration vehicles and/or by road

maintenance activities.

Although there are no developed recreation facilities in the Project Area, dispersed recreation

activities in the vicinity of proposed activities that coincide with periods of exploration

development would be impacted for the duration of well development activity. Some access

roads within the Project Area would be improved as the result of implementing the Proposed

Action.

Adverse indirect impacts on recreational experience may be caused by elevated noise levels

and/or a general increase in human activity stemming from well development activity. The

distribution of hunted target wildlife species may be altered by well development activities.

Birding and other passive recreational activities may be affected by noise and human activity for

the duration of the Proposed Action. However, opportunities to pursue these recreational

activities in the vicinity of each well and access road would be affected for the duration of

activity. Winter activities would not be affected as the Proposed Action would occur outside of

the winter recreational season.

Implementation of the Proposed Action would affect each of the three ROS classes found in the

Project Area. Approximately 41.5 acres of initial or short-term disturbance would occur within

RN areas; approximately 25.4 acres of short-term disturbance would occur within SPM areas.

The USFS assigns a 1/2 mile roaded natural ROS class buffer around upgraded or constructed

roads within SPM or SPNM class areas. Implementation of the Proposed Action would convert

12,926 acres of SPM class to RN class and 206 acres of SPNM class to RN class.



Impacts to transportation and recreational opportunities would be similar to those described for

the Proposed Action; however, the construction and installation of buried pipelines in place of

surface pipelines would increase levels of short-term disturbance by 252.8 acres. Buried pipeline

construction may result in a minor increase in construction equipment transport and daily vehicle

use of county and NFS roads for the duration of pipeline construction compared to less intensive

surface pipeline installation.

Approximately 222.2 acres of initial or short-term disturbance would occur within RN areas;

approximately 115.9 acres of short-term disturbance would occur within SPM areas.

Reclassification of ROS classes from SPM or SPNM to RN would be the same as for the

Proposed Action.


124


Within the CIAA (Project Area plus existing county and tribal roads tying into U.S. Highway 40),

the construction of new roads and the upgrading of portions of existing county and NFS roads for

both the Proposed Action and the Buried Pipeline Alternative would add or improve road access

for a limited 10.8 miles to the existing 135-mile long road network within the Project Area.

Access would be improved for those road segments to be upgraded. Accessibility within the

Project Area would be improved by the construction of new access roads. Traffic on the South

Unit of the ANF would increase for the duration of the proposed project and may overlap with

increased traffic on the South Unit from other oil and gas development activity (Table 3-1), but

this additive increase in traffic would be temporary and dispersed. Assuming appropriately timed

road maintenance, the mostly positive cumulative impacts to transportation resources would be

minor and temporary in duration.

Cumulative impacts to recreational opportunities would be low to moderate with implementation

of the Proposed Action or Buried Pipeline Alternative in combination with past, current, and

foreseeable activities. The opportunities for dispersed recreational activities such as hunting and

OHV travel may be enhanced with the construction of new roads and upgrading of existing roads

that would improve accessibility to recreationists. The expansion and improved condition of the

road network in the Project Area (CIAA) and the enhanced condition of the affected roads would

last the duration of the exploration program and possibly beyond should the county and ANF

choose to continue maintenance of new and upgraded road segments. Adverse impacts would

include the reclassification of much of the SPM and SPNM ROS classes to in the Project Area to

a roaded natural status in combination with the proposed Berry oil and gas development.

3.11 Noise

Scoping revealed general concerns associated with project-related noise impacts.

Noise is generally described as unwanted sound. Commonly heard sounds have complex

frequency and pressure characteristics. For measuring noise in ordinary environments, A-weighted

correction factors are employed. This factor de-emphasizes the very low and very high frequencies

of sound in a manner similar to the response of the human ear. The A-weighted (dBA)

measurement is on a logarithmic scale, so that the apparent increase in ―loudness‖ doubles for

every 10 dBA increase in noise levels.

Neither the State of Utah nor Duchesne County has established specific noise level standards.

The EPA provides guidelines for protective noise levels in relation to human activities. Outdoor

locations ―in which quiet is a basis for use‖ are assigned a maximum noise level of 55 dBA.

EPA has established an average 24-hour noise level of 55 dBA as the maximum noise level that

does not adversely affect public health and welfare (EPA, 1974). This does not represent a

regulatory standard, but indicates the level below which no adverse impacts to human health are

expected. Continued exposure to noise levels above 85 dBA is considered dangerous by the

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) (League for the Hard of Hearing 2003).


125


The acoustical environment in the vicinity of the Project Area is typical of that associated with

rural areas. Sound background levels would be expected to range from nighttime levels of

approximately 35 dBA to daytime levels of approximately 45-50 dBA (BLM, 2003). Actual

noise levels within the Project Area would vary depending upon topography, proximity to noise

sources, and weather conditions, in particular wind velocity and direction. As indicated in the

section on air quality, wind speeds and direction in the Project Area are highly variable. Areas

proximal to roads would experience higher noise levels, particularly when the roads are occupied

by vehicles. Typical noise levels associated with various activities are indicated in Table 3-25.

Table 3-25 Sound Level Comparisons

Sound Measurement

Distance (feet)

Noise Level (dBA)

Jet aircraft takeoff 200 120

Typical construction site 50 80

Passing heavy truck 50 75

Typical interstate highway traffic 200 65

Rush hour urban traffic 100 60-65

Busy department store Internal 60

Daytime residential area Internal 50

Daytime rural area Internal 45+

Nighttime residential area Internal 40

Nighttime rural area Internal 35+

Quiet whisper 5 20

Source: BLM, 2003a.

The principal noise source within the Project Area consists of natural sounds. The main sources of

additional noise consist of grazing operations, light traffic on unpaved roads, and hunting or other

dispersed recreational activities. Sporadic road maintenance activities could increase local noise

levels. Hunting noise, including that associated with OHVs and gunfire, would be sporadically

noticed during the fall hunting seasons. Oil and gas development noise may be noticeable at times

for northern portions of the Project Area proximal to tribal lands and on USFS lands north of the

Ashley Forest federal exploration unit. The area is considered to have generally very low noise

levels which are effectively maintained by topographic and vegetative buffers.

There are no sensitive human receptors, such as residences, schools, or hospitals in the vicinity

of the Project Area. Human receptors would consist of ANF visitors, principally during daylight

hours.


Selection of the No Action Alternative would deny the Proponent's proposal and no project-

related impacts would occur. However, previously approved oil and gas development could

result in construction and drilling activities occurring on up to four well pads widely scattered


126

throughout the Project Area. Noise levels in the vicinity of the well pads would be elevated

during the four to eight weeks during which construction and drilling operations would occur.

Sound levels of 80 dBA or higher would be noted within 50 feet of the activities and perception

of sound could be heard up to several miles from the source of the activities, depending on

topography, vegetative buffering, and current local noise conditions. Following completion of

operations, the acoustical environment would continue to be modified by natural sounds and

those from introduced activities consistent with Forest management objectives.



Construction and drilling noise impacts from the Proposed Action would be temporary. Total time

to prepare access roads, construct the well pad, and drill and complete the well is estimated to be

60 to 75 days for deeper (Mesaverde) wells. Direct noise from drilling and completing the wells

would be restricted to the vicinity of the seven well pads dispersed throughout the 88,558 acres of

the Project Area.

Noise levels associated with construction activities are very loud. Typical sound levels measured

approximately 50 feet from a variety of heavy construction equipment were in the range of 85-92

dBA (FHWA, 2001), or up to or exceeding eight times the loudness perceived during normal

conversation. Noise at these levels could be perceived at considerable distances, up to several

miles, depending upon weather and topographic conditions.

Drilling and completion activities would generate high noise levels. During normal operations,

most sound levels on the well pad are estimated to be between 75-80 dBA. Over mostly flat

country, these levels could drop to approximately 55 dBA at 3,500 feet from the source (BLM,

2006b), although attenuation levels within the Project Area cannot be predicted. Testing

operations would result in the highest potential noise levels, up to 115 dBA during flaring. Noise

at this level could be perceived up to several miles from the well.

Production noise would be limited. For gas wells, no on-site or field compression is proposed.

Gas well sites would not be anticipated to generate noise other than occasional light truck traffic

from maintenance worker visits. For gas wells, production equipment would include a gas-fired

pumping unit. These pumps emit a loud and sharp popping noise on each stroke of the pump

which is audible at variable distances from the well, depending on topography and vegetative

cover. Pump jack sound emanations are estimated to be a maximum of approximately 82 dBA

measured at 50 feet from the pump (BLM, 2003b). The units would be muffled to reduce

emitted sound levels.

Noise from implementation of the Proposed Action is not anticipated to affect Project workers as

suitable protective measures are mandated by OSHA regulations. Noise impacts could affect

casual forest users, including hunters if drilling occurs during the fall hunting seasons. ANF

users may avoid areas with perceived levels of industrial noise. Most noise levels would be

anticipated to drop to levels below that associated with normal human speech within

approximately one half mile of the well pad.


127

Increased project-associated noise levels could affect wildlife. Larger animals, such as big game

species, would tend to avoid the area of active drilling. Elevated noise levels have been

suggested as negatively impacting nesting raptors (BLM, 2003). Construction of the Proposed

Action would occur outside critical periods for avian species and impacts are not expected.

Noise from well pumping units on producing oil wells could adversely affect some wildlife

species for the long-term and discourage use of habitat near these wells. To reduce such impacts

to sage-grouse, within defined sage-grouse crucial brood habitat, or within two miles of

identified leks, well pumping units would be installed with hospital-grade mufflers.

No indirect noise impacts have been identified.



Direct and indirect noise impacts from implementation of this alternative would be nearly

identical to those from the Proposed Action, but would involve slightly longer periods of

construction associated with burial of pipelines. There would be no differences in impacts from

drilling and production activities.


The cumulative impacts analysis area for noise is the Project Area. Noise associated with

construction of either action alternative would add substantially to the existing noise levels in the

area, albeit on a very temporary basis. Production activities for oil wells would result in long-

term increases to local noise levels and could adversely affect some wildlife species. These

impacts would incrementally add to existing oil and gas area noise effects from the Brundage

Canyon oil field and proposed oil and gas development north of the Ashley Forest federal

exploration unit.

3.12 Visual Resources

Scoping comments identified a concern regarding whether development will be in compliance

with the USFS’ Visual Quality Objectives for the Project Area.


The Visual Quality Objective (VQO) class for over 97 percent of the Project Area and for those

portions of the Project Area to be directly affected by the proposed project is Modification as

described and mapped for the South Unit of the ANF (Figure 3-9, Appendix A) (USFS, 1974).

All proposed project facilities are located within areas with a VQO of Modification. Activities in

areas managed for a Modification VQO may visually dominate the surrounding landscape;

however, activities/forms should borrow from the naturally established form, line, color, and

texture so that the proposed activity’s or facility’s visual characteristics are compatible with the

natural surroundings. The three percent of the Project Area assigned as retention or partial


128

retention is located in the northwest corner of the Project Area along U.S. Highway 191 in

Indian Canyon and a minimum of two miles away from the nearest proposed project activity.


Selection of the No Action Alternative would deny the Proposed Action and no proposed

project-related impacts to visual resources would occur. However, the completion of previously

NEPA-approved oil and gas actions and facilities would result in an initial total short-term

surface disturbance of 29.1 acres within VQO class Modification. Residual long-term

disturbance within the Modification class would total 12.6 acres. Additional effects to visual

resources within the Project Area would continue at levels controlled by USFS management

activities.



Construction of the seven new well pads and access roads; the upgrading of segments of existing

access roads; the drilling, completion, and testing of eight new wells (two wells would be located

on one of the seven well pads); the construction of production facilities on 14 well pads; and the

construction of pipelines from the well pads to tie-ins north of the Project Area would affect the

visual quality of those areas within visual range. Direct impacts would result from vegetation

being removed from areas to be disturbed and from blading, cutting, and filling actions as part of

well pad construction and access road new construction and upgrades. The exposure of rock and

soil, in place of vegetative cover, would create the contrast in form, line, color, and/or texture

with existing visual quality conditions. The temporary to long-term placement of equipment and

structures on the well pads would also create some contrast in form, line, color, and texture.

Temporary gas flaring could be noticeable for the duration of testing toward the end of well’s

testing program. Drill rigs, temporary storage tanks, and other drilling/completion related

structures would be removed by the end of the testing program at each well location; however,

production equipment would be installed at each productive well.

Implementation of interim reclamation activities at Project facilities would begin to lessen the

visual impacts. Impacts would continue to lessen over time as reclamation and revegetation

efforts take hold and the established vegetative cover matures thereby reducing visual contrasts

between the well pads and reclaimed portions of new access roads, upgraded roads, and pipeline

ROWs and the surrounding landscape. Unsuccessful wells would be reclaimed as soon as

feasible following plugging. Results for both interim and full/permanent reclamation should

result in the mitigation of visual impacts to minor or negligible within the short-term, depending

on precipitation levels. Constructed roads could be left unreclaimed as USFS maintained access

roads into the South Unit.

Indirect impacts to visual resources have not been identified.


129



Direct and indirect impacts to visual resources would be similar to those for the Proposed

Action; however, the installation of buried pipelines would increase the level of short-term

disturbance from 109.8 acres to 362.6 acres. Although interim reclamation for most facilities

and final reclamation of the buried pipeline ROWs would stabilize and likely establish a

protective vegetative cover, the reclaiming pipeline ROWs would likely visually contrast with

adjacent undisturbed lands and be noticeable to observers in the Project Area beyond the short-

term. Given that this greater acreage of long-term contrast would be present, the nature of the

contrast would remain consistent with conditions of the Modification classification.


The cumulative impacts to visual resources in the Project Area (CIAA) would result from

implementation of the Proposed Action or Buried Pipeline Alternative along with past, current,

and foreseeable projects. Views of the landscape from various points would be changed on a

temporary to a long-term basis for constructed access roads and road upgrades, well pads, and

pipelines. The maintenance of new and upgraded roads and well pads for the long-term, life-of-

project would incrementally add to long-term features present in the CIAA. Interim reclamation

of portions of access road ROW and well pads would initiate recovery of vegetative cover to

reduce contrast with adjacent undisturbed lands; however, noticeable contrast may persist

beyond the short-term, depending on effectiveness of applied reclamation measures and

adequacy of precipitation.

