U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management July 2019

September 2019 Competitive Oil and Gas Lease Sale Monticello Field Office DOI-BLM-UT-0000-2019-0003-OTHER NEPA -MtFO-EA

Monticello Field Office 365 North Main PO Box 7 Monticello, UT 84535

DOI-BLM-UT-0000-2019-0003_Other NEPA-MtFO-EA July 2019

Table of Contents Chapter 1 Purpose & Need ...... 4 1.1 Project Location and Legal Description ...... 4 1.2 Introduction ...... 4 1.3 Background ...... 4 1.4 Purpose and Need ...... 6 1.5 Decision to be Made ...... 6 1.6 Plan Conformance Review...... 6 1.7 Relationship to Statutes, Regulations, Policies or Other Plans ...... 9 1.8 Issues Identified ...... 10 1.9 Issue Statement Rationale for Not Further Discussing in Detail in the EA ...... 11 1.10 Public Comment Period ...... 18 Chapter 2 Description of Alternatives ...... 19 2.1 Introduction ...... 19 2.2 Analysis Assumptions ...... 19 2.2.1 Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario ...... 19 2.3 Alternative A – Proposed Action ...... 20 2.4 Alternative B – No Action ...... 21 2.5 Other Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed in Detail ...... 21 2.5.1 No Leasing Alternative (Designating the Parcels as Closed to Leasing) ...... 21 2.5.2 Deferring Specific Parcels from the Sale ...... 21 2.5.3 Adding Stipulations Beyond those Required by the Management Plan ...... 22 Chapter 3 Affected Environment ...... 23 3.1 Introduction ...... 23 3.2 General Setting ...... 23 3.3 Resources/Issues Brought Forward for Analysis ...... 25 3.3.1 Issue 1: What are the Potential Impacts to Air Quality ...... 25 3.3.1.1 Affected Environment ...... 25 3.3.1.2 Environmental Consequences ...... 28 Impacts of the Proposed Action ...... 28 Impacts of the No Alternative Action ...... 30 3.3.1.3 Required Design Features ...... 30 3.3.1.4 Cumulative Impacts ...... 31 3.3.2 Issue 2: What are the Potential Impacts of Oil and Gas Leasing to Climate Change/Greenhouse Gases? ...... 34

1 DOI-BLM-UT-0000-2019-0003_Other NEPA-MtFO-EA July 2019

3.3.2.1 Affected Environment ...... 34 3.3.2.2 Environmental Consequences ...... 36 Impacts of the Proposed Action ...... 36 Impacts of the No Alternative Action ...... 38 3.3.2.3 Required Design Features/Mitigation Measures ...... 38 3.3.2.4 Cumulative Impacts ...... 39 Chapter 4 Consultation and Coordination ...... 45 4.1 Introduction ...... 45 4.2 Persons, Groups, and Agencies Contacted/Consulted ...... 45 4.2.1 Endangered Species Act of 1973 ...... 45 4.2.2 National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966...... 45 4.3 Public Participation ...... 50 4.3.1 Modifications Based on Public Comment and Internal Review ...... 50 4.4 Preparers ...... 51 Chapter 5 Appendices ...... 52 Appendix A – Parcel List with Stipulations and Notices ...... 53 Appendix B – Stipulations and Notices ...... 70 Stipulation Summary Table ...... 70 Notice Summary Table ...... 81 Threatened and Endangered Species Notices ...... 89 Appendix C – Figures/Maps ...... 97 Appendix D – Interdisciplinary Parcel Review Team Checklist ...... 100 Appendix E – References ...... 113 Appendix F – Acronyms/Abbreviations...... 117 Appendix G – Reasonable Foreseeable Development of Leases Scenario ...... 119 5.1.1 Well Drilling and Completion Operations ...... 119 5.1.2 Production Operations ...... 121 5.1.3 Produced Water Handling ...... 121 5.1.4 Maintenance Operations ...... 122 5.1.5 Plugging and Abandonment ...... 122 Appendix H – Comments and Responses ...... 123

2 DOI-BLM-UT-0000-2019-0003_Other NEPA-MtFO-EA July 2019

List of Tables Table 1. Issues Identified for Detailed Analysis ...... 10 Table 2. Issues not included in Further Detail in the Environmental Assessment ...... 12 Table 3. Leasing Category Acreages for Monticello Field Office...... 24 Table 4. Leasing Category Acreages by Parcel...... 24 Table 5. AQI Index Summary Statistics by County ...... 26 Table 6. 2015-2017 Criteria Pollutant Design Values ...... 26 Table 7. 2014 Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions (tpy) by Source for San Juan County ...... 27 Table 8. Triennial Inventory of HAPs (2014)...... 27 Table 9. Emissions Inventory Estimate...... 29 Table 10. Climate Trends ...... 35

Table 11. GHG Emission in Million Metric Tons (CO2e) ...... 36 Table 12. Single Well GHG Emissions Based on the Moab MLP FEIS Inventory ...... 36 Table 13. Production of Oil and Gas for a Single Well and Associated GHG Combustion Emissions ..... 37 Table 14. Estimates Annual GHG Emissions from Existing and Reasonably Foreseeable Oil and Gas Wells...... 40 Table 15. Comparison of Total Annual Emissions with State and National Emissions ...... 40 Table 16. Expected wells from Each Field Office RMP, and Corresponding GHG Emissions ...... 40 Table 17. Undeveloped Portion of RMP RFD Scenarios and Corresponding Potential GHG Emissions for Each Field Office ...... 41 Table 18. List of Contacts and Findings...... 47 Table 19. Preparers of This EA...... 51

List of Figures Figure 1. ARMS predicted ozone design values with on the books controls for oil and gas emissions in the year 2021...... 32 Figure 2. ARMS predicted PM2.5 design values with on the books controls for oil and gas emissions in the year 2021...... 33 Figure 3. Potential for climate change impacts for the Colorado Plateau ...... 43 Figure 4. Lease Sale Parcel Overview...... 98 Figure 5. Hovenweep Viewshed Analysis ...... 99

3 DOI-BLM-UT-0000-2019-0003_Other NEPA-MtFO-EA July 2019

Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-0000-2019-0003-OTHER_NEPA_MtFO-EA

Chapter 1 Purpose & Need

1.1 Project Location and Legal Description The preliminary parcel list contained 19 parcels covering 32,067.42 acres for the September 2019 Competitive Oil and Gas Lease Sale (lease sale) and are located on public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) Monticello Field Office (MtFO). All 19 parcels were deferred from the March 2019 Sale (DOI-BLM-UT-Y020-2019-0004-DNA)1. The legal descriptions of the nominated parcels are in Appendix A. 1.2 Introduction The Utah State Office (UTSO) has prepared this environmental assessment (EA) to disclose and analyze the environmental consequences for the selling of parcels and subsequent lease issuance to successful bidders from the lease sale. This EA is an issue-base, site specific analysis of potential impacts that could result from the implementation of a proposed action or alternative to the proposed action. The EA assists the BLM in project planning and ensures compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and in making a determination as to whether any significant impacts could result from the analyzed actions.2 This EA provides evidence for determining whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or a statement of Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). If the decision maker determines this project has significant impacts following the analysis in the EA, than an EIS would be prepared. If not, a Decision Record (DR) may be signed for the EA approving the selected alternative, either the proposed action or another alternative. A DR, including a FONSI statement, for this EA would document the reasons why implementation of the selected alternative would not result in significant environmental impacts (effects) beyond those already addressed in the governing land use plan (LUP) as amended (Section 1.6).

1.3 Background This EA analyzes 19 nominated parcels comprising of 32,067.42 acres for the lease sale that are under the administration of the MtFO. The 19 parcels were determined to be open to leasing for oil and gas development under the applicable plans. The mineral rights for these parcels are owned by the federal government and administered by the MtFO. The legal descriptions of the nominated parcels are in Appendix A. During the land use planning process the BLM decides which public lands and minerals are open for leasing and under what terms and conditions. In accord with Resource Management Plans (RMPs), lands can be deemed open to leasing under standard terms and conditions, closed to leasing, or open under special operating constraints identified as lease stipulations at the lease stage. Lease stipulations are used to mitigate potential impacts to resources. Any surface management of non- BLM administered land overlaying federal minerals is determined by the BLM in consultation with the appropriate surface management agency or the private surface owner. The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (MLA), as amended [30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.], and the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (FOOGLRA), require the BLM UTSO to conduct quarterly, competitive lease sales to offer available oil and gas lease parcels in Utah. Expressions of Interest (EOI)

1 The DNA and all documents pertaining to the March 2019 analysis can be found on BLM’s ePlanning site at http://go.usa.gov/xPfJg 2 Significance is defined by NEPA, and is found in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1508.27

4 DOI-BLM-UT-0000-2019-0003_Other NEPA-MtFO-EA July 2019

to nominate parcels for leasing by the BLM are submitted by the public. From these EOIs, the BLM prepares the parcels and determines whether or not the existing analyses in the LUPs, as amended, provide basis for leasing oil and gas resources within these parcels or if additional NEPA analysis is needed before making a leasing decision. In the process of preparing a lease sale, the UTSO compiles a list of lands nominated by the public, legally available for leasing, and sends a preliminary parcel list to the appropriate District Office where the parcels are located. Field Office staff reviews the legal descriptions of the parcels to determine if they are in areas open to leasing under the relevant RMP, ensures appropriate stipulations have been applied and identify any special resource conditions of which potential bidders should be made aware. Standard lease terms also provide for reasonable measures to minimize adverse impacts to specific resource values, land uses, or users (Standard Lease Terms are contained in Form 3100-11, Offer to Lease and Lease for Oil and Gas, U.S. Department of the Interior, BLM, October 2008 or later edition). Compliance with valid, nondiscretionary statutes (laws) is included in the standard lease terms. Once the Field Offices completed the interdisciplinary parcel review (IDPR), the BLM determined that preparation of an EA was necessary for considering the parcels within MtFO. This EA and an unsigned FONSI are made available to the public, along with the list of available parcels and stipulations and notices, for a 30-day public comment period on the BLM’s NEPA Register3 (also known as ePlanning). The UTSO Oil and Gas Leasing webpage4 is also updated and maintained for the lease sale. Additional information regarding the BLM’s leasing process is also made available for public review and reference. At the end of the public comment period, the BLM analyzes and incorporates the comments, where appropriate, into the EA and/or parcel list. The final parcel list with stipulations and notices is made available to the public through a Notice of Competitive Lease Sale (NCLS), which starts a 30-day protest period, and includes the revised EA and unsigned FONSI. If any changes to the parcels or stipulations/notices result from the protests, an erratum to the NCLS would be posted to the BLM website and on NEPA Register to notify the public of the change, prior to the lease sale. The parcels would be available for sale at an online auction held by the BLM, tentatively scheduled for September 11, 2019. If the parcel is not purchased at the lease sale by through the competitive bidding process, it may still be leased non-competitively within two years after the initial offering at the minimum bid cost. Parcels obtained non-competitively may be re-parceled by combining or deleting other previously offered lands. Mineral estate that is not leased within a two-year period after an initial offering will no longer be available and must go through another separate competitive lease sale process prior to being leased. An issued lease may be held for ten years, after which the lease expires unless oil or gas is produced in paying quantities (43 CFR 3107.2). A producing lease can be held indefinitely by economic production. The act of leasing does not authorize any development or use of the surface of lease lands without further application by the operator and approval by the BLM. In the future, operators must submit an Application for Permit to Drill (APD) (Form 3160-3) to the BLM for approval and must possess an approved APD prior to any surface disturbance in preparation for drilling.5 An APD may only be approved when an operator complies with any stipulations and/or notices attached to the standard lease form. If an APD is received, the BLM would conduct additional site-specific NEPA analysis before deciding whether to approve the APD, and what conditions of approval (COA) should apply. Following BLM’s approval of an APD, a lessee may produce oil and gas from the well in a manner approved by the BLM in the APD or in subsequent sundry notices. The operator must notify the

3 The NEPA Register is a BLM environmental information internet site and can be accessed online at: https://bit.ly/2Z5PlYd 4 UTSO Oil and Gas Leasing program webpage can be accessed at: http://go.usa.gov/xXk8c 5 Additional Information regarding the BLM’s oil and gas management program can be accessed online at: https://www.blm.gov/programs/energy-and-minerals/oil-and-gas/

5 DOI-BLM-UT-0000-2019-0003_Other NEPA-MtFO-EA July 2019

appropriate BLM authorized officer 48 hours before starting any surface disturbing activity approved in the APD. Standard lease terms provide for reasonable measures to minimize adverse impacts to specific resource values, land uses, or users. Compliance with valid, nondiscretionary statutes (laws) is included in the standard lease terms. Nondiscretionary actions include the BLM’s requirements under federal environmental protection laws, such as Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, Endangered Species Act, National Historic Preservation Act, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act, which are applicable to all actions on federal lands, including split estate. Also included in all leases are two mandatory stipulations for the statutory protection of cultural resources and threatened or endangered species (Handbook H-3120-1). Once the lease has been issued, the lessee has the right to use as much of the leased land as necessary to explore for, drill for, extract, remove, and dispose of oil and gas deposits located under the leased lands, subject to the standard lease terms and additional restrictions attached to the lease in the form of lease stipulations (S) (43 CFR 3101.1-2) and lease notices (LN) (43 CFR 3101.1-3). Even if no restrictions are attached to the lease, the operations must be conducted in a manner that avoids unnecessary or undue degradation of the environment and minimizes adverse impacts to the land, air, water, cultural, biological, and visual elements of the environment, as well as other land uses or users. 1.4 Purpose and Need The purpose of this action is for the UTSO to respond to the nominations or expressions of interest for oil and gas leasing on specific federal mineral estate through a competitive leasing process and either lease or defer from leasing, pending additional information. The need for the Proposed Action is established by the BLM’s responsibility under the MLA of 1920, as amended, the Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 as amended, the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (Reform Act) as amended, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 as amended, and to promote the development of oil and gas on the public domain. Parcels may be nominated by the public, the BLM or other agencies. The MLA establishes that deposits of oil and gas owned by the United States are subject to disposition in the form and manner provided by the MLA under the rules and regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior, where consistent with FLPMA and other applicable laws, regulations, and policies. 1.5 Decision to be Made Following the completion of the NEPA process the BLM would determine whether or not to lease the nominated parcels and, if so, under what lease terms and conditions (stipulations and/or notices). In order to make an informed decision, the BLM is using this EA to identify the environmental impacts of the Proposed Action and its alternatives. This EA analyzes two alternatives. The first alternative analyzed is the Proposed Action, the second is Alternative B, the No Action Alternative.

1.6 Plan Conformance Review The statutes, regulations, policies, and plans utilized in preparing this EA include, but are not limited to the following: Statutes (As Amended) • Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLMPA) • Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (MSA) • Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (MMPA) • Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (FOOGLRA) • National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA)

6 DOI-BLM-UT-0000-2019-0003_Other NEPA-MtFO-EA July 2019

• Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1962 (BGEPA) • Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) • Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA) • Clean Water Act of 1972 (CWA)

Regulations • 40 CFR Part 93 Subpart E • 43 CFR 1600 • 43 CFR 3100 • 40 CFR 1500 – 1508 • 40 CFR 104 • 36 CFR 800 • 36CFR 60.4 Manuals6 • BLM Manual 6840 – Special Status Species • BLM Manual 3120 – Competitive Leasing • BLM Manual 6310 - Conducting Wilderness Characteristics Inventory of BLM Lands • BLM Manual 6320 - Considering Lands with Wilderness Characteristics in the BLM Land Use Planning Process Handbooks7 • Competitive Leasing Handbook (H-3120-1) Policies/Instruction Memoranda (IM)8 • Updating Oil and Gas Leasing Reform – Land Use Planning and Lease Parcel Reviews (WO IM 2018-034) • Directional Drilling into Federal Mineral Estate from Well Pads on Non-Federal Locations (WO IM 2018-014) • Oil and Gas Leasing Program NEPA Procedures Pursuant to Leasing Reform (UT IM 2014-006) • Utah Riparian Management Policy (2006) • Utah’s Standards for Rangeland Health (1997) • Utah BLM Drinking Water Source Protection Zone (2010) • Secretarial Order 3355 Streamlining NEPA (2017) • Secretarial Memorandum August 6, 2018, Streamlining Environmental Assessments • Protection of Ground Water Associated with Oil and Gas Leasing, Exploration and Development (BLM UT IM 2010–055) • BLM Utah Guidance for Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Resource (UT IM 2016-027) • Updated BLM Sensitive Species Lists for Utah (UT IM 2019-005)

6 BLM manuals can be accessed online at: https://www.blm.gov/media/blm-policy/manuals. 7 BLM handbooks can be accessed online at: https://www.blm.gov/media/blm-policy/handbooks. 8 BLM instruction memoranda and information bulletins can be accessed online at: https://www.blm.gov/media/blm-policy/instruction-memorandum and https://www.blm.gov/media/blm- policy/information-bulletin.

7 DOI-BLM-UT-0000-2019-0003_Other NEPA-MtFO-EA July 2019

Agreements • MOU Among the United States Department of Agriculture, the United States Department of Interior and the United States Environmental Protection Agency Regarding Air Quality Analysis and Mitigation for Federal Oil and Gas Decisions through the NEPA Process (2011) • State Protocol Agreement Between the Utah State Director of the Bureau of Land Management and the Utah State Historic Preservation Officer Regarding the Manner in which the BLM Will Meet its Responsibilities Under the National Historic Preservation Act and the National Programmatic Agreement Among the BLM, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers (2001) • MOU between the USDI BLM and USFWS to Promote the Conservation and Management of Migratory Birds (April 2010)

State of Utah Plans/Rules • Utah Wildlife Action Plan (2015) • The Utah Oil and Gas Conservation Act (1955) • The Utah Oil and Gas Conservation General Rules • The State of Utah Resource Management Plan (State of Utah 2018)

BLM Activity Plans/Strategies/Practices • T&E Habitat Management Plan (BLM 1990) • Utah Air Resource Management Strategy (BLM 2018) • Air Resource Management Program Strategy 2015-2020 (BLM 2015) • Surface Operating Standards and Guidelines for Oil and Gas Exploration and Development, The Gold Book (USDI and USDA 2007) • Executive Order 13186: Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds • Utah Partners in Flight Avian Conservation Strategy Version 2.0 (Parrish et al., 2002) • Birds of Conservation Concern 2002 (USFWS 2008)

BLM Land Use Plans • Moab Field Office Master Leasing Plan, July 2016, (Moab MLP) as maintained, Moab. (BLM 2016) • Record of Decision and Moab MLP Approved RMP Amendments for Moab and Monticello Field Offices. (BLM 2016) • Reasonable Foreseeable Development Scenario for Oil and Gas in the Moab MLP Area, Canyon Country District. (BLM 2012) • Monticello Field Office RMP, August 2008, (MtFO RMP) as Maintained, Monticello (BLM 2008) • Monticello Record of Decision and Approved RMP (BLM 2008) • Monticello Reasonable Foreseeable Development Scenario for Oil and Gas (BLM 2005) The alternatives described below are in conformance with the governing LUPs (as amended). Pursuant to 40 CFR 1508.28 and 1502.21, this EA is tiered to and incorporates by reference the information and analysis contained in the current RMPs and RMP Amendments and their EIS. Specifically, proposed

8 DOI-BLM-UT-0000-2019-0003_Other NEPA-MtFO-EA July 2019

actions align with the following BLM Land Use Plans within the designated Field Office boundaries (43 CFR 1610.5, BLM 1617.3).

Monticello RMP, October 2008, as amended Record of Decision (ROD) The RMP designated approximately 1,290,919.00 acres of federal mineral estate open for continued oil and gas development and leasing (see RMP/FEIS Table 4.121 on page 4-431 and RMP page 16). The RMP (with associated amendments and plan maintenance) also describes specific stipulations that would be attached to new leases offered in certain areas. Under the Proposed Action, parcels to be offered would be leased subject to stipulations prescribed by the RMP (see RMP MIN-6 through MIN-27 on page 80-81). Therefore, the Proposed Action conforms to the fluid mineral leasing decisions in the RMP and subsequent amendments, and are consistent with the RMP’s goals and objectives for natural and cultural resources. It is also consistent with RMP decisions and their corresponding goals and objectives related to the management of (including but not limited to) air quality, cultural resources, recreation, riparian, soils, water, vegetation, fish & wildlife and Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC).

Moab Master Leasing Plan and RMP, December 2016, as maintained The RMP does not revise all management decisions in the Moab RMP, but it does amend certain decisions pertaining to oil/gas and potash leasing. The Moab MLP updates leasing decisions in portions of the existing RMPs for the Moab and Monticello Field Offices (see RMP decisions MIN-OG-1, MIN- OG-2, MIN-OG-4 to 8 on page 17 through 19). Approximately 230, 765 acres are open to oil and gas leasing, subject to CSU/TL stipulations, 305,899 acres are subject to NSO stipulation, 145, 284 acres are closed to leasing (See RMP Appendix A, and Appendix B). Approximately 103, 619 acres within the Potash Leasing Areas are open to oil and gas leasing subject to CSU/TL or NSO stipulations. The Proposed Action conforms to the fluid mineral leasing decisions in the RMP and subsequent amendments, and are consistent with the RMP’s goals and objectives for natural and cultural resources. It is also consistent with RMP decisions and their corresponding goals and objectives related to the management of (including but not limited to) air quality, cultural resources, recreation, riparian, soils, water, vegetation, fish & wildlife and Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC).

1.7 Relationship to Statutes, Regulations, Policies or Other Plans The alternatives described below are also consistent with the LUPs decisions related to the management of the following resources/uses, including but not limited to: fire/fuels, geology/mineral resources, invasive species/noxious weeds, lands, livestock grazing, recreation, socio economics, travel/transportation, soil/vegetation, visual resources, and forestry. Other NEPA documents and relevant studies that are applicable to this analysis include: • Inventory of Onshore Federal Oil and Natural Gas Resources and Restrictions to Their Development 2008 Phase III inventory-Onshore United States • 2008 MtFO ROD (BLM 2008) and RMP/FEIS (BLM 2008) as amended • 2007 Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision (BLM 2007) • 2009 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement. (BLM 2009) • 2018 March 2018 Competitive Oil and Gas Lease Sale (DOI-BLM-UT-Y010-2017-0240-EA)

9 DOI-BLM-UT-0000-2019-0003_Other NEPA-MtFO-EA July 2019

(BLM 2018) • 2008 Biological Opinion for the MtFO RMP9 (BLM 2008) • March 2019 Lease Sale Cultural Resources Report (Utah SHPO Case No. 19-0235) (BLM 2019) In order to reduce redundant paperwork and analysis in the NEPA process (See 40 CFR 1502.20 and 1502.21) the previous documents and their associated information or analysis are hereby incorporated by reference. The attached IDPR Checklist, Appendix D was also developed after consideration of these documents and their contents. 1.8 Issues Identified Identification of issues, concerns, and potential impacts that require detailed analysis was accomplished through internal review/discussion. The UTSO sent letters/ memorandum to the following stakeholders: the National Park Service (NPS), the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the United States Forest Service (USFS), the State of Utah’s Public Lands Policy Coordination Office (PLPCO), Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR), and the School Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA) to notify them of the pending lease sale, and solicit comments and concerns on the preliminary parcel list. The BLM also provided GIS shapefiles depicting the proposed sale parcels to contacts within the NPS and UDWR. Consultation and coordination efforts are summarized in Chapter 4, Table 18. The UTSO received the September 2019 lease sale parcel nomination list on April 1, 2019. Internal scoping was initiated on April 5, 2019 when the nominated lease parcels for the September 2019 competitive oil and gas lease sale were presented to the MtFO Interdisciplinary (ID) Team. Resource specialists on the ID teams helped identify the following issues through coordination, and meetings. The key issues identified through the scoping process were developed using the guidelines set forth in section 8.3.3 of the BLM NEPA Handbook and EA are summarized in Table 1 and Table 2, below. Table 1. Issues Identified for Detailed Analysis

Issue Issue Statement Impact Indicator

Air Quality What quantity of air pollutants would be Tons per year of PM-10, produced based on the reasonably PM-2.5, NO X, SO2, CO, foreseeable development (RFD) scenario? VOCs, HAPs. How would air pollutant emissions from subsequent development of leased parcels affect air quality?

Greenhouse What quantity of greenhouse gas emissions Metric tons (MT) or million Gas/Climate Change (GHG) would be generated from subsequent metric tons (MMT) per year of oil and gas development of leased parcels carbon dioxide equivalents based upon the RFD scenario? How do these (CO2eq) amounts compare to other sources of GHGs?

9 MtFO ROD, RMP/FEIS is located on ePlanning at https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front- office/eplanning/planAndProjectSite.do?methodName=dispatchToPatternPage¤tPageId=98873

10 DOI-BLM-UT-0000-2019-0003_Other NEPA-MtFO-EA July 2019

1.9 Issue Statement Rationale for Not Further Discussing in Detail in the EA10 Where resources are present but not determined to be impacted or resources are determined not to be present, a rationale for not considering them further is provided in the Interdisciplinary Parcel Review Team (IDPRT) checklist (Appendix D), and in the external coordination as described in Table 18. Table 2 highlights key issues evaluated and not discussed in further detail in this EA for the resources the BLM commonly receives public comments and/or interests. These resources are described below in Table 2.

10 Refer to the IDPRT checklist (Appendix D – Interdisciplinary Parcel Review Team Checklist) for the complete rational for resources identified for analysis and resources not considered for further detailed analyses.

11 DOI-BLM-UT-0000-2019-0003_Other NEPA-MtFO-EA July 2019

Table 2. Issues not included in Further Detail in the Environmental Assessment Issue Issue Statement Rationale for Not Further Discussing in Detail in the EA

T&E Species What are the potential The parcels involved in the September 2019 lease sale were analyzed individually within each field office impacts to federally-listed for occurrence of federally-listed species, in coordination with the USFWS. The Threatened and threatened and Endangered Species Act Stipulation is applied across all lease parcels which states that if any parcel is endangered species or found to contain plants, animals or their habitats determined to be threatened, endangered or special habitats in areas related to status species, the BLM may recommend modifications to exploration and development proposals to oil and gas development? further its conservation and management objective. Under this stipulation, the BLM may also require modifications to or disapprove proposed activity that is likely to result in jeopardy to the continued existence of a proposed or listed threatened or endangered species, or result in destruction or adverse modification of a designated or proposed critical habitat. As appropriate, BLM attaches stipulations or notices to the lease which give notice to the lessor/operator of potential for occurrence of federally-listed species, and measures that may be required to mitigate impacts. The BLM will not approve any ground-disturbing activity that may affect any such species or critical habitat until it completes its obligations under applicable requirements of the Endangered Species Act as amended, 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq., including completion of any required procedure for conference or consultation.

BLM Sensitive What are the potential BLM Manual 6840 requires conservation of special status species and the ecosystems upon which they Species impacts to BLM sensitive depend on BLM-administered lands. BLM special status species are those listed or proposed for listing (Wildlife and species (wildlife and under the ESA, and species requiring special management consideration to promote their conservation Plants) plants) or their habitats and reduce the likelihood and need for future listing under the ESA. Instructional Memorandum No. UT from oil and gas IM-2019-005 provides the plant and wildlife Species lists for BLM-administered public lands in Utah and development? these species have been evaluated for potential impacts from the proposed lease sale, as documented by the checklist found in Appendix D of this EA. The Utah BLM has several lease notices that protect sensitive species statewide (see UT-LN-49 Utah Sensitive Species in Appendix A of this document) or on a species specific basis (see UT-LN-107: Bald Eagle). For the Monticello Field Office, September 2019 lease sale, the BLM analysis of potential for impacts to sensitive wildlife and plants or their habitat, and determined that application of the following lease notices was appropriate for every parcel in the sale: UT-LN-49 (Utah Sensitive Species). The application of sensitive species protections contained in UT-LN-49: Utah Sensitive Species tells the lessee/operator that no surface use or otherwise disruptive activity would be allowed that would result in

12 DOI-BLM-UT-0000-2019-0003_Other NEPA-MtFO-EA July 2019

Issue Issue Statement Rationale for Not Further Discussing in Detail in the EA direct disturbance to populations or individual special status plant and animal species, and that modifications to the Surface Use Plan of Operations may be required to protect these resources from surface disturbing activities. In addition, multiple parcels contained sensitive habitat for game species such as elk, mule deer or pronghorn antelope. The application of these stipulations and notices is discussed in detail in Appendix D of this EA, under “Game Species.” Leasing of the proposed leases would not, by itself, authorize any ground disturbance; however, the proposed lease sale has the potential to impact habitat through future oil and gas development. Although site-specific effects cannot be analyzed until an exploration or development application is received, attachments of stipulations and notices to leases will assure the opportunity to make adjustments, such as design modifications, at the site specific level when an Application for Permit to Drill is received, to address specific wildlife and plant resources.

Migratory Birds What are the potential The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) protects migratory birds; Instructional Memorandum No. 2008- impacts to migratory 050 requires the BLM to Address the potential effects of the project son migratory bird populations and birds from oil and gas their habitat, and implement best management practices to avoid or minimize the possibility of impacts, development? through such measures as timing limitations during nesting seasons, surveys for bird nests, and monitoring (https://www.blm.gov/policy/im-2008-050). The Utah BLM has several lease notices that implement this policy during lease sales, ranging from those applied statewide (UT-LN-45: Migratory Birds, found in Appendix B of this document) to species specific (see UT-LN-107L Bald Eagle and UT-LN-44 Raptors). In addition, several migratory birds have been designated as BLM Sensitive Species, and these may have additional protections through notices to potential buyers of potential for occurrence on a given parcel (see UT-LN-49). For the Monticello Field Office, September 2019 lease sale, the BLM analysis of potential for occurrence indicated that application of the following lease notices was appropriate for every parcel in the sale, UT- LN-43 Raptors, and UT-LN-45: Migratory Birds. UT-LN-43 provides that raptor habitat exists in a given parcel, and that surveys will be required to identify any nesting birds. UT-LN-45 gives prospective buyers notice that surveys for nesting migratory birds may be required during migratory bird breeding season whenever surface disturbances and/or occupancy is proposed in association with fluid mineral exploration and development within priority habitats. Based on these surveys, buffers and timing limitations may be applied. In combination these lease notices provide mitigation measures which will mitigate impacts to migratory birds, by allowing the

13 DOI-BLM-UT-0000-2019-0003_Other NEPA-MtFO-EA July 2019

Issue Issue Statement Rationale for Not Further Discussing in Detail in the EA opportunity to make adjustments, such as design modifications, at the site specific level when an Application for Permit to Drill is received.

Paleontology What are the potential Fossils uncovered during ground disturbing activities would be protected owing to the standard discovery impacts on the integrity requirements. Additionally, should a parcel be located in an area that has high potential for of paleontological paleontological resources, COAs would be applied at the APD stage. The proponent is required to notify resources associated with the BLM of any discoveries they come across during construction following the APD stage. oil and gas disturbance?

Lands With What are the potential The Monticello RMP, 2008 decision WC-1 (page 85) identified which lands identified at the time as Wilderness impacts to Lands With having wilderness characteristics would be managed to “Protect, maintain and preserve wilderness Characteristics Wilderness characteristics.” The inventories current at the time identified three non-contiguous areas adjacent to the Characteristics? Squaw and Papoose Canyons WSA as possessing wilderness characteristics, These areas are not “stand alone” units due to being less than 5000 contiguous acres but could increase the size of the WSA, however the RMP decision was to not manage the units to protect the wilderness characteristics. Parcel 420, 421, 422 and 423 intersect 1852 Acres of the Squaw and Papoose Canyons Wilderness Characteristic Units. No existing leases intersect the units.

According to the 2008 MtFO RMP FEIS: “Based on the percentage of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics and the existing and pending leases within those areas, the highest potential for leasing and development would be in Comb Ridge, Cross Canyon, and Squaw and Papoose Canyon. Given that the projection for drilling for oil and gas is three wells per year for all of the public lands within the Blanding Subbasin area, and that just over 9% of the development area includes non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics open to leasing under standard stipulations, CSU, or TL stipulations, it is still anticipated that up to one well per year would be drilled in the non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics because the Blanding Sub-basin area contains oil and gas fields and the majority of existing wells within the Monticello PA. This would disturb up to 9.6 acres per year, or approximately 144 acres over the next 15 years…Leasing and development within these non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would cause the affected portion to lose its natural characteristics. Loss of opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation due to exploration for and development of oil and gas resources would be broader than just for the 144 acres of direct surface-disturbing activities, and could impact these values for up to one-half mile from the ongoing activity. However, it is not anticipated that any of the areas would lose their wilderness characteristics in totality because of the small amount of acreage projected to be disturbed and the few projected wells in this development area over the next 15 years.”

14 DOI-BLM-UT-0000-2019-0003_Other NEPA-MtFO-EA July 2019

Issue Issue Statement Rationale for Not Further Discussing in Detail in the EA On October 21, 2014, the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA) submitted information suggesting the presence of wilderness characteristics in the Tin Cup Mesa Central and Monument Canyon units. BLM conducted an analysis and lands within these units were found to possess wilderness character (WC) as determined by the Documentation of BLM Wilderness Characteristics Inventory Findings: The Tin Cup Mesa Unit was found to have 9,743 acres of Wilderness Characteristics, and the Monument Canyon Unit was found to have 17,200 acres, adding a total of 26,953 acres of identified acres of WC within the Blanding Subbasin area. At the time the RMP FEIS was prepared, there were 38,540 acres of identified acres of wilderness characteristics, however since that time the Fish and Owl Creeks, Lime Creek, Road Canyon, San Juan River and Comb Ridge, Unit, consisting of 33,260 acres, have been incorporated into the Bears Ears National Monument and is no longer available for lease, leaving 32,233 acres of wilderness characteristics available for lease, or a 20% decrease in lands with wilderness characteristics within the Blanding Subbasin available for lease. Thus, the RMP FEIS projection of a total loss of 144 acres of wilderness characteristics with no totality of loss in any one unit is still valid.

Since the Monument Canyon and Tin Cup Mesa Units were found to possess wilderness characteristics subsequent to the RMP, they are not subject to RMP decision WC-1 to “Protect, maintain and preserve wilderness characteristics…” However the March 2018 Oil and Gas Lease EA disclosed the possible impairment of the Units, and the decision was made to lease several parcels within the units. This lease sale will increase the acreage leased in both Units, to a total of about 80% leased for the Monument Canyon Unit and 100% leased for the Tin Cup Mesa Unit. These numbers cannot be extended out to the projected acres of wilderness characteristics that may be impacted beyond saying that the Units may experience a decrease of no, some or all of their wilderness characteristics. National What are the potential On December 13, 2018, staff from the Hovenweep and Natural Bridges National Monuments submitted Historic impacts to Hovenweep comments on the DNA initially prepared for the parcels considered in this EA. They brought forth the Trails/Units of National Monument? following concerns for Hovenweep National Monument: the National 1. Air Quality in the Monument from Ozone production and Dust emissions Park Service 2. Vibrations from Heavy Equipment on roads in the immediate vicinity of the Monument 3. Viewshed 4. Night Skies 5. Soundscapes 6. Drinking Water Quality 7. Earthquakes Induced from Oil and Gas Activity

15 DOI-BLM-UT-0000-2019-0003_Other NEPA-MtFO-EA July 2019

Issue Issue Statement Rationale for Not Further Discussing in Detail in the EA Reason the concerns are not considered in detailed analysis Concerns 1 and 6: Air Quality and Drinking Water are statutorily protected, regardless of the concern is inside or outside the Monument. Air Quality is being analyzed in detail for this proposal, and drinking water sources are protected through the measures operators must take to prevent contamination of potable aquifers and surface waters. Concern 2 The concern that vibrations from heavy equipment could damage historic structures within the Monument. Again, Sites eligible for inclusion in the National Historic Registry, whether inside or outside the Monument, are statutorily protected. At the time of development, operators disclose the routes they propose to use to access their drill sites. At that time, the proximity of the route to any fragile historic structure can be assessed, and the operator required to find an alternate access route. Concern 3 The BLM overlayed a GIS viewshed analysis from several points within the Monument. The parcels did not fall within the viewshed of any of those points (Figure 5. Hovenweep Viewshed The NPS confirmed the BLM’s findings in an email dated May 17, 2019.

Concerns 4 and 5 A lease notice UT-LN-125 informing the potential lessee of the possible need to use sound and light reducing measures have been added to all the parcels.

Concern 7 The concern is that earthquakes could be induced from oil and gas activity as has happened in other regions in the United States, and that the earthquakes would damage sensitive historic structures. As explained in the Mineral Resources/Energy Production section of Appendix D, induced earthquakes are unlikely to occur in Utah. More site specifically, there are currently well over a hundred enhanced oil recovery water injection wells within 25 miles of the Monument on BIA lands. The injection of water under for oil recovery is much less likely to induce earthquakes as are water disposal wells, as has been

16 DOI-BLM-UT-0000-2019-0003_Other NEPA-MtFO-EA July 2019

Issue Issue Statement Rationale for Not Further Discussing in Detail in the EA demonstrated by the lack of induced earthquakes from the highly developed are south west of the Monument.

Cultural What are the potential The BLM has conducted a literature search using survey and site information from the CURES Resources impacts from ground geodatabase, Preservation Pro, DAM, GLO maps, and Field Office records to identify currently known disturbing oil and gas sites within the lease parcels, and to determine whether these sites could be avoided or mitigated through activities on cultural standard archaeological practices at the APD stage. resources? The Cultural Resources and Tribal Consultation Stipulation (H 3120-1) is applied across all lease parcels. This stipulation states that the lease area may be found to contain historic properties and/or resources protected under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), American Indian Religious Freedom Act, Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, Executive Order 13007, or other statutes and executive orders. The BLM will not approve any ground-disturbing activities that may affect any such properties or resources until it completes its obligations (e.g., State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and tribal consultation) under applicable requirements of the NHPA and other authorities. The BLM may require modification to exploration or development proposals to protect such properties, or disapprove any activity that is likely to result in adverse effects that cannot be successfully avoided, minimized, or mitigated. Moreover, prior to granting APDs on Federal surface or split-estate lands, cultural resource inventories are required. Additional cultural resource analysis was completed in March 2018 EA (BLM 2018).

17 DOI-BLM-UT-0000-2019-0003_Other NEPA-MtFO-EA July 2019

1.10 Public Comment Period The preliminary EA and the unsigned FONSI is subject to a public comment period, which will be held from May 30, 2019 through July 1, 2019. (Appendix H).

18 DOI-BLM-UT-0000-2019-0003_Other NEPA-MtFO-EA July 2019

Chapter 2 Description of Alternatives

2.1 Introduction This EA addresses two alternatives (Alternative A – Proposed Action and Alternative B – No Action, No Leasing). Other alternatives were not considered in detail because the issues identified during scoping or the alternatives identified during the comment period did not indicate a need for additional alternatives or protective measures beyond those contained in the Proposed Action. The No Action alternative is considered and analyzed to provide a baseline for comparison of the impacts of the Proposed Action. Leasing is an administrative action that does not directly cause environmental consequences. However, leasing is considered to be an irretrievable commitment of resources because the BLM generally cannot deny all surface use of a lease unless the lease is issued with a no surface occupancy (NSO) stipulation. Potential oil and gas exploration and production activities, committed to in a lease sale, could impact other resources and uses in the planning area. Direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to resources and uses could result from future levels of lease exploration or development, however these future levels are uncertain and undetermined. 2.2 Analysis Assumptions 2.2.1 Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario The Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario (RFDS) is a planning tool to provide a reasonable estimate of what oil and gas exploration and development activities might be proposed, should a decision be made to lease the area. The RFDS is a 20-year forward-looking estimation of oil and gas exploration and development that is exclusive of other concerns that might compete for use of land in a multiple-use scenario. The MtFO has classified lands within the district boundary. The parcels are located in San Juan County, and are classified as high potential for occurrence of oil and gas but with a lower level of certainty of production. It is estimated that 59 percent of the wells drilled in MtFO will be capable of production and 41 percent is estimated to be a dry hole. If relevant resource conditions have changed (e.g., establishment of wells capable of producing oil or gas in paying quantities per 43 CFR 3107.2-3), the MtFO would re-evaluate the RFDS to address the new geologic information. Although at this time the BLM does not know when, where, or if future well sites or roads might be proposed on any leased parcel. Should a lease be issued, site specific analysis of individual wells or roads would occur when a lease holder submits an APD. When and if an APD is submitted for any of the leases, BLM would adhere to numerous IMs (as revised through the life of an active lease) including specific instructions for directional drilling, split estate, bonding, and other laws (such as NHPA, ESA). Some of these IMs include: • Approval of Notice of Intent to Conduct Geophysical Exploration to Federal Oil and Gas Lessee on Split Estate (WO IM 2009-121) • Cultural Resources Requirements for Split Estate Oil & Gas Development (WO IM-2009-027) • Split Estate Report to Congress--Implementation of Fluid Mineral Leasing and Land Use Planning Recommendations (WO IM 2007-165) • Permitting Oil & Gas on Split Estate Lands (WO IM 2003-131) • Legal Responsibilities on Split Estate Lands (WO IM 1989-201) • Directional Drilling into Federal Mineral Estate from Well Pads on Non‑Federal Locations (WO IM 2018-014). Management provisions would adhere to the Gold Book best management practices (United States Department of the Interior and United States Department of Agriculture 2007). In general, activities are

19 DOI-BLM-UT-0000-2019-0003_Other NEPA-MtFO-EA July 2019

anticipated to take place as described in Appendix G – Reasonable Foreseeable Development of Leases Scenario This appendix provide a general discussion of possible post-leasing RFDS activities. All of these activities would require additional NEPA review when a lease holder submits an APD. RFDS for the MtFO The 2005 RFD (BLM 2005) to the MtFO RMP predicted that over 15 years, on average, 3 wells will be drilled each year. It is recognized there would be some years with less than 3 wells, and some years with more than 21 wells (Table 4.1 in RMP). Seismic Activity: • 1,230 miles of seismic lines for a total disturbance of 2,236 acres Exploration Activity: • Anticipate 195 well pads in 15 years • Average disturbance is projected to be 9.6 acres per well. • Anticipate 115 producing wells RFDS Assumption for Analysis in this EA For the analysis of the 19 nominated parcels encompassing 32,067.42 acres, the MtFO estimated a maximum of 4 wells11 would be drilled, and the maximum new disturbance will be 4 wells totaling 38.40 acres (one well pad and access road disturbance at 9.6 acres). This scenario would occur rarely, if at all. Over the last three years (2015-2018)12, six wells have been drilled in San Juan County. Out of those six wells, only 1 well was capable of production. Statistically, it is more probable that three wells would be drilled for the nominated MtFO parcels.

2.3 Alternative A – Proposed Action Alternative A would offer for lease the 19 nominated parcels (covering 32,067.42 acres) which have been proposed for inclusion in this lease sale. The leases would include the standard lease terms and conditions for development of the surface of oil and gas leases provided in 43 CFR 3100 (BLM Form 3100-11) along with all stipulations mandated by policy (such as the Competitive Leasing Handbook, H-3120-1) and by the governing Land Use Plans (LUP). Legal land descriptions along with corresponding stipulations as well as notices added to address resource issues found through review and analysis that would be attached to each parcel are located within Appendix A – Parcel List with Stipulations and Notices. All stipulations from the governing LUP(s) and necessary notices being applied to the parcels are detailed in Appendix B – Stipulations and Notices. The parcel acreages would be offered for sale in the following categories: Open (Category 1 – Standard Lease Terms) 29,799.69 acres Controlled Surface Use/Timing Limitations (Category 2 – Moderate Constraints) 1,884.40 acres No Surface Occupancy (Category 3 – Major Constraints) 383.31 acres

11 The RMP (page 4-112) states 42 wells on federally managed subsurface encompassing 405, 664 acres would be drilled over the next 15 years. Approximately, only 31 percent could be capable of production in this area. The nominated parcels cover 32,067.42 acres which is 8 percent of the area. The RFD calculation was (405,664/32,067.42) equaling 8 percent. Then 8 percent of the 42 wells equaling 4 wells for all the 19 nominated parcels. 12 Statistical information can be found on Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining website. https://oilgas.ogm.utah.gov/oilgasweb/statistics/spuds-by-cnty.xhtml

20 DOI-BLM-UT-0000-2019-0003_Other NEPA-MtFO-EA July 2019

Areas offered for oil and gas leasing would be subject to measures necessary to mitigate adverse impacts, according to the categories, terms, conditions, and stipulations identified in the land use plans, as amended. BLM regulations at 43 CFR 3101.1-2 allow for the relocation of proposed oil and gas leasing operations up to 200 meters and/or timing limitations up to 60 days to provide additional protection to ensure that proposed operations minimize adverse impacts to resources, uses, and users. Additional measures would be applied to some leases to further protect specific resources (Appendices A and Appendix B – Stipulations and Notices). In addition to the stipulations provided for by the governing LUPs (as amended) and BLM policies, Lease Notices have been developed for conservation measures and would be applied on specific parcels as warranted by subsequent IDPRT review. The addition of prescribed notices would be applied to all leasing categories detailed in Appendix B – Stipulations and Notices At the leasing stage it is uncertain whether development on all leased parcels will move forward; however, for the purposes of this analysis, and in order to assess potential impacts, Reasonably Foreseeable Development (RFD) is assumed wherein all 19 nominated parcels will be developed. The Reasonably Foreseeable Development used for analysis assumptions under this alternative is described in Section 2.2.1. 2.4 Alternative B – No Action The No Action Alternative would not offer any of the nominated parcels in the lease sale. The parcels could be considered for inclusion in future lease sales. Surface management would remain the same and ongoing oil and gas development would continue on surrounding private, state, and existing federal leases. 2.5 Other Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed in Detail Other alternatives to the Proposed Action were not identified that would meet the purpose and need of agency action. The Interior Board of Land Appeals has held that subsumed in a no action alternative is consideration of not leasing any or all parcels (Biodiversity Conservation Alliance et al., 183 IBLA 97, 124 (2013)). The No Action alternative allows the authorized officer to resolve resource conflicts by deferring or removing parcels from the lease sale, before offering those parcels for sale. The alternatives carried forward represent those necessary for a reasoned choice (40 CFR 1502.14) and are based on the issues that were identified by the IDPRT. 2.5.1 No Leasing Alternative (Designating the Parcels as Closed to Leasing) A no leasing alternative was considered but eliminated because it is inconsistent with the management plans for the area, and therefore is outside the purpose and need of this EA. This alternative would require a RMP Plan Amendment because the areas in question were found suitable for leasing by the governing RMPs and preceding management plans. The RMPs as amended also identified the lands as available for leasing subject to a range of constraints, and reject a no leasing alternative. This alternative was dismissed from detailed consideration. 2.5.2 Deferring Specific Parcels from the Sale Since each parcel is an independent, though similar, action the BLM at the end of the EA process could choose to either lease or defer any parcel in the EA’s decision record. Therefore this alternative to defer for specific resource concerns was not considered in detail because it is substantially a combination of the proposed action and no action and does not improve the range of alternatives. Offering or deferring any particular parcel in this EA is within the range of alternatives already considered in detail in this EA, and

21 DOI-BLM-UT-0000-2019-0003_Other NEPA-MtFO-EA July 2019

can be implemented at the discretion of the Authorized Officer, as the need is identified in the NEPA analysis. 2.5.3 Adding Stipulations Beyond those Required by the Management Plan This alternative to add additional stipulations beyond those identified by the applicable Management Plan to the nominated parcels was not considered in detail because it would require a plan amendment, which is outside the scope of this EA. A plan maintenance was done to the Monticello RMP (BLM 2017) Maintenance Change 102 to adopt the Moab MLP notices. Therefore, those notices in the MLP can be applied to the parcels in Appendix A – Parcel List with Stipulations and Notices. However, deferral of any particular parcel due to unresolved resource conflicts is within the range of alternatives considered in detail in this EA, and can be implemented at the discretion of the Authorized Officer, or as the need is identified in the NEPA analysis.

22 DOI-BLM-UT-0000-2019-0003_Other NEPA-MtFO-EA July 2019

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

3.1 Introduction This chapter presents the potentially affected existing environment (i.e., the physical, biological, social, and economic values and resources) of the impact area as identified in the IDPRT Checklist as found in Appendix D and introduced in Chapter 1 of this EA. Only those aspects of the affected environment that are potentially impacted are described in detail. Only those aspects of the affected environment related to the issues presented in Table 1 and discloses any potential direct, indirect and cumulative impacts on the resources identified as issues. Once issues are identified, impact indicators are selected to assess the impacts of alternatives and are used as a basis for future monitoring (Table 1). The CEQ Regulations state that NEPA documents “must concentrate on the issues that are truly significant to the action in question, rather than amassing needless detail” (40 CFR 1500.1(b)). While many issues may arise during scoping, not all of the issues raised warrant analysis in an EA. Issues will be analyzed if: 1) an analysis of the issue is necessary to make a reasoned choice between alternatives; or 2) if the issue is associated with a significant direct, indirect, or cumulative impact, or where analysis is necessary to determine the significance of the impacts. To see which resources were determined to not be present or not expected to be impacted by the Proposed Action please refer to Appendix D. Assumptions for analysis The act of leasing nominated parcels in and of itself would have no immediate impacts on resources in the Monticello Field Office. However, for the purposes of this analysis, a framework of RFD is assumed wherein all parcels under each alternative are leased and developed. While an appropriate level of NEPA for wells or roads would occur when a leaseholder submits an APD, reasonable development assumptions for lease development will be used in the analysis of impacts in this EA to inform the decision since leasing results in a commitment resources unless the lease is allowed to expire without development. Cumulative impacts include the combined effect of past projects, ongoing projects, and other reasonably foreseeable future actions.

3.2 General Setting Currently the MtFO has 243,736 authorized leased acres13 (Table 3). The Monticello Field Office RMP, as amended by the GRSG ARMPA (BLM 2015 and 2019) designates 432,296 acres in the planning area as open to leasing with standard stipulations where approximately 23% (99,051 acres) have been leased. An additional 586,736 acres are open to leasing with moderate stipulations (CSU/TL) where approximately 16% (92,143 acres) have been leased. Major stipulations, such as No Surface Occupancy (NSO), has been designated across 82,216 acres and approximately 18% (14,553 acres) of these acres have been leased. The September 2019 lease sale would make approximately an additional 6% (27,896 acres) acres with standard stipulations, < 1% (2,005 acres) acres with moderate stipulations, and no acres with major stipulations available for leasing. Currently there are 243,736 leased acres within the MtFO boundary and the lease sale would make an additional 32,067 acres available for lease. If all parcels are

13 ArcGIS data displaying land status by surface management agency and existing oil and gas leases on federal lands can be found at: https://bit.ly/2Uy8TpF.

23 DOI-BLM-UT-0000-2019-0003_Other NEPA-MtFO-EA July 2019

sold in the lease sale then total leased acres for the MtFO would cumulatively increase to 275,803 acres or 25% leased acres. This would be a cumulative increase of 3% compared to current leased acres (Table 3).

The State of Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (STILA) held a competitive mineral lease offerings in January 2019 which offered 20 leases located in San Juan County. Only 8 leases (40 percent) were acquired. These parcels are not adjacent or approximate to the 19 public- nominated parcels analyzed in this EA.

Table 3. Leasing Category Acreages for Monticello Field Office. Authorized Sept 2019 % Sept 2019 Designated % Leased Lease Proposed Proposed Leasing Category Acres Acres Acres1 Acres Acres

6% Standard Stipulations (Open) 432,296 99,051 23% 27,896

< 1% Moderate Stipulations (CSU and TL) 586,736 92,143 16% 2,005

0% Major Stipulations (NSO) 82,216 14,553 18% 0

4 NA No Leasing Decision Category NA 37,754 NA 2,166

0 Closed2 682,286 235 NA 0

3 3% TOTAL 1,101,248 243,736 22% 32,067

1 Leased acres are calculated as of March 2019 and include the previous NCLS lease sale acres sold on March 25 - 26, 2019. Acres calculated using GIS data and are therefore a close approximation of actual leased acres. All calculations were rounded to the nearest whole number. 2 Authorized leases, held by production. 3 Designated acres total only includes the leasable designated acres and excludes the 682,286 closed acres. 4Surface is private ownership. The proposed action would result in additional leasing of 32,067.42 acres in San Juan County.14 Table 4. Leasing Category Acreages by Parcel. Number Standard Moderate Major Acreage Private Federal Stipulations Constraints Constraints Total Surface Surface (CSU/TL)15 (NSO) 406 2,232.30 - - 2,232.30 120.23 2,112.07 407 2,227.00 - - 2,227.00 160.56 2,066.44

14 Calculations of acreages leased were calculated from GIS Utah Oil and Gas Lease layer. The acreages are subject to change. 15 The BLM approved a land use plan amendment that added leasing stipulations for important resources, such as wildlife species. The planning area encompasses the parcels included in this lease sale. The amendment categorized these parcels as "open, with special stipulations," which is equivalent to "moderate constraints (CSU/TL)." These stipulations would only apply to those portions of the parcels that have the resource present.

