Appendix A Legal Description Left blank for two-sided copying. Whitewater Unit MDP Project Area Legal Description
Federal Lands
Ute Meridian, Mesa County, Colorado
T. 1 S., R. 1 E., Sec. 25, S½SE¼ Sec. 35, E½ T. 1 S., R. 2 E., Sec. 10, S½, S½NW¼, SW¼NE¼ Sec. 11, S½S½, NW¼SW¼ Sec. 13, SW¼, S½SE¼ Sec. 14 & 15 Sec. 16, S½, S½N½ Sec. 17, SE¼, S½NE¼ Sec. 19, SE¼ Sec. 20, NE¼, SW¼SW¼ Sec. 21, SW¼NW¼, W½SW¼, E½ Sec. 22, NW¼, W½SW¼, NE¼SW¼ Sec. 23, NW¼NW¼, E½NW¼, NE¼, E½SE¼, SW¼SW¼ Sec. 24 & 25 Sec. 26, E½, N½NW¼, SE¼SW¼ Sec. 27, S½SW¼, SW¼SE¼ Sec. 28, NW¼NW¼, SE¼NW¼ Sec. 29, All except the SE¼NE¼ Sec. 30, E½, SE¼NW¼, E½SW¼, SW¼SW¼ Sec. 31, All except the NE¼NE¼ Sec. 32, SW¼NW¼, N½NE¼, SW¼, W½SE¼ Sec. 33, All except the N½NE¼ Sec. 34, W½NW¼, SW¼SW¼ Sec. 35, W½SW¼, SE¼SW¼, SW¼SE¼ Sec. 36, N½NW¼, SE¼NW¼, NE¼, N½SE¼ T. 2 S., R. 1 E., Sec. 1, E½, NW¼ Sec. 2, NE¼ T. 2 S., R. 2 E., Sec. 1, NE¼NW¼, N½NE¼ Sec. 2, N½NW¼, SE¼NW¼, NE¼, NW¼SE¼, E½SW¼, SW¼SW¼ Sec. 3, NW¼, W½NE¼, NE¼NE¼, N½SW¼, NW¼SE¼
1
Sec. 4, All except the NW¼NW¼, NE¼NE¼NW¼, SE¼SW¼, S½SE¼ Sec. 5, All except the NE¼NE¼ Sec. 6 Sec. 8, NW¼, NW¼NE¼, E½E½, SE¼SW¼, SW¼SE¼ Sec. 9, NW¼NW¼, SE¼NE¼, S½S½ Sec. 10, SW¼NW¼, N½NE¼, SE¼SW¼ Sec. 11, N½NW¼ Sec. 12, S½ Sec. 13, N½, N½S½ Sec. 14 Sec. 15, All except the W½NW¼ Sec. 16 Sec. 17, E½NE¼, SE¼ Sec. 21, NW¼, NE¼SW¼, E½ Sec. 22, W½, NE¼, NW¼SE¼ Sec. 23, NW¼NW¼ Sec. 26, W½NW¼ Sec. 27, NW¼, E½NE¼, N½SW¼, SW¼SW¼ Sec. 28, N½, N½S½, SE¼SE¼ Sec. 33, SW¼NE¼, E½NE¼, N½SE¼ Sec. 34, W½NW¼, NW¼SW¼ T. 3 S., R. 2 E., Sec. 1, NE¼NE¼, SW¼NW¼, SW¼SW½, S½SE¼ Sec. 2, SE¼NE¼, E½SE¼, SW¼SE¼, SW¼SW¼
City of Grand Junction Lands
Ute Meridian, Mesa County, Colorado
T. 1 S., R. 2 E., Sec. 20, N½SW¼, SE¼SW¼, SE¼ Sec. 21, NW¼NW¼, E½W½ Sec. 22, SE¼SW¼, S½NE¼, SE¼ Sec. 23, SW¼NW¼, NW¼SW¼, E½SW¼, W½SE¼ Sec. 26, S½NW¼, N½SW¼, SW¼SW¼ Sec. 27, NW¼, W½NE¼, SE¼NE¼, N½S½, SE¼SE¼ Sec. 28, SW¼NW¼, W½NE¼NW¼, NE¼NE¼, S½NE¼, S½
2 Sec. 29, SE¼NE¼ Sec. 33, N½NE¼ Sec. 34, All Except the W½NW¼, NE¼SW¼NE¼, SW¼SW¼ Sec. 35, W½NW¼, SE¼NW¼, NE¼SW¼, S½NE¼, N½SE¼, SE¼SE¼ Sec. 36, SW¼NW¼, SW¼ T. 2 S., R. 2 E., Sec. 1, S½, SW¼NE¼, S½NW¼, NW¼NW¼ Sec. 2, E½SE¼, SW¼SE¼ Sec. 8, SW¼NE¼, NW¼SE¼ Sec. 9, NE¼SE¼ Sec. 10, SE¼NW¼, N½SW¼, S½NE¼, NE¼SE¼ Sec. 11, SW¼NW¼, NW¼SW¼, NE¼, N½SE¼ Sec. 12, N½ Sec. 13, S½S½ Sec. 23, NE¼NE¼ Sec. 24, N½, N½S½ Sec. 25, Portions of the NE¼, SW¼, and NW¼SE¼
Private Lands
Ute Meridian, Mesa County, Colorado
T. 1 S., R. 1 E., Sec. 25, N½SE¼ Sec. 36 T. 1 S., R. 2 E., Sec. 28, E½NE¼NW¼, NW¼NE¼ Sec. 32, N½NW¼, SE¼NW¼, S½NE¼, E½SE¼ Sec. 34, NE¼SW¼NE¼ Sec. 35, NE¼NW¼, N½NE¼ Sec. 36, S½SE¼ T. 2 S., R. 2 E., Sec. 1, SE¼NE¼ Sec. 2, SW¼NW¼, NW¼SW¼ Sec. 3, SE¼NE¼, NE¼SE¼, SW¼SE¼, S½SW¼ Sec. 4, NW¼NW¼, NE¼NE¼NW¼, SE¼SW¼, S½SE¼ Sec. 5, NE¼NE¼ Sec. 8, NE¼SW¼ Sec. 9, S½NW¼, NE¼NW¼, N½NE¼, SW¼NE¼, N½SW¼, NW¼SE¼
3 Sec. 10, N½NW¼, SW¼SW¼, NW¼SE¼, S½SE¼ Sec. 11, S½S½, NE¼SW¼, SW¼NW¼ Sec. 15, W½NW¼ Sec. 17, W½NE¼ Sec. 21, W½SW¼, SE¼SW¼ Sec. 22, SW¼SE¼, E½SE¼ Sec. 23, All except the NW¼NW¼ and the NE¼NE¼ Sec. 24, S½S½ Sec. 25, All except Portions of the NE¼, SW¼, and NW¼SE¼ Sec. 26, All except the W½NW¼ Sec. 27, SE¼SW¼, W½NE¼, SE¼ Sec. 34, All except the W½NW¼ and the NW¼SW¼ Sec. 35 & 36 T. 3 S., R. 2 E., Sec. 1, All except the NE¼NE¼, SW¼NW¼, SW¼SW½, S½SE¼ Sec. 2, All except the SE¼NE¼, E½SE¼, SW¼SE¼, SW¼SW¼ Sec. 3
Federal Lands
6th Principal Meridian, Mesa County, Colorado
T. 11 S., R. 98 W., Sec. 25, W½ Sec. 26, N½NE¼, S½SE¼ Sec. 35 & 36 T. 12 S., R. 98 W., Sec. 1, 2 & 11 Sec. 12, All except the SW¼SW¼ Sec. 13, All except the NW¼NW¼ Sec. 14, S½S½ Sec. 23, N½, N½S½ Sec. 24, N½, N½SW¼, NW¼SE¼ Sec. 25, S½NE¼ T. 12 S., R. 97 W., Sec. 6, 7, 18, & 19 Sec. 20 & 29 (USFS) Sec. 30, All except NW¼NW¼, SW¼SE½ Sec. 32, NE¼NW¼, N½NE¼ Sec. 33, N½N½, E½SE¼, SW¼SE¼
4 T. 13 S., R. 98 W., Sec. 1, SE¼SE¼ Sec. 11, S½S½ Sec. 12, SE¼NW¼, NE¼ T. 13 S., R. 97 W., Sec. 4 Sec. 5, All except the N½NW¼, NW¼NE¼ Sec. 6, S½NE¼, SE¼, E½SW¼, SW¼SW¼ Sec. 7, All except the NW¼SW¼ Sec. 8 & 9
City of Grand Junction Lands
6th Principal Meridian, Mesa County, Colorado
T. 12 S., R. 98 W., Sec. 14, S½N½, N½S½ Sec. 25, SW¼NW¼, NW¼SW¼, A portion of the NE¼SW¼ A portion of the SE¼SW¼, A portion of the NW¼SE¼ SW¼SE¼, NE¼SE¼ Sec. 35, N½, S½S½ Sec. 36, NE¼NW¼, E½ T. 12 S., R. 97 W., Sec. 31, N½NW¼, SW¼ Sec. 32, SW¼NE¼, A portion of the SW¼SE¼
Private Lands
6th Principal Meridian, Mesa County, Colorado
T. 11 S., R. 98 W., Sec. 26, W½, S½NE¼, N½SE¼ T. 12 S., R. 98 W., Sec. T. 12 S., R. 98 W., Sec. 12, SW¼SW¼ Sec. 13, NW¼NW¼ Sec. 14, N½N½ Sec. 23, S½S½ Sec. 24, S½S½, NE¼SE¼ Sec. 25, N½N½, SE¼NW¼, SW¼SW¼, A portion of the NE¼SW¼ A portion of the SE¼SW¼, A portion of the NW¼SE¼, SE¼SE¼ Sec. 26, N½ Sec. 35, N½S½
5 Sec. 36, W½NW¼, SE¼NW¼, SW¼ T. 12 S., R. 97 W., Sec. 30, NW¼NW¼, SW¼SE½ Sec. 31, S½NW¼, E½ Sec. 32, W½NW¼, SE¼NW¼, SW¼, SE¼NE¼, E½SE¼, A portion of the SW¼SE¼ Sec. 33, S½N½, SW¼, NW¼SE¼ T. 13 S., R. 98 W., Sec. 1, All except the SE¼SE¼ Sec. 11, N½, N½S½ Sec. 12, N½NW¼, SW¼NW¼, S½ T. 13 S., R. 97 W., Sec 7, NW¼SW¼
6
Appendix B Responses to Public Comments
Left blank for two-sided copying. Table 1 Fram WMDP Public Comment Summaries and BLM Responses – Excluding Air-Related Issues (Tables 2 and 3)
Comment Commenter Resource Comment Response Number OMID #2 canal at the north line of SW4, Sec. 25, T1S, R1E, Ute As addressed in a general response in the EA, the BLM would Meridian - proposed access road Bureau of not approve any activity that would pose a risk to the OMID #2 appears to come close to the #2 1. Reclamation Transportation canal, except as recommended for approval by the Orchard canal; may be within canal row; (Alan Schroeder) Mesa Irrigation District following discussions with Fram and Fram needs to coordinate w/OMID the Bureau of Reclamation. and Reclamation to ensure no impact to canal and its O&M The No Surface Occupancy (NSO) As discussed in EA the section on water resources (3.2.4), this requirement for Well Pad 12-97-30- proposed pad is not within the City’s municipal watershed, but 1 should be required as there has is within the external buffer distance of the City's Public Water City of Grand been no formal agreement with System (Map 3.2-3 in the EA), which places it under the 2. Junction Proposed Action Fram for monitoring and mitigation regulatory framework of COGCC Rule 317B. The BLM would (Greg Caton) measures at that pad. Only after defer to the COGCC regarding whether their required such an agreement is finalized, mitigation measures, outlined in EA Section 3.2.4.2 and would the City consider waiver of including monitoring of surface water, are sufficient for that the NSO by the BLM. agency to approve the location. Additional detail should be provided by Fram describing how The BLM's petroleum engineer would specifically address this City of Grand the HF program will be designed in type of concern through the cementing requirements as part of 3. Junction Proposed Action the shallow Dakota Sandstone to the process for reviewing Applications for Permit to Drill (Greg Caton) mitigate fracture propagation to (APDs). shallow aquifers. It is suggested that Fram (or any other operator) conduct integrity tests prior to commencing with HF. These tests are referred to as City of Grand mechanical integrity tests (MIT), 4. Junction Proposed Action This is a requirement of the APD review process. and formation integrity tests (FIT). (Greg Caton) It is important that these tests are conducted and adequately reviewed by COGCC or BLM engineers prior to HF activities.
1 Comment Commenter Resource Comment Response Number Baseline water quality monitoring should be conducted, including but not limited to sampling and analysis of specific water sources for basic water chemistry and compound indicators that are used in the As described previously, monitoring in relation to the City's proposed HF chemical suite. Water City of Grand Public Water System is part of COGCC's requirements under sources include key surface water 5. Junction Water Resources Rule 317B. The BLM believes that the half-mile radius for sources, springs and existing (Greg Caton) monitoring of water sources is sufficient for detecting potential groundwater wells. Because of impacts. overall size of the proposed development and relatively few number of existing water sources to assess, this program should extend beyond the one-half mile radius required under COGCC Rule 609. The existence of groundwater resources in the project area is not well known. As a precaution, and as good diligent practice, the City requests Fram perform a focused The BLM and COGCC require a wide range of practices hydro-geologic investigation of specific to the protection of usable groundwater resources. In groundwater resources in the evaluating the depth of surface casing, the depths of water project area. Such a project would wells in the area are considered, as is the proximity and investigate the occurrence and elevational relationship of surface waters and springs. Surface nature of groundwater and build on City of Grand casing is required to be installed to a depth needed to protect the preliminary groundwater 6. Junction Water Resources surface waters, springs, and water wells. Any usable aquifers assessment work performed by the (Greg Caton) that may be encountered below the surface casing are protected City in 2012. Preliminary geologic and isolated by cementing that zone. These measures, and the mapping by the City in 2012 COGCC monitoring requirement for wells, are considered indicated that groundwater in a adequate protection of groundwater resources without the need large part of the northern project for monitoring wells or an area-wide hydrogeological area may occur in relatively small investigation. isolated locations; the City's consultant does not postulate a continuous prolific aquifer in the area; however, groundwater does exist and should be protected. The
2 Comment Commenter Resource Comment Response Number characterization project would involve surface reconnaissance and mapping followed by a drilling program that would explore the occurrence of groundwater at depths to approximately 200 feet below ground surface. Any encountered groundwater should be characterized, at a minimum, by geologic unit, depth, well yield and water quality. A component of the hydro-geologic characterization would include the installation of one or more monitoring wells near and downgradient of each well pad proposed by Fram (where land ownership and access issues can be resolved.) Those monitoring wells would serve three purposes: (1) provide hydro-geologic characterization information, (2) provide groundwater quality baseline information, and (3) provide a monitoring location during hydraulic fracturing operations. Wells located within one-half mile of a proposed oil and gas well would fall under COGCC Rule 609, and if yielding groundwater would be eligible for baseline groundwater quality sampling. To prevent surface spills during HF As described in the EA, storage tanks rather than open pits are operations, all HF fluid preparation proposed for this project and would be required by the BLM. City of Grand operations and flowback water from The operator is required to contact the BLM immediately if 7. Junction Water Resources HF must be controlled and problems are encountered during HF operations, and an (Greg Caton) contained in closed, high integrity inspector is sent to evaluate the situation as appropriate. The vessels; no open pits or BLM cannot require the operator to allow an independent City
3 Comment Commenter Resource Comment Response Number impoundments should be allowed. It contractor onto the pad during drilling and completion is suggested that HF operations are activities. This request should be made directly by the City to witnessed by an independent Fram and its HF contractor. hydrogeologist for at least well sites 12-97-7-1 and 12-97-30-1. As described in the EA, streams would generally be crossed using a temporary diversion and open trench. The BLM would not allow this activity during high-flow periods. Where a stream must be crossed during high flows, or when the BLM How does Fram propose to City of Grand determines that an open trench would cause undue damage to construct gathering lines across 8. Junction Water Resources the channel, banks, and riparian vegetation, Fram would be streams and ditches to protect water (Greg Caton) required to either relocate the planned crossing to a better quality? location or bore beneath the stream. For crossing ditches, boring is generally preferred, particularly where restoration of ditch integrity cannot be assured. The owner/operator of the ditch would be consulted prior to any pipeline crossing. Leaks are detected by loss of pressure, which occurs almost immediately. Also, because all pipelines would be collocated with roads, most leaks would be readily observable by employees and contractors during their travel through the area. Fram would report leaks promptly to their environmental How does Fram propose to monitor compliance contractor under their Spill Prevention, Control, City of Grand the gathering lines, and if a breach and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan, and to the BLM and 9. Junction Water Resources is detected how quickly will a COGCC. In the unlikely event that a leak represents an (Greg Caton) breach be repaired and how do they immediate risk to public health and safety, Fram would also notify the affected parties? notify emergency response agencies, as specified in their SPPC Plan. In the event of a leak potentially affecting the City’s Public Water System, the City would also be notified as required by Rule 317B. Such notifications are normally made by telephone. Fram and the BLM will need to coordinate closely with the Mesa County Public Works Department Mesa County Fram is responsible for obtaining and complying with all City and the Colorado Department of 10. Board of Transportation permit requirements, operational requirements, use restrictions, Transportation (CDOT) on required Commissioners and use fees. updated studies and permits including, but not limited to transportation impact studies,
4 Comment Commenter Resource Comment Response Number access permits, road improvements, transportation impact fees, surface alteration permits, underground utility permits, overweight and oversize load permits, and road maintenance agreements and financial assurances. Table 1 in the Transportation Plan incorrectly states that B Road is maintained by Mesa County. B Road is not maintained by Mesa County east of 32 Road, but it is in Table 1 in Appendix E, Transportation Plan, is now Table 2. It Mesa County Mesa County right-of-way. Fram has been revised to indicate that B Road east of 32 Road is in 11. Board of Transportation can build the road to Mesa County the Mesa County right-of-way. If Fram builds the road to Mesa Commissioners standards and petition the road to County standards, Fram can petition the County to maintain become a maintained road. the road. Otherwise, Mesa County would not be responsible for maintaining this road and a maintenance agreement would be required. Attachment A to Appendix E, Transportation Plan, has been Attachment A (Proposed Road removed. Details regarding specific road improvements (for all Mesa County Improvements) to Appendix D roads) are best reserved for project implementation, during the 12. Board of Transportation (now Appendix E) must be updated APD review process, when better information is available on Commissioners to include all required B Road specific segments, alignments, and types of improvements improvements. needed. Corrections are needed to page 172 of EA as follows: reference to Table Mesa County 2.2-8 should refer to Table 4 in These corrections have been made in the EA. The EA now 13. Board of Transportation Appendix D (now Appendix E); and correctly references the tables in Appendix E, Transportation Commissioners reference to Table 2.2-9 should Plan refer to Table 5 in Appendix D (now Appendix E). The BLM needs to update the B Traffic counts are not available for B Road east of SH 141/32 Mesa County Road traffic counts in Table 3.4-8 to Road as indicated by N. Frazier from Mesa County 14. Board of Transportation include counts east of 32 Road (CO Department of Public Works. This information is included in a Commissioners Hwy141). Without these counts, the footnote to Table 3.4-7 in the EA. discussion of percentage increases
5 Comment Commenter Resource Comment Response Number in current traffic on B Road is inaccurate. Traffic generated by the EA's preferred hydraulic fracturing process (Access HF) is not referenced in the body of the EA at all, but it is included in Table 3 of Appendix D (now Appendix E). Access HF should be included in the comparison of HF processes of page 173 of the EA. As described in a general response in the EA, the reference to The Board understands Fram is not the Deer Creek facility has been replaced with a statement that currently using the Deer Creek produced water would be delivered to an approved treatment facility and is sending waste to or disposal facility. The choice of a facility is up to Fram, as Utah's Danish Flats facility instead. Mesa County long as it is approved (i.e., has all necessary permits). A The EA should be revised to 15. Board of Transportation number of factors could result in the facility changing between include potential impacts on the Commissioners completion of the EA and project implementation, or during. It transportation plan if produced therefore is not possible to accurately assess impacts to water is to be delivered to Utah or regional transportation as part of the EA. However, the EA another permitted disposal facility does describe the anticipated traffic volumes in comparison to instead of the Deer Creek Facility. existing volumes of local and regional roads. Since the EA anticipates using water from the City of Grand Junction for drilling and dust suppression, it is critical that the BLM follow through on the EA's The new Programmatic Biological Opinion (PBO) issued by commitment to "provide updated the FWS in December 2017 is now cited in the EA. The estimates of consumptive water use, primary difference from the 2008 PBO and the 2017 PBO is Mesa County representing depletions in the that tracking of consumptive water use includes reporting 16. Board of Water Use Colorado River Basin, as a result of actual quantities of water used instead of an assumed per-well Commissioners adding HF project related annual average quantity of water used. The reporting requirement, consumptive use would be reported including both fresh water and recycled water, is a COA by the BLM to the FWS for attached to every Federally approved APD. tracking of the annual per-basin and combined totals for western Colorado, as analyzed and disclosed in the PBO. The BLM and USFWS are currently collaborating to update
6 Comment Commenter Resource Comment Response Number the PBO. The project would comply with any additional or amended conservation measures associated with an updated PBO (pages 123- 124). The Board understands the The section of the EA on Water Resources (3.2.4) gives details importance of ranching in the on this topic, which cannot reasonably be reiterated here due to project area to the culture and its length. A number of COAs in Appendix D also bear on Mesa County economy in Mesa County. The EA protection of surface water and groundwater quality, as do 17. Board of Water Use should also address specific BLM and COGCC requirements related to drilling and HF Commissioners measures to ensure protection of the practices, CDPHE requirements related to stormwater agricultural surface water and management, and other aspects of operation described for the groundwater in the project area. Proposed Action (and applicable to all action alternatives). The County request that the BLM Fram is required to comply with the County’s land use code Mesa County ensure compliance with six specific except where it may conflict with Federal laws and regulations 18. Board of Other sections (listed in the comment – such as during the County’s “site plan review” process Commissioners letter) of the Mesa County Land involving BLM-administered lands. Development Code. Given all of the water wells and Mesa County critical irrigation infrastructure in See response to Comments #5 and #6 above, by Mr. Greg 19. Board of Water Resources the project area, the EA should Canton representing the City of Grand Junction. Commissioners analyze the need for additional water quality monitoring. Should the roads be abandoned and then reclaimed after Fram's use, we This decision would be made at the time by the BLM Grand Roger Grant 20. Transportation would ask that there be an Junction Field Office (GJFO) as part of their overall Travel Town of Palisade opportunity to leave a portion of the Management Plan. road as dirt mountain bike trails. Water rights are administered by the State of Colorado. The 2017 EA does not acknowledge Impacts of Fram’s development on senior or junior rights or analyze the effects on the senior would depend on the amount of available water in the basin at Water Rights and junior water rights from the 21. Mesa Land Trust that time, and the timing and amounts of withdrawals relative Whitewater Creek basin of the to calls by senior rights. Fram’s water use would consist of private landowners, including water acquired from the City of Grand Junction under their Lumbardy Ranch adjudicated rights. Requesting that if the WMDP is See response to Comments #5 and #6 above, by Mr. Greg 22. Mesa Land Trust Water Resources approved by the BLM as currently Canton representing the City of Grand Junction. proposed, the operator will be
7 Comment Commenter Resource Comment Response Number required to establish multiple sites for water quality monitoring of both surface water and wells on public, municipal and private lands. This would include baseline testing of creeks and all private wells prior to commencement of any infrastructure or drilling activity, and thereafter on a regular, periodic basis until production ceases and all wells have been plugged and abandoned in accordance with then- current regulations. The EA for the Whitewater MDP continues to violate NEPA by Western failing to perform an EIS for a Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 23. Environmental Process project that may r3esult in regarding “Preparation of an EA Instead of an EIS.” Law Center significant impacts to critical resource values in the region. Fram has existing Federal oil and gas leases within the Whitewater Unit, and the leases are a binding legal contract that allows for development by the leaseholder. This EA was prepared in response to Fram’s proposal to develop the fluid mineral resources the oil and gas associated with the leases. NEPA does not require consideration of the financial solvency BLM must present and analyze of the proponent, and there is no basis for including that type accurate economic information in of information in the document. Before conducting operations, the Whitewater MDP EA that Western an operator is required under law and regulation to post a bond includes, among other things, 24. Environmental Financial under 43 CFR 3104 "conditioned upon compliance with all of consideration of the financial Law Center the terms and conditions of the entire leasehold(s) covered by condition of the project’s the bond." Throughout the NEPA process for the original EA proponent, and the likelihood of the and this updated EA, the proponent has continued to exhibit a planned development. desire to develop its leases and has expended considerable investment to date on various aspects of this effort, including engineering design, civil surveys, geological consultants, sensitive resource surveys by a variety of specialty contractors, and preparation of multiple iterations of the large document by its NEPA contractor.