3.13 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice

Scoping did not reveal concerns associated with socioeconomics or environmental justice issues.


The Proposed Action, if implemented, would take place in the southern portion of Duchesne

County. The county area is 3,238 square miles, making it the 12th largest in Utah and comprises

3.94 percent of the area of the state (Duchesne County Area Chamber of Commerce, 2009). Of

the total land area, 44.4 percent is owned by the federal government (34.5 percent by the USFS)

and 19.1 percent is owned by the Ute Indian Tribe (Perlich, 2003).

3.13.1.1 Demographics

The county population from the 2000 census was 14,371 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000) and in 2007

was estimated to be 16,216 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2007). The county seat is Duchesne City, with a

2000 population of 1,408, and the largest city is Roosevelt, with a 2000 population of 4,299. In the

2000 census, 90.2 percent of the population identified itself as white, slightly higher than the

average for Utah (89.2 percent), and 5.4 percent identified itself as American Indian, considerably

higher than the Utah average (1.3 percent). The Hispanic population was 3.5 percent, considerably


130

less than the Utah average (9.0 percent). The population contains fewer foreign-born residents and

fewer speakers of foreign language at home than the norm for Utah (U.S. Census Bureau, 2007).

Duchesne County has historically been a slow growth area. The county experienced net out-

migration in all but one year from 1942 through 1966. Population experienced a peak of 14,800

in 1984, followed by subsequent decline. The prior peak was not surpassed until 2002, and

approximately 2/3 of the county's growth has been in the city of Roosevelt. The county

population is slightly older (28.3 years, median age) than that of the state (27.1 years), except on

the Uintah and Ouray Reservation (20.5 years, median age). State of Utah projections forecast

Duchesne County to be among the slowest growth areas in the state over the next three decades

and to remain an older population than the state average (Perlich, 2003). Estimates from the

U.S. Census Bureau for 2007 suggest that these forecasts have been reasonably accurate

(U.S. Census Bureau, 2007).

Education levels are somewhat lower than the norm for Utah. The 2000 census reported

81.0 percent of residents over 24 years of age as having a high school diploma and 12.7 percent a

bachelor's or higher college degree, as compared to 87.7 percent and 26.1 percent, respectively

for Utah (U.S. Census Bureau, 2007). For Native Americans, the comparable figures were

73.5 percent and 7.0 percent, respectively (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000).

3.13.1.2 Income, Labor and Employment

Compared to Utah as a whole, Duchesne County has lower income levels by all standard

measures. Median annual household income in 2007 was $49,374 compared to $55,220 for the

state, a difference of about $6,000. The county had gained considerably, however, from the

situation in 1999 when the difference was approximately $14,500 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2007).

The economy is oriented around agriculture and mining (oil and gas development). Oil and gas

provides nearly 8 percent of all full- and part-time jobs in the county, compared to less than

1 percent for Utah, while agriculture accounts for 12 percent, compared to less than 2 percent for

the state. Employment sectors increasing in importance include government (tribal government),

transportation, communication, and public utilities. The state government forecasts a decline in

the oil and gas and agricultural sectors and a net out-migration of the working-age population

over the next 30 years (Perlich, 2003).

3.13.1.3 Environmental Justice

In compliance with Executive Order 12898, federal agencies are required to identify those

projects which could result in disproportionately adverse environmental or human health risks to

minority or low-income populations. As of the 2000 census, the Duchesne County population had

somewhat higher poverty levels than the state or the nation, with 16.8 percent of residents below

the poverty line as compared to 9.4 percent for Utah and 12.4 percent for the U.S. (U.S. Census

Bureau, 2000). Census Bureau estimates for 2007 at the 90 percent confidence level indicate a

reduction in poverty levels for the county, down to 12.0 percent (U.S. Census Bureau, 2007a).

The county is ethnically whiter (90.2 percent) than Utah (89.2 percent) or the nation (75.1 percent).

The county does contain a larger American Indian population (5.4 percent) than is typical for the


131

state or the nation and that population is concentrated on the Uintah and Ouray Reservation lands

immediately north of the Project Area (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000).


Selection of the No Action Alternative would deny the Proposed Action and there would be no

project-related impacts to socioeconomic conditions or environmental justice. Exploratory

drilling of four previously approved wells would have negligible economic or social impacts.



The Proposed Action would have negligible negative impacts on socioeconomic conditions in

the vicinity of the Project Area. The short-term nature of the proposed project and remote

location with respect to county population centers indicate that there would be negligible project-

related drain on county or state services. A large and long-term influx of project-associated

workers would not occur and there would be no resultant load on local housing and school

systems.

There would be a minor positive impact to local communities from local purchases of goods and

services and potential employment of some local workers, particularly during the construction of

the five well pads and upgrades to the access roads.

Implementation of the Proposed Action would result in temporary elevated levels of traffic

across tribal lands used to access the Project Area. The tribal lands are heavily involved in oil

and gas development activities at present, and project-related activities would result in a small

and temporary incremental increase in traffic. No displacement of daily travel by Reservation

residents would occur and there would be no adverse impacts to the Native American population.

Some Native Americans may be temporarily employed by the Proponent during the construction

phase. The Proposed Action would not adversely impact minority or low-income populations.

Indirect impacts to socioeconomics or environmental justice would include long-term economic

benefits to the county, state, and nation should commercial quantities of oil or gas be discovered.

At present, the amounts of potential oil and gas reserves which could result from the Proposed

Action are unknown, but potentially of importance to local governments. Long-term

maintenance of producing properties could offer employment opportunities to local, including

Tribal, residents.


132



Socioeconomic effects of the Buried Pipeline Alternative would be essentially identical to those

associated with implementation of the Proposed Action.


The direct and indirect impacts of the Proposed Action to socioeconomic conditions and

environmental justice could be minor to considerable, depending on the success of the

exploration program. Therefore, the Proposed Action would contribute incrementally to those

cumulative impacts resulting from past, current, and foreseeable actions and conditions for Tribal

members and county residents. Some potentially minor negative impacts on socioeconomic

conditions would likely be offset by the potential for considerable levels of positive impacts to

local employment incomes and retail revenues that would occur in the event of exploration

success.

3.14 Special Management Areas

Scoping comments specifically identified the potential for impacts to special management areas.


The USFS’ Lance Canyon Research Natural Area (RNA) is the single Special Management Area

located within the Project Area (Figure 3-10, Appendix A). This RNA was created in 1996, and

consists of 295 acres located within Lance Canyon, a small drainage on the south side of Sowers

Canyon. The nearest location of proposed activity is at the previously approved Road Hollow

1-35 well location, approximately one mile east of Lance Canyon RNA. No proposed

exploration activity would encroach on this RNA.

The Lance Canyon RNA protects an exceptional occurrence of Salina wild rye grassland, along

with several forest and non-forest community types representative of the region (USFS, 2005).

The grassland occurs in both pure stands and in mixed communities of mountain big sagebrush

and bluebunch wheatgrass. Included in this RNA are open pinyon pine woodlands, steep slope

mountain-mahogany communities with abundant Utah serviceberry shrubs, and several Douglas-

Fir habitat types. The Lance Canyon RNA was given its special management designation

primarily because of the outstanding vegetative characteristic and unfettered representation of

the region.


Features of the Lance Canyon RNA would not be directly affected by the construction drilling,

completion, and testing of four previously NEPA-approved wells and the upgrade of 8.8 miles of

existing access roads.


133



The Lance Canyon RNA would not be directly affected by the Proposed Action’s construction

and upgrading of access roads, construction and development of seven new well pads,

installation of production facilities on 14 well pads, and surface placement of natural gas

gathering pipelines. All proposed actions and facilities would avoid the RNA. Minor indirect

impacts may occur to animals species within the RNA that are sensitive to noise and human

activity produced by construction and drilling, completion, and testing operations and installation

of production facilities associated with the previously approved Road Hollow 1-35; however,

these effects would be limited to the period needed to install the production facilities and by the

presence of a ridge between the RNA and the well pad.



Impacts associated with this alternative would be similar to those for the Proposed Action.


The implementation of either the Proposed Action or the Buried Pipeline Alternative would not

have any cumulative impacts on the Lance Canyon RNA as both alternatives avoid direct

impacts to the RNA.

3.15 Potential Wilderness and Inventoried Roadless Areas

Scoping comments specifically identified the potential for impacts to inventoried roadless areas

and wilderness potential within the project area.


3.15.1.1 Background

Potential Wilderness Inventory and Evaluation

FSH 1909.12_70 was amended in January 31, 2007, with updated handbook direction consistent

with the USFS Region 4 mapping protocol for undeveloped areas. The handbook directs

National Forests to use the term "potential wilderness" in inventories, evaluations, and reports,

and addresses Forest Service direction to evaluate all lands meeting the criteria for their potential

to be recommended to Congress for wilderness designation. Between 2004 and 2008 the Ashley

National Forest completed a new inventory for potential wilderness; a draft potential wilderness

area inventory and evaluation report.


134

Inventoried Roadless Areas and the Roadless Rule

The 1986 Forest Plan for the Ashley National Forest was produced without including roadless

area information, due to language in the Utah Wilderness Act. In 2000 the Forest, using current

inventory criteria, produced a draft roadless area inventory (map) in anticipation of Forest Plan

Revision.

In 2001, the Forest Service promulgated a Roadless Rule (36 CFR Part 294) that provided certain

protections for Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs). The rule included the 2000 roadless area

inventory from the Ashley National Forest. The rule has since been the subject of a number of

conflicting rulings from the Federal courts. A recent ruling on August 12, 2008 from the Federal

District Court for Wyoming again held that the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule was

unlawfully promulgated in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act and the

Wilderness Act. Current Forest Service direction regarding the treatment of Inventoried

Roadless Areas affected by the 2001 Roadless Rule holds that National Forest units take no

action that would conflict with the court rulings (USDA, 2008).

NEPA and the Inventories

The 2005 potential wilderness inventory best represents lands on the Forest with potential for

wilderness designation, because it is based on current data and takes all existing Forest System

roads into account. A comparison of the 2001 and 2005 inventories showed that IRAs included

areas with some Forest System roads present, whereas these areas were excluded from the 2005

potential wilderness inventory. For example, west of the Project Area the Reservation Ridge

Backcountry Byway is included in inventoried roadless areas; the earlier inventory criteria did

not result in removing this route from the inventory. Lands with this level of commitment to

motorized uses and other management are typically not assessed as having wilderness qualities.

Therefore this document discusses effects to wilderness attributes by Potential Wilderness Area

(PWA). In recognition of the high degree of public interest in the 2001 Roadless Inventory, the

analysis discloses the area of lands which would not retain roadless characteristics by alternative

based on the level of disturbance.

Management Direction

National Forest Service management direction is included in 36 CFR Part 220 – National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Compliance. One of the factors for determining the level of

NEPA compliance needed is the presence of inventoried roadless or potential wilderness in or

near the Project Area, and the potential for proposals to alter the undeveloped character of an

inventoried roadless area or a potential wilderness area. Forest Service Region 4 has provided

guidance in suggestions for analyzing the effects to wilderness potential from project activities

within Inventoried Roadless Areas (Welsh, 2008). Current Forest Plan direction is not provided

for Ashley National Forest roadless lands or other lands with wilderness potential.


135

3.15.1.2 Wilderness Potential

The Ashley National Forest 2005 potential wilderness inventory includes descriptions of five

PWAs that are mapped within the Project Area: Right Fork Indian Canyon, Cottonwood, Sowers

Canyon East, Nutters Canyon, and Alkali Canyon (Figure 3-10). Portions of the Right Fork

Indian Canyon, Cottonwood, and Sowers Canyon East; and all of Nutters Canyon and Alkali

Canyon potential wilderness areas are located within the Project Area (Table 3-26).

Table 3-26 Project Area Potential Wilderness Areas

Potential Wilderness Area

Total Area (acres)

Project Area (acres)

Project Area (%)

Right Fork Indian Canyon 37,474 356 0.40%

Cottonwood 25,989 15,167 17.13%

Sowers Canyon East 17,028 16,640 18.79%

Nutters Canyon 5,320 5,320 6.01%

Alkali Canyon 16,885 16,885 19.07%

Totals 102,696 54,368 61.39%

Each of the five PWAs possesses wilderness attributes, including the following:

Untrammeled, Natural, and Undeveloped Attributes – these attributes are evaluated as

to the degree lands are unhindered and free from modern human control or manipulation,

free from effects of modern civilization, and free from permanent human improvements

or occupation.

Opportunities for Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation – these attributes

are evaluated as to the degree the lands provide outstanding opportunities for people to

experience solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation, including values of

inspiration and physical and mental challenge.

Special Features – these attributes are evaluated as to nature of the lands in containing

other values of ecological, geologic, scenic, or historical or cultural significance that

could be appreciated by visitors.

Manageability – this attribute is evaluated or measured as to the size of the potential

wilderness in meeting an acreage criterion of 5,000 or more acres and enabling the ability

of the USFS to manage NFS lands in a manner that maintains the previously noted

wilderness attributes.

3.15.1.3 Inventoried Roadless

The USFS Roadless Rule (36 CFR Part 294) went into effect in January 2001 and formalized

national direction for management of roadless areas as mapped in the rule. The rule used the

ANF 2000 roadless inventory boundaries in its map set. The rule formalized the boundaries of

the mapped roadless areas. Although the rule has been enjoined in the recent past from

implementation but then reinstated and subsequently challenged in federal court, the rule was

upheld in court and is currently in effect (USFS, 2009e).


136

Approximately 72,145 acres (81.5 percent) of the Project Area is within inventoried roadless

areas (IRAs) (Figure 3-11). Total acreages of inventoried roadless areas for each IRAs are

presented in Table 3-27.