24 DOI-BLM-UT-0000-2019-0003_Other NEPA-MtFO-EA July 2019

Number Standard Moderate Major Acreage Private Federal Stipulations Constraints Constraints Total Surface Surface (CSU/TL)15 (NSO) 408 1,741.30 - - 1,741.30 - 1,741.30 409 480.00 1,440.00 - 1,920.00 - 1,920.00 410 1,533.25 - 383.31 1,916.56 - 1,916.56

411 1,280.00 - - 1,280.00 - 1,280.00 412 1,920.00 - - 1,920.00 - 1,920.00 413 241.64 - - 241.64 241.64 - 414 1,373.21 444.40 - 1,817.61 40.00 1,777.61 415 1,600.00 - - 1,600.00 321.43 1,278.57 416 1,600.00 - - 1,600.00 - 1,600.00 417 1,320.00 - - 1,320.00 - 1,320.00 418 1,440.00 - - 1,440.00 79.20 1,360.80 419 1,600.00 - - 1,600.00 199.14 1,400.86 420 1,129.95 - - 1,129.95 - 1,129.95 421 2,480.56 - - 2,480.56 319.37 2,161.19 422 1,840.00 - - 1,840.00 558.26 1,281.74 423 1,840.48 - - 1,840.50 - 1,840.48 424 1,920.00 - - 1,920.00 - 1,920.00 Total 29,799.690 1,884.40 383.31 32,067.42 2,039.83 30.027.57 CSU = Controlled Surface Use, TL = Timing Limitations, NSO = No Surface Occupancy 3.3 Resources/Issues Brought Forward for Analysis The affected environment of the proposed action and no action alternatives, and their potential environmental effects were considered and analyzed by the IDPRT as documented in the IDPRT Checklist, Appendix D – Interdisciplinary Parcel Review Team Checklist The checklist indicates which resources of concern are either not present in the project area or would not be impacted to a degree that requires detailed analysis. Resources which could be impacted to a level requiring further analysis are described in this chapter and impacts to these resources are analyzed below. 3.3.1 Issue 1: What are the Potential Impacts to Air Quality 3.3.1.1 Affected Environment Additional information on air quality in this leasing area is contained in the 2018 BLM Utah Air Monitoring Report (AMR) (BLM 2019) and the Monticello Field Office RMP (BLM 2008) to which this analysis tiers and incorporates by reference. This document summarizes technical information related to air resources and includes the methodology and assumptions used for analysis. Air Quality The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the primary responsibility for regulating air quality, including six nationally regulated ambient air pollutants including carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen

25 DOI-BLM-UT-0000-2019-0003_Other NEPA-MtFO-EA July 2019

dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3), particulate matter (PM10 & PM2.5), sulfur dioxide (SO2) and lead (Pb). EPA has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for criteria pollutants (Section 2.2.1, AMR). The NAAQS are protective of human health and the environment. Compliance with the NAAQS is typically demonstrated by monitoring for ground-level atmospheric air pollutant concentrations. All areas within the Monticello Field Office are currently designated by the EPA as attainment or unclassifiable for all NAAQS pollutants. Air quality in a given region can be measured by its Air Quality Index value (AQI). The AQI is reported according to a 500-point scale for each of the major criteria air pollutants, with the worst denominator determining the ranking. For example, if an area has a CO value of 132 on a given day and all other pollutants are below 50, the AQI for that day would be 132. The AQI scale breaks down into six categories: good (AQI<50), moderate (50-100), unhealthy for sensitive groups (100-150), unhealthy (>150), very unhealthy and hazardous. The AQI is a national index, therefore the air quality rating and the associated level of health concern is the same throughout the country. The AQI is an important indicator for populations sensitive to air quality changes (USEPA, 2018c). When the AQI value is in the good range, pollutant concentrations are well below the NAAQS and air pollution poses little or no risk. Moderate AQI values occur when pollution is below but near the NAAQS and voluntary emission reduction measures are encouraged. The AQI is considered unhealthy when the NAAQS is exceeded and major pollution sources are often required to implement mandatory emission reduction measures. Counties without AQI data usually have fewer air pollutant sources and are assumed to have good air quality. AQI data for San Juan County is presented in Table 5. At least 81% of days were rated as good, with only one day rated as unhealthy during the 2015-2017 timeframe. The pollutants primarily determining the AQI over the three year period were ozone and PM2.5. Additional AQI data for the rest of the state is provided in the AMR (BLM 2019). Table 5. AQI Index Summary Statistics by County

# of Days When AQI was… % of Days Rated … # Days County with AQI Good Moderate Unhealthy Good Moderate Unhealthy San Juan County, UT 1058 852 205 1 81% 19% 0%

Ozone and PM2.5 are identified in the AQI data as the primary pollutants determining air quality in the area. Air pollutant concentrations can be reported using design values. A design value is a statistic that describes the air quality status of a given location relative to the level of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Design values are typically used to designate and classify nonattainment areas, as well as to assess progress towards meeting the NAAQS. Design values are provided in Table 6. No design value for PM2.5 is reported for San Juan County, so values from the nearest representative county (Mesa County, CO) is presented. Reported ozone and PM2.5 concentrations are below the NAAQS. Table 6. 2015-2017 Criteria Pollutant Design Values Pollutant Location Averaging Time Concentration NAAQS

O3 San Juan County 8-hour 0.064 ppm 0.070 ppm

PM2.5 Mesa County, CO Annual 6.1 µg/m3 12.0 µg/m3

PM2.5 Mesa County, CO 24-hour 19 µg/m3 35 µg/m3

26 DOI-BLM-UT-0000-2019-0003_Other NEPA-MtFO-EA July 2019

The Utah Division of Air Quality (DAQ) compiles statewide emission inventories to assess the level of pollutants released into the air from various sources. The latest inventory is summarized in the AMR (BLM 2019), and in Table 7. Only emissions from San Juan County are listed since this is where lease parcels are located. On-road mobile sources are the highest human emission source for CO and NOx, with area source the highest for PM, and oil and gas sources the highest emitters of SOx, and VOCs. Table 7. 2014 Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions (tpy) by Source for San Juan County

Source CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx VOCs

Area Sources 384.42 649.79 4,252.57 524.24 2.72 218.46

Area Sources Oil and 296.09 199.29 2.39 2.38 0.93 11,840.05 Gas

Non-Road Mobile 1,718.66 103.03 21.12 19.67 0.42 535.85

On-Road Mobile 1,551.00 747.70 239.52 78.86 2.89 153.20

Point Sources 240.37 357.52 234.93 88.63 505.93 60.30

Biogenics 15,795.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 72,896.61

Wildfires 1.35 0.04 0.16 0.15 0.00 0.23

County Total 19,987.7 2,057.37 4,750.69 713.93 512.89 85,704.70

Hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) are known or suspected to cause cancer or other serious health effects, or adverse environmental effects, so they are also regulated by the EPA. Examples of listed HAPs emitted by the oil and gas industry include benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, mixed xylenes, formaldehyde, normal-hexane, acetaldehyde, and methanol. A list of HAP point source emissions by County is published by the Utah Division of Air Quality (UDAQ 2018), and is incorporated by reference. A summary of existing HAP emissions in San Juan County is presented in Table 8. Table 8. Triennial Inventory of HAPs (2014). HAPS (tpy) San Juan County

Benzene 3.525

Toluene 0.745

Ethylbenzene 0.044

Xylenes 0.121

n-Hexane 0.954

Formaldehyde 0.242

27 DOI-BLM-UT-0000-2019-0003_Other NEPA-MtFO-EA July 2019

HAPS (tpy) San Juan County

Acetaldehyde 0.001

Naphthalene 0.001

The parcels in this lease sale occur within Prevention of Significant Deterioration Class II areas and do not occur adjacent to National Parks or other sensitive areas. The closest Class I areas are Canyonlands and Mesa Verde National Parks to the northwest and southeast respectively. Lease parcels are farther than 50 kilometers (approximately 30 miles) from the Class I area, which is the transition point from near-field to far-field analysis. Additional Air Quality Related Values (AQRVs) include visual air quality (haze), and acid (nitrogen and sulfur) deposition. AQRVs do not have threshold standards, but Federal land managers have identified levels of concern. Current visibility and deposition information for nearby Class I areas is summarized in the AMR (BLM 2019). 3.3.1.2 Environmental Consequences Impacts of the Proposed Action Leasing the subject tracts would have no direct impacts to air quality. Any potential effects to air quality from the sale of lease parcels would occur at such time that any issued leases are developed. Please note, this proposed action does not authorize or guarantee specific development scenarios. If leased, drilling of wells on a lease would not be permitted until the BLM approves an Application for Permit to Drill (APD). Any APDs received would be subject to additional site specific NEPA review. However development assumptions have been made in this EA to inform the decision since an issued lease must be developed to keep it from expiring. This discussion remains qualitative as variations in emission control technologies as well as construction, drilling, and production technologies used by various operators make it difficult to accurately estimate potential air quality impacts from modeling at this time. Well development would likely be exploratory and impacts from construction and drilling would be temporary or short-term and would cease after the associated activities. During well development, there could be emissions from earth-moving equipment, vehicle traffic, drilling, and completion activities. NO2, SO2, and CO would be emitted from vehicle tailpipes. Fugitive dust concentrations would increase with additional vehicle traffic on unpaved roads and from wind erosion in areas of soil disturbance. Drill rig and fracturing engine operations would result mainly in NO2 and CO emissions, with lesser amounts of SO2. These temporary emissions would be short-term during the drilling and completion times. During well production there could be continuous emissions from separators, condensate storage tanks, and daily tailpipe and fugitive dust emissions from operations traffic. During the operational phase of the Proposed Action, NO2, CO, VOC, and HAP emissions would result from the long-term operation of condensate storage tank vents, and well pad separators. Additionally, road dust (PM10 and PM2.5) would be produced by vehicles servicing the wells. An emissions inventory (EI) estimate for an oil and gas well for this lease sale is shown in Table 9. Due to the very small level of anticipated development and lack of information regarding potential emissions control technologies an operator may use, the EI is based on the following assumptions: • Each oil and gas well would cause 6.8 acres of surface disturbance. This acreage includes access. • Construction activity for each well is assumed to be 10 days. It is further assumed that, based on the acreage disturbed, 4.5 days would be spent in well pad construction and 5.5 days would be spent in road and pipeline construction.

28 DOI-BLM-UT-0000-2019-0003_Other NEPA-MtFO-EA July 2019

• Control efficiency of 25% for dust suppression would be achieved as a result of compliance with Utah Air Quality regulation R307-205. • Post construction particulate matter (dust) emissions are likely to occur on a short term basis due to loss of vegetation within the construction and staging areas. Assuming appropriate interim reclamation, these emissions are likely to be minimal to negligible and will not be considered in this EA. • Drilling operations would require 14 days. • Completions and testing operations would require 3 days. • Off-road mobile exhaust emissions from heavy equipment during construction activities and on- road mobile emissions would not be considered as they are dispersed, sporadic, temporary, and not likely to cause or contribute to exceedances of the NAAQS. Table 9. Emissions Inventory Estimate.

1 2 3 4

PM10 NOX CO VOC VOC NOX CO PM10 NOX CO VOC PM10 O&G Well 0.34 13.31 1.83 0.23 0.85 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.11 0.09 6.44 0.07

PM10 NOX CO VOC Activity 0.34 13.37 1.89 1.08 (5) Tons Production 6.44 0.11 0.09 0.07 (6) tpy 1 - Construction Emissions (Tons) 2 - Drilling Emissions (Tons) 3 - Completions Emissions (Tons) 4 - Ongoing Production Emissions (Tons/Year) 5 - Activity Emissions (Total emissions for drilling and completion the well) 6 - Production Emissions (Ongoing annual emissions for the well) Emission factors for activities of the proposed action were based on and production emissions from oil storage tanks was estimated based on information available at: https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-factors-and- quantification/ap-42-compilation-air-emission-factors.

Emissions from a well would include particulate matter of less than 10 micrometers in diameter (PM10), nitrogen oxides (NOX), carbon monoxide (CO), and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and lead (Pb) from oil and gas development activities are minor and are not included. PM2.5 is not specifically included as it is a component of PM10. Emission factors for activities of the proposed action were based on information contained in the EPA’s Emission Factors & AP 42, Volume I, Fifth Edition (EPA 1995). Production emissions from oil storage tanks were estimated based on the emission factor contained in the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment PS Memo 05-01, Oil & Gas Atmospheric Condensate Storage Tank Batteries Regulatory Definitions and Permitting Guidance (APCD 2017) For total foreseeable emissions, multiply the amounts in the table by the total number of foreseeable wells (4). However, it is not reasonable to assume that all wells will be drilled in a single year because the lessee has 10 years to establish production on a lease, and historically most leases never have production attempted or established16. If production is not attempted within the 10 year timeframe, the lease will be

16 See GAO’s October 2008 finding that for leases issued from 1987 through 1996, development occurred on 6% of onshore leases and production was achieved on 5%. https://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0974.pdf

29 DOI-BLM-UT-0000-2019-0003_Other NEPA-MtFO-EA July 2019

terminated with no development or production emissions occurring. If production is not established within the 10 year timeframe, the lease will be terminated with no production emissions occurring. Based on the emissions estimates contained in Table 9, the area being in compliance with all NAAQS, and considering the location of the parcels relative to population centers and Class I areas, substantial air resource impacts are not anticipated as a result of this leasing action, and no further analysis or modeling is warranted for the leasing decision. Emissions resulting from the sale of these parcels are not likely to result in major impacts to air quality nor are they likely to cause a violation of the NAAQS. As identified in notice UT-LN-102 additional analysis may be required when parcels are developed. Potential impacts to visibility to Arches and Canyonlands National Parks was analyzed for the Cane Creek Project (Golder 2010). The VISCREEN model was used to assess the change in color difference index (ΔE) and plume contrast (C) against the background sky and terrain. In every case the VISCREEN results were less than the default criteria, indicating no adverse effect on visibility from the proposed projects to the two National Parks. Visibility impacts to Class I areas from potential development from this lease sales are likely to be less than those identified for the Cane Creek Project since parcels are much farther from the National Parks. If exploration occurs, short-term impacts would be stabilized or managed rapidly (within two to five years) and long-term impacts are those that would substantially remain for more than five years. Impacts of the No Alternative Action Under the No Action Alternative, BLM would continue to manage these lands based on the objectives outlined in their class categories. No new attendant infrastructure associated with oil and gas development would be built under the No Action Alternative. No new emissions of pollutants would occur. 3.3.1.3 Required Design Features Application Stipulations UT-S-01 and Notices UT-LN-96, UT-LN-99, UT-LN-101 and UT-LN-102 would be adequate for the leasing stage to disclose potential future restrictions and to facilitate the reduction of potential impacts. The BLM does look to mitigate pollutants via lease stipulations and notices and further NEPA actions throughout the lease process. Stipulations and notices would be applied to leases when issued to notify the operator of what would be required (stipulation) and what could potentially be required (notice) at the APD stage. This allows the potential lessee, at the time of bidding on the parcel, to be informed of the range of requirements that could be expect when lease rights are exercised. Additional air quality control measures may be warranted and imposed at the APD stage (such as mitigation measures, best management practices, and an air emissions inventory). The BLM would do this in coordination with the EPA, UDAQ and other agencies that have jurisdiction on air quality. By applying stipulations and notices, leasing would have little impact on air quality. At the APD stage, further conditions of approval (COAs) could be applied based on the environmental analysis for the APD. These control measures are dependent on future regional modeling studies or other analysis or changes in regulatory standards. Application of these notices would be sufficient to notify the lease holder of additional air quality control measures that are necessary to ensure protection and maintenance of the NAAQS. The BLM requires industry to incorporate and implement BMPs, which are designed to reduce impacts to air quality by reducing emissions, surface disturbances, and dust from field production and operations. Typical measures include: adherence to BLM’s waste prevention regulations, flare hydrocarbon gases at high temperatures to reduce emissions of incomplete combustion; water dirt roads during periods of high use to reduce fugitive dust emissions; collocate wells and production facilities to reduce new surface disturbance; implementation of directional drilling and horizontal completion technologies whereby one well provides access to petroleum resources that would normally require the drilling of several vertical wellbores; suggest that vapor recovery systems be maintained and functional in areas where petroleum

30 DOI-BLM-UT-0000-2019-0003_Other NEPA-MtFO-EA July 2019

liquids are stored; and perform interim reclamation to revegetate areas of the pad not required for production facilities and to reduce the amount of dust from the pads. In addition, the BLM encourages industry to participate in the Gas STAR program that is administered by EPA. The Natural Gas STAR program is a flexible, voluntary partnership that encourages oil and natural gas companies to adopt proven, cost-effective technologies and practices that improve operational efficiency and reduce natural gas emissions. The EPA has promulgated air quality regulations for completion of hydraulically fractured gas wells. These rules require air pollution mitigation measures that reduce the emissions of volatile organic compounds during gas well completions. Southeastern Utah has been identified as an area susceptible to wind erosion (Duniway et. al 2019). BMPs to reduce fugitive dust include use of speed mitigation techniques, use of over-sized or low pressure tires, directional drilling to reduce the number of well pads, and application of soil stabilization techniques (Duniway et. al 2019). 3.3.1.4 Cumulative Impacts The cumulative impact analysis area (CIAA) for air quality is Southeast Utah, specifically San Juan County. The CIAA also includes regional Class I areas and other environmentally sensitive areas (e.g., national parks and monuments, wilderness areas, etc.) nearest to the parcels. No recent cumulative modeling analysis has been performed for the CIAA area. However, modeling domains from the Moab MLP (BLM 2016) and BLM’s Air Resource Management Strategy (ARMS) Modeling Project (BLM 2014) overlap with the CIAA. While emissions from lease parcels were not included in these analysis, the RFD for the lease sale is a tiny fraction of the total wells analyzed in the modeling. As a result these modeling analysis provide a reference for potential cumulative impacts due to regional oil and gas development. It is important to note that the ARMS model performance evaluation of ozone indicated a negative model bias (under predicts) during the winter and a positive model bias (over predict) during the summer in the 4 km domain. The model performance evaluation for PM2.5, indicated a negative model bias (under predict) throughout the year in the 4 km domain (BLM 2014). Emissions Past and present actions that have affected and would likely continue to affect air quality in the CIAA include surface disturbance resulting from oil and gas development and associated infrastructure, geophysical exploration, ranching and livestock grazing, range improvements, recreation (including OHV use), authorization of ROWs for utilities and other uses, and road development. Past and present actions in CIAA that have affected and would likely continue to affect air quality are too numerous to list here but would include the development of power plants; the development of energy sources such as oil, gas, and coal; the development of highways and roads; and the development of various industries that emit pollutants. These types of actions and activities can reduce air quality through emissions of criteria pollutants (including fugitive dust), VOCs, and HAPs, as well as contribute to deposition impacts and to a reduction in visibility. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable oil and gas development is listed in the Utah Division of Oil Gas and Mining’s Well Counts statistical report (UDOGM 2018). At the end of 2018 there were 719 active producing wells (mostly tribal wells) in San Juan County. This number is down from 767 producing wells when the Monticello RMP was approved, and down from 754 producing wells during the 2014 emission inventory year. Emissions from the 5 wells estimated for this lease sale would add to the emissions from the existing 719 wells. However, total oil and gas emissions are anticipated to be lower than those listed Table 7. The Moab MLP analysis included far-field modeling to evaluate impacts on NAAQS and AQRVs from multiple sources over the entire MLP area. Technical details for this modeling are incorporated from Appendix F of the MLP FEIS. The modeling analysis evaluated three scenarios based on the range of

31 DOI-BLM-UT-0000-2019-0003_Other NEPA-MtFO-EA July 2019

alternatives in the MLP FEIS. Modeling results show no exceedances of the NAAQS for any pollutant for any of the modeled scenarios (BLM 2016). Emissions from this lease sale would slightly increase modeled concentrations, but pollutant concentrations are likely to remain below the NAAQS due to the low RFD.

In Class I and Class II areas outside the Uinta Basin ARMS study area, O3 concentrations are highest during the summer period (BLM 2014). The ARMS model determined that in the 2021 future year, all assessment areas are within the applicable PSD increments for annual NO2, 3-hour SO2, annual SO2, and annual PM10, while most assessment areas exceed the 24-hour PM2.5 and PM10 PSD increment (BLM 2014). Figure 1 shows that the ARMS predicted ozone design values for the CIAA are below the NAAQS, with concentrations generally between 0.055 to 0.065 ppm. However, areas near Arches and Canyonlands National Parks are approaching the NAAQS standard of 0.070 ppm. The modeling results are likely conservative due to the over prediction of summertime O3 in the ARMS model and due to background levels listed in Table 6 being 0.064 ppm. If background O3 levels rise additional analysis may be needed when plans of development are submitted for the lease parcels. Exceedances of the O3 NAAQS occur outside the CIAA in the Uinta Basin and Salt Lake City metropolitan area. Predicted PM2.5 design values are shown in Figure 2, with annual concentrations in the CIAA generally in the 4-8 µg/m3 range. Although a hotspot is identified near the town of Blanding, with concentrations nearing the NAAQS. This area is identified as being susceptible to wind erosion (Duniway et. al 2019), so implementation of dust mitigation BMP’s is important for keeping PM concentrations down.

Figure 1. ARMS predicted ozone design values with on the books controls for oil and gas emissions in the year 2021.

32 DOI-BLM-UT-0000-2019-0003_Other NEPA-MtFO-EA July 2019

Figure 2. ARMS predicted PM2.5 design values with on the books controls for oil and gas emissions in the year 2021. In 2013, the WRAP WestJump Air Quality Modeling Study was completed (WRAP 2013)This study was intended to initiate the next generation of regional technical analysis and support for ozone transport and attainment demonstrations for the intermountain West. The project incorporated all of the recent western modeling analyses into a single modeling database, and went through a comprehensive model performance evaluation in an open technical forum independent of any specific project or regulatory activity. One of the functions of the modeling platform is the ability to perform a comprehensive source apportionment analysis to evaluate local source, western regional, natural and international impacts of elevated ozone impacts (both rural and urban) across the west and at specific locations within the modeling domain. For purposes of the analysis for the MLP EIS, Canyonlands National Park was chosen as a source receptor to evaluate both local and regional emission sources impacts on ozone, PM2.5, and visibility. The WestJump source apportionment tool was used to specify source contributions by type; for instance mobile, point, oil and gas and fires. Mobile sources (cars and trucks) make up the largest single source category, followed by natural sources (primarily vegetative volatile organic compound [VOC] emissions), and point sources (e.g., power plants). Oil and gas emissions account for less than 1 percent of the regional source category emissions (WRAP 2013). Based on the relatively minor levels of emissions associated with this proposed development, and the application of BMPs, it is unlikely emissions from any subsequent development of the proposed leases would contribute to regional ozone formation in the project area, nor is it likely to contribute or cause exceedances of any NAAQS. Other emission contributors would continue at present rates such as construction, urban development, and personal vehicle use.

Exceptional events such as a dust storm or major large wildfires could result in very high PM10 values across the area. Data of such events would likely be reviewed by the EPA under the exceptional event rules.

33 DOI-BLM-UT-0000-2019-0003_Other NEPA-MtFO-EA July 2019

Air Quality Related Values The MLP analyzed changes to visibility conditions by modeling the number of days there was a change in deciviews, which is a unit of measurement to quantify human perception of visibility. It is derived from the natural logarithm of atmospheric light extinction coefficient. One (1) deciview is roughly the smallest change in visibility (haze) that is barely perceptible. Modeled visibility impacts ranged from greater than 0.5 dv impacts on almost half the year (159 days) at Canyonlands National Park during the 2008 meteorological year for the high emissions scenario, to no visibility impacts greater than 1.0 dv at any park for any meteorological year under the low emissions scenario. Coarse particulate (PM10), primarily road dust from truck traffic on unpaved roads, was the dominate pollutant of concern under both high and medium emissions scenarios. Under the low emissions scenarios nitrogen oxides play a greater role in visibility impacts. The specific meteorological year used in the analysis also had a significant influence on modeled impacts. Meteorology in 2008 had substantially greater levels of impacts across the board compared to the previous two years of meteorological data. This indicates sensitivity to meteorological variability, and given the large role particulates play, adverse visibility impacts can most likely be tied to drier, hotter, and/or windier conditions (BLM 2016). Development of lease sale parcels would slightly increase the impacts to visibility, but are not likely to be perceptible. All MLP modeled values of sulfur and nitrogen deposition were near or below the Deposition Analysis Thresholds of 0.005 kg/ha/yr for total nitrogen and total sulfur for all the modeled alternatives, with the exception of the high and medium emissions scenarios for nitrogen deposition in Arches and Canyonlands National Park for the 2008 meteorological year (BLM 2016). Development of lease parcels has the potential to slightly add to the deposition rate. The proposed action, in concert with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions may contribute to an increase of emissions through direct and indirect impacts, but it would not be expected to increase cumulative effects to levels that would compromise the viability of air quality within or near the CIAA. Visibility and deposition conditions in Class I and Class II areas would follow current trends as described in the AMR (BLM 2019). Hazardous Air Pollutants The Past and present projects which contribute HAPs to the CIAA are detailed in the Utah Division of Air Quality’s 2014 Point Source Emissions Inventory (UDAQ 2018). The BLM is unaware of any foreseeable point source projects. The 2014 Triennial Inventory of HAPs (cumulative inventory of point source HAPs) for the project area is summarized in Table 8. The EPA has determined that for the cumulative impact area the total cancer risk is 13 to 19 in 1 million (EPA 2019). This cancer risk is within the acceptable range of risk published by the EPA of 1 to 100 in a million as discussed in the National Contingency Plan, 40 CFR 300.430. The proposed action of leasing would not directly contribute to cumulative HAPs emissions or cancer risk. Future potential development of the leases would contribute to HAPs emissions and cancer risk. However, the HAPs emission contribution is not meaningful in the context of point source emissions ongoing in the CIAA. The No Action alternative would not contribute to criteria pollutant emissions, HAP emissions, or AQRV impacts because the leases would not be issued and no development could occur. 3.3.2 Issue 2: What are the Potential Impacts of Oil and Gas Leasing to Climate Change/Greenhouse Gases? 3.3.2.1 Affected Environment Climate is the composite of generally prevailing weather conditions of a particular region throughout the year, averaged over a series of years such as temperature and precipitation. The 2018 BLM Utah Air

34 DOI-BLM-UT-0000-2019-0003_Other NEPA-MtFO-EA July 2019

Monitoring Report (BLM 2019) discusses the current climate conditions in Utah, and is incorporated by reference. The report presents the three-decade average and trends of temperature and precipitation for each of the seven climate divisions in Utah. Parcels included in this lease sale are within the Southeast Utah climate divisions. The Southeast climate division on generally has warmer and drier conditions than the other climate divisions in Utah. Average annual temperature and precipitation information for the climate division is presented in Table 10. Additional details on climate in the leasing area and the rest of Utah are provided in the 2018 BLM Utah Air Monitoring Report (BLM 2019). Table 10. Climate Trends

1895-2017 Mean 1981-2010 Trend Climate Division Temp (ºF) Precip (in.) Temp (ºF) Precip (in.) 7, Southeast 51.5 9.8 + 0.5 -0.51

In November 2018 the Fourth National Climate Assessment (NCA4) Volume II was published. Compared to previous reports, NCA4 provides greater detail on regional scales as impacts and adaptation tend to be realized at a more local level. The Southwest region (Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, and Utah) encompasses diverse ecosystems, cultures, and economies, reflecting a broad range of climate conditions, including the hottest and driest climate in the United States. The average annual temperature of the Southwest increased 1.6°F (0.9ºC) between 1901 and 2016. Moreover, the region recorded more warm nights and fewer cold nights between 1990 and 2016, including an increase of 4.1°F (2.3°C) for the coldest day of the year. Each NCA has consistently identified drought, water shortages, and loss of ecosystem integrity as major challenges that the Southwest confronts under climate change. Since the last assessment, published field research has provided even stronger detection of hydrological drought, tree death, wildfire increases, sea level rise and warming, oxygen loss, and acidification of the ocean that have been statistically different from natural variation, with much of the attribution pointing to human-caused climate change (USGCRP 2018). Climate change includes both historic and predicted climate shifts that are beyond normal weather variations. Climate change may be due to natural internal processes or external forces. Earth’s atmosphere has a natural greenhouse effect wherein naturally occurring gases such as water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and fluorinated gases absorb and retain heat (EPA 2018). A number of activities contribute to the phenomenon of climate change, including emissions of GHGs (especially CO2 and methane) from fossil fuel development, large wildfires, activities using combustion engines, changes to the natural carbon cycle, and changes to radiative forces and reflectivity (albedo). Current atmospheric concentrations of GHG’s are presented in the Specialist Report on GHG Analysis for BLM Utah Oil and Gas Leasing (BLM 2019). Atmospheric concentration of CO2 is 406 ppm and is increasing at a rate of 2.2 ppm/yr. It is important to note that GHGs will have a sustained climatic impact over different temporal scales due to their differences in global warming potential (described above) and lifespans in the atmosphere. For example, CO2 may last 50 to 200 years in the atmosphere while methane has an average atmospheric life time of 12 years. Each GHG has a global warming potential (GWP) that accounts for the intensity of each GHG’s heat trapping effect and its longevity in the atmosphere. GWP allows for different gases to be represented as an equivalent amount of CO2. As discussed in the Specialist Report on GHG Analysis for BLM Utah Oil and Gas Leasing (BLM 2019), the BLM uses GWP that represent the current state of science with the 100 year time horizon to allow for a direct comparison with national and global emissions.

35 DOI-BLM-UT-0000-2019-0003_Other NEPA-MtFO-EA July 2019

State, national, and global GHG emissions are reported in Table 11. Additional details about these GHG emissions are discussed in the GHG Analysis for BLM Utah Oil and Gas Leasing (BLM 2019) report and is incorporated by reference.

Table 11. GHG Emission in Million Metric Tons (CO2e)

Utah US Energy United Global Sector States 35.0 5,424.8 6,456.7 46,423.3 Source: EPA Inventory of US Greenhouse Gases Emission and Sinks 1990-2017 (EPA 2019) EPA GHG Reporting Program FLIGHT tool (EPA 2018) Fossil CO2 & GHG Emissions of all World Countries, recent year 2012 (Janssens-Maenhout, et al. 2017) 3.3.2.2 Environmental Consequences Impacts of the Proposed Action While the leasing action itself would not generate any GHG emissions, the BLM recognizes that the reasonably foreseeable consequence of leasing may lead to oil and gas development, and that such development could result in an increase in GHG emissions due to well development and operations, and from downstream uses of the petroleum products produced from these parcels. Methods and assumptions used for estimating GHG emissions from the development of lease parcels are described in the GHG Analysis for BLM Utah Oil and Gas Leasing (BLM 2019) report and are incorporated by reference. Emissions from Parcel Development Direct emissions of GHGs occur during both the construction and operation phase of a well. Estimates of GHG emissions are calculated for a single well from the Moab Master Lease Plan (MLP) FEIS (BLM 2016) high emissions scenario. Single well annual emissions were computed by taking the total annual GHG emissions from the Moab MLP FEIS high emissions scenario and dividing by the number of wells constructed each year for the construction emissions, and divided by the number of producing wells for the operations emissions. Emissions were also converted from short tons to metric tons, and the CO2e was updated using GWP from the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. Construction emissions occur from heavy equipment and vehicle exhaust, drill rigs, completion equipment including fracturing engines, venting, and flaring. Operation emissions occur from storage tank breathing and flashing, truck loading, pump engines, heaters and dehydrators, pneumatics, fugitives, vehicle exhaust, and reclamation. Additional information on single well emissions estimates are provided in the GHG specialist report (BLM 2019). Table 12 shows the estimated emissions from a single oil or gas well. Table 12. Single Well GHG Emissions Based on the Moab MLP FEIS Inventory

Single Well Emissions Metric Tons per year Development Phase CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Construction 2485.0 8.44 0.044 2733.0 Operations 374 50.41 0.009 1788.4 Total 2859.4 58.86 0.053 4521.4

Total estimated GHG emissions from operating the RFD of 4 wells is 7,154 MT CO2e/yr. Using the 20 year

GWP time horizon, operation emissions are 18,446 MT CO2e/yr. Total construction emissions are estimated at 10,932 CO2e, or 12,823 MT CO2e with the 20 year GWP.

36 DOI-BLM-UT-0000-2019-0003_Other NEPA-MtFO-EA July 2019

Emissions from Combustion of Produced Oil or Gas If lease parcels are developed and if the resulting well produces oil or gas it is foreseeable that indirect GHG emissions will result from the end-use of the fossil fuel. Estimates of downstream emissions are assumed to come from the combustion of oil or gas for domestic heating or energy production. However, the BLM has no authority to direct or regulate the end-use of the produced products and an actual end-use may differ from the assumption used for calculating downstream GHG emissions. Calculations of indirect emissions from downstream combustion can be made by multiplying the produced number of barrels (bbl) of oil and thousand cubic feet (mcf) of gas with GHG emission factors from the EPA Greenhouse Gases Equivalencies Calculator – Calculations and References website (EPA, 2019). These emission factors are used because they provide an easy calculation of the amount of equivalent amount of CO2 produced from a bbl of oil or mcf of gas. The emission factors also follow IPCC guidance by accounting for 100% oxidation of carbon in the fossil fuel to CO2, regardless if the carbon atom is part of a CO2, CH4, or other hydrocarbon molecule. Existing oil and gas annual production data is obtained from the Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining (UDOGM, 2018). It is assumed that future wells will produce oil and gas in similar amounts as other existing nearby wells. Annual data from 2008 to 2018 is used to determine the average production per well. However, some wells may produce more or less than the average. To better inform decision makers and the public a low and high production estimates are also used to calculate a range of downstream combustion emissions. Details on estimating production and downstream emissions are found in the GHG Analysis for BLM Utah Oil and Gas Leasing (BLM 2019) report. Table 13 lists the estimated annual GHG emissions per well. The lease total is calculated by multiplying the RFD (4 wells) with the single well emissions. While a range of combustion emissions is presented, for simplicity, the average is used when discussing total lease sale emissions. Table 13. Production of Oil and Gas for a Single Well and Associated GHG Combustion Emissions

2008-2018 Range of Oil 2008-2018 Range of Gas Range of Emissions per Production (bbl/well) Production (mcf/well well (metric tons CO2e/yr) Field Office Low Ave High Low Ave High Low Ave High Monticello 4,753 5,555 6,356 10,264 13,635 17,006 2,609 3,140 3,670 EPA Emission factors: 0.43 metric tons CO2e/bbl, and 0.0551 metric tons CO2e/mcf. (EPA 2019). Production data obtained from the Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining (UDOGM 2018).

Projected average annual combustion GHG emissions from all of the parcels considered is 12,559 MT CO2e/yr. GHG emissions may range from 10,437 MT CO2e/yr, to 14,681 MT CO2e/yr, depending on realized production rates, control technology, and physical characteristics of any oil produced. As climate change is a response to global emissions of GHGs, it is difficult to assign a “significance” value or impact based on a single action. Emissions estimates themselves are presented for disclosure purposes and as a proxy for impacts from the proposed action. Emissions can be compared to annual state and national emissions listed in Table 11 to provide a measure of the relative impact. The total estimated GHG emissions from construction (10,932 MT CO2e), operations (7,154 MT CO2e/yr), and combustion (12,559 MT CO2e /yr) from development on the parcels considered is 30,645 MT CO2e/yr, which is 0.09% of Utah major industrial sources. To express GHG emissions on a scale relatable to everyday life the EPA GHG equivalency calculator can be used (https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas- equivalencies-calculator). The projected total emissions (30,645 MT CO2e/yr) are equivalent to 6,506 passenger vehicles driven for one year, or energy use for 5,344 homes for one year. Climate change impacts are further discussed in the cumulative impacts section of this document.

37 DOI-BLM-UT-0000-2019-0003_Other NEPA-MtFO-EA July 2019

Lifetime GHG emissions from the parcels considered can be estimated by multiplying well production life with the operation and combustion emissions and adding the one-time construction emissions. Assuming an average well life of 30 years, the total gross emissions from the parcels analyzed would be 0.60 MMT CO2e. However, assuming the production life of a well is somewhat speculative at the leasing stage. Individual wells could be dry or have shorter or longer production lifespans, resulting in lower or higher lifetime emissions. While the BLM provides an estimate of direct and indirect GHG emissions from the potential development of lease parcels, there is significant uncertainty due to unknown factors including actual production, life expectancy of a well, how produced minerals are used, the form of regulation of GHG parameters by delegated agencies, and whether any Best Available Control Technologies are utilized at the upstream or downstream emission location(s). Statewide, the range of combustion emissions alone has an uncertainty of nearly 340% based on if a well is low or high producing. This uncertainty is compounded when accounting for other factors listed above. Impacts of the No Alternative Action Under the No Action Alternative, the parcels would not be leased so no future development could occur. As a result, no GHG emissions from the development of these lease parcels would occur and there would be no addition to the existing national and global emissions that influence climate change.

3.3.2.3 Required Design Features/Mitigation Measures The BLM regulates portions of natural gas and petroleum systems identified in the EPA Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks report (EPA, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990-2017 2019). In carrying out its responsibilities, BLM has developed a list of best management practices (BMPs) designed to reduce emissions from field production and operations. Analysis and approval of future development on the lease parcels may include application of BMPs within BLM’s authority, as Conditions of Approval, to reduce or mitigate GHG emissions. Additional measures developed at the project development stage also may be incorporated as applicant-committed measures by the project proponent, or added to necessary air quality permits. BMPs to reduce the impacts of climate change and GHG emissions may include, but are not limited to: • Flare hydrocarbon and gases at high temperatures in order to reduce emissions of incomplete combustion through the use of multi-chamber combustors; • Require that vapor recovery systems be maintained and functional in areas where petroleum liquids are stored; • Installation of liquids gathering facilities or central production facilities to reduce the total number of sources and minimize truck traffic; • Use of natural gas fired or electric drill rig engines; • The use of selective catalytic reducers and low-sulfur fuel for diesel-fired drill rig engines; and, • Implementation of directional and horizontal drilling technologies whereby one well provides access to petroleum resources that would normally require the drilling of several vertical wellbores;

Additionally, the BLM encourages natural gas companies to adopt proven cost-effective technologies and practices that improve operation efficiency and reduce natural gas emissions, to reduce the ultimate impact from the emissions. In October 2012, the EPA promulgated air quality regulations for completion of hydraulically fractured gas wells. These rules require air pollution mitigation measures that reduce the emissions of VOCs during

38 DOI-BLM-UT-0000-2019-0003_Other NEPA-MtFO-EA July 2019

gas well completions. Mitigation includes a process known as “green completion” in which the recovered products are sent through a series of aboveground, closed, separators which negates the need for flowing back into surface pits as the product is immediately sent to gas lines and the fluids are transferred to onsite tanks. EPA Inventory data show that by adopting the BMPs proposed by the EPA Natural Gas Energy Star program, the industry has reduced emissions from oil and gas exploration and development: “During calendar year 2018, Partners submitted an annual report detailing their efforts in 2017 to reduce methane emissions from their operations. These voluntary activities consisted of 45 technologies and practices and resulted in emissions reductions of 96.8 Bcf for the year. These methane emissions reductions have cross- cutting benefits on domestic energy supply, industrial efficiency, revenue generation, improved air quality, and greenhouse gas emissions reductions. The emission reductions are equivalent to additional revenue of approximately $291 million in natural gas sales (assumes an average natural gas price of $3.00 per thousand cubic feet).” (EPA 2019) Specifically, EPA reports that 89% of the methane reductions came from the oil and gas production sector, by utilizing a variety of technologies including: reducing blow down frequency, installing vapor recovery units, and converting gas-driven pumps to electric, mechanical, or solar driven pumps. The BLM will continue to work with industry to promote the use of the relevant BMPs for operations proposed on Federal mineral leases where such mitigation is consistent with agency authorities and policies, and is supported by BLM’s NEPA analysis. In addition to efforts to better respond and adapt to climate change, other Federal initiatives are being implemented to mitigate climate change. The Carbon Storage Project was implemented to develop carbon sequestration methodologies for geological (i.e., underground) and biological (e.g., forests and rangelands) carbon storage. The project is a collaboration of Federal and nonfederal stakeholders to enhance carbon storage in geologic formations and in plants and soils in an environmentally responsible manner. The Carbon Footprint Project (Carbon 2019) is an effort to develop a unified GHG emission reduction program for the DOI, including setting a baseline and reduction goal for the Department’s GHG emissions and energy use.

3.3.2.4 Cumulative Impacts Even though the Proposed Action of leasing would not contribute to cumulative effects on air resources, future foreseeable development could contribute to cumulative GHG emissions and therefore climate change. Cumulative GHG emissions from existing and foreseeable oil and gas wells within the Monticello Field Office boundaries from well operation and downstream combustion are calculated in the GHG Analysis for BLM Utah Oil and Gas Leasing Specialist Report (BLM, 2019) and is incorporated by reference. Emissions from well construction, operations, and downstream combustion of existing wells and foreseeable wells from current APDs and other recent leasing actions are included in the cumulative. Estimated annual GHG emissions from existing and foreseeable oil and gas sources are presented in Table 14. Additionally, foreseeable oil and gas related emissions are projected based on the field office RMPs (see Table 16) and the undeveloped portion of the RMP development scenarios (see Table 17). Emissions from well development are listed separately as they would only occur one time during construction, drilling, and completion of new wells and not be an ongoing emission.

39 DOI-BLM-UT-0000-2019-0003_Other NEPA-MtFO-EA July 2019

Table 14. Estimates Annual GHG Emissions from Existing and Reasonably Foreseeable Oil and Gas Wells.

Metric Tons CO2e/yr Total Foreseeable Existing Existing Foreseeable Foreseeable Field Office Annual One-Time Direct Indirect Direct Indirect Emissions Emissions Monticello 1,280,509 2,214,643 60,806 106,752 3,662,710 92,922 Statewide Total 7,347,577 32,143,717 896,712 5,740,329 46,420,735 1,312,457

The parcels considered are estimated to annually produce 19,713 MT CO2e/yr (7,154 MT CO2e/yr operation from Table 12 plus 12,559 MT CO2e/yr combustion from Table 13), which would contribute 0.5% of the total annual oil and gas emissions in the field office (3,662,710 MT CO2e/yr; Table 14). Total annual emissions are 4.49% of the annual Utah major industrial source (35 MMT, Table 11) plus oil and gas (46 MMT, Table 14) emissions, and 0.06% of the 2017 U.S. total emissions, see Table 15. The statewide comparison is conservative since the total doesn’t include emissions from agriculture, transportation, and waste management sectors which are substantial sources of GHG emissions. Current emissions information for these sectors is not available. The Utah Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Reference Case Projections (Strategies 2007) report projected that in 2020 agriculture, transportation, and waste management emissions in Utah would be 5.8 MMT CO2e, 22.4 MMT CO2e, and 4.7 MMT CO2e respectively. Adding the projections for these sectors with the reported major source and oil and gas estimated emissions results in 114 MMT CO2e total GHG emissions estimate for the State of Utah. Table 15. Comparison of Total Annual Emissions with State and National Emissions

Major Percent of Utah Total Annual Sources + Percent of Percent of Field Office (Major + O&G) Emissions O&G U.S. Energy U.S. Total Emissions Emissions

3,662,710 Monticello 3,662,710 4.49% 0.07% 0.06% 81,493,931 Statewide 46,420,735 56.96% 0.86% 0.72%

BLM also considered potential annual GHG emissions for the field office planning area throughout the life of the management plans. The Resource Management Plan (RMP) for the field office planning area includes an RFD scenario describing the number of expected wells over the life of the plan. These expected wells can be used to estimate the potential total GHG emissions for all of the lands open to leasing (past, present and future lease sales) in each planning area. Planning-area-wide emissions are estimated by multiplying the expected number of wells by the single well construction, operation, and combustion emissions, assuming all lands would be leased, and fully developed concurrently (Table 16). Table 16. Expected wells from Each Field Office RMP, and Corresponding GHG Emissions Average RMP Expected Construction Operation (MT Field Office Combustion (MT wells CO2e/yr) (MT CO2e) CO2e/yr)

Moab MLP 128 349,823 228,918 115,663

40 DOI-BLM-UT-0000-2019-0003_Other NEPA-MtFO-EA July 2019

Average RMP Expected Construction Operation (MT Field Office Combustion (MT wells CO2e/yr) (MT CO2e) CO2e/yr)

Monticello 189 532,934 348,742 612,253

BLM Utah 9,687 6,975,421 4,449,851 39,583,936

Some oil and gas development has occurred since the implementation of the RMP. Table 17 lists the remaining number of estimated wells from the RMP that have not yet been developed, and the estimate of GHG emissions that are foreseeable from future development in the field office. The estimates are made by multiplying the remaining number of wells projected in the respective RMPs by the average GHG emissions from single well construction, operation, and combustion of the average quantity of produced oil or gas. These estimates represent the foreseeable emissions from undeveloped leases and future leasing actions. Table 17. Undeveloped Portion of RMP RFD Scenarios and Corresponding Potential GHG Emissions for Each Field Office Undeveloped Average Construction Operation (MT Field Office Portion of RMP Combustion (MT 17 (MT CO2e) CO2e/yr) RFD CO2e/yr)

Moab MLP 125 341,624 223,553 112,952

Monticello 125 516,536 338,011 593,414

Statewide 6,129 5,249,289 3,396,028 29,810,154

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has produced estimates of the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the extraction and end-use combustion of fossil fuels produced on Federal lands in the United States, as well as estimates of ecosystem carbon emissions and sequestration on those lands (USGS 2018). In 2014, nationwide GHG emissions from fossil fuels extracted from Federal lands was 1,332.1 MMT CO2e. Emissions from fossil fuels produced on Federal lands represent, on average, 23.7 percent of national emissions for CO2, 7.3 percent for CH4, and 1.5 percent for N2O over the 10 years included in this estimate (USGS 2018). Uncertainty associated with emission estimates is 2-5% for combustion, 25-42% for fugitives, and 12-15% for degassed CH4 emissions from coal mines. Trends and relative magnitude of emissions are roughly parallel to production volumes.

Utah Federal fossil-fuel-related gross emissions in 2014 were 46.75 MMT CO2e, approximately 3.5% of the estimate of national emissions from Federal fossil fuels (USGS 2018). Emissions from the adjacent fossil fuel producing states of Colorado, New Mexico, and Wyoming were 55.78, 91.63, and 744.2 MMT CO2e, respectively, in 2014. Federal lands also uptake carbon in vegetation, soils, and water. In 2014, carbon storage on Federal lands was 83,600 MMT CO2e nationally and 3,611 MMT CO2e in Utah. Soils stored 63% of carbon with vegetation and dead organic matter storing 26% and 11% respectively. The national rate of net carbon

17 This number represents the estimated wells from the most recent, respective RMP RFD minus the number of wells developed since the adoption of that RMP.

41 DOI-BLM-UT-0000-2019-0003_Other NEPA-MtFO-EA July 2019

uptake (sequestration) varies from 475 MMT CO2e/yr. to a source (emission) of 51 MMT CO2e due to changes in climate/weather, land use, land cover change, wild fire frequency, and other factors. From 2005 to 2014, terrestrial ecosystems on Federal lands sequestered an average of 195 MMT CO2e/yr, offsetting about 15% of emissions resulting from Federal fossil fuel extraction and combustion nationally. In Utah, the annual average ecosystem carbon storage is 3,581 MMT CO2e, with soils accounting for about 70%. In Utah, the annual average sequestration over the ten years was 8.6 MMT CO2e/yr, offsetting about 18% of extraction and combustion emissions from fossil fuels produced on Federal lands in Utah. Carbon emissions from Utah ecosystems due to land-use and land-cover change, including surface disturbing activities such as well pad construction, averaged 1.3 MMT CO2e/yr from 2005 to 2014 (USGS 2018). While surface disturbance from well pad construction contributes to ecosystem carbon emission and a reduction in the lands ability to store carbon, these impacts are anticipated to be temporary during the life of a well, as reclamation requirements should return the land to a condition approximately equal to that which existed prior to the disturbance (BLM 2007). As mentioned earlier, climate change is driven in part by GHG emissions from human activities. Emissions from the lease sale would contribute incrementally to the cumulative national and global emissions that influence climate change. BLM prepared several Rapid Ecoregional Assessments (REA) to predict future conditions, including climate change, in various regions. The leasing area is within the Colorado Plateau REA (Bryce 2012) analysis area. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities in the analysis include energy development, agricultural development, urban and road development, and recreation development. The assumption details and modeling methodology are incorporated by reference. The Colorado Plateau REA depicts the data sources for potential oil and gas leasing, development and production, and oil shale and tar sand extraction. Modeled average annual future temperatures in the Colorado Plateau REA are generally predicted to increase. Average annual precipitation predicted by the model in general are predicted to decrease (drier) through 2030 and increase (wetter) through 2060. Figure 3 shows the potential for climate related change and is a composite of predicted changes to temperature, precipitation, runoff, and vegetation. Potential for climate related change in the Colorado Plateau area generally predicted to be mostly moderate or lower (about 70%), areas with high or very high (approximately 30%) potential for change are generally seen in higher elevations. Lease parcels are generally located in areas with moderate or greater potential for climate related change. Due to inherent uncertainties described in the Colorado Plateau REA, caution should be used for interpreting climate change potential at site specific scales (Bryce 2012).

42 DOI-BLM-UT-0000-2019-0003_Other NEPA-MtFO-EA July 2019

Figure 3. Potential for climate change impacts for the Colorado Plateau “Social cost of carbon” estimates are one approach that an agency can take to examine climate consequences from greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a proposed action. However, leasing action Environmental Assessments provide no quantitative monetary estimates of any benefits or costs. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) does not require an economic cost-benefit analysis (40 C.F.R. § 1502.23), although NEPA does require consideration of “effects” that include “economic” and “social” effects (40 C.F.R. 1508.8(b)). Quantifying only the costs of oil and gas development by using the social cost of carbon metrics but not the benefits (as measured by the economic value of the proposed oil and gas development and production generally equaling the price of oil and gas minus the cost of producing, processing, and transporting the minerals) would yield information that is both inaccurate and not useful for the decision-maker, especially given that there are no current criteria or thresholds that determine a level of significance for social cost of carbon monetary values. Instead, BLM’s approach to GHG and climate change impacts analysis is to include calculations to show estimated direct, indirect, and cumulative GHG emissions from potential future development. BLM’s approach recognizes that there are adverse environmental impacts related to climate change associated with the development and use of fossil fuels, provides potential GHG emission estimates, and discusses potential climate change impacts qualitatively. This effectively informs the decision-maker and the public of the potential for GHG emissions and the potential implications of climate change. This approach presents the data and information in a manner that follows many of the guidelines for effective climate change communication developed by the National Academy of Sciences (Council 2010) by making the information more readily understood and relatable to the decision-maker and the general public. The proposed action, in concert with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions may contribute to incremental increases to GHG emissions through direct and indirect impacts. There are currently no established significance thresholds for GHG emissions that BLM can reference in NEPA analyses, but all GHGs contribute incrementally to the climate change phenomenon. When determining NEPA significance for an action, BLM is constrained to the extent that cumulative effects (such as

43 DOI-BLM-UT-0000-2019-0003_Other NEPA-MtFO-EA July 2019

climate change) are only considered in the determination of significance when such effects can be prevented or modified by decision-making (refer to BLM NEPA Handbook, pg.72). While GHG emissions resulting from individual decisions can certainly be modified or potentially prevented by analyzing and selecting reasonable alternatives that appropriately respond to the action’s purpose and need, BLM has limited decision authority to meaningfully or measurably prevent the cumulative climate change impacts that would result from global emissions. The No Action alternative would not contribute to the cumulative emissions or climate change because the leases would not be issued and no development would occur.

44 DOI-BLM-UT-0000-2019-0003_Other NEPA-MtFO-EA July 2019

Chapter 4 Consultation and Coordination

4.1 Introduction The issues included in Section 1.8 identifies those that are analyzed in detail in Chapter 3. The IDPRT Checklist (Appendix D) provides the rationale for issues that were considered but not analyzed further. The issues were identified through the public and agency involvement process described in Sections 4.3 below. 4.2 Persons, Groups, and Agencies Contacted/Consulted Persons, agencies, and organizations that were contacted or consulted during the preparation this EA are identified in Table 18. 4.2.1 Endangered Species Act of 1973 The effects of Oil and Gas leasing development on T&E species were analyzed through Section 7 consultation on existing Utah BLM resource Management Plans was completed in 2008 (Cons. # 6-UT- 08-F-0024). This action is in compliance with T&E species management outlined in accordance with the requirements under the FLMPA and the NEPA. While Federal regulations and policies require the BLM to make its public land and resources available on the basis of the principle of multiple-use, it is BLM policy to conserve special status species and their habitats, and to ensure that actions authorized by the BLM do not contribute to the need for the species to become listed as T&E by the USFWS. Consultation on Oil and Gas leasing occurred in 2007, for existing RMP’s such as that for the Cedar City jurisdictional area. For lease sales conducted on listed species covered by this consultation action, the BLM regularly coordinates with the USFWS to assure agreement that the Proposed Action (leasing): 1) does not exceed the impacts analyzed in the PRMP and BA/BO; and 2) would not exceed the effects contained in the associated USFWS biological opinion(s) concurring with BLM’s Not Likely to Adversely Affect (NLAA) determinations. Many of the parcels in the September 2019 lease sale were deferred from the December 2018, March 2019 and June 2019 lease sales. The following is a summary of dates associated with coordination with the USFWS on these sales: • March 2019 o Lease notice provided to USFWS: December 13, 2018 o NLAA Agreement: February 25, 2019 • September 2019 o Lease notice provided to USFWS: April 17, 2019 o NLAA Agreement Confirmation Old Parcels: Consultation is ongoing o NLAA Agreement New Parcels: Consultation is ongoing The BLM is working with USFWS to confirm their agreement with BLM determinations. The BLM will complete coordination on the September 2019 lease sale with the USFWS prior to issuance of the leases for all parcels contained in the September 2019 lease sale, if offered. When or if disturbance is proposed for parcels (APD stage) that contain or affect ESA species, further evaluation and Section 7 consultation of these ESA species with the USFWS will occur as necessary. 4.2.2 National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 The BLM prepared a cultural resources report to document its reasonable and good faith effort to identify effects this undertaking may have on historic properties, as required by Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (54 U.S.C 306108). The Advisory Council for Historic Preservation’s (ACHP) document titled Meeting the “Reasonable and

45 DOI-BLM-UT-0000-2019-0003_Other NEPA-MtFO-EA July 2019

Good Faith” Identification Standards in Section 106 Review, from https://www.achp.gov/sites/default/files/guidance/2018-05/reasonable_good_faith_identification.pdf outlines the steps to determine when a reasonable and good faith identification effort has been met. The ACHP states: • Prior to beginning the identification stage in the Section 106 process, the regulations (at 36 CFR § 800.4) require the federal agency to do the following: • Determine and document the APE [Area of Potential Effect] in order to define where the agency will look for historic properties that may be directly or indirectly affected by the undertaking; • Review existing information on known and potential historic properties within the APE, so the agency will have current data on what can be expected, or may be encountered, within the APE; • Seek information from others who may have knowledge of historic properties in the area. This includes the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO)/Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO) and, as appropriate, Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations who may have concerns about historic properties of religious and cultural significance to them within the APE. Following these initial steps, the regulations (36 CFR § 800.4(b) (1)) set out several factors the agency must consider in determining what is a “reasonable and good faith effort” to identify historic properties: Take into account past planning, research and studies; the magnitude and nature of the undertaking and the degree of federal involvement; the nature and extent of potential effects on historic properties; and the likely nature and location of historic properties within the APE. The Secretary of the Interior’s standards and guidelines for identification provide guidance on this subject. The agency official should also consider other applicable professional, state, tribal, and local laws, standards, and guidelines. The regulations note that a reasonable and good faith effort may consist of or include ‘background research, consultation, oral history interviews, sample field investigation, and field survey.’ For lease sales, BLM’s identification efforts include: (1) completing a comprehensive "records review," which is an intensive review and analysis of available pertinent cultural resource records and information for each parcel and the surrounding areas that are included in the undertaking APE; and (2) proactively seeking information from others who may have knowledge of historic properties in the area. The BLM's identification efforts that are described in this report for the March 2019 lease sale undertaking are consistent with the direction provided in multiple Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) decisions/orders, including Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation, 164 IBLA 343 (2005), Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, IBLA 2008-264 (2009), and Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, IBLA 2002-334. On November 5, 2018 the BLM sent invitations to participate in government to government consultations to: The Confederated Tribes of the Goshute, The Northwest Band of the Shoshone Nation, The Hopi Tribe, Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians, Navajo Nation, Navajo Nation – Oljato Chapter, Navajo Nation – Red Mesa Chapter, Navajo Utah Commission, Ohkay Owingeh, Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah, All Pueblo Council of Governors, Pueblo of Acoma, Pueblo of Cochiti, Pueblo of Isleta, Pueblo of Jemez, Pueblo of Kewa, Pueblo of Laguna, Pueblo of Nambe, Pueblo of Picuris, Pueblo of Pojoaque, Pueblo of San Felipe, Pueblo of San Ildefonso, Pueblo of Sandia, Pueblo of Santa Ana, Pueblo of Santa Clara, Pueblo of Taos, Pueblo of Tesuque, Pueblo of Zia, Pueblo of Zuni, Skull Valley Band of Goshutes, Southern Ute Tribe, Uintah and Ouray Ute Tribe, Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, White Mesa Ute. On November 15, 2018 UTSO BLM posted data and instructions on ePlanning for consulting parties to request consulting party status on the March 2019 Lease Sale Cultural Resource Report. BLM UTSO consulted with Friends of Cedar Mesa, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, Box Elder County, Uintah County, San Juan County, and Golden Spike National Park. BLM UTSO received comments and concerns from SUWA and FOCM, supplemental data incorporated into the report from FOCM, and a letter of support from San Juan County.