8 Comment Commenter Resource Comment Response Number As described in Section 3.2.4 (Water Resources) and in "… deeply concerned of the great response to a comment above by Mr. Greg Canton (Comment potential harm that can be come to #6), the BLM and COGCC have many requirements for the water we have senior rights to drilling and HF activities specific to protection of surface should any mistake be made the water, groundwater and springs. The subsection dealing 25. Don Lumbardy Water Resources operator(s) of proposed drilling specifically with HF provides considerable information on the operations not only of this site [site HF process, the protective requirements associated with its use, 2-2-2-1] but also proposed well site and the extremely low frequency of adverse impacts. BLM 12-97-7-1 …" would review the location of these two pads during its detailed site evaluations as part of the APD process. "…we own the water rights and they must be protected. Down hole drilling can be cased but directional drilling does not protect from fracking fluid coming into contact Protections for horizontal drilling are no less stringent than for with surface water or any source of vertical or directional drilling. The horizontal segments would water that is supplied by Brandon be thousands of feet below surface waters, freshwater aquifers, 26. Don Lumbardy Water Resources Ditch or springs that rise in and springs, and separated from the surface by multiple Lockhart Draw. Should the geologic strata, further attenuating the propagation of induced directional [bore] contact any of the microfractures (see Section 3.2.4 of the EA, Water Resources). springs, that water could follow the [bore] and be lost to the stream. Any loss of water or contamination would more than harm the Lumbardy/Massey Ranch." “We own the 160 [acre] parcel on The cited table is inaccurate regarding the location of proposed Long Mesa that Fram proposes to 27. Don Lumbardy Water Resources well pad 2-2-2-1). This error has been corrected. No well pads locate well 2-2-2-1 (Table 2.2-1, are proposed to be located on private lands. page 13).” "We certainly understand the need Section 3.2.4 of the EA (Water Resources) describes measures for jobs and are only asking that the associated with pad construction and drilling operations BLM simply move well sites away specifically to protect water quality. Based on these measures, from water producing areas [and] the BLM does not believe that relocation of the 2-2-2-1 and 28. Don Lumbardy Water Resources analyze for another alternative that 12-97-7-1 well pads is necessary at this point in the planning involves moving the well sites, process. However, pre-construction onsite inspections during specifically pads 2-2-2-1 and 12-97- the APD review process would include a careful review of the 7-1 away from sensitive areas that situation specific to these pads—and others—in relation to could impact water sources." protection of water quality.
9 Comment Commenter Resource Comment Response Number Massey Ranch needs an agreement that mitigates damage to grazing operations during the development and long-term operation of any project that may impact the water Fram would be required to avoid damage to range management supply. Effects on grazing due to features, including gates, fences, and cattle guards, and to the use of gates, fences and cattle repair or replace any such features that are damaged. Similar guards as well as road closures that protections would be applied to water features (seeps, springs, Oscar Massey 29. Range Resources reduce the ability to manage and ponds), and to soils and vegetation outside areas identified, Massey Ranch livestock may be detrimental. and approved, for surface-disturbing activities. Fram would Massey Ranch should receive full also be required to coordinate with the Ranch regarding road compensation for any damage to closures potentially affecting grazing operations (see Section water ways, ponds, springs, 3.5.3 of the EA, Range Management). vegetation or soils as well as any damage to equipment or work required for the maintenance of such, i.e., water tanks. Massey Ranch should be understood to assume no responsibility for damages caused Oscar Massey Range Resources Such potential damage is an issue between the Ranch and 30. to drilling associated equipment Massey Ranch Fram. such as pipelines, valves, or roads that may be caused by livestock, ranching equipment, or employees. No water should be allowed to be taken from Whitewater Creek, Water withdrawals would be made at the take points identified Brandon Ditch, or other diversions in the EA, and would be taking water provided to Fram by the Oscar Massey Water Resources 31. including stock ponds for the use City under its water rights. None of these take points appears Massey Ranch associated with drilling, i.e. dust to be on lands owned by the Massey Ranch. Fram would not control, road maintenance, be allowed to take surface water from any other location. fracking…. Access to well pads by cattle would be prevented by gated Water contaminated by or used for fences. Temporary fencing around spills or other releases that Oscar Massey drilling purposes should be fenced, 32. Water Resources pose a potential risk to livestock would be made part of the Massey Ranch at the expense of the driller, to cleanup plan. Water would not be stored in ponds on the prevent consumption by cattle. location.
10 Comment Commenter Resource Comment Response Number The normal traffic flow of Reeder Mesa Road for residents and school transportation should not be None of the project maps in the body of the EA or the impeded by any increased traffic Transportation Plan (Appendix E) indicates Reeder Mesa Road associated with drilling operations. as a travel route for access to any of the proposed facilities. If Given the current design of the road the comment refers to issues related to project traffic on it is likely that the increased volume Kannah Creek and Lands End Road, to which Reeder Mesa Oscar Massey and weight of traffic associated with 33. Transportation Road connects, the major potential source of temporary travel Massey Ranch drilling will not only be disruptive impediments to residents would be associated with drilling rig to current users but cause the road ingress or egress into the project area. Fram would be required to wear out quicker. If necessary to to post notice of a planned rig move and to time the moves to maintain current traffic level and avoid typical school and commuter travel. Fram is responsible road maintenance requirements an for addressing road maintenance issues related to its activities. alternative route for drilling traffic or improvements to the capacity of the current road should be made. I own Massey Ranch downstream from the proposed drilling site in As clarified in Section 3.2.4 (Water Resources), that take point the watershed area of Lockhart is Take Point 3, described in the EA as follows: “Water Take Draw (Federal 2-2-2-1 and Federal Point 3 would be in Brandon Ditch. Brandon Ditch diverts 12-97-7-1) that sets higher up in water from Whitewater Creek at a point about 0.5 mile east Whitewater Creek drainage called and upstream of the Project Area boundary to another Brandon Ditch which diverts water diversion, where part of the water enters a buried municipal out of Whitewater Creek to supply pipeline delivering water to the City. Water remaining Oscar Massey 34. Water Resources water to the city, Lumbardy, and aboveground in Brandon Ditch is used for irrigation and stock Massey Ranch Massey Ranches in accordance with water. Water Take Point 3 in Brandon Ditch would be just the absolute water decrees. This upstream of the existing road (BLM 912) crossing, but water should follow the main shaft downstream of the pipeline diversion.” Also as described and to the last of the stream. Any previously, the City would provide water to Fram, and this decrease in the water flow will be Take Point on Brandon Ditch is a specified location. The detrimental to ranches and the commenter should contact the City directly to discuss this public by harming agricultural soils issue. and polluting drinking water. Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 35. Steve Allerton Process Need for an EIS regarding “Preparation of an EA Instead of an EIS.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 36. Cynthia Baldwin Water Resources Concerned about watershed regarding “City of Grand Junction Municipal Watershed and Public Water System.”
11 Comment Commenter Resource Comment Response Number Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA Concerned about Deer Creek 37. Cynthia Baldwin Waste Disposal regarding “Use of the Deer Creek Facility for Produced Water Facility Disposal.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 38. Cynthia Baldwin Process Need for an EIS regarding “Preparation of an EA Instead of an EIS.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 39. Fredericka Banks Water Resources Concerned about HF regarding “Addition of Hydraulic Fracturing to All Action Alternatives.” 40. Jerry Barr General Support No response required. Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 41. William Beker Water Resources Concerned about watershed regarding “City of Grand Junction Municipal Watershed and Public Water System.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA Diane 42. Water Resources Concerned about HF regarding “Addition of Hydraulic Fracturing to All Action Birmingham Alternatives.” 43. Jason Bittle General Support No response required. Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA Dolores and 44. Water Resources Concerned about watershed regarding “City of Grand Junction Municipal Watershed and Kenneth Blanding Public Water System.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 45. Bobbie Bosworth Water Resources Concerned about HF regarding “Addition of Hydraulic Fracturing to All Action Alternatives.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 46. Gordon Bosworth Water Resources Concerned about HF regarding “Addition of Hydraulic Fracturing to All Action Alternatives.” 47. Kevin Brown General Support No response required. Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 48. Renee Brown Water Resources Concerned about HF regarding “Addition of Hydraulic Fracturing to All Action Alternatives.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 49. Renee Brown Process Need for an EIS regarding “Preparation of an EA Instead of an EIS.” Fram is showing on their maps that As now stated in Section 2.2.1.3 of the EA, some of the they are going thru our property to proposed access routes would cross private surface. The BLM Boise (Bif) and access two of their wells. They do would not approve any project component that requires 50. Transportation Brenda Burge not have our permission or have crossing private land, except for County Roads, until legal access to do so. Bob Koebl permission for such access has been obtained. The map shows with Fram in a phone conversation a proposed route. If permission to cross that part of your
12 Comment Commenter Resource Comment Response Number with us, acknowledged Fram did property is not given, Fram would be required to find an not have legal access to cross our alternative alignment or, potentially, relocate the pad it would land. The maps on their plan access. presented to you are wrong. Fram’s proposed pad locations are believed by them to be the appropriate locations for efficiently developing their leases. If horizontal drilling is employed, that technology would not ensure that winter range could be avoided, because the orientation of the well bores is dictated by geology. Although some well pads are located in sensitive winter range, most of Fram could access the oil using these would be subject to a winter Timing Limitation to Boise (Bif) and horizontal drilling and stay out of preclude construction, drilling, and completion activities. 51. Wildlife Brenda Burge the designated winter range of the Table 2.2-7 lists the dates of seasonal closures. In addition, as elk, mule deer, and antelope. explained throughout the EA, both the Preferred Alternative and the Proposed Action have incorporated use of a seasonal northern access route to reduce travel through the sensitive winter range. While construction of pads and access roads would cause some loss of winter habitat, the amount of loss is a small part of the winter range, and the seasonal limitation during the critical winter season is of greater importance. The maps issued to hunters for Unit 41 deer and elk show a much bigger The 2018 EA includes a revision to the big game sensitive Boise (Bif) and 52. Wildlife and different picture of their winter winter range map (Map 2.2-1) to reflect current information Brenda Burge range than does Map 3 from Fram available from CPW. development plan. As note in the EA, it is the City of Grand Junction that would provide all of Fram’s freshwater needs, through their water Thousands of ranchers, farmers, and rights and at the take points indicated in the EA. Development large property owners lost crops, of Federal oil and gas leases, which requires water, is also a sold livestock and went without Boise (Bif) and property right. Fram is proposing to use an innovative method 53. Water Resources water last year due to a major Brenda Burge to greatly reduce its water needs for well completions. The drought. The water Fram will need BLM recognizes the consumptive use of water associated with for this project would wrongfully oil and gas developments. However, Colorado water law impact these people even more. governs the use and sale of water, based on the seniority of those rights.
13 Comment Commenter Resource Comment Response Number Oil and gas drilling on public land Fram is obtaining its water from the City of Grand Junction south of [the Burge property] is a under the City’s water rights, and at designated take points. major source of water from Kannah Federal oil and gas leases confer on the lessee property rights Boise (Bif) and 54. Water Resources Creek and its reservoirs, South Fork involving their leaseholds. It is the lessee/operator’s Brenda Burge of Kannah Creek and its reservoir, responsibility to obtain lawful water sources, which Fram has and private domestic wells in the done through its agreement with the City (see Section 3.2.4 of immediate area. the EA, Water Resources). As per game management map for Boise (Bif) and Unit 41, it is a major designated elk Current mapping of big game sensitive habitats is provided on 55. Wildlife Brenda Burge migration corridor, mule deer Map 2.2-1 of the 2018 EA. winter range, and elk winter range. Cultural surveys of all proposed action components have been conducted, and cultural resources have mostly been avoided in project design. Those sites that cannot be avoided and are There are numerous archeological eligible or potentially eligible for inclusion on the National Boise (Bif) and 56. Cultural sites from Indian camps to old Register of Historic Places would be mitigated using measures Brenda Burge homesteads and towns. to be employed under a Memorandum of Understanding among BLM, Fram, and the State Historic Preservation Officer. Section 3.4.2 of the EA goes into considerable detail on these resources. These public lands would be used to access Federal oil and gas resources contained within leases issued by the BLM. None of the components of the project, under any of the action alternatives, is proposed in an area where information currently There are no authorized roads in the available would preclude these activities. However, any Boise (Bif) and area [public land south of the Burge 57. Transportation development activities—pads, roads, pipelines, etc.—would be Brenda Burge property], only foot and horse travel reviewed again by the BLM at the APD stage for consistency trails. with lease stipulations, and with conditions of approval available under the Grand Junction Field Office resource management plan. In some cases, this would require that Fram conduct additional resource surveys. Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 58. Debra Cahill Water Resources Concerned about watershed regarding “City of Grand Junction Municipal Watershed and Public Water System.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 59. Debra Cahill Process Need for an EIS regarding “Preparation of an EA Instead of an EIS.”
14 Comment Commenter Resource Comment Response Number Leases are issued, and development occurs, where the oil and This is going to destroy property gas resource is either believed or proven to be present, value for all the homes in including portions of Mesa County. The project area itself Whitewater. Very rank. Are the oil would mostly be considered “rural,” with agriculture or companies going to reimburse Robert and General wildlife habitat the dominant land uses. The commenter did not 60. Whitewater home owners for their Carolin Carlson Opposition provide any information supporting a loss of property values. loss in property value? Why don't Many existing developments of Federal fluid minerals occur in they drill in south west Colorado proximity to rural, rural residential, or small urban/suburban where it is rural with less people settings without the types of impacts suggested by the living there? comment. General 61. Jacob Carpenter No response required. Opposition Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 62. Jessica Cerise Water Resources Concerned about watershed regarding “City of Grand Junction Municipal Watershed and Public Water System.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 63. Jessica Cerise Wildlife Concerned about wildlife regarding “Wildlife.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 64. Jessica Cerise Process Need for an EIS regarding “Preparation of an EA Instead of an EIS.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 65. Pamela Chiaro Water Resources Concerned about watershed regarding “City of Grand Junction Municipal Watershed and Public Water System.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA Concerned about Deer Creek 66. Pamela Chiaro Waste Disposal regarding “Use of the Deer Creek Facility for Produced Water Facility Disposal.” "Economic aspects of the project in relation to communities Concerned about Fram ability to and Mesa County, including as associated with employment, 67. Pamela Chiaro Financial pay for different types of tax revenues, and royalties, are described in Section 3.4.5 of the EA. Concerned about traffic/road Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 68. Pamela Chiaro Transportation impacts regarding “Traffic and Access.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 69. Carol Chowen Water Resources Concerned about watershed regarding “City of Grand Junction Municipal Watershed and Public Water System.” Although BLM regulations include criteria to be considered when Concerned about Fram ability to evaluating the need for additional bonding, such an evaluation is more 70. Carol Chowen Financial pay for cleanup appropriately applied in connection with review of APDs, which is closer in time to project implementation.
15 Comment Commenter Resource Comment Response Number Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 71. Carol Chowen Process Need for an EIS regarding “Preparation of an EA Instead of an EIS.” 72. Bill Coates General Support No response required Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 73. Phillip Coebergh Water Resources Concerned about watershed regarding “City of Grand Junction Municipal Watershed and Public Water System.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 74. Phillip Coebergh Wildlife Concerned about wildlife regarding “Wildlife.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 75. Phillip Coebergh Process Need for a new EA regarding “Preparation of an EA Instead of an EIS.” General 76. Alison Colby No response required. Opposition Both B Road, which is a component of the Preferred Lives at 33 and C Roads and Alternative, and C Road under the Proposed Action, have been concerned about the undeveloped examined to ensure their feasibility, and considerable roads Fram proposes to use off B preliminary work has been performed in relation to B Road, Transportation 77. Karen Combs Road. Fram must ensure the long- which is largely a new alignment. Either of the potential
term safety and feasibly of these northern accesses, if selected and utilized, would be roads, even beyond the life of the constructed or upgraded to a standard safe for vehicular travel, project. including suitable grades, curvature radii, and sight lines, and with subgrades and surfaces appropriate for the use. Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 78. Janet Cummings Water Resources Concerned about watershed regarding “City of Grand Junction Municipal Watershed and Public Water System.” Concerned about impact on Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 79. Janet Cummings Recreation recreation regarding “Recreation.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 80. Janet Cummings Wildlife Concerned about wildlife regarding “Wildlife.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 81. Walter Cummings Water Resources Concerned about watershed regarding “City of Grand Junction Municipal Watershed and Public Water System.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA Concerned about Deer Creek 82. Roberta Dalton General Support regarding “Use of the Deer Creek Facility for Produced Water Facility Disposal.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 83. Shari Daly-Miller Water Resources Concerned about watershed regarding “City of Grand Junction Municipal Watershed and Public Water System.”
16 Comment Commenter Resource Comment Response Number Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 84. Shari Daly-Miller Process Need for an EIS regarding “Preparation of an EA Instead of an EIS.” General 85. Barbara Delesha No response required. Opposition General 86. Karen DiJulio No response required. Opposition Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 87. Kayla Dodson Water Resources Concerned about watershed regarding “City of Grand Junction Municipal Watershed and Public Water System.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 88. Karalyn Dorn Water Resources Concerned about watershed regarding “City of Grand Junction Municipal Watershed and Public Water System.” Concerned about traffic/road Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 89. Karalyn Dorn Transportation impacts regarding “Traffic and Access.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA Concerned about Deer Creek 90. Karalyn Dorn Waste Disposal regarding “Use of the Deer Creek Facility for Produced Water Facility Disposal.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 91. Karalyn Dorn Process Need for an EIS regarding “Preparation of an EA Instead of an EIS.” General 92. Alice Dussart No response required. Opposition Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA Tina Elliott- 93. Water Resources Concerned about watershed regarding “City of Grand Junction Municipal Watershed and Armstrong Public Water System.” Section 3.2.5 discusses this issue in considerable detail. Noise impacts are of concern primarily during construction, drilling, Tina Elliott- and completions, meaning that they mostly are temporary, and 94. Noise Concerned about noise Armstrong at specific locations where those activities are occurring. As also described, the BLM requires conformance to the State’s noise standards for the residential/agricultural/rural zone. Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 95. Jon Esty Water Resources Concerned about watershed regarding “City of Grand Junction Municipal Watershed and Public Water System.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 96. Jon Esty Wildlife Concerned about wildlife regarding “Wildlife.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 97. Jon Esty Process Need for an EIS regarding “Preparation of an EA Instead of an EIS.”
17 Comment Commenter Resource Comment Response Number Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 98. Emily Farrington Water Resources Concerned about watershed regarding “City of Grand Junction Municipal Watershed and Public Water System.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA Concerned about Deer Creek 99. Emily Farrington Waste Disposal regarding “Use of the Deer Creek Facility for Produced Water Facility Disposal.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 100. Emily Farrington Wildlife Concerned about wildlife regarding “Wildlife.” Concerned about traffic/road Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 101. Emily Farrington Transportation impacts regarding “Traffic and Access.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 102. Emily Farrington Wildlife Concerned about wildlife regarding “Wildlife.” Although BLM regulations include criteria to be considered when Concerned about Fram ability to evaluating the need for additional bonding, such an evaluation is more 103. Emily Farrington Financial pay for cleanup appropriately applied in connection with review of APDs, which is closer in time to project implementation. Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 104. Emily Farrington Process Need for an EIS regarding “Preparation of an EA Instead of an EIS.” General 105. Karen Ford No response required. Opposition Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 106. Richard Gauley Water Resources Concerned about watershed regarding “City of Grand Junction Municipal Watershed and Public Water System.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA Rhea Gavry and 107. Water Resources Concerned about watershed regarding “City of Grand Junction Municipal Watershed and Douglas Monroe Public Water System.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA Rhea Gavry and Concerned about Deer Creek 108. Waste Disposal regarding “Use of the Deer Creek Facility for Produced Water Douglas Monroe Facility Disposal.” Rhea Gavry and Concerned about impact on Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 109. Recreation Douglas Monroe recreation regarding “Recreation.” Rhea Gavry and Concerned about traffic/road Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 110. Transportation Douglas Monroe impacts regarding “Wildlife.” Rhea Gavry and Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 111. Wildlife Concerned about wildlife Douglas Monroe regarding “Wildlife.” General 112. Ed Gibbons No response required. Opposition
18 Comment Commenter Resource Comment Response Number General 113. Gail Gibbons No response required. Opposition Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 114. Jerald Halpin Water Resources Concerned about watershed regarding “City of Grand Junction Municipal Watershed and Public Water System.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 115. Cristina Harmon Water Resources Concerned about watershed regarding “City of Grand Junction Municipal Watershed and Public Water System.” Concerned about impact on Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 116. Cristina Harmon Recreation recreation regarding “Recreation.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 117. Cristina Harmon Wildlife Concerned about wildlife regarding “Wildlife.” Economic aspects of the project in relation to communities and Mesa County, including as associated with employment, 118. Mary Hertert Financial Concerned over financial benefit different types of tax revenues, and royalties, are described in Section 3.4.5 of the EA. Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 119. Roberta Hettinger Water Resources Concerned about watershed regarding “City of Grand Junction Municipal Watershed and Public Water System.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 120. Emily Hornback Water Resources Concerned about watershed regarding “City of Grand Junction Municipal Watershed and Public Water System.” Concerned about traffic/road Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 121. Emily Hornback Transportation impacts regarding “Traffic and Access.” Pad 12-97-7-1 is proposed to be located approximately 1,370 feet from Whitewater Creek and 1,687 feet from Brandon Ditch, and is not with the City of Grand Junction municipal I request that at the very least, BLM watershed. At the scale of the maps in the EA, Fed 2-2-2-1 move pads 2-2-2-1 and 12-97-7-1 122. Emily Hornback Specific pads appears closer than it would be. BLM would review the farther away from Whitewater proposed locations of both pads during site-specific Creek and the Brandon Ditch. evaluations during the APD process. This would result in shifting Pad 2-2-2-1 farther from the ditch if needed to protect the ditch adequately. Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 123. Emily Hornback Process Need for an EIS regarding “Preparation of an EA Instead of an EIS.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 124. Lisa Houston Water Resources Concerned about watershed regarding “City of Grand Junction Municipal Watershed and Public Water System.”