Table 3-27 Project Area Inventoried Roadless Areas

Inventoried Roadless Area Total Area

(acres) Project Area

(acres) Project Area

(%)

0401012 46,363.3 352.6 0.4

0401011 30,038.6 18,777.4 21.2

0401010 21,868.8 21,444.5 24.2

0401009 31,570.1 31,570.1 35.7

Totals 129,840.8 72,144.6 81.5

All proposed activities and facilities are located within inventoried roadless area, with the

exception of facilities within the Gilsonite Draw Unit. Only classified county and NFS roads were

considered in subsequent impact analysis of the affected environment as only classified NFS roads

would be affected by road upgrades.


Wilderness Potential

Development activities on the approved Ashley Federal 2 well pad, Ashley Federal 3 well pad, and

Nutters Canyon 1-2 well pad would result in approximately 7.5 acres of disturbance (2.5 acres per

well pad) in the Alkali Canyon PWA. This disturbance within the PWAs may result in criteria for

potential wilderness not being met in future inventories that include lands occupied by these three

well pads. Current effects from livestock grazing, recreational uses, and previously approved,

ongoing oil and gas development would continue.

Inventoried Roadless

Previously approved actions and facilities would result in an estimated disturbance of 29.1 acres.

The application of interim reclamation measures to this disturbance total could result in a

residual of 14.6 acres of disturbance for the life of the project and possibly beyond for

inventoried roadless areas. However, the results of interim reclamation may not meet criteria for

roadless inventory.

3.15.3 Environmental Consequences – Proposed Action


Implementation of the Proposed Action would result in the construction of new access road and a

single well pad; drilling, completion, and testing of wells; installation of production equipment;

and construction of pipelines for the two AFU 64-18-41/19-11 wells in the inventoried Nutters

Canyon PWA. Additionally, production equipment would be installed on the well pads for the

Ashley 2 Federal well, the Ashley 3 Federal well, and Nutters Canyon 1-2 well, all located


137

within the edge of the inventoried Alkali Canyon PWA. Production equipment would be in

place for the life of the well. In addition, new construction in Nutters Canyon PWA would also

include construction of new pipeline ROW for segments of surface pipeline whose routes are re-

routes or deviate from existing road ROW to avoid cultural resources sites. New surface pipeline

construction in Alkali Canyon PWA would also result from pipeline re-routes from existing road

ROW. Combined disturbance acreage within both PWAs would total approximately 8.9 acres

from well pad, access road, and surface pipeline construction. Disturbance and activities at these

sites would result in a long-term loss (life of project and beyond) of wilderness attributes

(untrammeled, natural, undeveloped, outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and

unconfined type of recreation, and manageability) for the vicinity of the 8.9 acres of ground

disturbance and production activities.

Successful reclamation would likely improve conditions or lessen the severity of impacts to

potential wilderness attributes of the disturbed lands within the PWAs; however, the attributes

would likely be affected and the attributes would remain somewhat diminished for the life of the

project and beyond until facilities are removed and disturbed lands recover to conditions

comparable to adjacent undisturbed lands.

Inventoried Roadless

Under the Proposed Action, visitors traveling into the Project Area would likely observe evidence

of ongoing construction or completed facilities and operations including equipment for the

following:

New roads and upgrades to existing roads,

Vehicle use of existing and new roads,

Well pads and drilling, completion, and/or testing of wells,

Pipeline construction, and

Both interim and final reclamation.

Proposed disturbance would total approximately 62.9 acres (0.9 percent of IRA area in the Project

Area) of short-term disturbance and a residual of 17.8 acres (0.2 percent) of long-term disturbance,

where disturbed lands are unlikely to fully retain roadless characteristics. The presence of new

disturbance, the temporary addition of new features (drill rig and other equipment), noise, and

human activity would impact roadless characteristics. Most impacts to these characteristics from

proposed well development and access road upgrades would occur only during construction and

well development period. The visual aspects of some characteristics would likely be affected for the

short-term (one to five years), until reclamation is completed and protective vegetation is

reestablished. Impacts to these characteristics from additional road access and well pads not

decommissioned and abandoned after drilling, completion, and testing would be longer term

within sight of well locations.


138



Impacts associated with this alternative would be similar to those for the Proposed Action with

the exception of additional disturbance that would result from the construction of buried

pipelines in place of surface construction and placement of proposed pipelines. Buried pipeline

construction and the requirement for construction right-of-way (ROW) would expand the

proposed total disturbance acreage by 0.4 acre, from 8.9 acres (Proposed Action) to 9.3 acres for

this alternative. Disturbance and activities at these sites would result in a long-term loss (life of

project and beyond) of wilderness attributes (untrammeled, natural, undeveloped, outstanding

opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined type of recreation, and manageability) for

the 9.3 acres by potential wilderness area due to the ground disturbance of the activities and the

presence and maintenance of facilities.

Successful reclamation would likely improve conditions or lessen the severity of impacts to

potential wilderness attributes of the disturbed lands within the PWAs; however, the attributes

would likely be affected and the attributes would remain somewhat diminished for the life of the

project and beyond until facilities are removed and disturbed lands recover to conditions

comparable to adjacent undisturbed lands.

Inventoried Roadless Areas

Implementation of the Buried Pipeline Alternative would result in impacts on inventoried

roadless character similar to those described above for the Proposed Action. Both short-term and

long-term impacts would likely result. The burial of pipelines would increase the acreage of

short-term disturbance from 62.9 acres for the Proposed Action to 153.7 acres for this

alternative. With successful reclamation of pipeline construction ROW and other disturbed areas

not needed for continued operations, long-term impacts of residual disturbance of 17.8 acres

would remain the same as the acreage of residual disturbance for the Proposed Action.


Cumulative impacts within the CIAA (Project Area) for PWAs and IRAs would incrementally

contribute to impacts from other past, present, and foreseeable activities within the CIAA. Since

the CIAA is leased for oil and gas development, it is likely there will be additional future impacts

from oil and gas activities. Mechanical treatment as part of ongoing and future habitat

improvement treatments within the Project Area (Table 3-1) would alter vegetative cover, but

would not be ground disturbing or change the vegetative components, and therefore should not

contribute to cumulative affects other than when treatment operations are occurring. Activities

associated with historic and ongoing livestock management within the CIAA would also

contribute to the cumulative impacts to wilderness potential.


139

3.16 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources

Irreversible commitments of resources refer to loss of production or use of resources from land

management decisions which cannot be reversed, except perhaps in the long-term. Examples

include species extinction or minerals extraction. Irretrievable commitments are those for which

the resource use or productivity is lost for some time period, and includes use of renewable

resources. Construction of a road across range land would result in an irretrievable loss of range

while the road exists and prior to reclamation. Irretrievable and irreversible commitments of

resources are discussed in 40 CFR §1502.16. Implementation of the No Action Alternative

could result in such small maximum effects that there would be no irreversible or irretrievable

commitments of resources.

For the action alternatives, there may be irreversible loss of some paleontological resources

resulting from construction of well pads or road upgrading. However, monitoring and mitigation

measures and the location of the Proposed Action over previously disturbed ground would

minimize the likelihood of such losses. There would be irreversible commitment of oil and gas

resources in the event of successful wells, which is the purpose of either of the action

alternatives.

There would be minimal or no irretrievable commitment of surface water resources, assuming

proper implementation of design measures incorporated within the Proposed Action. There

would be a potential irretrievable commitment of approximately 28.35 acre-feet of groundwater

used for drilling and completing the proposed wells.

The scale of the proposed project and incorporated design elements indicate that irretrievable

commitment of air resources and noise effects would be relatively minor and would not violate

NAAQS. Impacts would be limited principally to temporary increases in localized fugitive dust

and diesel engine emissions and to temporary localized increases in noise levels.

Effects on soils, vegetation, range, and wildlife would be irretrievable during the short-term until

completion of reclamation and revegetation activities and re-establishment of grassland forage.

Effects to these resources could be long-term for portions of well pads which are not fully

reclaimed at the completion of the testing phase.

Irretrievable and irreversible impacts to cultural resources would occur to historic properties

where ground disturbance could not be avoided.

Effects to transportation, recreation, and visual resources would be irretrievable for the duration

of operational activities and, in the case of visual resources, until re-establishment of a natural

landscape appearance following completion of reclamation.

Wilderness potential would be lost in the vicinity of approximately nine acres of project

development activities under either action alternative.


140

3.17 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts

Because of the scale of operations, minimal adverse effects would occur under the No Action

Alternative. Under the Proposed Action, there would be negligible to minor and temporary to

short-term (10 weeks to three years) adverse effects to a number of resources including soils,

water, air quality and noise, vegetation and range, wildlife, transportation and recreation, and

visual quality. Most adverse effects would result from 109.8 acres of short-term and 36.7 acres

of long-term surface disturbance. In addition, there would be temporary and minor adverse

impacts to air and visual quality in the immediate vicinity of proposed wells, pipelines, and road

upgrades. Surface disturbance would temporarily affect less than 0.1 percent of the Project Area.

Unavoidable impacts would be slightly greater under the Buried Pipeline Alternative,

proportional to the greater surface disturbance (362.6 acres short-term and 36.7 acres long-term)

associated with this action.

There would be no adverse impacts to socioeconomics and environmental justice.


141

4.0 Chapter 4 – Consultation and Coordination

4.1 Federal, State, and Local Agencies

Duchesne County Area Chamber of Commerce

Duchesne County Roads Department

Duchesne County Weed Department

Energy Information Administration

Federal Highway Administration

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs

U.S. Bureau of Land Management

U.S. Census Bureau

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

University of Montana

University of Utah Bureau of Economic and Business Research

Utah Air Quality Board

Utah Automated Geographic Reference Center

Utah Division of Air Quality

Utah Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining

Utah Division of Water Quality

Utah Division of Water Rights

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources

Utah Geological Survey

Western Association of State Fish and Wildlife Agencies

Western Regional Climate Center

4.2 Tribes

Ute Indian Tribe

4.3 List of Preparers

This EA was prepared by a third-party contractor operating in cooperation with and under the

direction of the USFS.

U.S. Forest Service Interdisciplinary Team Members

David Herron - Geologist and ID Team Leader

Kim Bartel - Recreation, Noise, and Visual Resources

Ron Brunson - Fisheries

Bob Christensen - Wildlife

Jean Anne Dalton - GIS Information Services

Anita DeZort - Roadless and Wilderness


142

Allen Huber - Vegetation and Range

Darlene Koerner - Soils and Air Quality

Valton Mortenson - Engineering and Roads

Mark Muir - Hydrology

Kathy Paulin - NEPA Coordinator

Jeffery Rust - Heritage and Archaeology

Sherry Fountain - BLM Liaison

Vantage Energy Uinta, LLC (Proponent)

Mark Rothenberg, Project Coordinator

John Moran, Drilling Engineer

Michael Holland, Landman

Petros Environmental Group

Richard Bell - Soils Scientist and NEPA Specialist

Joe Fetzer - Geologist and NEPA Specialist

Grasslands Consulting

Chris Gayer - Biologist

Nick Hall - Biologist

Montgomery Archaeological Consultants

Keith Montgomery - Archaeologist

Jody Patterson - Archaeologist

Kate Freudenberg - Archaeologist

Intermountain Paleo-consulting

Stephen Sandau - Paleontologist


143

5.0 Chapter 5 – References

Alderks, D. 2006. Paleontological Class I Report of the Greater Natural Buttes Gas

Development Project Area, Intermountain Paleo-Consulting, Vernal, UT.

American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH). 2003. Threshold limit

values for chemical substances and physical agents and biological exposure indices.

American Petroleum Institute (API). 2008. Hydraulic Fracturing at a Glance, American

Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC.

Behle, W.H. 1981. The Birds of Northeastern Utah. Utah Museum of Natural History

Occasional Publication 2: 1-136.

Black, B., S. Hecker, M. Hylland, G. Christenson, and G. McDonald. 2003. Quaternary Fault

and Fold Database and Map of Utah, Map 193DM (CD ROM), Utah Geological Survey,

Salt Lake City, UT.

Braun, C. E. 1998. Sage grouse declines in western North America: what are the problems?

Proceedings of the Western Association of State Fish and Wildlife Agencies 78:139-156.

Chidsey, T. and S. Wakefield. 2005. Oil and Gas Fields Map of Utah, Map 203 DM, Utah

Geological Survey, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Christensen, B. 2009. Personal Communications with Bob Christensen Regarding Wildlife,

Special Status Species, Habitat Improvements [ETC], Wildlife Biologist, Ashley National

Forest, Duchesne Ranger District, Duchesne, UT.

Curtis, C. 2009. Personal Communication with Clint Curtis Regarding County-maintained

Roads on Ashley National Forest, Duchesne County Roads Department, February 4, 2009.

Connelly, J. W., M. A. Schroeder, A. R. Sands, and C. E. Braun. 2000. Guidelines For

Management Of Sage Grouse Populations And Habitats. Idaho Department of Fish and Game.

Dalton, J. A. 2008. Ashley National Forest Northern Goshawk Inventory and Monitoring

Report, Ashley National Forest, Vernal, UT.

DeGraaf, R. M., Scott, V. E., Hamre, R. H., Ernst, L., and S. H. Anderson. 1991. Forest And

Rangeland Birds Of The United States: Natural History And Habitat Use. Dept. of

Agriculture Handbook No. 688. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service.

625pp. Accessed Online from http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/1998/forest/forest.htm on

January 19, 2006.

Dewey, S. 1998. Ashley National Forest Northern Goshawk Monitoring Plan. USDA Forest

Service, Ashley National Forest.

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/1998/forest/forest.htm%20on%20January%2019

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/1998/forest/forest.htm%20on%20January%2019


144

Dewey, S. 1999a. Effects Of Supplemental Food On Parental Care Strategies And Juvenile

Survival In Northern Goshawks. M.S. Thesis Colorado State University. 75pp.

Dewey, S. 1999b. Memorandum: Analysis Of Radio-Tracking Data For Validation Of PFA

Concept. Ashley National Forest.

Doherty, K. 2008. Sage-grouse and Energy Development: Integrating Science with

Conservation Planning to Reduce Impacts. The University of Montana, Missoula, MT.

Duchesne County. 2009. Online County Roads Map, Duchesne County Information Services,

Duchesne, UT. Online Data.