46 DOI-BLM-UT-0000-2019-0003_Other NEPA-MtFO-EA July 2019

Table 18. List of Contacts and Findings. Name Purpose & Authorities Findings & Conclusions for Consultation or Coordination National Park Service Coordinated with as Letter transmitting the preliminary list was sent on October 24, 2018 and April leasing program partner. 17, 2019. A map and GIS shapefiles were sent to the NPS on October 26, 2018 through May 5, 2019 via email. Coordination is ongoing. UTSO sent an additional letter via email to Golden Spike National Park on December 20, 2018, with the draft March 2019 Lease Sale Cultural Resources Report. United States Fish and Wildlife Service Coordinated with as Letter transmitting the preliminary list was sent April 17, 2019. Emails were leasing program partner. sent on April 3 and April 25, 2019 transmitting the corresponding shapefiles.

United States Forest Service Coordinated with as Letter transmitting the preliminary list was sent on October 24, 2018 and April leasing program partner. 17, 2019. Comments or concerns were not expressed. Public Lands Policy Coordination Office Coordinated with as Letter transmitting the preliminary list was sent on October 24, 2018 and April leasing program partner. 17, 2019. An e-mail with GIS shape-files was sent to UDWR to satisfy the requirements of IM-2012-43 on October 26, 2018, March 27, 2019 and April 3, 2019. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Coordinated with as Letter transmitting the preliminary list was sent on October 24, 2018 and April leasing program partner. 17, 2019. An early email was sent on October 26, 2018, March 27, 2019, and April 3, 2019 transmitting the corresponding shapefiles. State Institutional Trust Lands Coordinated with as Letter transmitting the preliminary list was sent on October 24, 2018 and April Administration leasing program partner. 17, 2019. State Historic Preservation Office Consultation as required On October 24, 2018 and March 13, 2019, a no adverse effect on historic by NHPA (16 USC 470) properties determination was mailed to the SHPO. On October 25, 2018 and March 25, 2019 SHPO concurrence was received. The Hopi Tribe, Kaibab Band of Paiute Consultation as required On November 5, the MtFO archaeologist sent an invitation to consult letter to Indians, Navajo Nation, Navajo Nation – by the American Indian each tribe. On November 8th the MtFO discussed the anticipated consultation Oljato Chapter, Navajo Nation – Red Religious Freedom Act timetable with the Pueblo of Santa Clara. On November 23rd the Hope Tribe Mesa Chapter, Navajo Utah Commission, of 1978 (42 USC 1996) requested consultation on the March 2019 Lease. On November 26 the MtFO Ohkay Owingeh, Paiute Indian Tribe of and NHPA (16 USC received a letter from the Hopi, an email from the Pueblo of Isleta to arrange Utah, All Pueblo Council of Governors, 470) consultation, had the consultation meeting with the Pueblo of Isleta, and Pueblo of Acoma, Pueblo of Cochiti, exchanged emails with the White Mesa Ute about parcels. On December 3rd

47 DOI-BLM-UT-0000-2019-0003_Other NEPA-MtFO-EA July 2019

Name Purpose & Authorities Findings & Conclusions for Consultation or Coordination Pueblo of Isleta, Pueblo of Jemez, Pueblo the MtFO responded to the White Mesa Ute, and received a letter to consult of Kewa, Pueblo of Laguna, Pueblo of from the Pueblo of Santa Clara; both of which were responded to on the same Nambe, Pueblo of Picuris, Pueblo of day. On December 12th the MtFO received a letter from the Pueblo of Acoma. Pojoaque, Pueblo of San Felipe, Pueblo On December 14th the MtFO received a letter from the Southern Ute of San Ildefonso, Pueblo of Sandia, requesting additional information and to participate in consultation. On Pueblo of Santa Ana, Pueblo of Santa January 15th the MtFO received a letter from the Pueblo of Acoma demanding Clara, Pueblo of Taos, Pueblo of a halt to APD processing during government shutdown, and noted that BLM Tesuque, Pueblo of Zia, Pueblo of Zuni, has not announced timeline extensions for the March and June Lease sales. On Southern Ute Tribe, Uintah and Ouray January 22nd the MtFO received an email from the Southern Ute Tribe stating Ute Tribe, Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, that BLM cannot make determinations without tribal consultation, and White Mesa Ute recommending the BLM send the Southern Ute Tribe the Cultural Report. On January 28th the MTFO received a letter attached to an email from the Navajo Nation with a statement that the lease sale will have no adverse effect to Navajo TCP’s, as well as a request to consult on the lease. On February 5th, the MtFO received an email from the Hopi Tribe reiterating the request from December 10 that the BLM cancel the March lease sale, further asserting that energy development results in adverse effects, RFD acreage. On February 11th the MtFO received a letter from the Pueblo of Santa Clara noting the draft report was received, and requested BLM postpone all lease activities until the end of the shutdown, with a requested for more information and further consultation; as well as an email from the Southern Ute reiterating response letter that the Southern Ute Tribe wishes to engage in consultation for the lease sale, and that they request a list of sites in the parcels. On February 15th, the MtFO emailed the Hopi Tribe, Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians, Navajo Nation, Navajo Nation – Oljato Chapter, Navajo Nation – Red Mesa Chapter, Navajo Utah Commission, Ohkay Owingeh, Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah, All Pueblo Council of Governors, Pueblo of Acoma, Pueblo of Cochiti, Pueblo of Isleta, Pueblo of Jemez, Pueblo of Kewa, Pueblo of Laguna, Pueblo of Nambe, Pueblo of Picuris, Pueblo of Pojoaque, Pueblo of San Felipe, Pueblo of San Ildefonso, Pueblo of Sandia, Pueblo of Santa Ana, Pueblo of Santa Clara, Pueblo of Taos, Pueblo of Tesuque, Pueblo of Zia, Pueblo of Zuni, Southern Ute Tribe, Uintah and Ouray Ute Tribe, Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, and the White Mesa Ute informing the tribes of the coming certified mail invitation to

48 DOI-BLM-UT-0000-2019-0003_Other NEPA-MtFO-EA July 2019

Name Purpose & Authorities Findings & Conclusions for Consultation or Coordination consulting meetings on February 25th and 26th at the Monticello Field Office. On February 19th the MtFO received an email from the Uintah and Ouray Tribes informing the BLM that a representative would not attend the meeting. On February 20th the MtFO send a letter to the Hopi Tribe, Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians, Navajo Nation, Navajo Nation – Oljato Chapter, Navajo Nation – Red Mesa Chapter, Navajo Utah Commission, Ohkay Owingeh, Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah, All Pueblo Council of Governors, Pueblo of Acoma, Pueblo of Cochiti, Pueblo of Isleta, Pueblo of Jemez, Pueblo of Kewa, Pueblo of Laguna, Pueblo of Nambe, Pueblo of Picuris, Pueblo of Pojoaque, Pueblo of San Felipe, Pueblo of San Ildefonso, Pueblo of Sandia, Pueblo of Santa Ana, Pueblo of Santa Clara, Pueblo of Taos, Pueblo of Tesuque, Pueblo of Zia, Pueblo of Zuni, Southern Ute Tribe, Uintah and Ouray Ute Tribe, Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, and the White Mesa Ute inviting the tribes to a consulting parties meeting February 25th and 26th at the Monticello Field Office. On February 25th the MtFO hosted a teleconference consultation meeting. The Pueblo of Pojoaque was in attendance. Discussed the lease sale and the section 106 process, and the Pueblo of Pojoaque requested a copy of the draft section 106 report, which was delivered that day. On February 25th, 2019 the Mtfo had a phone discussion with the Pueblo of San Felipe and the Monticello Field Office. Discussed Lease sale, authority of phased approach, determination of effect, the trust relationship, tribal difficulty with traveling to consultation, and the best way to keep communication open. Coordination and consultation will continue up until the lease auction, at the request of any tribe. Box Elder County Commission, Uintah Representatives of local On December 20th, 2018, the UTSO emailed a copy of the March 2019 Lease County Commission, San Juan County governments, per 36 Sale Cultural Resources Report to Box Elder County Commission, Uintah Commission, C.F.R. 800 (2)(C)(3) County Commission, San Juan County Commission requested their comments and input. On January 28th, 2019, the UTSO received a letter of support for the March 2019 lease from San Juan County.

49 DOI-BLM-UT-0000-2019-0003_Other NEPA-MtFO-EA July 2019

4.3 Public Participation Scoping Period The UTSO sent letters/memorandum to the following stakeholders: the National Park Service (NPS), the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the United States Forest Service (USFS) and the State of Utah’s Public Lands Policy Coordination Office (PLPCO), Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) and the School Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA) to notify them of the pending lease sale, solicit comments and concerns on the preliminary parcel list. The BLM also provided GIS shapefiles depicting the proposed sale parcels to contact points within the NPS and UDWR. Consultation and coordination efforts are summarized in Table 18. Comment Period As introduced in Section 1.2, the preliminary EA and the unsigned Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) were posted and made available for a 30-day public review and comment period on May 30, 2019. This announced the 30-day comment period (05/30/2019-07/01/2019) for this lease sale. The documents were made available online at the Utah State Office’s Oil and Gas Leasing Webpage and the BLM’s NEPA Register. Section 4.3.1 will identify changes to this EA that were made as a result of public comments and internal review. Comments and BLM’s responses to each of the comment letters will be shown in Appendix H. Twenty four comment letters were received, the comment letters and BLM’s responses to the points made in the letters are contained in Appendix H. Some comments did cause updates and changes to be made in this EA and is documented in section 4.3.1. NHPA Coordination The BLM utilized and coordinated the NEPA public participation requirements to assist the agency in satisfying the public involvement requirements under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) [16 U.S.C. 470(f) pursuant to 36 CFR 800.2(d) (3)]. The information about historic and cultural resources within the area potentially affected by the proposed project/action/approval will assist the BLM in identifying and evaluating impacts to such resources in the context of both NEPA and Section 106 of the NHPA. The BLM will consult with Indian tribes on a government-to-government basis in accordance with Executive Order 13175 and other policies, if requested by any Tribe. If Tribal concerns are identified, including impacts on Indian trust assets and potential impacts to cultural resources, they will be given due consideration. On May 28, 2019, BLM also provided a copy of the draft cultural report to individuals and/or organizations who participated as a Consulting Party. 4.3.1 Modifications Based on Public Comment and Internal Review The public comment period and corresponding internal review identified necessary corrections or clarifications to this EA. 1. Appendix E was updated to correct formatting issues. 2. The project number was corrected to DOI-BLM-UT-000-2019-0003_Other NEPA-EA 3. Cultural Resources section in Appendix D was updated. 4. Minor grammar, spelling and formatting changes were fixed in the document. 5. Public comments resulted in updates to section 2.2.1, section 3.3.2.2, Table 12, Table 14, Table 15, Table 17, Appendix D (IDPR-cultural resources), and Appendix B. 6. BLM responded to ACHP’s review of the March 2019 Lease Sale Cultural Resource Report formally through the Section 106 consultation process. This letter is available to the public at: http://go.usa.gov/xPfnq

50 DOI-BLM-UT-0000-2019-0003_Other NEPA-MtFO-EA July 2019

7. Per Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance comments, sections 3.2, 3.3.2.2, and 3.3.2.3, and Table 12, 14, and 15. 8. Appendix A and Appendix B were updated to reflect the final stipulations and notices for the nominated parcels. 4.4 Preparers An IDPRT prepared the document and analyzed the impact of the proposed action upon the various resources (Table 19). They considered the affected environment and documented their determination in the IDPRT Checklist (Appendix D – Interdisciplinary Parcel Review Team Checklist). Only those resources that would likely be impacted were carried forward into the body of the EA for further analysis. Table 19. Preparers of This EA. Name Title Responsible for the Following Section(s) of this Document Leah Waldner Natural Resource Project Lead, Oil and Gas Leasing Program Coordinator Specialist Glenn Stelter Archaeologist Oil and Gas Leasing Program, NHPA Compliance Karen Cathey Wildlife Biologist Oil and Gas Leasing Program, USFWS Consultation Angela Wadman Natural Resource Oil and Gas Leasing Program, NEPA Compliance Specialist Ken Bradshaw Hydrologist Oil and Gas Leasing Program Aaron Roe Botanist Oil and Gas Leasing Program, USFWS Consultation Erik Vernon Air Quality Specialist Oil and Gas Leasing Program, Air Quality; Greenhouse Gases. Robin Naeve Acting Senior Leasing Oil and Gas Leasing Program Review and Oversight Specialist All specialists that reviewed the parcels are identified in Appendix D – Interdisciplinary Parcel Review Team Checklist.

51 DOI-BLM-UT-0000-2019-0003_Other NEPA-MtFO-EA July 2019

Chapter 5 Appendices

A. Parcel List with Stipulations and Notices B. Stipulations and Notices C. Figures (Maps) D. Interdisciplinary Parcel Review Team Checklist E. References F. Acronyms/Abbreviations G. Reasonable Foreseeable Development Scenario H. Comments and Responses

52 July 2019

Appendix A – Parcel List with Stipulations and Notices In addition to the parcel specific Stipulations and Notices listed below, the stipulations and notices presented in this table would be applied to ALL parcels: Stipulations Notices Cultural Resources Protection (Handbook H- Notice to Lessee (MLA) 3120-1) Threatened & Endangered Species Act (Handbook H-3120-1)

UT0319 – 406 T. 38 S., R. 23 E., SLM Sec. 17: All; Sec. 19: Lots 1, 2, NE, E2NW; Secs. 20 and 21: All. 2,232.30 Acres San Juan County, Utah Monticello Field Office STIPULATIONS UT-S-01: Air Quality UT-S-106: CSU – Fragile Soils/Slopes 21-40 Percent UT-S-128: NSO – Floodplains, Riparian Areas, Springs, and Public Water Reserves UT-S-170: CSU – Cultural UT-S-182: NSO – Critical Habitat of the Endangered Colorado River Fishes UT-S-234: TL – Crucial Deer Winter Range UT-S-288: CSU/TL – Mexican Spotted Owl UT-S-290: CSU/TL – Southwestern Willow Flycatcher UT-S-294: CSU/TL - California Condor UT-S-297: CSU/TL – Yellow-billed Cuckoo NOTICES T&E-06 Mexican Spotted Owl T&E-07: Southwestern Willow Flycatcher T&E-11: California Condor T&E-26: Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Habitat– Riparian Areas T&E-27: Yellow-billed Cuckoo T&E-28 California Condor – Potential Habitat UT-LN-25: White-Tailed and Gunnison Prairie Dog UT-LN-43: Raptors UT-LN-44: Raptors UT-LN-45: Migratory Bird UT-LN-49: Utah Sensitive Species UT-LN-67: Historical and Cultural Resource Values UT-LN-68: Notification & Consultation Regarding Cultural Resources UT-LN-69: High Potential for Cultural Resources UT-LN-70: High Potential for Cultural Resource Occurrence

53 July 2019

UT-LN-72: High Potential Paleontological Resources UT-LN-96: Air Quality Mitigation Measures UT-LN-99: Regional Ozone Formation Controls UT-LN-102: Air Quality Analysis UT-LN-113: Western Yellow Billed Cuckoo UT-LN-125: Light and Sound – Sensitive Resources UT-LN-128: Floodplain Management

UT0319 – 407 T. 38 S., R. 23 E., SLM Secs. 28, 29 and 30: All; Sec. 31: E2. 2,227.00 Acres San Juan County, Utah Monticello Field Office STIPULATIONS UT-S-01: Air Quality UT-S-106: CSU – Fragile Soils/Slopes 21-40 Percent UT-S-128: NSO – Floodplains, Riparian Areas, Springs, and Public Water Reserves UT-S-170: CSU – Cultural UT-S-182: NSO – Critical Habitat of the Endangered Colorado River Fishes UT-S-234: TL – Crucial Deer Winter Range UT-S-288: CSU/TL – Mexican Spotted Owl UT-S-290: CSU/TL – Southwestern Willow Flycatcher UT-S-297: CSU/TL – Yellow-billed Cuckoo NOTICES T&E-06 Mexican Spotted Owl T&E-07: Southwestern Willow Flycatcher T&E-11: California Condor T&E-26: Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Habitat– Riparian Areas T&E-27: Yellow-billed Cuckoo T&E-28 California Condor – Potential Habitat UT-LN-25: White-Tailed and Gunnison Prairie Dog UT-LN-43: Raptors UT-LN-44: Raptors UT-LN-45: Migratory Bird UT-LN-49: Utah Sensitive Species UT-LN-67: Historical and Cultural Resource Values UT-LN-68: Notification & Consultation Regarding Cultural Resources UT-LN-69: High Potential for Cultural Resources UT-LN-70: High Potential for Cultural Resource Occurrence UT-LN-72: High Potential Paleontological Resources UT-LN-96: Air Quality Mitigation Measures UT-LN-99: Regional Ozone Formation Controls UT-LN-102: Air Quality Analysis

54 July 2019

UT-LN-113: Western Yellow Billed Cuckoo UT-LN-125: Light and Sound – Sensitive Resources UT-LN-128: Floodplain Management

UT0319 – 408 T. 39 S., R. 23 E., SLM Sec. 5: Lots 3, 4, S2NW, SW; Secs. 6 and 7: All; Sec. 8: NW. 1,741.30 Acres San Juan County, Utah Monticello Field Office STIPULATIONS UT-S-01: Air Quality UT-S-106: CSU – Fragile Soils/Slopes 21-40 Percent UT-S-128: NSO – Floodplains, Riparian Areas, Springs, and Public Water Reserves UT-S-170: CSU – Cultural UT-S-182: NSO – Critical Habitat of the Endangered Colorado River Fishes UT-S-234: TL – Crucial Deer Winter Range UT-S-288: CSU/TL – Mexican Spotted Owl UT-S-290: CSU/TL – Southwestern Willow Flycatcher UT-S-297: CSU/TL – Yellow-billed Cuckoo NOTICES T&E-06 Mexican Spotted Owl T&E-07: Southwestern Willow Flycatcher T&E-11: California Condor T&E-26: Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Habitat– Riparian Areas T&E-27: Yellow-billed Cuckoo T&E-28 California Condor – Potential Habitat UT-LN-25: White-Tailed and Gunnison Prairie Dog UT-LN-43: Raptors UT-LN-44: Raptors UT-LN-45: Migratory Bird UT-LN-49: Utah Sensitive Species UT-LN-67: Historical and Cultural Resource Values UT-LN-68: Notification & Consultation Regarding Cultural Resources UT-LN-69: High Potential for Cultural Resources UT-LN-70: High Potential for Cultural Resource Occurrence UT-LN-72: High Potential Paleontological Resources UT-LN-96: Air Quality Mitigation Measures UT-LN-99: Regional Ozone Formation Controls UT-LN-102: Air Quality Analysis UT-LN-113: Western Yellow Billed Cuckoo UT-LN-125: Light and Sound – Sensitive Resources UT-LN-128: Floodplain Management

55 July 2019

UT0319 – 409 T. 36 S., R. 25 E., SLM Sec. 25: S2; Sec. 26: S2; Secs. 34 and 35: All. 1,920.00 Acres San Juan County, Utah Monticello Field Office STIPULATIONS UT-S-01: Air Quality UT-S-98: NSO – Fragile Soils/Slopes Greater than 40 Percent UT-S-106: CSU – Fragile Soils/Slopes 21-40 Percent UT-S-128: NSO – Floodplains, Riparian Areas, Springs, and Public Water Reserves UT-S-170: CSU – Cultural UT-S-182: NSO – Critical Habitat of the Endangered Colorado River Fishes UT-S-234: TL – Crucial Deer Winter Range UT-S-288: CSU/TL – Mexican Spotted Owl UT-S-290: CSU/TL – Southwestern Willow Flycatcher UT-S-297: CSU/TL – Yellow-billed Cuckoo NOTICES T&E-06 Mexican Spotted Owl T&E-07: Southwestern Willow Flycatcher T&E-11: California Condor T&E-26: Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Habitat– Riparian Areas T&E-27: Yellow-billed Cuckoo T&E-28 California Condor – Potential Habitat UT-LN-04: Crucial Mule Deer and Elk Winter Habitat UT-LN-25: White-Tailed and Gunnison Prairie Dog UT-LN-43: Raptors UT-LN-44: Raptors UT-LN-45: Migratory Bird UT-LN-49: Utah Sensitive Species UT-LN-67: Historical and Cultural Resource Values UT-LN-68: Notification & Consultation Regarding Cultural Resources UT-LN-69: High Potential for Cultural Resources UT-LN-70: High Potential for Cultural Resource Occurrence UT-LN-72: High Potential Paleontological Resources UT-LN-96: Air Quality Mitigation Measures UT-LN-99: Regional Ozone Formation Controls UT-LN-102: Air Quality Analysis UT-LN-113: Western Yellow Billed Cuckoo UT-LN-125: Light and Sound – Sensitive Resources UT-LN-128: Floodplain Management

56 July 2019

UT0319 – 410 T. 37 S., R. 25 E., SLM Secs. 1, 11 and 12: All. 1,916.56 Acres San Juan County, Utah Monticello Field Office STIPULATIONS UT-S-01: Air Quality UT-S-98: NSO – Fragile Soils/Slopes Greater than 40 Percent UT-S-106: CSU – Fragile Soils/Slopes 21-40 Percent UT-S-128: NSO – Floodplains, Riparian Areas, Springs, and Public Water Reserves UT-S-170: CSU – Cultural UT-S-182: NSO – Critical Habitat of the Endangered Colorado River Fishes UT-S-234: TL – Crucial Deer Winter Range UT-S-288: CSU/TL - Mexican Spotted Owl NOTICES T&E-06 Mexican Spotted Owl T&E-11: California Condor T&E-28 California Condor – Potential Habitat UT-LN-04: Crucial Mule Deer and Elk Winter Habitat UT-LN-25: White-Tailed and Gunnison Prairie Dog UT-LN-43: Raptors UT-LN-44: Raptors UT-LN-45: Migratory Bird UT-LN-49: Utah Sensitive Species UT-LN-67: Historical and Cultural Resource Values UT-LN-68: Notification & Consultation Regarding Cultural Resources UT-LN-69: High Potential for Cultural Resources UT-LN-70: High Potential for Cultural Resource Occurrence UT-LN-72: High Potential Paleontological Resources UT-LN-96: Air Quality Mitigation Measures UT-LN-99: Regional Ozone Formation Controls UT-LN-102: Air Quality Analysis UT-LN-125: Light and Sound – Sensitive Resources UT-LN-128: Floodplain Management

UT0319 – 411 T. 37 S., R. 25 E., SLM Secs. 13 and 14: All. 1,280.00 Acres San Juan County, Utah Monticello Field Office STIPULATIONS UT-S-01: Air Quality UT-S-106: CSU – Fragile Soils/Slopes 21-40 Percent

57 July 2019

UT-S-128: NSO – Floodplains, Riparian Areas, Springs, and Public Water Reserves UT-S-170: CSU – Cultural UT-S-182: NSO – Critical Habitat of the Endangered Colorado River Fishes UT-S-234: TL – Crucial Deer Winter Range UT-S-288: CSU/TL – Mexican Spotted Owl NOTICES T&E-06 Mexican Spotted Owl T&E-11: California Condor T&E-28 California Condor – Potential Habitat UT-LN-04: Crucial Mule Deer and Elk Winter Habitat UT-LN-25: White-Tailed and Gunnison Prairie Dog UT-LN-43: Raptors UT-LN-44: Raptors UT-LN-45: Migratory Bird UT-LN-49: Utah Sensitive Species UT-LN-67: Historical and Cultural Resource Values UT-LN-68: Notification & Consultation Regarding Cultural Resources UT-LN-69: High Potential for Cultural Resources UT-LN-70: High Potential for Cultural Resource Occurrence UT-LN-72: High Potential Paleontological Resources UT-LN-96: Air Quality Mitigation Measures UT-LN-99: Regional Ozone Formation Controls UT-LN-102: Air Quality Analysis UT-LN-125: Light and Sound – Sensitive Resources UT-LN-128: Floodplain Management

UT0319 – 412 T. 37 S., R. 25 E., SLM Secs. 24, 25 and 26: All. 1,920.00 Acres San Juan County, Utah Monticello Field Office STIPULATIONS UT-S-01: Air Quality UT-S-106: CSU – Fragile Soils/Slopes 21-40 Percent UT-S-128: NSO – Floodplains, Riparian Areas, Springs, and Public Water Reserves UT-S-170: CSU – Cultural UT-S-182: NSO – Critical Habitat of the Endangered Colorado River Fishes UT-S-234: TL – Crucial Deer Winter Range UT-S-288: CSU/TL – Mexican Spotted Owl NOTICES T&E-06 Mexican Spotted Owl T&E-11: California Condor T&E-28 California Condor – Potential Habitat UT-LN-04: Crucial Mule Deer and Elk Winter Habitat

58 July 2019

UT-LN-25: White-Tailed and Gunnison Prairie Dog UT-LN-43: Raptors UT-LN-44: Raptors UT-LN-45: Migratory Bird UT-LN-49: Utah Sensitive Species UT-LN-67: Historical and Cultural Resource Values UT-LN-68: Notification & Consultation Regarding Cultural Resources UT-LN-69: High Potential for Cultural Resources UT-LN-70: High Potential for Cultural Resource Occurrence UT-LN-72: High Potential Paleontological Resources UT-LN-96: Air Quality Mitigation Measures UT-LN-99: Regional Ozone Formation Controls UT-LN-102: Air Quality Analysis UT-LN-125: Light and Sound – Sensitive Resources UT-LN-128: Floodplain Management

UT0319 – 413 T. 38 S., R. 25 E., SLM Sec. 4: Lots 2, 3, SWNE, SENW, NESW, NWSE. 241.64 Acres San Juan County, Utah Monticello Field Office STIPULATIONS UT-S-01: Air Quality UT-S-106: CSU – Fragile Soils/Slopes 21-40 Percent UT-S-170: CSU – Cultural UT-S-128: NSO – Floodplains, Riparian Areas, Springs, and Public Water Reserves UT-S-234: TL – Crucial Deer Winter Range UT-S-182: NSO – Critical Habitat of the Endangered Colorado River Fishes UT-S-288: CSU/TL – Mexican Spotted Owl

NOTICES T&E-06 Mexican Spotted Owl T&E-11: California Condor T&E-28: California Condor – Potential Habitat UT-LN-04: Crucial Mule Deer and Elk Winter Habitat UT-LN-25: White-Tailed and Gunnison prairie Dog UT-LN-43: Raptors UT-LN-44: Raptors UT-LN-45: Migratory Bird UT-LN-37: Bald Eagle Habitat UT-LN-49: Utah Sensitive Species UT-LN-68: Notification & Consultation Regarding Cultural Resources UT-LN-69: High Potential for Cultural Resources UT-LN-70: High Potential for Cultural Resource Occurrence

59 July 2019

UT-LN-72: High Potential Paleontological Resources UT-LN-96: Air Quality Mitigation Measures UT-LN-99: Regional Ozone Formation Controls UT-LN-102: Air Quality Analysis UT-LN-125: Light and Sound – Sensitive Resources UT-LN-128: Floodplain Management

UT0319 – 414 T. 38 S., R. 25 E., SLM Sec. 5: SW, SWSE; Sec. 6: Lots 3-7, SENW, E2SW, SE; Sec. 7: Lots 1, 2, E2, E2NW; Sec. 8: All. 1,777.61 Acres San Juan County, Utah Monticello Field Office STIPULATIONS UT-S-01: Air Quality UT-S-17: CSU – Alkali Ridge ACEC UT-S-98: NSO – Fragile Soils/Slopes Greater than 40 Percent UT-S-106: CSU – Fragile Soils/Slopes 21-40 Percent UT-S-128: NSO – Floodplains, Riparian Areas, Springs, and Public Water Reserves UT-S-170: CSU – Cultural UT-S-182: NSO – Critical Habitat of the Endangered Colorado River Fishes UT-S-234: TL – Crucial Deer Winter Range UT-S-242: TL – Crucial Elk Winter Range UT-S-275: CSU/TL – Bald Eagles UT-S-288: CSU/TL – Mexican Spotted Owl UT-S-290: CSU/TL – Southwestern Willow Flycatcher UT-S-297: CSU/TL – Yellow-billed Cuckoo NOTICES T&E-06 Mexican Spotted Owl T&E-07: Southwestern Willow Flycatcher T&E-11: California Condor T&E-26: Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Habitat– Riparian Areas T&E-27: Yellow-billed Cuckoo T&E-28 California Condor – Potential Habitat UT-LN-04: Crucial Mule Deer and Elk Winter Habitat UT-LN-25: White-Tailed and Gunnison Prairie Dog UT-LN-43: Raptors UT-LN-44: Raptors UT-LN-45: Migratory Bird UT-LN-49: Utah Sensitive Species UT-LN-67: Historical and Cultural Resource Values UT-LN-68: Notification & Consultation Regarding Cultural Resources

60 July 2019

UT-LN-72: High Potential Paleontological Resources UT-LN-96: Air Quality Mitigation Measures UT-LN-99: Regional Ozone Formation Controls UT-LN-102: Air Quality Analysis UT-LN-113: Western Yellow Billed Cuckoo UT-LN-125: Light and Sound – Sensitive Resources UT-LN-128: Floodplain Management

UT0319 – 415 T. 38 S., R. 25 E., SLM Sec. 10: S2; Secs. 15 and 22: All. 1,600.00 Acres San Juan County, Utah Monticello Field Office STIPULATIONS UT-S-01: Air Quality UT-S-98: NSO – Fragile Soils/Slopes Greater than 40 Percent UT-S-106: CSU – Fragile Soils/Slopes 21-40 Percent UT-S-128: NSO – Floodplains, Riparian Areas, Springs, and Public Water Reserves UT-S-170: CSU – Cultural UT-S-182: NSO – Critical Habitat of the Endangered Colorado River Fishes UT-S-234: TL – Crucial Deer Winter Range UT-S-288: CSU/TL – Mexican Spotted Owl UT-S-290: CSU/TL – Southwestern Willow Flycatcher UT-S-297: CSU/TL – Yellow-billed Cuckoo NOTICES T&E-06 Mexican Spotted Owl T&E-07: Southwestern Willow Flycatcher T&E-11: California Condor T&E-26: Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Habitat– Riparian Areas T&E-27: Yellow-billed Cuckoo T&E-28 California Condor – Potential Habitat UT-LN-04: Crucial Mule Deer and Elk Winter Habitat UT-LN-25: White-Tailed and Gunnison Prairie Dog UT-LN-43: Raptors UT-LN-44: Raptors UT-LN-45: Migratory Bird UT-LN-49: Utah Sensitive Species UT-LN-67: Historical and Cultural Resource Values UT-LN-68: Notification & Consultation Regarding Cultural Resources UT-LN-72: High Potential Paleontological Resources UT-LN-96: Air Quality Mitigation Measures UT-LN-99: Regional Ozone Formation Controls UT-LN-102: Air Quality Analysis UT-LN-113: Western Yellow Billed Cuckoo

61 July 2019

UT-LN-125: Light and Sound – Sensitive Resources UT-LN-128: Floodplain Management

UT0319 – 416 T. 38 S., R. 25 E., SLM Secs. 12 and 13: All; Sec. 14: S2. 1,600.00 Acres San Juan County, Utah Monticello Field Office STIPULATIONS UT-S-01: Air Quality UT-S-98: NSO – Fragile Soils/Slopes Greater than 40 Percent UT-S-106: CSU – Fragile Soils/Slopes 21-40 Percent UT-S-128: NSO – Floodplains, Riparian Areas, Springs, and Public Water Reserves UT-S-170: CSU – Cultural UT-S-182: NSO – Critical Habitat of the Endangered Colorado River Fishes UT-S-288: CSU/TL – Mexican Spotted Owl NOTICES T&E-06 Mexican Spotted Owl T&E-11: California Condor T&E-28 California Condor – Potential Habitat UT-LN-25: White-Tailed and Gunnison Prairie Dog UT-LN-43: Raptors UT-LN-44: Raptors UT-LN-45: Migratory Bird UT-LN-49: Utah Sensitive Species UT-LN-67: Historical and Cultural Resource Values UT-LN-68: Notification & Consultation Regarding Cultural Resources UT-LN-72: High Potential Paleontological Resources UT-LN-96: Air Quality Mitigation Measures UT-LN-99: Regional Ozone Formation Controls UT-LN-102: Air Quality Analysis UT-LN-125: Light and Sound – Sensitive Resources UT-LN-128: Floodplain Management

UT0319 – 417 T. 38 S., R. 25 E., SLM Sec. 23: NE, E2SE; Sec. 24: All; Sec. 25: E2, N2NW, SENW. 1,320.00 Acres San Juan County, Utah Monticello Field Office STIPULATIONS

62 July 2019

UT-S-01: Air Quality UT-S-98: NSO – Fragile Soils/Slopes Greater than 40 Percent UT-S-106: CSU – Fragile Soils/Slopes 21-40 Percent UT-S-128: NSO – Floodplains, Riparian Areas, Springs, and Public Water Reserves UT-S-170: CSU – Cultural UT-S-182: NSO – Critical Habitat of the Endangered Colorado River Fishes UT-S-288: CSU/TL – Mexican Spotted Owl UT-S-290: CSU/TL – Southwestern Willow Flycatcher UT-S-297: CSUTL – Yellow-billed Cuckoo NOTICES T&E-06 Mexican Spotted Owl T&E-07: Southwestern Willow Flycatcher T&E-11: California Condor T&E-26: Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Habitat– Riparian Areas T&E-27: Yellow-billed Cuckoo T&E-28 California Condor – Potential Habitat UT-LN-25: White-Tailed and Gunnison Prairie Dog UT-LN-43: Raptors UT-LN-44: Raptors UT-LN-45: Migratory Bird UT-LN-49: Utah Sensitive Species UT-LN-67: Historical and Cultural Resource Values UT-LN-68: Notification & Consultation Regarding Cultural Resources UT-LN-72: High Potential Paleontological Resources UT-LN-96: Air Quality Mitigation Measures UT-LN-99: Regional Ozone Formation Controls UT-LN-102: Air Quality Analysis UT-LN-113: Western Yellow Billed Cuckoo UT-LN-125: Light and Sound – Sensitive Resources UT-LN-128: Floodplain Management

UT0319 – 418 T. 38 S., R. 25 E., SLM Sec. 26: SW; Secs. 27 and 28: All. 1,440.00 Acres San Juan County, Utah Monticello Field Office STIPULATIONS UT-S-01: Air Quality UT-S-98: NSO – Fragile Soils/Slopes Greater than 40 Percent UT-S-106: CSU – Fragile Soils/Slopes 21-40 Percent UT-S-128: NSO – Floodplains, Riparian Areas, Springs, and Public Water Reserves UT-S-170: CSU – Cultural UT-S-182: NSO – Critical Habitat of the Endangered Colorado River Fishes UT-S-234: TL – Crucial Deer Winter Range

63 July 2019

UT-S-288: CSU/TL – Mexican Spotted Owl UT-S-290: CSU/TL – Southwestern Willow Flycatcher UT-S-297: CSU/TL – Yellow-billed Cuckoo NOTICES T&E-06 Mexican Spotted Owl T&E-07: Southwestern Willow Flycatcher T&E-11: California Condor T&E-26: Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Habitat– Riparian Areas T&E-27: Yellow-billed Cuckoo T&E-28 California Condor – Potential Habitat UT-LN-04: Crucial Mule Deer and Elk Winter Habitat UT-LN-25: White-Tailed and Gunnison Prairie Dog UT-LN-43: Raptors UT-LN-44: Raptors UT-LN-45: Migratory Bird UT-LN-49: Utah Sensitive Species UT-LN-67: Historical and Cultural Resource Values UT-LN-68: Notification & Consultation Regarding Cultural Resources UT-LN-72: High Potential Paleontological Resources UT-LN-96: Air Quality Mitigation Measures UT-LN-99: Regional Ozone Formation Controls UT-LN-102: Air Quality Analysis UT-LN-113: Western Yellow Billed Cuckoo UT-LN-125: Light and Sound – Sensitive Resources UT-LN-128: Floodplain Management

UT0319 – 419 T. 38 S., R. 25 E., SLM Sec. 33: N2; Secs. 34 and 35: All. 1,600.00 Acres San Juan County, Utah Monticello Field Office STIPULATIONS UT-S-01: Air Quality UT-S-106: CSU – Fragile Soils/Slopes 21-40 Percent UT-S-128: NSO – Floodplains, Riparian Areas, Springs, and Public Water Reserves UT-S-170: CSU – Cultural UT-S-182: NSO – Critical Habitat of the Endangered Colorado River Fishes UT-S-288: CSU/TL – Mexican Spotted Owl UT-S-290: CSU/TL – Southwestern Willow Flycatcher UT-S-297: CSU/TL – Yellow-billed Cuckoo NOTICES T&E-06 Mexican Spotted Owl T&E-07: Southwestern Willow Flycatcher

64 July 2019

T&E-11: California Condor T&E-27: Yellow-billed Cuckoo T&E-28 California Condor – Potential Habitat UT-LN-25: White-Tailed and Gunnison Prairie Dog UT-LN-43: Raptors UT-LN-44: Raptors UT-LN-45: Migratory Bird UT-LN-49: Utah Sensitive Species UT-LN-67: Historical and Cultural Resource Values UT-LN-68: Notification & Consultation Regarding Cultural Resources UT-LN-72: High Potential Paleontological Resources UT-LN-96: Air Quality Mitigation Measures UT-LN-99: Regional Ozone Formation Controls UT-LN-102: Air Quality Analysis UT-LN-113: Western Yellow Billed Cuckoo UT-LN-125: Light and Sound – Sensitive Resources UT-LN-128: Floodplain Management

UT0319 – 420 T. 37 S., R. 26 E., SLM Sec. 4: All; Sec. 5: Lot 1, SENE, E2SE; Sec. 8: W2E2NW, W2NW, SW, NWSWSE, S2S2SE. 1,129.95 Acres San Juan County, Utah Monticello Field Office STIPULATIONS UT-S-01: Air Quality UT-S-106: CSU – Fragile Soils/Slopes 21-40 Percent UT-S-128: NSO – Floodplains, Riparian Areas, Springs, and Public Water Reserves UT-S-170: CSU – Cultural UT-S-182: NSO – Critical Habitat of the Endangered Colorado River Fishes UT-S-234: TL – Crucial Deer Winter Range UT-S-288: CSU/TL – Mexican Spotted Owl NOTICES T&E-06 Mexican Spotted Owl T&E-11: California Condor T&E-26: Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Habitat– Riparian Areas T&E-28 California Condor – Potential Habitat UT-LN-04: Crucial Mule Deer and Elk Winter Habitat UT-LN-25: White-Tailed and Gunnison Prairie Dog UT-LN-43: Raptors UT-LN-44: Raptors UT-LN-45: Migratory Bird UT-LN-49: Utah Sensitive Species UT-LN-67: Historical and Cultural Resource Values

65 July 2019

UT-LN-68: Notification & Consultation Regarding Cultural Resources UT-LN-72: High Potential Paleontological Resources UT-LN-96: Air Quality Mitigation Measures UT-LN-99: Regional Ozone Formation Controls UT-LN-102: Air Quality Analysis UT-LN-125: Light and Sound – Sensitive Resources UT-LN-128: Floodplain Management

UT0319 – 421 T. 37 S., R. 26 E., SLM Secs 6: Lots 1-4, SWNE, S2NW, SW, W2SE, SESE; Secs. 7, 17 and 18: All. 2,480.56 Acres San Juan County, Utah Monticello Field Office STIPULATIONS UT-S-01: Air Quality UT-S-98: NSO – Fragile Soils/Slopes Greater than 40 Percent UT-S-106: CSU – Fragile Soils/Slopes 21-40 Percent UT-S-128: NSO – Floodplains, Riparian Areas, Springs, and Public Water Reserves UT-S-170: CSU – Cultural UT-S-182: NSO – Critical Habitat of the Endangered Colorado River Fishes UT-S-234: TL – Crucial Deer Winter Range UT-S-288: CSU/TL – Mexican Spotted Owl NOTICES T&E-06 Mexican Spotted Owl T&E-11: California Condor T&E-28 California Condor – Potential Habitat UT-LN-04: Crucial Mule Deer and Elk Winter Habitat UT-LN-25: White-Tailed and Gunnison Prairie Dog UT-LN-43: Raptors UT-LN-44: Raptors UT-LN-45: Migratory Bird UT-LN-49: Utah Sensitive Species UT-LN-67: Historical and Cultural Resource Values UT-LN-68: Notification & Consultation Regarding Cultural Resources UT-LN-72: High Potential Paleontological Resources UT-LN-96: Air Quality Mitigation Measures UT-LN-99: Regional Ozone Formation Controls UT-LN-102: Air Quality Analysis UT-LN-125: Light and Sound – Sensitive Resources UT-LN-128: Floodplain Management

UT0319 – 422 T. 37 S., R. 26 E., SLM Sec. 19: All;

66 July 2019

Sec. 20: W2NWNW, SWNW, W2SENW, W2E2SW, W2SW; Sec. 30: W2NE, W2; Sec. 31: W2NE, SENE, W2, SE. 1840.00 Acres San Juan County, Utah Monticello Field Office STIPULATIONS UT-S-01: Air Quality UT-S-106: CSU – Fragile Soils/Slopes 21-40 Percent UT-S-128: NSO – Floodplains, Riparian Areas, Springs, and Public Water Reserves UT-S-170: CSU – Cultural UT-S-182: NSO – Critical Habitat of the Endangered Colorado River Fishes UT-S-234: TL – Crucial Deer Winter Range UT-S-288: CSU/TL – Mexican Spotted Owl NOTICES T&E-06 Mexican Spotted Owl T&E-07: Southwestern Willow Flycatcher T&E-11: California Condor T&E-28 California Condor – Potential Habitat UT-LN-04: Crucial Mule Deer and Elk Winter Habitat UT-LN-25: White-Tailed and Gunnison Prairie Dog UT-LN-43: Raptors UT-LN-44: Raptors UT-LN-45: Migratory Bird UT-LN-49: Utah Sensitive Species UT-LN-67: Historical and Cultural Resource Values UT-LN-68: Notification & Consultation Regarding Cultural Resources UT-LN-72: High Potential Paleontological Resources UT-LN-96: Air Quality Mitigation Measures UT-LN-99: Regional Ozone Formation Controls UT-LN-102: Air Quality Analysis UT-LN-125: Light and Sound – Sensitive Resources UT-LN-128: Floodplain Management

UT0319 – 423 T. 37 S., R. 26 E., SLM Sec. 33: SESE; T. 38 S., R. 26 E., SLM Sec. 4: Lot 1, S2NE, S2NW, S2; Secs. 5 and 6: All. 1,840.48 Acres San Juan County, Utah Monticello Field Office STIPULATIONS UT-S-01: Air Quality

67 July 2019

UT-S-98: NSO – Fragile Soils/Slopes Greater than 40 Percent UT-S-106: CSU – Fragile Soils/Slopes 21-40 Percent UT-S-128: NSO – Floodplains, Riparian Areas, Springs, and Public Water Reserves UT-S-170: CSU – Cultural UT-S-182: NSO – Critical Habitat of the Endangered Colorado River Fishes UT-S-288: CSU/TL – Mexican Spotted Owl UT-S-290: CSU/TL – Southwestern Willow Flycatcher UT-S-297: CSU/TL – Yellow-billed Cuckoo NOTICES T&E-06 Mexican Spotted Owl T&E-07: Southwestern Willow Flycatcher T&E-11: California Condor T&E-26: Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Habitat– Riparian Areas T&E-27: Yellow-billed Cuckoo T&E-28 California Condor – Potential Habitat UT-LN-25: White-Tailed and Gunnison Prairie Dog UT-LN-43: Raptors UT-LN-44: Raptors UT-LN-45: Migratory Bird UT-LN-49: Utah Sensitive Species UT-LN-67: Historical and Cultural Resource Values UT-LN-68: Notification & Consultation Regarding Cultural Resources UT-LN-72: High Potential Paleontological Resources UT-LN-96: Air Quality Mitigation Measures UT-LN-99: Regional Ozone Formation Controls UT-LN-102: Air Quality Analysis UT-LN-113: Western Yellow Billed Cuckoo UT-LN-125: Light and Sound – Sensitive Resources UT-LN-128: Floodplain Management

UT0319 – 424 T. 38 S., R. 26 E., SLM Secs. 7, 17 and 18: All. 1,920.00 Acres San Juan County, Utah Monticello Field Office STIPULATIONS UT-S-01: Air Quality UT-S-98: NSO – Fragile Soils/Slopes Greater than 40 Percent UT-S-106: CSU – Fragile Soils/Slopes 21-40 Percent UT-S-128: NSO – Floodplains, Riparian Areas, Springs, and Public Water Reserves UT-S-170: CSU – Cultural UT-S-182: NSO – Critical Habitat of the Endangered Colorado River Fishes UT-S-288: CSU/TL – Mexican Spotted Owl UT-S-290: CSU/TL – Southwestern Willow Flycatcher UT-S-297: CSUTL – Yellow-billed Cuckoo

68 July 2019

NOTICES T&E-06 Mexican Spotted Owl T&E-11: California Condor T&E-26: Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Habitat– Riparian Areas T&E-27: Yellow-billed Cuckoo T&E-28 California Condor – Potential Habitat UT-LN-25: White-Tailed and Gunnison Prairie Dog UT-LN-43: Raptors UT-LN-44: Raptors UT-LN-45: Migratory Bird UT-LN-49: Utah Sensitive Species UT-LN-67: Historical and Cultural Resource Values UT-LN-68: Notification & Consultation Regarding Cultural Resources UT-LN-72: High Potential Paleontological Resources UT-LN-96: Air Quality Mitigation Measures UT-LN-99: Regional Ozone Formation Controls UT-LN-102: Air Quality Analysis UT-LN-113: Western Yellow Billed Cuckoo UT-LN-125: Light and Sound – Sensitive Resources UT-LN-128: Floodplain Management

69 July 2019

Appendix B – Stipulations and Notices Stipulation Summary Table

NUMBER UTAH STIPULATIONS

AIR QUALITY All new and replacement internal combustion gas field engines of less than or equal to 300 design-rated horsepower shall not emit more than 2 grams of NOx per horsepower-hour. Exception: This requirement does not apply to gas field engines of less than or equal to 40 design-rated horsepower. UT-S-01 Modification: None 2008 RMPs Only Waiver: None (Outside of AND Moab MLP) All new and replacement internal combustion gas field engines of greater than 300 design rated horsepower must not emit more than 1.0 gram of NOx per horsepower-hour. Exception: None Modification: None Waiver: None CONTROLLED SURFACE USE – ALKALI RIDGE ACEC Cultural properties eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places shall be surrounded by an avoidance area sufficient to avoid direct and indirect impacts. When siting oil and gas facilities, avoidance may require that a facility be moved farther than allowed under the standard lease terms and conditions. UT-S-17 Exceptions: An exception could be granted if the BLM authorized officer determines that avoidance of direct and indirect Monticello impacts to historic properties is not feasible (e.g. avoidance may cause unacceptable damage to other public land resources or affect valid existing rights). Modification: None Waiver: None CONTROLLED SURFACE USE – HOVENWEEP ACEC (AREA EXCLUSIVE VISUAL EMPHASIS ZONE) UT-S-18 Cultural properties eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places shall be surrounded by an avoidance area Monticello sufficient to avoid direct and indirect impacts. When siting oil and gas facilities, avoidance may require that a facility be moved farther than allowed under the standard lease terms and conditions.

70 July 2019

NUMBER UTAH STIPULATIONS Exceptions: An exception could be granted if the BLM authorized officer determines that avoidance of direct and indirect impacts to historic properties is not feasible (e.g. avoidance may cause unacceptable damage to other public land resources or affect valid existing rights). Modification: None Waiver: None NO SURFACE OCCUPANCY – FRAGILE SOILS/SLOPES GREATER THAN 40 PERCENT No new surface-disturbing activities allowed on slopes greater than 40% to protect soils, avoid erosion, and maintain public UT-S-98 health and safety in sloped embankments. Monticello Exception: If after an analysis the authorized officer determines that it would cause undue or unnecessary degradation to (Outside of pursue other placement alternatives; surface occupancy in the NSO may be authorized. Additionally, a plan would be MLP) submitted by the operator and approved by BLM prior to construction and maintenance. Modification: None Waiver: None CONTROLLED SURFACE USE – FRAGILE SOILS/SLOPES 21-40 PERCENT No new surface disturbance/construction on slopes between 21-40% without a BLM approved site plan that is prepared for UT-S-106 any surface disturbing or construction activity. This plan would include an erosion control strategy, survey and design, and Monticello reclamation plan. (Outside of Exception: None MLP) Modification: None Waiver: None NO SURFACE OCCUPANCY – FLOODPLAINS, RIPARIAN AREAS, SPRINGS, AND PUBLIC WATER RESERVES UT-S-128 No surface-disturbing activities are allowed in active floodplains, public water reserves or within 100 meters of riparian areas Monticello along perennial streams and springs. (Outside of Exception: An exception could be authorized if: (a) there are no practical alternatives, (b) impacts could be fully mitigated, MLP) or (c) the action is designed to enhance the riparian resource values. Modification: None Waiver: None UT-S-170 CONTROLLED SURFACE USE – CULTURAL Monticello

71 July 2019

NUMBER UTAH STIPULATIONS Cultural properties eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places shall be surrounded by an avoidance area sufficient to avoid impacts. (Although oil and gas activity must also meet this standard, a CSU lease stipulation is not necessary since this can be accomplished under the terms of the standard lease form.) Exceptions: An exception could be granted if the BLM authorized officer determines that avoidance of direct and indirect impacts to historic properties is not feasible (e.g. avoidance may cause unacceptable damage to other public land resources or affect valid existing rights). Modification: None Waiver: None NO SURFACE OCCUPANCY – CRITICAL HABITAT OF THE ENDANGERED COLORADO RIVER FISHES Surface-disturbing activities will not be allowed within the 100-year floodplain of the Colorado River and San Juan River or lands within this watershed that contains tributaries with designated critical habitat for the Colorado River fish (bonytail, humpback chub, Colorado pike minnow, and razorback sucker) listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act. Critical habitat was designated for the four endangered Colorado River fishes on March 21, 1994 (59 FR 13374-13400). Designated critical habitat for all the endangered fishes includes those portions of the 100-year floodplain that contain primary constituent elements necessary for survival of the species. Avoidance or use restrictions may be placed on portions of the lease. The following avoidance and minimization measures have been designed to ensure activities carried out on the lease are in compliance with the Endangered Species Act. Integration of, and adherence to these measures will facilitate review and analysis of any submitted permits under the authority of this lease. Following these measures could reduce the scope of Endangered Species Act, Section 7 consultation at the permit stage. UT-S-182 Monticello Current avoidance and minimization measures include the following: (Outside of 1. Surveys will be required prior to operations unless species occupancy and distribution information is complete and MLP) available. All surveys must be conducted by qualified individual(s). 2. Lease activities will require monitoring throughout the duration of the project. To ensure desired results are being achieved, minimization measures will be evaluated and, if necessary, Section 7 consultation reinitiated. 3. Water production will be managed to ensure maintenance or enhancement of riparian habitat. 4. Avoid loss or disturbance of riparian habitats. 5. Where technically and economically feasible, use directional drilling or multiple wells from the same pad to reduce surface disturbance and eliminate drilling in suitable riparian habitat. Ensure that such directional drilling does not intercept or degrade alluvial aquifers. 6. Conduct watershed analysis for leases in designated critical habitat and overlapping major tributaries in order to determine toxicity risk from permanent facilities. 7. Implement the Utah Oil and Gas Pipeline Crossing Guidance (from BLM National Science and Technology Center).