19 Comment Commenter Resource Comment Response Number Concerned about traffic/road Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 125. Lisa Houston Transportation impacts regarding “Traffic and Access.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 126. Lisa Houston Wildlife Concerned about wildlife regarding “Wildlife.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA Dr. Richard 127. Water Resources Concerned about watershed regarding “City of Grand Junction Municipal Watershed and Hyland Public Water System.” Dr. Richard Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 128. Process Need for an EIS Hyland regarding “Preparation of an EA Instead of an EIS.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 129. Dr. David Inouye Water Resources Concerned about HF regarding “Addition of Hydraulic Fracturing to All Action Alternatives.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 130. Janet Johnson Process Need for an EIS regarding “Preparation of an EA Instead of an EIS.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 131. Janet Johnson Water Resources Concerned about watershed regarding “City of Grand Junction Municipal Watershed and Public Water System.” Although BLM regulations include criteria to be considered when Concerned about Fram ability to evaluating the need for additional bonding, such an evaluation is more 132. Janet Johnson Financial pay for cleanup appropriately applied in connection with review of APDs, which is closer in time to project implementation. Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA Concerned about Deer Creek 133. Janet Johnson Waste Disposal regarding “Use of the Deer Creek Facility for Produced Water Facility Disposal.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA General 134. Susan Justice Concerned about watershed regarding “City of Grand Junction Municipal Watershed and Opposition Public Water System.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 135. Charles Kerr Process Need for an EIS regarding “Preparation of an EA Instead of an EIS.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 136. Charles Kerr Water Resources Concerned about watershed regarding “City of Grand Junction Municipal Watershed and Public Water System.” Concerned about traffic/road Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 137. Piera Kllanxhja Transportation impacts regarding “Traffic and Access.” 138. Max Krey General Support No response required. Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 139. Anne Landman Water Resources Concerned about watershed regarding “City of Grand Junction Municipal Watershed and Public Water System.”
20 Comment Commenter Resource Comment Response Number Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA Concerned about Deer Creek 140. Anne Landman Waste Disposal regarding “Use of the Deer Creek Facility for Produced Water Facility Disposal.” 141. Patricia Langley General Support No response required. Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 142. Barbara Lee Water Resources Concerned about watershed regarding “City of Grand Junction Municipal Watershed and Public Water System.” Economic aspects of the project in relation to communities and Mesa County, including as associated with employment, 143. Barbara Lee Financial Concerned over financial benefit different types of tax revenues, and royalties, are described in Section 3.4.5 of the EA. Although BLM regulations include criteria to be considered when Concerned about Fram ability to evaluating the need for additional bonding, such an evaluation is more 144. Barbara Lee Financial pay for cleanup appropriately applied in connection with review of APDs, which is closer in time to project implementation. Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 145. Barbara Lee Water Resources Concerned about HF regarding “Addition of Hydraulic Fracturing to All Action Alternatives.” LeAnn Leffler- 146. General Support No response required. Foote General 147. Michael Lobato No response required. Opposition General 148. Gayle Madden No response required. Opposition Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 149. Gayle Madden Process Need for an EIS regarding “Preparation of an EA Instead of an EIS.” General 150. Janet Magoon No response required. Opposition Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 151. Justin Mason Water Resources Concerned about HF regarding “Addition of Hydraulic Fracturing to All Action Alternatives.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 152. Justin Mason Process Need for an EIS regarding “Preparation of an EA Instead of an EIS.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 153. Mary McCutchan Water Resources Concerned about watershed regarding “City of Grand Junction Municipal Watershed and Public Water System.” Concerned about impact on Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 154. Mary McCutchan Recreation recreation regarding “Recreation.”
21 Comment Commenter Resource Comment Response Number Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 155. Mary McCutchan Wildlife Concerned about wildlife regarding “Wildlife.” Although BLM regulations include criteria to be considered when Concerned about Fram ability to evaluating the need for additional bonding, such an evaluation is more 156. Mary McCutchan Financial pay for cleanup appropriately applied in connection with review of APDs, which is closer in time to project implementation. Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 157. Mary McCutchan Process Need for an EIS regarding “Preparation of an EA Instead of an EIS.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 158. Sue Mitchell Water Resources Concerned about watershed regarding “City of Grand Junction Municipal Watershed and Public Water System.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA Concerned about Deer Creek 159. Sue Mitchell Waste Disposal regarding “Use of the Deer Creek Facility for Produced Water Facility Disposal.” Although BLM regulations include criteria to be considered when Concerned about Fram ability to evaluating the need for additional bonding, such an evaluation is more 160. Sue Mitchell Financial pay for cleanup appropriately applied in connection with review of APDs, which is closer in time to project implementation. Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 161. Sue Mitchell Process Need for an EIS regarding “Preparation of an EA Instead of an EIS.” 162. Shane H Moore General Support No response required. Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 163. Mary Needham Water Resources Concerned about watershed regarding “City of Grand Junction Municipal Watershed and Public Water System.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA Concerned about Deer Creek 164. Mary Needham Waste Disposal regarding “Use of the Deer Creek Facility for Produced Water Facility Disposal.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 165. Mary Needham Process Need for an EIS regarding “Preparation of an EA Instead of an EIS.” Concerned about impact on Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 166. Mary Needham Recreation recreation regarding “Recreation.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 167. Mary Needham Wildlife Concerned about wildlife regarding “Wildlife.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 168. Judee O'Neal Water Resources Concerned about watershed regarding “City of Grand Junction Municipal Watershed and Public Water System.”
22 Comment Commenter Resource Comment Response Number Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA Lance and Peg 169. Water Resources Concerned about watershed regarding “City of Grand Junction Municipal Watershed and Oswald Public Water System.” Lance and Peg General 170. No response required. Oswald Opposition Lance and Peg Concerned about impact on Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 171. Recreation Oswald recreation regarding “Recreation.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA Concerned about Deer Creek 172. Thomas Panter Waste Disposal regarding “Use of the Deer Creek Facility for Produced Water Facility Disposal.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 173. Cynthia Patterson Process Need for an EIS regarding “Preparation of an EA Instead of an EIS.” Although BLM regulations include criteria to be considered when Concerned about Fram ability to evaluating the need for additional bonding, such an evaluation is more 174. Cynthia Patterson Financial pay for cleanup appropriately applied in connection with review of APDs, which is closer in time to project implementation. General 175. Cynthia Patterson No response required. Opposition Benita Phillips, General 176. No response required. RN Opposition Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 177. Charlie Post Water Resources Concerned about watershed regarding “City of Grand Junction Municipal Watershed and Public Water System.” Concerned about impact on Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 178. Charlie Post Recreation recreation regarding “Recreation.” Although BLM regulations include criteria to be considered when evaluating the need for additional bonding, such an Concerned about Fram ability to 179. Charlie Post Financial evaluation is more appropriately applied in connection with pay for cleanup review of APDs, which is closer in time to project implementation. General 180. Charlie Post No response required. Opposition Concerned about traffic/road Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 181. Charlie Post Transportation impacts regarding “Traffic and Access.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 182. Joanie Post Water Resources Concerned about watershed regarding “City of Grand Junction Municipal Watershed and Public Water System.”
23 Comment Commenter Resource Comment Response Number Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 183. Joanie Post Water Resources Concerned about HF regarding “Addition of Hydraulic Fracturing to All Action Alternatives.” Concerned about traffic/road Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 184. Joanie Post Transportation impacts regarding “Traffic and Access.” Although BLM regulations include criteria to be considered when Concerned about Fram ability to evaluating the need for additional bonding, such an evaluation is more 185. Joanie Post Financial pay for cleanup appropriately applied in connection with review of APDs, which is closer in time to project implementation. Economic aspects of the project in relation to communities and Mesa County, including as associated with employment, 186. Joanie Post Financial Concerned over financial benefit different types of tax revenues, and royalties, are described in Section 3.4.5 of the EA. Concerned about traffic/road Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 187. Eric Rechel Transportation impacts regarding “Traffic and Access.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 188. Eric Rechel Water Resources Concerned about watershed regarding “City of Grand Junction Municipal Watershed and Public Water System.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA Concerned about Deer Creek 189. Eric Rechel Waste Disposal regarding “Use of the Deer Creek Facility for Produced Water Facility Disposal.” General 190. Eric Rechel No response required. Opposition Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 191. Eric Rechel Wildlife Concerned about wildlife regarding “Wildlife.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 192. Eric Rechel Process Need for an EIS regarding “Preparation of an EA Instead of an EIS.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA Kriss Reiff and 193. Water Resources Concerned about watershed regarding “City of Grand Junction Municipal Watershed and Charmaine Reiff Public Water System.” Kriss Reiff and General 194. No response required. Charmaine Reiff Opposition Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA Robert Ricketts, 195. Water Resources Concerned about watershed regarding “City of Grand Junction Municipal Watershed and MD Public Water System.” Robert Ricketts, Concerned about traffic/road Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 196. Transportation MD impacts regarding “Traffic and Access.”
24 Comment Commenter Resource Comment Response Number Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA Robert Ricketts, Concerned about Deer Creek 197. Waste Disposal regarding “Use of the Deer Creek Facility for Produced Water MD Facility Disposal.” General Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 198. Clint Roberts Need for an EIS Opposition regarding “Preparation of an EA Instead of an EIS.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 199. Clint Roberts Water Resources Concerned about watershed regarding “City of Grand Junction Municipal Watershed and Public Water System.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 200. Gary Roberts Water Resources Concerned about watershed regarding “City of Grand Junction Municipal Watershed and Public Water System.” General 201. Charlotte Roth No response required. Opposition Although BLM regulations include criteria for evaluating the need for 202. John Sasso Financial Concerned over financial benefit additional bonding, the evaluation is more appropriate during review of APDs, which is closer in time to project implementation. Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 203. Donna Schultz Water Resources Concerned about watershed regarding “City of Grand Junction Municipal Watershed and Public Water System.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 204. Kenneth Scissors Water Resources Concerned about watershed regarding “City of Grand Junction Municipal Watershed and Public Water System.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA Concerned about Deer Creek 205. Kenneth Scissors Waste Disposal regarding “Use of the Deer Creek Facility for Produced Water Facility Disposal.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 206. Kenneth Scissors Wildlife Concerned about wildlife regarding “Wildlife.” Although BLM regulations include criteria to be considered when Concerned about Fram ability to evaluating the need for additional bonding, such an evaluation is more 207. Kenneth Scissors Financial pay for cleanup appropriately applied in connection with review of APDs, which is closer in time to project implementation. Economic aspects associated with employment, different types 208. Kenneth Scissors Financial Concerned over financial benefit of tax revenues, and royalties, are described in Section 3.4.5 of the EA. 209. Mark Scully General Support No response required. Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 210. Peggy Shaw Water Resources Concerned about watershed regarding “City of Grand Junction Municipal Watershed and Public Water System.”
25 Comment Commenter Resource Comment Response Number Concerned about traffic/road Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 211. Peggy Shaw Transportation impacts regarding “Traffic and Access.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 212. Kathy Slaughter Process Need for an EIS regarding “Preparation of an EA Instead of an EIS.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA Concerned about Deer Creek 213. Kathy Slaughter Waste Disposal regarding “Use of the Deer Creek Facility for Produced Water Facility Disposal.” Concerned about impact on Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 214. Kathy Slaughter Recreation recreation regarding “Recreation.” Although it is difficult to tell at the scale of the project maps, Placing well pad 2-2-2-1 on this pad would not be on Lumbardy or other private property, Lumbardy property will damage and Table 2.2-1 has been corrected. The relationship of this 215. Kathy Slaughter Water Quality underground springs that feed into pad to the ditch and springs and the adequacy of BLM and Brandon Ditch from which he COGCC protections would evaluated during detailed onsite irrigates. inspections in connection with the APD process. Any spills along the roads or on the The proposed location of the 12-97-7-1 pad is not within the pads will wash into his City’s municipal watershed, meaning that it does drain toward 216. Kathy Slaughter Water Quality (Lumbardy’s) irrigation water. Well Brandon Ditch. This is difficult to discern at the small scale of 12-97-7-1 will send a spill to the project maps. Brandon Ditch . 217. Jill Solbach General Support No response required. General 218. Donald Stidham No response required. Opposition General 219. Marin Stidham No response required. Opposition Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 220. Marin Stidham Water Resources Concerned about watershed regarding “City of Grand Junction Municipal Watershed and Public Water System.” Economic aspects of the project in relation to communities and Mesa County, including as associated with employment, 221. Marin Stidham Financial Concerned over financial benefit different types of tax revenues, and royalties, are described in Section 3.4.5 of the EA. 222. Keith Struckman Waste Disposal General concern No response required. Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA Pauline 223. Water Resources Concerned about watershed regarding “City of Grand Junction Municipal Watershed and Struckman Public Water System.”
26 Comment Commenter Resource Comment Response Number Although BLM regulations include criteria to be considered when Pauline Concerned about Fram ability to evaluating the need for additional bonding, such an evaluation is more 224. Financial Struckman pay for cleanup appropriately applied in connection with review of APDs, which is closer in time to project implementation. Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA General 225. Nancy Terrill Concerned about watershed regarding “City of Grand Junction Municipal Watershed and Opposition Public Water System.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA Concerned about Deer Creek 226. Noalani Terry Waste Disposal regarding “Use of the Deer Creek Facility for Produced Water Facility Disposal.” Concerned about traffic/road Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 227. Noalani Terry Transportation impacts regarding “Traffic and Access.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 228. Mary Thom Water Resources Concerned about watershed regarding “City of Grand Junction Municipal Watershed and Public Water System.” Sale of Federal oil and gas leases confers a property right that allows the successful bidder/lessee to develop that resource, subject to a wide range of constraints on where, when, and how the development occurs. The BLM recognizes that the bicycle trail would be a popular recreational amenity. The proposed development should However, the BLM believes that the distance from the trail to be moved so that it will not be seen 229. Mary Thom Recreation any project components is such that use and enjoyment of the from the proposed Palisade Plunge trail would be unlikely to suffer significantly. The Project Area Trail. would remain mostly in its current condition. Other parts of the trail alignment would have unobstructed and closer views of residential and commercial developments much less natural than the WMDP area (see Section 3.4.4 of the EA, Visual Resources). Although BLM regulations include criteria to be considered when Concerned about Fram ability to evaluating the need for additional bonding, such an evaluation is more 230. Tanya Travis Financial pay for cleanup appropriately applied in connection with review of APDs, which is closer in time to project implementation. General 231. Peter Trosclair No response required. Opposition Tia Wassom- General 232. No response required. Thornhill Opposition Christina General 233. No response required. Hoagland Opposition
27 Comment Commenter Resource Comment Response Number 234. Mike Whiteman General Support No response required. General 235. Megan Wilder No response required. Opposition Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 236. Kristin Winn Water Resources Concerned about watershed regarding “City of Grand Junction Municipal Watershed and Public Water System.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA Concerned about Deer Creek 237. Kristin Winn Waste Disposal regarding “Use of the Deer Creek Facility for Produced Water Facility Disposal.” Although BLM regulations include criteria to be considered when Concerned about Fram ability to evaluating the need for additional bonding, such an evaluation is more 238. Kristin Winn Financial pay for cleanup appropriately applied in connection with review of APDs, which is closer in time to project implementation. Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 239. Joan Woodward Water Resources Concerned about watershed regarding “City of Grand Junction Municipal Watershed and Public Water System.” Although BLM regulations include criteria to be considered when Concerned about Fram ability to evaluating the need for additional bonding, such an evaluation is more 240. Joan Woodward Financial pay for cleanup appropriately applied in connection with review of APDs, which is closer in time to project implementation. Economic aspects of the project in relation to communities and Mesa County, including as associated with employment, 241. Janet Wyatt Financial Concerned over financial benefit different types of tax revenues, and royalties, are described in Section 3.4.5 of the EA. Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 242. Janet Wyatt Water Resources Concerned about watershed regarding “City of Grand Junction Municipal Watershed and Public Water System.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 243. Janet Wyatt Wildlife Concerned about wildlife regarding “Wildlife.” Concerned about impact on Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 244. Janet Wyatt Recreation recreation regarding “Recreation.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the EA 245. Gerry Zelfer Water Resources Concerned about watershed regarding “City of Grand Junction Municipal Watershed and Public Water System.”
28 Table 2 Fram WMDP Public Comment Summaries and BLM Responses – Air Quality/Climate Change
Comment Commenter Comment Response Number Comparisons to calculated GHG emissions from Mesa County, Colorado, Federal onshore, Federal, and national oil and gas production are provided to place the project GHG emissions in context with other emissions levels at different scales. Total GHG emissions from the U.S. and If this amount of GHG emissions is not significant, the BLM the world are provided for a larger scale reference given must provide articulated criteria grounded in scientific the current state of science where it is not possible to evidence to demonstrate why it is not. See Center for Western associate specific actions with the specific global impacts Biological Diversity v. NHTSA, 538 F.3d 1172, 1224 (9th Cir. 1. Environmental such as potential climate effects. The potential impacts of 2008). The agency has not done so. Merely calculating the Law Center climate change represent the cumulative aggregation of project’s percentage contribution to overall Colorado and U.S. all worldwide GHG emissions. Moreover, specific levels emissions and summarily concluding that that percentage is of significance have not yet been established by non-significant, Updated EA at 66, “cannot carry the day.” Id. regulatory agencies and has not been agreed upon by scientific communities. Therefore, climate change analysis for the purpose of this analysis is limited to accounting for GHG emissions changes that would contribute incrementally to climate change. First, the BLM ignores the extent of the public health effects that will be caused by the project’s air pollution. The EA reveals that the project will elevate PM-10, PM-2.5, NO-X, See Section 3.2.1 of the EA, Air Quality and Climate. All CO2, SO2, VOCs, and Hazardous Air Pollutants (“HAPs”) predicted impacts (including background concentrations) including benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, xylene, n-hexane, were below the applicable NAAQS and CAAQS and and formaldehyde. Updated EA at 61-62. The impacts from EPA HAP threshold values. The EPA set the NAAQS particulate matter are particularly striking. The project will for pollutants considered to endanger public health and increase the daily concentration of PM-10 by 64%, from 27 the environment, which include seven criteria pollutants: Western μg/m3 to 44.3 μg/m3, and the daily concentration of PM-2.5 NO2, CO, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, O3 and lead. Colorado 2. Environmental by 72%, from 14 μg/m3 to 24.1 μg/m3 (and close to the legal has adopted the NAAQS and has adopted lower Law Center limit for PM-2.5 of 35 μg/m3). Updated EA at 61. Major standards for SO2 impacts. As noted in Section 3.2.1.1, concerns for human health from exposure to particulate matter the NAAQS include primary standards to protect human include effects on breathing and respiratory systems, damage health, including sensitive populations such as to lung tissue, cancer, and premature death.3 PM-2.5 is small asthmatics, children, and the elderly, and secondary enough to lodge deeply in the lungs.4 The smallest particles standards to protect public welfare related to visibility can pass through the lungs to affect other organs.5 Even small and animals, crops, other vegetation, and buildings. increases in particulate matter concentrations can have significant health impacts. For example, according to a recent
1 Comment Commenter Comment Response Number study published in the British Medical Journal, an increase in estimated annual exposure to PM-2.5 of just 5 μg/m3 was linked with a 13% increased risk of heart attacks. The BLM concludes that the air pollution, including particulate matter pollution, from the project is non-significant because the air quality in the area will remain within legal limits. EA at 59 (impact significance criteria), 61. Violation of law is one of the ten factors indicating significance, but there are nine Western others, including the degree to which the proposed action 3. Environmental affects public health or safety. Here, the project will add See response to Comment #2 above. Law Center significant amounts of pollution into the air— in particular due to prevailing winds which blow pollutants into the Grand Valley metropolitan area of approximately 160,000 inhabitants—with significant health impacts that cannot be summarily dismissed. An EIS must be prepared to evaluate these impacts. Additionally, BLM does not give adequate consideration to Table 3.2-7 "Ambient Air Quality Standards and PSD ozone. First, BLM provides background concentrations of Increments" in the EA indicates the ozone standard in ozone in micrograms per cubic meters (μg/m3), rather than both ppm and µg/m3 units. The background value of 126 3 Western parts per million (ppm), Updated EA at 46, although ppm is µg/m is below the NAAQS (137 µg/m3 or 0.070 ppm). the unit of measurement used by the EPA in the National It is not appropriate to add modeled ozone concentrations Environmental 4. Ambient Air Quality Standards (“NAAQS”). This makes it to background ozone concentrations. The photochemical Law Center difficult for the public to understand whether background model (CAMx) used to estimate ozone impacts provides concentrations of ozone exceed the NAAQS, or whether the an estimate of the total ozone concentration impacts that modeled addition from oil and gas emissions in the GJFO of could occur from all regional source emissions (including 0.5 ppb, Updated EA at 198, would cause an exceedance of the the project emissions) and from emissions (and ozone) NAAQS. transported into the region. Second, background concentrations of ozone in some areas of Whereas modeling does indicate that ozone the region are already at or exceed the National Ambient Air concentrations in the vicinity of the project could exceed Quality Standards (“NAAQS”), leaving virtually no room for the level of the ozone NAAQS, monitored concentrations Western growth in emissions as contemplated by the Whitewater MDP in the vicinity have not exceeded the NAAQS. The EA. The EA notes that: “The base year DVBs [base design NAAQS would be exceeded if the annual fourth-highest Environmental 5. values using EPA’s Modeled Attainment Test Software daily maximum 8-hour concentrations, averaged over 3 Law Center (MATS)] . . . indicate that there are areas nearby the Project years are above 70 ppb. Similarly, the model of the single Area in Mesa County that are above the 70 ppb NAAQS, in the base year (i.e., prior to the project) also indicates range of 73 to 76 ppb,” Updated EA at 196, and “The 2008 exceedances; however, the model indicates improved air Base Case . . . indicates that there are areas nearby the Project quality from the base year into the future. If monitored Area in Mesa County that are above the 70 ppb NAAQS, in the ozone concentrations averaged over a 3-year period
2 Comment Commenter Comment Response Number range of 71 to 76 ppb,” Updated EA at 197. exceed the NAAQS, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) would recommend to EPA that the area of NAAQS exceedance be designated non-attainment for ozone and the CDPHE would undergo a State Implementation Plan (SIP) process to determine the likely causes of the exceedances and potential means (emissions reductions) needed to bring the area into attainment with the NAAQS. The EA discloses that there is a predominance of wind that blows generally from the southeast over the project site. Updated EA at 44 (Tables 3.2-2 and 3.2-3), 45 (Figure 3.2.1). The EA states that the average wind speed results in “presence of good dispersion and mixing of any potential pollutant emissions.” Updated EA at 43. But when the pollutant of concern is ozone, this is not a good outcome. Ozone is not directly emitted from oil and gas operations. Rather it is a product of the availability of precursor materials and the high levels of UV radiation common in the project area and upwind. Western Precursor materials include volatile organics (VOCs, which Environmental could be released as part of drilling and regular operations) and 6. See response to Comment #5 above. Law Center oxides of nitrogen (NOx, which are released by fossil fuel engines, especially those that do not meet the latest EPA standards and combustion of excess natural gas). Hence, the prevailing wind patterns (with speeds to generate good mixing) with new emissions of VOCs and increased availability of NOx would potentially contribute to substantial increases in ozone over the agricultural areas to the north west of the project area, in particular the Palisade fruit and wine district. Ozone levels in this area are already high enough to have some negative effects on productivity and quality; higher levels could have significantly greater effects because the damages grow nonlinearly. Ozone has also long been recognized to cause adverse health As noted in Section 3.2.1.1, the EPA determined the Western effects, in addition to effects on agriculture and wild plants and National Ambient Air Quality Standards (40 CFR Part Environmental animals. With respect to human health effects, exposure to 50) for pollutants considered harmful to public health and 7. Law Center ozone can cause or exacerbate respiratory health problems— the environment. There are two types of national ambient including shortness of breath, asthma, chest pain and air quality standards. Primary standards provide human coughing—can decrease lung function, and can even lead to health protection, including the health of sensitive
3 Comment Commenter Comment Response Number long-term lung damage. See also EPA’s National Ambient Air populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly. Quality Standards for Particulates and Ozone, 62 FR 38,856 Secondary standards provide public welfare protection, (July 18, 1997). Short term exposure to ozone causes multiple including protection against decreased visibility and negative respiratory effects, from inflammation of airways to damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings. The more serious respiratory effects that can lead to use of BLM uses the NAAQS and State ambient air quality medication, absences from school and work, hospital standards as the basis for evaluating potential impacts admissions, emergency room visits, and chronic obstructive from proposed actions. pulmonary disease (“COPD”). According to a recent report by the National Research Council (“NRC”), short-term exposure to current levels of ozone in many areas is likely to contribute to premature deaths.7 Even ozone concentrations as low as 60 ppb can be harmful to human health. Long-term exposure to elevated levels of ozone results in numerous negative harmful effects, such as permanent lung damage and abnormal lung development in children. Long-term exposure may also increase risk of death from respiratory problems. Short- and long-term exposure to elevated levels of ozone can also harm people’s hearts and cardiovascular systems. See 79 Fed. Reg. 75234-311. On October 26, 2015, EPA published a final rule to revise the NAAQS for ozone to 70 parts per billion (ppb) from the Western current 75 ppb. National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone, 80 Fed. Reg. 65292 (Oct. 26, 2015). This decision was Environmental 8. driven by significant recent scientific evidence that the See response to Comment #7 above. Law Center standard of 75 ppb was not adequately protecting public health. Id. At 136. In fact, recent studies have documented decreased lung functioning and airway inflammation in young, healthy adults at ozone concentrations as low as 60 ppb. Id. at 146. Western Additionally, climate change is likely to worsen ozone pollution, offsetting the improvements in air quality and public Environmental 9. health that would be expected from reductions in emissions of See response to Comment #5 above. Law Center ozone precursors. As described by the EPA in its ozone rulemaking: Western In addition to being affected by changing emissions, future O3 concentrations may also be affected by climate change. Environmental 10. Modeling studies in the EPA’s Interim Assessment (U.S. EPA, See response to Comment #5 above. Law Center 2009a) that are cited in support of the 2009 Endangerment Finding under CAA section 202(a) (74 FR 66496, Dec. 15,
4 Comment Commenter Comment Response Number 2009) as well as a recent assessment of potential climate change impacts (Fann et al., 2015) project that climate change may lead to future increases in summer O3 concentrations across the contiguous U.S. While the projected impact is not uniform, climate change has the potential to increase average summertime O3 concentrations by as much as 1-5 ppb by 2030, if greenhouse gas emissions are not mitigated. Increases in temperature are expected to be the principal factor in driving any O3 increases, although increases in stagnation frequency may also contribute (Jacob and Winner, 2009). If unchecked, climate change has the potential to offset some of the improvements in O3 air quality, and therefore some of the improvements in public health, that are expected from reductions in emissions of O3 precursors. 80 Fed. Reg. 65292, 65300 (October 26, 2015). For example, Western climate change impacts include an increase in the area burned by wildfires, which, in turn are sources of O3 precursors. Id. at Environmental 11. 65371. Given the EA’s acknowledgement that climate change See response to Comment #5 above. Law Center can increase the occurrence and severity of wildfires on BLM- administered land, Updated EA at 57, the BLM should address this impact of climate change on ozone pollution. Potential visibility (regional haze) impacts from project sources and regional (cumulative) sources were analyzed Notably, much of air pollution from oil and gas development at far-field Federal Class I and sensitive Class II areas and operations also degrades visibility. Section 169A of the located within 100 km of the project area and the results Clean Air Act (“CAA”), 42, U.S.C. § 7401 et seq. (1970) sets are provided in Sections 3.2.1.2 and 4.4.1 of the EA. The forth a national goal for visibility, which is the “prevention of Class I areas located within 100 km of the project area Western any future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of include the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park, Environmental visibility in Class I areas which impairment results from Flat Tops Wilderness, Maroon Bells-Snowmass 12. Law Center manmade air pollution.” Congress adopted the visibility Wilderness, West Elk Wilderness, and Arches National provisions in the CAA to protect visibility in “areas of great Park. Federal Class II areas within 100 km of the project scenic importance.” H.R. Rep. No. 294, 95th Cong. 1st Sess. at area that are considered sensitive areas include the 205 (1977). In promulgating its Regional Haze Regulations, 64 Raggeds Wilderness and Colorado National Monument. Fed. Reg. 35,714 (July 1, 1999), the U.S. Environmental The analyses indicated that the project would not Protection Agency (“EPA”) provided: contribute significantly to any increase in regional haze and that there would be an overall improvement in visibility conditions in year 2021.