Duchesne County Area Chamber of Commerce. 2009. Duchesne County Statistics, Duchesne

County, Utah Area Chamber of Commerce, Roosevelt, Utah, online data retrieved from

http://www.duchesne.net/demo/, March 20, 2009.

Duchesne County Weed Department (DCWD). 2005. 1997-2005. Noxious Weed Guide.

Duchesne County Weed Department, Duchesne, Utah. Online data retrieved from

http://www.duchesnegov.net/publicworks/weeds.html, March 4, 2009.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2001. Highway Construction Noise: Measurement,

Prediction, and Mitigation - Appendix A: Construction Equipment Noise Levels and Ranges,

Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., online data retrieved from

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/highway/hcn06.htm, March 20, 2009.

Fitzgerald, J. P., C. A. Meaney, and D. M. Armstrong. 1994. Mammals of Colorado.

University Press of Colorado Publishing, Niwot, Colorado. 467 pp.

Federal Land Manager Air Quality Related Values Workgroup (FLAG). 2008. Federal Land

Managers’ Air Quality Related Values Workgroup (FLAG) Phase I Report, Revised Draft,

June 27, 2008

http://www.nature.nps.gov/air/permits/flag/docs/FLAG_RevisedFinalDraft20080624.pdf

Freudenberg, K., and K. R. Montgomery. 2005. Cultural Resource Inventory for EOG's Four

Proposed Wells (Nutters Canyon 1-02, Road Hollow 1-35, Quitchampau 1-15, and Gilsonite

1-20) in Ashley National Forest Duchesne County, Utah, Montgomery Archaeological

Consultants, MOAC Report 05-209, Moab, UT.

Goodrich, S. 2004. Management Indicator Species Amendment, Synopsis of Vegetation

Management Monitoring and Interpretations, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Ashley National Forest, Vernal, UT.

Goodrich, S., and E Neese. 1986. Uinta Basin Flora. USDA Forest Service- Intermountain

Region- Ogden, Utah 1986 in cooperation with USFS- Ashley National Forest and USDOI

BLM - Vernal District. 320pp.

Graham, R. T., R. L. Rodriguez, K. M. Paulin, R. L. Player, A. P. Heap, and R. Williams. 1999.

The Northern Goshawk In Utah: Habitat Assessment And Management Recommendations.

http://www.duchesne.net/demo/

http://www.duchesnegov.net/publicworks/weeds.html

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/highway/hcn06.htm


145

General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-22. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Rocky Mountain Research Station. February. [Internet]:

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr022.pdf. Accessed August 20, 2005.

Grande, L. 1984. Paleontology of the Green River Formation, with a Review of the Fish Fauna,

Bulletin 63, Wyoming State Geological Survey, Laramie, WY.

Harty, K. 1992. Landslide Map of the Pirce 30' x 60' Quadrangle, Utah, Open File Report 265,

Utah Geological Survey, Salt Lake City, UT.

Herron, D. 2003. Personal Communication from David Herron Regarding Planned Range

Improvement Projects within the South Unit, Ashley National Forest Geologist and EA ID

Team Leader, e-mail July 23, 2003.

Herron, D. 2005. Personal Communication from David Herron Regarding Fossil Resources in

the Ashley National Forest, Ashley National Forest Geologist, December 14, 2005.

Herron, D. 2009. Personal Communication from David Herron Regarding Fossils Recovered

from Vantage Energy Exploration Sites, Ashley National Forest, May 2009.

Holloran, M. J. 2005. Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) population response to

gas field development in western Wyoming. PhD Dissertation, University of Wyoming,

Laramie, WY.

Huber, A. 2009. Personal Communication with Allen Huber Regarding Ashley National Forest

Grazing Allotments, Forest Ecologist, Ashley National Forest, Roosevelt-Duchesne Ranger

District, March 4, 2009.

IMPROVE. 2009. Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments,

http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/default.htm

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical

Basis (Summary for Policymakers). Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, England and

New York, New York. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf

League for the Hard of Hearing. 2003. Noise Levels in Our Environment Fact Sheet, League for

the Hard of Hearing, New York, New York, online data retrieved from

http://www.lhh.org/noise/decibel.htm, February 8, 2006.

Lyon, A. G., and S. H. Anderson. 2003. Potential gas development impacts on sage-grouse nest

initiation and movement. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31:486-491.

Mabey, M., and T. L. Youd. 1989. Probabilistic Liquefaction Severity Index Maps of the State

of Utah, Open File Report 159, Utah Geological and Mineral Survey, Salt Lake City, UT.

McCallum, D. A. 1994. Flammulated Owl. Birds of North America. 93:1-24 McKay, R. 1991.

Biological assessment and inventory plan for the wolverine (Gulo gulo) in the Uinta

Mountains. Utah Natural Heritage Program, Salt Lake City, UT.

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr022.pdf

http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/default.htm

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf

http://www.lhh.org/noise/decibel.htm


146

Mc Vehil-Monnett Associates. 2009. Vantage Energy Uinta, LLC Ashley National Forest Oil

and Gas Exploration and Development Project Environmental Assessment Air Quality

Analysis Technical Support Document, McVehil-Monnett Associates, Englewood, CO.

National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP). 2006. National Atmospheric Deposition

Program Website, Illinois State Water Survey, Champaign-Urbana, Illinois,

http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/

National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS). 2007. North American Land

Mammal Ages, online data retrieved from The Paleobiology Database, http://paleodb.org/cgi-

bin/bridge.pl?user=Guest&action=displayHomePage , February 9, 2007.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2003. Map of Utah Airsheds,

online data retrieved from http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/slc/projects/ifp/images/UTsheds.gif,

February 2, 2006.

National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (NWSRS). 2009. Designated Wild and Scenic Rivers,

National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, Washington, D.C. Online data retrieved from

http://www.rivers.gov/wildriverslist.html, March 15, 2009.

NatureServe. 2009. Natureserve Explorer: An Online Encyclopedia Of Life [web application].

Version 4.2. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer .

Online data retrieved March 4, 2009.

Oliver, G. V. 2000. The Bats of Utah. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Publication 00-14.

Salt Lake City, UT.

Parrish, J. R., F. P. Howe, R. E. Norvell. 2002. Utah Partners in Flight Avian Conservation

Strategy Version 2.0. Utah Partners in Flight Program, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources,

1594 West North Temple, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, UDWR Publication Number 02-27.

I-xiv + 302 pp.

Paulin, K. 1998. Memorandum: Winter Locations Of Northern Goshawks, Nov. 1996 through

April 1998. Ashley National Forest.

Perkins, J. Mark. 2002. Summer 2002 Bat Survey Duchesne Ranger District, Consulting

Wildlife Biologist, Portland, OR.

Perlich, P. S. 2003. Duchesne County: Profile and Data Book, Bureau of Economic and Business

Research, David Eccles School of Business, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT.

Ranchod, S. 2007. Supreme Court Rules EPA Has Statutory Authority to Regulate Greenhouse

Gases. April, 2007 Issue of Stay Current – A Client Alert from Paul Hastings.

Rasmussen, D. T, G. Conroy, A. Friscia, K. E. Townsend, and M. Kinkel. 1999. Mammals of

the Middle Eocene Uinta Formation, in Vertebrate Paleontology in Utah, David D. Gillette,

editor, Miscellaneous Publication 99-1, Utah Geological Survey, Salt Lake City, UT.

http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/

http://paleodb.org/cgi-bin/bridge.pl?user=Guest&action=displayHomePage

http://paleodb.org/cgi-bin/bridge.pl?user=Guest&action=displayHomePage

http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/slc/projects/ifp/images/UTsheds.gif

http://www.rivers.gov/wildriverslist.html

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer


147

Rasmussen, D. T, A. Hamblin, and A. Tabrum. 1999a. The Mammals of the Eocene Duchesne

River Formation, in Vertebrate Paleontology in Utah, David D. Gillette, editor,

Miscellaneous Publication 99-1, Utah Geological Survey, Salt Lake City, UT.

Reynolds, R. T., R. T.Graham, M. H. Reiser, and others. 1992. Management Recommendations

For The Northern Goshawk In The Southwestern United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-217,

Ft. Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and

Range Experiment Station. 90 p.

Robson, S. G., and E. R. Banta. 1995. Ground Water Atlas of the United States - Segment 2:

Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Investigations

Atlas 730-C, Reston, VA.

Rust, J. 2009. Conversations with Jeffrey Rust Regarding Cultural Resources and Native

American Concerns, Vantage Exploration Project, Forest Archaeologist, Ashley National

Forest Office, Vernal, Utah, March-May, 2009.

Sandau, S. 2008. Monitor of Vantage Energy's Proposed Well Pad for Gilsonite 1-20 (Sec. 20,

T6S, R3W), Consulting Paleontologist, Intermountain Paleo-consulting, Vernal, UT.

Sandau, S. 2008a. Monitor of Vantage Energy's Proposed Well Pad and Access Road for

Nutters Canyon 1-02 (Sec. 34, T6S, R5W) and (Sec. 2 and3, T7S, R5W), Consulting

Paleontologist, Intermountain Paleo-consulting, Vernal, UT.

Seaber, P. R., F. P Kapinos, and G. L Knapp. 1987. Hydrologic Unit Maps: U.S. Geological

Survey Water-Supply Paper 2294, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia, 63 p.

Stavish, P., and K. A. Thomas. 2009. Class I Existing Data Review of Vantage Energy's

Proposed 2008-2009 Drilling Program, Ashley National Forest, Duchesne County, Utah,

Montgomery Archaeological Consultant, Moab, UT.

Stokes, W. L. 1977. Physiographic Subdivisions of Utah, Utah Geological and Mineral Survey,

Map 43, Salt Lake City, UT.

Sullivan, R. 1980. A Stratigraphic Evaluation of the Eocene Rocks of Southwestern Wyoming,

Report of Investigations 20, Geological Survey of Wyoming, Laramie, WY.

Supreme Court of the United States. 2007. Massachusetts et al. v. Environmental Protection

Agency, No. 05–1120. Argued November 29, 2006—Decided April 2, 2007,

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1120.pdf

U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). 1997. Brundage Canyon Oil and Gas Field Development

Environmental Assessment. Uintah and Ouray Agency. Fort Duchesne, UT.

U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). 2004. Development Supplemental Environmental

Assessment for Modifications to the Brundage Canyon Oil and Gas Field Expansion,

Duchesne County, Utah. Uintah and Ouray Agency. Fort Duchesne, UT.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1120.pdf


148

U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). 2004. Development Supplemental Environmental

Assessment for Modifications to the Brundage Canyon Oil and Gas Field Expansion,

Duchesne County, Utah. Uintah and Ouray Agency. Fort Duchesne, UT.

U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). 2006. Brundage Canyon Oil and Gas Field Infill Drilling

Program, U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, Ft. Duchesne, UT.

U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2003. Final Environmental Impact Statement and

Proposed Plan Amendment for the Powder River Basin Oil and Gas Project, Bureau of Land

Management, Buffalo Field Office, Buffalo, WY.

U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2003a. Proposed Resource Management Plan

Amendment and Final Environmental Impact Statement for Federal Fluid Minerals Leasing

and Development in Sierra and Otero Counties, Las Cruces Field Office, Las Cruces, NM.

U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2003a. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2003.

Final Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed Plan Amendment for the Powder River

Basin Oil and Gas Project, Appendix F. BLM Buffalo Field Office. Buffalo, WY.

U.S Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2003b. Desolation Flats Natural Gas Exploration and

Development Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement. BLM Rock Springs Field

Office. Rock Springs, WY.

U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2005. Air Quality Technical Report for Draft

Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement, Vernal Field Office.

Vernal, UT.

U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2005a. Air Quality Technical Report for Draft

Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement. Vernal Field Office.

Vernal, UT.

U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2005b. Draft Resource Management Plan and

Environmental Impact Statement. Vernal Field Office. Vernal, UT.

U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2006. Draft Environmental Impact Statement EOG

Resources, Inc. Chapita Wells-Stagecoach Area Natural Gas Development, EIS, Vernal

Field Office. Vernal, UT.

U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2006b. Jonah Infill Drilling Project Final

Environmental Impact Statement, Pinedale Field Office, Pinedale, Wyoming, online data

retrieved from http://www.wy.blm.gov/nepa/pfodocs/jonah/index.htm, February 8, 2006.

U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2007. Potential Fossil Yield Classification System

(PFYC) for Paleontological Resources on Public Lands, Instruction Memorandum 2008-09,

Washington Office, Washington, DC.

U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2008. Vernal Field Office Record of Decision and

Approved Resource Management Plan, Vernal Field Office, Vernal, UT.

http://www.wy.blm.gov/nepa/pfodocs/jonah/index.htm


149

U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2008. Proposed Oil Shale and Tar Sands Resource

Management Plan Amendments to Address Land Use Allocations in Colorado, Utah, and

Wyoming, and Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Colorado State Office,

Lakewood, CO.

U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2008a. Price Field Office Record of Decision and

Approved Resource Management Plan, Price Field Office, Price, UT.

U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2008b. The Vernal Field Office Proposed Resource

Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement, Utah State Office, Salt Lake

City, UT.

U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2007. Surface

Operating Standards and Guidelines for Oil and Gas Exploration and Development (The

Gold Book), Bureau of Land Management, Denver, CO.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. 2000 Census Factfinder, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, D.C.,

online data retrieved from http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html, March 20, 2009.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2007. State and County Quick Facts: Duchesne County, Utah, U.S.

Census Bureau, Washington, D.C., online data retrieved from

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/49/49013.html, March 20, 2009.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2007a. Small Area Income and Poverty Estimate for Duchesne County,

Utah, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, D.C., online data retrieved from

http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/saipe/saipe.cgi, March 20, 2009.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1974. Information on Levels of Environmental

Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety.