72 July 2019

NUMBER UTAH STIPULATIONS 8. Drilling will not occur within 100-year floodplains of rivers or tributaries to rivers that contain listed fish species or critical habitat. 9. In areas adjacent to 100-year floodplains, particularly in systems prone to flash floods, analyze the risk for flash floods to impact facilities, and use closed loop drilling, and pipeline burial or suspension according to the Utah Oil and Gas Pipeline Crossing Guidance, to minimize the potential for equipment damage and resulting leaks or spills. Water depletions from any portion of the Upper Colorado River drainage basin above Lake Powell are considered to adversely affect or adversely modify the critical habitat of the four resident endangered fish species, and must be evaluated with regard to the criteria described in the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. Formal consultation with USFWS is required for all depletions. All depletion amounts must be reported to BLM. Additional measures to avoid or minimize effects to the species may be developed and implemented in consultation with the USFWS between the lease sale stage and lease development stage to ensure continued compliance with the ESA. Exception: An exception may be granted by the authorized officer if: 1) There is no practical alternative, and 2) The development would enhance riparian/aquatic values. This exception would require consultation with the USFWS. The authorized officer may also grant an exception if an environmental analysis indicates that the nature or the conduct of the actions, as proposed or conditioned, would not impair the primary constituent element determined necessary for the survival and recovery of the Endangered Colorado River Fishes. Modification: The authorized officer may modify the boundaries of the stipulation area if an environmental analysis indicates, and USFWS (through applicable provisions of the ESA) determines a portion of the area is not being used as Critical Habitat. Waiver: A waiver may be granted if the Endangered Colorado River Fishes are de-listed and the Critical Habitat is determined by USFWS as not necessary for the survival and recovery of the Endangered Colorado River Fishes. TIMING LIMITATION – CRUCIAL DEER WINTER RANGE No surface-disturbing activities within crucial deer winter range from November 15 to April 15 to minimize stress and disturbance to deer during crucial winter months. UT-S-234 Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if, after an analysis, the authorized officer determines that the Monticello animals are not present in the project area or the activity can be completed so as to not adversely affect the animals. Routine (Outside of operation and maintenance is allowed. MLP) Modification: The authorized officer may modify the boundaries of the stipulation area if a portion of the area is not being used as deer winter range. Waiver: May be granted if the deer winter range is determined to be unsuitable or unoccupied and there is no reasonable likelihood of future use of the deer winter range. UT-S-242 TIMING LIMITATION – CRUCIAL ELK WINTER RANGE

73 July 2019

NUMBER UTAH STIPULATIONS Monticello No surface-disturbing activities within crucial elk winter range from November 15 to April 15 to minimize stress and (Outside of disturbance to elk during crucial winter months. MLP) Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if, after an analysis, the authorized officer determines that the animals are not present in the project area or the activity can be completed so as to not adversely affect the animals. Routine operation and maintenance is allowed. Modification: The authorized officer may modify the boundaries of the stipulation area if a portion of the area is not being used as elk winter range. Waiver: May be granted if the elk winter range is determined to be unsuitable or unoccupied and there is no reasonable likelihood of future use of the elk winter range. CONTROLLED SURFACE USE/TIMING LIMITATION – BALD EAGLES Bald eagles would be protected as outlined in the Bald Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (16 U.S.C. 668-668d, 54 Stat. 250, as amended). Activities on BLM lands that contain nesting or winter roosting habitat for the bald eagle would be avoided or restricted, depending on the duration and timing of the activity. Bald eagles would be managed according to the Best Management Practices for Raptors and their Associated Habitats in Utah (BLM 2006c). These management requirements would include restrictions and avoidance measures, including required surveys prior to activity, possible monitoring during the activity, implementation of seasonal and spatial buffers during the breeding season (January 1 – August 31), and avoidance of disturbance in riparian areas unless impracticable. No future ground-disturbing activities would be authorized within a 1.0-mile radius of known bald eagle nest sites year-round. Deviations may be allowed only after appropriate levels of consultation and coordination with the USFWS/UDWR. In addition, no permanent above-ground structures would be UT-S-275 allowed within a 0.50-mile radius of a winter roost site if the structure would result in the habitat becoming unsuitable for Moab, future winter roosting by bald eagles. Monticello These requirements would help to mitigate the adverse impacts of human disturbance on bald eagles during breeding and (Outside of roosting seasons. MLP) 1. Surveys will be required prior to operations unless species occupancy and distribution information is complete and available. All surveys must be conducted by qualified individual(s), and be conducted according to protocol. 2. Lease activities will require monitoring throughout the duration of the project. To ensure desired results are being achieved, minimization measures would be evaluated. 3. Water production will be managed to ensure maintenance or enhancement of riparian habitat. 4. Temporary activities within 1.0 mile of nest sites will not occur during the breeding season of January 1 to August 31, unless the area has been surveyed according to protocol and determined to be unoccupied. 5. Temporary activities within 0.5 miles of winter roost areas, e.g., cottonwood galleries, will not occur during the winter roost season of November 1 to March 31, unless the area has been surveyed according to protocol and determined to be unoccupied.

74 July 2019

NUMBER UTAH STIPULATIONS 6. No permanent infrastructure will be placed within 1.0 mile of nest sites. 7. No permanent infrastructure will be placed within 0.5 miles of winter roost areas. 8. Remove big game carrion within 100 feet of lease roadways occurring within Bald Eagle foraging range. 9. Avoid loss or disturbance to large cottonwood gallery riparian habitats. 10. Where technically and economically feasible, use directional drilling or multiple wells from the same pad to reduce surface disturbance and eliminate drilling in suitable habitat. Utilize direction drilling to avoid direct impacts to large cottonwood gallery riparian habitats. Ensure that such direction drilling does not intercept or degrade alluvial aquifers. 11. All areas of surface disturbance within riparian areas and/or adjacent uplands should be re-vegetated with native species. Additional measures may also be employed to avoid or minimize effects to the species between the lease stage and lease development stage. These additional measures will be developed and implemented in coordination with the USFWS/UDWR to ensure continued compliance with the Bald Eagle Protection Act. Exception: An exception may be granted by the authorized officer if authorization is obtained from USFWS/UDWR. The authorized officer may also grant an exception if an analysis indicates that the nature of the conduct of the actions, as proposed or conditioned, would not impair the habitat and physical requirements determined necessary for the survival of the Bald Eagles. Modification: The authorized officer may modify the boundaries of the stipulation area if an analysis indicates, and USFWS/UDWR determines that a portion of the area is not being used as Bald Eagle nesting or roosting territories or if additional nesting or roosting territories are identified. Waiver: May be granted if there is no reasonable likelihood of site occupancy over a minimum 10 year period. CONTROLLED SURFACE USE/TIMING LIMITATION – MEXICAN SPOTTED OWL In areas that contain suitable habitat for MSO or designated Critical Habitat, actions would be avoided or restricted that may cause stress and disturbance during nesting and rearing of their young. Appropriate measures would depend on whether the action is temporary or permanent and whether it occurs within or outside the owl nesting season. A temporary action is completed prior to the following breeding season leaving no permanent structures and resulting in no permanent habitat loss. UT-S-288 A permanent action continues for more than one breeding season and/or causes a loss of owl habitat or displaces owls Monticello through disturbances, i.e., creation of a permanent structure. The following avoidance and minimization measures have been (Outside of designed to ensure activities carried out on the lease are in compliance with the Endangered Species Act. Integration of, and MLP) adherence to these measures, will facilitate review and analysis of any submitted permits under the authority of this lease. Following these measures could reduce the scope of Endangered Species Act, Section 7 consultation at the permit stage. Current avoidance and minimization measures include the following: 1. Surveys will be required prior to implementation of the proposed action. All surveys must be conducted by qualified individual(s) acceptable to the BLM.

75 July 2019

NUMBER UTAH STIPULATIONS 2. Assess habitat suitability for both nesting and foraging using accepted habitat models in conjunction with field reviews. Apply the conservation measures below if project activities occur within 0.5 mile of suitable owl habitat. Determine potential effects of actions to owls and their habitat. a. Document type of activity, acreage and location of direct habitat impacts, type and extent of indirect impacts relative to location of suitable owl habitat. b. Document if action is temporary or permanent. 3. Lease activities will require monitoring throughout the duration of the project. To ensure desired results are being achieved, minimization measures will be evaluated, and, if necessary, Section 7 consultation reinitiated. 4. Any activity that includes water production will be managed to ensure maintenance or enhancement of riparian habitat. 5. Where technically and economically feasible, use directional drilling or multiple wells from the same pad to reduce surface disturbance and eliminate drilling in canyon habitat suitable for MSO nesting. 6. For all temporary actions that may impact owls or suitable habitat: a. If the action occurs entirely outside of the owl breeding season from March 1 through August 31, and leaves no permanent structure or permanent habitat disturbance, the action can proceed without an occupancy survey. b. If the action will occur during a breeding season, a survey for owls is required prior to commencing the activity. If owls are found, the activity shall be delayed until outside of the breeding season. c. Rehabilitate access routes created by the project through such means as raking out scars, re-vegetation, gating access points, etc. 7. For all permanent actions that may impact owls or suitable habitat: a. Survey two consecutive years for owls according to accepted protocol prior to commencing activities. b. If owls are found, no disturbing actions will occur within 0.5 mile of an identified site. If nest site is unknown, no activity will occur within the designated current and historic Protected Activity Center (PAC). c. Avoid permanent structures within 0.5 mile of suitable habitat unless surveyed and not occupied. d. Reduce noise emissions (e.g., use hospital-grade mufflers) to 45 dBA at 0.5 mile from suitable habitat, including canyon rims. Placement of permanent noise-generating facilities should be contingent upon a noise analysis to ensure noise does not encroach upon a 0.5 mile buffer for suitable habitat, including canyon rims. e. Limit disturbances to and within suitable habitat by staying on designated and/or approved routes. f. Limit new access routes created by the project. Additional measures to avoid or minimize effects to the species may be developed and implemented in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service between the lease sale stage and lease development stage to ensure continued compliance with the ESA. Modifications to the Surface Use Plan of Operations may be required in order to protect the MSO and/or habitat in accordance with Section 6 of the lease terms, the Endangered Species Act, and the regulations at 43 CFR 3101.1-2.

76 July 2019

NUMBER UTAH STIPULATIONS Exception: An exception may be granted by the authorized officer if authorization is obtained from USFWS (through applicable provisions of the ESA). The authorized officer may also grant an exception if an analysis indicates that the nature or the conduct of the actions would not impair the primary constituent element determined necessary for the survival and recovery of the MSO and USFWS through consultation concurs with this determination. Modification: The authorized officer may modify the boundaries of the stipulation area if an analysis indicates and USFWS (through applicable provisions of the ESA) determines a portion of the area is not being used as Critical Habitat. Waiver: A waiver may be granted if the MSO is de-listed and the Critical Habitat is determined by USFWS as not necessary for the survival and recovery of the MSO. CONTROLLED SURFACE USE/TIMING LIMITATION – SOUTHWESTERN WILLOW FLYCATCHER In areas that contain riparian habitat within the range for the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, actions would be avoided or restricted that may cause stress and disturbance during nesting and rearing of their young. Appropriate measures will depend on whether the action is temporary or permanent, and whether it occurs within or outside the nesting season. A temporary action is completed prior to the following breeding season leaving no permanent structures and resulting in no permanent habitat loss. A permanent action continues for more than one breeding season and/or causes a loss of habitat or displaces flycatchers through disturbances, i.e., creation of a permanent structure. The following avoidance and minimization measures have been designed to ensure activities carried out on the lease are in compliance with the Endangered Species Act. Integration of, and adherence to these measures, will facilitate review and analysis of any submitted permits under the authority of this lease. Following these measures could reduce the scope of Endangered Species Act, Section 7 consultation UT-S-290 at the permit stage. Monticello Current avoidance and minimization measures include the following: (Outside of 1. Surveys will be required prior to operations unless species occupancy and distribution information is complete and MLP) available. All surveys must be conducted by qualified individual(s) and be conducted according to protocol. 2. Activities will require monitoring throughout the duration of the project. To ensure desired results are being achieved, minimization measures would be evaluated and, if necessary, Section 7 consultation reinitiated. 3. Water production will be managed to ensure maintenance or enhancement of riparian habitat. 4. Where technically and economically feasible, use directional drilling or multiple wells from the same pad to reduce surface disturbance and eliminate drilling in suitable riparian habitat. Ensure that such directional drilling does not intercept or degrade alluvial aquifers. 5. Activities will maintain a 300 feet buffer from suitable riparian habitat year long. 6. Activities within 0.25 mile of occupied breeding habitat would not occur during the breeding season of May 1 to August 15.

77 July 2019

NUMBER UTAH STIPULATIONS 7. Ensure that water extraction or disposal practices do not result in change of hydrologic regime that would result in loss or degradation of riparian habitat. 8. Re-vegetate with native species all areas of surface disturbance within riparian areas and/or adjacent land. Additional measures to avoid or minimize effects to the species may be developed and implemented in consultation with the USFWS between the lease sale stage and lease development stage to ensure continued compliance with the ESA. Exception: An exception may be granted by the authorized officer if authorization is obtained from USFWS (through applicable provisions of the ESA). The authorized officer may also grant an exception if an environmental analysis indicates that the nature of the conduct of the actions, as proposed or conditioned, would not impair the primary constituent element determined necessary for the survival and recovery of the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher and USFWS concurs with this determination. Modification: The authorized officer may modify the boundaries of the stipulation area if an environmental analysis indicates, and USFWS (through applicable provisions of the ESA) determines that a portion of the area is not being used as Southwestern Willow Flycatcher habitat. Waiver: May be granted if the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher is de-listed and the Critical Habitat is determined by USFWS as not necessary for the survival and recovery of the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. CONTROLLED SURFACE USE/TIMING LIMITATION – CALIFORNIA CONDOR In areas that contain habitat for California Condors, actions will be avoided or restricted if the area is known or suspected to be used by condors that may cause stress and disturbance to condors. Application of appropriate measures will depend on whether the action is temporary or permanent, and whether it occurs within or outside potential habitat. A temporary action is completed prior to the following important season of use, leaving no permanent structures and resulting in no permanent habitat loss. This would include consideration for habitat functionality. A permanent action continues for more than one season of habitat use, and/or causes a loss of condor habitat function or displaces condors through continued disturbance (i.e. creation of a permanent structure requiring repetitious maintenance, or emits disruptive levels of noise). UT-S-294 The following avoidance and minimization measures have been designed to ensure activities carried out on the lease are in Monticello, compliance with the Endangered Species Act. Integration of, and adherence to these measures will facilitate review and Moab analysis of any submitted permits under the authority of this lease. Following these measures could reduce the scope of Endangered Species Act, Section 7 consultation at the permit stage. Current avoidance and minimization measures include the following: 1. Surveys will be required prior to operations unless species occupancy and distribution information is complete and available. All Surveys must be conducted by qualified individual(s) approved by the BLM, and must be conducted according to approved protocol. 2. If surveys result in positive identification of condor use, all lease activities will require monitoring throughout the duration of the project to ensure desired results of applied mitigation and protection. Minimization measures will be

78 July 2019

NUMBER UTAH STIPULATIONS evaluated during development and, if necessary, Section 7 consultation may be reinitiated. 3. Temporary activities within 1.0 mile of nest sites will not occur during the breeding season. 4. Temporary activities within 0.5 miles of established roosting sites or areas will not occur during the season of use, August 1 to November 31, unless the area has been surveyed according to protocol and determined to be unoccupied. 5. No permanent infrastructure will be placed within 1.0 mile of nest sites. 6. No permanent infrastructure will be placed within 0.5 miles of established roosting sites or areas. 7. Remove big game carrion to 100 feet from on lease roadways occurring within foraging range. 8. Where technically and economically feasible, use directional drilling or multiple wells from the same pad to reduce surface disturbance and eliminate drilling in suitable habitat Utilize directional drilling to avoid direct impacts to large cottonwood gallery riparian habitats. Ensure that such directional drilling does not intercept or degrade alluvial aquifers. 9. Re-initiation of section 7 consultation with the Service will be sought immediately if mortality or disturbance to California condors is anticipated as a result of project activities. Additional site-specific measures may also be employed to avoid or minimize effects to the species. These additional measures will be developed and implemented in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure continued compliance with the ESA. Additional measures may also be employed to avoid or minimize effects to the species between the lease sale and lease development stages. These additional measures will be developed and implemented in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure continued compliance with the Endangered Species Act. Exception: An exception may be granted by the authorized officer if authorization is obtained from USFWS (through applicable provisions of the ESA). The authorized officer may also grant an exception if an analysis indicates that the nature of the conduct of the actions, as proposed or conditioned, would not impair the primary constituent element determined necessary for the survival and recovery of the California Condor and USFWS concurs with this determination. Modification: The authorized officer may modify the boundaries of the stipulation area if an analysis indicates, and USFWS (through applicable provisions of the ESA) determines that a portion of the area is not being used as California Condor nesting or roosting territories. Waiver: May be granted (through applicable provisions of the ESA) if there is no reasonable likelihood of site occupancy over a minimum 10-year period. CONTROLLED SURFACE USE/TIMING LIMITATION – YELLOW-BILLED CUCKOO UT-S-297 No surface-disturbing activities will be conducted within 100 meters of Yellow-billed Cuckoo habitat (riparian areas) from Moab, May 15th through July 20th. Monticello (Outside of Exception: An exception may be granted by the authorized officer if authorization is obtained from USFWS (through MLP) applicable provisions of the ESA). The authorized officer may also grant an exception if an environmental analysis indicates that the nature of the conduct of the actions, as proposed or conditioned, would not impair the primary constituent element

79 July 2019

NUMBER UTAH STIPULATIONS determined necessary for the survival and recovery of the Yellow-billed Cuckoo and USFWS concurs with this determination. Modification: The authorized officer may modify the boundaries of the stipulation area if an environmental analysis indicates, and USFWS (through applicable provisions of the ESA) determines that a portion of the area is not being used as Yellow-billed Cuckoo habitat. Waiver: May be granted if the Yellow-billed Cuckoo is de-listed and if USFWS determines it is not necessary for the survival and recovery of the Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo.

80 July 2019

Notice Summary Table

NUMBER UTAH LEASE NOTICES CRUCIAL MULE DEER AND ELK WINTER HABITAT The lessee/operator has been given notice that the area has been identified as containing crucial deer UT-LN-04 winter range. Exploration, drilling and other development activities would be restricted from Moab, Monticello November 15 through April 15. Modifications including seasonal restrictions may be required to the Surface Use Plan of Operations in order to protect the winter range. This limitation does not apply to operation and maintenance of producing wells. CRUCIAL ELK CALVING AND DEER FAWNING HABITAT UT-LN-10 The lessee/operator is given notice that lands in this lease have been identified as containing crucial elk calving or deer fawning habitat. Exploration, drilling and other development activities may be Monticello restricted from May 1 through June 15 to protect calving / fawning. Modifications may be required in Outside of MLP the Surface Use Plan of Operations including seasonal timing restrictions to protect the species and its habitat. WHITE-TAILED AND GUNNISON PRAIRIE DOG UT-LN-25 The lessee/operator is given notice that this lease parcel has been identified as containing white-tailed Moab, Monticello, Vernal, or Gunnison prairie dog habitat. Modifications to the Surface Use Plan of Operations may be required Price (Outside of Moab in order to protect white-tailed or Gunnison prairie dog from surface disturbing activities in MLP) accordance with the Endangered Species Act and 43 CFR 3101.1-2. BALD EAGLE HABITAT UT-LN-37 The lessee/operator is given notice that lands in this lease have been identified as containing Bald Eagle Habitat. Modifications to the Surface Use Plan of Operations may be required in order to Statewide protect the Bald Eagle and/or habitat from surface disturbing activities in accordance with Section 6 of the lease terms, Endangered Species Act, and 43 CFR 3101.1-2. RAPTORS UT-LN-43 The lessee/operator is given notice that this lease has been identified as containing raptor habitat. Surveys will be required whenever surface disturbances and/or occupancy is proposed in association Statewide with fluid mineral exploration and development within potential raptor nesting areas. Field surveys will be conducted as determined by the authorized officer of the Bureau of Land Management. Based

81 July 2019

NUMBER UTAH LEASE NOTICES on the result of the field survey, the authorized officer will determine appropriate buffers and timing limitations. Modifications to the Surface Use Plan of Operations may be required in accordance with section 6 of the lease terms and 43CFR3101.1-2. RAPTORS Appropriate seasonal and spatial buffers shall be placed on all known raptor nests in accordance with Utah Field Office Guidelines for Raptor Protection from Human and Land use Disturbances (USFWS 2002) and Best Management Practices for Raptors and their Associated Habitats in Utah (BLM 2006). All construction related activities will not occur within these buffers if pre-construction monitoring indicates the nests are active, unless a site-specific evaluation for active nests is completed prior to construction and if a BLM wildlife biologist, in consultation with USFWS and UDWR, recommends UT-LN-44 that activities may be permitted within the buffer. The BLM will coordinate with the USFWS and Statewide UDWR and have a recommendation within 3-5 days of notification. Any construction activities authorized within a protective (spatial and seasonal) buffer for raptors will require an on-site monitor. Any indication that activities are adversely affecting the raptor and/or its' young the on-site monitor will suspend activities and contact the BLM Authorized Officer immediately. Construction may occur within the buffers of inactive nests. Construction activities may commence once monitoring of the active nest site determines that fledglings have left the nest and are no longer dependent on the nest site. Modifications to the Surface Use Plan of Operations may be required in accordance with section 6 of the lease terms and 43CFR3101.1-2. MIGRATORY BIRD The lessee/operator is given notice that surveys for nesting migratory birds may be required during UT-LN-45 migratory bird breeding season whenever surface disturbances and/or occupancy is proposed in association with fluid mineral exploration and development within priority habitats. Surveys should Statewide focus on identified priority bird species in Utah. Field surveys will be conducted as determined by the authorized officer of the Bureau of Land Management. Based on the result of the field survey, the authorized officer will determine appropriate buffers and timing limitations. UTAH SENSITIVE SPECIES UT-LN-49 The lessee/operator is given notice that no surface use or otherwise disruptive activity would be Statewide allowed that would result in direct disturbance to populations or individual special status plant and animal species, including those listed on the BLM sensitive species list and the Utah sensitive species

82 July 2019

NUMBER UTAH LEASE NOTICES list. The lessee/operator is also given notice that lands in this parcel have been identified as containing potential habitat for species on the Utah Sensitive Species List. Modifications to the Surface Use Plan of Operations may be required in order to protect these resources from surface disturbing activities in accordance with Section 6 of the lease terms, Endangered Species Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act and 43 CFR 3101.1-2. HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCE VALUES 70UT-LN-67 The lessee/operator is given notice that lands in this lease may contain significant Historical and Statewide Cultural Resources. Modifications to the Surface Use Plan of Operations may be required for the protection of these resources. NOTIFICATION & CONSULTATION REGARDING CULTURAL RESOURCES The lease area may now or hereafter be found to contain historic properties and/or resources protected under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), the Archaeological Resources Protections Act (ARPA), the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA), other statues and Executive Order 13007, and which may be UT-LN-68 of concern to Native American tribes, interested parties, and the State Historic Preservation Officer Statewide (SHPO). BLM will not approve any ground disturbing activities as part of future lease operations until it completes applicable requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), including the completion of any required procedure for notification and consultation with appropriate tribe(s) and/or the SHPO. BLM may require modifications to exploration and development proposals to further its conservation and management objectives on BLM-approved activities that are determine to affect or impact historic or cultural properties and/or resources. HIGH POTENTIAL FOR CULTURAL RESOURCES This parcel is located in an area of high concentrations of cultural resources. Known cultural sites are UT-LN-69 fragile and many are buried under sandy deposits which migrate due to their susceptibility to wind. These sites, or large portions, are not visible from the surface. Therefore, the following mitigation Statewide (Outside of measures may be applied to any surface disturbance of this parcel: 1) pre-surface disturbance cultural Moab MLP) resource inventories; 2) pre-surface disturbance subsurface testing; 3) monitoring of ground disturbance; and 4) post-disturbance monitoring identifying resources as the soils stabilize around a project. UT-LN-70 HIGH POTENTIAL FOR CULTURAL RESOURCE OCCURRENCE

83 July 2019

NUMBER UTAH LEASE NOTICES Statewide The lessee/operator is given notice that lands in this lease contain significant Cultural Resources. Modifications to the Surface Use Plan of Operations may be required for the protection of these resources. Class III level block inventories may be required to determine resource location and possible impact to the resource. HIGH POTENTIAL PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES The lessee/operator is given notice that lands in this lease have been identified as having high UT-LN-72 potential for paleontological resources. Surveys will be required and modifications to the Surface Use Statewide Plan of Operations may be required in order to protect paleontological resources from surface disturbing activities in accordance with Section 6 of the lease terms and 43 CFR 3101.1-2. In addition, monitoring may be required during surface disturbing activities. AIR QUALITY MITIGATION MEASURES The lessee is given notice that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in coordination with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Utah Department of Air Quality, among others, has developed the following air quality mitigation measures that may be applied to any development proposed on this lease. Integration of and adherence to these measures may help minimize adverse local or regional air quality impacts from oil and gas development (including but not limited to construction, drilling, and production) on regional ozone formation. • All internal combustion equipment would be kept in good working order. • Water or other approved dust suppressants would be used at construction sites and along roads, as UT-LN-96 determined appropriate by the Authorized Officer. Statewide • Open burning of garbage or refuse would not occur at well sites or other facilities. • Drill rigs would be equipped with Tier II or better diesel engines. • Vent emissions from stock tanks and natural gas TEG dehydrators would be controlled by routing the emissions to a flare or similar control device which would reduce emissions by 95% or greater. • Low bleed or no bleed pneumatics would be installed on separator dump valves and other controllers. • During completion, flaring would be limited as much as possible. Production equipment and gathering lines would be installed as soon as possible. • Well site telemetry would be utilized as feasible for production operations.

84 July 2019

NUMBER UTAH LEASE NOTICES • Stationary internal combustion engine would comply with the following standards: 2g NOx/bhp- hr for engines <300HP; and 1g NOx/bhp-hr for engines >300HP. Additional site-specific measures may also be employed to avoid or minimize effects to local or regional air quality. These additional measures will be developed and implemented in coordination with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Utah Department of Air Quality, and other agencies with expertise or jurisdiction as appropriate based on the size of the project and magnitude of emissions. REGIONAL OZONE FORMATION CONTROLS To mitigate any potential impact oil and gas development emissions may have on regional ozone formation, the following Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be required for any development projects: UT-LN-99 • Tier II or better drilling rig engines Statewide • Stationary internal combustion engine standard of 2g NOx/bhp-hr for engines <300HP and 1g NOx/bhp-hr for engines >300HP • Low bleed or no bleed pneumatic pump valves • Dehydrator VOC emission controls to +95% efficiency • Tank VOC emission controls to +95% efficiency AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS The lessee/operator is given notice that prior to project-specific approval, additional air quality UT-LN-102 analyses may be required to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act, Federal Land Policy Management Act, and/or other applicable laws and regulations. Analyses may include dispersion Statewide modeling and/or photochemical modeling for deposition and visibility impacts analysis, control equipment determinations, and/or emission inventory development. These analyses may result in the imposition of additional project-specific air quality control measures. WESTERN YELLOW-BILLED CUCKOO The Lessee/Operator is given notice that the lands in or adjacent to this parcel contain potentially UT-LN-113 (Outside of suitable habitat that falls within the range for western yellow-billed cuckoo, a federally listed species. Moab MLP and Vernal) Avoidance or use restrictions may be placed on portions of the lease. Application of appropriate measures will depend upon whether the action is temporary or permanent, and whether it occurs within or outside the breeding and nesting season. A temporary action is completed prior to the

85 July 2019

NUMBER UTAH LEASE NOTICES following breeding season leaving no permanent structures and resulting in no permanent habitat loss. A permanent action could continue for more than one breeding season and/or cause a loss of habitat or displace western yellow-billed cuckoos through disturbances. The following avoidance and minimization measures have been designed to ensure activities carried out on the lease are in compliance with the Endangered Species Act. Integration of, and adherence to, these measures will facilitate review and analysis of any submitted permits under the authority of this lease. Following these measures could reduce the scope of Endangered Species Act, Section 7 consultation at the permit stage. Avoidance and minimization measures include the following: 1. Habitat suitability within the parcel and/or within a 0.25 mile buffer of the parcel will be identified prior to lease development to identify potential survey needs. 2. Protocol Breeding Season Surveys will be required in suitable habitats prior to operations unless species occupancy and distribution information is complete and available. All Surveys must be conducted by permitted individual(s), and be conducted according to protocol. 3. For all temporary actions that may impact cuckoo or suitable habitat: a. If action occurs entirely outside of the cuckoo breeding season (June 1 – Aug 31), and leaves no structure or habitat disturbance, action can proceed without a presence/absence survey. b. If action is proposed between June 1 and August 31, presence/absence surveys for cuckoo will be conducted prior to commencing activity. If cuckoo are detected, activity should be delayed until September 1. c. Eliminate access routes created by the project through such means as raking out scars, revegetation, gating access points, etc. 4. For all permanent actions that may impact cuckoo or suitable habitat: a. Protocol level surveys by permitted individuals will be conducted prior to commencing activities. b. If cuckoos are detected, no activity will occur within 0.25 mile of occupied habitat. c. Avoid drilling and permanent structures within 0.25 mile of suitable habitat unless absence is determined according to protocol level surveys conducted by permitted individual(s). d. Ensure noise levels at 0.25 mile from suitable habitat do not exceed baseline conditions. Placement of permanent noise-generating facilities should be determined by a noise analysis to ensure noise does not encroach upon a 0.25 mile buffer for suitable habitat.

86 July 2019

NUMBER UTAH LEASE NOTICES 5. Temporary or permanent actions will require monitoring throughout the duration of the project to ensure that western yellow-billed cuckoo or its habitat is not affected in a manner or to an extent not previous considered. Avoidance and minimization measures will be evaluated throughout the duration of the project. 6. Water produced as a by-product of drilling or pumping will be managed to ensure maintenance or enhancement of riparian habitat. 7. Where technically and economically feasible, use directional drilling or multiple wells from the same pad to reduce surface disturbance and eliminate drilling in suitable habitat. Ensure that such directional drilling does not intercept or degrade alluvial aquifers. 8. Ensure that water extraction or disposal practices do not result in change of hydrologic regime that would result in loss or degradation of riparian habitat. 9. Re-vegetate with native species all areas of surface disturbance within riparian areas and/or adjacent uplands. Additional measures to avoid or minimize effects to the species may be developed and implemented in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service between the lease sale stage and lease development stage to ensure continued compliance with the ESA. LIGHT AND SOUND - SENSITIVE RESOURCES The lessee/operator may be required to utilize best management practices and the best available technology in order to minimize/mitigate noise and light pollution impacts. In accordance with section 6 of the lease terms and 43 CFR 3101.1-2, modifications to Surface Use Plan of Operations may be required to minimize the impacts to the values of silence and night skies to visitors of parks, UT-LN-125 monuments, river corridors and other destinations where light and/or sound impacts would mar the visitor experience. For example, the lessee/operator may be required to install multi-cylinder pumps, MbFO and MtFO hospital sound reducing mufflers, and/or place exhaust systems in manner that directs noise away (Outside MLP) from or reduces noise at the area. Additionally, the lessee/operator may be required to utilize such methods such as limiting the height of light poles, limiting wattage intensity, constructing light shields and/or adhering to prescribed restrictions on the timing for conducting artificially illuminated operations in order to minimize/mitigate light pollution impacts. However, the above described requirements will not be applicable when their implementation would adversely affect human health and safety.

87 July 2019

NUMBER UTAH LEASE NOTICES FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT The lessee/operator is given notice that, in accordance with Executive Order 11988, to avoid adverse UT-LN-128 impact to floodplains 1) facilities should be located outside the 100 year floodplain, or 2) would be minimized or mitigated by modification of surface use plans within floodplains present within the lease.

88 July 2019

Threatened and Endangered Species Notices

NUMBER THREATENED & ENDANGERED SPECIES NOTICES MEXICAN SPOTTED OWL The Lessee/Operator is given notice that the lands in this parcel contain suitable habitat for Mexican spotted owl, a federally listed species. The Lessee/Operator is given notice that the lands in this lease contain Designated Critical Habitat for the Mexican spotted owl, a federally listed species. Critical habitat was designated for the Mexican spotted owl on August 31, 2004 (69 FR 53181-53298). Avoidance or use restrictions may be placed on portions of the lease. Application of appropriate measures will depend whether the action is temporary or permanent, and whether it occurs within or outside the owl nesting season. A temporary action is completed prior to the following breeding season leaving no permanent structures and resulting in no permanent habitat loss. A permanent action continues for more than one breeding season and/or causes a loss of owl habitat or displaces owls through disturbances, i.e. creation of a permanent structure. The following avoidance and minimization measures have been designed to ensure activities carried out on the lease are in compliance with the Endangered Species Act. Integration of, and adherence to these measures, will facilitate review and T&E-06 analysis of any submitted permits under the authority of this lease. Following these measures could reduce the scope of (Outside Endangered Species Act, Section 7 consultation at the permit stage. Current avoidance and minimization measures include Moab MLP) the following: 1. Surveys will be required prior to operations unless species occupancy and distribution information is complete and available. All Surveys must be conducted by qualified individual(s). 2. Assess habitat suitability for both nesting and foraging using accepted habitat models in conjunction with field reviews. Apply the conservation measures below if project activities occur within 0.5 mile of suitable owl habitat. Determine potential effects of actions to owls and their habitat. a. Document type of activity, acreage and location of direct habitat impacts, type and extent of indirect impacts relative to location of suitable owl habitat. b. Document if action is temporary or permanent. 3. Lease activities will require monitoring throughout the duration of the project. To ensure desired results are being achieved, minimization measures will be evaluated and, if necessary, Section 7 consultation reinitiated. 4. Water production will be managed to ensure maintenance or enhancement of riparian habitat.

89 July 2019

NUMBER THREATENED & ENDANGERED SPECIES NOTICES 5. Where technically and economically feasible, use directional drilling or multiple wells from the same pad to reduce surface disturbance and eliminate drilling in canyon habitat suitable for Mexican spotted owl nesting. 6. For all temporary actions that may impact owls or suitable habitat: a. If the action occurs entirely outside of the owl breeding season (March 1 – August 31), and leaves no permanent structure or permanent habitat disturbance, action can proceed without an occupancy survey. b. If action will occur during a breeding season, survey for owls prior to commencing activity. If owls are found, activity must be delayed until outside of the breeding season. c. Rehabilitate access routes created by the project through such means as raking out scars, re-vegetation, gating access points, etc. 7. For all permanent actions that may impact owls or suitable habitat: a. Survey two consecutive years for owls according to accepted protocol prior to commencing activities. b. If owls are found, no actions will occur within 0.5 mile of identified nest site. If nest site is unknown, no activity will occur within the designated Protected Activity Center (PAC). c. Avoid drilling and permanent structures within 0.5 mi of suitable habitat unless surveyed and not occupied. d. Reduce noise emissions (e.g., use hospital-grade mufflers) to 45 dBA at 0.5 mile from suitable habitat, including canyon rims. Placement of permanent noise-generating facilities should be determined by a noise analysis to ensure noise does not encroach upon a 0.5 mile buffer for suitable habitat, including canyon rims. e. Limit disturbances to and within suitable habitat by staying on approved routes. f. Limit new access routes created by the project. Additional measures to avoid or minimize effects to the species may be developed and implemented in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service between the lease sale stage and lease development stage to ensure continued compliance with the Endangered Species Act. SOUTHWESTERN WILLOW FLYCATCHER The Lessee/Operator is given notice that the lands in this parcel contains riparian habitat that falls within the range for southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus), a federally listed species. Avoidance or use restrictions may be T&E-07 placed on portions of the lease. Application of appropriate measures will depend whether the action is temporary or permanent, and whether it occurs within or outside the nesting season. A temporary action is completed prior to the (Outside following breeding season leaving no permanent structures and resulting in no permanent habitat loss. A permanent action Moab MLP) continues for more than one breeding season and/or causes a loss of habitat or displaces flycatchers through disturbances, i.e. creation of a permanent structure. The following avoidance and minimization measures have been designed to ensure activities carried out on the lease are in compliance with the Endangered Species Act. Integration of, and adherence to these measures, will facilitate review and analysis of any submitted permits under the authority of this lease. Following these

90 July 2019

NUMBER THREATENED & ENDANGERED SPECIES NOTICES measures could reduce the scope of Endangered Species Act, Section 7 consultation at the permit stage. Current avoidance and minimization measures include the following: 1. Surveys will be required prior to operations unless species occupancy and distribution information is complete and available. All Surveys must be conducted by qualified individual(s), and be conducted according to protocol. 2. Lease activities will require monitoring throughout the duration of the project. To ensure desired results are being achieved, minimization measures will be evaluated and, if necessary, Section 7 consultation reinitiated. 3. Water production will be managed to ensure maintenance or enhancement of riparian habitat. 4. Where technically and economically feasible, use directional drilling or multiple wells from the same pad to reduce surface disturbance and eliminate drilling in suitable riparian habitat. Ensure that such directional drilling does not intercept or degrade alluvial aquifers. 5. Drilling activities will maintain a 300 ft. buffer from suitable riparian habitat year long. 6. Drilling activities within 0.25 mile of occupied breeding habitat will not occur during the breeding season of May 1 to August 15. 7. Ensure that water extraction or disposal practices do not result in change of hydrologic regime that would result in loss or degradation of riparian habitat. 8. Re-vegetate with native species all areas of surface disturbance within riparian areas and/or adjacent uplands. Additional measures to avoid or minimize effects to the species may be developed and implemented in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service between the lease sale stage and lease development stage to ensure continued compliance with the ESA. CALIFORNIA CONDOR The Lessee/Operator is given notice that the lands located in this parcel contain potential habitat for the California Condor, a federally listed species. Avoidance or use restrictions may be placed on portions of the lease if the area is known or suspected to be used by condors. Application of appropriate measures will depend on whether the action is temporary or permanent, and whether it occurs within or outside potential habitat. A temporary action is completed prior to the following important season of use, leaving no permanent structures and resulting in no permanent habitat loss. This would include T&E-11 consideration for habitat functionality. A permanent action continues for more than one season of habitat use, and/or causes a (Outside loss of condor habitat function or displaces condors through continued disturbance (i.e. creation of a permanent structure Moab MLP) requiring repetitious maintenance, or emits disruptive levels of noise). The following avoidance and minimization measures have been designed to ensure activities carried out on the lease are in compliance with the Endangered Species Act. Integration of, and adherence to these measures will facilitate review and analysis of any submitted permits under the authority of this lease. Following these measures could reduce the scope of Endangered Species Act, Section 7 consultation at the permit stage. Current avoidance and minimization measures include the following:

91 July 2019

NUMBER THREATENED & ENDANGERED SPECIES NOTICES 1. Surveys will be required prior to operations unless species occupancy and distribution information is complete and available. All Surveys must be conducted by qualified individual(s) approved by the BLM, and must be conducted according to approved protocol. 2. If surveys result in positive identification of condor use, all lease activities will require monitoring throughout the duration of the project to ensure desired results of applied mitigation and protection. Minimization measures will be evaluated during development and, if necessary, Section 7 consultation may be reinitiated. 3. Temporary activities within 1.0 mile of nest sites will not occur during the breeding season. 4. Temporary activities within 0.5 miles of established roosting sites or areas will not occur during the season of use, August 1 to November 31, unless the area has been surveyed according to protocol and determined to be unoccupied. 5. No permanent infrastructure will be placed within 1.0 mile of nest sites. 6. No permanent infrastructure will be placed within 0.5 miles of established roosting sites or areas. 7. Remove big game carrion 100 feet from lease roadways occurring within foraging range. 8. Where technically and economically feasible, use directional drilling or multiple wells from the same pad to reduce surface disturbance and eliminate drilling in suitable habitat. Utilize directional drilling to avoid direct impacts to large cottonwood gallery riparian habitats. Ensure that such directional drilling does not intercept or degrade alluvial aquifers. 9. Re-initiation of section 7 consultation with the Service will be sought immediately if mortality or disturbance to California condors is anticipated as a result of project activities. Additional site-specific measures may also be employed to avoid or minimize effects to the species. These additional measures will be developed and implemented in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure continued compliance with the ESA. Additional measures may also be employed to avoid or minimize effects to the species between the lease sale and lease development stages. These additional measures will be developed and implemented in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure continued compliance with the Endangered Species Act. SOUTHWESTERN WILLOW FLYCATCHER HABITAT – RIPARIAN AREAS The lessee/operator is given notice that the lands in this parcel contains riparian habitat within the range for southwestern willow flycatcher. In order to protect southwestern willow flycatcher habitat and avoid negative impacts to the species, T&E-26 actions would be avoided or restricted that may cause stress and disturbance during nesting and rearing of their young. Appropriate measures would depend on whether the action is temporary or permanent, and whether it occurs within or (Moab MLP) outside the nesting season. A temporary action is completed prior to the following breeding season leaving no permanent structures and resulting in no permanent habitat loss. A permanent action continues for more than one breeding season and/or causes a loss of habitat or displaces flycatchers through disturbances, i.e., creation of a permanent structure. Current avoidance and minimization measures include the following:

92 July 2019

NUMBER THREATENED & ENDANGERED SPECIES NOTICES 1. Surveys would be required prior to operations unless species occupancy and distribution information is complete and available. All surveys must be conducted by qualified individual(s) and be conducted according to protocol. 2. Activities would require monitoring throughout the duration of the project. To ensure desired results are being achieved, minimization measures would be evaluated and, if necessary, Section 7 consultation reinitiated. 3. Water production would be managed to ensure maintenance or enhancement of riparian habitat. 4. Where technically and economically feasible, use directional drilling or multiple wells from the same pad to reduce surface disturbance and eliminate drilling in suitable riparian habitat. Ensure that such directional drilling does not intercept or degrade alluvial aquifers. 5. Activities would maintain a 330 feet buffer from suitable riparian habitat year long. 6. Activities within 0.25-mile of occupied breeding habitat would not occur during the breeding season of April 15 to August 15. 7. Noise emissions within 0.25-miles of suitable habitat for the southwestern willow flycatcher will not exceed baseline conditions during the breeding season of April 15 to August 15. 8. Ensure that water extraction or disposal practices do not result in change of hydrologic regime that would result in loss or degradation of riparian habitat. 9. Re-vegetate with native species all areas of surface disturbance within riparian areas and/or adjacent land. 10. Avoid loss or disturbance of riparian habitats. Additional measures to avoid or minimize effects to the species may be developed and implemented in consultation with the USFWS between the lease sale stage and lease development stage to ensure continued compliance with the ESA. YELLOW-BILLED CUCKOO The lessee/operator is given notice that the lands in or adjacent to this parcel contain potentially suitable habitat that falls within the range for western yellow-billed cuckoo, a Federally listed species. Avoidance or use restrictions may be placed on portions of the lease. Application of appropriate measures will depend whether the action is temporary or permanent, and whether it occurs within or outside the breeding and nesting season. A temporary action is completed prior to the following T&E-27 breeding season, leaving no permanent structures and resulting in no permanent habitat loss. A permanent action could (Moab MLP) continue for more than one breeding season and/or cause a loss of habitat or displace western yellow-billed cuckoos through disturbances. The following avoidance and minimization measures have been designed to ensure activities carried out on the lease are in compliance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Integration of and adherence to these measures will facilitate review and analysis of any submitted permits under the authority of this lease. Following these measures could reduce the scope of ESA, Section 7 consultation at the permit stage. Avoidance and minimization measures include the following:

93 July 2019

NUMBER THREATENED & ENDANGERED SPECIES NOTICES 1. Habitat suitability within the parcel and/or within a 0.5-mile buffer of the parcel will be identified prior to lease development to identify potential survey needs. Habitat suitability should be determined in accordance with Guidelines for the identification of suitable habitat for WYBCU in Utah. 2. Protocol Breeding Season Surveys will be required in suitable habitats prior to operations unless species occupancy and distribution information is complete and available. All Surveys must be conducted by permitted individual(s), and be conducted according to protocol. 3. For all temporary actions that may impact cuckoo or suitable habitat: a. If action occurs entirely outside of the cuckoo breeding season (June 1 to August 31), and leaves no structure or habitat disturbance, action can proceed without a presence/absence survey. b. If action is proposed between June 1 to August 31, presence/absence surveys for cuckoo will be conducted prior to commencing activity. If cuckoo are detected, activity should be delayed until September 1. c. Eliminate access roads created by the project through such means as raking out scars, revegetation, gating access points, etc. 4. For all permanent actions that may impact cuckoo or suitable habitat: a. Protocol level surveys by permitted individuals will be conducted prior to commencing activities. b. If cuckoos are detected, no activity will occur within 0.25-mile of occupied habitat. c. Avoid drilling and permanent structures within 0.25-mile of suitable habitat unless absence is determined according to protocol level survey conducted by permitted individual(s). d. Ensure noise levels at 0.25-mile from suitable habitat do not exceed baseline conditions. Placement of permanent noise-generating facilities should be determined by a noise analysis to ensure noise does not encroach upon the 0.25- mile buffer for suitable habitat. 5. Temporary or permanent actions will require monitoring throughout the duration of the project to ensure that western yellow-billed cuckoo or its habitat is not affected in a manner or to an extent not previously considered. Avoidance and minimization measures will be evaluated throughout the duration of the project. 6. Water produced as by-product of drilling or pumping will be managed to ensure maintenance or enhancement of riparian habitat. 7. Where technically or economically feasible, use directional drilling or multiple wells from the same pad to reduce surface disturbance and eliminate drilling is suitable habitat. Ensure that such directional drilling does not intercept or degrade alluvial aquifers. 8. Ensure that water extraction or disposal practices do not result in a change of hydrologic regime that would result in loss or degradation of riparian habitat 9. Re-vegetate with native species all areas of surface disturbance within riparian areas and/or adjacent uplands.

94 July 2019

NUMBER THREATENED & ENDANGERED SPECIES NOTICES Additional measures to avoid or minimize effects to the species may be developed and implemented in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service between the lease sale stage and lease development stage to ensure continued compliance with the ESA. CALIFORNIA CONDOR – POTENTIAL HABITAT The lessee/operator is given notice that the lands located in this parcel contain potential habitat for the California condor. Avoidance or use restrictions may be placed on portions on areas known or suspected to be used by condors. Application of appropriate measures would depend on whether the action is temporary or permanent, and whether it occurs within or outside potential habitat. A temporary action is completed prior to the following important season of use, leaving for habitat functionality. A permanent action continues for more than one season of habitat use, and/or causes a loss of condor habitat function or displaces condors through continued disturbance (i.e., creation of a permanent structure requiring repetitious maintenance or emits disruptive levels of noise). Current avoidance and minimization measures include the following: 1. The Peregrine Fund will be contacted early and throughout project design and implementation to determine and monitor the locations and status of California condors in or near the project area. 2. Surveys would be required prior to operations in suitable habitat, unless species occupancy and distribution information is complete and available. All Surveys must be conducted by qualified individual(s) approved by the BLM and must be T&E-28 conducted according to approved protocols. (Moab MLP) 3. All workers will be informed about potential condor presence. 4. If condors are present within the project area the Peregrine Fund will be contacted. If there is any potential that the project will affect condors the USFWS will be contacted immediately. 5. The project area will be kept clean (e.g., trash disposed of, tools and materials picked up) in order to minimize the possibility of condors accessing inappropriate materials. 6. To prevent water contamination and potential condor poisoning, a hazardous material (including vehicle fluids) leakage and spill plan will be developed and implemented. The plan will include provisions for immediate clean-up of any hazardous substance, and will outline how each hazardous substance will be treated in case of leakage or spill. The plan will be reviewed by the district biologist to insure that condors are adequately addressed. 7. If surveys result in positive identification of condor use, all lease activities would require monitoring throughout the duration of the project to ensure desired results of applied mitigation and protection. Minimization measures would be evaluated during development and, if necessary, Section 7 consultation may be reinitiated. 8. Temporary activities within 1.0-mile of nest sites would not occur during the breeding season.

95 July 2019

NUMBER THREATENED & ENDANGERED SPECIES NOTICES 9. Temporary activities within 0.5-miles of established roosting sites or areas would not occur during the season of use, which is from August 1 to November 30; unless the area has been surveyed according to protocols consulted on with USFWS and determined to be unoccupied. 10. No permanent infrastructure would be placed within 1.0-mile of nest sites. 11. No permanent infrastructure would be placed within 0.5-miles of established roosting sites or areas. 12. Remove big game carrion to 100 feet from on lease roadways occurring within foraging range. 13. Where technically and economically feasible, use directional drilling or multiple wells from the same pad to reduce surface disturbance and eliminate drilling in suitable habitat Utilize directional drilling to avoid direct impacts to large cottonwood gallery riparian habitats. Ensure that such directional drilling does not intercept or degrade alluvial aquifers. 14. Re-initiation of Section 7 consultation with the USFWS would be sought immediately if mortality or disturbance to California condors is anticipated as a result of project activities. Additional site-specific measures may also be employed to avoid or minimize effects to the species. These additional measures would be developed and implemented in consultation with the USFWS to ensure continued compliance with the ESA. Additional measures may also be employed to avoid or minimize effects to the species between the lease sale and lease development stages. These additional measures would be developed and implemented in consultation with the USFWS to ensure continued compliance with the ESA.

96 July 2019

Appendix C – Figures/Maps • Lease Sale Parcel Overview • Hovenweep Viewshed Analysis

97 July 2019

Monticello Field Office

Figure 4. Lease Sale Parcel Overview.

98 July 2019

Figure 5. Hovenweep Viewshed Analysis

99 July 2019

Appendix D – Interdisciplinary Parcel Review Team Checklist DETERMINATION OF STAFF: NP = not present in the area impacted by the proposed or alternative actions NI = present, but not affected to a degree that detailed analysis is required PI = present with potential for relevant impact that need to be analyzed in detail in the EA

Determination Resource Rationale for Determination* Parcel Reviewer Leasing itself would not have impacts to air quality. However, should development occur on issued leases, activities related to exploration, construction, drilling, completion, testing, and production of an oil or gas well may affect air quality All parcels are in areas designated as attainment or unclassifiable for all criteria air pollutants. Erik Vernon PI Air Quality 4/16/2019 Air Quality Stips and LNs to be applied to all parcels: UT-S-1: Air Quality LN-96: Air Quality Mitigation Measures LN-99: Regional Ozone Formation Controls LN-102: Air Quality Analysis John Chmelir Areas of (Cultural) Critical NP None of the parcels are within ACECs. 4/15/2019 Environmental Jason Byrd Concern 4/15/2019 BLM Natural Misti Haines NP None of the parcels are within BLM Natural Areas Areas 4/15/2019 BLM archaeologists have compiled cultural resources data from the Monticello field office cultural resource libraries, GIS data (CURES), and the Preservation Pro database area. These data sources contain information of all of the recorded cultural resource sites and cultural resource survey data for the area available to BLM and the Utah Division of State History. In addition, the BLM is using the field office cultural resources planning model to help provide cultural resources information for areas not previously surveyed (Beck et al. 2017). The MFO planning area contains one of the richest records of prehistoric archaeology in the United States. After more than 10,000 years of occupation by hunter-gatherers of the Paleoindian and Archaic periods, people in the region added domesticated crops to their diets, beginning an approximately two-millennium-long period known as the Formative. Formative period Ancestral Puebloan sites comprise by far the largest part of the planning area’s archaeological record and provide a very detailed John Chmelir 4/15/2019 Cultural perspective on events in the ancient Southwest such as population movements and NI Glenn Stelter Resources the development of variable, sometimes far-reaching, social interaction networks. The record is dominated by the remains of structures and cultural material from the 4/17/2019 Ancestral Puebloan, who occupied the area from ca. A.D. 1 to A.D. 1300, although previous occupation by “preceramic” foragers and farmers is abundant (e.g., (Davis 1989) (Matson 2014); (Robins 1997)). The area also shows considerable evidence of occupation by Protohistoric and Historic peoples, both Native American and Euro- American, after the Ancestral Puebloans left the area in the late A.D. 1200s (e.g., (Hurst and Robinson 2014); (McPherson 1995)). In fact, researchers have demonstrated the existence in San Juan County of archaeological materials representing every time period from the present back to the waning years of the Pleistocene epoch (Hurst and Robinson 2014, 23) Archaeologist use this data to determine if oil and gas development could occur within each parcel while avoiding know cultural sites. The parcels are reviewed for the application of stipulations and lease notices as required by the Monticello RMP.

100 July 2019

Determination Resource Rationale for Determination* Parcel Reviewer The preliminary analysis using the cultural resources planning model (Beck et. Al., 2017) indicates that, in the vast majority of the Monticello FO parcels, there is a high probability of the presence of cultural resources. The Monticello RMP requires stipulation UT-S-170: CSU – Cultural to be attached to all parcels. BLM received concurrence with its finding of No Adverse Effect to Historic Properties from the Utah State Historic Preservation Officer on March 25, 2019. BLM’s consultation with Native American Tribes, is ongoing. For future undertakings related to this lease sale, BLM will not approve any ground disturbing activities until it completes its obligations to consider cultural resources under NEPA, NHPA and other authorities specific to those future undertakings. Consideration of impacts to cultural resources and adverse effects to historic properties will be taken into account during the review stage of site specific development plans.

From the cultural resource report for the March 2019 Oil and Gas Lease Sale, a total of 598 sites were identified within the parcels. 1006 sites were identified outside of the parcels within a 1/2 buffer. The report identified cultural resources eligible to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) as well as cultural resources that are not eligible to the NRHP. The amount of cultural resource survey within the parcel area ranges from 4.38% to 60.68%.

Cultural: Resource Stipulations and Lease Notices: Cultural Resource Stipulation as required by Handbook H-3120-1, UT-S-170, UT- LN-67 (Historical and Cultural Resource Values), UT-LN-68 (Notification and Consultation Regarding Cultural Resources), UT-LN-69 (High Potential For Cultural Resources) and UT-LN-70 (High Potential for Cultural Resource Occurrence) to all parcels.