5 Comment Commenter Comment Response Number Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a multitude of sources and activities which emit fine particles and their precursors and which are located across a broad geographic area. Twenty years ago, when initially adopting the visibility protection provisions of the CAA, Congress Western specifically recognized that the “visibility problem is caused primarily by emission into the atmosphere of SO2, oxides of Environmental 13. nitrogen, and particulate matter, especially fine particulate See response to Comment #12 above. Law Center matter, from inadequate[ly] controlled sources.” H.R. Rep. No. 95- 294 at 204 (1977). The fine particulate matter (PM) (e.g., sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust) that impairs visibility by scattering and absorbing light can cause serious health effects and mortality in humans, and contribute to effects such as acid deposition and eutrophication. The visibility protection program under sections 169A, 169B, Western and 110(a)(2)(J) of the CAA is designed to protect Class I areas from impairment due to manmade air pollution. The Environmental 14. current regulatory program addresses visibility impairment in See response to Comment #12 above. Law Center these areas that is “reasonably attributable” to a specific source or small group of sources, such as, here, air pollution resulting from oil and gas development. See 64 Fed. Reg. 35,714. Moreover, EPA finds the visibility protection provisions of the CAA to be quite broad. Although EPA is addressing visibility protection in phases, the national visibility goal in section Western 169A calls for addressing visibility impairment generally, including regional haze. See e.g., State of Maine v. Thomas, Environmental 15. 874 F.2d 883, 885 (1st Cir. 1989) (“EPA’s mandate to control See response to Comment #12 above. Law Center the vexing problem of regional haze emanates directly from the CAA, which ‘declares as a national goal the prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in Class I areas which impairment results from manmade air pollution.’ ”) (citation omitted). Western Here, there are at least 10 Class I areas near the Whitewater See response to Comment #16 above. In addition, as MDP project area that may be impacted by the proposed stated in Section 3.2.1.1, continuous visibility-related Environmental 16. development, including: Maroon Bells-Snowmass Wilderness optical background data have been collected as part of Law Center Area; Arches National Park; Black Canyon of the Gunnison the IMPROVE program in the Class I areas Flat Tops National Park; Eagles Nest Wilderness Area; Flat Tops Wilderness, White River National Forest (Maroon Bells-
6 Comment Commenter Comment Response Number Wilderness Area; La Garita Wilderness Area; Weminuche Snowmass Wilderness), Canyon Lands National Park, Wilderness Area; Mesa Verde National Park; Canyon Lands and Weminuche Wilderness. The average SVR at each of National Park; and West Elk Wilderness Area. Visibility in the four sites is historically greater than 150 kilometers nearby Class I areas is already impaired. and in the most recent reported years, the average SVR has increased to greater than 200 kilometers. The BLM may not label discussion of future environmental Sections 3.2.1 and 4.4.1 of the EA address greenhouse effects as “crystal ball inquiry” to avoid a finding of significant gas (GHG) emissions and climate change. In Section impact. The BLM refuses to undertake any meaningful 3.2.1.1, an overview of climate model projections for the analysis of climate impacts from the project, claiming: State of Colorado was added. In Section 3.2.1.2, the “Predicting the degree of impact any single emitter of GHGs qualified climate change analysis notes that GHG may have on global climate change, or on the changes to biotic emissions changes would contribute incrementally to and abiotic systems that accompany climate change, is not climate change. The analysis then quantifies the possible at this time.” Updated EA at 66. In refusing to maximum estimated GHG emissions resulting from the undertake this analysis, the BLM evades its duty under NEPA. project based on current data and reasonable forecasting. “Reasonable forecasting and speculation is . . . implicit in To ensure the public and decision-maker comprehend the NEPA, and we must reject any attempt by agencies to shirk scale of the estimate relative to other scales, calculated Western their responsibilities under NEPA by labeling any and all GHG emissions from Mesa County, Colorado, Federal discussion of future environmental effects as ‘crystal ball onshore, Federal, and national oil and gas production Environmental 17. inquiry.’” Save Our Ecosystems v. Clark, 747 F.2d 1240, 1246 were added. Total GHG emissions from the U.S. and the Law Center n.9 (9th Cir. 1984) (quoting Scientists’ Inst. For Pub. Info., world are provided for a larger-scale reference. By Inc. v. Atomic Energy Comm., 481 F.2d 1079, 1092 (D.C. Cir. providing the project's estimated GHG emissions with 1973)). The BLM is required to provide a “reasonably County, State, and nationwide GHG emissions, the thorough discussion of the significant aspects of the probable reader establishes a frame of reference to meaningfully environmental consequences” of the project on climate change, analyze the potential impacts of the local-scale project at to “foster both informed decision-making and informed public the global-scale of climate change. For a thorough participation.” Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Natl Hwy. cumulative effects analysis, an estimate of downstream Traffic Safety Admin., 538 F.3d 1172, 1194 (9th Cir. 2008). GHG emissions was added to both Sections 3.2.1.2 and Failure to meaningfully address the project’s impacts on 4.4.1. Moreover, specific levels of significance have not climate denies both the agency and the public information yet been established by regulatory agencies. Therefore, necessary for informed decision-making. Without a reasonably climate change analysis for the purpose of this analysis is thorough climate analysis, the EA cannot support a finding of limited to accounting for GHG emissions changes that no significant impacts. would contribute incrementally to climate change. NEPA imposes “action forcing procedures … requir[ing] that Western agencies take a hard look at environmental consequences.” Environmental Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 18. See response to Comment #17 above. Law Center 350 (1989) (citations omitted) (emphasis added). These “environmental consequences” may be direct, indirect, or cumulative. 40 C.F.R. §§ 1502.16, 1508.7, 1508.8. BLM is
7 Comment Commenter Comment Response Number required to take a hard look at those impacts as they relate to the agency action. “Energy-related activities contribute 70% of global GHG emissions; oil and gas together represent 60% of those energy12 related emissions through their extraction, processing and subsequent combustion.”8 Even if science cannot isolate each additional oil or gas well’s contribution to these overall emissions, this does not obviate BLM’s responsibility to consider oil and gas development from the Whitewater MDP from the cumulative impacts of the oil and gas sector. In other words, the BLM cannot ignore the larger relationship that oil and gas management decisions have to the broader climate crisis that we face. Here, the agency’s analysis must include the full scope of GHG emissions. See Neighbors of Cuddy Mountain v. U.S. Forest Service, 137 F.3d 1372, 1379 (9th Cir. 1998) (“To ‘consider’ cumulative effects, some quantified or detailed information is required. Without such information, neither the courts nor the public, in reviewing the [agency’s] decisions, can be assured that the [agency] provided the hard look that it is required to provide.”). If we are to stem climate disaster – the impacts of which we are already experiencing – the agency’s decision-making must be reflective of this reality and plan accordingly. BLM is, at the end of the day, responsible for the management of 700 million acres of federal onshore subsurface minerals.9 Indeed, “ultimate downstream GHG emissions from fossil fuel extraction from federal lands and waters by private leaseholders could have accounted for approximately 21% of total U.S. GHG emissions and 24% of all energy-related GHG Western emissions.”10 This suggests that “ultimate GHG emissions Environmental from fossil fuels extracted from federal lands and waters by 19. See response to Comment #17 above. Law Center private leaseholders in 2010 could be more than 20-times larger than the estimate reported in the CEQ inventory, [which estimates total federal emissions from agencies’ operations to be 66.4 million metric tons]. Overall, ultimate downstream GHG emissions resulting from fossil fuel extraction from federal lands and waters by private leaseholders in 2010 are estimated to total 1,551 [million metric tons of CO2 equivalent (“MMTCO2e”)].” Id. To suggest that the agency does not,
8 Comment Commenter Comment Response Number here, have to account for GHG pollution from oil and gas development authorized in the Whitewater MDP, would be to suggest that the collective 700 million acres of subsurface mineral estate is not relevant to protecting against climate change. This sort of flawed, reductive thinking is problematic, and contradicted by the agency’s very management framework, which provides a place-based lens to account for specific pollution sources to ensure that the broader public interest is protected. Therefore, even though climate change emissions from the Whitewater MDP may look minor when viewed on the scale of the global climate crisis we face, when considered cumulatively with all of the other GHG emissions from BLM-managed land, they become significant and cannot be ignored. In Section 3.2.1.2, a near-field assessment of impacts on ambient air quality was performed to evaluate maximum The BLM failed to consider the impact of temperature pollutant impacts within and near the project area inversions on regional air quality, despite recognizing that resulting from construction and operation. EPA's “[t]he climate and topography of the region are conducive to Guideline model AERMOD was used to assess these the formation of temperature inversions.” Updated EA at 43; near-field impacts. The near-field modeling used one see also BLM Response to Public Comments at 19 year of hourly meteorological data and twice daily upper (“Inversions naturally occur within the Grand Junction air air (rawinsonde) data collected during 2010 at the Grand shed.”). A temperature inversion is a layer of the atmosphere in Junction airport, located approximately 10 miles which air temperature increases with height, where a cold layer northwest of the project area. These measured of air is trapped under a warmer layer of air. That warmer air Western meteorological data capture inversion events that occur in also traps air pollutants in that cold pool of air. According to Environmental Grand Junction. In addition, modeled concentrations 20. researchers, “the resulting atmospheric stagnation inhibits were added to background pollutant concentrations to Law Center pollutants from dispersing out of the region, resulting in higher calculate total ambient air quality impacts, and these pollution concentrations and longer periods of poor air quality background data may include measurements during than might otherwise be expected.”11 BLM acknowledges that inversion events. (Background concentrations are an air quality suffers during temperature inversions, noting that indicator of existing conditions in the region, and are “[p]oor dispersion conditions do occur during periods with assumed to include emissions from industrial emission temperature inversions, which are common to the area.” sources in operation and from mobile, urban, biogenic, Updated EA at 43. However, BLM has declined to perform air other non-industrial emission sources, and transport into quality analysis during times of inversions. BLM Response to the region.) Also, the CARMMS analysis that is Public Comments at 19 (“Specific air flow studies during times presented in Section 4.4.1 of the EA for regional ozone of inversions have not been performed for this EA.”) impacts and for cumulative AQRV analyses included use of the CAMx model along with one year (2008) of
9 Comment Commenter Comment Response Number gridded hourly Weather Research Forecasting (WRF) model data. These meteorological data are at a 4- kilometer horizontal grid resolution along with 36 vertical layers. Temperature inversions in the vicinity of the project area are likely included in these meteorological data. BLM must examine how these temperature inversion events will impact air pollution from the proposed alternative. The EA states that the “[t]he annual mean wind speed is 7.3 miles per hour (mph), a relatively high average indicating the presence of good dispersion and mixing of any potential pollutant emissions for most hours over the year.” Updated EA at 43. The EA goes on to note that short-term emissions events, such as well pad construction, “would temporarily elevate pollutant Western levels, but impacts would be localized and would occur only Environmental for the short-term duration of the activities.” Id. at 59. These 21. See response to Comment #20 above. Law Center statements ignore the seasonal variation in inversion events, where even temporary events may impact air quality and human health. They also ignore the significance of localized, short-term impacts (the locations of the northernmost pads proposed under the Whitewater MDP would be directly above the fruit and wine byway). The BLM must take a hard look at regional air quality impacts associated with inversions, especially when the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (“NOAA”) provides readily available inversion data for Grand Junction. The project would be subject to CDPHE Air Quality Control Commission Regulation 6, which fully adopts BLM must take steps to reduce methane emissions from the the EPA’s Standards of Performance for Crude Oil and Whitewater MDP project, including (1) by undertaking a true Natural Gas Production, Transmission, and Distribution Western hard-look analysis of methane waste; (2) by adopting found in 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart OOOO (“NSPS Environmental enforceable mitigation requirements to minimize methane OOOO”), and Regulation 7, which includes extensive 22. Law Center waste; and (3) by considering alternatives that require Fram to volatile organic compound reductions and regulates reduce methane waste. BLM must also discuss methane’s methane emissions from the oil and gas industry. As contribution to ozone, and assess associated air quality and noted in the Proposed Action (Section 2.2.1), most of the health impacts. natural gas expected to be co-produced with the oil would be used to run production equipment at each individual well pad. Any excess natural gas would be
10 Comment Commenter Comment Response Number combusted at the well pad by combustors with a typical 98 percent or greater efficiency. No flaring of natural gas would take place. Text was added to ensure unnecessary waste, noting, "If the quantities of co-produced gas prove economic, the BLM would require Fram to transport the gas by gathering lines to sales lines." Methane emissions are included in Section 3.2.1 and the CARMMS analysis for estimating regional ozone impacts (Section 4.4.1). "As detailed in our earlier comments, BLM’s duty to prevent waste is expansive: “[a]ll leases of lands containing oil or gas ... shall be subject to the condition that the lessee will, in conducting his explorations and mining operations, use all reasonable precautions to prevent waste of oil or gas developed in the land....” 30 U.S.C. § 225; see also 30 U.S.C. § 187 (“Each lease shall contain...a provision...for the prevention of Western undue waste....”). BLM is also required “to promote the Environmental orderly and efficient exploration, development and production 23. See response to Comment #22 above. Law Center of oil and gas.” 43 C.F.R. § 3160.0-4. As the Mineral Leasing Act’s (“MLA”), 30 U.S.C. § 181 et seq., legislative history teaches, “conservation through control was the dominant theme of the debates.” Boesche v. Udall, 373 U.S. 472, 481 (1963) (citing H.R.Rep. No. 398, 66th Cong., 1st Sess. 12-13; H.R.Rep. No. 1138, 65th Cong., 3d Sess. 19 (“The legislation provided for herein...will [help] prevent waste and other lax methods....”)). " In order to fulfill its duty to prevent waste from the Whitewater The project would be subject to CDPHE Air Quality MDP project, BLM must first take a true hard-look analysis of Control Commission Regulation 6, which fully adopts methane waste. This analysis must begin with the BLM’s the EPA’s Standards of Performance for Crude Oil and disclosure of the amount of methane emissions that it expects Natural Gas Production, Transmission, and Distribution Western from the Whitewater MDP. Nowhere does BLM provide this found in 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart OOOO (“NSPS Environmental information. See Updated EA at 61 (providing total GHG OOOO”), and Regulation 7, which includes extensive 24. Law Center emissions in CO2e, but not disclosing how much of this total is volatile organic compound reductions and regulates CH4). BLM provides that: “The relatively low amount of methane emissions from the oil and gas industry. As natural gas expected to be co-produced with the oil would not noted in the Proposed Action (Section 2.2.1), most of the be compressed and sold, but used to run production equipment natural gas expected to be co-produced with the oil on the well pads. Another potential use of this gas is for re- would be used to run production equipment at each injection into the formation to increase formation pressure. individual well pad. Any excess natural gas would be
11 Comment Commenter Comment Response Number Any “excess” natural gas beyond these uses would be combusted at the well pad by combustors with a typical combusted at the wellhead.” Id. at 12. BLM should go further 98 percent or greater efficiency. No flaring of natural gas to quantify exactly how much gas will be co-produced with oil, would take place. Text was added to ensure unnecessary how much gas is expected to be used in the operation of waste, noting, "If the quantities of co-produced gas prove production equipment, how much gas is expected to be re- economic, the BLM would require Fram to transport the injected, and how much gas the agency anticipates will be gas by gathering lines to sales lines." Methane emissions flared or combusted (and whether flaring and combustion are are included in Section 3.2.1 and the CARMMS analysis different). Notably, aside from being a significant source of for estimating regional ozone impacts (Section 4.4.1). CO2 emissions, gas flaring contributes to acid rain, and may emit NOx, PM10, PM2.5, SO2, VOCs and HAPs. BLM must analyze these and other environmental impacts from gas flaring, as well as any air quality impacts associated with reinjection. Additionally, in calculating and disclosing the project’s GHG emissions, BLM must use a global warming potential (“GWP”) that accurately reflects methane’s impact on climate. Currently, BLM underestimates the climate impact of methane emissions by using an outdated GWP for methane of 25, meaning that methane is assumed to be 25 times as potent as The BLM uses the GWP values that are used by the EPA CO2. Updated EA at 61. This GWP apparently reflects to quantify and report total carbon dioxide equivalent Western methane’s impact over a 100-year time frame. However, the emissions (CO2e). These values are published in the 100-year GWP for methane was updated by the IPCC in a Federal Register. (See "40 CFR Part 98. Mandatory Environmental 25. 2013 Report to reflect that methane is 36 times as potent as Greenhouse Gas Reporting. Final Rule, Table A-1 to Law Center CO2. 13 Additionally, the IPCC’s new research has 13 G. Subpart A of Part 98 – Global Warming Potentials." Myhre et al., Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing, in Published in Federal Register, December 11, 2014. 79 FR INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE 73779.) CHANGE, Working Group I Contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, Table 8.7 at 714 (attached as Exhibit 7). calculated that methane is 87 times as potent as CO2 over a 20- year time horizon.14 These values should be used—or at the very least acknowledged—in the EA. Second, BLM should adopt enforceable mitigation Western requirements to minimize methane waste. The EA indicates Environmental that “no venting of natural gas should occur,” Updated EA at 26. See response to Comment #22 above. Law Center 66, and “[n]o flaring of natural gas would take place,” id. at 23. As an initial matter, it is not clear that “no flaring” will take place, as the agency indicates that “combustion” will occur and
12 Comment Commenter Comment Response Number contemplates “completion venting/flaring.” Id. at 12, 23 (“Any excess gas would be combusted at the well pad . . .”), 60 (Table 3.2-10). BLM should clarify whether or not flaring or venting will occur. Moreover, BLM should provide binding requirements to minimize venting or flaring, or require capture. BLM merely provides that, “depending on the amount of excess gas, the BLM may require that Fram gather the gas and transport it via pipeline to ‘sales’ lines.” Id. at 12 (emphasis added). BLM should include mitigation measures aimed at capturing or beneficially using methane, and should ensure that these measures are “verifiable, durable, enforceable, and will be implemented.” CEQ, Final Climate Guidance at 19. Third, BLM should provide an alternative requiring Fram to gather the excess gas and transport it via pipeline to sales lines. Such an alternative would inform the decision-making process and allow BLM and the public to evaluate the agency’s choice to allow Fram to combust the “excess” gas. Such an alternative would include an evaluation supported by engineering, Western geologic, and economic data that demonstrates whether the expenditures necessary to market or beneficially use the gas Environmental 27. are or are not economically justified. It appears that there are See response to Comment #22 above. Law Center no technological barriers to gas sales, as the proposal includes the construction of gas gathering lines, a permitted gas compressor at Fram’s Reeder Mesa Facility, and connections to the Trans- Colorado gas pipeline and Rocky Mountain Express pipeline. Id. Where Fram profits are the only barrier to natural gas collection and sale, the BLM should analyze a reasonable alternative involving methane capture and disclose associated air quality impacts BLM Must Consider Carbon Budgeting. One of the measuring The BLM does not have authority to institute a budget or standards available to BLM for analyzing the magnitude and cap on carbon emissions, such that in and of itself, a Western severity of BLM-managed fossil fuel emissions is to apply BLM budget would be meaningless in the context of the those emissions to the remaining global carbon budget. A global issue (for which no other global entity has Environmental 28. “carbon budget” offers a cap on the remaining stock of established a buget or cap to address the issue). In Law Center greenhouse gases that can be emitted while still keeping global general, the BLM acknowledges a calculated budget/cap average temperature rise below scientifically researched in literature for which the worst of the predicted climate warming thresholds37—beyond which climate change impacts change effects can be potentially avoided, and that all may result in severe and irreparable harm to the biosphere and sectors of the world economy consume increments of the
13 Comment Commenter Comment Response Number humanity. budget. The BLM further acknowledges that, at present global emissions rates, the budget would be exhausted in approximately 23 years. The budget in the literature does not provide for any significance thresholds that could be utilized for the purposes of NEPA or otherwise. The BLM has clarified terminology in Section 3.4.5. to elucidate that we were in fact referring to impacts and not benefits. Economic impact analyses, such as was done for this EA, describe effects that agency activities may have on economic conditions and local economic activity, generally expressed as projected changes in employment, labor income, and economic output (Watson, Wilson, Thilmany, and Winter 2007). It is important to note that results from an economic impact analysis should not be considered as benefits or costs (Watson et al. 2007). Consequently, the increased BLM must quantify the severity of harm from greenhouse gas economic activity, discussed in terms of revenue, emissions. BLM violated NEPA by quantifying economic employment, labor income, total value added, and output benefits, Updated EA at 168-69, while ignoring the social costs are simply the economic impacts associated with the Western caused by the project’s greenhouse gas emissions (including alternatives. People, based upon their views and values, production emissions, combustion emissions, and methane may perceive this increased economic activity as a Environmental 29. waste), despite the availability of a protocol for quantifying ‘positive’ impact that they desire to have occur; however, Law Center such costs: the Interagency Working Group’s “social cost of that is very distinct from being an “economic benefit” as carbon” protocol, which was recognized as an appropriate tool defined in economic theory and methodology (Watson et for NEPA analysis by the District of Colorado in High Country al. 2007, Kotchen 2011). Additionally, another person Conservation Advocates v. U.S. Forest Service, 52 F.Supp.3d may perceive increased economic activity as a ‘negative’ 1174 (D.Colo. 2014) impact due to potential in-migration of new people, competition for jobs, and concerns that newcomers will change the sense of community and community qualities that are important to herself/himself. Therefore, it is critical to distinguish that how people may perceive an economic impact is not the same as, nor should be interpreted as, a cost or a benefit as defined in a cost- benefit analysis.