EPA Publication EPA-550/9-74-004, Arlington, VA.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1995a. AP 42, Fifth Edition - Compilation of

Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area Sources, Chapter 5.3,

Natural Gas Processing, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.,

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch05/final/c05s03.pdf

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1995b. AP 42, Fifth Edition - Compilation of

Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area Sources, Chapter

13.2.3, Heavy Construction Operations, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,

D.C., http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch13/final/c13s02-3.pdf

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1996. AP 42, Fifth Edition - Compilation of Air

Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area Sources, Chapter 3.4,

Large Stationary Diesel and All Stationary Dual-Fuel Engines, Environmental Protection

Agency, Washington, D.C., http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch03/final/c03s04.pdf

http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/49/49013.html

http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/saipe/saipe.cgi


http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch13/final/c13s02-3.pdf


150

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2002. Dose-response Assessment for Assessing

Health Risks Associated with Exposure to Hazardous Air Pollutants. Tables 1 and 2.

http://www/epa/gov/ttnatw01/toxsource/

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2004. Evaluation of Impacts to Underground

Sources of Drinking Water by Hydraulic Fracturing of Coalbed Methane Reservoirs,

Publication 816-R-04-003, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2005. Visibility in our Nation's Parks and

Wilderness Areas, Canyonlands National Park, Environmental Protection Agency,

Washington, D.C., online data retrieved from

http://www.epa.gov/oar/visibility/monitor.html#Canyonlands

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2005a. Visibility in our Nation's Parks and

Wilderness Areas, Canyonlands National Park.


U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2005b. AP 42, Fifth Edition Compilation of Air

Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area Sources. Technology

Transfer Network Clearinghouse for Inventories & Emissions Factor.

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2006a. AirData, Facility/Monitor Locator Map-

Criteria Air Pollutants. http://www.epa.gov/air/data/monvals.html?st~UT~Utah

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2006b. AP 42, Fifth Edition - Compilation of

Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area Sources, Chapter

13.2.2, Unpaved Roads, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.,


U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2008. Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Under the Clean Air Act, Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Federal Register /

Vol. 73, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 30, 2008.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009. STORET Data Warehouse,

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., online data retrieved from

http://www.epa.gov/storet/dw_home.html, March 3, 2009.

U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009a. Clean Air Status and Trends Network

(CASTNET). Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

http://www/epa.gov/castnet/

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009b. AirData Nonattainment Areas Map -

Criteria Air Pollutants. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. http://www.epa.gov/cgibin/broker?_service=airdata

http://www/epa/gov/ttnatw01/toxsource/



http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/

http://www.epa.gov/air/data/monvals.html?st~UT~Utah

http://www.epa.gov/storet/dw_home.html

http://www/epa.gov/castnet/


151

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2002. Birds of conservation concern 2002. Division

of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. 99 pp. Accessed from:

http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/reports/bcc2002.pdf on March 25, 2009.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2002. Memorandum of Understanding between

USDA - Forest Service, USDI – Bureau of Land Management, and USDI – Fish and Wildlife

Service to Promote the Conservation of Migratory Birds. Accessed online at

http://www.blm.gov/nhp/efoia/wo/fy02/ib2002-084a-MBTA-MOU_12-4-01.pdf on January

19, 2006.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2002a. Bonytail (Gila elegans) Recovery Goals:

Amendment And Supplement To The Bonytail Chub Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Mountain-Prairie Region (6), Denver, CO.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2002b. Colorado Pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus Lucius)

Recovery Goals: Amendment And Supplement To The Colorado Squawfish Recovery Plan.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain-Prairie Region (6), Denver, CO.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2002c. Humpback Chub (Gila cypha) Recovery

Goals: Amendment And Supplement To The Humpback Chub Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Mountain-Prairie Region (6), Denver, CO.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2002d. Razorback Sucker (Xyrauchen texanus)

Recovery Goals: Amendment And Supplement To The Razorback Sucker Recovery Plan.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain-Prairie Region (6), Denver, CO.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2006. Recovery of Upper Colorado River Basin Fish

Website. Last updated on 12/14/2006. Accessed online from:

http://www.fws.gov/coloradoriverrecovery/Crrpch.htm on February 16, 2009.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2009. Endangered, Threatened, Proposed and

Candidate Species Utah Counties. West Valley City, Utah, March 2009. Accessed from:

http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/endspp/countylists/utah.pdf on March 13, 2009.

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 1974. National Forest Landscape Management, Vol. 2, Chapter 1:

The Visual Management System. ―The Big Eye Book‖ USDA Agriculture Handbook No.

462, Washington, DC.

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 1986. Ashley National Forest Land and Resource Management

Plan, Ashley National Forest, Vernal, UT.

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 1994. Nevada-Utah Mountains Semi-Desert - Coniferous Forest -

Alpine Meadow, in Ecological Subregions of the United States, U.S. Forest Service,

Washington, D.C., online data retrieved from

http://www.fs.fed.us/land/pubs/ecoregions/ch49.html, March 4, 2009.

http://www.blm.gov/nhp/efoia/wo/fy02/ib2002-084a-MBTA-MOU_12-4-01.pdf

http://www.fs.fed.us/land/pubs/ecoregions/ch43.html


152

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 1995. Inland Native Fish Strategy Environmental Assessment

Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact, U.S Forest Service, Intermountain,

Northwest, and Pacific Regions.

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 1996. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Western Uinta Basin

Oil and Gas Leasing, U.S.D.A Forest Service Intermountain Region, Ashley and Uinta

National Forests.

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 1997. Record of Decision Western Uinta Basin Oil and Gas

Leasing and Forest Plan Amendments, U.S.D.A Forest Service Intermountain Region,

Ashley and Uinta National Forests.

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2000. Noxious Weed Infestation by Forest (Percent of Acres),

U.S. Forest Service Region 4, Salt Lake City. Online data retrieved from

http://www.fs.fed.us/r4/resources/noxious_weeds/8x11mapwnames.pdf, March 4, 2009.

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2000a. Ashley Forest Plan Amendment Utah Northern Goshawk

Project. Ashley National Forest Office, Vernal, UT.

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2001. Thunder Basin National Grassland Land and Resource

Management Plan, Appendix J - Paleontology, Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests,

Laramie, WY.

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2005. Environmental Assessment, Decision Notice, and Finding of

No Significant Impact for the Sowers Seismic and Well Proposal, Duchesne/Roosevelt

Ranger District, Ashley National Forest, Duchesne County, UT.

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2005a. Ashley National Forest Travel Map for the Roosevelt and

Duchesne Ranger District, Ashley National Forest Office, Vernal, UT.

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2005b. Unpublished Vegetation Studies of Previously Drilled Well

Locations. Provided by Allen Huber, Forest Ecologist, Ashley National Forest.

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2005c. Personal Communication between Chris Gayer, Biologist,

Grasslands Consulting and Allen Huber, Forest Ecologist, Ashley National Forest, Regarding

Vegetation Resources and Noxious Weeds in the Project Area.

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2005d. Personal Communication between Chris Gayer, Biologist,

Grasslands Consulting and Dan Abeyta, Fisheries Biologist, Ashley National Forest

Regarding Sowers Creek, Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Fish Species, and Fisheries

Resources on the Ashley National Forest.

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2006. Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact for

the EOG Four Well Exploratory Drilling Project, Duchesne/Roosevelt Ranger District,

Ashley National Forest, Duchesne County, UT.

http://www.fs.fed.us/r4/resources/noxious_weeds/8x11mapwnames.pdf


153

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2006a. Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact for

the EOG Quitchampau 1-15 Exploratory Drilling Project, Duchesne/Roosevelt Ranger

District, Ashley National Forest, Duchesne County, UT.

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2006b. Unpublished Soils Mapping and Mapping Unit

Descriptions, Provided by Darlene Koerner, February 1, 2006, Soil Specialist, Ashley

National Forest Office, Vernal, UT.

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2006c. Personal Communication between Chris Gayer, Biologist,

Grasslands Consulting and Robert Christensen, Wildlife Biologist, USDA Forest Service

Duchesne Ranger District Regarding Sensitive Species Distribution on the ANF.

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2006d. Life Histories and Population Analysis for Management

Indicator Species of the Ashley National Forest: Version 1.0 March 2006. Ashley National

Forest Office, Vernal, UT.

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2006e. Fauna, Unpublished Wildlife Database.

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2006f. Berry Petroleum’s 2006 Oil and Natural Gas Exploration

Project Environmental Assessment. Ashley National Forest, Roosevelt/Duchesne Ranger

District, Vernal, UT.

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2007. Roosevelt/Duchesne District Prescribed Burns, Ashley

National Forest, Vernal, Utah. Online data retrieved from

http://www.fs.fed.us/r4/ashley/projects/, February 23, 2009.

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2008. Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study for National Forest

System Lands in Utah Environmental Impact Statement Record of Decision, Uinta-Wasatch-

Cache National Forest Office, Salt Lake City, UT.

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2009. Geographic Information Systems Digital Mapping Data for

the Ashley National Forest, Forest Office, Vernal, UT.

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2009a. South Unit Oil and Gas Draft Environmental Impact

Statement, Ashley National Forest, Supervisors Office, Vernal UT.

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2009b. Personal Communication between Chris Gayer, Biologist,

Grasslands Consulting and Ron Brunson, Fisheries Biologist, Ashley National Forest

Regarding Sowers Creek, Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Fish Species, and Fisheries

Resources on the Ashley National Forest.

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2009c. Personal Communications between Chris Gayer, Biologist,

Grasslands Consulting and Bob Christensen, Wildlife Biologist, Ashley National Forest

Regarding Wildlife, Special Status Species, and Habitat Improvements [ETC] on the ANF.

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2009d. Unpublished Soils Mapping and Mapping Unit

Descriptions, Provided by Darlene Koerner, March 2006, Soil Specialist, Ashley National

Forest Office, Vernal, UT.

http://www.fs.fed.us/r4/ashley/projects/


154

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2009e. Draft Potential Wilderness Evaluation Report for Forest

Plan Revision, Ashley National Forest, Vernal, UT.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2004. Southwest Regional GAP Digital Landcover Dataset

and Descriptions for the Southwestern United States. Accessed from:

http://earth.gis.usu.edu/swgap/swgap_legend_desc.pdf. on February 19, 2009.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2009. Utah Streamflow Data, U.S. Geological Survey,

NWISWebdata, online data retrieved from http://waterdata.usgs.gov/ut/nwis/sw, March 3,

2009.

Utah Air Quality Board (UAQB). 2004. Draft Utah State Implementation Plan Section VIII -

Prevention of Significant Deterioration, Utah Air Quality Board, Salt Lake City, UT.

Utah Automated Geographic Reference Center (AGRC). 2009. GIS Data for the State of Utah,

Utah Automated Geographic Reference Center, Salt Lake City, Utah. Online data retrievable

from http://agrc.its.state.ut.us/.

Utah Department of Administrative Services (UDAS). 2009. Water Quality Standards for Utah,

Administrative Code R317-2, Salt Lake City, Utah. Online data retrieved from

http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r317/r317-002.htm#T15, March 4, 2009.

Utah Division of Air Quality (UDAQ). 1998. Meteorological Data Collected near Bonanza,

Utah at the Deseret Generating and Transmission Power Plant for Years 1985, 1986, 1987,

and 1992. Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Air Quality, Salt Lake

City, UT.

Utah Division of Air Quality (UDAQ). 2000. Utah Division of Air Quality modeling

guidelines.

Utah Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining (UDOGM). 2008. Online Database of Oil and Gas Data

and GIS Information, Utah Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining, Salt Lake City, Utah. Online

data retrieved from http://www.oilgas.ogm.utah.gov/Data_Center/DataCenter.cfm,

November 3, 2008.

Utah Division of Water Quality (UDWQ). 2006. Utah 2006 Integrated Report: Volume I -

303(b) Assessment, Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Water Quality,

Salt Lake City, Utah, online data retrieved from

http://www.waterquality.utah.gov/documents/Utah305b_2006Vol1_6-30-06.pdf, March 3,

2009.

Utah Division of Water Quality (UDWQ). 2006a. Utah's 2006 Integrated Report: Volume II -

303(d) List of Impaired Waters, Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of

Water Quality, Salt Lake City, Utah, online data retrieved from

http://www.waterquality.utah.gov/documents/200_303d_submittal_3-31-06.pdf , March 3,

2009.

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/ut/nwis/sw

http://agrc.its.state.ut.us/

http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r317/r317-002.htm#T15

http://www.oilgas.ogm.utah.gov/Data_Center/DataCenter.cfm

http://www.waterquality.utah.gov/documents/Utah305b_2006Vol1_6-30-06.pdf


155

Utah Division of Water Rights (UDWR). 2009. Water Well Map Locator, Utah Department of

Natural Resources Division of Water Rights, Salt Lake City, Utah, online data retrieved from

http://utstnrwrt6.waterrights.utah.gov/cgi-bin/mapserv.exe, March 4, 2009.

Utah Division of Water Rights (UDWR). 2009a. Water Right GIS Data, Utah Division of

Water Rights, Salt Lake City, Utah. Online data retrieved from

http://nrwrt1.nr.state.ut.us/gisinfo/wrcover.asp, March 3, 2009.

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR). 2002. Strategic management plan for sage

grouse 2002. UDWR Publication 02-20.

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR). 2004. Utah Upland Game Proclamation 2003-

2004, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. 27pp. Accessed Online from

http://www.wildlife.utah.gov/uplandgame/index.php#annu on February 8, 2006.

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR). 2004a. Utah Wildlife Board takes steps to

increase Utah's deer and elk populations. Accessed Online at

http://www.wildlife.utah.gov/news/04-04/deer_elk.html on February 18, 2006.

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR). 2004b. Personal Communication between

Robert Christensen, Wildlife Biologist, Ashley National Forest, and Brian Maxfield, Wildlife

Biologist, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Regarding White-tailed Ptarmigan

Populations.

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR). 2005. Statewide Management Plan for Elk.

Accessed online at http://www.wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/biggame/pdf/elk_plan.pdf on March

26, 2009.

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR). 2006. Utah Upland Game Annual Report 2006.

Accessed online from: http://wildlife.utah.gov/uplandgame/annualreports/2006.pdf on

March 11, 2009.

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR). 2006a. Big Game Habitat Coverage GIS Data.

Accessed online from: http://dwrcdc.nr.utah.gov/ucdc/DownloadGIS/disclaim.htm on

March 25, 2009.