Greenhouse Gases (GHG) are composed mostly of CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, & Greenhouse SF6. Primary sources of GHG emissions include fossil fuel combustion for well Erik Vernon PI Gas/Climate construction and operation, fugitive CH4, and combustion of produced oil and gas. A 4/16/2019 Change representative emissions inventory of GHGs for parcel development, contribution to cumulative emissions, and impacts to climate change should be presented. Minority and low income populations do exist in the Monticello FO area. The PRMP/FEIS, 2008 adequately assessed impacts to environmental justice population as defined in Executive Order 12898 and it was determined that no BLM action proposed across all alternatives or the Proposed Plan would target or cause any disproportionate impacts to any minority or low income segments of the population (Monticello PRMP/FEIS, 2008 p. 4-421). Environmental CGiffen NI All citizens can file an expression of interest or participate in the bidding process (43 Justice CFR §3120.3-2). The stipulations and notices applied to the subject parcels do not 4/10/2019 place an undue burden on these groups. Potential impacts to Environmental Justice from oil and gas leasing are adequately analyzed and documented in the environmental analysis prepared for the Monticello RMP. Actions and impacts are not changed from those disclosed in the existing NEPA documents. The impacts of oil and gas development on general wildlife and big game and general wildlife species and their habitats were fully analyzed in the Monticello RMP, 2008 Fish and and the March 2018 EA. Actions and impacts are not changed from those disclosed Wildlife Melissa Wardle in these NEPA documents. See Wildlife and Botany Resources Leasing Assessment Excluding 4/15/2019 NI for detailed species and habitat information. USFWS Karen Cathey The following stipulation will be attached, as noted to all parcels: Designated 05/06/2019

Species • UT-S-234: TL – Crucial Deer Winter Range

101 July 2019

Determination Resource Rationale for Determination* Parcel Reviewer

This proposed sale and issuance of an oil and gas leases would not authorize any ground disturbances which could affect these resources. Leasing is an administrative action that does not result in any surface disturbance. Site-specific effects cannot be analyzed until an exploration or development application is received, after leasing has occurred. The applied lease stipulations and notices will notify buyers during sale of leases and allow for the opportunity to make adjustments at the site specific level when an APD is received and will ensure impacts are addressed. Future development proposals on the leases would be subject to the standard lease terms, and all applicable laws, regulations and onshore orders in existence at the time of lease issuance. Additional detailed analysis in this EA is not necessary. Oil and Gas development that may occur as a result of this lease sale may affect floodplains. The decision to lease is connected to these impacts; however it does not affect floodplains to a degree that detailed analysis is required. If an APD is filed, SOPs required by regulation and design features would be sufficient to isolate and protect all usable ground or surface water sources before drilling or exploration begin. The SOPs include the requirements for disposal of produced water contained in Onshore Oil and Gas Order (O.O.) No. 7 and the requirements for drilling operations contained in O.O No. 2. Potential fresh water aquifers zones would be protected by the requirement of casing and cementing the drill hole to total depth. The casing would be pressure tested to ensure integrity prior to drilling out the surface casing shoe plug.

Executive Order 11990 directs federal agencies to avoid short and long term impacts to wetlands to the extent possible; Executive Order 11988 directs federal agencies to avoid similar impacts through modification of floodplains, and to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains. The BLM Manual 1737 – Jed Carling Riparian-Wetland Area Management, Riparian-Wetland Initiative provides direction 04/11/19 NI Floodplains for planning and management actions related to riparian areas, and Instructional Memorandum No UT 2005-091 provides specific guidance to Utah BLM riparian Ken Bradshaw lands while supporting all BLM national guidance directives. 04/18/2019

RMP RIP 5 – No surface disturbing activities are allowed in active floodplains, public water reserves, or within 100 meters of riparian areas unless it can be shown that: a) There is no practicable alternative or b) All long-term impacts can be fully mitigated or, c) The activity will benefit and enhance the riparian area.

UT-S-128: NSO -- Floodplains, Riparian Areas, Springs, and Public Water Reserves will be attached to the following parcels: 406, 407, 408, 409, 410, 411, 412, 414, 415, 419, 423, and 424.

Given the executive directives, Stipulations, Lease Notices and mitigation measures (e.g., BMPs and SOPs) discussed above, impacts to floodplains would be mitigated and detailed analysis is not required in this EA. Impacts to Fire and Fuels Management from leasing are adequately analyzed in the Monticello RMP. Actions and impacts are not changed from those disclosed in these NEPA documents. The implementation of appropriate reclamation standards at the Fuels/Fire P. Plemons NI APD stage would prevent an increase of hazardous fuels. Fuels and fire management Management 04/15/19 would not be impacted by the lease process. Fuels projects planned for the parcels proposed for competitive leasing would still be able to be implemented. BMPs, SOPs and site specific mitigation may be applied at the APD stage as COAs. The proposed action would not exceed the level of activity predicted in the T. McDougall Mineral Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario (RFDS) prepared for the 2008 4/11/19 NI Resources/Ener Monticello Field Office Resource Management Plan (RMP). The RFDS is Angela Wadman gy Production documented at Appendix G. Potential impacts to mineral resources and energy 4/25/2019 production from oil and gas leasing and development are adequately analyzed and

102 July 2019

Determination Resource Rationale for Determination* Parcel Reviewer documented in the Proposed RMP and Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). Actions and impacts are not changed from those disclosed in the existing NEPA document. Oil and gas exploration could lead to an increased understanding of the geologic setting, as subsurface data obtained through lease operations may become public record. This information promotes an understanding of mineral resources as well as geologic interpretation. While conflicts could arise between oil and gas operations and other mineral operations, these could generally be mitigated under 43 CFR 3101.1-2 and under standard lease terms (Sec. 6) where sitting and design of facilities may be modified to protect other resources. The majority of flow back water from hydraulic fracturing in Utah is recycled and used in future hydraulic fracturing completions. Therefore, the underground injection of hydraulic fracturing flow back in Utah is very limited and presents little potential for inducing seismic activity. In fact, there has been no reported induced seismicity in Utah that was from water injected into Class II wells. Oil and gas wells produce a great amount of wastewater. The majority this water has high salt brine content and must be disposed of in an environmentally safe manner. In Utah, a majority (95%) of this produced water is pumped into Class II injection wells. In certain parts of the country, water injection /waste water disposal has caused some induced seismicity in the form of small earthquakes. Two major factors play a role in induced seismicity from water injection. First, the amount of water being injected. Secondly, the local geology of the water injection site. In Utah, the volumes are lower than those states experiencing induced seismicity. Also, the geology is different than those states experiencing induced seismicity. The injection zones are stratigraphically thousands of feet above the basement rock that may contain large unknown faults. Therefore, at this time it appears that induced seismicity from water injection is not a problem in the oil fields of Utah. (Personal communication from John Rogers, Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining (UDOGM) to Angela Wadman, March 27, 2018 (BLM 2018)). In conclusion, there would be no negative affects to mineral resources. Lease Stipulations and Notices are created to mitigate impacts of oil and gas development on other resources.

Executive Order 13112 requires Federal Agencies to promote activities in a manner which avoids introduction of spread of invasive species. Invasive species introduced to Utah affect plant and animal communities. Surface disturbing activities have the potential to introduce/spread invasive species/noxious weeds. The BLM “Partners Against Weeds, An Action Plan for the Bureau of Land Management” provides strategies to prevent and control spread of noxious weeds Noxious weeds are invasive exotic plants designated by the State of Utah as being hazardous to public health, the environment or the economy (Utah Code Title 4, Chapter 17). Invasive Impacts by invasive species / noxious weeds due to the proposed action are contained Species/Noxiou N. Noyes NI in the analysis for the Monticello 2008 RMP. This proposed sale and issuance of an oil s Weeds (EO and gas leases would not authorize any ground disturbances which could encourage 04/11/19 13112) spread of invasive species/noxious weeds. Leasing is an administrative action that does not result in any surface disturbance. Site-specific effects cannot be analyzed until an exploration or development application is received, after leasing has occurred. The applied lease stipulations and notices will notify buyers during sale of leases and allow for the opportunity to make adjustments at the site specific level when an APD is received and will ensure impacts are addressed. Future development proposals on the leases would be subject to the standard lease terms, and all applicable laws, regulations and onshore orders in existence at the time of lease issuance. Additional detailed analysis in this EA is not necessary. Impacts to lands/Access from leasing are contained in the analysis for the Monticello Norbert Norton NI Lands/Access RMP. Actions and impacts are not changed from those disclosed in these NEPA 04/15/19 documents.

103 July 2019

Determination Resource Rationale for Determination* Parcel Reviewer The lessee/operator would submit an APD when oil and gas exploration and development activities are proposed, which may entail surface disturbing activities. The APD would be subject to site specific NEPA analysis. Potential impacts to livestock grazing, if any, would be addressed during this APD analysis and approval Livestock process. N. Noyes NI Grazing 04/11/19 Potential impacts to livestock grazing from oil and gas leasing are adequately analyzed and documented in the environmental analysis prepared for the Monticello 2008 RMP. Actions and impacts are not changed from those disclosed in the existing NEPA documents. Migratory birds including raptors are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (Executive Order 13186). An MOU between the BLM and United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) provides BLM further direction for project-level NEPA guidance for meeting MBTA conservation and compliance (BLM MOU WO-230- 2010-04). The effects of leasing, development and the application of the BMPS for raptors were analyzed in the Section 4.2.7 and 4.2.8 of the EIS supporting the Price Field Office RMP. The application of buffers and timing restrictions identified in the RMP have been effective in mitigating impacts to raptors. The impacts of oil and gas development and the application of these lease notices applied for Migratory Birds/Raptors and their habitats were fully analyzed in the 2008 Monticello RMP. Actions and impacts are not changed from those disclosed in these NEPA documents. See Wildlife and Botany Resources Leasing Assessment for detailed species and habitat information and Appendix A for the applicable lease notices and stipulations developed in the 2008 Monticello RMP. Migratory Migratory birds and raptors may be present within all of the proposed parcels. The Melissa Wardle NI Birds/Raptors following lease notices will be applied, as noted to all parcels: 4/15/2019 • UT-LN-43: (Raptors) • UT-LN-45: (Migratory Bird)

Leasing would not, by itself, authorize any ground disturbances which could affect these resources. This proposed action, the sale and issuance of an oil and gas leases, is an administrative action that does not result in any surface disturbance. Site-specific effects cannot be analyzed until an exploration or development application is received, after leasing has occurred. Development proposals on the leases would be subject to the standard lease terms, and all applicable laws, regulations and onshore orders in existence at the time of lease issuance. The applied lease notices will ensure impacts to raptors are minimized, and adequately mitigate potential lease development impacts to those species. Implementing applicable lease notices at the development stage will ensure leasing of identified parcels will not impact listed or proposed plant species to the degree that will require additional detailed analysis in this EA. BLM Manual Section 6840, requires consideration of sensitive species lists in planning and environmental documents. Instructional Memorandum No. UT IM- 2019-005 provides the plant and wildlife Species lists for BLM-administered public lands in Utah. The impacts of oil and gas development and the application of these lease notices and stipulations applied on Utah BLM Sensitive Species and their habitats were fully analyzed in the 2008 Monticello RMP. See Wildlife and Botany Utah BLM Resources Leasing Assessment for detailed species and habitat information and Melissa Wardle NI Sensitive Appendix A for the applicable lease notices and stipulations developed in the 2008 4/15/2019 Species Monticello RMP.

Potential for occurrence of Utah BLM Sensitive Species exists in all parcels, and the following lease notice will apply to all parcels:

• LN-49: (Utah Sensitive Species)

104 July 2019

Determination Resource Rationale for Determination* Parcel Reviewer Leasing would not, by itself, authorize any ground disturbances which could affect these resources. This proposed action, the sale and issuance of an oil and gas leases, is an administrative action that does not result in any surface disturbance. Site- specific effects cannot be analyzed until an exploration or development application is received, after leasing has occurred. Development proposals on the leases would be subject to the standard lease terms, and all applicable laws, regulations and onshore orders in existence at the time of lease issuance. The applied lease notices will ensure impacts to BLM Sensitive Species are minimized, and adequately mitigate potential lease development impacts to those species. Implementing applicable lease notices at the development stage will ensure leasing of identified parcels will not sensitive species to the degree that will require additional detailed analysis in this EA. The sale and issuance of an oil and gas lease is an administrative action that does not directly result in any surface disturbance. However, the issuance of a lease is considered to be an irretrievable commitment of resources because the BLM generally cannot deny all surface use of a lease unless the lease is issued with a no surface occupancy stipulation. The lessee/operator would submit an APD when oil and gas exploration and development activities are proposed. The APD would be subject to site specific NEPA analysis and relevant cultural resource avoidance or mitigation measures if Native warranted. John Chmelir American NI 4/15/2019 Religious Government to Government consultations with Native American Tribes were initiated,

Concerns by certified letter, on November 6, 2018.

Responses have been received from several tribes, by letter and by phone. Consultation with Native American tribes is ongoing.

Native American Religious Concerns Stipulations and Lease Notices to all parcels; UT-S-170:CSU; Cultural LN-67; Historical And Cultural Resource Values LN-68: Notification & Consultation Regarding Cultural Resources Impacts to the paleontological resources from leasing are contained in the analysis for the Monticello RMP.

The lessee/operator would submit an APD when oil and gas exploration and development activities are proposed. The APD would be subject to site specific NEPA analysis.

All lease parcels contain areas of high potential for paleontological resources. The Monticello RMP contains management decisions to protect paleontological Angela Bulla NI Paleontology resources. Lease notice UT-LN-72: High Potential Paleontological Resources will be 4/11/2019 attached to all parcels as specified by the Monticello RMP

Attachment of this lease notice will adequately mitigate impacts to paleontological resources.

Potential impacts to paleontology from leasing are adequately analyzed and documented in the environmental analysis prepared for the Monticello RMP. Actions and impacts are not changed from those disclosed in these NEPA documents. The lessee/operator would submit an APD when oil and gas exploration and development activities are proposed, which may entail surface disturbing activities. The APD would be subject to site specific NEPA analysis. An approved APD is Rangeland subject to standard operating procedures (SOP) required by regulation, stipulations N. Noyes NI Health attached to the lease, best management practices (BMP) included in the APD 04/11/19 Standards submission, and conditions of approval (COA) developed during the NEPA analysis and documentation process. These SOPs, BMPs, and COAs mitigate impacts to other resources, such as to Rangeland Health Standards, from oil and gas exploration and development activities.

105 July 2019

Determination Resource Rationale for Determination* Parcel Reviewer

Potential impacts to rangeland health standards from oil and gas leasing are adequately analyzed and documented in the environmental analysis prepared for the Monticello 2008 RMP. Actions and impacts are not changed from those disclosed in these NEPA documents. Impacts to recreation from leasing are contained in the analysis for the Monticello RMP. Actions and impacts are not changed from those disclosed in these NEPA Jason Byrd NI Recreation documents. No leases are adjacent to developed recreation sites or other recreation 4/15/2019 areas that would require additional stipulations or notices. These sites are not highly used recreation areas. Potential impacts to socio economics from oil and gas leasing are adequately Socio- analyzed and documented in the environmental analysis prepared for the Monticello CGiffen NI Economics RMP. Actions and impacts are not changed from those disclosed in these NEPA 4/10/2019 documents. The lessee/operator would submit an APD when oil and gas exploration and development activities are proposed. The APD would be subject to site specific NEPA analysis. An approved APD is subject to standard operating procedures (SOP) required by regulation, stipulations attached to the lease, best management practices (BMP) included in the APD submission, and conditions of approval (COA) developed during the NEPA analysis and documentation process. These SOPs, BMPs, and COAs, mitigate impacts to other resources and users from oil and gas exploration and development activities.

The Monticello RMP contains management decisions and stipulations to protect fragile soils on steep slopes and reduce erosion. Stipulations UT-S-98:NSO—Fragile Soils/Slopes Greater than 40 Percent will be attached to parcels 409, 410, 414, 415, CGiffen 416, 417, 418, 421, 423, 424 and UT-S-106 CSU—Fragile Soils/Slopes 21-40 4/10/2019 NI Soils Percent and will be attached to all parcels. Ken Bradshaw 4/18/2019 When an applicant submits an APD, the location would be reviewed by a BLM resource specialist for conformance with the slope stipulations. A well location, access road, or other surfacing disturbing activity located on slopes inconsistent with these stipulations would require modification of the location or denial of the APD.

These lease stipulations, SOPs BMPs and COAs, including erosion control and reclamation standards, would adequately mitigate impacts to the soil resource.

Potential impacts to soils from oil and gas leasing are adequately analyzed and documented in the environmental analysis prepared for the Monticello RMP. Actions and impacts are not changed from those disclosed in these NEPA documents. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires federal agencies, in consultation with the USFWS, to ensure that actions they authorize, fund or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of federally listed endangered or threatened species, or result in destruction or adverse modification of their designated critical habitat (16 U.S.C. §1531 et seq. (1973)). Through formal consultation with the FWS during the development of the 2008 Monticello RMP, lease stipulations and notices where developed to ensure listed species and habitats would receive needed protective Threatened, measures to ensure impacts from development activities are minimized. See Wildlife Melissa Wardle Endangered or 4/15/2019 NI and Botany Resources Leasing Assessment for detailed species and habitat Candidate Plant information and Appendix A for the applicable lease notices and stipulations Karen Cathey Species developed in the 2008 Monticello RMP. No habitat for the Navajo sedge or Jones’ 05/06/2019 cycladenia occurs on the proposed parcels. The following lease notices will be applied: • Handbook H-3120-1: (Endangered Species Act) – All parcels This proposed action, the sale and issuance of an oil and gas leases, is an administrative action that does not result in any surface disturbance. Site-specific effects cannot be analyzed until an exploration or development application is received, after leasing has occurred. The BLM will consult with the USFWS as appropriate on

106 July 2019

Determination Resource Rationale for Determination* Parcel Reviewer possible effects to federally listed species from this lease sale and during review of future development plans. The applied lease notices and future consultation as appropriate will ensure compliance with the ESA and adequately mitigate potential lease development impacts to federally listed or proposed species/habitat. Implementing applicable lease notices at the development stage will ensure leasing of identified parcels will not impact listed or proposed species to the degree that will require additional detailed analysis in this EA. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires federal agencies, in consultation with the USFWS, to ensure that actions they authorize, fund or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of federally listed endangered or threatened species, or result in destruction or adverse modification of their designated critical habitat (16 U.S.C. §1531 et seq. (1973)). Through formal consultation with the FWS during the development of the 2008 Monticello RMP, lease stipulations and notices where developed to ensure listed species and habitats would receive needed protective measures to ensure impacts from development activities are minimized.

See Wildlife and Botany Resources Leasing Assessment for detailed species and habitat information and Appendix A for the applicable lease notices and stipulations developed in the 2008 Monticello RMP. Potential habitat for the California condor, Mexican spotted owl, southwestern willow flycatcher, yellow-billed cuckoo may occur. In addition, due to potential water depletion through development, the Bonytail chub, Colorado pikeminnow, humpback chub, and razorback sucker may be indirectly affected, as indicated by application of the following lease stipulations:

• Handbook H-3120-1: (Endangered Species Act) – All parcels Threatened, • UT-S-182: NSO-Colorado Endangered Fish – All parcels Melissa Wardle Endangered or 4/15/2019 NI • UT-S-275: (CSU/TL – Bald Eagles) – Parcel 414 Candidate Karen Cathey • UT-S-288: (CSU/TL – Mexican spotted owl) – Parcels 406, 407, 408, 409, Animal Species 05/06/2019 410, 411, 412, , 414, 416, 417, 418, 419, 420, 421, 422, 423, 424 • UT-S-290: (CSU/TL – Southwestern Willow Flycatcher) – Parcels 406, 407, 408, 409, 414, 415, 418, 419, 423 • UT-S-297: (CSU/TL – Yellow-billed Cuckoo) – Parcels 406, 407, 408, 409, 414, 415, 418, 419, 423 • T&E-11: (California Condor) – All parcels This proposed action, the sale and issuance of an oil and gas leases, is an administrative action that does not result in any surface disturbance. Site-specific effects cannot be analyzed until an exploration or development application is received, after leasing has occurred. The BLM will consult with the USFWS as appropriate on possible effects to federally listed species from this lease sale and during review of future development plans. The applied lease notices and future consultation as appropriate will ensure compliance with the ESA and adequately mitigate potential lease development impacts to federally listed or proposed species/habitat. Implementing applicable lease notices at the development stage will ensure leasing of identified parcels will not impact listed or proposed species to the degree that will require additional detailed analysis in this EA. Wastes Potential impacts to Wastes from oil and gas leasing are adequately analyzed and N. Noyes NI (hazardous or documented in the environmental analysis prepared for the Monticello 2008 RMP. 04/11/19 solid) Actions and impacts are not changed from those disclosed in these NEPA documents. Oil and Gas development that may occur as a result of this lease sale may affect groundwater resources. The decision to lease is connected to these impacts; however it Melissa Wardle does not affect groundwater resources to a degree that detailed analysis is required. If 4/15/2019 Groundwater an APD is filed, SOPs required by regulation and design features would be sufficient NI Resources/Qual to isolate and protect all usable ground or surface water sources before drilling or Ken Bradshaw ity exploration begin. The SOPs include the requirements for disposal of produced water 4/19/2019 contained in Onshore Oil and Gas Order (O.O.) No. 7 and the requirements for drilling operations contained in O.O No. 2. Potential fresh water aquifers zones would be protected by the requirement of casing and cementing the drill hole to total depth. The

107 July 2019

Determination Resource Rationale for Determination* Parcel Reviewer casing would be pressure tested to ensure integrity prior to drilling out the surface casing shoe plug.

Potential impacts would be addressed and a design feature would be included utilizing UT IM 2010-055 (Protection of Ground Water Associated with Oil and Gas Leasing, Exploration and Development) prior to APD approval. Standard protocols and best management practices would minimize possibility of releases. BMPs, SOPs and site specific mitigation may be applied at the APD stage as COAs.

There is consensus among BLM hydrologists and related resource specialties that these required design criteria would minimize the potential for impacts to water resources if/when development occurs. If leasing was proposed in an unusually sensitive area, if foreseeable development was expected to be of high intensity, or if water resource concerns unknown to BLM were brought forward then there may be a need for detailed analysis in an EA. None of these conditions apply for this lease sale and therefore detailed analysis is not required for this lease level EA. It may be necessary to undertake detailed analysis of impacts to water resources when specific plans for development are proposed, but the decision whether to complete NEPA analysis will be made at that time based on scoping, issue sensitivity, and other considerations.

Parcels 407 and 419 contain Public Water Reserves and Stipulation UT-S-128 NSO—Floodplains, Riparian Areas, Springs, and Public Water Reserves will be attached to those parcels. There are also water rights within and/or adjacent to all parcels.

Leasing the proposed parcels would not, by itself, authorize any disturbances or impact water rights. Site-specific effects cannot be analyzed until an exploration or development application is received, after leasing has occurred. However, any development proposal on the lease parcels would be subject to the standard lease terms, the protective lease notices and stipulations identified in Appendix A, and all applicable laws, regulations and onshore orders in existence at the time of lease issuance. Site- specific analysis would be required prior to the approval of any ground disturbance proposal on the lease parcels. In addition water rights are protected under State Law, and a junior water right holder is liable for damages caused when senior water right holders are impacted by their water use.

Impacts to groundwater resources and water rights/Public Water Reserves would be mitigated through SOPs, BMPs, State of Utah Water Rights Law, and other mitigation measures discussed above, therefore, are not anticipated to occur as a result of leasing the proposed parcels.

Hydraulic fracturing is a technique developed in the 1940’s. Around 2000, the technique was combined with directional drilling to dramatically increase production from deposits previously considered uneconomical (EPA 2016 p. 3-4). The hydraulic fracturing water cycle describes the use of water in hydraulic fracturing, from water withdrawals to make hydraulic fracturing fluids, through the mixing and injection of hydraulic fracturing fluids in oil and gas production wells, to the collection and disposal or reuse of produced water. These activities can impact drinking water resources under some circumstances. Impacts can range in frequency and severity, depending on the combination of hydraulic fracturing water cycle activities and local- or regional-scale factors. The following combinations of activities and factors are more likely than others to result in more frequent or more severe impacts (EPA, 2016 p. ES- 3): • Water withdrawals for hydraulic fracturing in times or areas of low water availability, particularly in areas with limited or declining groundwater resources;

108 July 2019

Determination Resource Rationale for Determination* Parcel Reviewer

• Spills during the management of hydraulic fracturing fluids and chemicals or produced water that result in large volumes or high concentrations of chemicals reaching groundwater resources; • Injection of hydraulic fracturing fluids into wells with inadequate mechanical integrity, allowing gases or liquids to move to groundwater resources; • Injection of hydraulic fracturing fluids directly into groundwater resources; • Discharge of inadequately treated hydraulic fracturing wastewater to surface water resources; and, • Disposal or storage of hydraulic fracturing wastewater in unlined pits, resulting in contamination of groundwater resources.

"The above conclusions are based on cases of identified impacts and other data, information, and analyses presented in the report. Cases of impacts were identified for all stages of the hydraulic fracturing water cycle. Identified impacts generally occurred near hydraulically fractured oil and gas production wells and ranged in severity, from temporary changes in water quality to contamination that made private drinking water wells unusable” (EPA 2016 p. ES-3-4).

If fracking should occur in an area where there is no vertical separation between the hydraulically fractured rock formation and the bottom of the potential underground drinking water source, fracking fluid may be introduced into the source. However, the occurrence of fracking within a potential drinking water source is low, concentrated in a few fields in Wyoming and Montana (EPA 2016 p. ES-8).

Produced water can contain many constituents depending on the composition of the injected hydraulic fracturing fluid and the type of rock being fractured. Produced water has been found to contain salts, metals, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX), oil and grease, radioactive materials, and hydraulic fracturing chemicals and their chemical transformation products. (EPA 2016 p. ES-33). Overall, the severity of impacts on water quality from produced water spills depends on the identity and amount of water spilled, the toxicity of constituents in the water, and the characteristic of the receiving groundwater or surface water; and spill prevention and response can prevent and/or minimize contamination of water resources (EPA 2016 p. ES-37).

The measures required (spill containment systems, casing integrity testing, pit lining), etc. for all wells drilled in Utah, fracked or not, are adequate to prevent fracking fluids as well as hydrocarbons and produced water from the wells to prevent ground/surface water contamination. The UDOGM has promulgated rules to prevent environmental impacts from fracking (Utah Administrative Code R649-3-39). Further analysis/mitigation of impacts is not warranted.

Oil and Gas development that may occur as a result of this lease sale may affect water resources. The decision to lease is connected to these impacts; however it does not affect water resources to a degree that detailed analysis is required. If an APD is filed, SOPs required by regulation and design features would be sufficient to isolate and protect all usable ground or surface water sources before drilling or exploration begin. The SOPs include the requirements for disposal of produced water contained in Melissa Wardle Surface Water Onshore Oil and Gas Order (O.O.) No. 7 and the requirements for drilling operations 4/15/2019 NI Resources/Qualcontained in O.O No. 2. Potential fresh water aquifers zones would be protected by the ity requirement of casing and cementing the drill hole to total depth. The casing would be Ken Bradshaw pressure tested to ensure integrity prior to drilling out the surface casing shoe plug. 4/19/2019

Requirements under O.O. 2 and O.O. 7, along with stipulation UT-S-128 NSO— Floodplains, Riparian Areas, Springs, and Public Water Reserves will be attached to parcels 406, 407, 408, 409, 410, 411, 412, 414, 415, 419, 422, 423, and 424.

109 July 2019

Determination Resource Rationale for Determination* Parcel Reviewer

In addition to requirements under O.O. 2 and O.O. 7 to protect surface water, BMPs and mitigation measures that limit surface disturbances in or adjacent to intermittent and perennial streams, wetlands, floodplains, and/or riparian areas maintain the health and function of those areas. In addition, BMPs and mitigation measures that reduce surface disturbances on soils help to reduce the potential for soil compaction, rutting, and erosion, and lessen impacts to surface water quality.

Given the Stipulations, Lease Notices and mitigation measures (e.g., BMPs and SOPs) discussed above, impacts to surface water quality would be mitigated and detailed analysis is not required in this EA.

Oil and Gas development that may occur as a result of this lease sale may affect wetland/riparian resources. The decision to lease is connected to these impacts; however it does not affect water resources to a degree that detailed analysis is required. If an APD is filed, SOPs required by regulation and design features would be sufficient to isolate and protect all usable ground or surface water sources before drilling or exploration begin. The SOPs include the requirements for disposal of produced water contained in Onshore Oil and Gas Order (O.O.) No. 7 and the requirements for drilling operations contained in O.O No. 2. Potential fresh water aquifers zones would be protected by the requirement of casing and cementing the drill hole to total depth. The casing would be pressure tested to ensure integrity prior to drilling out the surface casing shoe plug.

Executive Order 11990 directs federal agencies to avoid short and long term impacts to wetlands to the extent possible; Executive Order 11988 directs federal agencies to Jed Carling avoid similar impacts through modification of floodplains, and to restore and 4/11/19 preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains. The BLM Manual Wetlands/Ripar 1737 – Riparian-Wetland Area Management, Riparian-Wetland Initiative provides NI Ken Bradshaw ian Zones direction for planning and management actions related to riparian areas, and 4/19/2019 Instructional Memorandum No UT 2005-091 provides specific guidance to Utah Karen Cathey BLM riparian lands while supporting all BLM national guidance directives. 05/06/2019

Local knowledge, review of corporate GIS data, and review of the National Wetlands Inventory identified the presence of springs, and other in the following parcels: 406, 407, 408, 409, 410, 411, 412, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419, 421, 422, 423, and 424. The following stipulations to be applied, as noted:

• UT-S-128: (NSO – Floodplains, Riparian Areas, Springs, and Public Water Reserves) – Parcels 406, 407, 408, 409, 410, 411, 412, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419, 421, 422, 423, and 424

Given the executive directives, Stipulations, and mitigation measures (e.g., BMPs and SOPs) discussed above, impacts to riparian resources, wetlands, and floodplains would be mitigated and detailed analysis is not required in this EA. . There are no parcels within river segment corridors identified as suitable for Wild and Silas Sparks NP designation into the National Wild and Scenic River System (NW&SR). There are no Scenic Rivers 4/12/19 designated NW&SR system river segments in the Monticello Field Office. Wilderness/WS Misti Haines NP There are no parcels within Wilderness or Wilderness Study Areas A 4/15/2019 Potential impacts to woodlands and forestry from oil and gas leasing are adequately Melissa Wardle Woodland / analyzed and documented in the environmental analysis prepared for the Monticello NI 4/15/2019 Forestry RMP. Actions and impacts are not changed from those disclosed in these NEPA documents. Additional site specific review will occur at the development stage.

110 July 2019

Determination Resource Rationale for Determination* Parcel Reviewer Vegetation Potential impacts to Vegetation Excluding USFWS Designated Species from oil and N. Noyes Excluding gas leasing are adequately analyzed and documented in the environmental analysis 4/11/19 NI USFWS prepared for the Monticello 2008 RMP. Actions and impacts are not changed from Karen Cathey Designated those disclosed in these NEPA documents, and further detailed analysis here is not 05/06/2019 Species necessary. Potential impacts to visual resources from oil and gas leasing are adequately analyzed and documented in the environmental analysis prepared for the Monticello RMP, which assigned visual resource management classes to these areas. Actions and impacts are not changed from those disclosed in these NEPA documents

Parcel 408 and a portion of Parcel 407 are in VRM Class III. The goals of this management class are partially retain the existing character of the landscape. Change allowed may be moderate and activities may attract attention but should not dominate the view. The remaining parcels are in VRM Class IV. This management class allows Visual for a high degree of change and activities that require major modification of the S. Sparks NI Resources existing character of the landscape. 4/15/19

Potential future development of these parcels could be visible from key observation points and could potentially impact Visual Resources through modifications to the landscape that would attract the attention of the casual observer. However, such impacts would be mitigated and/or prevented at the development stage through the use of best management practices such as strategic siting, color camouflaging, and vegetative screening of facilities. The leasing and potential future development of all parcels included in the proposed action would conform to all applicable Visual Resource Management objectives established in the Monticello RMP. • The Monticello RMP, 2008 decision WC-1 (page 85) identified which of these lands would be managed to “Protect, maintain and preserve wilderness characteristics.” These inventories identified the following lands adjacent to the Squaw and Papoose Canyons WSA as possessing wilderness characteristics: Squaw and Papoose Canyons Unit • 041 956 • 042 592 • 043 272 • 045 26 Total 1,846 On October 21, 2014, the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA) submitted information suggesting the presence of wilderness characteristics in the Tin Cup Mesa and Monument Canyon units. BLM conducted an analysis and lands within these units were found to possess wilderness character (WC) as determined by Documentation of BLM Wilderness Characteristics Inventory Findings. Lands with Misti Haines NI Wilderness The parcels and acreage of LWC are: 4/15/2019 Characteristics Monument Canyon Unit • 409 1,482 • 410 1,726 • 411 893 • 421 484 Total Acreage 4,585

Tin Cup Mesa Unit • 412 229 acres • 415 960 acres • 416 1,562 acres • 417 459 acres • 418 853 acres • 422 613 acres

111 July 2019

Determination Resource Rationale for Determination* Parcel Reviewer

• 423 994 acres • 424 1,246 acres Total Acreage 6,916

Total Acreage of LWC within all parcels = 13,347

Leasing of these parcels may result in the loss of WC in these areas. While these areas were found to possess wilderness characteristics as determined subsequent to the RMP, only those areas designated in RMP decision WC-1 will be managed to “Protect, maintain and preserve wilderness characteristics …”

Leasing of these parcels is consistent with the management decisions in the Monticello RMP. Potential impacts to LWC from oil and gas leasing are adequately analyzed and documented in the environmental analysis prepared for the Monticello RMP and the March 2018 EA. Actions and impacts are not substantially changed from those disclosed in these NEPA documents. None of the parcels are in the vicinity of the Old Spanish Trail. During the previous consideration of the parcels, comments were received from multiple commenters regarding impacts from oil and gas leasing and development to National units of the National Park System. Historic Trails/ CGiffen NP/NI Units of the To mitigate impacts the following Lease Notice will be attached to all parcels:: 4/10/2019 National Park LN-125; Light And Sound - Sensitive Resources Service Further rationale for eliminating the concern for detailed analysis can be found in Table 2. Issues not included in Further Detail in the Environmental Assessment in the EA.

112 July 2019

Appendix E – References APCD. 2017. "Colorado Air Pollution Control Division, Department of Public Health and Environment. PS Memo 05-01." State of Colorado. https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/AP_Memo-05-01-Oil-and-Gas- Condensate-Tank-Batteries-Guidance.pdf. BLM. 2019. "2018 BLM Utah Air Monitoring Report." https://go.usa.gov/xmDkx. —. 2015. "Air Resource Management Program Strategy 2015-2020 ." Bureau of Land Management. February. Accessed August 17, 2018. https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/AirResourceProgramStrategy.pdf. BLM. 2008. "Biological Opinion for BLM Monticello Field Office RMP." West Valley City, UT. https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front- office/projects/lup/68097/85495/102695/Monticello_Biological_Opinion.pdf. —. 2008. BLM Monticello Field Office Record of Decision and Approved RMP (UT-090-2007- 40). Monticello, Utah. https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front- office/projects/lup/68097/85493/102694/Monticello_Final_Plan.pdf. BLM. 2009. "Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement." BLM. 2007. Final Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision. Washingtion, D.C., September. https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front- office/eplanning/planAndProjectSite.do?methodName=dispatchToPatternPage¤tP ageId=103592. BLM. 2018. March 2018 Canyon Country District Competitive Oil and Gas Lease Sale. Moab. doi:https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front- office/eplanning/planAndProjectSite.do?methodName=dispatchToPatternPage¤tP ageId=122746. BLM. 2019. "March 2019 Lease Sale Cultural Resources Report (Utah SHPO Case No. 19- 0235)." Salt Lake City, UT. —. 2016. "Moab Master Leasing Plan and Proposed Resource Management Plan Amendments/Final Enviornmental Impact Statement." July. https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front- office/eplanning/planAndProjectSite.do?methodName=renderDefaultPlanOrProjectSite& projectId=68430&dctmId=0b0003e880d9ffc7. —. 2016. Moab Master Leasing Plan and Proposed RMP Amendments/FEIS for Moab and Monticello Field Offices (DOI-BLM-UT-Y010-2012-0107-EIS). Moab, Utah. https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front- office/eplanning/planAndProjectSite.do?methodName=dispatchToPatternPage¤tP ageId=99718. —. 2008. Monticello Field Office Proposed RMP and FEIS. Monticello: Monticello Field Office. https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front-office/projects/lup/68097/85623/102818/RMP.pdf.

113 July 2019

—. 2005. Monticello Reasonable Foreseeable Development Scenario (RFD) For Oil and Gas. Monticello, Utah. https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front- office/projects/lup/68097/85828/103015/RFD.pdf. BLM. 2017. Monticello RMP Land Use Amendment/Maintence Change No. 102. Monticello, July 24. https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front- office/projects/lup/68097/144192/177756/Monticello_RMP_Maintenance_102.pdf. —. 2012. Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario for Oil and Gas in the Moab MLP Area, Canyon Country District. Moab, Utah: Bureau of Land Management. https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front- office/projects/lup/68430/88315/105655/MLP_OG_RFD_final_091012_508_web.pdf. —. 2016. Record of Decision and Moab MLP Approved RMP Amendments for Moab and Monticello Field Offices (DOI-BLM-UT-y010-2012-0107-EIS). Moab, Utah: Bureau of Land Management. https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front- office/eplanning/planAndProjectSite.do?methodName=dispatchToPatternPage¤tP ageId=99718. BLM. 2019. "Specialist Report on GHG Analysis for BLM Utah Oil and Gas Leasing." —. 2007. "Surface Operating Standards and Guideline for Oil and Gas Exploration and Development. The Gold Book, Fourth Edition." Denver, Colorado: BLM/WO/ST- 06/021+3071/REV 07. Bureau of Land Management. 84pp. https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/uploads/The%20Gold%20Book%20- %204th%20Ed%20-%20Revised%202007.pdf. —. 2018. "Telephone Call Record. Hydraulic Fracking and Seismic Activity in Utah." March. —. 2018. "Utah Air Resource Management Strategy (ARMS)." Bureau of Land Management. Accessed April 23, 2019. https://go.usa.gov/xmDkx. BLM. 2014. Utah Air Resource Management Strategy Modeling Project Impact Assessment Report. Modeling Project, Fort Collins: AECOM. Accessed August 2018. https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/program_natural%20resources_soil%20air%20 water_airut_quick%20links_ImpactsRpt.pdf. Bryce, S.A., J.R. Strittholt, B.C. Ward, and D.M. Bachelet. 2012. "Colorado Plateau Rapid Ecoregional Assessment Report. Prepared for the U.S. DOI." https://landscape.blm.gov/REA_General_Docs/COP_Final_Report_Body.pdf. Carbon. 2019. Carbon Offset Projects. 5 2. https://www.carbonfootprint.com/carbonoffsetprojects.html. Council, National Research. 2010. "Informing an Effective Response to Climate Change." http://nap.edu/12784. Davis, William E. 1989. "The Lime Ridge Clovis Site." Utah Archaeology 66-76. Duniway et. al. 2019. "Wind Errosion and dust from US drylands: a review of causes, consequences, and solutions in a changing world." Ecosphere 28. EPA. 2019. 2014 National Air Toxics Assessment. Accessed 5 23, 2019. https://gispub.epa.gov/NATA/.

114 July 2019

—. 1995. "AP-42: Compilation of Air Emissions Factors." United States Environmental Protection Agency. https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-factors-and-quantification/ap-42- compilation-air-emissions-factors#5thed. —. 2018. Facility Level Information on GreenHouse Gases Tool (FLIGHT). https://ghgdata.epa.gov/ghgp/main.do. —. 2019. Greenhouse Gases Equivalencies Calculator - Calculations and References. https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gases-equivalencies-calculator-calculations-and- references. —. 2019. "Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990-2017." 5 6. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-04/documents/us-ghg-inventory-2019- main-text.pdf. —. 2019. Natural Gas STAR Program Accomplishments. https://www.epa.gov/natural-gas-star- program/natural-gas-star-program-accomplishments. —. 2018. Overview of Greenhouse Gases. Accessed August 16, 2018. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases. Golder. 2010. Cane Creek Air Quality Impact Assessment (letter submitted to the BLM and NPS). Fort Collins, CO: Golder Associates Inc. Hurst, Winston B., and Hugh L. Robinson. 2014. The Comb Wash Campground Survey: An Archaeological Surface Inventory of 2,200 Acres in San Juan County, UT. Bureau of Land Management, Monticello Field Office: Monticello Field Office. Janssens-Maenhout, G., M. Crippa, D. Guizzardi, M. Muntean, E. Schaaf, J.G.J Olivier, J.A.H.W Peters, and K.M. Schure. 2017. Fossil CO2 and GHG Emissions of All World Countries. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. doi:10.2760/709792. Matson, R. G. 2014. "Cedar Mesa Basketmaker II: The Story Continues." Archaeology Southwest 3 and 4 (28): 24-29. McPherson, Robert S. 1995. "A History of San Juan County: In the Palm of Time." Utah Centennial County History Series. Robins, Michael R. 1997. "Modeling the San Juan Basketmaker Socio-Economic Organization: A Preliminary Study in Rock Art and Social Dynamics." Early Farmers in the Nothern Southwest: Papers on Chronometry, social Dynamics, and Ecology. Rubinstein, Justin and Alireaza Babaie Mahani. 2015. Myths and Facts on Waste Water Injection, Hydraulic Fracturing, Enhanced Oil Recovery, and Induced Seismicity. Vols. Volume 86, Number 4. Sesimological Research Letters, July/August. https://scits.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/isfc_2_rubenstein_pap_srl-2015067.pdf. State of Utah. 2018. State of Utah Resource Managment Plan. Salt Lake City, Utah: State of Utah. Accessed August 2018. http://publiclands.utah.gov/current-projects/rmp/. Strategies, Center for Climate. 2007. "Utah Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Reference Case Projections, 1990-220." http://www.climatestrategies.us/policy_tracker/policy/index/45.

115 July 2019

UDAQ. 2018. "2014 Statewide Emissions Inventories." https://deq.utah.gov/legacy/programs/air-quality/emissions-inventories/inventories/2014- state-list.htm. UDOGM. 2018. Utah Oil and Gas Monthly Production Reports by County. https://oilgas.ogm.utah.gov/oilgasweb/publications/monthly-rpts-by- cnty.xhtml?rptType=CNTY. United States Department of the Interior and United States Department of Agriculture. 2007. Surface Operating Standards and Guidelines for Oil and Gas Exploration and Development. BLM/WO/ST-06/021+307/REV 07. . Denver, Colorado: Bureau of Land Management. USDI and USDA. 2007. "The Gold Book." Vers. Fourth Edition - Revised 2007. Bureau of Land Management. Accessed August 29, 2018. https://www.blm.gov/programs/energy-and- minerals/oil-and-gas/operations-and-production/the-gold-book. USGCRP. 2018. "Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States: Fourth National Climate [Reidmiller, D.R., C.W. Avery, D.R. Easterling, K.E. Kunkel, K.L.M. Lewis, T.K." Washington, DS, USA: U.S. Global Change Research Program. USGS. 2018. "Federal lands greenhouse emissions and sequestration in the United States— Estimates for 2005–14: Merrill, M.D., Sleeter, B.M., Freeman, P.A., Liu, J., Warwick, P.D., and Reed, B.C." WRAP. 2013. "West-wide Jumpstart Air Quality Modeling Studay, Final Project Report and Modeling Results." Accessed 05 24, 2019. https://www.wrapair2.org/pdf/WestJumpAQMS_Model_Results_UT_April16_2014.pdf.

116 July 2019

Appendix F – Acronyms/Abbreviations AO Authorized Officer NESHAP National Emission Standards For Hazardous Air Pollutants APD Application for Permit to Drill NHPA National Historic Preservation Act ARMPA Approved Resource Management NRHP National Register of Historic Places Plan Amendments BCR Bird Conservation Region NSO No Surface Occupancy BLM Bureau of Land Management O.O. Onshore Oil and Gas Order BMP Best Management Practice PLPCO Public Lands Policy Coordinating Office CAA Clean Air Act PARFDS GRSG Population Area Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario CFR Code of Federal Regulations RFDS Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario CIAA Cumulative Impact Analysis Area RMP Resource Management Plan COA Condition of Approval ROD Record of Decision CWCS Comprehensive Wildlife ROW Right of Way Conservation Strategy DR Decision Record S Stipulation EA Environmental Assessment SHPO State Historic Preservation Office EAR Environmental Analysis Record SITLA State Institutional Trust Lands Administration EIS Environmental Impact Statement EOI Expression of Interest UDAQ Utah Division of Air Quality EPA Environmental Protection Agency UDWR Utah Division of Wildlife Resources ESA Endangered Species Act USFS United States Forest Service FFO Fillmore Field Office USFWS United States Fish & Wildlife Service FLPMA Federal Land Policy and UT Utah Management Act FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact UTSO Utah State Office GIS Geographical information System GWP Global Warming Potential WO Washington Office H Handbook IDPRT Interdisciplinary Parcel Review Team IM Instruction Memorandum LN Lease Notice MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act Mcf One Million Cubic Feet MLA Mineral Leasing Act MOU Memorandum of Understanding

117 July 2019

AO Authorized Officer NESHAP National Emission Standards For Hazardous Air Pollutants NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NCLS Notice of Competitive Lease Sale NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

118 July 2019

Appendix G – Reasonable Foreseeable Development of Leases Scenario Development of the parcels under the Proposed Action can be conceived of in three phases and their associated activities: Implementation phase (pad construction, drilling of the well using a conventional pit system or closed-loop system, hydraulically fracturing the well, development of any needed access roads, or expansion of existing roads, installation of pipeline), production phase (vehicle traffic, engines to pump oil if necessary, compressor engines to move gas through a pipeline, venting from storage tanks, hauling produced fluids, regularly monitoring the well, and completing work-over tasks throughout the life of the well if and when necessary), plug and reclamation phase (plugging the well, reclaiming the well pad and other associated disturbances to include access roads and pipelines). Standard terms, conditions, and stipulations listed would apply as appropriate to each lease. In addition, site specific mitigation measures and best management practices (BMPs) would be attached as Conditions of Approval (COAs) for each proposed exploration and development activity authorized on a lease. Additional site-specific impacts would be addressed in a subsequent NEPA document at the Application for Permit to Drill (APD) stage. Drilling of wells on a lease would not be permitted until the lease owner or operator secures approval of a drilling permit and a surface use plan of operations as specified under Onshore Oil and Gas Orders (43 CFR 3162), nor until site-specific NEPA analysis is conducted. Oil and gas leases are issued for a 10-year period and continue for as long thereafter as oil or gas is produced in paying quantities. However, it should be noted that if a leaseholder fails to produce oil and gas, does not make annual rental payments, does not comply with the terms and conditions of the lease, or relinquishes the lease, the lease defaults back to the Federal Government and the lease can be re-offered in another lease sale.

Well Pad and Road Construction Where the surface is not federally owned, the operator is required to obtain a Surface Access Agreement. Surface Access Agreement is addressed in Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 1 (O.O. #1.III.D.4). Equipment for well pad construction could consist of dozers, scrapers, excavators and graders. Disturbance for each well pad could range from 1.0 acre up to 6.8 acres depending on numerous factors such as depth and type of well (vertical, directional, horizontal). All available topsoil from each well pad would be stripped and stockpiled around the edge of the pad for future reclamation. When needed, topsoil would be spread over interim reclamation areas, seeded, left in place for the life of the well, and the remaining topsoil would be used during the final reclamation process. All well pads would be reclaimed. During interim and/or final reclamation, disturbed land would be seeded with a mixture (certified weed free) and rate as required by the BLM. Depending on the locations of the proposed wells, some new or upgraded access roads are anticipated to be required to access well pads and maintain production facilities. Any new roads constructed for the purposes of oil and gas development would be utilized year-round for maintenance of the proposed wells and other facilities, and for the transportation of fluids and/or equipment, and would remain open to other land users. Construction of new roads or upgrades to existing roads would require a 30-foot construction width and would be constructed of native material. After completion of road construction activities, the 30-foot construction width would be reclaimed to an 18-foot wide crowned running surface as well as drainage ditches. The location of the wells would not be known until the APD stage. 5.1.1 Well Drilling and Completion Operations A drilling rig would be transported to the well pad (along with other necessary equipment). Drilling would commence with well spud. Typical drilling operations would include: adding joints of drill pipe at

119 July 2019

the surface as the hole deepens; circulating drilling fluids to cool the drill bit and remove the drill cuttings; pulling the drill pipe from the hole to replace worn drill bits; and setting strings of casing and cementing them in place. Air and/or water-based drilling fluid may be used to drill the hole. Prior to setting the production casing, open-hole well logs may be run to identify potentially productive horizons. If the evaluation concludes that sufficient natural gas and/or oil are present and recoverable, steel production casing would be installed and cemented in place. Drilling activities on a well would typically occur 24 hours per day, seven days per week, and would require approximately 20 workers. Depending on the depth and complexity of the well, drilling could last from a few days to one week. Once a well has been drilled and evaluated to have sufficient oil and/or natural gas, completion operations would begin. Well completion involves perforating the production casing in target zones, followed by hydraulic fracturing (also known as, fracking) of the formation (see below for more information on hydraulic fracturing). The next phase of completion would be to flow and test the well to determine rates of production. Typical equipment and vehicles used during completion activities might include carbon dioxide tanker trucks; sand transport trucks; water trucks; oil service trucks used to transport pumps and equipment for fracking; flat beds and gin trucks to move water tanks, rigs, tubing, and fracking chemicals; logging trucks (cased hole wireline trucks); pickup trucks to haul personnel and miscellaneous small materials; and workover rigs. Completion activities on individual wells may occur 24 hours per day, seven days per week, and would require approximately 20 to 40 workers. Completion of an individual well could take from 7 to 30 days, depending on the number of completion zones. Hydraulic Fracturing Hydraulic fracturing (also known as fracking) is a well stimulation technique used to increase oil and gas production from underground rock formations. Fracking would also be evaluated at the APD stage should the lease parcel be sold/issued and a development proposal submitted. The following paragraphs provide a general discussion of the fracking process that could potentially be implemented if development were to occur, including well construction information and general conditions encountered. Fracking involves the injection of fluids through a wellbore under pressures great enough to fracture the oil and gas producing formations. The fluid is generally comprised of a liquid such as oil, carbon-dioxide or nitrogen, and proppant (commonly sand or ceramic beads), and a minor percentage of chemicals to give the fluid desirable flow characteristics, corrosion inhibition, etc. The proppant holds open the newly created fractures after the injection pressure is released. Oil and gas flow through the fractures and up the production well to the surface. Fracking has been used by oil and natural gas producers since the late 1940s and for the first 50 years was mostly used in vertical wells in conventional formations. Fracking is still used in these settings, but the process has evolved. Technological developments (including horizontal drilling) have led to the use of fracking in unconventional hydrocarbon formations that could not otherwise be profitably produced. The use of horizontal drilling through unconventional reservoirs combined with high-volume water based multi-stage fracking activities has led to an increase in oil and gas activity in several areas of the country which has, in turn, resulted in a dramatic increase in domestic oil and gas production nationally. However, along with the production increase, fracking activities are suspected of causing contamination of fresh water by creating fluid communication between oil and gas reservoirs and aquifers. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently conducted an assessment of fracking on drinking water resources (https://www.epa.gov/hfstudy) [EPA 2016]. Presently, there are no unconventional reservoirs that are being exploited using high-volume water based hydraulic fracturing techniques.

120 July 2019

5.1.2 Production Operations If wells were to go into production, facilities would be located at the well pad and typically include a well head, two storage tanks, a truck load-out, separator, and dehydrator. Construction of the production facility would be located on the well pad and not result in any additional surface disturbance. All permanent surface structures would be painted a flat, non-reflective color (e.g., covert green) specified by the BLM in order to blend with the colors of the surrounding natural environment. Facilities that are required to comply with the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) would be excluded from painting color requirements. All surface facilities would be painted immediately after installation and under the direction and approval of the BLM. If oil is produced, the oil would be stored on location in tanks and transported by truck to a refinery. The volume of tanker truck traffic for oil production would be dependent upon production of the wells. If natural gas is produced, construction of a gas sales pipeline would be necessary to transport the gas. An additional Sundry Notice, right of way (ROW) and NEPA analysis would be completed, as needed, for any pipelines and/or other production facilities proposed across public lands. BLM Best Management Practices (BMPs), such as burying the pipeline and/or installing the pipeline within the road, would be considered at the time of the proposal. All operations would be conducted following the “Gold Book”, Surface Operating Standards for Oil and Gas Exploration and Development (United States Department of the Interior and United States Department of Agriculture 2007). The Gold Book was developed to assist operators by providing information on the requirements for conducting environmentally responsible oil and gas operations on federal lands. The Gold Book provides operators with a combination of guidance and standards for ensuring compliance with agency policies and operating requirements, such as those found at 43 CFR 3000 and 36 CFR 228 Subpart E; Onshore Oil and Gas Orders (Onshore Orders); and Notices to Lessees. The Gold Book includes environmental BMPs designed to provide for safe and efficient operations while minimizing undesirable impacts to the environment. Exploration and development on split-estate lands are also addressed in the Gold Book, along with IM 2003-131, Permitting Oil and Gas on Split-Estate Lands and Guidance for Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 1, and IM 2007-165, Split-Estate Report to Congress – Implementation of Fluid Mineral Leasing and Land Use Planning Recommendations. Proper planning and consultation, along with the proactive incorporation of these BMPs into the APD Surface Use Plan of Operations by the operator, would typically result in a more efficient APD and environmental review process, increased operating efficiency, reduced long-term operating costs, reduced final reclamation needs, and less impact to the environment. 5.1.3 Produced Water Handling Water is often associated with either produced oil or natural gas. Water is separated out of the production stream and can be temporarily stored in the reserve pit for 90 days. Permanent disposal options include discharge to evaporation pits or underground injection for enhanced recovery. Handling of produced water is addressed in Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 7. Most injection wells do not cause earthquakes. In the United States, there is approximately 35,000 active waste-water disposal wells, 80,000 active enhanced oil-recovery wells, and tens of thousands of wells, and tens of thousands of wells are hydraulically fractured every year in the United States. The earthquake rate increased in Oklahoma, southern Kansas, central Arkansas, and multiple parts of Texas (Rubinstein 2015). In Utah, the volumes are lower than those states experiencing induced seismicity. Also, the geology is different than those states experiencing induced seismicity. The injection zones are stratigraphically thousands of feet above the basement rock that may contain large unknown faults.

121 July 2019

Therefore, at this time it appears that induced seismicity from water injection is not a problem in the oil fields of Utah (BLM 2018). 5.1.4 Maintenance Operations Traffic volumes during production would be dependent upon whether the wells produced natural gas and/or oil, and for the latter, the volume of oil produced. Well maintenance operations may include periodic use of work-over rigs and heavy trucks for hauling equipment to the producing well, and would include inspections of the well by a pumper on a regular basis or by remote sensing. The road and the well pad would be maintained for reasonable access and working conditions. Portions of the well pad not needed for production of the proposed well, including the reserve pit, would be re-contoured and reclaimed, as an interim reclamation of the site. 5.1.5 Plugging and Abandonment If the wells do not produce economic quantities of oil or gas, or when it is no longer commercially productive, the well would be plugged and abandoned. The wells would be plugged and abandoned following procedures approved by a BLM Petroleum Engineer, which would include requiring cement plugs at strategic positions in the well bore. All fluids in the reserve pit would be allowed to dry prior to reclamation work. After fluids have evaporated from the reserve pit, sub-soil would be backfilled and compacted within 90 days. If the fluids within the reserve pit have not evaporated within 90 days (weather permitting or within one evaporation cycle, i.e. one summer), the fluid would be pumped from the pit and disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations. The well pad would be re-contoured, and topsoil would be replaced, scarified, and seeded within 180 days of the plugging the well.