A cost-benefit analysis is an approach used to determine economic efficiency by focusing on changes in social welfare by comparing whether the monetary benefits
14 Comment Commenter Comment Response Number gained by people from an action/policy are sufficient in order to compensate those made worse off and still achieve net benefits (Watson et al. 2007, Kotchen 2011). A cost-benefit analysis requires the identification and valuation of all the costs and benefits associated with an action/policy in a common monetary measure and is often expressed either as net benefits or as a cost-benefit ratio, which indicates the value of benefits obtained from each dollar of costs (Field 2008).
To summarize, cost-benefit analyses and regional economic impact analyses are very different methods that are focused on quantifying/monetizing different measures (social welfare and economic activity respectively) and are based upon differing assumptions and terminology and are not interchangeable. As such, results from an economic impact analysis are not considered benefits or costs (Watson et al. 2007). Furthermore, Watson et al. (2007) explicitly stated that an economic impact does not equate to any measure of net welfare change and that an economic impact analysis is not the same as a benefit- cost analysis, and the term ‘economic benefit’ should be used only in the context of cost-benefit analysis. The absence of any economic benefit information limits the usefulness of the social cost of carbon analysis as the information would not be placed in an appropriate context.
Furthermore, the court in High Country Conservation Advocates, et al. v. United States Forest Service, 52 F. Supp. 3d 1174 (D. Colo. 2014) did not order the agency to use the Social Cost of Carbon protocol. Rather, the Court held that the agency did not offer non-arbitrary reasons why the quantification of the lease modifications’ contribution to the social cost of carbon were abandoned in the FEIS. The Court determined that the agency did not demonstrate that it took a “hard look” at whether using the Social Cost of Carbon protocol should not have
15 Comment Commenter Comment Response Number been included in the FEIS when the protocol was included in the DEIS (Id. at 1191-1192).
There are different approaches that an agency can take to examine climate impacts associated with greenhouse gas emissions, with the social cost of carbon/greenhouse gases (SCC/SCGHG) estimates being just one metric that could be used. The BLM examined the possible use of social cost of carbon/greenhouse gas estimates and determined to use a different approach for this EA that includes a qualitative and quantified analysis of possible greenhouse gas emissions and narratively describes climate change trends at several scales including at national, regional, and state scales. The BLM took this approach for several reasons. First, the BLM did not engage in a cost-benefit analysis for this EA and has clarified that in the text.
Second, 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 2009a). 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
16 Comment Commenter Comment Response Number convey the potential climate impacts, the BLM quantifies the maximum estimated GHG emissions resulting from the project based on current data and reasonable forecasting. To ensure the public and decision-maker comprehend the scale of the estimate relative to other scales, calculated GHG emissions from Mesa County, Colorado, Federal onshore, Federal, and national oil and gas production were added. Total GHG emissions from the U.S. and the world are provided for a larger-scale reference. By providing the project's estimated GHG emissions with County, State, and nationwide GHG emissions, the reader establishes a frame of reference to meaningfully analyze the potential impacts of the local- scale project at the global-scale of climate change. Additionally, in Section 3.2.1.1 projected climate changes are qualitatively discussed including global, United States, regional and for the State of Colorado. Specifically, regionally, increased warming, drought and insect outbreaks are mentioned as well as the likely future decreases in annual streamflow for Colorado’s river basins as well as the likely increased wildfire risks and impacts. These discussions provide a narrative in a scale that is more relevant to the decision-maker and the general public since it provides more detailed specifics on potential implications to their everyday life. 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. This does not discount the quantified greenhouse gas emissions, but together the climate change discussions and quantified GHG emissions provide a meaningful and engaging way to connect the reader to more relevant impacts that then allow them to make the connections to the regional and global impacts. This approach effectively informs the decision-maker and the public of
17 Comment Commenter Comment Response Number future climate effects at a variety of scales, whereas the SCC/SCGHG metric would only provide the impact at the global scale. BLM must take a hard look at the impact of the GHG emissions disclosed in the Updated EA. BLM estimated that the project would result in 70,587.8 metric tons of annual direct GHG emissions. Updated EA at 61, 66. However, NEPA requires a more searching analysis than a mere disclosure of the amount of pollution emanating from a project site. Rather, BLM must examine the “ecological[,]… economic, [and] Western social” impacts of those emissions, including an assessment of their “significance.” 40 C.F.R. §§ 1508.8(b), 1502.16(a)-(b). Environmental 30. See also Sec. Order 3289 (requiring BLM to “appl[y] scientific See response to Comment #29 above. Law Center tools to increase understanding of climate change and to coordinate an effective response to its impacts,” and mandating that “management decision ns made in response to climate change impacts must be informed by [this] science.”). In particular, having included in the EA its assessment of the economic benefits from oil and gas leasing and development under the RMP, Updated EA at 168-69, BLM was obligated to also present available information about the economic downsides of the consequent GHG emissions. BLM asserts that such analysis is impossible. Updated EA at 66 (“Standardized protocols designed to measure factors that may contribute to climate change, and to quantify climatic impacts, are presently unavailable. Therefore, impact assessment of specific impacts related to anthropogenic activities on global climate change cannot be accurately Western estimated. Moreover, specific levels of significance have not Environmental yet been established by regulatory agencies.”); see also 31. See response to Comment # 29 above. Law Center Updated EA at 57-58 (“Given the global and complex nature of climate change, it is not possible to attribute a particular climate impact in any given region to GHG emissions from a particular source. The uncertainty in applying results from Global Climate Models to the regional or local scale (a process known as downscaling) limits our ability to quantify potential future impacts from GHGs emissions at this scale. When further information on the impacts of local emissions to
18 Comment Commenter Comment Response Number climate change is known, such information would be incorporated into USFS [sic] planning and NEPA documents as appropriate.”) These assertions do not justify BLM’s failure to provide any analysis of the severity of ecologic, economic, or social impacts, because at least one tool for doing so “is and was available: the social cost of carbon protocol,” which was “designed to quantify a project’s contribution to costs associated with global climate change.” High Country, 52 F.Supp.3d at 1190. the BLM fails to consider the indirect impacts of GHG emissions from the project, i.e. the impacts of combustion of the oil produced by the project. This is a significant oversight, as the potential GHG emission impact associated with the combustion of the produced oil appears to be substantial. The EA estimates that the Whitewater MDP would allow for production of up to 8.7 million barrels of oil over the 20-year Western life of the project. Updated EA at 3. Based on this figure, it Table 3.2-12, GHG emissions, was updated with a Environmental appears that indirect greenhouse gas emissions would be breakdown of GHG gases (CO2, CH4, and N2O), GWPs, 32. Law Center approximately 3,741,000 million metric tons over 20 years, or development and production emissions from the project, approximately 187,050 metric tons/year under the proposed and downstream emissions. action.124 This is a large amount of GHG emissions that the DEIS does not analyze or assess. Moreover, the BLM does not consider other hydrocarbons that may be produced, nor take into account gas that is flared, vented, or leaked. Direct methane emissions released to the atmosphere are much more powerful than CO2 in terms of their warming effect on the atmosphere. In 2014, the district court for the District of Colorado faulted the Forest Service for failing to calculate the social cost of carbon, refusing to accept the agency’s explanation that such a Western calculation was not feasible. High Country Conservation Advocates v. U.S. Forest Service, 52 F.Supp.3d 1174 (D.Colo. Environmental 33. 2014) (a decision the agency decided not to appeal, thus See response to Comment #29 above. Law Center implicitly recognizing the importance of incorporating a social cost of carbon analysis into NEPA decision-making). In his decision, Judge Jackson identified the IWG’s SCC protocol as a tool to “quantify a project’s contribution to costs associated with global climate change.” Id. at 1190.125 To fulfill this
19 Comment Commenter Comment Response Number mandate, the agency must disclose the “ecological[,] … economic, [and] social” impacts of the proposed action. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.8(b) Similarly, in 2017, the district court for the District of Montana similarly faulted the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) for failing to calculate the social cost of carbon, again refusing to accept the agency’s explanation that such a calculation was not possible. Montana Envtl. Info. Ctr. v. U.S. Office of Surface Mining, No. CV 15- 106-M-DWM, 2017 WL 3480262 (D. Mont. Aug. 14, 2017). In his decision, Judge Donald Molloy affirmed the Court’s determination in High Country Conservation Advocates that, Western contrary to the agency’s position, in light of the social cost of carbon protocol, it is possible to assess the effects of a specific Environmental 34. amount of CO2–equivalent emissions on global warming and See response to Comment #29 above. Law Center climate change. Id. at *13. The Court held that it is arbitrary and capricious for a federal agency in NEPA analysis to provide a quantitative analysis of the benefits of the proposed action (e.g. in dollars from job creation) while failing to provide a quantitative analysis of the costs of the proposed action (e.g. in dollars from climate costs) when such an analysis is possible, that is where a tool (the social cost of carbon) is available for such an analysis. Id. at *12-15. Simple calculations applying the SCC to GHG emissions from this project offer a straightforward comparative basis for analyzing impacts, and identifying very significant costs. Notably, according to the IPCC, the global warming potential (“GWP”) for methane over a 20-year timeframe—which is the relevant timeframe for consideration if we are to stem the Western worst of climate change—is 87.127 Here, BLM’s reliance on Table 3.2-12, GHG emissions, was updated with a an outdated GWP based on a 100- year timeframe of 25 breakdown of GHG gases (CO2, CH4, and N2O), GWPs, Environmental 35. significantly underestimates the magnitude of emissions. development and production emissions from the project, Law Center Updated EA at 61. BLM does not disclose how much of the and downstream emissions. A GWP of 36 was applied total of 70,587.8 metric tons of annual direct GHG emissions, based on IPCC's 100-year AR5 value (IPCC 2013). in CO2e is CH4, how much is CO2, and how much is N2O. BLM should provide this information. Without it, the public cannot assess the true impact of direct planning area emissions.
20 Comment Commenter Comment Response Number Moreover, critically, BLM has only provided direct planning area emissions. BLM fails to consider the environmental impacts of GHG emissions resulting from combustion or other end uses of the oil and gas extracted from the planning area. BLM should consider these impacts as part of its indirect Section 3.2.1.2 was updated with an estimate of effects analysis. Instead of considering these impacts, the downstream GHG emissions and then compared to Western agency remarkably concludes that: “The environmental calculated GHG emissions from oil and gas development impacts of GHG emissions from oil and gas refining and from at different scales. It is noted that the downstream GHG Environmental 36. consumption, such as from vehicle operations, are not effects emissions may not result in additional regional GHG Law Center of USFS [sic] actions related to oil and gas development emissions given that the project's produced oil may be because they do not occur at the same time and place as the used for the continuation of existing activities. In this action. Thus, GHG emissions from refining and consumption regard, background GHG emissions would be of oil and gas do not constitute a direct effect that is analyzed maintained. under NEPA. Similarly, refining and consumption of oil and gas is not considered an indirect effect of oil and gas production because production is not a proximate cause of those GHG emissions.” Updated EA at 58. Western Moreover, BLM measures the planning area’s GHG emissions Environmental against a baseline of regional and national GHG emissions, see 37. Law Center Updated EA at 66, thereby marginalizing the project’s See response to Comment #1 above. contribution to our climate crisis while concluding the agency is powerless to avoid or mitigate such impacts. Neither the BLM nor the COGCC have regulatory authority to require short-term, ad-hoc changes in Fram’s operations in relation to air quality alerts. The degree to which Fram’s activities might contribute to an air quality alert cannot be known, even at the time of the alert, given Mesa County The updated EA should include a requirement of notification the large number mobile and stationary sources of 38. Board of to Fram of any air quality alerts in the Grand Valley that might emission sources, many or most of which are closer in Commissioners be impacted by the project. proximity to the Colorado River valley. The air quality section of the EA (Section 3.2.1), and the detailed analysis that it includes, specifically anticipated periodic atmospheric inversions, which typically trigger such alerts. Roger Grant We would encourage the BLM to study ozone that might be This was addressed in the air quality analysis presented 39. Town of Palisade developed by the Whitewater exploration project. in Section 3.2.1 of the EA (Air Quality). Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the 40. Renee Brown Concerned about air quality EA regarding “Air Quality and Climate Change.”
21 Comment Commenter Comment Response Number Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the 41. Jessica Cerise Concerned about air quality EA regarding “Air Quality and Climate Change.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the 42. Pamela Chiaro Concerned about air quality EA regarding “Air Quality and Climate Change.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the 43. Carol Chowen Concerned about air quality EA regarding “Air Quality and Climate Change.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the 44. Phillip Coebergh Concerned about air quality EA regarding “Air Quality and Climate Change.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the 45. Janet Cummings Concerned about air quality EA regarding “Air Quality and Climate Change.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the 46. Walter Cummings Concerned about air quality EA regarding “Air Quality and Climate Change.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the 47. Kayla Dodson Concerned about air quality EA regarding “Air Quality and Climate Change.” Tina Elliott- Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the 48. Concerned about air quality Armstrong EA regarding “Air Quality and Climate Change.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the 49. Jon Esty Concerned about air quality EA regarding “Air Quality and Climate Change.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the 50. Emily Farrington Concerned about air quality EA regarding “Air Quality and Climate Change.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the 51. Richard Gauley Concerned about air quality EA regarding “Air Quality and Climate Change.” Rhea Gavry and Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the 52. Concerned about air quality Douglas Monroe EA regarding “Air Quality and Climate Change.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the 53. Jerald Halpin Concerned about air quality EA regarding “Air Quality and Climate Change.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the 54. Cristina Harmon Concerned about air quality EA regarding “Air Quality and Climate Change.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the 55. Janet Johnson Concerned about air quality EA regarding “Air Quality and Climate Change.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the 56. Charles Kerr Concerned about air quality EA regarding “Air Quality and Climate Change.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the 57. Piera Kllanxhja Concerned about air quality EA regarding “Air Quality and Climate Change.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the 58. Barbara Lee Concerned about air quality EA regarding “Air Quality and Climate Change.” 59. Mary McCutchan Concerned about air quality Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the
22 Comment Commenter Comment Response Number EA regarding “Air Quality and Climate Change.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the 60. Sue Mitchell Concerned about air quality EA regarding “Air Quality and Climate Change.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the 61. Mary Needham Concerned about air quality EA regarding “Air Quality and Climate Change.” Lance and Peg Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the 62. Concerned about air quality Oswald EA regarding “Air Quality and Climate Change.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the 63. Charlie Post Concerned about air quality EA regarding “Air Quality and Climate Change.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the 64. Joanie Post Concerned about air quality EA regarding “Air Quality and Climate Change.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the 65. Judy Prakken Concerned about air quality EA regarding “Air Quality and Climate Change.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the 66. Eric Rechel Concerned about air quality EA regarding “Air Quality and Climate Change.” Kriss Reiff and Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the 67. Concerned about air quality Charmaine Reiff EA regarding “Air Quality and Climate Change.” Robert Ricketts, Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the 68. Concerned about air quality MD EA regarding “Air Quality and Climate Change.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the 69. Clint Roberts Concerned about air quality EA regarding “Air Quality and Climate Change.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the 70. Donna Schultz Concerned about air quality EA regarding “Air Quality and Climate Change.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the 71. Kenneth Scissors Concerned about air quality EA regarding “Air Quality and Climate Change.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the 72. Peggy Shaw Concerned about air quality EA regarding “Air Quality and Climate Change.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the 73. Marin Stidham Concerned about air quality EA regarding “Air Quality and Climate Change.” Pauline Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the 74. Concerned about air quality Struckman EA regarding “Air Quality and Climate Change.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the 75. Mary Thom Concerned about air quality EA regarding “Air Quality and Climate Change.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the 76. Joan Woodward Concerned about air quality EA regarding “Air Quality and Climate Change.” Please see Comment Responses in Section 1.5.4 of the 77. Janet Wyatt Concerned about air quality EA regarding “Air Quality and Climate Change.”
23 Table 3 Fram WMDP – General BLM Response Regarding Social Cost of Carbon
The BLM has clarified terminology in Section 3.4.5 of the EA to elucidate that it in fact refers to impacts and not benefits. Economic impact analyses, such as were done for this EA, describe effects that agency activities may have on economic conditions and local economic activity, generally expressed as projected changes in employment, labor income, and economic output (Watson, Wilson, Thilmany, and Winter 2007). It is important to note that results from an economic impact analysis should not be considered as benefits or costs (Watson et al. 2007). Consequently, the increases in economic activity discussed in terms of revenue, employment, labor income, total value added, and output are simply the economic impacts associated with the alternatives. People, based upon their views and values, may perceive this increased economic activity as a ‘positive’ impact that they desire to have occur; however, that is very distinct from being an “economic benefit” as defined in economic theory and methodology (Watson et al. 2007, Kotchen 2011). Additionally, another person may perceive increased economic activity as a “negative” impact due to potential in-migration of new people, competition for jobs, and concerns that newcomers will change the sense of community and community qualities that are important to them. Therefore, it is critical to distinguish that how people may perceive an economic impact is not the same as, nor should be interpreted as, a cost or a benefit as defined in a cost-benefit analysis. A cost-benefit analysis is an approach used to determine economic efficiency by focusing on changes in social welfare by comparing whether the monetary benefits gained by people from an action/policy are sufficient in order to compensate those made worse off and still achieve net benefits (Watson et al. 2007, Kotchen 2011). A cost-benefit analysis requires the identification and valuation of all the costs and benefits associated with an action/policy in a common monetary measure and is often expressed either as net benefits or as a cost-benefit ratio, which indicates the value of benefits obtained from each dollar of costs (Field 2008). To summarize, cost-benefit analyses and regional economic impact analyses are very different methods that are focused on quantifying/monetizing different measures (social welfare and economic activity, respectively), are based upon differing assumptions and terminology, and are not interchangeable. As such, results from an economic impact analysis are not considered benefits or costs (Watson et al. 2007). Furthermore, Watson et al. (2007) explicitly stated that an economic impact does not equate to any measure of net welfare change and that an economic impact analysis is not the same as a benefit-cost analysis, and that the term “economic benefit” should be used only in the context of cost-benefit analysis. The absence of any economic benefit information limits the usefulness of the social cost of carbon analysis, as the information would not be placed in an appropriate context. Furthermore, the court in High Country Conservation Advocates, et al. v. United States Forest Service, 52 F. Supp. 3d 1174 (D. Colo. 2014) did not order the agency to use the Social Cost of Carbon protocol. Rather, the Court held that the agency did not offer non-arbitrary reasons why the quantification of the contribution of lease modifications to the social cost of carbon was abandoned in the FEIS. The Court determined that the agency did not demonstrate that it took a “hard look” at whether using the Social Cost of Carbon protocol should not have been included in the FEIS when the protocol was included in the DEIS (Id. at 1191-1192). There are different approaches that an agency can take to examine climate impacts associated with greenhouse gas emissions, with the social cost of carbon/greenhouse gas (SCC/SCGHG) estimates being just one metric that could be used. The BLM examined the possible use of social cost of carbon/greenhouse gas estimates and determined to use a different approach for this EA that includes a qualitative and quantified analysis of possible greenhouse gas emissions and narratively describes climate change trends at several scales, including national, regional, and state scales. The BLM took this approach for several reasons. The BLM did not engage in a cost-benefit analysis for this EA and has clarified that in the text. 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 that 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); presents the science and technical aspects in an
1 engaging way such as narratives about the potential implications of the climate impacts (Corner, Lewandowsky, Phillips, and Roberts 2015); and uses examples to 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 quantifies the maximum estimated GHG emissions resulting from the project based on current data and reasonable forecasting. To ensure that the public and decision-maker comprehend the scale of the estimate relative to other scales, calculated GHG emissions from Mesa County, Colorado, Federal onshore, Federal, and national oil and gas production were added. Total GHG emissions from the U.S. and the world are provided for a larger-scale reference. By providing the project's estimated GHG emissions with County, State, and nationwide GHG emissions, the reader establishes a frame of reference to meaningfully analyze the potential impacts of the local- scale project at the global-scale of climate change. Additionally, in Section 3.2.1.1 projected climate changes are qualitatively discussed including global, United States, regional, and for the State of Colorado. Specifically, regionally, increased warming, drought, and insect outbreaks are mentioned as well as the likely future decreases in annual streamflow for Colorado’s river basins and the likely increased wildfire risks and impacts. These discussions provide a narrative in a scale that is more relevant to the decision-maker and the general public, since it provides more detailed specifics on potential implications to their everyday life. 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. This does not discount the quantified greenhouse gas emissions, but together the climate change discussions and quantified GHG emissions provide a meaningful and engaging way to connect the reader to more relevant impacts that then allow them to make the connections to the regional and global impacts. This approach effectively informs the decision-maker and the public of future climate effects at a variety of scales, whereas the SCC/SCGHG metric would only provide the impact at the global scale.
References Cited: 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 Field, B.C. (2008). Natural resource economics: An introduction, second edition: Illinois, Waveland Press, Inc. Kotchen, M.J. (2011). Cost-benefit analysis. Chapter in: Encyclopedia of climate and weather, Second edition. Schneider, S.H., editor-in-chief. New York, Oxford University Press: pp 312-315. 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. Watson, P., Wilson, J., Thilmany, D., and Winter, S. (2007). Determining economic contributions and impacts: What is the difference and why do we care? The Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy 37(2):140–146.