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR). 2007. Annual Big Game Report 2007.

Accessed online from:

http://wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/biggame/pdf/annual_reports/07_bg_report.pdf on March 25,

2009.

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR). 2008. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources

Statewide Management Plan for Mule Deer. Accessed online at

http://wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/biggame/pdf/mule_deer_plan%20approved_12_4_2008.pdf

on March 25, 2009.

http://utstnrwrt6.waterrights.utah.gov/cgi-bin/mapserv.exe

http://nrwrt1.nr.state.ut.us/gisinfo/wrcover.asp

http://www.wildlife.utah.gov/uplandgame/index.php#annu

http://www.wildlife.utah.gov/news/04-04/deer_elk.html%20on%20February%2018

http://www.wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/biggame/pdf/elk_plan.pdf%20on%20March

http://www.wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/biggame/pdf/elk_plan.pdf%20on%20March


156

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR). 2009. 2008-2009 Utah Upland Game

Guidebook. Accessed online from: http://wildlife.utah.gov/guidebooks/2008-

09_upland_game/2008-09_upland_game.pdf on March 13, 2009.

Utah Geological Association (UGA). 1990. Energy and Mineral Resources of Utah Guidebook,

Lee Allison, editor, Utah Geological Association, Salt Lake City, UT.

Utah Geological Survey (UGS). 1997. Earthquakes and Utah, Public Information Series 48,

Utah Geological Survey, Salt Lake City, UT.

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.

Weiss, M. P., I. J. Witkind, and W. B. Cashion. 1990. Geologic map of the Price 30' x 60'

Quadrangle, Carbon, Duchesne, Uintah, Utah, and Wasatch Counties, Utah, scale 1:100,000

(digitized from U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I-1981):

Utah Geological Survey Map 198DM, CD-ROM.

Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC). 2009. http://www.wrcc.dri.edu

Whitfield, A. 2005. Cultural Resource Inventory of EOG Resources' Chokecherry 1-05 Well

Location in Ashley National Forest, Duchesne County, Utah, Montgomery Archaeological

Consultants, Report MOAC 05-462, Moab, UT.

Whiting, J. C. 2009. Cultural Resource Inventory of Vantage Energy's 11 Proposed Wells and

Associated Access/pipeline Corridors on the Ashley National Forest, Duchesne, County,

Utah, Montgomery Archaeological Consultants, Moab, UT.

http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/


A-1

Appendix A Maps


B-1

Appendix B: Lease Stipulations

Stipulations applicable to some or all Project Area Leases, as determined in the Western Uinta

Basin Oil and Gas Leasing EIS, are indicated in Table B-1.

Table B-1 Project Area Oil and Gas Lease Stipulations

Resource Stipulation

Type Stipulation

Geology and Soils NSO Preclude surface disturbing activities from lands that have a high erosion or stability hazard that would be difficult to reclaim.

Research Natural Areas

NSO Preclude surface disturbance within research natural areas and maintain its near natural condition.

Sensitive Plants CSU A survey would be required prior to surface disturbing activities to determine the possible presence of sensitive plant species.

Sensitive Wildlife TL Preclude surface disturbing activities within defined sage-grouse habitat between April 1 and May 31.

Sensitive Wildlife CSU A survey would be required prior to surface disturbing activities to determine the possible presence of sensitive wildlife species.

Soils NSO Preclude construction of well sites and related facilities from lands that have a high erosion or stability hazard where slopes exceed 35 percent.

Wetlands NSO Surface disturbing activities located in riparian areas of more than 40 acres extent should be located to minimize to disturbance in riparian areas.

Wetlands NSO Surface disturbing activities located in riparian areas of more than 40 acres extent should be located to minimize to disturbance and protect jurisdictional wetlands relative to Executive Order 11990.

Wildlife TL Preclude commencement of surface disturbing activities within crucial elk winter range which could cause increased stress and/or displacement of animals between November 15 and April 30.

Wildlife TL Preclude commencement of surface disturbing activities within crucial mule deer winter range which could cause increased stress and/or displacement of animals between November 15 and April 30.

NSO – No Surface Occupancy TL – Timing Limitation CSU – Controlled Surface Use


C-1

Appendix C Scoping Notice and Mailing Lists


C-2

File Code: 1950-1/2820-2

Date: October 14, 2008

Dear Friend of the Ashley National Forest:

The Duchesne Ranger District of the Ashley National Forest is soliciting public comments on

our 2008 Vantage Drilling Project. This project consists of a proposal, from Vantage Energy, to

drill up to 8 oil and gas wells within the South Unit of the Ashley National Forest. These wells

are in addition to 7 other wells, soon to be drilled or already being drilled by Vantage Energy,

which were previously approved for drilling by other companies and subsequently acquired by

Vantage. The drilling areas range from Gilsonite Ridge on the east to Wild Horse Ridge on the

west.

We anticipate that environmental analysis for this project will be documented in an

environmental assessment (EA). The responsible official for this proposal is District Ranger

J. R. Kirkaldie. Additional information on this proposal can be obtained from our Duchesne

Office, at 85 West Main, Duchesne, Utah, or by calling David Herron at (435) 781-5218.

Comments should be received by our office on or before Friday, November 14, 2006.

Comments should be sent to: J. R. Kirkaldie, District Ranger, 85 West Main, P.O. Box 981,

Duchesne, Utah 84021. Comments may also be hand delivered to the above address during

regular business hours, 8am to 4:30pm Monday – Friday, excluding holidays. You may also

comment by phone at (435) 781-5203 or via e-mail. Electronic comments should be sent to

[email protected]. Electronic comments must be submitted in a Microsoft

Word (*.doc) or rich text format (*.rtf). Those using electronic means may submit a scanned

signature. Otherwise, another means of verifying the identity of the individual or organizational

representative may be necessary for electronically submitted comments or comments received by

phone. This is pursuant to 36 CFR 215.6(a) (3) (B). The opportunity to comment ends 30 days

following the date of publication of the legal notice in the newspaper of record which is the

Uinta Basin Standard. Only those who submit timely comments will be accepted as appellants.

Comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses of those who

comment, will be considered part of the public record for this project.

We thank you for your substantive comments on this proposal, and for your continued interest in

the Ashley National Forest.

Sincerely,

/s/ J. R. Kirkaldie

J. R. KIRKALDIE

District Ranger

mailto:[email protected]


C-3

Ashley National Forest Scoping Mailing List

Utah Div. of Wildlife Resources

152 East 100 North

Vernal, UT. 84078

Utah Dept. of Natural Resources

Executive Director

PO Box 145610

Salt Lake City, UT. 84114-5610

Greendale Cooperative Drainage

155 Greendale US 191

Dutch John, UT. 84023

Dinosaurland RC&D

240 West Hwy 40 (333-4)

Roosevelt, UT. 84066

USFWS

5353 Yellowstone Rd. Ste 308A

Cheyenne, WY. 82009

US Fish & Wildlife Services

2369 West Orton Circle, Suite 50

West Valley City, UT. 84119

High Uintas Preservation Council

Rich Arnice

14012 S. Timber Ridge Dr.

Draper, UT. 84020

JC Brewer

3154 E 3500 S

Vernal, UT. 84078

John Busch

1293 S Vernal Ave.

Vernal, UT. 84078

EPG, Inc

Saffron Capson

247 South 500 East

SLC, UT. 84095

Ute Agricultural Products

Cattle

HC 64 Box 225

Duchesne, UT. 84021

Ute Indian Tribe Fish/Wildlife

Robert Chapoose Jr.

PO Box 190

Fort Duchesne, UT. 84026

Office of Federal Land Policy

Wyoming State Clearinghouse

Hers. Bldg. 1 W, 122 W 25th St

Cheyenne, WY. 82002

John Conley

243 North 800 West

Vernal, UT. 84078

Ralph Cooley

1618 E. 1700 S.

Naples, UT. 84078

Honorable Orrin G. Hatch

Ron Dean

51 S University

Provo, UT. 84606

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers -

Sacramento District

Amy DeFreese

533 W. 2600 S., Suite 150

Bountiful, UT. 84010

Wyoming Game & Fish

Lucy Diggins

351 Astol Street

Green River, WY. 82935

Trout Unlimited

Paul F. Dremann

2348 Lynwood Drive

Salt Lake City, UT. 84109

Utah State Historic Pres Office

Jim Dykman

300 Rio Grande Av


State of Utah Trust Lands Admin.

Tom Faddies

675 E 500 S Ste 500


Sheila Fenn

PO Box 510049

Mountain Home, UT. 84051

USDI Bureau of Indian Affairs

Branch of Forestry

PO Box 130

Ft Duchesne, UT. 84026

Casper Star Tribune

Jeffrey D. Gearino

2155 Pennsylvania Blvd.



C-4

Utah Regulatory Office

Jason Gipson

533 West 2600 South, Suite 150

Bountiful, UT. 84010

U.S.Army Corps of Engineers

Colorado/Gunnison Basin Office

Nathan Green

400 Rood Ave., Rm 142

Grand Junction, CO. 81501

Public Lands Director

Wild Earth Guardians

312 Montezuma Ave

Santa Fe, NM. 87501

Linda Hacking

152 E 100 N.

Vernal, UT. 84078

Ivan Hall

2616 W. 1500 N.

Vernal, UT. 84078

Max Haslem

3150 N Vernal Ave.

Vernal, UT. 84078

Utah Shared Access Alliance

Brian Hawthorn

PO Box 131

Payson, UT. 84651

John Holderegger

PO Box 204

Evanston, WY. 82931-0204

Milton Hollander

2561 E. Valley View Ave


Salt Lake Tribune

Brent Israelson

90 S 400 W - Ste. 700


Utah Div. of Drinking Water

Kate Johnson

PO Box 144830

SLC, UT. 841144830

USDA NRCS Snow Survey

Randall P Julander

245 N Jimmy Doolittle Rd


Croman Corp.

Kurt Kaufman

801 Avenue C

White City, OR. 975031082

Robert Kay

85 South 200 East

Vernal, UT. 84078

David C. Kirby

560 South Main St.

Providence, UT. 84332

Honorable Christopher Cannon

Trevor Kolego

118 Cannon House Office Bld

Washington, DC. 20515

Roger's Radiator

Roger Luck

74 E 300 N

Vernal, UT. 84078

Jack Lytle

PO Box 285


Wyoming Stock Growers

Jim Magagna

PO Box 206

Cheyenne, WY. 82003-0206

Office of Congressman

Jim Matheson

240 Morris Ave #235


Ute Indian Tribe Bus. Comm.

Roland McCook

PO Box 190


USDI Bureau of Indian Affairs

Chester D. Mills

PO Box 130

Ft. Duchesne, UT. 84026

North Ute Indian Tribe

Maxine Naches

PO Box 190


Robert Nebeker

3833 Marlene St

Idaho Falls, ID. 83406

Albert Neff

HCR 65 Box 620

Manila, UT. 84046

Utah State Dept. of Natural Resources

Jerry D. Olds

1594 W North Temple, Ste. 220


Dave Palmer

887 West 1200 South

Vernal, UT. 84078


C-5

Wyoming Legislature

Gordon Park

212 Toponce Drive

Evanston, WY. 82930

Western Resource Advocates

Sean Phelan

425 E. 100 S.


Utah Div. of Water Quality

Shelly Quick

PO Box 144870


Moon Lake Resort

Julie & Bill Reardon

PO Box 5051

Pagosa Springs, CO. 81147

Honorable Rob Bishop

Mbr U S House of Rep

1017 Fed. Bldg. 324 25th St.

Ogden, UT. 84401

S.J. & Jessie E. Quinney

Natural Resources Research Library

Utah State University

Logan, UT. 84322-5260

USDI National Park Service

Mary Risser

4545 Hwy 40, PO Box 210

Dinosaur, CO. 81610

EPA Region 8, Wetland Coordinator

David Ruiter

1595 Wynkoop St.

Denver, CO. 802021129

Uintah Basin Sportsmen

Paul Selfe

PO Box 333

Myton, UT. 84052

Honorable Michael B. Enzi

Lyn Shanaghy

PO Box 12470

Jackson, WY. 83002

Simper Lumber Inc.

Wayne Simper

PO Box 790190

Vernal, UT. 84079-0190

Gene Smith

120 Collier Circle


USDA Forest Service

Jeff Sorkin, Air Quality Specialist

PO Box 25127

Lakewood, CO. 80225

Wade Stevens

PO Box 3

Lonetree, WY. 82936

Wyoming Game & Fish

Michael D. Stone

5400 Bishop Boulevard

Cheyenne, WY. 82006-0001

Public Lands

Ginger Stringham

PO Box 790203

Vernal, UT. 84079

State of Utah Trust Lands Adm.

David T. Terry

675 E 500 S Ste 500


Foundation of North American Sheep

Neil Thagard

720 Allen Ave.

Cody, WY. 82414

Duchesne County Commissioner

Guy Thayne

PO Box 346

Duchesne, UT. 84021

Snowmobile/ATV Club

Merlin Walker

190 East 550 South

Vernal, UT. 84078

Rod Weaver

1949 North 2500 West

Vernal, UT. 84078

Wendell W Wild

735 W 1000 N

West Bountiful, UT. 84087

Ute Tribe Environmental Coordinator

S. Elaine Willie

PO Box 460


Department of Natural Resources

Carolyn Wright

PO Box 145610


High Uintas Preservation Council

Dick Carter

PO Box 72

Hyrum, UT. 84319

Utah Reclamation Mitigation

And Conservation Commission

230 South 500 East, Ste 230


Central Utah Water Conservancy

Rock D. Harrison

PO Box 2

Duchesne, UT. 84021


C-6

UEC

Kevin Mueller

1817 South Main St. Ste 10


Utah Shared Access Alliance

Mike Swenson

PO Box 131

Payson, UT. 84651

Manila Town Council

PO Box 189

Manila, UT. 84046

Flaming Gorge Lodge

1100 E. Flaming Gorge Lodge


Wyoming Game & Fish

Green River Field Office

351 Astle St.



C-7

Ashley National Forest

Environmental Email

List

Oct 14, 2008

Clark Tucker

RR#1 Box 2825

Ballard, UT. 84066

[email protected]

High Uintas Preservation

Margaret Pettis

PO Box 321

Hyrum, UT. 843190321

[email protected]

Sweetwater County

Commissioner

Wally Johnson

80 West Flaming Gorge

Way


[email protected]

Utah Cattlemen's Assn.