122 July 2019

Appendix H – Comments and Responses As defined in the NEPA Handbook (page 40), “an ‘issue’ is a point of disagreement, debate, or dispute with a proposed action based on some anticipated environmental effect. An issue is more than just a position statement, such as disagreement with grazing on public lands. An issue: • Has a cause and effect relationship with the proposed action or alternatives; • Is within the scope of the analysis; • Has not been decided by law, regulation, or previous decision; and • Is amenable to scientific analysis rather than conjecture.” Comments that express a professional disagreement with the conclusions of the analysis or assert that the analysis is inadequate may or may not lead to changes in the EA. Substantive comments and non-substantive comments are defined in the NEPA Handbook, H-1790-1, section 6.9.2. The BLM National Environmental Handbook (H-1790-1) states that substantive comments do one or more of the following: • Question, with reasonable basis the accuracy of information in the EIA or EA • Question, with reasonable basis, the adequacy of methodology for, or assumptions used for the environmental analysis • Present new information relevant to the analysis • Present reasonable alternatives other than those analyzed in the EIS or EA • Cause changes or revisions in one or more of the alternatives. Comments that are not substantive or comments received after the close of the public comment period may not receive a response. All comments received are posted on ePlanning. Please note, paragraph numbering was added to comments. BLM responded to ACHP’s review of the March 2019 Lease Sale Cultural Resource Report formally through the Section 106 consultation process. This letter is available to the public at: http://go.usa.gov/xPfnq

Commenter Comment Response 1. Southern Utah [Due to the length, the BLM has summarized the comments. The document in its entirety Due to the length, the BLM has summarized the comments to the headers. The document in its entirety is published on the ePlanning website. Wilderness is published on the ePlanning website] SUWA also submitted exhibits which were not timely and was not submitted through ePlanning. Alliance

[1] SUWA Incorporates Its Protests of the March and December 2018 and [1] Incorporation of a prior comment or protest requires a summary of the points of the comment or protest as it applies to the current action. On page two March 2019 Monticello Field Office Lease Sale. of the comment, the commenter provided a bulleted list of points, however only one was not repeated in the current comment: “BLM must first complete the San Juan Master Leasing Plan (San Juan MLP prior to offering new oil and gas leases for development in this region.” This is out of scope for a comment on the EA.

[2] BLM Failed to take a Hard Look at the Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative [2] An EA must take a hard look at the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of a proposed action. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.9(b); NEPA Handbook H-1790, p. Impacts of Its Leasing Decision… 55, 81. The Tenth Circuit has held that the “hard look” test under NEPA is satisfied if “the BLM considers generally the potential environmental effects of its actions before issuing a lease and reserves a more detailed environmental analysis until a [site-specific] drilling proposal is made. [2a]BLM Failed to Analyze Site-Specific Impacts of the Lease Sale… [2a]The commenter contends that the BLM must “analyze all direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of its leasing decision.” It bases this contention on the principle that lease issuance is an “irretrievable commitment of resources” and “BLM regulations, the courts and [Interior Board of Land Appeals ("Board")] precedent proceed under the notion that the issuance of a lease without an NSO stipulation conveys to the lessee an interest and a right so secure that full NEPA review must be conducted prior to the decision to lease.” S. Utah Wilderness Alliance, 159 IBLA 220,241 (2003 ) However, 43 CFR §3101.1-2 States:

A lessee shall have 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 resources in a leasehold subject to: Stipulations attached to the lease; restrictions deriving from specific nondiscretionary statures: and 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 lease operations are proposed (emphasis added).

In other words, the lessee’s right to use the surface does not include a right to violate laws to protect certain resources. Such laws include

a) The Clean Air Act b) The Clean Water Act

123 July 2019

Commenter Comment Response c) The Threatened and Endangered Species Act d) The National Historic Preservation Act e) The Migratory Bird Treaty Act f) The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act g) The Paleontological Resources Preservation Act

Also note that the IBLA decision quoted above does not state that BLM must “analyze all direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of its leasing decision.” It states that: “full NEPA review must be conducted prior to the decision to lease.” (emphasis added) The BLM conducts a site specific review of all these protected resources prior to offering a parcel for lease to determine if there is potential that lease development will violate any of these Acts, and attaches Lease Stipulations and Notices to inform the lessee that development of the parcel will be constrained, if necessary (substantially constrained, if necessary), to ensure compliance with the law. These Lease Stipulations and Notices are derived from existing analyses that are incorporated by reference

in the analysis. As such, existing analysis, particularly the EIS prepared to disclose the impacts from a proposed Land Use Plan is often sufficient disclosure at the leasing stage to make an informed decision. If the BLM resource specialist determines additional analysis is necessary to supplement existing analysis, that analysis is included in an EA or EIS, as appropriate.

The BLM also conducts site specific review of other issues and concerns that are not protected by law. If, after all existing analyses with derived stipulations and notices are reviewed and applied, the resource specialist determines that additional analysis is needed to disclose potentially unacceptable impacts, the analysis is included in the EA or EIS. Frequently new lease notices are derived that will allow the BLM to add Conditions of Approval when issuing the development permits. Many of these analyses have been conducted in past NEPA documents, making it unnecessary to conduct new analyses when attaching the lease notices.

Thus the statement that the BLM must “analyze all direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of its leasing decision” is substantially correct, but it is incorrect that new site specific analysis must be prepared for each decision. Site specific review is conducted, and rationale provided if the resource specialist determines new analysis is not warranted.

The commenter has specifically called out a perceived lack of existing analysis on Bears Ears (BENM) or Canyons of the Ancients National Monuments.

In regards to BENM, the commenter asserts that the “western bloc of parcels are located less than four miles” away. The commenter is referring to the historic boundary of the BENM, however the current boundary is about 9.5 miles from the nearest parcel. The commenter has provided no specific conflicts the parcels may have with BENM resources.

In respect to the Canyon of the Ancients National Monument (CANM), the commenter’s assertion that impacts from oil and gas development have never been analyzed is incorrect. When established, 80% of the lands with the CANM were under lease. The EIS prepared for the CANM RMP extensively discussed impacts from oil and gas development including, in the cumulative impact section, development outside the CANM. This EIS has been added to the list of documents in Section 1.7 of the EA, and the list of references.

In respect to the commenter’s assertion that neither the March 2018 EA nor the 2008 MtFO RMP EIS analyze the direct, indirect or cumulative impacts to the Squaw and Papoose Canyon lands with wilderness characteristics, again, the analysis of impacts to wilderness characteristics does not need to be started “from scratch” for every decision. Appendix D provides the acreage leased within each of these units, and Table 2 of the EA provides additional rationale why further detailed analysis is not required for cumulative impacts to lands with wilderness characteristics within the MtFO.

[2b] The comment points to the recent 10th Circuit Court of Appeals Decision that, upon preparation of a Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario [2b]BLM Failed to Analyze All Reasonably Foreseeable Cumulative Impacts (RFDS), the BLM must consider the number of wells projected in the RFDS as reasonably foreseeable in a cumulative impact analysis. However, the Court Decision involved an RFDS prepared for a particular geologic formation, not a Field Office, and the Court did not state that the number of wells in an RFDS must be used in the cumulative impact analysis for a resource with a Cumulative Impact Analysis Area (CIAA) that is smaller than the area considered in the RFDS. However, BLM agrees that the 2005 MtFO RMP RFDS is a reasonable foreseeable action is regards to cumulative impact analysis of Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases, and has revised the EA accordingly. The commenter’s assertion that a cumulative impact analysis of a CIAA much smaller than that used to derive an RFDS must be conducted as though all development projected in that RFDS will occur in that CIAA has no merit. In addition, the MtFO RMP EIS did use the 2005 RFDS in preparing its cumulative impact analysis.

[3] SUWA summarized the comments in 4 through 4f and are addressed below. Comments by Ms. Williams were not submitted through the ePlanning [3] SUWA Incorporates the Comments Prepared by Ms. Megan Williams system, nor submitted timely.

124 July 2019

Commenter Comment Response

[4] BLM Must Analyze the Impacts of its Actions on Climate Change under [4] and [4a] Background – no response required. NEPA [4b] As stated on page 3 of the GHG specialist report (BLM 2019), BLM Utah uses GWP from the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report and the 100-year time [4a] Climate Change Impacts are Already Occurring and Must Be Analyzed horizon. Specifically the value used for CH4 is 28, and 265 for N2O. The reference to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report was inadvertently left out of the and Disclosed GHG specialist report, but has been added. The 100-year time horizon is used to allow for a direct comparison with state and national emissions that are also reported using the 100 year GWP. [4b] BLM Failed to Disclose the True Magnitude of Methane Pollution For the construction and operation emissions the BLM listed the mass emitted of each GHG (CO2, CH4, and N2O) so that the public has the information to calculate other GWP using different time horizons (20 year or 500 year) if they choose. The mass for each gas is not provided for combustion emissions since the combustion process converts methane into carbon dioxide as shown in the following chemical formula, CH4 + 2O2 → CO2 + 2H20 (http://www.classzone.com/vpg_ebooks/ml_sci_gr8/accessibility/ml_sci_gr8/page_284.pdf), and combustion emissions will not be meaningfully different

between different GWP time scales. Additionally the calculation for combustion emissions follow IPCC guidance. Reporting the 20 year GWP will not provide any additional information for the decision maker beyond what is already included in the EA. However, for public disclosure purpose the EA has been updated to show the 20-year GWP time horizon for construction and operation emissions using values from the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report.

[4c] BLM Failed to Adequately Analyze and Disclose the Direct and Indirect [4c] Since the act of leasing is an administrative action there are no direct GHG emissions, and similarly no direct climate impacts. As stated in the EA, Impacts of its Actions on Climate section 3.3.2.2, indirect emissions that may result from the lease sale could come from well construction, well operations, and combustion of produced oil and gas. As no development plans are available the BLM is unable to reasonably estimate mid-stream emissions (i.e. compressor stations, distribution pipelines, refining processes, etc.) that may occur. Although, most mid-stream emission sources are required to report GHG emissions, so emissions from these activities are included in the cumulative analysis with the reported state and U.S. emissions.

Additional information is added to the EA to clarify how the single well emissions were estimated from the Moab Master Lease Plan FEIS (BLM 2008) emissions inventory. An appendix has been added to the GHG specialist report to provide more detail on the GHG emissions that come from each phase of development. In reviewing the emission calculations from the Moab MLP it was discovered that an earlier version of emission inventory was used. GHG emission estimates have been updated to use the final emissions inventory that was used in the Moab MLP FEIS air analysis. Changes between the early and final version include improved estimates for heavy equipment exhaust emissions during construction, and the addition of re-completion, blowdown, and workover emissions during operations.

Providing an estimate of every possible end-use is outside the scope of this analysis. Emissions from other end-uses are not included because it does not provide additional information about environmental impacts that are not already disclosed through reporting combustion emissions. The BLM has no authority to direct what the end-use of produced oil or gas should be, and does not have any information at this time related end-use. In the EA, the BLM assumes 100% of produced oil and gas will be used in combustion for domestic energy and heating purposes. This assumption provides a sufficient estimate of end-use emissions to inform the decision maker of the environmental impacts, and estimating other end-use emissions is unnecessary.

That statement about combustion emissions being conservative was clarified from the GHG specialist report. This statement was intended to show that the

calculations accounted for no product loss between the wellhead and point of combustion, but could be interpreted that calculated end-use emissions are conservative.

Additional information related to GHG mitigation was added to the EA.

[4d] BLM has provided a best estimate of the cumulative GHG emissions at the time the draft EA was written. In summary, the commenter states that [4d] BLM Failed to Analyze and Disclose the Cumulative Impacts of its Actions BLM failed to include foreseeable development from Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands leases, the March 2019 lease sale, the March and on Climate December 2018 lease sales, or from notice of intents for future lease sales. We have coordinated with STILA. We have taken into account the non-federal and federal APDs into our cumulative analysis which is the best available information we have. STILA did not provided any RFDs for their past and future lease sale. Section 3.2 has been updated. BLM has included emissions from foreseeable development from the December 2018, March 2019, June 2019, September 2019, and December 2019 BLM lease sales. Only these lease sales were considered to avoid double counting of emissions from prior lease sales and from foreseeable development associated with the APDs that were included in the cumulative. Total annual emissions estimates in this EA

125 July 2019

Commenter Comment Response have been updated with better estimates of foreseeable development for the December 2019 lease sale, and to include non-federal APDs. The EA has also been updated to include emissions associated with the planning area reasonably foreseeable development scenarios contained in the Monticello RMP, and Moab MLP. This provides an estimate of emissions from all leasable acres in the planning area which includes all past, present, and foreseeable lease sales.

In addition to the cumulative emission analysis for the field office, the EA reports total annual statewide emissions which includes BLM lease sales from other field offices. Federal fossil fuel related emissions across the Rocky Mountain region and nationally are not included because they occur outside the CIAA and lease sales outside the state of Utah are not connected actions (section 6.8.3.2 in NEPA Handbook H-1790-1). However, the BLM does

disclose federal fossil fuel emissions from Utah, surrounding states, and nationally as it is reported in the USGS report (USGS 2018).

[4e] Climate impacts are a result of global emissions as a whole and at present there are no informative methods for expressing the climate impacts from a [4e] BLM Failed to Analyze and Disclose the Significance of its Actions on single projects GHG emissions. In the EA, direct and indirect GHG emissions are used as a proxy for climate impacts, compared to state and national Climate…Social Cost of Carbon…Social Cost of Methane…Global Carbon emissions, and expressed in terms of the equivalent amount of vehicles and home energy use to make the impacts from emissions relatable to public life. Budgeting The commenter references CEQ guidance for not comparing project emissions with national and global emissions. However, this guidance has been rescinded and the recent WEG vs Zinke court ruling instructs the BLM to include a comparison to state and national emissions. While section 3.3.2.2 doesn’t include a discussion of climate impacts, they are included in the cumulative analysis section 3.3.2.4. Section 3.3.2.2 has been updated to direct readers to the climate impact discussion in Section 3.3.2.4.

Additionally, the commenter provides no better alternative for expressing the direct and indirect GHG emissions impact on the climate. The commenter states that GHG emissions could be monetized, but monetization is not an environmental impact. Additionally, reporting only the cost of GHG emissions without a full cost benefit analysis would misinform the decision maker and public. NEPA does not require a cost benefit analysis.

BLM chose not use social cost of carbon estimates for several reasons. First, social cost of carbon estimates are an economic metric meant to monetize the net effects associated with an increase in carbon dioxide emissions. As such, social cost of carbon estimates are developed through an economic cost- benefit analysis. NEPA does not require an economic cost-benefit analysis (40 C.F.R. § 1502.23). Without a complete monetary cost-benefit analysis, which would include the social benefits of energy production to society as a whole and other potential positive effects, inclusion of a global social cost of carbon analysis would be unbalanced, potentially inaccurate, and not useful. Additionally, CEQ’s draft NEPA Guidance on Consideration of GHG Emissions states “an agency need not weigh the effects of the various alternatives in NEPA in a monetary cost-benefit analysis using any monetized Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) estimates and related documents (collectively referred to as “SCC estimates”),or other similar cost metrics.” (https://ceq.doe.gov/guidance/ceq_guidance_nepa-ghg.html)

The commenter states that the SCC is a “digestible figure for the public” by providing an example that a lease sale could have $100 million in climate impacts. While this sounds simple, there is multiple carbon costs to choose from and no consensus on which value is best to use. In some cases there can be a 1000% difference between low and high SCC estimates. With such a large difference, the use of SCC would only confuse the decision maker and public on the climate impacts.

Furthermore, social cost of carbon estimates are just one approach that an agency can take to examine climate consequences from GHG emissions associated with the proposed leasing action. The fact that climate impacts associated with GHG emissions were not quantified in terms of monetary costs does not mean that climate impacts were ignored in this EA. This EA quantifies greenhouse gas emissions as the common metric and then qualitatively discusses potential climate impacts. Climate change and potential climate impacts, in and of themselves, are often not well understood by the general public (Etkin and Ho 2007, National Research Council 2009). This is in part due to the challenges associated with communicating about climate change and climate impacts, stemming in part from the fact that most causes are invisible factors (such as greenhouse gases) and there is a long lag time and geographic scale between causes and effects (National Research Council 2010). Research indicates that for difficult environmental issues such as climate change, most people more readily understand if the issue is brought to a scale that is relatable to their everyday life (Dietz 2013); when the science and technical aspects are presented in an engaging way such as narratives about the potential implications of the climate impacts (Corner,Lewandowsky, Phillips, and Roberts 2015); use examples and make information relevant to the audience while also linking the local and global scales (National Research Council 2010). In order to more effectively convey the potential climate impacts the BLM quantified greenhouse gas emissions as a common metric, presented emissions in an equivalent related to everyday life, and discussed narratively climate impacts. This approach presents the data and information in a manner that follows many of the guidelines for effective climate change communication developed by the National Academy of Sciences (National Research Council 2010) by making the information more readily understood and relatable to the decision-maker and the general public. The approach taken by the BLM for this EA to discuss climate change provides impacts at several scales whereas the social cost of carbon metric only provides an

126 July 2019

Commenter Comment Response impact metric at the global scale. This limits the usefulness for the decision-maker given the lack of information on more localized impacts. The BLM approach in the EA meets the “hard look” requirement by presenting the environmental impacts of the proposal and the alternatives in comparative form (quantified greenhouse gas emissions), and discusses cumulative climate impacts, providing for the definition of issues and environmental consequences ensuring that an informed decision can be made. • Corner, A., Lewandowsky, S., Phillips, M. and Roberts, O. (2015). The uncertainty handbook-A practical guide for climate change communicators. Bristol: University of Bristol. • Dietz, T. (2013). Bringing values and deliberation to science communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) 110(3):14081-14087. • Etkin, D. and Ho, E. (2007). Climate change: Perceptions and discourses of risk. Journal of Risk Research 10(5): 623-641.

• National Research Council. (2009). Informing decisions in a changing climate: Washington D.C.., The National Academies Press. • National Research Council. (2010). Informing an effective response to climate change: Washington D.C.., The National Academies Press.

The commenters reasoning for using the Social Cost of Methane in the greenhouse gas analysis is essentially the same the reasoning for using the Social

Cost of Carbon. Similar to what was mentioned about the Social Cost of Carbon, there are several cost estimates that can be used for methane. The commenter provides an estimated cost range of $540 to $3,200 for each ton of methane emitted. These values represent a nearly 600% difference, and would similarly lead to confusion for the decision maker and public.

Carbon budgeting is a simplified approach for identifying how much additional CO2 emissions the atmosphere can accept in order to limit global warming to a certain temperature above pre-industrial levels (2.0C for Paris Agreement, 1.5C for IPCC 2018 Special Report). The carbon budget was developed as a tool to assist policy makers in reducing GHG emissions on national and global scales. There is no requirement or mechanism to apply a worldwide carbon budget to a site specific project such as the proposed action. Carbon budgets do not currently exist at the national or state level, and creating such a budget is beyond the scope of this EA. While a carbon budget sounds like a simple tool there is a lot of complexity and uncertainty to it that make it confusing to the decision maker and public. There are multiple carbon budgets to choose from, each representing a different amount of global warming. Even for a carbon budget that limits warming to 1.5C, scientists have struggled to agree on the size of the budget. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2018 Special Report (SR), “uncertainties in the size of these estimated remaining carbon budgets are substantial.” The IPCC SR estimates the budget for a 50/50 chance of exceeding 1.5C at 580 gigatonnes of CO2 (GtCO2), with an uncertainty of ± 400GtCO2. This uncertainty is nearly 70% of the budget. The uncertainty results from what the precise meaning of the 1.5C target is, definition of what "surface temperature" means, definition of the "pre-industrial" period, what observational temperature dataset to use, uncertainty in non-CO2 factors that influence warming, and if earth-system feedbacks should be taken into account. With the large uncertainty in the remaining carbon budgets, it is not a useful tool for assigning a GHG emissions significance level at this time. Additionally, carbon budgets are inherently reduced with any GHG emissions. Based on the disclosed GHG emissions in the EA and the substantial uncertainties in the size of carbon budgets, inclusion of carbon budgets would not provide additional useful information to the decision maker or public.

Furthermore, the IPCC SR further states that policy actions across sectors and spatial scales are needed to reduce emissions and limit warming. Evaluations of such policy actions are beyond the scope of this EA.

• IPCC, 2018: Global warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty [V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, H. O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J. B. R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M. I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, T. Waterfield (eds.)]. World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, 32 pp.

[4f] BLM must analyze and disclose to the public the climate impacts at the [4f]Reasonably foreseeable climate impacts resulting from GHG emissions is included in the EA, see section3.3.2.2. This EA incorporates by reference leasing stage the climate analysis from the Colorado Plateau Rapid Eco-regional Assessment (Bryce 2012), which identifies the potential for climate change within the Colorado Plateau. Potential for climate change across the Plateau varies from low to very high. Additional information was added to the EA to point out the potential for climate change where lease parcels are located.

127 July 2019

Commenter Comment Response [5] The first part of the commenter’s comment in regards to the requests of other entities is out of scope since the requests are not specific to the 2019 EA. [5] BLM failed to Take a Hard Look at Impacts to Protected Lands including Dark Skies The second and third parts, involving impacts to Hovenweep National Monument were addressed in the EA. The EA incorporates by reference the Night at Hovenweep National Monument and Hovenweep National Monument Resource Skies and soundscape analyses in the Moab MLP, and attaches the Lease Notice derived from that analysis: Protection LIGHT AND SOUND - SENSITIVE RESOURCES The lessee/operator may be required to utilize best management practices and the best available technology in order to minimize/mitigate noise and light pollution impacts. In accordance with section 6 of the lease terms and 43 CFR 3101.1-2, modifications to Surface Use Plan of Operations may be required to minimize the impacts to the values of silence and night skies to visitors of parks, monuments, river corridors and other destinations where light and/or sound impacts would mar the visitor experience. For example, the lessee/operator may be required to install multi-cylinder pumps, hospital sound reducing mufflers, and/or place exhaust systems in manner that directs noise away from or reduces noise at the area. Additionally, the lessee/operator may be required to utilize such methods such as limiting the height of light poles, limiting wattage intensity, constructing light shields and/or adhering to prescribed restrictions on the timing for conducting artificially illuminated operations in order to minimize/mitigate light pollution impacts. However, the above described requirements will not be applicable when their implementation would adversely affect human health and safety.

As far as air quality impacts on the Monument, the EA has conducted a reasonable analysis on the EA on air quality which is applicable to the Monument.

[6, 6a and 6b] These are comments on the NHPA process which has a separate comment period. The commenter made NHPA comments on these parcels [6] BLM’s Treatment of Cultural Resources Violated the National Historic Preservation when they were previously considered to be offered for lease in the March 2019 Lease Sale. The responses to those comments can be found here: Act and NEPA https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front-office/projects/nepa/117403/169516/206123/2018-02-13_March2019_OG_SUWA_comments.pdf

[6a]BLM Failed to Make a Reasonable and Good Faith Effort to Identify Historic Properties

[6b]BLM’s No Adverse Effect Determination is Unsupported and Arbitrary

[6c] The BLM Failed to Take a Hard Look at Impacts to Cultural Resources Pursuant to [6c] BLM has prepared a Cultural Resources Report and is consulting with the SHPO for this lease sale (sections 4.2, 4.2.2, and Appendix D), in addition NEPA to sending the Cultural Resources Report to consulting parties. The act of leasing does not authorize any development or use of the surface of lease lands without further application by the operator and approval by the BLM. A lessee must submit an Application for Permit to Drill (APD) (Form 3160-3) to the BLM for approval and must possess an approved APD prior to any surface disturbance in preparation for drilling. The EA analyzes all impacts that are reasonably foreseeable at the lease sale stage. Any stipulations and/or notices attached to the standard lease form must be complied with before an APD may be approved. If APDs are received, the BLM would conduct additional site-specific NEPA analysis before deciding whether to approve the APD and what additional conditions of approval (COA) would be applied.

[7] BLM utilized the Cane Creek visibility modeling to assess impacts to the closest Class I areas (Canyonlands and Arches National Parks) to the lease [7] BLM’s Reliance on the Cane Creek Project and Moab MLP is Arbitrary parcels. Class I areas are provided additional protections for air quality related values (i.e., visibility, deposition) by the Clean Air Act that are not provided to all other area (including Bear Ears, Hovenweep, or Canyons of the Ancient National Monuments). Since the Cane Creek Project is located much closer to the Class I areas than the parcels being offered for lease, the visibility impacts to the Class I areas are likely to be much less than what was analyzed for the Cane Creek Project.

While the commenter correctly states that lease parcels are no located in the Moab MLP modeling analysis, this was identified in the introductory paragraph of section 3.3.1.4. However, the Moab MLP modeling area does overlap with the CIAA (i.e. San Juan County, Utah) and provides some insight into the cumulative impacts that are predicted to occur in portions of the CIAA. In addition to the Moab MLP, cumulative impact information was incorporated from the Utah Air Resource Management Strategy (ARMS) modeling study. The ARMS modeling domain covered the entire CIAA, and shows that pollutants of concern (Ozone and PM2.5) are predicted to be below but near the NAAQS. The EA identifies that additional analysis may be warranted based on site specific details that are available when a lessee submits a plan of development.

The commenter recommends use of the air quality modeling analysis prepared for the BLM Colorado Tres Rios, Uncompahgre, and Grand Junction field offices. Information provided by the commenter about the BLM Colorado modeling analysis (https://www.co.blm.gov/nepa/airreports/AR2015.html) is specific to the field offices in Colorado, and information is not accessible from that report for the CIAA or BLM Utah Monticello field office.

128 July 2019

Commenter Comment Response

In addition to the modeling information, this EA contains a qualitative discussion about the air quality impacts for oil and gas development. As identified in section 3.3.1.1 and incorporated from the BLM Air Monitoring Report (BLM 2019), air quality in the Monticello Field office is generally good. The area is in attainment or unclassifiable for all NAAQS pollutants. Air Quality Index information shows that San Juan County, Utah, had less had one percent of days with unhealthy air between 2008 and 2017. The low level of development projected from this lease sale will have a negligible increase in in pollutant emissions compared to existing emissions reported in the 2014 Nation Emission Inventory (BLM 2019). As a result, it is unlikely that the small increase in emissions from developing the lease parcels would substantially degrade air quality in the area.

The modeling information presented in this EA, along with the qualitative discussion sufficiently informs the decision maker of potential air quality impacts if parcels are developed.

[8] The Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) has held that subsumed in a no action alternative is consideration of a no leasing alternative like the ones [8] BLM Violated the NEPA Alternative Mandate; Legal Framework – NEPA the commenter proposed in its comments on the EA. See Biodiversity Conservation Alliance et al., 183 IBLA 97, 124 (2013) (finding that an alternative Alternatives Analysis…BLM Analyzed Only the Extreme Lease-Nothing or Lease- that would have deferred leasing in certain sage grouse habitat was “clearly considered” by the BLM “in the course of considering the no action Everything Alternatives – and SUWA’s Recommended Alternatives alternative, under which all of the public lands proposed for leasing would not be leased, and thus would not be developed for oil and gas purposes. Subsumed under the no action alternative was not leasing all of the parcels within the Core Areas, including the parcels now at issue..”). Thus, the BLM’s No Action alternative would eliminate any potential impact to the areas that would be analyzed in the commenter’s suggested “leasing outside wilderness caliber lands” and “cultural resource preservation” alternatives. The commenter’s “phased development-leasing” alternative would require a stipulation that is currently not authorized by the MtFO RMP, so such an alternative would not be in compliance with the RMP. As stated in the Memorandum Decision and Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Review of Agency Action and Dismissing Certain Claims as Moot in the United States District Court for the District of Utah Case No. 2:15-cv-00194-JNP-EJF, SUWA et. al. vs. BLM et. al. “FLPMA prohibits…BLM from taking actions inconsistent with the provisions of RMPs.” (Memorandum, page. 6). On January 31, 2018, BLM released WO IM 2018-034, which states that “It is BLM policy that existing land use plan decisions remain in effect until an amendment or revision is complete or approved.” This would also prevent the BLM from implementing the commenter’s “mitigation leasing” alternative, which may require new controlled surface use and no surface occupancy stipulations. Best Management Practices are not attached to leases, but are required by regulation and through Conditions of Approval attached to development authorizations.

129 July 2019

Commenter Comment Response 2.) Pueblo of [9] The Pueblo of Acoma (" Pueblo" or "Acoma") has directed the Chestnut Law Offices, P.A., as its legal counsel , to submit these [9-14]. These are comments on the NHPA process which has a separate comment period. The commenter Acoma comments on its behalf. Acoma appreciates the opportunity to submit scoping comments to the Bureau of Land Management ' s (BLM) made NHPA comments on these parcels when they were previously considered to be offered for lease in the Monticello Field Office's (MtFO) September 2019 competitive oil and gas lease sale (# DO I­ BLM-UT-0000-2019-0003-EA). The Pueblo March 2019 Lease Sale. The responses to those comments can be found here: https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl- of Acoma demands that the BLM defer the September 20 19 Lease Sa le for the reasons stated belo w front-office/projects/nepa/117403/169516/206123/2018-02-13_March2019_OG_SUWA_comments.pdf The Commenter made a request for government to government consultation. There are no comments specific [10]Background to the EA to respond to. The letter has been passed on to the appropriate manager to handle the request for government to government consultation. UT BLM responded to ACHP’s review of the March 2019 Lease Sale Cultural Resource Report formally through the Section 106 consultation process. This letter is available to the [10a] BLM has proposed for lease nineteen parcels, previously deferred from the BLM MtFO's March 2019 Lease Sale {#DOI-BLM- public at: http://go.usa.gov/xPfnq UT-Y020-2019-004-DNA) The stated reason for the March 2019 Lease Sale’s deferral was for additional environmental analysis.

Primarily, the need for additional e environmental analysis was due to the need for additional cultural resource evaluation, a subject that was ultimately appealed to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (" AC HP”). The ACHP highlight h ted the BLM's erroneous assert ion that lea sing would have no ad verse effect, and its conclusion that " it is possible to site a single oil and gas well within each parcel without causing direct or indirect effects to known historic properties, and that ground C lass III surveys and consultation will be conducted prior to approval of any ground disturbing activities." In stark disagreement , the ACHP could not agree with the BLM' s ultimate finding of "no adverse effect," citing the BLM's failure to document how it would consider specific direct, indirect , and cumulative effects, or how the BLM would avoid adverse effects to subsequently identified eligible districts or landscapes. The ACHP noted the BLM' s failure to commit itself to a No Surface Occupancy stipulation for the lease parcels , which the ACHP concluded: " it logically follows that there is the potential for direct adverse effects of this reasonable fo rese ea ble eve nt. Further mo re, we would argue that there is a re asonable probability for the lease to result in adverse effects on historic properties... from related activities resulting from well pad deve lopment, such as in creased traffic and no is e."

[10b] The ACHP correctly notes the area of the proposed parcels in southeastern Utah to contain "world-class resources." For the Pueblo of Acoma, they represent something greater. The location of these nineteen parcels is in an area dense with cultural resources important to the Pueblo of Acoma as part of its ancestral cultural land scape. Acoma believes there to be increased pressure on its cultural resources from potential oil and gas development in this region of Southeastern Utah. This increase in interest for oil and gas development is alarming due to the Pueblo's concerns about the adequacy of identifications, analysis is, and protections for Pueblo cultural resources and historic properties. Although actual development has been limited in comparison to other oil and gas development regions like in New Mexico, the BLM still has its obligations under federal law to ensure the adequate identification, analysis, and protection of eligible historic properties and our cultural properties upon the initiation of any .federal undertaking. More so, the BLM has the opportunity to conduct informed and efficient land management at this stage, by working with the Pueblo, and other tribes, to identify critical area s of concern, Pueblo cultural resources, and historic properties prior to oil and gas leasing. In fact, the ACHP recommended the BLM develop a programmatic agreement to address its Section I 06 obligations prior to the lease sale. Such a programmatic agreement must be developed consultation with the Pueblo of Acoma and other tribes, and must be done so immediately. Until then, BLM must again, defer new lease s until it has completed a comprehensive analysis identifying Acoma cultural resource s as part of the BLM's Section I 06 duties. That analysis is necessary to strike a more appropriate balance between the conservation of our nation’s heritage and oil and gas drilling. A hurried sale, risks causing cumulative harm to one of America’s most treasured landscapes and to the Pueblo’s irreplaceable cultural resources. Importantly, since the March 2019 Lease Sale's deferral, no additional substantive work or consultation, consistent with fulfilling the obligation of Section 106, has occurred with the Pueblo of Acoma. No programmatic agreement, as recommended by the ACHP has been developed as part of this undertaking.

[10c] BLM has a duty to identify Acoma’s historic properties and traditional cultural properties in compliance with Section I 06 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Any reliance on a Class I analysis, a literature review, is de facto insufficient as prior analysis (even existing Class III pedestrian surveys) have not used qualified experts who are able to identify Acoma cultural resources that may be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Evaluation of identified archaeological resources may not be complete as they do not incorporate Pueblo of Acoma ethnographic information. Incorporation and analysis of Acoma ethnographic information may cause them to be eligible historic properties under the National Register of Historic Places ' four criteria. The region of the leases lies due east of the Bears Ears National Monument as formally designated by President Barack Obama. This original monument was established in recognition of the area's importance as a cultural landscape, containing cultural resources, historic properties, and traditional cultural properties important to the five tribal coalition, in addition to other Pueblos such as Acoma. However, as the Pueblo of Zuni, a member of the coalition, has consistently stated -- this region is important not just to the Pueblo of Zuni , but other Pueblos as well. The monument's reduction by President Trump, does not reduce the cultural landscape which the redrawn monument now sits upon. Nor is the cultural landscape in southeastern Utah, marked by Ancestral Puebloan archaeological

130 July 2019

Commenter Comment Response and cultural features, limited to the Bears Ears National Monument. The proposed leases li e northwest of the Hovenweep National Monument, an important archaeological and cultural resource too many Pueblos. The proposed leases sit directly between two major cultural landscapes of great importance to the Pueblo of Acoma. It can reasonably be deduced that lying between the two National Monuments is a rich Puebloan cultural landscape, filled with cultural resources, traditional cultural properties, and archaeologic al sites. This has been made apparent by the BLM as it acknowledges, "in the vast majority of the Monticello FO parcels, there is a high probability of the presence of cultural resources." This area of southeastern Utah, part of the Four Comers region, is important to the Pueblo of Acoma. The Pueblo of Acoma considers nearby regions such as Hovenweep, Mesa Verde, Crow Canyon, the Canyons of the Ancients, and Aztec as part of its ancestral homeland. The area of the "Four Comers Region" is a critical part of the Pueblo's cultural landscape, and where the Pueblo's cultural resources, traditional cultural properties, sacred sites, and historic properties are maintained. While these regions may lie within different states, Acoma understands them to be connected and part of the Pueblo's history as Acoma's ancestors journeyed through these areas and far beyond in their journey to their present home at Acoma. The Pueblo of Acoma has worked extensively with federal agencies and nongovernmental organizations on projects in these regions. The Pueblo of Acoma has connections to cultural resources within the Bears Ears National Monument. In addition, the Pueblo of Acoma visited the region of the proposed September 2019 lease parcels as part of the BLM MtFO's December 2018 Oil and Gas Lease sale. There, Pueblo of Acoma representatives observed several Ancestral Puebloan archaeological sites and nearby areas with a high likelihood of the presence of other Acoma cultural resources. Therefore, the BLM should be well aware that the location of September 2019 leases lies on an important cultural landscape to the Pueblo of Acoma with a high likelihood of undocumented or unanalyzed Pueblo of Acoma cultural resources that may be eligible historic properties. The BLM's duties under Section I 06 require you to first identify these historic properties prior to committing yourself to this action. The BLM cannot in good faith move forward, knowing full well that it does not have the requisite data or expertise to identify Acoma's cultural resources, traditional cultural properties, and historic properties. Unless the BLM has identified the Pueblo of Acoma's historic properties including the Pueblo's traditional cultural properties, which may include, but not be limited to, specific sites, a cultural landscape, shrines, blessing places, springs, buttes, or any other number of Acoma cultural resources, then the BLM has not complied with its legal obligations.

[11] Updated land use planning is necessary to avoid impacts to cultural resources. Acoma urges the BLM to defer lease sales pending an update to the Monticello Field Office's 2008 Resource Management Plan ("RMP") and the development of cultural resource management plans for the region of the September 2019 lease sale. BLM MtFO continuously discovers new information about cultural resources and new archaeological sites yearly in one of the densest archaeological regions of Utah. Because of the cultural resources management situation, the BLM MtFO developed stringent management actions under its ("RMP").Pursuant to the MtFO's Cultural Resource Management Actions under the RMP, it is the goal of the MtFO to "[i]dentify, preserve, and protect important cultural resources... [.]"12 Under BLM's management actions it shall "[prioritize] geographic areas for new field inventory pursuant to Section 110 of the [NHPA] and Section 14 of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) [to] be identified based upon a probability for unrecorded important resources. These inventories will be conducted as funding is available and as opportunities arise. However, as of 2015, it is unclear as to whether adequate cultural resource management planning has occurred within the MtFO, let alone for the geographic region of the September 2019 Lease parcels. The BLM MtFO admits in its 2015 Land Use Plan Evaluation Report that "completion of a cultural resource management plan would improve [the BLM's] ability to plan for access to cultural sites.... [and] [a]s a result the RMP does not fully protect significant cultural and paleontological resources through special designations. If such a cultural resource management plan were to be completed, the plans "will also include but not be limited to ... identifying areas for cultural inventory where federal undertakings are expected to occur. This region of the MtFO is under increasing pressure from oil and gas development with the completion of the March 2018 and December 2018 Oil and Gas Lease Sales. The proposed September 2019 lease sale only compounds this pressure with no foreseeable halting of future oil and gas leasing in sight. Adding to the threat of harm to cultural resources no indication that the MtFO has identified or is actively pursuing a cultural resources management plan as mandated by the RMP for this region of the MtFO. The Pueblo of Acoma has previously stated, and continues to urge the BLM, that there are likely Acoma cultural resources and eligible historic properties that have not yet been identified. BLM must factor the increasing degree of industry interest in the region, and its status in following through with its cultural resources management actions. Coupled with the Pueblo of Acoma's concerns that this region where the most recent lease sales have occurred contains a dense cultural landscape; it demands reconsideration of the assumptions on which the existing RMP relies and deferral of the Lease Sale until updated land management planning occurs. [12] BLM must comply with its duties under Section 106 of the NHPA. "Section 106" requires federal agencies to evaluate "undertakings" that may affect historic properties in accordance with a mandatory consultation process. 54 U.S.C. § 306108; 36

131 July 2019

C.F.R. Part 800. Federal undertakings" include the issuance of oil and gas leases. Mont. Wilderness Ass 'n v. Fry, 310 F. Supp. 2d 1127, 1152 (D. Mont. 2004). The statute explicitly requires that BLM must complete this process "prior to" issuing or otherwise irretrievably committing to the issuance of any proposed leases. 54 U.S.C. § 306108; 36 C.F.R. § 800.1(c). BLM must determine whether the leasing of parcels will affect the Bears Ears and Hovenweep National Monuments, and any other historic properties including traditional cultural properties. This evaluation must account for any indirect and cumulative effects, including impacts to the context and setting of these resources. Waiting to complete this step of the NHPA until after leases have been sold, and real property interests created, is not compliant with the directives of the NHPA.

[12a] BLM must complete its review under Section 106 "prior to" approving the undertaking, as required by the statute. BLM continues to take the unwarranted position that it can wait to initiate the Section 106 process until the latter stages of the oil and gas leasing process, primarily during the "APO" phase (application for permit to drill). Under the NHPA, BLM must initiate the Section 106 process "early in the undertaking's planning, so that a broad range of alternatives may be considered during the planning process for the undertaking." 36 C.F.R. § 800. l(c). "This directive makes it pellucid that agencies are not expected to delay NHPA review until all details of the proposal are set in cement." Safeguarding the Historic Hanscom Area's Irreplaceable Res., Inc. v. Federal Aviation Admin., 651 F.3d 202, 215 (1st Cir. 2011). The Section 106 regulations direct BLM to "consider [its] section 106 responsibilities as early as possible in the NEPA process, and plan [its] public participation, analysis, and review in such a way that they can meet the purposes and requirements of both statutes in a timely and efficient manner." 36C.F.R. § 800.8(a)(l). This "early coordination" requirement of Section 106 is designed to ensure that BLM fully engages consulting parties in the decision-making process, "when the purpose of and need for the proposed action as well as the widest possible range of alternatives are under consideration." Id. § 800.8(a)(2). BLM must complete the Section 106 process "prior to" committing itself to a course of action that may affect historic properties. 54 U.S.C. § 306108. Here, as soon as possible, BLM must identify and invite interested parties, as well as interested tribes, to participate in Section 106 consultation. The BLM should not forego its duties to invite the Pueblo of Acoma, or other tribes, to consult with the BLM to identify potential historic properties and other cultural resources prior to the lease sale.

[12b] BLM must make a "reasonable and good faith effort" to identify Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs) and other historic properties.

BLM must make a "reasonable and good faith effort" to identify TCPs and other historic properties within the area potentially1 • affected by the protested leases. Under Section 106, BLM must make "a reasonable and good faith effort" to identify historic properties located within an undertaking's area of potential effects ("APE"). 36 C.F.R. § 800.4(b)(l). To satisfy this requirement, BLM must, "at a minimum, [conduct] a review of existing information on historic properties that are located or may be located within the APE...."1 Existing information is not limited to tomes in the agency office, but includes commonly known facts, or others that have become known to the agency, such as the Acoma's, and other Pueblos', enduring and substantial cultural connection to sites throughout the Monticello Field Office area. Additional identification efforts, including "consultation, oral history interviews, sample field investigation, and field survey", are also required, in particular when tribes have "indicated the existence of traditional cultural properties ..." Pueblo of Sandia v. U.S. Forest Serv., 50 F.3d 856, 860 (10th Cir. 1995). BLM must account for the identification of TCPs associated with Acoma within the cultural landscapes surrounding the Bears Ears and Hovenweep National Monuments. This is especially the case for cultural resources that may be identified on or near the lease parcels closest to the Hovenweep National Monument. At Hovenweep, the US Department of the Interior has recognized the cultural affiliation of 18 of 20 Pueblos to Hovenweep National Monument on its registration of Hovenweep to the National Register of Historic Places. The affiliation listing includes the Pueblo of Acoma. BLM should therefore be on notice of the likely existence of Acoma TCPs surrounding Hovenweep that may possibly be affected by future oil and gas development. Under Section 106, TCPs are a type of historic property that BLM must identify and evaluate.19 According to National Register Bulletin 38.

[a]n early step in any effort to identify historic properties is to consult with groups and individuals who have special knowledge about and interest in the history and culture of the area to be studied. In the case of traditional cultural properties, this means those individuals and groups who may ascribe traditional cultural significance to locations within the study area, and those who may have knowledge of such individuals and groups. Ideally, early planning will have identified these individuals and groups, and established how to consult with them. As previously discussed in Section 1 of this comment, supra, the BLM has insufficient information to be able to fully identify Acoma TCPs. However, it is not enough to merely ask the Pueblo of Acoma to identify its TCPs on a map, or expect the Pueblo to be readily able to provide exact pinpoint locations of such cultural resources. Such a request is not enough under the NHPA:"[a] mere request for information is not necessarily sufficient to constitute the 'reasonable effort' section 106 requires." Pueblo of Sandia, 50 F.3d at 860. BLM has limited its TCP identification effort here to "mere requests for information," or cursory review of the limited information available to the Monticello Field Office, and not yet completed any field inspections by qualified experts able to identify Acoma cultural resources. Therefore, BLM has not fully engaged in the Section 106 Process or the independent duty of federal agencies to consult with Acoma

132 July 2019

Commenter Comment Response concerning federal actions that can affect sacred sites and other places of importance BLM must heed the lessons of Pueblo of Sandia. There, the U.S. Forest Service knew in advance of initiating consultation that the pueblo had identified a specific location as "an area of great religious and traditional importance...." Pueblo of Sandia, 50 F.3d at 860 (internal quotations omitted). BLM now finds itself in a similar position as it is aware this area if of importance to the Pueblo of Acoma, and likely other tribes and Pueblos. Prior to this leasing proposal, in the field identification of Acoma TCPs and eligible historic properties is necessary. BLM must engage with the Acoma in good faith consultation concerning the identification and evaluation of TCPs in the cultural landscape that underlies the area of the September 2019 lease sale.

[12c] BLM must account for a cultural landscape encompassing the Bears Ears National Monument, Hovenweep National Monument, and related cultural resources. BLM must account not only for the Bears Ears National Monument and the Hovenweep National Monument, but also of Ancestral Puebloan archaeological features and other cultural resources that may emanate and connect these locations. BLM should not view the archaeological resources in a vacuum but analyze the cumulative effect to a cultural landscape (or multiple landscapes) connecting the Bears Ears National Monument and Hovenweep National Monument. There is a high likelihood that emanating from and connecting the Bears Ears and Hovenweep National Monuments are shrines, blessing places, pilgrimage trails, other non-archaeological cultural sites, earthworks, dry farming areas, and other road-related features that could be harmed by the leasing and subsequent development of parcels. Some of these cultural resources may be natural resources (with archaeological traces) that may be unrecognizable by archaeologists not trained to identify Acoma cultural resources or historic properties. Further evaluation by Acoma cultural experts may identify and evaluate cultural resources to be active cultural resources to the Pueblo of Acoma. Further evaluation may determine a cultural landscape encompassing the Bears Ears National monument and the Hovenweep National Monuments due to their proximity and relation to one another.

[12d] BLM must fully assess the potential for adverse effects. BLM must fully assess the potential for adverse effects on the Bears Ears and Hovenweep National Monuments, and other significant cultural resources in the landscape surrounding and connecting the two. Under Section 106, BLM must "apply the criteria of adverse effect to historic properties within the area of potential effects." 36 C.F.R. § 800.S(a). Those criteria include ''cumulative" effects, as well as effects on "the property's setting that contribute to its historic significance" and ''visual, atmospheric or audible" effects "that diminish the integrity of the property's significant historic features...."Id. § 800.S(a)(l ), (a)(2)(iv), (v). BLM has failed to correctly apply these criteria to the proposed lease sale.

[12dI]BLM must fully assess the potential for visual and auditory effects. BLM must fully evaluate the potential for visual and auditory effects on the Bears Ears National Monument, the Hovenweep National Monument, and other significant cultural resources in the landscape surrounding and connecting the two. These effects are not speculative as the visual and audio effect of oil and gas development can severely affect Acoma archaeological and cultural resources. 21 Because many important cultural resources associated with the Bears Ears National Monument and the Hovenweep National Monument were intentionally located to achieve maximum visibility, they are highly susceptible to the visual and auditory impacts of oil and gas development. Consequently, BLM must recognize and fully evaluate the potential for these impacts on these two National Monuments, and associated traditional cultural properties that may exist on or near the propose BLM parcels.

[12dII] BLM must fully evaluate cumulative effects on Bears Ears National Monument, Hovenweep National Monument, the Alkali Ridge ACEC, and other significant cultural resources in the surrounding landscape. BLM must also evaluate the cumulative effects of the proposed leases in conjunction with past, present and reasonably foreseeable future activities. Under Section 106, BLM must identify "reasonably foreseeable effects caused by the undertaking that may occur later in time, be farther removed in distance or be cumulative." 36 C.F.R. § 800.S(a)(l). This includes analyzing the effect of existing oil and gas wells, tanks, roads, pipelines, other infrastructure, and undeveloped oil and gas leases upon in the landscape surrounding the Bears Ears National Monument, the Hovenweep National Monument, the Alkali Ridge ACEC, and the immediate region.

[13] BLM has failed to comply with its obligations under the 2008 RMP to inventory lands under Section 110 of the NHPA.

133 July 2019

Commenter Comment Response "Section 110" of the NHPA places the responsibility of the BLM for the preservation of historic properties within their ownership or control. 54 U.S.C. § 306101. The agency is further obligated to have a program that includes the "identification, evaluation and nomination" of historic properties to the National Register. 54 U.S.C. § 306102. Here, the BLM has not met its responsibility to proactively survey the area in the years since the RMP was developed. This is concerning given BLM's elevated awareness of the significance of the lands in the leased areas to the tribes which have ancestral ties to the region. The Hopi Tribe expressed major concerns in the March 2018 lease sale, for instance, that tribal cultural resources had not been adequately considered. The Pueblo of Acoma reiterated similar concerns during the December2018 Lease Sale and the most recent March 2019 Lease Sale which proposed these same parcels here. The Record of Decision approving the 2008 Monticello Resource Management Plan instructs BLM to "conduct proactive cultural inventories under Section 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act"• However, in a review of the RMP in 2015 BLM staff noted that:

the RMP does not fully protect significant cultural and paleontological resources through special designations. Likewise, route and travel designations in the RMP fail to address cultural and paleontological needs and protection. Nomination of the most significant sites to the National Register of Historic Places and additional road inventories in the field office would help remedy these shortfalls. An updated Class I survey for the Monticello Field Office is in progress.25

Despite these suggestions, BLM has failed to comprehensively undertake National Register evaluations. Even worse, it denies the responsibility for doing so. In BLM's response to the National Trust and Friends of Cedar Mesa's protest of the March 2018 lease sale BLM stated in frank terms:

[T]he BLM is not required to consider a request from the public to make districts, landmarks, or other special designations when analyzing impacts from an undertaking. The result is that unless the BLM proactively inventories the cultural resources in its control, the BLM will continue to suffer from a lack of information and potentially cause destruction of unidentified historic properties. The Pueblo of Acoma's visit to the region of the December 2018 lease sale confirmed to the Pueblo, the richness of the cultural landscape and likelihood of additional unidentified Acoma cultural resources for this area. BLM should pause to adequately inventory the region of the September 2019 Lease Sale in compliance with its duties under Section 110 of the NHPA.

[14] Conclusion & Request for Consultation The Pueblo of Acoma requests immediate government-to-government consultation with the BLM regarding this undertaking (#DOI- BLM-UT-0000-2019-0003-EA) as mandated upon the BLM by federal law and executive order. The Pueblo requests the BLM to present information related to this undertaking at the Pueblo of Acoma. In addition, the BLM should be well aware that government-to- government consultation is not a one-time meeting, but a continuing dialogue. The Pueblo of Acoma appreciates the opportunity to provide scoping comments, and Acoma looks forward to participating throughout the NEPA and NHPA processes to assist the BLM's consideration of the proposed leasing and for you coming to the Pueblo of Acoma to present further information. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the Pueblo of Acoma.

3.)Richard W [15] My wife and I are the owners of 320 acres in San Juan County which are now part of Parcel UT0319-421, one of 19 parcels to be [15] If any activity were to occur on split estate parcels, the lessee and/or operator would be responsible for Kollenkark included in the September 2019 oil & gas lease sale. We purchased the property in 1996 and, since then, have constructed a facility known as adhering to BLM requirements as well as formulating and reaching an agreement with the private surface Peacewhisper Spiritual Retreat Center, which was formally dedicated in June of 2007. Peacewhisper is a 501(c3) nonprofit that is board- landowners regarding access, surface disturbance, and reclamation (O.O.#1). Parcel 421 will have NSO governed and averages over 100 retreatant nights annually. The attractions of Peacewhisper are many, most valued being the quiet and portions. Stipulations UT-S-98 (NSO – Fragile Soils/Slopes Greater than 40 Percent), UT-S-128 (NSO – peaceful enviroment. Being surrounded by trees that are older than our own USA or seeing a pottery sherd for the first time just lying in the Floodplains, Riparian Areas, Springs, and Public Water Reserves), and UT-S-182 (NSO – Critical Habitat of dirt, are a few of the other reasons people continue to return. This acreage was one of the last homesteads given by the federal government in the Endangered Colorado River Fishes) are attached to this parcel. At this time, the acreage is unknown. Please the lower 48 states. That was in 1967. A short time later the property was fenced and that has made it the 'island' that it is now. By 'island' I refer to Appendix A and section 2.5.3. mean that it has retained most of its wilderness characteristics and many of the surface cultural artifacts remain. The property is bordered on the north by Lake Canyon which is over 500 feet below and steepness into the canyon forms a natural barrier, no fence required. The southern-most 80 acres of this property is still unfenced and is noticeably different different, most likely because of the seasonal cattle grazing and, more recently, the human traffic from the nearby youth camp, Open Sky. There is also an old well pad on it that prodeced a 'dry hole' in the 1960s. This well was scheduled to be reentered about 10 years ago, but never happened. What did happen was an agreement to give the drilling company access to that well, along with other wells to the west, across this portion of the property from County Road #347

134 July 2019

Commenter Comment Response using an old roadway. This is the shortest route to these wells, so the drilling company, D.J. Simmons, had the old road re-engineered and surveyed for equipment and pipeline installatiobn as well as having a full archaelogical study completed. This route would still be the most efficient way to access the parcels that are to the west and south, which seems to be the general direction of the development as shown on the map, page 113. Also, on this map is Parcel 410 which is immediately west of 421 and has the identical stipulations and notices. Parcel 410 is also the only one of the 19 that lists Major Constraints, in the form of 383.31 NSO acres, some of which are surely contiguous to those in 421. Parcel 421 is specifically mentioned several times in the Appendix D checklist as having unique qualitites and the already mentioned fenced acres have been especially protected. Aside from the real estate itself is Peacewhisper the Retreat Center, a separate entity that has had positive effects on the lives of hundreds over the past twelve years and is publicly supported by even more. Over the years, amenities to the retreat facility have been added, such as the 1/4 mile Stations of the Cross Walk. There is a 7-circuit labyrinth and a 500' Rosary Walk, both visible on Google Earth. The stone Hermitage is found at the end of a mile-long path through old growth Juniper and Pinyon. My point is that this portion of Parcel 421 has already been developed into a proven reputable spiritual haven, as well as a residence and farm and sharing it for purely speculative reasons would not be an improvement. The concern is that any oil and gas activity at all on this property would negatively impact the work put into Peacewhisper over the past 20 years so as to make it unsustainable. Development is slow to non- existent in remote country like this, but there is something here now and this EA does not address that fact. The intent of this letter is to update the information on our status in order to provide a more accurate picture of what happens on this parcel. Our request would be to have all the acreage inside our fence line to be designated as NSO. This would allow full enjoyment of the property as the owner as well as that of Peacewhisper retreatants. Our unfenced 80 acres mentioned above would remain within the original Parcel 421 and we would work with any successful lessee to resolve a surface use agreement for them.