2 Left blank for two-sided copying.
Appendix C Lease Stipulations
Fram Whitewater MDP Lease Stipulations
Effective Affected Portions of lease Lease Date of Well Pad Stipulations Number Lease COC-61847 06/01/1998 Federal 2-2-2-1 Applies to all lands included in lease: Scenic & Natural Values (2GI): Special design and T2S, R2E Sec. 2: Lot 1-4 reclamation measures may be required to protect outstanding Sec. 2: SWNW Sec. 2: S2N2, SW, NWSE scenic and natural landscape values of the Grand Mesa Sec. 3: Lot 1-4 Slopes. Sec. 3: S2N2, S2 Special design and reclamation measures may include transplanting trees and shrubs, fertilization, mulching, special erosion control structures, irrigation, site recontouring to match the original contour, buried tanks and low profile equipment, and painting to minimize visual contrasts. Surface disturbing activities may be denied in sensitive areas, such as unique geologic features and rock formations, visually prominent areas, and high recreation use areas.
Stipulation may be waived or reduced in scope if circumstances change or if lessee can demonstrate that operations can be conducted without causing unacceptable impacts on the concern(s) identified.
Applies to all lands included in lease: Known Cultural Resource Value (5HH): Surface-disturbing Sec. 2: Lot 1-4 activities must avoid this area unless mitigation of impacts is Sec. 2: S2N2, SW, NWSE agreed to by the authorized officer. Where impacts cannot be Sec. 3: Lot 1-4 mitigated to the satisfaction of the authorized officer, surface Sec. 3: S2N2, S2 occupancy or that area must be prohibited.
T2S, R2E Perennial Streams Water Quality Stipulation (7BE): In Sec. 2: NWSE, SW order to reduce impacts to water quality, surface-disturbing Sec. 3: SE, SESW activities within 100 feet of perennial streams is limited to Lease stipulation does not apply to essential roads and utility crossings. well pad location, applies to access road.
1 Effective Affected Portions of lease Lease Date of Well Pad Stipulations Number Lease COC-62810 06/01/1999 Federal 12-97-30-1 T12S, R97W No Surface Occupancy (1BC): No occupancy or other T12S, R97W Sec. 30: All activity will be allowed on the following portions of this lease to Sec. 30: SENE Sec. 33: Lots 9, 17 protect water quality on the Grand Junction municipal watershed.
This stipulation may be waived or reduced in scope if circumstances change, or if the lease can demonstrate that operations can be conducted without causing unacceptable impacts on the concern(s) identified. If this stipulation is waived or reduced in scope, any of the other attached stipulations (if any) may impact operations on this lease.
Applies to all lands included in lease: Scenic & Natural Values (2GI): Special design and T12, R97W reclamation measures may be required to protect outstanding Sect. 30: Lots 5, 7-11, 13, 14, 16, NE, scenic and natural landscape values of the Grand Mesa SENW, NESW Slopes. Sec. 32: Lots 1, 2, NWNE, TR 41, Lot 12 Sec. 33: Lots 1-4, 9, 16, 17 Special design and reclamation measures may include transplanting trees and shrubs, fertilization, mulching, special erosion control structures, irrigation, site recontouring to match the original contour, buried tanks and low profile equipment, and painting to minimize visual contrasts. Surface disturbing activities may be denied in sensitive areas, such as unique geologic features and rock formations, visually prominent areas, and high recreation use areas.
Stipulation may be waived or reduced in scope if circumstances change or if lessee can demonstrate that operations can be conducted without causing unacceptable impacts on the concern(s) identified.
2
Effective Affected Portions of lease Lease Date of Well Pad Stipulations Number Lease Applies to all lands included in lease: Deer & Elk Winter Range (12DA): In order to protect T12, R97W important seasonal wildlife habitat, lease activities such as Sect. 30: Lots 5, 7-11, 13, 14, 16, NE, exploration, drilling, and other development will be allowed SENW, NESW only during the period from May 1 to December 1. Sec. 32: Lots 1, 2, NWNE, TR 41, Lot 12 Sec. 33: Lots 1-4, 9, 16, 17 Stipulation may be waived or reduced in scope if circumstances change or if lessee can demonstrate that operations can be conducted without causing unacceptable impacts.
T12S, R97W Perennial Streams Water Quality Stipulation (7BE): In Sec. 33: Lot 9 order to reduce impacts to water quality, surface-disturbing Lease stipulation does not apply to activities within 100 feet of perennial streams is limited to Project Location essential roads and utility crossings.
T.12S, R97W Special Stipulation (13ED): The following portions of this Sec. 30: NENE lease are known habitat for the formerly endangered and Sec. 32: Lots 1, 2 currently sensitive plant, Spinless Hedgehog Cactus. The Sec. 33: All operator/lessee may be required to perform mitigation Lease stipulation does not apply to Project Location including, but not limited to the relocation of proposed surface disturbance to avoid the cacti if present.
T12S, R97W Steep Slopes (3JA): This lease may include land with greater Sec. 33: Lots 2, 16, 17 than 40 percent slopes. In order to avoid or mitigate Lease stipulation does not apply to unacceptable impacts to soil, water, and vegetation resources Project Location on these lands, special design practices may be necessary and higher than normal costs may result. Where impacts cannot be mitigated to the satisfaction of the authorized officer, no surface-disturbing activities shall be allowed.
3 Lease Effective Affected Portions of lease Stipulations Number Date of Well Pad Lease COC-62814 06/01/1999 Federal 12-98-24-2 Applies to all lands included in lease: Deer & Elk Winter Range (12DA): In order to protect T12S, R98W T12S, R98W important seasonal wildlife habitat, lease activities such as Sec. 24: SWNW Sec. 23: Lots 1-3 exploration, drilling, and other development will be allowed Sec. 24: N2, N2SW, W2SE only during the period from May 1 to December 1. Sec. 25: SESE Sec. 25: NWNE, S2NE, E2NW, NWNW Stipulation may be waived or reduced in scope if circumstances change or if lessee can demonstrate that operations can be conducted without causing unacceptable impacts. Limitation does not apply of maintenance and operation of producing wells.
Applies to all lands included in lease: Scenic & Natural Values (2GI): Special design and T12S, R98W reclamation measures may be required to protect outstanding Sec. 23: Lots 1-3 scenic and natural landscape values of the Grand Mesa Sec. 24: N2, N2SW, W2SE Slopes. Sec. 25: SESE Sec. 25: NWNE, S2NE, E2NW, NWNW Special design and reclamation measures may include transplanting trees and shrubs, fertilization, mulching, special erosion control structures, irrigation, site recontouring to match the original contour, buried tanks and low profile equipment, and painting to minimize visual contrasts. Surface disturbing activities may be denied in sensitive areas, such as unique geologic features and rock formations, visually prominent areas, and high recreation use areas.
Stipulation may be waived or reduced in scope if circumstances change or if lessee can demonstrate that operations can be conducted without causing unacceptable impacts on the concern(s) identified.
4
Lease Effective Affected Portions of lease Stipulations Number Date of Well Pad Lease T12S, R98W No Surface Occupancy (1BC): No occupancy or other Sec. 25: SESE, SENE activity will be allowed on the portions listed. Lease stipulation does not apply to Project Location T12S, R98W Special Stipulation (13ED): The following portions of this Sec. 24: NENE lease are known habitat for the formerly endangered and Lease stipulation does not apply to currently sensitive plant, Spinless Hedgehog Cactus. The Project Location operator/lessee may be required to perform mitigation including, but not limited to the relocation of proposed surface disturbance to avoid the cacti if present.
COC-63027 01/01/2000 Federal 13-97-8-2 T13S, R97W Scenic & Natural Values (2GI): Special design and T13S, R97W Sec. 7: E2, NESW reclamation measures may be required to protect outstanding Sec. 8: SWNE Sec. 8: All scenic and natural landscape values of the Grand Mesa Sec. 17: All Slopes. Sec. 18: E2, E2W2
Special design and reclamation measures may include transplanting trees and shrubs, fertilization, mulching, special erosion control structures, irrigation, site recontouring to match the original contour, buried tanks and low profile equipment, and painting to minimize visual contrasts. Surface disturbing activities may be denied in sensitive areas, such as unique geologic features and rock formations, visually prominent areas, and high recreation use areas.
Stipulation may be waived or reduced in scope if circumstances change or if lessee can demonstrate that operations can be conducted without causing unacceptable impacts on the concern(s) identified.
T13S, R97W Deer & Elk Winter Range (12DA): In order to protect Sec. 7: E2, NESW important seasonal wildlife habitat, le ase activities such as Sec. 8: All exploration, drilling, and other development will be allowed Sec. 17: All
5
Lease Effective Affected Portions of lease Stipulations Number Date of Well Pad Lease only during the period from May 1 to December 1.
Stipulation may be waived or reduced in scope if circumstances change or if lessee can demonstrate that operations can be conducted without causing unacceptable impacts. Limitation does not apply of maintenance and operation of producing wells.
T13S, R97W Threatened and Endangered Habitat - Spineless Hedgehog Sec. 8: S2NE, SESW, SE Cactus (13ED): The listed portions of this lease are known Sec. 17: E2, E2NW, NWNW habitat for the formerly endangered and currently sensitive Sec. 18: E2SW, SE species. The lessee may be required to perform mitigation including, but not limited to, relocation of proposed surface disturbance to avoid this cacti, if present.
T13S, R97W No Surface Occupancy (1HA): No occupancy or other Sec. 17: SW activity will be allowed on the portions listed for the protection Sec. 18: SENW, E2SW, SE of cultural resources at the Indian Creek site. Lease stipulation does not apply to Project Location COC-63033 01/01/2000 Federal 13-98-12-2 T13S, R98W Scenic and Natural Values (2GI): Special design and T13S, R98W Sec. 1: All reclamation measures may be required to protect the Sec. 12: NENE Sec. 12: W1NE, SENW outstanding scenic and natural landscape value of the portions Lease stipulation does not apply to of the lease. This well pad and Project Location. associated access T13S, R98W Threatened and Endangered Habitat - Spineless Hedgehog road is also on lands Sec. 13: All covered by lease Cactus (13ED): The listed portions of this lease are known Lease stipulation does not apply to COC-63027, however, habitat for the formerly endangered and currently sensitive no stipulations from Project Location. species. The lessee may be required to perform mitigation that lease apply here. including, but not limited to, relocation of proposed surface disturbance to avoid this cacti, if present.
6 Lease Effective Affected Portions of lease Stipulations Number Date of Well Pad Lease COC-63929 09/01/2000 Federal 12-97-7-1 Applies to all lands included in lease: Scenic & Natural Values (2GI): Special design and T12S, R97W T12S, R97W reclamation measures may be required to protect outstanding Sec. 7: NWSW Sec. 7: E2, E2W2 scenic and natural landscape values of the Grand Mesa Sec. 7: Lots 5-8 Slopes.
Special design and reclamation measures may include transplanting trees and shrubs, fertilization, mulching, special erosion control structures, irrigation, site recontouring to match the original contour, buried tanks and low profile equipment, and painting to minimize visual contrasts. Surface disturbing activities may be denied in sensitive areas, such as unique geologic features and rock formations, visually prominent areas, and high recreation use areas.
Stipulation may be waived or reduced in scope if circumstances change or if lessee can demonstrate that operations can be conducted without causing unacceptable impacts on the concern(s) identified.
Applies to all lands included in lease: Deer & Elk Winter Range (12DA): In order to protect T12S, R97W important seasonal wildlife habitat, lease activities such as Sec. 7: E2, E2W2 exploration, drilling, and other development will be allowed Sec. 7: Lots 5-8 only during the period from May 1 to December 1.
Stipulation may be waived or reduced in scope if circumstances change or if lessee can demonstrate that operations can be conducted without causing unacceptable impacts. Limitation does not apply of maintenance and operation of producing wells.
7 Lease Effective Affected Portions of lease Stipulations Number Date of Well Pad Lease Applies to all lands included in lease: Threatened and Endangered Habitat - Spineless Hedgehog T12S, R97W Cactus (13ED): The listed portions of this lease are within Sec. 7: E2, E2W2 known threatened and endangered species habitat. Sec. 7: Lots 5-8 The lessee/operator shall submit a plan for avoidance or mitigation of impacts on the identified species to the authorized officer. This may require completion of an intensive inventory by a qualified biologist. The plan must be approved prior to any surface disturbance. The authorized officer may require additional mitigation measures such as relocation of proposed roads, drilling sites, or other facilities. Where impacts cannot be mitigated to the satisfaction of the authorized officer, surface occupancy on that area must be prohibited.
T12S, R97W Perennial Streams Water Quality Stipulation (7BE): In Sec. 7: Lot 6 order to reduce impacts to water quality, surface-disturbing Sec. 7: N2NE, SWSE, SENW activities within 100 feet of perennial streams is limited to Lease stipulation does not apply to essential roads and utility crossings. Project Location
COC-64949 06/01/2001 Federal 1-2-15-1 Applies to all lands included in lease: Scenic & Natural Values (2GI): Special design and T1S, R2E T1S, R2E reclamation measures may be required to protect outstanding Sec. 15: SENE Sec. 13: SW, S2SE scenic and natural landscape values of the Grand Mesa Sec. 14: All Slopes. Sec. 15: All Special design and reclamation measures may include transplanting trees and shrubs, fertilization, mulching, special erosion control structures, irrigation, site recontouring to match the original contour, buried tanks and low profile equipment, and painting to minimize visual contrasts. Surface disturbing activities may be denied in sensitive areas, such as unique
8 Lease Effective Affected Portions of lease Stipulations Number Date of Well Pad Lease geologic features and rock formations, visually prominent areas, and high recreation use areas.
Stipulation may be waived or reduced in scope if circumstances change or if lessee can demonstrate that operations can be conducted without causing unacceptable impacts on the concern(s) identified.
T1S, R2E Known Cultural Resource Value (5HH): Surface-disturbing Sec. 13: SW, S2SE activities must avoid this area unless mitigation of impacts is Sec. 15: All agreed to by the authorized officer. Where impacts cannot be mitigated to the satisfaction of the authorized officer, surface occupancy or that area must be prohibited.
T1S, R2E Deer and Elk Winter Range (12DA & 12DB): In order to Sec. 13: S2SE, SW protect important seasonal wildlife habitat, lease activities such Sec. 14: E2, E2W2 as exploration, drilling, and other development will be allowed Lease stipulation does not apply to only during the period from May 01 to December 01 on the Project location. listed portions of the lease.
T1S, R2E Steep Slopes (3JA): This lease may include land with greater Sec. 14: NENW, NESE, SWSE than 40 percent slopes. In order to avoid or mitigate Sec. 34: NWNW, E2SW unacceptable impacts to soil, water, and vegetation resources Lease stipulation does not apply to on these lands, special design practices may be necessary Project location. and higher than normal costs may result. Where impacts cannot be mitigated to the satisfaction of the authorized officer, no surface-disturbing activities shall be allowed.
9
Lease Effective Affected Portions of lease Stipulations Number Date of Well Pad Lease T1S, R2E No Surface Occupancy (1GH): No occupancy or other Sec. 13: SESW, S2SE activity will be allowed on the portions of the lease listed. For Lease stipulation does not apply to the purpose of protecting the Scenic Bookcliffs (VRM) Project location. COC-64950 06/01/2001 Federal 1-2-16-1 Applies to all lands included in lease: Scenic & Natural Values (2GI): Special design and T1S, R2E T1S, R2E reclamation measures may be required to protect outstanding Sec. 16: NESE Sec. 16: S2NE, SENW, S2SWNW, S2 scenic and natural landscape values of the Grand Mesa Sec. 21: E2, SWNW Slopes. Federal 1-2-22-1 Sec. 22: N2NE, NW Sec. 23: NE, N2NW, SENW, SWSW, T1S, R2E Special design and reclamation measures may include E2SE Sec. 22: NENW transplanting trees and shrubs, fertilization, mulching, special erosion control structures, irrigation, site recontouring to match the original contour, buried tanks and low profile equipment, and painting to minimize visual contrasts. Surface disturbing activities may be denied in sensitive areas, such as unique geologic features and rock formations, visually prominent areas, and high recreation use areas.
Stipulation may be waived or reduced in scope if circumstances change or if lessee can demonstrate that operations can be conducted without causing unacceptable impacts on the concern(s) identified
T1S, R2E Known Cultural Resource Value (5HH): Surface-disturbing Sec. 16: S2NE, SENW, S2SWNW, S2 activities must avoid this area unless mitigation of impacts is Sec. 21: E2 agreed to by the authorized officer. Where impacts cannot be Sec. 22: NE, N2NW, SENW, E2SW mitigated to the satisfaction of the authorized officer, surface Sec. 23: NE, N2NW, SENW, E2SE occupancy or that area must be prohibited.
T1S, R2E Threatened and Endangered Habitat – Uinta Basin Sec.22: NW Hookless Cactus (12EE): The listed portions of this lease are within known threatened and endangered species habitat.
10
Lease Effective Affected Portions of lease Stipulations Number Date of Well Pad Lease The lessee/operator shall submit a plan for avoidance or mitigation of impacts on the identified species to the authorized officer. This may require completion of an intensive inventory by a qualified biologist. The plan must be approved prior to any surface disturbance. The authorized officer may require additional mitigation measures such as relocation of proposed roads, drilling sites, or other facilities. Where impacts cannot be mitigated to the satisfaction of the authorized officer, surface occupancy on that area must be prohibited.
T1S, R2E Deer and Elk Winter Range (12DA): In order to protect Sec. 23: NE, E2NW important seasonal wildlife habitat, lease activities such as Lease stipulation does not apply to exploration, drilling, and other development will be allowed Project location. only during the period from May 01 to December 01 on the listed portions of the lease.
T1S, R2E Steep Slopes (3JA): This lease may include land with greater Sec. 23: NENW than 40 percent slopes. In order to avoid or mitigate Lease stipulation does not apply to unacceptable impacts to soil, water, and vegetation resources Project location. on these lands, special design practices may be necessary and higher than normal costs may result. Where impacts cannot be mitigated to the satisfaction of the authorized officer, no surface-disturbing activities shall be allowed.
COC-64951 06/01/2001 Federal 1-2-25-2 T1S, R2E No Surface Occupancy (1GH): No occupancy or other T1S, R2E Sec. 24: E2, E2NW, NESW activity will be allowed on the following portions of this lease to Sec. 25: NENE Sec. 25: NENE protect the Scenic Book Cliffs, Visual Resource Management.
This stipulation may be waived or reduced in scope if circumstances change, or if the lease can demonstrate that operations can be conducted without causing unacceptable impacts on the concern(s) identified. If this stipulation is waived or reduced in scope, any of the other attached
11 Lease Effective Affected Portions of lease Stipulations Number Date of Well Pad Lease stipulations (if any) may impact operations on this lease.
Applies to all lands included in lease: Scenic & Natural Values (2GI): Special design and T1S, R2E reclamation measures may be required to protect outstanding Sec. 24: All scenic and natural landscape values of the Grand Mesa Sec. 25: All Slopes.
Special design and reclamation measures may include transplanting trees and shrubs, fertilization, mulching, special erosion control structures, irrigation, site recontouring to match the original contour, buried tanks and low profile equipment, and painting to minimize visual contrasts. Surface disturbing activities may be denied in sensitive areas, such as unique geologic features and rock formations, visually prominent areas, and high recreation use areas.
Stipulation may be waived or reduced in scope if circumstances change or if lessee can demonstrate that operations can be conducted without causing unacceptable impacts on the concern(s) identified.
T1S, R2E Deer & Elk Winter Range (12DA & 12DB): In order to protect Sec. 24: S2NE, W2, SE, N2NE important seasonal wildlife habitat, lease activities such as Sec. 25: S2, N2 exploration, drilling, and other development will be allowed only during the period from May 1 to December 1.
Stipulation may be waived or reduced in scope if circumstances change or if lessee can demonstrate that operations can be conducted without causing unacceptable impacts. Limitation does not apply of maintenance and operation of producing wells.
12
Lease Effective Affected Portions of lease Stipulations Number Date of Well Pad Lease Applies to all lands included in lease: Known Cultural Resource Value (5HH): Surface-disturbing T1S, R2E activities must avoid this area unless mitigation of impacts is Sec. 24: All agreed to by the authorized officer. Where impacts cannot be Sec. 25: All mitigated to the satisfaction of the authorized officer, surface occupancy or that area must be prohibited.
T1S, R2E Steep Slopes (3JA): This lease may include land with greater Sec. 25: SWNE, NWSE, SESE than 40 percent slopes. In order to avoid or mitigate Lease stipulation does not apply to unacceptable impacts to soil, water, and vegetation resources Project location. on these lands, special design practices may be necessary and higher than normal costs may result. Where impacts cannot be mitigated to the satisfaction of the authorized officer, no surface-disturbing activities shall be allowed.
T1S, R2E Threatened and Endangered Habitat – Uinta Basin Sec. 24: N2NW Hookless Cactus (13EE): The listed portions of this lease are Lease stipulation does not apply to within known threatened and endangered species habitat. Project location. The lessee/operator shall submit a plan for avoidance or mitigation of impacts on the identified species to the authorized officer. This may require completion of an intensive inventory by a qualified biologist. The plan must be approved prior to any surface disturbance. The authorized officer may require additional mitigation measures such as relocation of proposed roads, drilling sites, or other facilities. Where impacts cannot be mitigated to the satisfaction of the authorized officer, surface occupancy on that area must be prohibited.
13
Lease Effective Affected Portions of lease Stipulations Number Date of Well Pad Lease COC-64952 06/01/2001 Federal 1-2-26-2 Applies to all lands included in lease: Scenic & Natural Values (2GI): Special design and T1S, R2E T1S, R2E reclamation measures may be required to protect outstanding Sec. 26: NWNE Sec. 26: NE, N2NW, NESE scenic and natural landscape values of the Grand Mesa Sec. 27: NENE Slopes. Federal 1-2-33-1 Sec. 28: SENW T1S, R2E Sec. 33: S2NE, W2, SE Special design and reclamation measures may include Sec. 33: NESW Sec. 34: SWNW, SWSW Sec. 35: W2SW, SESW, SWSE transplanting trees and shrubs, fertilization, mulching, special Sec. 36: NE, E2NW, NWNW, N2SE erosion control structures, irrigation, site recontouring to match the original contour, buried tanks and low profile equipment, and painting to minimize visual contrasts. Surface disturbing activities may be denied in sensitive areas, such as unique geologic features and rock formations, visually prominent areas, and high recreation use areas.
Stipulation may be waived or reduced in scope if circumstances change or if lessee can demonstrate that operations can be conducted without causing unacceptable impacts on the concern(s) identified.
T10S, R20E Known Cultural Resource Value (5HH): Surface-disturbing Sec. 26: NE, N2NW, NESE activities must avoid this area unless mitigation of impacts is Sec. 27: NENE agreed to by the authorized officer. Where impacts cannot be
mitigated to the satisfaction of the authorized officer, surface occupancy or that area must be prohibited.
T10S, R20E Threatened and Endangered Habitat – Black Footed Ferret Sec. 33: SW (13EC): The listed portions of this lease are within known threatened and endangered species habitat.
The lessee/operator shall submit a plan for avoidance or mitigation of impacts on the identified species to the authorized officer. This may require completion of an intensive inventory by a qualified biologist. The plan must be approved prior to
14 Lease Effective Affected Portions of lease Stipulations Number Date of Well Pad Lease any surface disturbance. The authorized officer may require additional mitigation measures such as relocation of proposed roads, drilling sites, or other facilities. Where impacts cannot be mitigated to the satisfaction of the authorized officer, surface occupancy on that area must be prohibited.
T1S, R2E Steep Slopes (3JA): This lease may include land with greater Sec. 36: NENE, SWNE than 40 percent slopes. In order to avoid or mitigate Lease stipulation does not apply to unacceptable impacts to soil, water, and vegetation resources Project location. on these lands, special design practices may be necessary and higher than normal costs may result. Where impacts cannot be mitigated to the satisfaction of the authorized officer, no surface-disturbing activities shall be allowed.