Brent Tanner

150 South 600 East Ste 10-

B


[email protected]

UBAOG

Laurie Brummond

330 East 100 South

Roosevelt, UT. 84066

[email protected]

Central Utah Water

Conservancy

Rock D. Harrison

PO Box 2

Duchesne, UT. 84021

[email protected]

Duchesne County

Commissioners

PO Box 270

Duchesne, UT. 84021 [email protected],

[email protected]

Roosevelt Public Library

Laurie Womack

70 West Lagoon 44-4

Roosevelt, UT. 84066 [email protected]


Council

Dick Carter

PO Box 72

Hyrum, UT. 84319

[email protected]

Honorable Barbara Cubin

c/o Bonnie Cannon

2515 Foothill Blvd. Ste

204

Rock Springs, WY. 82901 [email protected]

KSL-TV CHANNEL 5

John Hollenhorst

KSL-TV Broadcast House,

55 N 300 W


[email protected]


Council

David Jorgensen

516 New Star Dr.


[email protected]

American Rivers

1025 Vermont Ave. NW,

Ste 720

Washington, DC. 20005

[email protected]

Uintah Water Conservancy

Dist

Scott Ruppe

78 W 3325 N

Vernal, UT. 84078

[email protected]

Atty - Ute Indian Tribe

Whiteing & Smith

Tod Smith

1136 Pearl St., Ste 203

Boulder, CO. 80302

[email protected]

State of Utah Div. of

Water Right

Bob Leake

152 East 100 North

Vernal, UT. 84078

[email protected]

Daggett County

Courthouse

Brian Raymond

PO Box 219

Manila, UT. 84046 [email protected]

s, [email protected]

Uintah County

Commissioner

Dave Haslem

152 East 100 North

Vernal, UT. 84078

[email protected]

Utah Div. of Wildlife

Resources

Kevin Christopherson

152 East 100 North

Vernal, UT. 84078 [email protected]


C-8

Utah Reclamation

Mitigation

And Conservation

Commission

230 South 500 East, Ste

230

Salt Lake City, UT.

841022045

[email protected]

Department of Natural

Resources

Carolyn Wright

PO Box 145610

Salt Lake City, UT.

841145610

[email protected]

, [email protected]

Natural Res, Ute Indian

Tribe

Shaun Chapoose

PO Box 190


[email protected]

UEC

Kevin Mueller

1817 South Main St. Ste

10


[email protected]

Lexco

Jim Lekas

PO Box 1198

Vernal, UT. 84078

[email protected]

National Project Manager

Mark Mackiewicz

681 West 300 South

Price, UT. 84501

[email protected]

ov

Wasatch County

Commissioners

Robert Riddle

25 N. Main

Heber City, UT. 84032

[email protected]

Cody Huseby

427 W Century Ave. #304

Bismark, ND. 58501

[email protected]

Public Lands Info Center

REI

Avis Light

3285 E 3300 South


[email protected]

EPA Region 8, NEPA

Director

Larry, 8EPR-N Svoboda

1595 Wynkoop St.

Denver, CO. 802021129

[email protected]


Council

Connie Bullis

PO Box 980056

Park City, UT. 84098

[email protected]

Uintah County

Commissioner

Darlene Burns

152 East 100 North

Vernal, UT. 84078

[email protected]

Utah Public Lands Policy

Office

Jonathan Jemming

5110 State Office Building

SLC, UT. 84114

[email protected]

Western Watersheds

Project, Inc

John Carter

PO Box 280

Mendon, UT. 84325

[email protected]

Bjork, Lindley, Little, P.C.

Linda Van der Veer

1600 Stout St. Ste 1400

Denver, CO. 80202 [email protected]

BLM

Mike Holbert

280 Hwy. 191 N

Rock Springs, WY. 82901

[email protected]

Duchesne County

Commissioner

Rod Harrison

734 N. Center St.

Duchesne, UT. 84021

[email protected]

Smiling Lake Consulting

Bonnie Carson

29365 Roan Dr.

Evergreen, CO. 80439

[email protected]

Sierra Club - SLC

Mark Clemens

2120 S 1300 E, #204

SLC, UT. 84106 [email protected]

Utah Shared Access

Alliance

Mike Swenson

PO Box 131

Payson, UT. 84651

[email protected]


C-9

Utah Division of Wildlife

Carolyn Wright

[email protected]

Duchesne County Commissioner

Duchesne County Public Land Use

Board

Lynn Burton

[email protected], [email protected]


D-1

Appendix D: Summary of Scoping Comments

In addition to issues suggested by the USFS ID Team, six comment letters were received in

response to scoping. A letter from the Wasatch County Council was generally supportive of the

Proposed Action, but the Project Area is located outside of the Council's jurisdiction. Other

comments have been listed below. The comments have been divided into issue and resource

areas. The source(s) of each comment have been indicated. Original letters are in the Project

Record.

The USFS separated scoping comments into those to be analyzed and those not analyzed.

Analyzed comments are defined as those which may identify issues directly or indirectly caused

by implementing the Proposed Action. Non-analyzed comments are identified as those relating

to potential issues which are:

outside the scope of the Proposed Action;

already decided by law, regulation, Forest Plan, or other higher level decision;

irrelevant to the decision to be made; or

conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence.

Analyzed comments, along with the source of the comment and the area of the EA addressing

the issue, are listed in Table D-1. Non-analyzed issues are listed in Appendix E.

Table D-1 Analyzed Comments Identified from Scoping

Issue or Resource

Comment Source EA

Sections

General Based on compliance with the County Public Land Use Plan, the Duchesne County Commission supports the proposed project.

1

Appdx. F

NEPA Compliance

Cumulative impacts analysis should include road construction, mineral extraction, timber harvesting, and grazing activities, past, present, and foreseeable.

4

3.1.3

Reclamation Analysis should discuss requirement for preservation of stockpiled topsoil for use in reclamation.

Analysis should determine appropriate procedures and mitigations to employ during production to facilitate successful reclamation.

6 6

2.3.4

2.3.6, Appdx. F

Air Quality Proponent should obtain the appropriate permits and/or issue required Notices of Intent prior to construction of pollutant-emitting facilities.

Fugitive dust emissions must be appropriately controlled and minimized.

The effects from emissions of exhaust fumes, flaring or venting of natural gas, emissions from separators or dehydrators, and hydrocarbons dissolved in water or pit fluids escaping to the air must be properly analyzed and the precise development processes described.

3 3 6

Appdx. F

Appdx. F

3.4.3.1

Cultural Resources

Cultural sites eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places must be protected in compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act.

6 3.9.3.1


D-2

Issue or Resource

Comment Source EA

Sections

Noise Impacts from loud noise associated with gas compression must be properly analyzed and development processes described.

6 3.11.3.1

Soil Hazardous chemical spills which may contaminate soil must be properly analyzed and development processes disclosed.

6

Appdx. F

Threatened, Endangered, or Candidate Species

The proposed project will likely result in a water depletion to the Upper Colorado System and may require formal consultation with USFWS.

5

3.7.3.2

Transportation Project Proponent and the USFS should work with Duchesne County to ensure that county roads used for the proposed project are adequately maintained and improved to safely support project traffic.

1 Appdx. F

Visual Resources

Analysis of the project must determine whether development will be in compliance with the visual quality management objectives within the project area.

6 3.12.1, 3.12.3.1

Water and Riparian Resources

Impacts from leakage of pit fluids, pit sludge, or storage tanks into ground water must be analyzed and development processes disclosed.

Impacts from leakage of fuels or site chemicals.

Analysis must consider impacts to springs within the project area, including Mine Hollow and Nutters springs.

Ground disturbing activities, road construction, and road construction should be avoided in riparian areas.

6 6 6 6

3.3.3.1, Appdx. F

Appdx. F 3.3.3.1

3.6.1.2, 3.6.3.1

Wilderness Analysis of the proposed project must consider impacts to Potential Wilderness Areas and Inventoried Roadless Areas.

6 3.14.3.1

Wildlife The proposed project will affect brooding and wintering sage-grouse habitat, crucial winter and fawning mule deer habitat, and crucial summer and winter elk habitat.

Existing raptor nests should be located prior to initiation of project activities and mitigations and spatial buffers should follow the Utah Field Office Guidelines for Raptor Protection from Human and Land Use Disturbances.

Project activities should avoid, to the extent possible, sensitive wildlife periods and areas (breeding season, calving season, migration corridors).

Impacts to migratory birds should be minimized and migratory bird surveys should be conducted if activities occur in the spring or summer.

Analysis of the proposed project should include population and habitat trends of all ANF Management Indicator Species (MIS).

The area of the proposed project contains habitat for the northern goshawk and analysis of impacts to this species must be conducted, including at least two years of project-level nest surveys.

5 5 5

5,6 6 6

3.7.3.3,

3.7.3.1, 3.7.3.3

3.7.3.3

3.7.3.1

3.7.1.4

3.7.1.4

Sources: 1. Duchesne County Commission 2. Wasatch County Council 3. Utah Governor's Office for Public Lands Policy Coordination – Division of Air Quality 4. Utah Governor's Office for Public Lands Policy Coordination – Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining 5. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Utah Field Office 6. Utah Environmental Congress


E-1

Appendix E: Non-analyzed Issues

A number of comments received from the Utah Environmental Congress during scoping were

determined by the USFS as failing to meet the significance criteria for inclusion in the EA

alternatives development or issues analysis processes. The USFS excludes proposed issues

which are:

1. outside the scope of the Proposed Action;

2. already decided by law, regulation, Forest Plan, or other higher level decision;

3. irrelevant to the decision to be made; or

4. conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence.

Excluded issues, and the rational for their exclusion, have been identified in Table E-1.

Table E-1 Non-analyzed Issues Identified from Scoping

Issue Source Exclusion Rationale

Proponent should coordinate activities with the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR).

5 2

The proposed project represents an extension to an existing field, should have small additional environmental impacts, and should be eligible for a finding of no significant impact.

4 2

NEPA compliance should include analysis of alternatives which avoid development in Potential Wilderness Areas or Inventoried Roadless Areas.

6 2

Project analysis should include a determination of the amount of bond required from Proponent to ensure reclamation of the project area.

6 2

Potential sterilization of the soil from site burial of cuttings and mud residues which may contain chemical additives, salts, metals, and/or hydrocarbons.

6 4

The area of the proposed project is used by the threatened Canada lynx as a migration corridor and impacts to lynx and lynx habitat must be analyzed.

6 4

The area of the proposed project contains habitat for the threatened Mexican spotted owl. Impacts to the species must be analyzed complete avoidance of MSO habitat is recommended.

6 4

Analysis of impacts to riparian areas should comply with requirements indicated in the ANF LRMP.

6 2

Analysis of impacts to wildlife should comply with requirements indicated in the ANF LRMP.

6 2

No surface disturbing activities should be allowed within 4 mis. of an active sage-grouse lek, year round.

5 2

No permanent structures or facilities should be sited within 4 mis. of an active sage-grouse lek.

5 2

Surface well pad density should not exceed one per square mile within 4 mis. of an active sage-grouse lek or within brood rearing habitat.

5 2

Equipment should be properly muffled to not exceed a level of 45 dB within 3.1 mis. of an active sage-grouse lek.

5 2

No surface disturbing activities should occur in crucial wintering sage-grouse habitat between 12/1 and 3/15.

5 2

No permanent structures or facilities should be located within crucial wintering sage-grouse habitat.

5 2

Sources: 4. Utah Governor's Office for Public Lands Policy Coordination – Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining 5. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Utah Field Office 6. Utah Environmental Congress


F-1

Appendix F: ANF Exploration Program Design Features

Resource Design Feature Rationale

Air Quality

Proponent will adhere to applicable national and Utah ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) as required by Utah DEQ.

Utah Administrative Code R307-101-1; Clean Air Act, 42 USC 7401 et seq.

Proponent will use watering or other dust control techniques to reduce fugitive dust emissions from traffic on unpaved roads.

Utah Administrative Code R307-205-6; Clean Air Act, 42 USC 7401 et seq.

Proponent will request that its contractor's vehicles engines be properly maintained to minimize engine emissions.

Company policy

Proponent will obtain appropriate permits and/or issue required Notices of Intent prior to construction of pollutant-emitting facilities

Company policy

Cultural Resources and Native American Issues

If previously undiscovered cultural resources are found, Proponent will notify the USFS and cease operations at the site pending agency evaluation.

Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (16 USC 470)

Proponent will instruct its employees and contractors in procedures to be followed in the event of discovery of human remains as required by applicable regulations.

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (25 USC 3001, 43 CFR 10)

Proponent routinely conducts a Class III cultural resource survey on federal lands.

National Historic Preservation Act (16 USC 470f, 36 CFR 800.4)

Proponent will notify staff and contractors of the prohibitions on illegal collection or destruction of cultural resources and will discipline workers violating such policies and laws.

Company policy

Facilities and ROWs will be located so as to avoid direct impacts and avoid or minimize indirect impacts to Native American traditional cultural properties identified during consultations between USFS and the Ute tribe.

Company policy

Hydrology and Watersheds

Surface casing will be installed to protect fresh water aquifers.

Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 1 - Approval of Operations on Federal and Indian Oil and Gas Leases,, III.D 3 (b); Onshore Order No. 2 Drilling III.B

Construction, drilling, and completion water will be obtained from approved local sources.

Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 1 - Approval of Operations on Federal and Indian Oil and Gas Leases, III.D 4 (e)

Proponent will prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and file a Notice of Intent with the UDEQ.

Utah Administrative Code R317-8; Clean Water Act, 33 USC 1251 et seq.

All equipment and vehicles will be confined to the project access roads, pipeline ROWs and well pads and associated access roads and flowline corridors.