4.) National [16] The Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (NHMLA) is respectfully submitting the following comments to the Bureau [16] Background information. Additional response is not warranted. History of Land Management (BLM) Monticello Field Office regarding the NHMLA Excavations in Southeastern Utah. The NHMLA has a Museum of Los long tenure of conducting paleontological research and excavations on BLM lands, both in Utah as well as other states such as Angeles County California, Montana, and Wyoming. Most recently, the NHMLA has spent the past 10 years working on BLM lands under the jurisdiction of the Monticello Field Office. The NHMLA has successfully collected a wide range of significant fossils from multiple quarries and sites during this time. Research on these specimens is ongoing, however some studies have already been published in the scientific literature (for example, see Milan and Chiappe, 2009; Milan et al., 2015) or presented at scientific conferences (for example, see Bell et al., 2018, 2019; Martin et al., 2011; Mocho and Chiappe, 2019, 2018).

Active NHMLA Quarry The NHMLA has an active quarry site on Parcel 408 in San Juan County, Utah (Fig. 1). This quarry was discovered during a prospecting trip in 2007 under a survey and surface collection permit from the Monticello Field Office. Starting in 2008 excavations began under excavation permits, with work occurring in 2008, 2009, and 2012-2018. In this period, the NHMLA has collected over 600 bones from the quarry (Fig. 2). Most of these bones have been identified as belonging to sauropod dinosaurs, but Allosaurus, ankylosaur, stegosaur, and ornithopod have also been identified so far. In addition to scientific contributions to the paleontological record, the quarry is central to many of the NHMLA’s

outreach and education initiatives. The NHMLA has hosted numerous high school, undergraduate, and graduate students at the quarry, many of whom belong to demographics historically underrepresented in the sciences. Locally, the NHMLA has worked with the BLM and other groups such as the Bears Ears Education Center in Bluff, UT to host community members for tours of the quarry. Efforts such as these, along with the scientific value of the specimens found in the quarry, are central to the broad significance of the quarry.

The Morrison Formation

The NHMLA quarry on Parcel 408, as well as many other NHMLA sites discovered during earlier field work, are located in the Upper Jurassic

Morrison Formation. The Morrison Formation is the classic dinosaur lagerstätten (e.g., Selden and Nudds, 2005). Extending from the Colorado

Plateau to the Uinta Mountains and northern New Mexico and Arizona, the red and green weathering mudstones and resistant sandstone ledges

of the Morrison are a landmark on the western landscape (Dodson et al., 1980; Turner and Peterson, 2004). The Morrison has long been known

to represent deposition in a continental setting under arid to semi-arid conditions. However, work in the past 15 years on sedimentology and

stratigraphy as well as the non-dinosaurian faunas and floras of the Morrison has demonstrated critical episodes of wet conditions (Demko et al., 2004; Turner and Peterson, 2004; Owen et al., 2015). This climate change resulted in more defined fluvial features that shift through the stratigraphy of the formation.

In southeast Utah, the Morrison can be divided into five members (Hintze, 1988; Peterson and Turner- Peterson, 1989). The lowermost Bluff Sandstone Member overlies the Wanakah Formation (Middle Jurassic) along a major, regional uncomformity (the J5 unconformity; Pipiringos and O’Sullivan, 1978). The Bluff Sandstone is predominantly fluvial deposits with small amounts of floodplain and lacustrine deposits and is

135 July 2019

Commenter Comment Response more or less correlative with the primarily mudstone Tidwell Member elsewhere. The overlying Salt Wash Member is distinguished by small cliffs of lenticular cross-bedded sandstone and conglomerate interbedded with red and green weathering mudstone. Regionally, two members are recognized above the Salt Wash Member: the Recapture Member and the Westwater Canyon Member. The uppermost member is the Brushy Basin Member, recognized throughout the entire Morrison basin, and the setting for the NHMLA quarry on Parcel 408.

Dinosaur and other vertebrate fossils, such as crocodiles, lizards, sphenodonts, mammals, and frogs are found throughout the Morrison but tend to be concentrated in discrete beds (Gregson and Chure, 2000; Santucci, 2000; Foster and McMullen, 2017). The major quarries, such as the Douglass Quarry at Dinosaur National Monument and the Cleveland-Lloyd Quarry in the San Rafael Swell, are found in the Salt Wash or Brushy Basin members. The Tidwell or Bluff Sandstone members contain rare but valuable early Jurassic sauropods (e.g., Gillette, 1993;

Bernier and Chan, 2000) in southeastern Utah. Throughout the Morrison, significant bone beds are mostly concentrated in basal channels of

conglomerate or sandstone (Dodson et al., 1980; Jeffery et al., 2011; Bertog, 2013) although material is also found weathering out of the

mudstones (Figure 2). The Morrison also has a strong history of preserving ichnofossils, with footprints from a variety of trackmakers

(Gierlinski and Sabath, 2008; Lockley et al., 1998; Platt et al., 2006) as well as large mammal burrows (Martin et al., 2011) and a variety of

other ichnofossils present (Hasiostis, 2004; Hasiotis et al., 1998). A variety of the types of fossil preservation known from the Morrison

Formation are shown in Figure 3. Bonebed preservation similar to that of the NHMLA’s quarry in Parcel 408 is common in the Morrison. In addition to the famous quarries at Dinosaur National Monument and the Cleveland-Lloyd Quarry mentioned above, numerous other quarries are known from the Morrison Formation, including the Hanksville-Burpee Quarry in Utah; Garden Park, Dry Mesa Quarry, and the Fruita Paleontological Resource Area in Colorado; and Bone Cabin Quarry, Como Bluff, and the Wyoming Dinosaur Center in Wyoming (Eberth et al., 2010). All of these sites preserve significant paleontological resources providing invaluable scientific data as well as important outreach and education opportunities to the public. [17] Background information. Additional response is not warranted.

[17] Deficiencies of the Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-000-2019-0003- OTHER_NEPA_MtFO-EA

A.Federal Regulations

Paleontological resources are limited, nonrenewable resources of scientific, cultural, and educational value and are afforded protection under federal and state laws and regulations. Federal regulations that provide protections for paleontological resources include the

Paleontological Resources Preservation Act and the National Environmental Policy Act, as discussed below:

Paleontological Resources Preservation, Omnibus Public Lands Act, Public Law 111-011, Title VI, Subtitle D (PRPA), 2009.

This legislation directs the Secretaries of the U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI) and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to

manage and protect paleontological resources on federal land using “scientific principles and expertise.” To formulate a consistent

paleontological resources management framework, the Paleontological Resources Preservation Act (PRPA) incorporates most of the

recommendations from the report of the Secretary of the Interior titled “Assessment of Fossil Management on Federal and Indian

Lands” (USDI, 2000). In passing the PRPA, Congress officially recognized the scientific importance of paleontological resources on

some federal lands by declaring that fossils from these lands are federal property that must be preserved and protected. The PRPA codifies existing policies of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), National Park Service (NPS), U.S. Forest Service (USFS), Bureau of Reclamation, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and provides the following: • uniform criminal and civil penalties for illegal sale and transport, and theft and vandalism of fossils from federal lands;

• uniform minimum requirements for paleontological resource-use permit issuance (terms, conditions, and qualifications of applicants); • uniform definitions for “paleontological resources” and “casual collecting;” and

• uniform requirements for curation of federal fossils in approved repositories.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. NEPA (Public Law [PL] 91-190, 42 USC 4321-4347, January 1, 1970), as amended (PL 94-52, July 3, 1975; PL 94-83, August 9, 1975; and PL 97-258 § 4(b), Sept. 13, 1982) recognizes the continuing responsibility of the federal government to “preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage…” (Sec.

136 July 2019

Commenter Comment Response 101 [42 USC § 4321]: #382). With the passage of the PRPA, paleontological resources are considered a significant resource and it is therefore now standard practice to include paleontological resources in NEPA studies in all instances where there is a possible impact.

B.BLM Guidelines

The BLM has developed a series of documents providing guidance for the protection of paleontological resources on BLM lands, in fulfillment of the PRPA and NEPA, as discussed below: Potential Fossil Yield Classification System (2008, 2016). The BLM’s PFYC system was developed to provide baseline guidance for assessing paleontological resources and allow BLM employees to make initial assessments of paleontological resources. The presence of paleontological resources is correlated with mapped geologic units. The system

assigns a class value to each geological unit, representing the potential abundance and significance of paleontological resources that occur in

that geological unit. A complete discussion of the background and context for the PFYC system is provided in the BLM IM2016-124 (2016)

document. The BLM PFYC system ranges from Class 1 (very low) to Class 5 (very high). PFYC Class 5 (very high) is defined as follows:

Highly fossiliferous geologic units that consistently and predictably produce significant paleontological resources. Units

assigned to Class 5 have some or all of the following characteristics:

•Significant paleontological resources have been documented and occur consistently.

•Paleontological resources are highly susceptible to adverse impacts from surface disturbing activities.

•Unit is frequently the focus of illegal collecting activities.

(1) Management concerns for paleontological resources in Class 5 areas are high to very high. (2) A field survey by a qualified paleontologist is almost always needed. Paleontological mitigation may be necessary before or during surface disturbing activities.

The probability for impacting significant paleontological resources is high. The area should be assessed prior to land tenure adjustments. Pre- work surveys are usually needed and on-site monitoring may be necessary during land use activities. Avoidance or resource preservation through controlled access, designation of areas of avoidance, or special management designations should be considered. (BLM, 2016). Within this framework, it is clear that the Morrison Formation should be assigned PFYC Class 5, very high. The abundance of paleontological resources known from the Morrison Formation, as documented above, include body fossils of dinosaurs, mammals, and other animals, trace fossils such as footprints and burrows, invertebrate, and plant fossils. These fossils are found as isolated specimens as well as accumulated into large bone beds, such as the famous quarries at Dinosaur National Monument and the Cleveland-Lloyd Quarry, as well as numerous other lesser-known quarries. Guidelines for Assessment and Mitigation of Potential Impacts to Paleontological Resources (BLM Instructional Memorandum 2009-

011). This document establishes procedures to follow at all stages of project development in order to assess and mitigate potential impacts to

paleontological resources, and is based around best practices for each of the PFYC levels as defined in BLM IM2016-124 (2016), discussed

above. BLM policy for projects on PFYC Class 5 (very high) geologic units, such as the Morrison Formation, indicates that for projects that

may disturb paleontological resources a number of steps must be taken to minimize those impacts. These include field surveys prior to project

commencement, avoidance through changes to project location or scope, mitigation through monitoring, etc. (BLM, 2009).

In particular relevance to the NHMLA quarry on Parcel 408, this document states that: “In the case where it is known that significant paleontological resources will be adversely impacted, the preferred course of action is avoidance of the impact by moving or rerouting the site of construction, or eliminating or reducing the need for surface disturbance.” [BLM, 2009:1- 4] Monticello Field Office Approved Resource The Monticello RMP (2015) addresses paleontological resources through the identification of ten Plan Decisions Management Plan (RMP). (PAL-1 – PAL-10). Of particular relevance to the September 2019 sale is PAL-10:

PAL-10. Conduct on-site evaluation of surface-disturbing activities for all Class 5 areas and minimize impacts to paleontological resources to the degree practicable. Evaluation will consider the type of surface disturbance proposed and mitigation will be developed [18 and 19] The 2008 RMP/FEIS did assign the Brushy Basin Member of the Morrison Formation as PFYC based on site-specific information (BLM, 2015). Class 5 (Refer to page 4-293, Table 4.100 in the RMP) The Westwater Canyon, Salt Wash and Recapture Members of the Morrison Formation are classified as PFYC Class 4/5. [18] Therefore, all proposed projects that may impact the Morrison Formation, as PFYC Class 5, should be the subject of a paleontological

evaluation to assess the impacts of the proect and develop mitigation measures for those impacts.

137 July 2019

Commenter Comment Response [19] Impacts to Paleontological Resources. Oil and gas exploration and resource development may impose a variety of impacts to paleontological resources, both at the NHMLA quarry on Parcel 408 as well as to any area where PFYC Class 5 geologic units would be impacted. Impacts to the NHMLA Quarry on Parcel 5. A variety of impacts from oil and gas development could occur at the active quarry. Drilling or other ground disturbance at the quarry would both destroy the paleontological resources known to occur there, as well as impede the NHMLA crew from their scientific, educational, and outreach work. Furthermore, the development of roads or other infrastructure to the area also has the risk of damaging the quarry or disrupting NHMLA access to the site. Increased traffic by oil and gas personnel in the vicinity of the quarry increases the risk of fossil theft. The NHMLA is careful to bury the quarry at the end of each season, but during the winter it is largely unmonitored; the more people who are aware of the exact location, the higher the risk of vandalism or theft. [20] Impacts to Paleontological Resources within the Morrison Formation. As discussed above, the Morrison Formation is PFYC Class 5 [20 and 21] The 2008 RMP/FEIS analyzed the impacts of development on paleontological resources (Refer to (very high) in regards to the potential to encounter paleontological resources. This means that any surficial or ground disturbing activities that 4-295 to 4-317). Surface-disturbing actions such as road construction could damage or destroy surface fossils occur in rocks mapped as the Morrison Formation are at high risk for encountering fossils. Activities such as grading, drilling, and trenching or in paleontologically sensitive areas/geologic units (Class 3, 4/5, and 5). In these areas, paleontological resource other excavations are at high risk of damaging or destroying fossil resources. impacts mitigation would reduce potential direct, adverse impacts to below the level of significance. Surface fossils would he collected by a qualified and BLM-permitted paleontologist prior to surface disturbance, and [21] Recommendations: As currently drafted, the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the September 2019 Competitive Oil and Gas Lease paleontological monitoring of construction-related excavations would allow the salvage and recovery of Sale (DOI-BLM-UT-000-2019-0003-OTHER_NEPA_MtFO-EA) fails to provide adequate protections for both known and potential important sub-surface paleontological resources. Stipulations UT-S-176 and UT-S-177 were derived from the paleontological resources within the parcels offered. The NHMLA recommends the following additions to the EA in order to adequately protect 2008 Price Field Office RMP, and cannot be applied to parcels in Monticello Field Office. Lease Notice UT- paleontological resources, as provided for by the PRPA and NEPA, and in accordance with existing BLM guidelines (2009, 2016). LN-72 has been applied to all parcels. BLM regulations at 43 CFR 3101.1-2 allow for the relocation of A. Removal of the NHMLA Quarry in Parcel 408. proposed oil and gas leasing operations up to 200 meters and/or timing limitations up to 60 days to provide additional protection to ensure that proposed operations minimize adverse impacts to resources, uses, and Because the active quarry in Parcel 408 constitutes a known paleontological resource, in conjunction with the guidelines provided by the users. Lease Notices, Stipulations, standard operating procedures, and best management practices would be BLM (2009: 1-4), the NHMLA recommends that the parcel be redrawn, with the quarry site and a buffer zone of at least 100 meters incorporated as conditions of approval (COA). The COA’s would be attached to permits for oil and gas lease withdrawn from leasing. Alternatively, the entire Parcel 408 could be withdrawn from leasing, should the BLM determine this to be most operations to address site-specific concerns or new information. Lease Notice UT-LN-72, 43 CFR 3101.1-2, and Paleontological Resources Preservation Act will protect the paleontological resources. See response 2a and effective. section 2.5.3... B. Stipulations

Due to the high sensitivity of the Morrison Formation as PFYC Class 5, the NHMLA recommends that all parcels currently listed in the September 2019 competitive lease sale which contain outcrops of the Morrison Formation have two stipulations attached to them (see below). While the current EA does list Notice UT-LN-721 for these parcels, the stipulations suggested below are far more rigorous, as is necessary for avoiding impacts to paleontological resources in areas assessed as having PFYC Class 5, particularly in the inability for the waiver of the requirements. 1. UT-S-176 CONTROLLED SURFACE USE – FOSSIL RESOURCES (PRECONSTRUCTION SURVEYS). Preconstruction paleontological surveys will be required prior to any surface disturbing activity in the Morrison, Cedar Mountain, Blackhawk, North Horn, or Chinle Formations. Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if the area has previously been inventoried within the last three (3) years. Modification: None Waiver: None 2. UT-S-177 CONTROLLED SURFACE USE – FOSSIL RESOURCES. A BLM permitted paleontologist will be required to be onsite during disturbance in any Potential Fossil Yield Classification (PFYC) 4 or 5 areas. Exceptions: None Modification: None Waiver: None [22] Summary information. Additional response is not warranted. [22] Conclusions. In conclusion, the NHMLA respectfully recommends that in order to comply with the PRPA and NEPA, the active quarry site in Parcel 408 be withdrawn from leasing, through either redrawing the parcel boundaries or removing the entire parcel, and that two stipulations to mandate the survey and monitoring of projects occurring in PFYC Class 5 geologic units. These measures meet BLM guidelines for paleontological resources while still enabling shared land use between the paleontological community and the oil and gas industry.

5.) Mary Moran [23] I am concerned about the proposed additional oil and gas leasing near Hovenweep National Monument. I am familiar with the area, [23]. See section 1.3 and the response to Comments 2 and 5. The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (MLA), as especially the monument itself. I know that near the Square Tower (main) unit of Hovenweep there is a "land farm" of leftover fracking amended [30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.], and the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 sludge upslope topographically and geologically from small springs critical to the canyon ecosystem within the monument. These springs (FOOGLRA), require the BLM to conduct quarterly, competitive lease sales to offer available oil and gas lease were the reason for the Ancestral Puebloan decision to settle there, leaving the structures that the monument is known for. I know that, parcels in Utah if nominated parcels are received from the public. The public nominated the parcels as decades ago, an oil spill drained on the ground surface into the Cajon Unit of Hovenweep. I know that I, and many others, value the quiet Expressions of Interest (EOI). The BLM did not nominate parcels for the September 2019 Lease sale. From and night sky darkness of the monument. Indeed, the monument procured a telescope and the small staff hold night-sky viewing events these EOIs, the BLM prepares the parcels and determines whether or not the existing analyses in the LUPs, as for visitors to experience the unusually dark night skies. I love hearing the owl calls at night, from the unusualy high number of owl amended, provide basis for leasing oil and gas resources within these parcels or if additional NEPA analysis is species that nest in the monument's canyons. I also know that the BLM is legally obligated to examine cumulative impacts. I don't believe

138 July 2019

Commenter Comment Response they've done that. There have already been two BLM oil and gas leases in the area in the last 16 months. It's time to pause and examine needed before making a leasing decision. cumulative impacts.

6.)Grand [24] I am writing on behalf of the Grand Canyon Trust (“Trust”) to urge the Bureau of Land Management to reconsider its proposal [24] Summary information. Response is not warranted.

Canyon Trust to include in its September 2019 oil and gas lease sale 19 parcels near Hovenweep and Canyons of the Ancients national monuments.

We believe the environmental assessment analyzing this proposal is deficient under the National Environmental Policy Act for three reasons. First, the EA inadequately considered, or wholly failed to consider, the impacts that the lease will have on lands with wilderness characteristics, water, climate change, fish and wildlife, and cultural resources. Second, BLM improperly deferred elements of its analysis to the drilling stage of the leasing process. Third, leasing the proposed parcels will potentially have a significant impact on the environment, triggering BLM’s obligation to prepare an environmental impact statement.

[25] The BLM is working through the NHPA process. This is not a valid comment for the EA, as it primarily [25] In addition, BLM did not meet its consultation obligations under the National Historic Preservation Act because BLM did not applies to the NHPA process, not the NEPA process. The NHPA process is on-going. reinitiate consultation for the September lease sale and did not make meaningful efforts to consult with Tribal Historic Preservation Officers. [26] BACKGROUND: The Grand Canyon Trust is a 501(c) (3) regional non-profit conservation organization whose mission is to [26] Background information. Response is not warranted safeguard the wonders of the Grand Canyon and the Colorado Plateau, while supporting the rights of its Native peoples. We envision a Colorado Plateau where wildness, a diversity of native plants and animals, clean air, and flowing rivers abound; where sovereign Tribal

nations thrive; where a livable climate endures; and where people passionately work to protect the region they love for future generations. The 19 parcels on which we are commenting are located in one of the most significant cultural landscapes in the United States. Located between Mesa Verde National Park, Canyons of the Ancients, Hovenweep, and Bears Ears national monuments, the parcels offered represent areas containing high densities of cultural sites holding among the best preserved human history found anywhere in America. Largely free from human habitation today, the area once teemed with human life, and the traces left by the ancestors of regional Native American tribes still offer so much to learn about our shared history. Cultural connections exist here between the internationally- recognized wonders of Bears Ears, Mesa Verde, and Chaco Canyon. Here, rock art and human-placed natural materials function as calendars, ancient trade routes connect seemingly disparate individual sites, and regional styles merge and blend together creating unique and irreplaceable sites. Still largely undocumented by western science, the area affected by this and recent lease sales has far more public value in the preservation of its irreplaceable cultural resources than in whatever marginal oil and gas resource may be extracted here. Should this sale proceed, and should these and other recent leases be fully developed for oil and gas, future generations will condemn the short-sighted and irreversible decisions made now. The area is best suited to permanent and stringent protections for its exceptional

cultural sites, not one- time development of non-renewable fossil fuels.

COMMENTS

[27] BLM’s analysis of the proposed lease sale does not comply with NEPA. To take the “hard look” mandated by NEPA, BLM is required [27] See the response to Comment 2. to analyze a proposed action’s ecological, aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social, and health impacts. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.8. These impacts must be analyzed “whether direct, indirect, or cumulative.” Id. Put differently, BLM must consider the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of a proposed action, as well as of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions prior to making any irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources. Issuing an oil and gas lease without a no-surface-occupancy (NSO) stipulation constitutes an irretrievable commitment of an agency’s resources. See S. Utah Wilderness Alliance, 159 IBLA 220, 241 (2003) (explaining that courts have reasoned that a “‘non-NSO’ lease ‘does not reserve to the government the absolute right to prevent all surface disturbing activities’ and thus its issuance constitutes ‘an irretrievable commitment of resources’ under section 102 of NEPA” (quoting Friends of Southeast’s Future Morrison, 153 F.3d 1059, 1063 (9th Cir. 1998))). For these parcels, BLM has not reserved the absolute right to prevent all surface disturbing activities. In this instance, BLM failed to adequately analyze the impacts of the proposed lease on lands with wilderness characteristics, water, climate change,

fish and wildlife, and cultural resources. Each is addressed below.

[28] BLM inadequately analyzed how the proposed lease will impact lands with wilderness characteristics. In the September 2019 EA, BLM failed to analyze in detail the impacts that the proposed lease may have on two wilderness-characteristic “units”: the Tin Cup [28] See the response to Comment 2 Mesa and Monument Canyon units. To defend that decision, BLM asserted that the effects of leasing on lands with wilderness characteristics were already analyzed in the Monticello Field Office Resource Management Plan (“Monticello RMP”) and an EA for the March 2018 competitive oil and gas lease sale. The Monticello RMP only analyzes impacts on wilderness-characteristic lands generally, not at the site-specific level required for leasing. The March 2018 EA is insufficient because it only analyzed impacts to a portion of the lands with wilderness characteristics that are available for leasing under the September 2019 EA.BLM states that the land with wilderness characteristics found within the Tin Cup Mesa and Monument Canyon units are not entitled to protection because they were identified after

139 July 2019

Commenter Comment Response the Monticello RMP was adopted and are therefore not subject to the RMP’s protections. Even if the units are not subject to the RMP’s protections that does not excuse BLM from analyzing the impacts of the proposed leases on the Tin Cup Mesa and Monument Canyon units. If anything, the post-RMP designation of these units only highlights the importance of analyzing leasing impacts on these units now since BLM completed no such analysis for the RMP. Moreover, both of these units are proposed for wilderness designation in the America’s Red Rock Wilderness Act. Unlike the RMP, the March 2018 EA analyzed how leasing would affect wilderness- characteristic lands in the Tin Cup Mesa and Monument Canyon units, but that analysis is insufficient for the lease parcels proposed under the September

2019 EA. The Tin Cup Mesa unit has 9,743 acres of wilderness-characteristic lands and the Monument Canyon unit has 17,200 acres. The March 2018 EA only analyzed the impacts of leasing on the units assuming that, cumulatively, 32% of the Monument Canyon Unit (5,504

acres) and 29% of the Tin Cup Mesa Unit (2,825 acres) would be leased. Yet if the proposed September 2019 parcels are leased, 80% of the Monument Canyon Unit and 100% of the Tin Cup Unit will be leased.1 As a result, the acreage leased in the Monument Canyon Unit will increase from 5,504 acres analyzed under the March 2018 EA to 13,760 acres under the September 2019 EA (an increase of 8,256 acres). For the Tin Cup Mesa Unit, the acreage leased will increase from the 2,825 acres under the March 2018 EA to 9,743 acres under the September 2019 EA (an increase of 6,918 acres). The upshot is that BLM is proposing to lease 15,174 more acres of wilderness- characteristic lands in the September 2019 sale as compared to the March 2018 sale without any analysis of the effect on those lands. Tiering to the March 2018 EA in this manner breaches NEPA’s hard-look requirements. One of the reasons that BLM decided in March 2018 to issue leases in these wilderness-characteristic units was that the units would retain significant areas with wilderness characteristics even at the then-proposed full level of development. But that reasoning does not apply to the proposed September 2019 sale, because the sale could cause both units to wholly lose their wilderness characteristics. This flaw renders BLM’s analysis of wilderness-characteristic lands inadequate under NEPA. See 40 C.F.R. § 1502.1 (noting that NEPA analysis must provide a full and fair disclosure of impacts); 40 C.F.R. § 1502.20 (clarifying that teiring is appropriate when the tiered document has a broader analysis of the impacts).

[29] BLM inadequately analyzed the direct and indirect impacts, and failed to analyze the cumulative impacts, of the lease sale on [29a]The parcels up for lease in the September 2019 Lease Sale, from the Monticello Field Office, are the cultural resources. exact same parcels that were analyzed in the March 2019 Lease Sale Cultural Resources Report (March 2019 [29a]The September 2019 EA does not evaluate the impacts that the lease sale may have on cultural resources present in the parcels. Instead, LSCRR), and then deferred from the March 2019 Lease Sale for air quality concerns. Because the nature of the the September 2019 EA tiers to the March 2018 EA and a cultural resource report prepared for the March 2019 competitive oil and gas lease action has not changed, UT BLM has determined, an additional Section 106 review of the parcels in Monticello is not warranted. Furthermore, the assertion “…the March 2019 Cultural Resource Report (sic) sale. The March 2018 EA’s cultural resource analysis is inapplicable to the September 2019 EA because the parcels offered for sale at that indicates that, due to the chronic lack of surveying across the parcels, BLM should have done a much more time are different than the upcoming September parcels. And the March 2019 Cultural Resource Report indicates that, due to the chronic lack thorough inventory of cultural resources.”, is the opinion of Grand Canyon Trust, and not a statement made by of surveying across the parcels, BLM should have done a much more thorough inventory of cultural resources. BLM’s decision to tier to the the March 2019 LSCRR March 2018 EA’s analysis of impacts to cultural resources cannot be justified because the March 2018 EA analyzed entirely different lease The lease sale EA does not tier to the March 2018 lease sale EA. It incorporates the analysis by reference. parcels than the September 2019 EA. None of the parcels are the same in the EAs. As a result, none of the analysis in the March 2018 EA is BLM resource specialists determined that the impacts disclosed to cultural resources in the March 2018 Lease relevant. Sale EA would be essentially the same for the parcels considered for the September 2019 lease sale.

[29b]The cultural resource report from March 2019 does not suffer from this flaw, but it too is deficient, because it reveals that far too little is known about the cultural resources present in the parcels to satisfy BLM’s hard-look obligations under NEPA. The report analyzed the 19 parcels proposed for leasing in September 2019. It recognized that the lease sale is in an area with many potentially sensitive sites and notes [29b] See the response to Comment 25 that the coverage of previous cultural resource inventories varies widely across the parcels, ranging from 4% to 34% for the 19 Monticello

Field Office parcels. In fact, the 19 parcels set to be leased have an average survey coverage of 14%, and only one parcel has surveys covering more than one third of the parcel. The means the vast majority of the area of potential effects, defined as the entire lease parcel area plus a half mile buffer in each direction, is currently unsurveyed for cultural resources. According to BLM Manual 8110 – Identifying and Evaluating Cultural Resources, a Class III intensive survey is generally required in previously unsurveyed areas of potential effect when the proposed action would disturb the land surface, affect the integrity of historic properties, or alter the use of cultural resources. Oil and gas leasing and development will do all of the above. Because exploration and drilling rights are acquired by the lessee at the leasing stage, it is inevitable that the lease sale will result in significant surface disturbance where exploration has predicted production. And, due to the significantly high cultural resource density of the area combined with inadequate knowledge of what sites may exist in the unexplored portions of the area, cultural resource and historic properties are bound to be adversely, and perhaps irreparably, affected. This point is explained in more detail below. For these reasons, BLM should have conducted intensive, Class III surveys in accordance with its internal manual. Instead of completing intensive surveys, BLM conducted a Class I literature review of currently known sites within the lease parcels. Yet because only a small fraction of the parcels have been surveyed, currently known sites are only a small fraction of those that exist within the lease parcels and the area of potential effects. In fact, the limited surveys conducted in the parcels and area of potential effects uncovered over 1,600 sites, a

significant number of which are eligible to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places. By extrapolation, there are likely thousands

140 July 2019

Commenter Comment Response of unknown cultural resources and sites within the lease parcels and the APE. Those sites could be discovered, and adequate protections instituted, if BLM undertook intensive, on- the-ground surveys in the unsurveyed areas of the parcels and area of potential effects. Furthermore, the March 2019 report does not disclose the impacts that the lease sale, when combined with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions, will have on cultural resources. The report reaches broad conclusions without offering support for how its determinations were reached or what analysis was done. For all parcels, the report concludes that, based on observed site density and protections afforded by

lease stipulations, development can occur within the lease parcels without causing adverse effects. But the report provides no insight into how BLM made that determination. And indeed, it is impossible to defensibly reach that conclusion without having completed additional surveys of the lease parcels. Because of these flaws, the September 2019 EA inadequately analyzed the direct and indirect impacts to cultural resources and it also failed to analyze cumulative impacts. Therefore, BLM has violated NEPA, and its determination that there will be no adverse effects to cultural resources is arbitrary and capricious. [30] See the response to Comment 2, and Appendix D. Appendix D was updated to attach UT-S-128 on [30] BLM failed to consider the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts that the proposed lease and subsequent parcels 413 and 420. There should be no impact to groundwater from abandoned wells. If these parcels are development would have on water sources. BLM failed to analyze the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts that the proposed acquired and an APD is submitted, the well is subject to the casing, cementing and plugging requirements of lease may have on water sources. BLM’s reason for not considering impacts to water sources was that those sources are already Onshore Oil and Gas Order No.2. (O.O.#2) All APDs are subject to review by a BLM petroleum engineer, protected by law and lease stipulations that operators must obey. This rationale is flawed for two reasons. First, BLM cannot avoid geologist, and hydrologist. Compliance with O.O. #2 will ensure protection of useable ground water aquifers analyzing the impacts of its actions due to the protections afforded by other laws. NEPA demands that the impacts of a proposed from drilling, completion and production operations. The RFDs do not assumes that all wells drilled on the action be analyzed even if there are other laws that may protect the resources in question. In other words, a statute that protects nominated parcels will produce sufficient to prevent abandonment. Instead, the RFDs are a planning tool to water does not obviate NEPA’s requirement to analyze water impacts. Second, lease stipulations are not guaranteed to fully provide a reasonable estimate of what oil and gas exploration and development activities might be proposed, insulate a lease from adverse impacts. For the September lease parcels, there is only one proposed lease stipulation that purports to should a decision be made to lease the area and the surface development of a well (regardless if it is a dry protect water sources, and it leaves those sources vulnerable to degradation. That stipulation, UT-S-128, is attached to all the lease hole). The MtFO has classified lands within the district boundary. The parcels are located in San Juan County, and are classified as high potential for occurrence of oil and gas but with a lower level of certainty of parcels except for 413 and 420. It prohibits surface-disturbing activities within active floodplains, public water reserves, or 100 production. It is estimated that 59 percent of the wells drilled in MtFO will be capable of production and 41 meters of riparian areas along perennial streams and springs. But it allows for exceptions when: (a) there are no practical percent is estimated to be a dry hole. alternatives, (b) impacts could be fully mitigated, or (c) the action is designed to enhance the riparian resource values. These exceptions leave water sources susceptible to negative impacts from the leases and their future development. The proposed lease sale will impact water resources despite these stipulations and legal protections, and NEPA requires BLM to analyze those impacts. For example, BLM did not analyze how much water it would take to drill wells on the lease parcels and other nearby areas that have been or may be leased for oil and gas development. Oil and gas operations require significant amounts of water to stimulate production from formations. They also bring to the surface billions of gallons of water that naturally exists in subsurface formations. This “produced water” is typically the largest by-product of oil and gas operations, and is often managed as an unreclaimable waste. To properly analyze the effect of these uses of water, BLM must make a reasonable forecast of how much water will be used and produced on the lease parcels. If the agency is unable to make that quantitative forecast, it is obligated to explain why the impacts cannot be quantified and discuss the impacts qualitatively. BLM has done neither here BLM likewise should have analyzed the impacts that abandoned wells may have on groundwater sources. The September 2019 EA assumes that all the wells that will be drilled on the nominated parcels will produce sufficiently to prevent abandonment. But it is inevitable that some wells will not produce and will be abandoned. Additionally, many wells that are productive in the beginning, will eventually cease production and be abandoned. According to the Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario, there have been 3,267 wells drilled in the Monticello planning area, 2,132 of which have been abandoned. This amounts to over 65% of all wells being plugged and abandoned. Moreover, within the specific lease parcels at issue and the area of potential effects, there are 126 abandoned wells. And it is established that abandoned wells sometimes cause significant contamination of groundwater, even when they are properly plugged. Yet the September 2019 EA addresses abandoned wells only by describing why wells are abandoned and the process for plugging them. Because BLM has not properly analyzed the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the proposed leases on water sources, its conclusion that the leases will not “significantly affect the quality of the human environment” is unsound.

[31] BLM inadequately analyzed the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on climate change as a result of greenhouse gas [31] See Response to Comment 4 [a-f] and Comment 61 emissions generated from the lease sale and subsequent development. BLM’s analysis of the impacts that greenhouse gas emissions will have on climate change is inadequate. Although the September 2019 EA quantified the greenhouse gas emissions expected to occur from the proposed lease sale, development of the leases, and future use of the oil and gas obtained, the EA made no attempt to analyze the impacts that these emissions will have on climate change. As part of its required NEPA analysis, BLM must analyze what impact expected greenhouse gas emissions will have on the environment. A component of this analysis is what impact such emissions will have on climate change and its effects. A major area of concern that BLM failed to analyze is how the greenhouse gas emissions will contribute to the warming effect of climate change,

141 July 2019

Commenter Comment Response commonly referred to as global warming. For much of its greenhouse gas emissions analysis, the EA incorporates by reference and

defers to a report analyzing greenhouse gas emissions from BLM’s oil and gas leasing in Utah. This report, like the EA, does not attempt to analyze the impacts caused by greenhouse gas emissions, but it does provide some insight into the data sources and methods used to analyze such impacts. One of those methods is to apply the global warming potential of the greenhouse gases expected to be emitted and predict the temperature increase that may result due to the emissions. These global warming potentials

have been developed for several greenhouse gases and can be applied over different time spans (i.e. 20 years, 100 years, etc.). BLM has all of the information necessary to apply global warming potentials to each greenhouse gas it expects to be emitted in the quantity that is expected. Despite this, BLM did not apply global warming potentials and did not analyze what impacts the lease sale and subsequent development would have on global and regional warming beyond noting that average annual temperatures on the Colorado

Plateau are expected to increase in the future. If the global warming potentials were applied to the greenhouse gas emissions set forth in the EA, BLM would be able to better inform the public of the significance of future temperature increases, time spans within which

predicted temperature increases will occur, and the more specific, regional effects of the temperature increases on other resources such

as water evaporation and decreased precipitation. Because BLM only quantified greenhouse gas emissions and failed to take the next essential step of analyzing whether the emissions would have a significant impact on the environment as required by NEPA, the EA’s decision that greenhouse gas emission will not have a significant impact is arbitrary and capricious.

[32] BLM failed to analyze the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts that proposed lease would have on fish and wildlife. [32] See the responses to Comments 2 and 29 The September 2019 EA does not analyze the lease’s impacts to fish and wildlife. Instead, the EA determines that, although fish and wildlife are present in the area of potential effects, they are not affected to a degree that detailed analysis is required. Part of BLM’s rationale for this determination is that impacts to fish and wildlife were fully analyzed in the Monticello RMP and the March 2018 EA. Yet, tiering to these documents again falls short of NEPA’s requirements. As stated above, the Monticello RMP is a broad guidance document that was not intended to, and does not, analyze the site-specific effects of project-level actions. Instead, it is intended that there be site-specific analysis undertaken before implementing any decisions or actions allowed by the RMP. The time to perform site- specific analysis is at the leasing stage. The analysis in the March 2018 EA is likewise inadequate for two reasons. First, the current analysis considers completely different parcels. Second, it has no analysis of leasing’s impacts on wildlife other than discussing impacts to migratory birds and raptors. There are a host of other wildlife species that may be impacted beyond migratory birds and raptors. These include bighorn sheep, pronghorn, deer, elk, and others. Additionally, part of the analysis must include impacts to lambing and rutting areas, fawning areas, habitats, migration corridors, and the like. Neither the March 2018 EA nor the September 2019 EA discussed or analyzed these issues. As a result, it was improper for BLM to tier to the analysis in the March 2018 EA. BLM must conduct a separate analysis specific to the September sale. In order to comply with NEPA’s mandates, the EA must discuss and analyze how the lease could impact wildlife and their habitats. Because the EA does not do so, BLM has not complied with NEPA.

[33a] BLM improperly deferred analysis from the leasing stage to the drilling stage. BLM chose not to consider some impacts of leasing in [33a]See the response to Comment 2. Cultural resources, known or unknown, are not at risk because lease the September EA on the grounds that these impacts can be adequately analyzed, and avoided or mitigated, at the Application to Drill (“APD”) rights are subordinate to non-discretionary statue. stage. But by deferring its analysis, BLM is narrowing the range of protective measures at its disposal. Once a non-NSO lease is issued, a lessee acquires a right to disturb the surface of that lease parcel. Therefore, adequate analysis needs to be completed before the leasing decision. After the parcel is leased, the lessee has acquired exploration and drilling rights that make protecting resources more difficult, if not impossible, for

BLM. The September 2019 EA consistently defers analysis to the Application to Drill (“APD”) stage, including with cultural resources. This

contravenes the management decisions in the Monticello RMP. The RMP obligates BLM to conduct proactive cultural resource inventories. Yet instead of being proactive, BLM has, for the September lease sale, deferred doing any Class III cultural resource surveys until the APD stage, citing uncertainties of development at the leasing stage. These uncertainties, however, do not release BLM from its duties to analyze the impacts of the lease sale. And analyzing such impacts is impossible to do if BLM is not aware of what may be impacted. Given the current survey coverage of the parcels proposed for lease, BLM cannot comprehend what types of cultural resources are at risk and what the potential impacts are. [33b]. Between the internationally-recognized cultural landscapes of Bears Ears and Canyons of the Ancients, the proposed lease sale would [33b] There is no proposal at this stage to allow full scale oil and gas development. Should such development allow for oil- and- gas development in one of the most culturally rich and distinctive areas in the world. Site densities in the region are among be proposed, it will be evaluated and constrained to comply with discretionary statutes. On-the-ground impacts the highest in the United States, and the resources here are little documented, poorly researched, and not well understood. The value of these would potentially occur when a lessee applies for and receives approval to explore, occupy and/or drill on sites, as well as how they function together with landscape features and with regional transportation and trade routes exceeds the marginal lease prospect of oil and gas development here. The question of whether to allow that full scale oil and gas development cannot be answered without fully analyzing the irreplaceable cultural heritage at stake. Deferring that such analysis to the APD stage, after leases have been let and lease holders have rights to damage such sites is thus indefensible.

142 July 2019

Commenter Comment Response [34] BLM should have prepared an EIS. The September lease sale has the potential to significantly affect the human environment, especially [34] In accordance with BLM Manual Part 516, Chapter 11, the action currently before BLM is not one that when taken collectively with past, present, and future lease sales. NEPA requires federal agencies to prepare an environmental impact statement normally requires the preparation of an EIS (approval of an RMP, WSR/NS&HT, coal lease sale, energy (“EIS”) when they take “major federal actions” that may significantly affect the quality of the human environment. 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2) (c). facilities, major ROWs, radioactive operations, or mining operations). New circumstances do not automatically The current lease sale, when combined with the March 2018 and December 2018 lease sales, will result in over 60 leases covering hundreds of require the revision or amendment to a land use plan nor the preparation of an EIS, regardless of the age of the thousands of acres being issued in the culturally rich Four Corners region. The significant harm to the environment is mounting as BLM planning decisions. If warranted, an environmental assessment is prepared to analyze the impacts of new incrementally leases away virtually the entire area between Canyons of the Ancients National Monument, Hovenweep National Monument, and circumstances. Section 1.2 outlines BLM’s steps it would take if a FONSI cannot be reached. As outlined in Bears Ears National Monument. Among the factors to be considered when determining whether an EIS is necessary, several are applicable to Utah BLM’s NEPA Guidebook, “the CEQ Guidelines [40 CFR 1501.4 (e)] require that an agency make the leases at issue, including “[u]nique characteristics of the geographic area such as proximity to historic or cultural resources, park lands,” available a FONSI to the public for review in certain limited circumstances. Therefore, an unsigned FONSI “[t]he degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the should be released with an EA when the EA is made available for public comment. The unsigned FONSI is National Register of Historic Places or may cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources” and the typically a simple statement accompanying the EA. It allows the public to comment on the significance of the controversial nature of the leases due to their location and uncertainty of effects. BLM must prepare an EIS for this lease sale because the impacts analyzed in the EA.” A detailed FONSI (covering context and intensity) has been prepared and parcels considered have a high density of cultural sites; the parcels are located in close proximity to Nation Register-listed and eligible sites and released with the revised EA at the protest period associated with the NCLS. There are a variety of national monuments; recent and future lease sales may cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources; and the stipulations, notices, and mitigation measures that are included in the impact analysis, which ensure that sales are controversial. Put differently, leasing these parcels will result in a significant effect on the environment. For these reasons, BLM must significant impacts will not occur from the proposed action. prepare an EIS for the September lease sale.

[35] BLM’s consultation efforts fell short of NHPA’s requirements. BLM chose not to reinitiate Section 106 consultation under the National [35] See the response to Comment 25 Historic Preservation Act (“NHPA”) for the September 2019 lease sale. Instead, BLM relied on its consultation efforts for the March 2019 sale and states that consultation may continue (i.e. be reinitiated) at the request of any tribe. BLM should have reinitiated a new consultation period

because new, relevant information had been acquired since the March 2019 sale consultation and Tribal Historic Preservation Officers were not

consulted during the March 2019 sale. BLM has acquired more relevant information on the lease parcels than it had during the March 2019 consultation. The parcels proposed for lease in the September sale were all deferred from the March 2019 sale. For that reason, BLM did not restart consultation, but instead relied on its efforts to consult on the March sale. This does not meet the NHPA’s requirements. The lease parcels in the March 2019 lease sale were deferred because additional environmental analysis was needed. Tribes, just like the general public, would benefit in their feedback during consultation from the updated environmental analysis that BLM completed for the September sale. Furthermore, because consultation was not reinitiated, tribes have not received the final March 2019 Cultural Resource Report. According to

the consultation schedule in the September 2019 EA, consultation efforts ended on February 25, 2019. On that day, BLM provided the Pueblo of Pojoaque with a copy of the draft cultural resource report. The final cultural resource report was not published until March 27, 2019 and, to our knowledge, tribes have not been provided the final report. Similarly, the tribal consultation efforts were conducted before two key documents were created. The first is a protest letter submitted by Friends of Cedar Mesa and the National Trust for Historic Preservation on February 28, 2019, and the second is an April 26, 2019 review by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation of BLM’s no-adverse-effect finding. The February letter informed BLM of a significant number of cultural sites and resources within the lease parcels. Because many of the

sites were previously unknown by BLM, tribal consultation should have been reinitiated for those sites. The Advisory Council’s review did not

agree with BLM’s finding of no adverse effect. Instead, it urged BLM to undertake more effort to identify sites and consider impacts before leasing, and it recommended that BLM “[c]ontinue to invite and engage in Section 106 consultation on lease parcels deferred to future sales.” Instead of heeding the Advisory Council’s recommendations and advice, BLM has undertaken no further consultation efforts since February 2019. As a result, tribal consultation has been legally inadequate. To satisfy the NHPA’s requirements, BLM must pursue informed tribal consultation by providing tribes with all relevant documents and information. It is inappropriate for leasing to proceed when tribal consultation was not fully informed. How can BLM possibly conclude that there will be no adverse effects to cultural sites and resources if the tribal consultation efforts did not provide the tribes with all of the relevant information? Because the tribal consultation process is not complete, BLM’s determination of no adverse effect is, for all practical purposes, a predetermined finding. Similarly, even though the lease parcels are not within tribal reservations, BLM should have made meaningful efforts to consult with Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (“THPOs”). All of the lease parcels have high potential areas for cultural site density and are on the ancestral lands of several tribes. Because of this, THPOs are a knowledgeable resource for forecasting the kind of cultural sites that may exist in the area. There is no indication in the September 2019 EA that attempts were made to contact and consult with THPOs outside of contacting tribes themselves. The ACHP advises federal agencies to

contact both the tribal governmental leaders and the THPO before formally initiating Section 106 consultation to determine the appropriate points of contact. BLM did not do this, and for this reason too, its consultation under the NHPA was inadequate. [36] Summary information. BLM response is not warranted [36] BLM manages about 700 million acres of federal subsurface mineral rights across the country. Being the gatekeeper to that much land and resources, it is imperative that BLM carefully scrutinize what lands should be available for mineral leasing and development and which lands should not. This area between Bears Ears and Canyons of the Ancients national monuments should not be available for any leasing or development. The area is one of our country’s most culturally significant and scientifically valuable landscapes, yet it is also an area in dire need of protection. The ancestral places of southeast Utah, including the leasing area, was placed on the national Trust for Historic Preservation’s 2019 “America’s 11 Most Endangered Historic Places” list. For these reasons, we request

143 July 2019

Commenter Comment Response that BLM make the reasoned decision to cancel the leases proposed in this area. If BLM will not cancel the leases, we request that the leases be postponed until all the shortcomings identified in these comments are remedied. Thank you for your consideration of these comments and your attention to this important matter.

7.) Friends of [Due to the length, the BLM has summarized the comments. The document contains highly sensitive cultural site information. The redacted Cedar Mesa document is published on the ePlanning website] Parcels Commented On: 406, 407, 408, 409, 410, 411, 412,414, 415,416, 417, 418, 419, 420, 421, 422, 423, and 424 Comments [37] through [40] - These are comments on the NHPA process which has a separate [37] Improper postponement of compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA comment.period. The commenter made NHPA comments on these parcels when they were previously [38] Disagreement with No Adverse Effect Determination considered to be offered for lease in the March 2019 Lease Sale. The responses to those comments can be [39] Lack of Consideration of ACHP’s Comments found here. https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front-office/projects/nepa/117403/169522/206129/2019-03- [40] National Historic Preservation Act Concerns That Apply To All Parcels…Arbitrary and Capricious Area of Potential Effects…Failure to 20_March2019_OG_FCM_comments_response.pdf Make a Reasonable and Good Faith Identification Effort to Identify Historic Properties…Failure to Make National Register of Historic Places See the response to Comment 25 Eligibility Determinations…Arbitrary and Capricious No Adverse Effect Determination,,,Predetermination of Finding of No Adverse Effects See Response to Comment 9-14 for discussion of March 2019 ACHP Letter. and Failure to Initiate Early and Meaningful Section 106 Consultation…NHPA Consultation Has Been Effectively Foreclosed for the March . 2019 Sale…Report Lacks Any Analysis of Cumulative Effects…Inappropriately Deferring Analysis Until APD Phase…Critique of Parcel-By- Parcel Analysis [41] and [41a] See the Response to Comment 8. [41] NEPA Concerns [41a]Failure to Consider a Reasonable Range of Alternatives [41b] See the response to Comment 34. [41b] NEPA Requires the Preparation of An EIS for All “Major Federal Actions Significantly Affecting the Quality of Human Environment” [41c, 41d, 41e and 41f]These comments reference the DNA for the March 2019 Lease Sale and are out of [41c] BLM’s FONSI and Its Decision to Forego Preparation of an EIS Before Approving the September 2019 Monticello Lease Sale Is scope for comment on the EA. Arbitrary

[41d] Failure to Take Hard Look [41e] Relevance of DNA and Previous Analysis [41f] BLM’s Reliance on a DNA Contradicts NHPA Analysis [41g] See the response to Comment 2. Cumulative effects were analyzed in the MtFO RMP FEIS (Chapter 4). [41g] Failure to Analyze Increasing Cumulative Effects

[42] The BLM as a Federal agency authorizing this lease sale, continues to consult where appropriate with the [42]ESA Concerns: Failure to Prepare Biological Assessment and to Initiate and Reinitiate ESA Consultation Over Impacts to Listed Species USFWS with regard to potential impacts to species listed, proposed to be listed or candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act. Prior to authorization of a lease, the BLM will ensure development of the lease is not likely to harm a listed species.

[43] Lands With Wilderness Characteristics [43]See the Response to Comment 8.

[44]Parcel-Specific Comment…Recapture/Mustang District parcels…Montezuma Canyon and Tributaries District… [44] Comment noted. This is not a valid comment for the EA. BLM response is not warranted.

[45] The BLM provided a 30-day public comment period and will provide a 30-day protest period. The BLM [45] REQUEST FOR POSTPONEMENT UNTIL FULL EA IS COMPLETED In response to this shortened comment and protest period did not shorten the public comment period. Refer to section 1.10. and reissuance of the lease sale tiered to the March 2018 Canyon Country Oil and Gas Lease NEPA/NHPA analysis, we request that the BLM postpone the March 25, 2019, sale until a full EA has been completed. REQUEST FOR DEFERRAL OF EIGHTEEN PARCELS IN LEASE SALE We formally request that the March 2019 Monticello Oil and Gas Lease be postponed until a full EA and revised RMP have been completed. Additionally, we request that parcels 406, 407, 408, 409, 410, 411, 412, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419, 420, 421, 422, 423, and 424 be deferred from leasing until further survey of cultural resources on the ground has been completed and a practical plan can be put in place to facilitate responsible development while protecting intact cultural landscapes and districts.

CONCLUSION

[46a]The site quantities and characteristics of the March 2019 sale are quite similar to the December 2015 deferred parcels and the March 2018 parcels. We believe it is arbitrary and capricious of the BLM to determine that parcels with similar site counts, similar site densities, and in [46a] This is out of scope of the EA. some cases overlapping or adjacent boundaries with parcels deferred in the 2015 sale, can and should be offered again for lease when nothing

144 July 2019

Commenter Comment Response has changed on the ground in the meantime. We do, however, know of more resources and have even better data (the MtFO’s recent predictive model) that suggest high probabilities of sites in these areas that would support, not reject, reasons for deferral. We argue once again that the Montezuma Canyon/Alkali Ridge region of the MtFO requires landscape-level planning and district analysis to balance multiple, conflicting land uses. FCM requests that the BLM:

1. BLM re-initiate Section 106 consultation for the March 2019 sale and initiate Section 106 consultation for the September 2019 sale to address the deficiencies raised in this letter and in the ACHP’s letter. 2. BLM develop a Programmatic Agreement to guide leasing in this cultural landscape; this approach is also recommended by the ACHP. [46b]See the Response to Comment 8. [46b] 3. BLM should revise the action alternative to include a stipulation that lessees complete a cultural resource survey of the entire APE for the project, not just the project boundaries plus a buffer, before the Application for Permit to Drill is approved. 4. FCM recommends that BLM consider a Cultural Resources Protection Alternative that would apply an NSO stipulation to parcels with sensitive cultural resources. This may take the form of an NSO stipulation that is subject to waiver or modification if the Section 106 process reveals that the proposed ground disturbance would have no adverse effect on cultural resources in the entire APE.

8.) Business [47] On behalf of nineteen businesses in Bluff, Utah, the Business Owners of Bluff would like to thank the Bureau of Land [47]See the response to comments 5 and 62. The Business Owners of Bluff does not provide information or Owners of Management (BLM) for the opportunity to comment on the September 2019 Oil and Gas Competitive Lease Sale in southeast reasoning as to why the notice UT-LN-125 applied to those parcels do not resolve its concerns (refer to section Bluff Utah near Hovenweep National Monument. The Business Owners of Bluff (BOB) is an organization of hospitality, service-based, 1.9 in the EA). The NPS was consulted and they have not provided sky brightness measurements for and nonprofit businesses that are heavily dependent on tourism and outdoor recreation. We are proud of our world-renowned Hovenweep National Monument. With the trend toward increased recreation within MtFO, user conflicts are backyard of public lands and benefit directly from the careful management of their multiple uses. Our businesses rely and thrive likely to remain an issue between user groups (motorized, non-motorized, non-mechanized, river floating and on high-quality visitor experiences, economic diversity, and protection of our pristine night skies. Just an hour's travel from Bluff, specialized recreation). The 2008 RMP/FEIS analyzed impacts on social economic conditions (section Hovenweep National Monument is an International Dark Sky Park of the gold-tier and an economic driver for the Town of Bluff 4.3.12.2.6 in the FEIS, Appendix D in this EA). Comment Noted. Additional response is not warranted. and San Juan County. In 2018, Hovenweep received 34,143 visitors and many of those visitors spent tourism dollars in Bluff during their trip to enjoy the park. [figures about Bluff visitation numbers?] As a gateway community to both Hovenweep and Bears Ears National Monuments, we are concerned about the alarming rate at which BLM lands near those monuments are being leased for oil and gas development. The scale and rushed nature of the leasing leaves us questioning the impacts to our local economy and the level of analysis undertaken by the BLM. Specifically, BOB is concerned that the draft Environmental Analysis for the September Lease Sale elects to not analyze dark skies, despite concerns expressed by the National Park Service. Instead, the BLM will rely on non-binding stipulations during future drilling to protect one of southeast Utah' s most valuable resource. Dark skies are a tourism driver for Bluff and help extend the length of our visitor season, which leads to economic prosperity for our businesses and Town. This latest lease sale could allow for leasing as close as 4 miles to Hovenweep, which would place oil and gas operations directly in the park's viewshed. This could most certainly impact visitor experiences and the enjoyment of dark skies, since industrial light pollution can be seen from up to 35 miles away and the sounds and smells of energy development can be a nuisance. BOB opposes this lease sale and strongly encourages the BLM to reconsider leasing the nineteen parcels in the Monticello Field Office until the agency can conduct a thorough analysis of its socio-economic impacts to dark sky tourism and local economies. Additionally, sky brightness measurements have not been taken at Hovenweep National Monument since its International Dark Sky Park designation in 2014 and we feel this missing data is critical to the analysis needed. We urge the BLM to proceed with caution and care for the landscape and resources upon which our tourism-based economy depends.