T1S, R2E Deer & Elk Winter Range (12DA): In order to protect Sec. 36: NE, E2NW, NWNW, N2SE important seasonal wildlife habitat, lease activities such as Lease stipulation does not apply to exploration, drilling, and other development will be allowed Project location. only during the period from May 1 to December 1.
Stipulation may be waived or reduced in scope if circumstances change or if lessee can demonstrate that operations can be conducted without causing unacceptable impacts. Limitation does not apply of maintenance and operation of producing wells.
15
Lease Effective Affected Portions of lease Stipulations Number Date of Well Pad Lease COC-62811 06/01/1999 Access Road to T13S, R97W Scenic & Natural Values (2GI): Special design and Federal 13-98-12-2 & Sec. 4: All reclamation measures may be required to protect outstanding 13-97-8-2 Sec. 5: All scenic and natural landscape values of the Grand Mesa Sec. 6: S2NE, SE, E2SW Slopes. T13S, R97W Sec. 6: SW1/4 Special design and reclamation measures may include transplanting trees and shrubs, fertilization, mulching, special erosion control structures, irrigation, site recontouring to match the original contour, buried tanks and low profile equipment, and painting to minimize visual contrasts. Surface disturbing activities may be denied in sensitive areas, such as unique geologic features and rock formations, visually prominent areas, and high recreation use areas.
Stipulation may be waived or reduced in scope if circumstances change or if lessee can demonstrate that operations can be conducted without causing unacceptable impacts on the concern(s) identified.
T13S, R97W Deer & Elk Winter Range (12DA): In order to protect Sec. 4: All important seasonal wildlife habitat, lease activities such as Sec. 5: All exploration, drilling, and other development will be allowed Sec. 6: S2NE, NW, E2SW only during the period from May 1 to December 1.
Stipulation may be waived or reduced in scope if circumstances change or if lessee can demonstrate that operations can be conducted without causing unacceptable impacts. Limitation does not apply of maintenance and operation of producing wells.
16 Lease Effective Affected Portions of lease Stipulations Number Date of Well Pad Lease T13S, R97W Threatened and Endangered Habitat - Spineless Hedgehog Sec. 4: Lots 1-3 Cactus (13ED): The listed portions of this lease are within Sec. 4: S2NE, S2 known threatened and endangered species habitat. Sec. 5: SESE Lease stipulation does not apply to The lessee/operator shall submit a plan for avoidance or Project location. mitigation of impacts on the identified species to the authorized officer. This may require completion of an intensive inventory by a qualified biologist. The plan must be approved prior to any surface disturbance. The authorized officer may require additional mitigation measures such as relocation of proposed roads, drilling sites, or other facilities. Where impacts cannot be mitigated to the satisfaction of the authorized officer, surface occupancy on that area must be prohibited.
T13S, R97W Steep Slopes (3JA): This lease may include land with greater Sec. 4: Lots 3, 4 than 40 percent slopes. In order to avoid or mitigate Sec. 4: S2NE, SENW, SE unacceptable impacts to soil, water, and vegetation resources Sec. 5: SWNW, SWSW, SESE on these lands, special design practices may be necessary Lease stipulation does not apply to Project location. and higher than normal costs may result. Where impacts cannot be mitigated to the satisfaction of the authorized officer, no surface-disturbing activities shall be allowed.
17
Appendix D BLM Surface-Use Conditions of Approval
Left blank for two-sided copying. BLM GJFO GENERAL SURFACE-USE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Company/Operator: Fram Operating, LLC Federal Lease: Whitewater Unit Updated Master Development Plan Date: June 2014 (Updated February 2018)
The following general surface-use COAs are in addition to all stipulations attached to the respective Federal lease. Site-specific COAs may be applied to specific projects or project-components with conditions that warrant special protections in addition to the general protections listed below. 1. Administrative Notification Requirements. The operator shall notify the BLM representative at least 48 hours prior to initiation of construction or reclamation activities. A pre-construction meeting may be scheduled to review all conditions and or stipulations with the operator. Complete copies of all applicable permits, shall be kept on site during construction and drilling activities. All on-site personnel shall review the approved permit with the COAs before working on the project. 2. Fire. The operator shall implement measures to prevent fires on public and private land and shall be held responsible for the costs of suppressing fires on public lands that result from the actions of its employees, contractors, or subcontractors. Range or forest fires caused or observed by the operator’s employees, contractors, or subcontractors shall be immediately reported to the BLM Grand Junction Dispatch 970-257-4800. All fires or explosions that cause damage to property or equipment, loss of oil or gas, or injuries to personnel shall immediately be reported to the BLM Dispatch and the BLM Grand Junction Field Office at 970-244-3000. During conditions of extreme fire danger, surface-use operations may be restricted or suspended in specific areas, or additional measures may be required by the BLM. In cases of fire hazard, the BLM may require adaptive management techniques to minimize risks. 3. Other Permits. This authorization is contingent upon receipt of and compliance with all applicable Federal, state, county, municipal, and local permits, including all necessary environmental clearances and permits (Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Forest Service, Colorado Department of Transportation, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, County Health and Road Departments, and Municipalities). 4. Existing Uses. The operator shall obtain agreements allowing construction and maintenance with all existing right-of-way holders, authorized users, and pipeline operators prior to surface disturbance or construction of a location or access across or adjacent to any existing or approved rights-of-way or pipelines. In the case of privately owned surface, the operator shall certify to BLM that a Surface Use Agreement has been reached with the private surface owners prior to commencing construction and that the owner has been provided a copy of the Surface Use Plan of Operations (SUPO) required as part of a Federal APD. If Agreement cannot be reached, the operator shall comply with provisions of the laws or regulations governing the Federal right of re-entry to the surface (43 CFR 3814). 5. Nesting Migratory Birds. New surface disturbance, especially vegetation removal, shall not be allowed between May 15 and July 15, to prevent potential taking of migratory birds and/or eggs, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Grand Junction Field Manager. If surface disturbance is proposed during this period, a written request for exception and a migratory bird survey shall be
1 submitted for approval prior to any surface disturbance. If vegetation removal is accomplished prior to May 15, exception may be granted to allow project activities to proceed during the closure period. Any bird found dead, injured, or apparently ill, especially in or near a pit, trench, tank, exhaust stack, or fence shall immediately be reported to the BLM, at 970-244-3000. Open metal or plastic pipes or posts shall be permanently filled or capped, to prevent bird entrapment. All production equipment with a chimney, vent, or stack shall be fitted with a device such as an excluder cone that prevents birds and small mammals from entering or perching on any part of the chimney. Flat screens inside stacks are insufficient protection. All open top tanks and pits shall be covered or netted to eliminate any hazard to birds and flying mammals (CERCLA Section 101(14)). 6. Federally Protected Species Notifications. Any dead or injured migratory bird, bald or golden eagle, or species listed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) as threatened or endangered, that is found in or adjacent to a pit, trench, tank, exhaust stack, or fence shall immediately be reported to the FWS at: Creed Clayton, USFWS, 445 West Gunnison Avenue, Suite 240, Grand Junction, CO 81501; [email protected] and to the Grand Junction Field Office at 970-244-3000. 7. Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. The operator shall obtain appropriate permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) prior to discharging fill material into Waters of the U.S. (WoUS) in accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. WoUS are defined in 33 CFR Section 328.3 and may include wetlands as well as perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams. Impacts to WoUS may require mitigation. Copies of any approved USACE permits or verification letters shall be forwarded to the BLM prior to commencing permitted work. When activity in a wetland is unavoidable, the operator may be required to prevent disturbance by use of wooden or other protective mats and shall restore all temporarily disturbed wetlands or riparian areas. The operator shall consult with the BLM to determine appropriate mitigation, including verification of native plant species to be used in restoration. Temporary and permanent impacts to jurisdictional WoUS may require additional mitigation, including compensatory offsite mitigation. Contact the USACE, Colorado West Regulatory Branch, at 970-243-1199, or [email protected]. 8. Heritage Resources - Cultural and Paleontological. All persons in the area who are associated with this authorization shall be informed that any person who, without a permit, injures, destroys, excavates, appropriates or removes any vertebrate fossil, historic or prehistoric ruin, artifact, object of antiquity, Native American remains, Native American cultural item, or archaeological resources on public lands is subject to arrest and penalty of law (16 USC 433, 16 USC 470, 18 USC 641, 18 USC 1170, and 18 USC 1361). Any heritage resource discovered requires that work in the area must stop and the BLM authorized officer notified. Strict adherence to the confidentiality of information concerning the nature and location of archeological resources would be required of the proponent and all of their subcontractors (Archaeological Resource Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. 470hh). Inadvertent Discovery: a) The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) [16 USC 470s., 36 CFR §800.13], as amended, requires that if newly discovered historic or archaeological materials or other cultural resources are identified during the Proposed Action implementation, work in that area must stop and the BLM authorized officer shall be notified immediately. Within five working days, the authorized officer will determine the actions that need to be completed before the site can be used, assuming in-place preservation is not necessary §800.13(b)(3).
2 b) The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) [25 USC 3001 et seq., 43 CFR 10.4] requires that if inadvertent discovery of Native American Human Remains or Objects of Cultural Patrimony occurs, any activity must cease in the area of discovery, a reasonable effort made to protect the item(s) discovered, and immediate notice be made to the BLM authorized officer, as well as the appropriate Native American group(s) (IV.C.2). Notice may be followed by a 30-day delay (NAGPRA §3(d)). c) The Paleontological Resources Preservation Act (PRPA) [16 U.S.C. 470aaa] requires the proponent to immediately suspend activities in the vicinity, protect the discovery from damage and notify the BLM authorized officer of any paleontological resources discovered as a result of operations under this authorization. The authorized officer will evaluate, or will have evaluated, such discoveries as soon as possible, but not later than 10 working days after being notified. Appropriate measures to mitigate adverse effects to significant paleontological resources will be determined by the authorized officer after consulting with the operator. Within 10 days, the operator will be allowed to continue construction through the site, or will be given the choice of either (1) following the authorized officer’s instructions for stabilizing the fossil resource in place and avoiding further disturbance to the fossil resource, or (2) following the authorized officer’s instructions for mitigating impacts to the fossil resource prior to continuing construction through the project area. d) If human remains are discovered on private or state land associated with this authorization, the BLM will notify the State of Colorado Archaeologist immediately, which will comply with Colorado Revised Statutes (Appendix) regarding the discovery of human remains (24-80-1302). e) In a new discovery situation, the operator may relocate activities to avoid the expense of mitigation and delays associated with this process, as long as the new area has been appropriately inventoried and has no other resource concerns, and the exposed materials are recorded and stabilized. Otherwise, the operator shall be responsible for mitigation costs. The BLM authorized officer will provide technical and procedural guidelines for relocation and/or to conduct mitigation. Upon verification from the BLM authorized officer that the required mitigation has been completed, the operator will be allowed to resume construction. 9. Big Game Winter Range Timing Limitation. Where winter range areas identified by BLM are not protected by lease stipulations, an annual Timing Limitation (TL) period shall apply from January 1 to March 1, to minimize impacts to wintering big game. All construction, drilling, completion, workovers, and other intensive activities are prohibited during the 60-day period. Requests for exceptions to TLs shall be submitted in writing to the BLM via a Sundry Notice or letter. 10. Range Management. Damage to range improvements (fences, gates, reservoirs, pipelines, etc.) shall be avoided, but if they are damaged, the operator shall immediately repair or replace them. Where an access road bisects an existing livestock fence, a steel-frame gate or a cattle guard with a bypass gate shall be installed across the roadway, unless a landowner dictates otherwise. 11. Soils. Cuts and fills shall be minimized when working on erosive soils and on slopes in excess of 30 percent. On slopes greater than 50 percent, BLM may require a professional geotechnical analysis and/or engineered plans prior to construction. All cut and fill slopes for roads and well pads shall be protected against rilling and erosion by BMPs such as soil texturing and seeding or additional measures approved by the BLM to minimize the potential for erosion, soil loss and slope failure. Measures may include matting, geotextiles, weed- free straw crimping, anchored bales/wattles, as needed or as detailed by stormwater plan or BLM permit. BMPs shall be monitored and maintained in functional condition.
3 12. Weed Control. Before any mobilization of equipment onto public lands, in order to prevent the spread of invasive species, the operator shall perform inspections to insure that all construction equipment and vehicles are clean and free of soil, mud and vegetation material. The operator shall provide copies of such inspections upon request by the BLM. Vehicles and equipment shall avoid driving through or parking on weeds. Straw mulch, seeds, BMPs and all materials used on BLM lands shall be certified weed-free. Certification shall be provided to the BLM upon request. In areas with sensitive plant species, weed treatments shall be limited to spot treatments and require site-specific pre-approval by the BLM. The operator shall regularly monitor and promptly control noxious weeds or other undesirable plant species as set forth in the BLM/USFS Noxious and Invasive Weed Management Plan for Oil and Gas Operators, dated March 2007. Pesticide Use Proposals (PUPs) shall be approved by the BLM prior to the use of herbicides. Annual reports regarding weed management and reclamation success shall be submitted to the Grand Junction Field Office in compliance with the Noxious and Invasive Weed Management Plan for Oil and Gas Operators. 13. Dust Abatement. The operator shall prevent and abate fugitive dust as needed, whether created by vehicular traffic, equipment operations, or wind events. If dust abatement is insufficient, the BLM may direct the operator to change the level and type of treatment. BLM approval is required before application of surfactants, binding agents, or other dust-suppression chemicals on Federally permitted projects and on public lands. More stringent dust control may be required in areas adjacent to Federally listed or State-listed threatened, endangered, or sensitive plant species. 14. Pre-Construction and Limits of Disturbance. An onsite pre-construction meeting may be required, to ensure that construction proceeds in accordance with all specifications, permits, and COAs. At least 48 hours prior to initiation of construction or reclamation activities, contact Julia Christiansen at 970- 244-3093 or the Grand Junction Field Office at 970-244-3000. Construction control and limit-of-disturbance stakes shall be placed before construction, and maintained in place throughout, to ensure construction in accordance with the surface use plan. Pre-construction stormwater BMPs shall be installed before pre-construction inspection. Limit-of-disturbance (LOD) stakes or markers shall be placed before pre-construction inspection. If disturbed during construction, they shall be immediately replaced before construction proceeds and remain in place until final construction cleanup is completed. Markers shall be visible from one to another and no farther than 100 feet apart. Access road, pipeline and pad edges, cut and fill slopes, and soil storage areas shall be marked with flagging, snow fences, or stakes, visible from one to the next. All construction control markers shall remain in place until the post-construction inspection by the BLM is concluded. 15. Stormwater Management and Soil Protection. A General Construction Permit from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) is required and a copy shall be provided to the BLM prior to construction. Permit compliance, which coincides with BLM resource protection objectives, requires a site-specific Stormwater Management Plan, controls for stormwater run-off and run-on, adaptive BMPs and systematic monitoring and maintenance of all BMPs. Stormwater BMPs may also be designed to function as Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures (SPCC) controls, reclamation BMPs or visual resource protection BMPs.
4 Pre-construction stormwater BMPs shall be installed before construction starts and be inspected during pre-construction inspections. All BMPs must be maintained in good repair and functional condition, including cleanout of sediment basins and catchments, and replacement of straw wattles/ bales or silt fence. 16. As-Built Details. Within 30 days of setting production facilities or completing a facility, pipeline, drilling location, or new/upgraded road, the operator shall submit to the BLM a digital “as-built” file that documents the actual boundaries of disturbance for that location/feature. This perimeter shall include all disturbance related to the permitted location: the pad, all stormwater BMPs, and the complete disturbance area of new access roads. All fill slopes, cut slopes, associated soil storage areas, etc. shall be depicted. The digital depiction shall be in an ArcGIS-compatible format (shapefile or geodatabase), in NAD83, UTM coordinate system, Zone 13 North, in meters. 17. Drainage Crossings and Culverts. Pads, roads, and pipelines shall be located away from defined drainages wherever possible. Where construction is located within 100 feet of a drainage, an adequate vegetation buffer, artificial buffer (e.g., straw bales, matting, etc.), or filter strip shall be maintained between the constructed feature and the drainage, to minimize sediment transport into the drainage. All vehicles shall be fueled at least 100 feet from stream corridors. Any construction activities at perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral drainage crossings (e.g. burying pipelines, installing culverts) shall be timed to avoid high flow conditions. The minimum culvert diameter in any installation for a drainage crossing or road drainage shall be 24 inches. Culverts on perennial and intermittent streams shall be designed to allow for passage of aquatic biota. Culverts at drainage crossings shall be designed and installed to pass, without development of a static head at the pipe inlet, at least a 25-year storm event, but may be deemed to require additional culvert design capacity. Due to the flashy nature of area drainages and anticipated culvert maintenance, the USACE recommends designing drainage crossings for the 100-year event. Contact the USACE Colorado West Regulatory Branch at 970-243-1199. 18. Road Construction, Use, and Maintenance. Roads shall be crowned or sloped, drained with ditches, culverts and/or water dips, and constructed, sized and surfaced in compliance with BLM Gold Book standards (pp. 24-28). Water outlets and roadside ditches shall incorporate BMPs such as riprap, sediment catchments, and anchored check structures that slow water velocity, to prevent erosion and sediment transport. Ditches may be revegetated and/or include large rocks or other BMPs to slow water and settle sediment. Ditch revegetation may be required in erodible soils. All drainage ditches and culverts shall be kept clear and free flowing, and shall be maintained in good condition. Road use and construction shall halt under conditions of undue damage and erosion to soils, roads, and/or well pads. When saturated soil conditions exist on access roads or pad, or rutting deepens past 3 inches, construction and travel shall halt until soil material dries out, is frozen sufficiently or is otherwise brought to standards that provide for resource protection. Where applicable, initial road base/gravel application shall be of CDOT Class 6 aggregate or equivalent, to a minimum depth of 6 inches. Where roads are located near drainages, vegetated buffer strips shall be left between areas of disturbance and drainages. (See Drainage Crossings and Culverts.) All cut-and-fill slopes for roads (and well pads and related facilities) shall be protected against rilling and erosion with BMPs such as soil texturing and seeding or additional measures approved by the
5 BLM. Measures may include geotextiles, weed-free straw crimping/ bales/ wattles/ matting, as needed or as detailed by stormwater plan or BLM permit. BMPs shall be monitored and maintained in functional condition. Roads that access active construction and drilling sites shall be posted with warning signs to alert hunters and recreational vehicle users to project personnel and vehicles in the area. Construction and rig schedules may be included. Project personnel shall restrict activities and travel to permitted roads and sites. Operator shall install speed control measures on project-related unpaved roads and enforce them with project personnel. The operator shall routinely provide timely maintenance of roads. Regular maintenance shall include, but not be limited to dust abatement, reconstruction of the crown, slope, or water dips/bars; blading or resurfacing; clean-out of ditches, culverts, catchments and other BMPs. When rutting of the travel- way deepens to 3 inches, maintenance or upgrade shall be conducted as approved by BLM. 19. Visual Resource Protection. Pads, roads, pipelines and production facilities shall be located and placed to avoid or minimize visibility from travel corridors, residential areas and other sensitive observation points and shall be designed to maximize reshaping of cut/fill slopes and interim reclamation of the pad. To the extent practical, existing vegetation shall be preserved when clearing and grading for pads, roads, and pipelines. Trees or shrubs may be appropriate to cut or shred in place, to protect visual resources, enhance slope stability or to leave root systems in place. The BLM may direct that cleared trees and rocks be salvaged and redistributed over reshaped cut-and-fill slopes or along linear disturbances. Salvaged native rocks may be also be used where appropriate as perimeter stormwater controls, toe slope anchors or angular armor against erosion protection. To mitigate straight-line visual contrast effects of cut-and-fill slopes, pad margins or cleared vegetation, adaptive management techniques may be required by the BLM before or after construction. For example, additional tree removal could be required along a contrasting edge, to create irregularly shaped openings or natural-looking mosaic patterns; surfaces might require texturing or coloring to mitigate visual contrasts. Construction measures such as soil roughening, recontouring, and careful selection revegetation species shall be employed to reduce contrasts in texture, line, color, and form. Use of a hydro-applied colorant of fill slopes may be required. To blend with the natural environment, all permanent aboveground facilities placed on the location shall be painted a natural color to blend with the background landscape, in a non-reflective finish. A BLM Standard Environmental Color may be specified. Where determined by the BLM to be necessary based on site-specific visual impacts of project components, a site-specific Visual Mitigation Plan shall be required before surface disturbance and project activities begin. This plan would include a detailed analysis of potential impacts and mitigation measures that shall be developed and implemented. 20. Construction, Vegetation Removal, Topsoil Stripping, and Topsoil Storage. Pre-construction BMPs shall be installed inspected by the BLM before construction.
6 Areas of approved activities shall be cleared of brush and trees. Trees or shrubs may be appropriate to cut or shred in place, depending on needs to protect visual resources, enhance slope stability, or leave root systems in place. No stump left in place shall exceed 6 inches in height. Accordingly, - Trees that are chipped or shredded in place shall be salvaged and stored with topsoil. - Trees that are cut down, cut up, or track-walked shall be salvaged and stored as stormwater perimeter controls for later redistribution on reclaimed areas. A wood cutting permit from the BLM may be required prior to any clearing. When saturated soil conditions exist on access roads or well pads, construction shall be halted until soil dries or until activities can proceed without soil damage. No saturated or frozen topsoil shall be stripped. At the time of construction, (well pads, pipelines, roads, or other surface facilities) topsoil shall be stripped following vegetation removal. Topsoil shall include all suitable growth medium present at a site, as indicated by color or texture; depths may vary across a site. Stripped topsoil and vegetation smaller than 4 inches in diameter shall be segregated and stored separately from sub-soils or other excavated material and replaced prior to final seedbed preparation. To facilitate its replacement, extend its biological viability, and create a berm to control stormwater, topsoil shall be windrowed around pad perimeter wherever practical. Along pipelines and roads, topsoil shall be windrowed, segregated, and stored for later redistribution during reclamation. Topsoil storage piles, stormwater control features, temporarily disturbed areas along roads and pipelines, and cut and fill slopes shall be seeded at the time of construction or within 30 days, to stabilize materials, maintain biotic soil activities, and minimize weeds. Seedbed prep shall be required unless seeding occurs immediately after construction. 21. Chemical and Fuels - Secondary Containment /Exclosure Screening. The operator shall prevent all hazardous, flammable, and toxic substances from contacting soil and/or water. At a minimum, the operator shall install and maintain an impervious secondary containment system for any tank or barrel containing hazardous, flammable, or toxic substances. Containment shall be sufficient to contain 110% of the contents as well as any drips, leaks and anticipated precipitation. All installed production facilities (storage tanks, load outs, separators, treating units, etc.) with the potential to leak or spill oil, condensate, produced water, glycol, or other fluid which may be a hazard to public health or safety shall be placed within an appropriate impervious secondary containment structure that shall hold 110% of the capacity of the largest single container within it for 72 hours. All secondary containment systems shall be designed, constructed, and maintained to prevent exposure of wildlife and livestock to harmful substances. The operator shall install effective wildlife and livestock exclusion systems like fencing, netting, expanded metal mesh, lids and grate covers. Chemical containers shall be clearly labeled, maintained in good condition, and placed within secondary containment. They shall not be stored on bare ground, nor exposed to sun and moisture. Any release of toxic substances (leaks, spills, etc.) in excess of the reportable quantity established by 40 CFR, Part 117 shall be reported per the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, Section 102b (CERCLA). Copies of any report to any Federal agency or State government as a result of a reportable release/ spill of any toxic substances shall be furnished to the BLM, concurrent with the filing of the reports to any Federal agency or State government.