30 USC Section 226(g), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920; 43 CFR 3162.3-1(f); 43 CFR 3162.5-1; Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 1 - Approval of Operations on Federal and Indian Oil and Gas Leases, III.D 4 (b); BLM/USFS Gold Book


F-2


Produced water and hydrocarbon storage tanks, will be situated within spill containment structures sufficient to contain 120 percent of the volume of the largest tank.

Utah Administrative Code R649-3-15

Site-specific drainage and erosion control measures conforming to Proponent's SWPPP and attached stipulations will be installed along disturbed areas, where appropriate, to reduce sediment runoff.

Company policy

Installed culverts will be sized according to Gold Book standards and will be a minimum of 18 inches in diameter.

Company policy

A diversion ditch will be installed above well pad cut slopes and silt fencing or similar erosion control measures will be installed at bases of slopes to reduce sediment runoff.

Company policy

Proponent will follow guidelines in the Inland Native Fish Strategy (INFISH) EA and Finding of No Significant Impact (USFS, 1995) and maintain all pad sides and corners a minimum of 50 feet from the edge of defined stream channels.

Company policy for USFS projects

The reserve pits will be constructed in cut material and lined with a liner of minimum 12 mil thickness. All borehole fluids will be contained within the reserve pit and a minimum two foot freeboard will be maintained.

BLM/USFS Gold Book

Hydrocarbons in the reserve pit will be recovered and disposed of in accordance with USFS regulations.

BLM/USFS Gold Book

The surface casing will be cemented back to surface either during the primary cement job or by remedial cementing. In the event of lost circulation and/or at the request of the appropriate BLM officer, operator will run a cement bond log to verify lost circulation zones have been properly isolated with cement.

Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 2 - Drilling on Federal and Indian Oil and Gas Leases, III B 1(c)

The Proponent will ensure that all employees and subcontractors are familiar with appropriate cleanup and reporting procedures to follow in the event of fuel spills.

Company policy

Vegetation and Soils

If the well is completed, the access road will be maintained as necessary to prevent soil erosion and accommodate year-round use.

30 USC Section 226(g), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920; BLM/USFS Gold Book

Proponent will prohibit off-road travel by its employees or contractors except in emergency situations.

30 USC Section 226(g), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920; 43 CFR 3162.3-1(f); BLM/USFS Gold Book

No surface disturbance or occupancy will occur on slopes in excess of 25 percent.

30 USC Section 226(g), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920; 43 CFR 3162.3-1(f); BLM/USFS Gold Book; Ashley National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan


F-3


When a well is completed, all disturbed areas that are not needed for production facilities will be restored as soon as practical.

30 USC Section 226(g), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920; 43 CFR 3162.3-1(f); 43 CFR 3162.5-1; Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 1 - Approval of Operations on Federal and Indian Oil and Gas Leases, III D 4(j)

Proponent will follow agency procedures designed to reclaim disturbed areas as close to pre-development conditions as feasible.

43 CFR 3162.3-1(f); Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 1 - Approval of Operations on Federal and Indian Oil and Gas Leases, III.D 4 (j).; 30 USC Section 226(g), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920

Reclaimed roads on USFS lands will be reseeded with a seed mixture approved by the USFS.

43 CFR 3162.3-1(f); Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 1 - Approval of Operations on Federal and Indian Oil and Gas Leases, III.D 4 (j); BLM/USFS Gold Book

Well sites will be re-contoured, plowed, and seeded consistent with the procedures described in the APD or COAs.

30 USC Section 226(g), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920; 43 CFR 3162.3-1(f); Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 1 – Approval of Operations on Federal and Indian Oil and Gas Leases, III D 4 (j); BLM/USFS Gold Book

Upgrades of existing roads will be minimized to levels consistent with safe, all-weather operation.

Company policy

Invasive Species

Proponent routinely performs monitoring and treatment of weed infestations on its properties. Identified populations of weeds will be brought to the attention of the USFS and corrective actions will be determined and performed.

30 USC Section 226(g), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920; 43 CFR 3162.3-1(f); 43 CFR 3162.5-1; Executive Order 13112-Invasive Species

Noxious weeds along roads will be subject to control measures using commercial herbicides or other USFS-approved measures.

30 USC Section 226(g), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920; 43 CFR 3162.3-1(f); 43 CFR 3162.5-1; Executive Order 13112-Invasive Species

Wildlife and Fisheries

If construction occurs during raptor nesting season, pre-construction clearance surveys will be conducted in potentially affected raptor habitat per USFS protocols.

Migratory Bird Treaty act of 1918, as amended (16 USC 703-712).

No construction or drilling will occur within usable sage-grouse habitat between April 1 and May 31.

Ashley National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan

No well pads or production facilities (excluding surface pipelines) will be located within 1/4 mile of a sage-grouse lek. Human activity within 0.6 mile of a sage-grouse lek will not be allowed between March 1 and May 31 during a period 1 hour before to 3 hours after sunrise, unless required to access the well pad or production facility in the event of an emergency.

UDWR Sage-grouse Management Plan 2002.

Within 1/4 mile of the Nutters Ridge lek, there will be no upgrades to Jeep Trail Road (FS 10333) except for improvements required to ensure safe travel conditions.

UDWR Sage-grouse Management Plan 2002.


F-4


No surface use, other than normal maintenance activities or repair in emergency situations, will occur within mapped big game habitat between November 15 and April 30.

Ashley National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan

Paleontological Resources

Proponent conducts paleontological resource surveys on federal and state lands where requested.

Company policy

All construction personnel will be informed that the USFS is to be informed immediately upon the discovery of paleontological resources and work in the vicinity of such items will stop pending a notification to proceed from USFS.

Company policy

All construction personnel will be informed that they are subject to prosecution for knowingly disturbing or collecting fossils on public lands.

Company policy

Visual Resources

Proponent will paint all long-term above ground production equipment a color approved by the USFS which will minimize visual contrast with the viewshed.

Company policy

Access to wells will utilize existing roads except where construction of short well pad access roads is required.

Company policy

Pipelines will, to the extent feasible, occupy a ROW adjacent to existing roads.

Company policy

Noise

Vehicles will be appropriately muffled to reduce noise.

Company policy

Pumping units will be equipped with appropriate noise abatement treatments to comply with the Noise Control Act of 1972 or to meet applicable state and federal standards.

Company policy

Within defined sage-grouse crucial brood habitat, or within two miles of identified leks, well pumping units will be installed with hospital-grade mufflers.

Company policy

General Operations

Proponent will plug and abandon each well according to BLM and UDOGM requirements.

43 CFR 3162.3-4; Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 2, Section III.G; Onshore Order No. 1, XII A; Mineral Leasing Act of 1920; Utah Administrative Code R649-3-24

The disposal of trash, sewage, and other waste materials will be mitigated through defined procedures.

Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 1 - Approval of Operations on Federal and Indian Oil and Gas Leases, III D 4 (g)

The maintenance program will be consistent with standard maintenance operations in the area.

30 USC Section 226(g), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920; 43 CFR 3162.3-1(f); 43 CFR 3162.5-1; Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 1 - Approval of Operations on Federal and Indian Oil and Gas Leases, III D 4; BLM/USFS Gold Book


F-5


Proponent will utilize the procedures described in the Surface Operating Standards for Oil and Gas Exploration and Development, 4th Edition (Oil & Gas Gold Book) (BLM and USFS, 2007).

Company policy for federal wells.

Proponent will coordinate upgrades and maintenance of county roads with the Duchesne County Roads Department.

Company policy

Proponent will maintain and communicate a drug and alcohol policy to company employees and contractors. The possession of drugs or alcohol will be expressly prohibited on a Proponent work site. Firearms and dogs will also be expressly prohibited on a Proponent work site.

Company policy

Proponent will repair/replace required fences as necessary in order to prevent cattle access to project facilities.

Company policy

Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) for all chemicals in use will be maintained on-site during drilling and completion operations

Company policy

Proponent will notify USFS immediately in the event of observing or causing any wildfires in the area.

Company policy


G-1

Appendix G

US Fish & Wildlife Service list of Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) in Bird Conservation Regions 10 and 16, and Utah Partners in Flight (PIF) Priority Species and their status in the Project Area

Species BCC PIF Occurrence in Project Area

Basis for Occurrence Determination

Habitat Association

American avocet X Absent No suitable habitat exists in the project area.

Occurs in shallow wetlands.

Black rosy-finch X Absent No suitable habitat exists in the project area.

Occurs in alpine areas near snow banks in summer.

Black-necked stilt X Absent No suitable habitat exists in the project area.

Occurs in shallow wetlands (e.g. Henry's Fork).

Black-throated gray warbler

X X Present Habitat is within the project area.

Occurs in Pinon/Juniper, and brushlands.

Brewer's sparrow X X Present Habitat is within the project area.

Occurs in sage flats, desert scrub, and dry brushy montane meadows.

Broad-tailed hummingbird

X Absent No suitable habitat exists in the project area.

Occurs in mountain riparian.

Burrowing owl X Absent No suitable habitat exists in the project area.

Occurs in open country – grasslands, prairies, and desert.

Flammulated owl X Absent Habitat is present in the vicinity of project activities.

Occurs in ponderosa pine/Douglas fir.

Golden eagle X Present Habitat is within the project area.

Occurs in open, hilly or cliffy country.

Greater sage-grouse

X Present Habitat is within the project area.

Occurs in sagebrush habitats.

Lewis's woodpecker

X X Present Habitat is within the project area.

Occurs in open forests, especially ponderosa, cottonwood; likes burned areas.

Loggerhead shrike X Present Habitat is within the project area.

Occurs in low elevational shrub/scrub habitats.

Northern harrier X Absent No suitable habitat exists in the project area.

Occurs in open, grassy habitats or marshes/wetlands.

Peregrine falcon X Absent No suitable habitat exists in the project area.

Occurs in open areas with cliffs and water (canyons).

Pinyon jay X Present Habitat is present in the vicinity of project activities.

Occurs in pinon/juniper and ponderosa in foothills/lower mountains.

Pygmy nuthatch X Present Habitat is present in the vicinity of project activities.

Occurs in ponderosa pine and PJ woodlands.

Prairie falcon X Absent No suitable habitat exists in the project area.

Occurs in open cliffy country, foothills, and canyons.

Red-naped sapsucker


Occurs in deciduous or mixed deciduous/coniferous forest.

Sage sparrow X X Present Habitat is within the project area.

Occurs in sage flats and desert scrub.


G-2



Habitat Association

Three-toed woodpecker

X Present Habitat is present in the vicinity of project activities.

Occurs in coniferous forests.

Virginia's warbler X X Present Habitat is within the project area.

Occurs in PJ, ponderosa, and scrub habitats.

Williamson's sapsucker


Occurs in open, dry coniferous forests; spruce/pine/fir and aspen.

Wilson's phalarope


Occurs in shallow wetlands.

American white pelican


Occurs in wetlands.

Black swift X X Absent No suitable habitat exists in the project area.

Occurs and nests in waterfalls in coniferous forests.

Bobolink X Absent No suitable habitat exists in the project area.

Occurs in grasslands and fields.

Ferruginous hawk X X Present Habitat is within the project area.

Occurs in open and arid habitats.

Gray vireo X X Present Habitat is within the project area.

Occurs in dry, brushy areas; PJ woodlands.

Long-billed curlew X X Absent No suitable habitat exists in the project area.

Occurs in wet and dry grassy uplands; fields.

Marbled godwit X Absent No suitable habitat exists in the project area.

Occurs in wetlands.

Mccown's longspur


Occurs in open habitats; short-grass prairie and low fields.

Mountain plover X X Absent No suitable habitat exists in the project area.

Occurs in dry, upland short-grass prairie; semi-desert.

Short-eared owl X Absent No suitable habitat exists in the project area.

Occurs in open, grassy habitats; fields; marshes.

Snowy plover X Absent No suitable habitat exists in the project area.

Occurs in mudflats and shores of salt ponds/alkaline lakes.

Swainson's hawk X Present Habitat is within the project area.

Occurs in open, arid habitats, and fields.

Yellow-billed cuckoo

X X Absent No suitable habitat exists in the project area.

Occurs in cottonwoods/riparian.

Abert's towhee X Absent Project area is outside known distribution of this species.

Within Utah, but only occurs in SW Utah.

American golden-plover


Occurs in grasslands, pastures, and flooded fields.

Bell's vireo X Absent Project area is outside known distribution of this species.

Occurs in Utah, but only SW Utah.

Bendire's thrasher X Absent Project area is outside known distribution of this species.

Occurs in Utah, but only Southern Utah.

Chestnut-collared longspur


Occurs in short grass uplands, drier habitats, and moist lowlands.


G-3



Habitat Association

Crissal thrasher X Absent Project area is outside known distribution of this species.


Gambel's quail X Absent Project area is outside known distribution of this species.

Occurs in Utah, but only southern Utah.

Grace's warbler X Absent Project area is outside known distribution of this species.

Occurs in Utah, but only southern Utah.

Gunnison sage-grouse

X X Absent Project area is outside known distribution of this species.

Occurs in Utah, but restricted to SE Utah.

Lucy's warbler X Absent Project area is outside known distribution of this species.


Sanderling X Absent No suitable habitat exists in the project area.

May occur in Utah during migration, on sandy beaches and salt pond dikes.

Sharp-tailed grouse


Occurs in sagebrush steppe, riparian mountain shrub, and oak scrub.

Solitary sandpiper X Absent No suitable habitat exists in the project area.

May occur in Utah during migration, in wetlands and flooded fields.

Sprague's pipit X Absent No suitable habitat exists in the project area.

May occur in Utah during migration on prairies, pastures, and fields.

Upland sandpiper X Absent Project area is outside known distribution of this species.

Does not occur in Utah.

Whimbrel X Absent No suitable habitat exists in the project area.

May occur in Utah during migration on beaches, tidal flats, marshes, pastures, and flooded fields.

White-headed woodpecker

X Absent Project area is outside known distribution of this species.


Yellow rail X Absent Project area is outside known distribution of this species.


a123.g.akamai.neta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... · Vantage Energy Uinta, LLC...

Documents

Transcript of a123.g.akamai.neta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... · Vantage Energy Uinta, LLC...