9.) Teri Mader [48] I would like to comment on the proposal to sell oil and gas leases on BLM lands in southern Utah. As a resident of Grand County, [48] Comment Noted. Please refer Appendix D. UT, I have very strong feelings regarding the possible destruction of the multitudes of cultural resources that are found in this area. I “ The majority of flow back water from hydraulic fracturing in Utah is recycled and used in future hydraulic have spent many an hour on the trails, in the canyons, and contemplating our history - simply because I have chosen to live close to such fracturing completions. Therefore, the underground injection of hydraulic fracturing flow back in Utah is very a rich cultural area. These are priceless sites that, once compromised, will never be the same. We seem to be doing our best to destroy limited and presents little potential for inducing seismic activity. In fact, there has been no reported induced much of our heritage for the very dubious desire for more fuel drilling and destruction of the natural habitat. The short term effect of seismicity in Utah that was from water injected into Class II wells. Oil and gas wells produce a great amount these leases CANNOT outweigh the long term destruction of the irreplaceable artifacts and natural beauty of the area. The piecemeal of wastewater. The majority this water has high salt brine content and must be disposed of in an approach to these leases seems to be picking away bit by bit at the very things we should be more carefully protecting. The overall long environmentally safe manner. In Utah, a majority (95%) of this produced water is pumped into Class II term impact must be considered before the damage is done and cannot be repaired. One final point: there are other consequences of injection wells. In certain parts of the country, water injection /waste water disposal has caused some induced allowing these leases to proceed. Many of us choose to live near this area specifically because of the unmatched dark skies. There are seismicity in the form of small earthquakes. Two major factors play a role in induced seismicity from water also always water consequences that develop due to the drill sites. The probability of fracking, which may lead to more and more

145 July 2019

Commenter Comment Response earthquake activity is also a consideration. In summary, please do not allow these lease sales to proceed. There is too much at stake here. injection. First, the amount of water being injected. Secondly, the local geology of the water injection site. In Utah, the volumes are lower than those states experiencing induced seismicity. Also, the geology is different than those states experiencing induced seismicity. The injection zones are stratigraphically thousands of feet above the basement rock that may contain large unknown faults. Therefore, at this time it appears that induced seismicity from water injection is not a problem in the oil fields of Utah. (Personal communication from John Rogers, Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining (UDOGM) to Angela Wadman, March 27, 2018 (BLM 2018)).”Additional response is not warranted. 10.)National [49] The National Trust for Historic Preservation appreciates the opportunity to submit comments on the Environmental Assessment for the [49] Scoping is one form of public involvement in the NEPA process. (H-1760-1, section 6.3). The BLM Trust for Monticello Field Office’s September 2019 competitive oil and gas lease sale. Correspondingly, we intend that these comments be considered conducted internal scoping and external scoping. Refer to Appendix D and section 4.2. The BLM is providing Historic in connection with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. BLM proposes to lease nineteen parcels in the September sale public involvement as defined in section 8.2. Preservation covering approximately 32,000 acres of public land. These are the same parcels deferred from the March 2019 sale. BLM has not provided an opportunity for scoping on the EA and has indicated – to the objection of consulting parties - that it considers Section 106 consultation to have been completed. We have significant concerns that BLM’s environmental review is incomplete and that the EA does not contain enough information or analysis to reasonably conclude that no direct, indirect or cumulative effects to cultural resources will occur as a result of the

lease sale. More than 40,000 acres of the lands located between Canyons of the Ancients National Monument and Route 191 were leased in

2018, and this lease sale alone would increase that amount by 80%. Accordingly, we urge BLM to halt further leasing in the region pending completion of a Resource Management Plan (RMP) update and Programmatic Agreement (PA).

[50] Interests of the National Trust for Historic Preservation The National Trust for Historic Preservation is a private, nonprofit [50] Background information. No Response is warranted. organization chartered by Congress in 1949 to facilitate public participation in the preservation of our nation's heritage, and to further the historic preservation policy of the United States. See 54 U.S.C. § 312102(a). Congress intended the National Trust “to mobilize and coordinate public interest, participation and resources in the preservation and interpretation of sites and buildings.” S. Rep. No. 1110, 81st Cong., 1st Sess. 4 (1949). With headquarters in Washington, D.C., 27 historic sites, more than one million members and supporters, and a national network of partners in states, territories, and the District of Columbia, the National Trust works to save America’s historic places and advocates for historic preservation as a fundamental value in programs and policies at all levels of government. In addition, the National Trust has been designated by Congress as a member of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, which is responsible for working with federal agencies to implement compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. 54 U.S.C. §§ 304101(8), 304108(a). The National Trust has been advocating for the protection of historic properties on public lands in San Juan County for over a decade. This includes submitting comments

on oil and gas lease sales that have the potential to cause direct and indirect effects to cultural resources. As described in BLM’s 2008 RMP the

Monticello field office possesses “one of the highest archaeological site densities and North America” (RMP at 4-9). The breadth of leasing activity that has occurred over the course of the past year and a half in this region led the National Trust to profile the “Ancestral Places of Southeast Utah” in its 2019 list of America’s 11 Most Endangered Historic Places. [51]. The existing stipulations for oil and gas leasing were developed as part of a thorough and public land use [51] The Existing Resource Management Plan does not provide sufficient protections for cultural resources proposed to be leased in planning process for the MtFO RMP (2008) Historical data shows that only 1/3 of all leased parcels receive the upcoming sale. While BLM argues to the contrary, oil and gas leasing has the potential to cause significant impacts to historic properties. some form of surface disturbance. Looting as an indirect result of oil and gas development would only result in The photo below is one evidentiary example. An oil and gas well active along Montezuma Creek in the viewshed of the Nancy Patterson response to the addition of new roads into previously road-less areas. Typically, initial development of a Village site. Across the road in the foreground of the picture is a looted site, including a damaged and exposed kiva. The relationship between wildcat well relies on use of existing routes with the minimal addition of new road mileages. Additionally, increased industrial activity and illegal looting is a primary concern of the consulting parties under Section 106. Exploratory activities and research conducted in Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument has indicated that looting of road building provide easier access to sensitive cultural resources on a landscape that has already seen damage from looters. No surface archaeological sites has actually decreased over the past 20 years. occupancy (NSO) stipulations can be an effective safeguard from new road building, which can have both direct and indirect adverse effects on cultural resources. Yet, even though directional drilling is becoming more technologically feasible, only 383.31 acres – or about 1% of the Additional analysis of indirect effects associated with the opening of previously road-less areas as a result of current lease sale -- would be subject to NSO stipulations (EA at 20). This is largely due to the RMP, which failed to provide protections for oil and gas development will be further considered in the NEPA and NHPA analysis related to any some of the most significant cultural resources in the planning area. An update of the RMP is long overdue. As recognized by the BLM State applications for development on a leased parcel. Director in 2015, significant new information about the historic resources within the Monticello planning area has been recognized since the Developing new NSO or CSU stipulations would require a RMP amendment and is outside the scope of this existing RMP was completed in 2008. The Monticello Field Office has ample information on which to establish a new guiding framework for project. future development in the area.

[52a] The EA inappropriately omits any discussion of impacts to cultural resources, limiting its analysis only to the effects of leasing on [52a] A Cultural Resources Review was prepared to document the BLM’s reasonable and good faith effort to air quality and greenhouse gas/climate change. At Section 1.9 the EA states four reasons as BLM’s rationale for “not further discussing” identify effects this undertaking may have on historic properties. To comply with NEPA, the BLM describes cultural resources in detail in the EA. In sum, it concludes further analysis unnecessary because BLM: affected cultural resources and potential impacts of the proposed action in the IDPRT checklist, Section 1.9, and Appendix D. Refer to comment 2. • Has completed a literature search of existing site information; • Intends to apply Stipulation H 3120-1 to consult under Section 106 at the APD stage; • Maintains the right to modify development proposals prior to granting APDs; and

146 July 2019

Commenter Comment Response • Completed a cultural resource analysis in March 2018 prior to the deferral of those parcels to the September 2019 sale.

We object to each point as outlined below. Broadly, we find BLM’s reluctance to consider the impacts to cultural resources deeply problematic, and at odds with NEPA’s fundamental purpose to have federal agencies “study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action in any proposal which involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources” and to consider alternatives to the proposed action. 42 U.S.C. §§ 4332(E), 4332(C)(iii). BLM is well aware of the deep- seated concern

among tribes and the general public that unfettered oil and gas development is not appropriate in many parts of this region. It contains some of the most significant and longstanding settlements associated with ancestral Puebloan communities, including the Nancy Patterson Village site, and Coal Bed Village site, as well as in the vicinity of significant rock art (see below image

Further, insufficient funding for the stewardship of archaeological sites has led to large knowledge gaps. In good faith efforts, Friends of Cedar Mesa and others have assisted BLM in filling the gaps, providing research and funding for more complete documentation efforts. Yet, despite receiving significant new information about cultural resources in the project area since the RMP was last updated more than a decade ago, BLM has dramatically increased its leasing activity without a management strategy that takes account of this information.

Following are our comments on why BLM’s decision to omit a cultural resources analysis in the EA is misplaced, and unlawful. Identification efforts have been inadequate. BLM has not acted reasonably and in good faith in relying solely on a literature review to justify its determination that oil and gas leasing will not harm cultural resources for the following reasons.

i. Most of the existing survey data BLM relies on has generally been done to survey specific sites for prior industrial development. In our experience working with archaeologists who are knowledgeable about the region, many significant sites remain unidentified, leaving them vulnerable to harm from exploratory activities.

ii. BLM’s lease sale stipulations do not require Class III surveys at the APD stage, nor do its lease stipulations preserve BLM’s ability to implement the “no drilling” alternative.

iii. BLM has been reluctant to acknowledge that prehistoric sites can be eligible for the National Register under broader criteria of significance than just criterion d (significance based on the information the site is likely to yield). For instance, in many prehistoric villages sightlines and dark skies were critical making its setting and viewshed a core component of its significance. Consultation with tribes and more complete survey and analysis is critical to understanding and recognizing how these places connect across the landscape.

The below image, for instance, demonstrates how viewshed can be a core component of a site’s significance. It shows evidence of prehistoric occupation at the head of a canyon (known as Pedro Point) located on the western boundary of Canyons of the Ancients National Monument at the Colorado state line. The site affords significant

views into BLM land in the State of Utah, which are not part of the Monument, but deserve to be afforded special protection as an integral component of its significance. [52b] This is not a valid comment for the EA, as it primarily applies to the NHPA process, not the NEPA process. The NHPA process is on-going. Lease stipulations do not cover the NHPA process. See Response to [52b] Lease stipulations are insufficient to ensure consultation at the APD stage Comment 9-14 for discussion of March 2019 ACHP Letter.

Based on past practice, we are not convinced that BLM’s stated commitment to consultation at the APD stage will satisfy the

reasonable and good faith standard. This is largely because the manner in which BLM Utah has conducted Section 106 review with respect to oil and gas leasing in the Monticello Field Office has consistently been inadequate in light of the significant resources at stake.

The National Trust is particularly concerned that BLM failed to provide notice to consulting parties with an express interest in leasing in the Monticello Field Office in the March 2019 sale. Despite having participated as a consulting party on both the March and December 2018 lease sales, the National Trust was not informed of the specific process BLM created for consulting party requests in the March 2019 lease sale (BLM states in the EA that it “posted data and instructions on ePlanning,” EA at 43).

On April 1, 2019 the National Trust submitted a letter to BLM’s lead oil and gas archaeologist with a request for consulting party status on the September 2019 lease sale (Attachment A). We were then informed by BLM via email that this letter was not acceptably conveyed as a consulting party request, for which BLM required it be mailed (per instructions on the ePlanning website) and that,

regardless, the parcels we identified as of concern “were already subject to a Section 106 analysis during the March 2019 Lease Sale.”

The email stated BLM has “no plans to re-analyze the Monticello parcels under Section 2016 in the September 2019 Lease Sale”

147 July 2019

Commenter Comment Response (Attachment B). BLM’s position that consultation is complete seems to be firm despite an Advisory Council on Historic Preservation dispute resolution letter indicating disagreement with the agency’s finding of no adverse effect (stating that “ACHP does not agree that, in all circumstances and regardless of location, leasing will not have an adverse effect on historic properties”(Attachment C)(emphasis in original)). The ACHP faulted BLM for failing to cite any documentation for how direct, indirect, or cumulative effects will be considered, and failing to provide information on how potentially eligible districts would be avoided in later phases. While the ACHP recommended the development of a Programmatic Agreement (PA) to address these issues, BLM has taken no such action in response as of the time of this writing.

We urge BLM to reinitiate Section 106 consultation and accept our request to participate as a consulting party, our request having

been made in good faith.

[52c] BLM fails to retain adequate authority to modify projects prior to drilling [52c] See Response to Comment 2

While BLM states in the EA that it maintains the authority to modify projects in the event of unanticipated adverse effects to cultural resources, BLM provides no support for this claim. The stipulations themselves do not confirm that BLM has the discretion to prohibit development on parcels, even where impacts to cultural resources cannot be mitigated. Further, the stipulation language does not require BLM to conduct a Class III survey at the APD phase. While current BLM policy may enable denial of an APD application for impacts to cultural resources or Class III survey, the public has no assurance that this policy will remain in place after the parcels are leased. For instance, BLM has already been forced to balance its responsibility to consult reasonably and in good faith with a new departmental policy to hurry through the compliance process with a strict 6-month period to complete NEPA and NHPA review (see IM 2018-034). Therefore, legally binding language in [52d] These are comments on the NHPA process which has a separate comment period. Although the stipulations is the only measure that can effectively assure the public of these protections. commenter apparently didn’t participate as a consulting party for the March 2019 Lease Sale, Friends of Cedar Mesa did. The responses to their comments can be found here: https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front- [52d] BLM’s prior cultural resources analysis is insufficient office/projects/nepa/117403/169522/206129/2019-03-20_March2019_OG_FCM_comments_response.pdf See Response to Comment 9-14 for discussion of March 2019 ACHP Letter. We hereby incorporate our March 2019 lease sale protest dated February 28, 2019, which was cited in ACHP’s dispute resolution letter. The protest – jointly submitted with Friends of Cedar Mesa - objected to many of the assumptions contained within the draft Cultural Resources Report including, among others, concern with

• BLM’s assumed half-mile Area of Potential Effects (APE), regardless of the site and its setting; • The lack of a good faith identification effort; • BLM’s unwillingness to consider National Register eligibility determinations for archaeological districts in eastern San Juan County; and

• The basis of BLM’s “No Adverse Effect” determination, which appears to be predetermined regardless of the extent of survey on any given parcel.

The cultural resources review must be updated to effectively incorporate the ACHP’s concerns about the process. In order to do so BLM has an obligation to re-initiate consultation. [53] The BLM did not rely on the DNA. [53] BLM’s decision to omit a discussion of impacts to cultural resources and rely on a Determination of NEPA Adequacy is inconsistent with past practice. In two lease sales in 2018 BLM initiated scoping and prepared EAs acknowledging impacts to cultural resources as a significant issue. Even though we disagreed with BLM’s ultimate conclusion that no harm would occur to cultural resources, those documents at least provided some analysis of the issue. In the September 2019 EA BLM completely omits any discussion of cultural resources whatsoever (resting on its previous Determination of NEPA Adequacy which was likewise not sufficient).

[54] BLM has failed to account for cumulative effects to historic resources due to recent leasing activity in the project area. One [54] Cumulative Impacts to leasing and developing were considered in the 2008 MtFO RMP EIS. of the most pernicious aspects of failing to carry forward cultural resources as an issue in the EA is the concern that BLM is altogether avoiding analysis of the relationship of this sale to the March and December 2018 competitive sales. In calendar year 2018 BLM Utah leased over 40,000 acres of land in the Monticello Field Office planning area, much of it in the culturally rich canyons feeding Montezuma and Recapture Creeks. The National Trust strenuously objected to both sales as a consulting party under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. [55] This is not a valid comment for the EA. This is outside the scope. [55] A Programmatic Agreement is necessary to address systemic inadequacies and problems associated with cultural

148 July 2019

Commenter Comment Response resource identification in the Monticello Field Office.

The Record of Decision approving the 2008 RMP commits BLM to “conduct proactive cultural inventories under Section 110 of the

National Historic Preservation Act” (ROD at 15). However, in a review of the RMP in 2015 BLM staff noted that

cultural resources have not yet been assigned to appropriate use categories, and that completion of a cultural resource management plan would improve their ability to plan for access to cultural sites, particularly with regard to special recreation permits. As a

result, the RMP does not fully protect significant cultural and paleontological resources through special designations. Likewise,

route and travel designations in the RMP fail to address cultural and paleontological needs and protection. Nomination of the most significant sites to the National Register of Historic Places and additional road inventories in the field office would help remedy these shortfalls.

(Monticello RMP Five-Year Evaluation at 5). Consistent with these significant concerns, BLM must make proactive identification efforts outside the oil and gas context to fulfill its legal responsibilities to steward the exceptional resources under its care. A PA, combined with an RMP update, can also help resolve conflicts by establishing a path for the identification of the cultural resources in the planning area where setting, feeling and association is a defining aspect of their significance. The footprints of seismic lines, well pads, pipelines, and associated access roads and ancillary facilities may be relocated to avoid direct harm to specific sites, but the auditory and visual harm to landscape level resources, districts, and traditional cultural places is often impossible to avoid in the context of oil and gas development, particularly where heavy site densities occur within specific parcels. Where high priority sites are known new ACECs should be established to ensure that surface occupancy will not occur within an appropriate boundary. [56] Conclusion. We maintain significant concerns that the EA inadequately evaluates potential harm from the lease sale on cultural resources. [56] Comment noted.

11.)National [58] Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments for the September 2019 Competitive Oil and Gas Lease Sale Environmental [58] Background information was provided. Deferral of the parcels in the proposed action would be Park Service- Assessment (EA), Monticello Field Office, DOI-BLM-UT-000-2019-0003- OTHER NEPA -MtFO-EA. The 19 parcels located inconsistent with the RMP and contrary to current BLM policy as stated in WO IM 2018-034. Additional Hovenweep northwest from Hovenweep National Monument (Hovenweep) are generally between 4.5 and 21 miles from the separate units of the response is not warranted. monument. Despite the distance from Hovenweep, we believe that oil and gas exploration and development on these parcels will be detrimental to the visitor experience in the monument and surrounding lands, and will negatively affect resources important to Hovenweep. Therefore, we respectfully request the Bureau of Land Management withdraw the subject parcels from the September 2019 lease sale. [59] The RFD Scenario the NPS is referring to is the broad RFDs created for the MLP. Just below the broad discussion of the RFDS created for the land use plans, the EA breaks it down for the 19 parcels covering [59] Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario 32,067.42 acres. Please refer to section 2.2.1. It is not clear how BLM arrived at an anticipated 195 well pads in 15 years and 115 producing wells. It is also not clear how many of “For the analysis of the 19 nominated parcels encompassing 32,067.42 acres, the MtFO estimated a maximum those well pads and producing wells would result from this planned lease sale. We recommend the EA include sufficient detail that a of 4 wells would be drilled, and the maximum new disturbance will be 4 wells totaling 38.40 acres (one well pad and access road disturbance at 9.6 acres). This scenario would occur rarely, if at all. Over the last three reader can understand the basis of the calculations, and specifically how the current lease sale is expected to contribute to the total number years (2015-2018), six wells have been drilled in San Juan County. Out of those six wells, only 1 well was of well pads and production wells. capable of production. Statistically, it is more probable that three wells would be drilled for the nominated MtFO parcels.”

The comment is noted and the BLM clarified the method and calculations in Section 2.2.1 for the nominated parcels. For information regarding the broad analysis used for the MLP and the RFD, please go to the ePlanning. The links are also included in the Appendix E.

[60] The Air Resource Technical Advisor Group (AiRTAG), including the National Park Service, was [60] Air Quality consulted for the Moab Master Leasing Plan (MLP) air quality analysis. Due to the estimated limited level of Oil and gas exploration and production activities that may result from leasing the subject parcels have the potential to cause direct, oil and gas development activity predicted by the Appendix G, section 2.2.1 not being substantially different indirect, and cumulative effects on air quality and air quality related values (particulate deposition and visibility) that have implications than what was analyzed for the MLP and the absence of any amount of definitive development, BLM

149 July 2019

Commenter Comment Response for resource conditions in Hovenweep, and surrounding areas. Because ozone concentrations in the region are approaching National determined that additional consultations with the NPS Air Resources and the Utah BLM's AiRTAG would not Ambient Air Quality Standards, effects of oil and gas activities on ozone formation are of particular concern. Consistent with the 2011 be appropriate at this time. This consultation would be more appropriate at the lease development stage when a Interagency Memorandum of Understanding concerning air quality analyses and mitigation for federal oil and gas decisions, we ask that proposal would be subject to site-specific NEPA analysis.” BLM consult with the NPS Air Resources Division and other members of the Utah air resources technical advisory group in determining Additionally the air quality modeling analysis presented in the EA were performed in consultation with NPS the most appropriate type of air quality analyses to conduct if these parcels are leased and subsequently developed. Dust emissions from Air Specialists and the AiRTAG. These model analysis include the Cane Creek project, the Moab MLP, and pads and roads associated with exploration and production activities, including increased bare ground and increased vehicle traffic, have the Air Resource Management Strategy ARMS. These models evaluated direct, indirect and cumulative impacts on air quality and air quality related values from oil and gas development. the potential to increase regional haze and reduce visibility. This is a key concern related to the visitor experience.

While Ozone is a regional concern, the NPS own monitoring data from the Canyonlands National Park IMPROVE site shows the 5 year average ozone concentrations has been decreasing since 2007. The data also shows there has only been one year out of the last ten where the fourth highest 8-hr average ozone concentration exceeded the NAAQS. (http://views.cira.colostate.edu/fed/AvgExplorer/Default.aspx?wcfid=ADE_High4_5YA&nyears=5&ey=2016) In addition the Moab MLP air analysis which is incorporated by reference identified that high ozone concentrations near Canyonlands NP and Arches NP is primarily a result of pollution sources outside of the region and that oil and gas development in the planning area has little contribution to the overall concentration. In section 3.3.1.4 ozone was identified as being a potential concern in the future, and that if monitored concentration levels increase then additional air quality analysis may be necessary, as identified in UT-LN- 102.

[61] Climate Change [61] Comment noted. BLM considered many of the suggested improvements to the climate change analysis We applaud the inclusion of a climate change discussion in the EA and offer the following comments to improve the discussion and also to (including the USGS National Climate Change Viewer and CMIP5 tools) and will consider these improve BLM’s ability to communicate climate change issues to stakeholders. recommendations for future lease sales. For this lease sale, BLM chose to incorporate the climate analysis from the Colorado Plateau Rapid Eco-regional Assessment (REA) (Bryce 2012). While the USGS National • In Table 10, we recommend BLM provide future projections of temperature and precipitation. Projections are widely available Climate Change Viewer provides a county level look projected climate change it tends to only focus on in the literature (see for example; Cook, B. I., T. R. Ault, and J.E. Smerdon. 2015. Unprecedented 21st century drought risk in atmospheric variables such as temperature and precipitation and excludes other parts of the earth climate the American Southwest and Central Plains. Sci. Adv. 1, e1400082). The USGS National Climate Change Viewer system. In addition to evaluating the atmospheric changes to climate, the Colorado Plateau REA also includes (https://www2.usgs.gov/landresources/lcs/nccv/viewer.asp) is an excellent source for climate change projections based on potential impacts to the hydrosphere (water, lakes, rivers, etc.) and biosphere (living organism, plants and animals). This information is compiled into a simple map Figure 3 showing the potential (low to very high) of ensemble forecasts from global circulation climate models climate change at local levels. While NPS disagrees with the findings of the Colorado Plateau REA, that • The last paragraph on page 35 states that methane has an average atmospheric lifetime of 12 years compared to 50 to 200 years approximately 70% of the plateau will experience moderate or lower potential for change, the method for carbon dioxide. We recommend the paragraph also state that methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas (GHG), suggested by them of inferring that since there will be substantial worldwide impacts from global warming of approximately 28 to 36 times more potent than carbon dioxide (https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global- 2℃ there will also be substantial impacts within the cumulative impact area is not based on sound science. warming- potentials). There is inherent difficulties in downscaling a global impact to a site specific impact. As stated earlier the • In Table 11, we recommend BLM state the time frame for the tabulated emissions: is the time frame one average year, one alternative provided by the USGS National Climate Change Viewer only considers the atmospheric component particular year, or cumulative over a time frame of several years? of the of the earth climate system, and doesn’t include the hydrosphere, biosphere, or other climate systems • In Table 12, we recommend BLM clearly indicate if the Operations values shown in the table are for the first year of operation, like the REA. However, as the REA potential for climate change across the entire Colorado Plateau, additional statements are added to the EA to identify the potential for climate change where lease parcels are located. or if they representative of each and every year of operation.

• In the paragraph immediately following Table 12, BLM states that the annual GHG emissions for the reasonably foreseeable To clarify the tabulated emissions, the construction emissions will occur only in the first year of development, development scenario are 15,603 MT CO2e/yr, based on 4 wells. However, this calculation would seem to be valid only for the the operation emissions are representative annually over the entire life of the well, and combustion emissions first year of operation when construction emissions would be included. The sum of 3,900.8 MT CO2e/yr per well does not are an average annual amount. Additional information has been added to the EA to show the estimated total match the data provided in Table 13. life of well emissions. Updates are also made to clarify how the emissions are calculated in the paragraph • In Table 13, we recommend BLM provide an estimate (low, average, and high) of the emissions over the lifetime of a immediately after Table 12. producing oil well and the lifetime of a producing gas well, based on average production well lifespan. An alternative would be to estimate lifetime emissions based on an equation of the curve of typical well production over time. No changes will be made to the document to identify methane capture technology or to require operators to use • In Section 3.3.2.3, we recommend BLM include an item stating that methane capture technology will be used at wellheads, or such technology. The BLM is not a regulatory authority for air pollutant emissions. The permit by rule that technologies to prevent methane leakage from a wellhead will be required. requirements recently established by the Utah Division of Air Quality (R307-511) requiring “Associated gas We disagree with BLM’s statement in the first full paragraph of page 40 that the potential for climate- related change on the Colorado from a completed well shall either be routed to a process unit for combustion, routed to a sales pipeline, or Plateau is predicted to be “mostly moderate or lower.” Our opinion is based on the scientific literature (one example cited above) and on routed to an operating VOC control device except for emergency release situations,” sufficiently addresses this comment. ensemble model predictions from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 5 (CMIP5). We recommend BLM rewrite this section, based on the overwhelming scientific literature related to effects of climate change on the Colorado Plateau and the CMIP5

150 July 2019

Commenter Comment Response model results summarized in Table 1 and available at the following USGS website (https://www2.usgs.gov/landresources/lcs/nccv/viewer.asp).

The scientific consensus (IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth

Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 151 pp.) is that temperature increases of 2°C or greater compared to the pre-industrial baseline will lead to substantial worldwide negative effects on the human environment. Table 1 indicates that San Juan County, Utah is like to exceed the 2°C increase in temperature within the next 5 to 30 years. Therefore, it is not credible to suggest in the EA that climate change effects on the Colorado Plateau will be moderate or lower. [62]See Response to comment 5. The noise propagation modeling conducted by the NPS for the Moab MLP [62] Naturally Dark Night Skies and Soundscapes states that “In Utah’s Lease Notices, VRM classes are used as the basis for determining where alternative We recommend that BLM discuss more fully the effect of oil and gas exploration and development on naturally dark night skies and mineral lease stipulations would apply for purposes of protecting viewsheds, soundscapes and night skies.” quiet soundscapes, and the increase in night sky viewing opportunities in Hovenweep and on adjacent public lands. In our opinion, the This is incorrect. VRM classes are not meant to mitigate any of those issues. inclusion of Utah Lease Notice UT-LN-125, Light and Sound- Sensitive Resources provides insufficient guidance and requirements for protection of dark night skies. Hovenweep is certified as an International Dark Sky Park. Naturally dark night skies are becoming ever The Report went on to say: “Required setbacks to mitigate sound and light impacts are limited to a maximum more popular with park visitors and we are concerned that lights from exploration and development actions on the leased parcels will of 200 meters. When viewed alongside the results presented in this report, setbacks of 200 meters are clearly affect Hovenweep’s dark night skies. We are also concerned about potential impacts of oil and gas exploration and drilling activities on unlikely to prevent significant impact to restful sleep, wilderness solitude, and recreational experiences, for natural soundscape conditions experienced in Hovenweep. Parcels 417, 418, 419, and 424 are located about five miles away from example.” Hovenweep. Noise propagation modeling conducted in support of the Moab Master Leasing Plan indicated that noise generated by drilling operations can be heard more than six miles away from the source under some conditions. Misunderstandings of the BLM’s use of stipulations and lease notices appears to be the basis for the Park Service’s concerns for this and previous lease sales. The Lease Notice serves to alert potential lessees of a

resource conflict that may result in Conditions of Approval that would require measures to prevent impairment [63] Groundwater Quality and Quantity of night skies and soundscapes in the area of concern. This not achieved through setbacks, but through use of We also are concerned about potential impacts of exploration and development activities on groundwater resources. The Monument infrastructure to quiet motors and deflect light. depends on groundwater from the Navajo Sandstone for all administrative and visitor uses, and development of groundwater for oil and gas extraction in the area has the potential to affect the quantity and quality of Hovenweep’s groundwater source. Additional use of [63] Comment noted. BLM will continue to work and coordinate will all stakeholders including the Division groundwater has the potential to diminish groundwater resources over a wide area because of hydraulic continuity between aquifers and of Water Quality, Division of Water Rights, Utah Geological Survey and the U.S. Geological Survey. Please extremely slow rates of recharge. Therefore, we request BLM work with leaseholders to use sources of water that will have the least refer to Appendix D (IDPR) and section 4.2 through 4.3. If these parcels are acquired and an APD is possible future impact on Hovenweep. Hydraulic fracturing associated with oil and gas production has the potential to introduce submitted, the well is subject to the casing and cementing requirement of Onshore Oil and Gas Order No.2. contaminants into groundwater systems. Therefore, we request that BLM consult with the US Geological Survey or the Utah Geological (O.O. #2). All APDs are subject to review by a BLM petroleum engineer, geologist, and hydrologist. Survey regarding the effects of hydraulic fracturing on water quality in the area. In addition to the groundwater quality and quantity Compliance with O.O. #2 will ensure protection of useable ground water aquifers from drilling, completion issues, we are concerned about the potential for earthquakes that could result from lubrication of faults, bedding planes, formation and production operations. Additional response is not warranted contacts, and other subsurface geologic structures by injection of fluids during hydraulic fracturing or injection of produced water. We recommend BLM evaluate effects of fluid injection on the geologic formations into which fluids are likely to be introduced and the susceptibility of those formations to earthquakes caused by fluid injection. Prehistoric cultural structures at Hovenweep could be very susceptible to earthquakes initiated by fluid injection. 12.) Thomas [64] The BLM is legally required to analyze "cumulative impacts," not only of this immediate lease sale but of this lease sale combined [64] Cumulative impacts have been analyzed in this EA. Refer to section 3.2, 3.3.1.4, and 3.3.2.4.Currently the Messenger with other potential development in the area. The BLM fails to do this in the environmental analysis (EA). This is the third time in 18 MtFO has 243,736 authorized leased acres (Table 3). The Monticello Field Office RMP, as amended by the months that the BLM has offered or sold leases in this area and each time limited the analysis to the potential impacts of developing the GRSG ARMPA (BLM 2015 and 2019) designates 432,296 acres in the planning area as open to leasing with area offered in each particular sale. The BLM must analyze the big picture, cumulative impacts of the developing whole 150+ square standard stipulations where approximately 23% (99,051 acres) have been leased. An additional 586,736 acres miles. The proposed lease blocks are located in one of the most culturally and archaeologically rich public land areas in the U.S. that are open to leasing with moderate stipulations (CSU/TL) where approximately 16% (92,143 acres) have been includes cliff dwellings, pueblos, kivas, petroglyph and pictograph panels. The area has not been adequately inventoried and impacts to leased. Major stipulations, such as No Surface Occupancy (NSO), has been designated across 82,216 acres and cultural resources have not been adequately assessed. The lands proposed for the September 2019 lease sale blocks include lands approximately 18% (14,553 acres) of these acres have been leased. The September 2019 lease sale would determined by the BLM to have wilderness character and which are also proposed for wilderness designation in America's Red Rock make approximately an additional 6% (27,896 acres) acres with standard stipulations, < 1% (2,005 acres) acres Wilderness Act's Monument Canyon and Tin Cup Mesa units. The EA fails to adequately assess impacts to wilderness values. with moderate stipulations, and no acres with major stipulations available for leasing. Currently there are 243,736 leased acres within the MtFO boundary and the lease sale would make an additional 32,067 acres available for lease. If all parcels are sold in the lease sale then total leased acres for the MtFO would cumulatively increase to 275,803 acres or 25% leased acres. This would be a cumulative increase of 3% compared to current leased acres (Table 3). None of the parcels are within Wilderness or Wilderness Study Areas (Appendix D).

151 July 2019

Commenter Comment Response 13.) John Gould [65] My reading the law indicates that the BLM is required to assess the total impacts of the entire project. It sure appears as though you [65] Refer to comment 34. folks have broken this single-area development into three phases in order to come to a conclusion of No Significant Impact. In addition, it is my understanding that assessing the total impacts includes assessing the impacts of the use of the extracted materials. However, you state in Section 3.3.2.2 the following: "Indirect Impacts from Combustion of Produced Oil or Gas If lease parcels are developed and if the resulting well produces oil or gas it is foreseeable that indirect GHG emissions will result from the end-use of the fossil fuel. Estimates of downstream emissions are assumed to come from the combustion of oil or gas for domestic heating or energy production. However, May 2019 Monticello Field Office DOI-BLM-UT-000-2019-0003-EA 37 the BLM has no authority to direct or regulate the end-use of the produced products and an actual end-use may differ from the assumption used for calculating downstream GHG emissions. Calculations of indirect emissions from downstream combustion can be made by multiplying the produced number of barrels (bbl) of oil and thousand cubic feet (mcf) of gas with GHG emission factors ".What does "...the BLM has no authority to direct or regulate the end-use of the produced products..." have to do with it? You are not required to direct or regulate the use of these materials, only to assess their impacts on the environment, and "directing" and "regulating": are not necessary for assessing the impacts of burning fossil fuels. Kindly go back, assess the environmental impacts of the leasing of ALL the parcels in ALL the lease sales in the area, and in addition, please assess ALL the factors required by law. In the meantime, I support only the No Action Alternative.

14.)Utah Rock [66] We have reviewed the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Monticello Field Office September 2019 Competitive Oil and Gas [66] Background information. BLM response is not warranted. Art Research Lease Sale and respectfully submit the following comments on the EA and on the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). Who We Association Are: URARA is the leading organization in the state of Utah advocating for the preservation, documentation, and study of pre-historic and historic petroglyphs and pictographs (rock art). Our membership includes rock art enthusiasts, professional archeologists, anthropologists, geologists and others. We are engaged with land managers on federal, state, county, and city lands, assisting with and consulting on land use activities that may impact rock art. We are a resource for government agencies, municipalities, communities, and private landowners, to aide them in identifying, preserving, and protecting these cultural resources within their boundaries and/or jurisdictions. Statement of Concern: The Utah Rock Art Research Association understands that the proposed September 2019 oil and gas lease sale has designated nineteen parcels totaling approximately 32,067.42 acres located in the Monticello Field Office (MtFO) area. While URARA does not have any knowledge of rock art sites within these parcels, the BLM’s own analysis in Attachment C – Interdisciplinary Team Checklist to the March 2019 Competitive Oil and Gas Lease Sale DNA recognizes the cultural importance of this area when it states the “preliminary analysis using the cultural resources planning model (Beck et. Al., 2017) indicates that, in the vast majority of the Monticello FO parcels, there is a high probability of the presence of cultural resources.” URARA’s primary concern, as stated in our original comments to the March 2019 DNA, is the location of the scattered lease parcels in the greater Montezuma Creek, Alkali Ridge, and Recapture Creek areas. The high cultural value of the Montezuma Creek, Alkali Ridge, and Recapture Creek areas has been recognized for nearly a century. These areas have a long habitation history including occupation by Basketmaker II, Basketmaker III, Pueblo I, Pueblo II and Pueblo III cultures. The largest Pueblo villages in Utah are located in the Montezuma Creek system. A prehistoric road, stretching from the San Juan River to as far north as Lowry Pueblo, has been documented adjacent to ruins in aerial photographs. Tributaries from this road extend to many ancient village sites. We are aware of previous oil and gas exploration and development in the area as evidenced by drill pads and exposed pipes throughout the drainages and believe that any new oil and gas development threatens to further degrade these unique cultural resources. URARA believes the high concentration of archeological and rock art sites in the Montezuma Creek, Alkali Ridge, and Recapture Creek areas are a significant national and state resource whose value far outweighs the value of the oil and gas leases proposed in this sale. We understand that the current lease parcels are removed from the Montezuma Creek, Alkali Ridge, and Recapture Creek areas, we still believe that the BLM’s current assumptions do not adequately predict the potential for adverse effect in culturally rich areas. The criterion does not weigh the cumulative impact of exploration, seismic testing, well drilling, pipe construction, and transportation corridors on cultural resources both inside and outside the lease parcel. In particular Montezuma Creek and its tributary canyons contain a very high density of rock art and other cultural sites. Montezuma Creek is, and has been for thousands of years, the main travel corridor into and out of this area, which is why so much rock art and other cultural sites are located here, and we believe that it will be impossible to access the proposed lease parcels without adversely impacting cultural sites. In Nine Mile Canyon, a similar transportation corridor to oil and gas parcels on Tavaputs Plateau, adverse effect to rock art adjacent to the road from a combination of dust, vibration, and increased visitor use was not considered sufficiently in environmental assessments.

[67] The September 2019 lease sale presents a similar situation in Montezuma Creek where the road is adjacent to cliffs with a high [67] The Cultural Resource Stipulation (H 3120-1) states: This lease may be found to contain historic concentration of rock art and nearby archeological habitation sites. We believe that the impact on cultural resources from the properties and/or resources protected under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), American Indian development of access roads and pipelines to the lease parcels has not been sufficiently considered in the determination of the Finding of Religious Freedom Act, Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, E.O. 13007, or other

152 July 2019

Commenter Comment Response No Significant Impact. statutes and executive orders. The BLM will not approve any ground disturbing activities that may affect any such properties or resources until it completes its obligations under applicable requirements of the NHPA and other authorities. The BLM may require modification to exploration or development proposals to protect such properties, or disapprove any activity that is likely to result in adverse effects that cannot be successfully avoided, minimized or mitigated. Additional Section 106 analysis and tribal consultation will occur for any proposed development activities associated with the sale of these leases. Potential adverse impacts tied to development activities will be evaluated and projects will be modified or redesigned to avoid impacts. If there is an irreconcilable adverse impact, the BLM will either deny the proposed action or work to develop a mitigation strategy and an associated MOA as provided for in the Section 106 regulations.

Through the Cultural Resource Protection Stipulation attached to all leases, BLM has the authority to require modification of, or disapprove; parcel development plans if cultural resource conflicts cannot be satisfactorily resolved. This gives BLM the authority to control future development to avoid adverse effects, including, but not limited to, those caused by a degradation of setting and other indirect effects. Offering federal mineral estate parcels for lease and subsequently issuing oil and gas leases are strictly administrative actions, which, in and of themselves, do not cause or directly result in any surface disturbance. Issuance of an oil and gas lease does convey to the lessee the exclusive right to use as much of the leased land as is reasonably necessary to explore for and extract oil and gas resources from the lease area, subject to the terms of the lease, including stipulations (43 CFR 3101.1-2 and 3101.1-3), regulations pertaining to oil and gas leasing, Onshore Orders, and with prior approval of the Authorized Officer. However, depending on lease stipulations, post leasing activities may or may not result in impacts to surface resources. As part of the lease issuance process, nominated parcels are reviewed against the appropriate land use plan, and stipulations are attached to mitigate any known environmental or resource conflicts that may occur on a given lease parcel. As [68] We support EA Alternative B – No Action, and we strongly recommend that any future undertakings related to parcels that are stated above, on-the-ground impacts would potentially occur when a lessee applies for and receives approval to leased will not be approved by the BLM until its obligations to consider cultural resources under NEPA, NHPA and other authorities explore, occupy and/or drill. The BLM cannot determine at the leasing stage whether or not a lease would specific to those future undertakings have been completed. Consideration of impacts to rock art and other cultural resources, and adverse actually be explored or developed. effects to historic properties must be taken into account during the approval stage of site specific development plans. URARA requests consulting party status for these reviews. [68]-Summary information. BLM response is not warranted. 15.) Town [69] RESOLUTION NO. 24 [69] Comment Noted. Response is not warranted Council of Bluff A RESOLUTION OPPOSING AND URGING CAUTION REGARDING OIL AND GAS LEASING ON BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT ADMINISTERED LANDS NEAR HOVENWEEP NATIONAL MONUMENT

WHEREAS the Bureau of Land Management is currently accepting comments on the draft Environmental Assessment (EA) that considers offering 19 parcels near Hovenweep National Monument for oil and gas leasing in September 2019; and, WHEREAS Hovenweep National Monument is an internationally recognized showpiece for San Juan County and for Utah; and, WHEREAS Hovenweep National Monument is designated an International Dark Sky Park of the Gold-Tier; and, WHEREAS the cultural landscape of the area surrounding Hovenweep National Monument contributes to the beauty, economy, cultural heritage preservation , and recreation values of San Juan County; and, WHEREAS allowing oil and gas development near Hovenweep National Monument may not balance multiple uses and may lead to the degradation of visitor experience, cultural heritage preservation, dark skies, air quality, and water quality in that area; and WHEREAS one proposed lease parcel would allow for oil and gas extraction as close as 4 miles from Hovenweep National Monument; and, WHEREAS the US Bureau of Land Management is accepting comments on the draft EA until July 1, 2019; and, WHEREAS it is in the best interest of the residents of San Juan County for the US Bureau of Land Management to make a well-informed and cautious decision regarding multiple uses of the land; and, WHEREAS the Town of Bluff is a gateway community to Hovenweep National Monument. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN OF BLUFF OF SAN JUAN COUNTY, UTAH that the Town of Bluff expresses reservation on oil and gas extraction near Hovenweep National Monument. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town of Bluff for opposes and calls on the US Bureau of Land Management to exercise caution and ensure that any oil and gas leases on land near Hovenweep National Monument be conducted in a way that will not negatively impact tourism, cultural heritage preservation, dark skies, traffic flow, air quality, and water resources in the area. BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the Town Council is authorized to file an official comment with the US Bureau of Land Management in accordance

153 July 2019

Commenter Comment Response with the positions outlined in this resolution. This resolution shall become effective immediately upon approval and adoption by the Bluff Town Council.

16.)Mollie [70] I am writing to oppose the September 2019 Competitive Oil and Gas Lease Sale in southern Utah. The areas in which these sales are [70] Comment Noted. Response is not warranted Podmore proposed are home to tremendous archeological resources, environmental treasures, and diverse cultures. Leaving these areas as they are will allow Utahns and visitors alike to continue to benefit from the historical, natural, and cultural assets for generations to come. Drilling for oil and gas here would undoubtedly cause irreversible harm to both the landscape and the citizens of Utah and the nation as a whole. Please do not open the September 2019 lease sale, and instead allow the broad range of resources in southern Utah to continue to flourish as they have for centuries.

17.)Sue deVall [71] I have hiked and camped in the area in and near the new Bears Ears National Monument. This land is valuable for its Antiquities and [71] Comment Noted. Response is not warranted its Wilderness characteristics. I do not believe that it should be wasted by extractive industries for short time profit. I urge you to move away from climate changing fossil fuels and toward renewables.

18.)Augustus [72] I am writing to oppose the new lease on southeastern Utah public lands for the purpose of drilling oil and gas. Long enough have [72] Comment Noted. Response is not warranted Griffin we sold public lands for nearly nothing to already wealthy companies. I have yet to see the tangible benefit of these leases for me or my community members. I have however seen the degredation of cultural, environmental, and recreational landscapes. Not only within a small radius of the drill sites which experience the largest effect but hundreds of miles. Light and air polution are not contained. How will the people who are experiencing these degredations be repaid? The lease is giving away our land to a texas based firm that does not benefit our local economy but takes our resources leaving behind damaged landsapes and a wealthy buisnessman in another state is benefiting. I do not see the pros of this deal and I hope that it does not go through. Thank you for you time.

19.)Tory Hill [73] Please don't allow any mineral leasing in this very sensitive area. It has been proven that fracking causes earthquakes and this [73] Comment Noted. Response is not warranted Refer to Appendix D which states:. whole area has ruins unlike anywhere else on the planet. I have traveled all over the west exploring Native American sites and “FracFocus,” is a database available to the public online at http://fracfocus.org/. Public has expressed Hovenweep is a jewel that needs protection. Besides the fact that the majority of the people want public lands to remain clean and concerns that: untouched you have the responsibility to protect culturally important, unique, and vulnerable places. Do that and do bot allow any oil • Spills during the management of hydraulic fracturing fluids and chemicals or produced water that result in development anywhere near Hovenweep! large volumes or high concentrations of chemicals reaching groundwater resources; • Injection of hydraulic fracturing fluids into wells with inadequate mechanical integrity, allowing gases or liquids to move to groundwater resources; and, • Discharge of inadequately treated hydraulic fracturing wastewater to surface water resources. Before operators or service companies preform hydraulic fracturing treatment, a series of tests are preformed to ensure well, casing, and well equipment are in proper order and will safely withstand the application of the fracture treatment pressures and flow rates. Operators must comply with O.O. #2 and O.O. # 7. If fracking should occur in an area where there is no vertical separation between the hydraulically fractured rock formation and the bottom of the potential underground drinking water source, fracking fluid may be introduced into the source. The majority of flow back water from hydraulic fracturing in Utah is recycled and used in future hydraulic fracturing completions. Therefore, the underground injection of hydraulic fracturing flow back in Utah is very limited and presents little potential for inducing seismic activity. In fact, there has been no reported induced seismicity in Utah that was from water injected into Class II wells. Oil and gas wells produce a great amount of wastewater. The majority this water has high salt brine content and must be disposed of in an environmentally safe manner. In Utah, a majority (95%) of this produced water is pumped into Class II injection wells. In certain parts of the country, water injection has caused some induced seismicity in the form of small earthquakes. Two major factors play a role in induced seismicity from water injection. First, the amount of water being injected. Secondly, the local geology of the water injection site. In Utah, the volumes are lower than those states experiencing induced seismicity. Also, the geology is different than those states experiencing induced seismicity. The injection zones are stratigraphically thousands of feet above the basement rock that may contain large unknown faults. Therefore, at this time it appears that induced seismicity from water injection is not a problem in the oil fields of Utah. (Personal communication from John Rogers, Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining (UDOGM), March 27, 2018).

154 July 2019

Commenter Comment Response 20.)Sarah [74] The BLM should review the impacts of light pollution on the surrounding areas before leasing additional property for oil and gas [74] Comment Noted. UT-LN-125 was attached to all parcels. Please refer to sections 1.8 and 1.9. Response is Burak development. not warranted 21.)William [82] I live in Castle Valley, UT, and regularly visit the Bear Ears area, Hovenweep National Monument, and surrounding areas for [82] Comment Noted. The BLM did analyze the indirect, direct and cumulative impacts on Climate Change. Rau photography and to walk the land. I wish to see the BLM adhere to its legal requirement to analyze the cumulative impacts of these Please refer to sections 3.3.2 to 3.3.2.4, and comment 64. Response is not warranted lesse sale, not just of one individual parcel, but all the the parcels that are up for lease and those that have been leased in recent past lease sales. It is not sufficient to analyze a small segment of land, but the entire area. Further, the BLM must analyze the indirect and cumulative impacts of oil and gas leasing on climate change. Again, it is not sufficient to analyze climate impacts within a single parcel, but the entire area. One example: the impacts of worker truck, tanker trucks, equipment trucks during and after drilling might commence is a major impact on air quality (dust, particulant pollution, etc) and the contribution to climate change. Also, the entire area and well beyond is filled with thousands of cultural resources, including burial sites for native people. The area needs to be thoroughly and adequately inventoried in order to begin to access the impacts on cultural resources.

22.)San Juan [83] Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the upcoming September 2019 oil and gas lease sale. We write to you in our [83] Comment Noted. The BLM is working through the NHPA process. This is not a valid comment for the County capacity as individual Commissioners of San Juan County. We have been informed that the parcels offered for lease in the September EA, as it primarily applies to the NHPA process, not the NEPA process. The NHPA process is on-going. A Commissioners 2019 lease sale were initially offered in the March 2019 lease sale, but were temporarily deferred by your agency for various reasons. Cultural Resources Review was prepared to document the BLM’s reasonable and good faith effort to identify Now, however, all of these previously deferred parcels are included in the September lease sale. Our concerns today are the same effects this undertaking may have on historic properties. To comply with NEPA, the BLM describes affected concerns we had about these particular lease parcels when we were sworn into office in January, 2019, and are discussed below. As cultural resources and potential impacts of the proposed action in the IDPRT checklist, and section 4.2.2. the Navajo Utah Commission noted in its Resolution NUCFEB-777-19 (attached) that opposed including these parcels in the March See Response to Comment 9-14 for discussion of March 2019 ACHP Letter. 2019 lease sale, the lands in the McCracken Mesa area are recognized as aboriginal lands that should be protected from degradation and impacts from oil and gas and other mineral exploration and development. In addition, as the NUC Resolution recognized, there are numerous undocumented cultural sites in the many canyons, along the rims and on the mesas north of McCracken Mesa where the lease parcels are located, that include sensitive and significant traditional and ancient cultural sites that would be put at extreme risk of damage and vandalism due to the proposed oil and gas lease sale, and related exploration and development. The importance of these cultural resources and the potential impacts to them should not be ignored or papered over. In fact, concern for these cultural resources was emphasized by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s statement “that the ACHP does not agree with the BLM’s “finding of no adverse effect” for the proposed lease sales in this historically significant and sensitive area . . . [and] we continue to believe that there exists the potential for this undertaking to adversely affect historic properties . . .” Letter from ACHP to BLM, attached (emphasis added). We agree with the ACHP’s assessment that there is a considerable potential for adverse effects to the cultural sites and artifacts; the archaeological surveys are solely based on surface observations and fail to address that existence of subsurface historic sites that could be destroyed by energy exploration and development before anyone is made aware that the sites even exist. There is no plan to place to address this issue, which will almost certainly lead to irreparable loss of cultural resources. In addition to the cultural resources and sensitive traditional use sites in the area of the proposed lease sale, there are sensitive plants in the lease sale area that are important for Navajo traditional and ceremonial uses. We are concerned that the special places with these plants that are part of our Navajo tradition will be harmed by the proposed lease sale and future developments associated with oil and gas extraction. Such harm to the habitat and plants would greatly impact our Navajo traditions and way of life. Although we are not opposed to oil and gas leasing in San Juan County, in general, we firmly believe such leasing and development must be in appropriate locations. The area of the September 2019 lease sale is not an appropriate location. Thus, we request that Monticello BLM withdraw ALL of the lease parcels slated for auction in the September 2019 lease sale that are located in the greater McCracken Mesa area, including those parcels, but not limited to those in and near Alkali Canyon, Tin Cup Mesa, Monument Canyon, Squaw Canyon, Cross Canyon, and Recapture Canyon. In addition, we request that the BLM not proceed with any future lease sales in the greater McCracken Mesa area, for the reasons stated above.

23.)Anna Arsic [84] I am an Education Park Ranger with the NPS program Canyon Country Outdoor Education in Southeast Utah. I take local [84] Comment Noted. Please refer to Appendix D, section 1.8, 1.9, and 3.3. Response is not warranted elementary students on field trips throughout this area and teach on topics such as geology and archaeology. We also partner with the BLM and work closely with them to conduct field trips on BLM land outside of Monticello. I greatly appreciate and value taking children to these special areas because of the sedimentary rock formations, clean water, and fresh air. The many archeological sites throughout the area (such as cliff dwellings and kivas) are very significant to me, and more importantly to our local families. I was once I was working near Canyonlands National Park and spoke with a man who was working on a nearby oil rig. He said this place was so incredibly beautiful and amazing he couldn't believe they were doing this here. I agree and feel the same way about this lease sale. I oppose leasing this special and amazing landscape to oil and gas extraction because the sound, smell, and sight of it negatively impact both my experience and children's experience of this place. I worry that culturally significant sites we teach our students about will not be adequately protected before they grow up. Please assess the impacts of this and other lease sales throughout the entire area, including the indirect and cumulative effects on CO2 emissions, culturally significant archeological sites, the experiences of visitors to surrounding public lands, clear night skies, and clean water.

155 July 2019

Commenter Comment Response 24.)Sally [85] I own land outside of Monticello and frequently hike in the areas at issue. I do not support leasing on several grounds, but especially [85] Comment Noted. Response is not warranted Planalp quality of life for people in the area (air pollution, traffic and other health effects) and quality of life for people on the planet because it is becoming critical that we massively scale back our carbon footprints because of the climate emergency, and I do mean emergency. Every step toward burning more fossil fuels is a step toward an uninhabitable planet.

156