7 The operator shall dispose of any fluids that collect in the containment system which do not meet applicable State or U.S. Environmental Protection Agency livestock water standards, per State law and in a manner so that fluids do not drain to the soil or ground. The BLM, CDPHE Water Quality Control Division, COGCC, and CPW shall be contacted immediately if a reportable spill occurs. 22. Pipelines. Buried pipelines shall have a minimum cover of 48 inches in a roadway and at road crossings, 36 inches through typical soil and rock, and 24 inches in areas requiring rock blasting. The permit holder shall bury a pipeline to a depth that safely accommodates existing land and road uses and routine maintenance activities such as grading. Pipeline warning signs permanently marked with the operator’s and owner’s names (emergency contacts) and purpose (product) of the pipeline shall be installed within five days of construction completion and prior to use of the pipeline. Pipeline warning signs are required at all road crossings and along the alignment, visible from sign to sign. Pipelines installed beneath stream crossings shall be buried to a minimum depth of 4 feet below the channel substrate, to avoid pipeline exposure by channel scour and degradation. Following pipeline burial, the channel grade and substrate composition shall be returned to pre-construction conditions. All pipeline welds within 100 feet of a perennial stream shall be x-rayed to prevent leakage. Where pipelines cross streams that support Federal- or State-listed threatened or endangered species or other sensitive species, the BLM may require additional safeguards, including double-walled pipe, and remotely actuated block or check valves on both sides of the stream. Buried pipelines shall be reclaimed to final reclamation standards at the time of installation. 23. Well Drilling, Testing, and Completion (Pits). Substances specifically listed as a hazardous waste or demonstrating character of a hazardous waste (40 CFR 261) shall not be used in drilling, testing, or completion operations, nor introduced at any time into the reserve or cuttings pit. The operator shall minimize or preclude releases of hydrocarbons into open pits. Unless the authorized officer approves the release, no oil should go into a pit except in an emergency. The operator must remove any hydrocarbons (oil, condensate, paraffin, diesel, etc.) introduced to a pit within 24 hours of discovery. During air drilling, the blooey line shall be misted. Cuttings and fluids shall be confined to pits or tanks during drilling, flaring, or fracturing operations. Flare or blooey lines shall be directed into a pit and against a bank, or otherwise contained, to prevent dispersion of materials or flame, fluids and cuttings. All pits that may contain liquid material shall be lined to prevent seepage into the ground. The pit liner shall be maintained in good working condition, with no tears or holes, until the pit is closed. Pits shall be constructed to prevent accumulating precipitation runoff and to maintain at least two feet of freeboard between the maximum fluid level and the lowest point of containment. If pit fluids threaten to rise, the operator shall immediately prevent introduction of additional fluids until sufficient pit capacity has been restored through fluid removal, or shall install an approved alternative containment method. The operator shall prevent wildlife and livestock access (including avian wildlife) to fluids pits that contain or have the potential to contain salinity sufficient to harm wildlife or livestock, to contain hydrocarbons, surfactants, or Resource Conservation and Recovery Act-exempt hazardous
8 substances. For reserve pits, fence all four sides as soon as the pit is constructed. Reconstruct any damage to the rig side of the fence immediately following release of the drilling rig. At a minimum, the operator shall adequately fence all fluids pits and open cellars during and after drilling operations until the pit is free of fluids and the operator initiates backfilling. Fencing for pits and other facilities with potential to cause harm to big game and other wildlife shall be 8-foot woven wire fence with adequate bracing, constructed at least 2 feet from the edge of the pit berm. The bottom two feet of woven wire shall have openings no larger than 1½ inches, to preclude small animals. All corners shall be braced and fence construction shall be on cut or undisturbed ground. The fence shall be maintained erect and in good condition. (Fencing: BLM Manual Handbook H-1741-1, p. 16) All open top tanks and pits shall be covered or netted to eliminate any hazard to birds and flying mammals (CERCLA Section 101(14)). The operator shall prevent wildlife, bird and livestock access to fluids pits that could contain salinity sufficient to harm them or to contain hydrocarbons, surfactants, or Resource Conservation and Recovery Act-exempt hazardous substances. At a minimum, the operator shall install approved netting in these circumstances, immediately following release of the drilling rig. The BLM does not approve flagging, floating balls, strobe lights, metal reflectors or noisemakers. Minimum Netting Requirements: The operator shall: a. Construct a rigid structure of steel tubing or wooden posts with cable strung across the pit no farther apart than 7-foot intervals along the X and Y axes to form a grid of 7-foot squares. b. Suspend netting a minimum of 4 to 5 feet above the pit surface. c. Use a maximum netting mesh size of 1½ inches to allow for snow loading while excluding most birds, in accordance with FWS recommendations. Refer to: http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/contaminants/contaminants1c.html d. Cover the top and sides of the netting support frame with netting and secure the netting at the ground surface around the entire pit to prevent wildlife entry at the netting edges. Note: Other fencing or a wire mesh panel with openings larger than 1½ inches does not sufficiently exclude small wildlife and songbirds unless it is covered by smaller meshed netting. e. Monitor and maintain the netting sufficiently to ensure it is functioning as intended, has not sagged closer to the pit, has not entrapped wildlife, and is free of holes and gaps greater than 1½ inches. Any wildlife or birds found dead or apparently ill in or near pits must be reported to the Grand Junction Field Office immediately. Any lined pit, any pit constructed with a slope steeper than 3:1, or where entrapment hazards may exist, shall include escape ramps or ladders installed every 50 feet along the slope and at each corner. Example: anchored sections of galvanized chain-link fence at least 24 inches wide extending from the bottom of the pit to the top of the pit slope and across the top edge of the pit liner for at least two feet. The operator and all subcontractors shall comply with all State wildlife laws. As per Colorado Revised Statute 33-6-109 (1), it is unlawful for anyone to hunt, take or possess wildlife except as permitted by Colorado Statute or by Colorado Wildlife Commission regulation. Colorado statute defines “hunt” to include “trapping” and “capturing.” The trapping and subsequent drowning of wildlife within a pit may be viewed as illegal taking of wildlife and criminal or civil actions/ penalties
9 for wildlife could be imposed. “Wildlife friendly” conditions are intended to prevent wildlife loss and potential legal consequences. Pits shall be dry prior to soil testing and backfilling and closed per COGCC (EPA Table 910-1) standards. Before backfilling, impervious pit liner shall be removed and disposed of properly. Liquids and solids collected on/in the liners shall not be allowed to come into contact with the pad surface, parent soil, or any other earthen layers during site cleanup. Liners shall be properly cleaned prior to removal or removed in such a manner that liquids/solids do not escape. Liners may be washed off into lined ditches, lined sumps or into the lined cellar and then pumped to the lined sumps prior to being removed. At the time of backfilling, all muds and associated solids shall be confined to the pit, with none squeezed out or incorporated into surface materials. A minimum of 4 feet of cover (overburden) is required above any muds or solids. When work is complete, the pit area must support the weight of heavy equipment without subsidence. 24. Production. Production facilities shall be located and arranged to facilitate safety and minimize long- term surface disturbance. Typically, this means clustered at the access end of the pad, with tanks in cut. Access to facilities should be provided by a teardrop-shaped road through the production area, so that the driving area may be clearly defined and limited and the teardrop center may be revegetated. This is especially applicable when roads are maintained as “primitive,” per the BLM Gold Book. To blend with the natural environment, all permanent aboveground facilities placed on the well pad shall be painted a natural color that blends with the background landscape, in a non-reflective finish. A BLM Standard Environmental Color may be specified. 25. Interim Reclamation of Producing Wells. a. Deadlines and Objectives. (Deadlines are subject to extension on a case-by-case basis, following application in writing to the BLM.) Interim reclamation shall restore landforms; reestablish/maintain biologically active topsoil, including vegetation cover; control erosion and sediment transport; and minimize losses of habitat, visual resources, and forage throughout the life of the well. (BLM Northwest District Recommended Outline for Surface Reclamation Planning for Oil and Gas Operations, Including Objectives and Performance and Monitoring Standards, 2013) Within 6 months following completion of the last well planned on a pad, or after a year has passed with no new wells drilled, IR shall be completed to reduce the well pad to the smallest size needed for production. IR shall include earthwork, seeding and BMPs. Topsoil storage piles, stormwater control features, temporarily disturbed areas along roads and pipelines, and cut and fill slopes shall be seeded at the time of construction or within 30 days, to stabilize materials, maintain biotic soil activities, and minimize weeds. Seedbed prep shall be required unless seeding occurs immediately after construction. Within 6 months following completion of the last well planned on a pad, or after a year has passed with no new wells drilled, interim reclamation (IR) shall be completed to reduce the well pad to the smallest size needed for production. IR shall include earthwork, seeding and BMPs. Prior to interim reclamation, the operator shall meet with BLM to inspect the disturbed area, to review the existing reclamation plan and agree upon any revisions to the plan. Seed tags shall be submitted for BLM approval at least 14 days before proposed seeding date. Notify the BLM at least 48 hours prior to beginning any reclamation work.
10 Weed-free certification, seed tags, and a Subsequent Report Sundry Notice describing the reclamation shall be submitted to the Grand Junction Field Office within 30 days of seeding. IR performance standards shall be considered met when disturbed areas not needed for long-term production operations or vehicle travel have been:
recontoured and stabilized revegetated with a self-sustaining, vigorous, diverse, native (or otherwise approved) plant community that anchors soils, minimizes visual impacts, and provides forage At a minimum, the established plant community shall consist of species included in the seed mix and/or desirable species that occur in the surrounding natural vegetation. Permanent vegetation cover will be determined successful when the basal cover of desirable perennial species is at least 80 percent of the basal cover of the adjacent undisturbed area or of potential basal cover as defined in the National Resource Conservation Service Ecological Site(s) for the area. Operators and right-of-way holders are required to meet reclamation performance standards. Successful compliance with standards is determined by the BLM. If revegetation is unsuccessful, subsequent treatments and reseedings shall be required until standards are met. b. Recontouring and Seedbed Preparation. Leaving in place only the areas needed for production, pull fill slope soils up and return them to cut areas, pushing up and over the edges of the cut. Compacted areas to be reclaimed shall be ripped in two passes at opposite directions before being reshaped. Following recontouring, evenly redistribute salvaged topsoil. Soil amendments may be permitted or required. Seedbed preparation shall consist of scarifying (roughening) the re-spread topsoil prior to seeding, unless seeding takes place immediately or is drilled. Seedbed preparation techniques may include pocking, ripping, disking, or other soil roughening techniques. If contour cultivating is approved, it shall be 4 to 6 inches deep or to the depth of redistributed topsoil. If pocking, pit the surface with small depressions to form micro-basins, in a "fish scale" pattern. Construct them along the contour, across (not parallel with) the natural flow of water and/or prevailing wind. c. Seed Mixes. All disturbed areas shall be seeded with a seed mixture approved by the BLM, consistent with BLM standards in terms of species and seeding rate for the specific habitat type within the project area. - Seed shall contain no noxious, prohibited, or restricted weed seeds and contain no more than 0.5 percent by weight of other weed seeds. - Only viability-tested, certified seed for the current year, with a minimum germination rate of 80% and a minimum purity of 90% shall be used. - Seed that does not meet the above criteria shall not be applied to public lands. d. Approved Seed Mixture. All disturbed areas shall be seeded with a native mix of perennial grasses, forbs, and (in some cases) shrubs or subshrubs. During planning and approval for each well pad or other surface-disturbing activity, the BLM will specify a site-specific seed mix menu based on the surrounding habitat type and on natural or altered site conditions. The site-specific seed mix menu will be designed to maximize the potential for successful germination and establishment and development of a self-sustaining plant cover. Most project components are expected to require seeding with the GJFO seed mix menu for Salt Desert, Sagebrush, or Pinyon-
11 Juniper communities. The menu to be specified for each project component, or group of similarly situation components, will be the most recently updated version available at that time. e. Seeding procedures. Seeding shall be conducted no more than 24 hours following final seedbed preparation. If interim revegetation is unsuccessful, the operator shall implement subsequent reseedings until interim reclamation standards are met. Where possible, seed shall be installed by drilling to a depth of 0.5 inch, following the contour of the site. Drill-seeding shall be followed by cultipaction or crimping in weed-free straw or wood mulch to enhance seed-to-soil contact, aid in retaining moisture from incident precipitation, and minimize loss of seeds and soil. In areas that cannot be drilled, seed shall be broadcast seed at 2.0 times the application rate for drilling (i.e., 120 vs. 60 seeds per square foot) within 24 hours of soil work. If seeding takes place later than within 24 hours of final seedbed preparation, the seed shall be covered 0.5 to 1 inch deep with a harrow or drag bar, unless pocking. When pocking is used as seedbed preparation, seed must be broadcast within 24 hours of soil prep. Pocking, if used, shall result in depressions no deeper than 1 to 2 inches. f. Erosion Control. Cut-and-fill slopes shall be protected against erosion with the use of pocking/ pitting, lateral furrows, hydromulch or other measures approved by the BLM. Near drainages or in areas with high erosion potential, additional revegetation, BMPs, or other methods may be required for reducing soil erosion and sediment transport. g. Fencing and Site Protection. The pad shall be fenced to BLM standards to exclude grazing livestock for the first two growing seasons or until seeded species are firmly established, whichever comes later. The BLM shall approve the type of fencing. In deer and elk habitat, fences for livestock exclusion shall not exceed 40 inches in height. The four-strand fence shall have smooth top and bottom wires. Distance from the ground to the bottom smooth wire shall be no less than 16 inches. Distance from the top wire to the second wire shall be no less than 12 inches. Middle wires shall be barbed, with 6-inch spacing. h. Monitoring. The operator shall regularly monitor, for reclamation success and for invasive species, all sites categorized as “operator reclamation in progress” and shall submit an annual monitoring report of these sites to the BLM by December 1 of each year. The annual report shall document whether attainment of reclamation objectives appears likely. If objectives appear unlikely to be achieved, the report shall identify appropriate corrective actions. Upon review and approval of the report by the BLM, the operator shall be responsible for implementing approved or specified measures. 26. Final Reclamation. The long-term objective of final reclamation is to return the land, following authorized use, to a condition approximating the pre-disturbance condition. This includes restoration of the landform and natural vegetation community, hydrologic systems, visual resources, and wildlife habitats. A well pad with no producing well shall undergo final reclamation within no more than 1 year following plugging and abandonment of the final well on that pad. Buried pipelines shall be reclaimed to final reclamation standards at the time of installation. Prior to final reclamation of a well pad or pipeline, the operator shall meet with BLM to inspect the disturbed area, review the existing reclamation plan, and agree to any changes to the plan. The BLM shall be notified at least 48 hours prior to commencing any reclamation work and within 48 hours of completion of reclamation work.
12 Prior to recontouring and reseeding the pad, the operator shall complete the following:
All equipment, facilities, and trash shall be removed from the location.
Each borehole shall be plugged and capped, and its related surface equipment removed.
Subsurface pipelines shall be purged and plugged at specific intervals.
Dry hole markers shall be subsurface, to prevent their use as raptor perching sites. Recontouring for final reclamation shall consist of returning the pad, material storage piles, cut-and- fill slopes, and stormwater control features to natural contours that blend with adjacent undisturbed areas, as specified in the final reclamation plan or final reclamation plat approved by BLM. Requirements for seedbed preparation, soil amendments, seed, seeding procedures, mulching, erosion control measures, fencing, site security, and monitoring shall be as specified for interim reclamation.
13 Left blank for two-sided copying.
Appendix E Transportation Plan
Left blank for two-sided copying.
Transportation Plan
Whitewater Unit Master Development Plan Fram Operating, LLC
Prepared for:
Bureau of Land Management Grand Junction Field Office and Colorado River Valley Field Office
Updated February 2018
Left blank for two-sided copying. 1.0 TRANSPORTATION PLAN WHITEWATER UNIT MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
1.1 INTRODUCTION
This Transportation Plan addresses road use and traffic associated with the proposed Fram Operating, LLC (Fram) Whitewater Unit Master Development Plan (MDP). The Whitewater Project Area is located in Mesa County, Colorado, southeast of the City of Grand Junction. The Whitewater Unit MDP includes exploration with 12 new well pads in the northern half of the unit, in an area that is generally bounded by the town of Palisade and the unincorporated community of Clifton to the north, the Mesa Plateau to the east, Kannah Creek Road to the south, and U.S Highway 50 (US 50) to the west. This Transportation Plan is updated as of February 2018 to address B Road as the Preferred Alternative and to revise traffic levels associated with construction based on increased water use for hydraulic fracturing (HF) for AccessFrac, nitrogen foam HF, and for slickwater HF. Traffic is also estimated for nitrogen foam HF and slickwater HF in the event they are used in the future. Production traffic estimates are also revised. Fram intends to construct four well pads during the first year of exploration and eight well pads in the second year. Depending on well productivity and market conditions, Fram proposes to drill up to nine wells on each pad, for a maximum of 108 wells, over a 4-year period. Fram would drill and complete up to 25 wells per year with a single drilling rig. Wells would be in production for up to 14 years, and the life of the Project is estimated to be 20 years. Existing U.S. and state highways, county roads, and BLM roads would be used to access the Project Area. Within the Project Area, existing county, BLM, and private roads would be used to access the well pads and two existing facility sites (Reeder Mesa and Sink Creek). Table 1 lists the miles of existing roads not requiring upgrades, existing roads requiring upgrades, and miles of new roads under each alternative (see Map 1). Table 1 Length of Road Type Used by Alternative Existing Roads Existing Roads Travel Routes1 Requires Upgrade New Road Total Alternative (miles) (miles) (miles) (miles) Proposed Action 22.43 19.46 1.67 43.56 Preferred Alternative 19.64 21.92 2.19 43.75 Single Access Alternative 2 16.84 19.46 1.67 37.97 1 No improvement necessary. 2 No seasonal northern access.
Existing roads may be used as “primitive” roads to a well pad until it is certain that at least one well on the pad would be productive. Once wells are placed into production, Fram would upgrade the road and install oil, gas, and water gathering pipelines collocated in the same trench. Gathering lines would be located adjacent to existing and new roads to the greatest extent possible. Any deviation from a collocated alignment would require review and approval by the BLM and, as appropriate, additional surveys for sensitive resources. This document describes the existing and proposed new roads that would be used for access, identifies the parties responsible for road maintenance, describes plans for constructing new roads and upgrading existing roads, and estimates the traffic levels associated with construction and operation of the project.
1 Note that this Transportation Plan does not include detailed information on proposed improvements to existing roads that would be needed to safely accommodate oil and gas development and production traffic. These were included in the 2014 EA and 2017 EA as Attachment A to the Transportation Plan (Appendix D in those documents). The BLM has determined that detailed planning for road improvements is most appropriate at that time, when specific alignments and sequencing of development is being made final. Fram would therefore be required to discuss planned improvements to Mesa County, City of Grand Junction, and private roads with the appropriate entity at the time when use of the road for oil and gas traffic is being planned in connection with Applications for Permit to Drill or requests for other authorizations. The BLM would approve no project components pursuant to this 2018 EA until the roadway owners have agreed to the needed improvements.
1.2 ACCESS ROUTES
1.2.1 Primary Access Routes in the Project Area Road types, or functional classifications, describe the functions that roads serve in facilitating traffic flows within a transportation network. Principal arterial roads, such as interstates and state highways, accommodate high traffic volumes, and have limited access. Minor arterial roads include county roads that connect population centers with principal arterials. Collector roads include county and BLM roads that provide primary access to large blocks of land, and are generally two lanes wide. Table 2 lists the arterial and collector roads that either would be used to access the Project Area or are within the Project Area. The table also indicates road surface type and identifies the party responsible for road maintenance. Map 2 shows the parties responsible for access road maintenance by road segment. Table 2 Primary Access Routes Road Maintenance Road Name Type Surface Type Responsible Party Interstate 70 Arterial Pavement CDOT1 Interstate 70 Business Loop Arterial Pavement CDOT1 State Highway 141/ 32 Road Arterial Pavement CDOT1 U.S. Highway 50 Arterial Pavement CDOT1 Mesa County C Road Pavement to 34 Road, Mesa County to 34 Road, (northern access - Proposed Collector Unpaved east of 34 Road Fram east of 34 Road Action) Mesa County B Road Pavement to Valley View Drive (northern access - Preferred Collector Unpaved east of Valley View Fram2 Alternative) Drive Kannah Creek Road Collector Pavement Mesa County Lands End Road Collector Pavement Mesa County Gravel surface with magnesium Whitewater Creek Road Collector Mesa County chloride 1 CDOT = Colorado Department of Transportation. 2 B Road east of 32 Road is in Mesa County right-of-way. If Fram builds the road to Mesa County standards, Fram can petition the County to maintain the road.
2 Map 1
3 Local and resource roads include BLM and private roads that link areas with low traffic volumes to higher classification roads. Local roads connect to collector roads and serve a smaller area than collector roads, and may be one or two lanes with lower traffic volumes. Resource roads are BLM roads that provide point access, connecting to local or collector roads, and are single lanes to individual well pads. 1.2.2 Access Overview From Interstate 70, access to the Project Area is via the Interstate 70 Business Loop, State Highway (SH) 141, and US 50. The primary (southern) access route would enter the southern portion of the Project Area from US 50 and Kannah Creek Road. A secondary (northern) access route leading off Mesa County C Road is included as the Proposed Action. However, the B Road Alternative has been selected as the Preferred Alternative and would be used in winter months (December 1 to April 30) to access northern portions of the Project Area and avoid or minimize traffic within sensitive big game (elk and mule deer) winter habitats. Both access routes exit Interstate 70 onto the Interstate 70 Business Loop in Clifton (Exit 37) and proceed south for approximately 1.5 miles to SH 141. The routes turn left onto SH 141 and proceed approximately 0.25 mile, at which point SH 141 merges with 32 Road. The routes continue on SH 141/32 Road for another 2.0 miles to cross the Colorado River. Approximately 0.43 mile south of the river, SH 141/32 Road intersects C Road (Proposed Action). Access to and within the Project Area from this point is described in Section 1.2.4. Continuing south 1 mile from this point on SH 141/32 Road is the intersection with B Road (the Preferred Alternative). Access from this point along B Road is described in Section 1.2.5. The primary (southern) access route continues south on SH141/32 Road for approximately 2.6 miles to intersect US 50, where the route turns left and follows US 50 southward for approximately 6.9 miles to Kannah Creek Road. Access within the Project Area from Kannah Creek Road is described below in Section 1.2.3. 1.2.3 Southern Access Route: Kannah Creek Road From US 50, the primary (southern) access route turns east on Kannah Creek Road and proceeds approximately 1.6 miles to the Whitewater Unit boundary and enters the Project Area. Within the Project Area, the access route follows Kannah Creek Road, a paved road that would not require upgrades, for approximately 0.5 mile, where an existing unpaved road that would not require upgrades exits to the left (north) to access the existing Reeder Mesa Facility. Beyond this turn-off, the primary access route follows Kannah Creek Road approximately 0.8 mile to encounter a Y-Junction. Veering right (south), the access route continues on Kannah Creek Road for approximately 5 miles, and turns right (south) onto an existing unimproved road (upgrades required) and proceeds approximately 0.5 mile to a proposed new 0.2 mile resource road that would access proposed Well Pad Federal 13-98-12-2. Proposed Well Pad Federal 13-97-18-2 is located approximately 1.6 miles beyond the new resource road exit. Turning left (north) at the Y-Junction noted above, the access route follows Lands End Road, a paved road that would not require upgrades, for approximately 4.8 miles to access Water Take Point #1. Just beyond this point, an existing unimproved road (upgrades required) leads east for 0.6 mile to a new resource road that would proceed approximately 0.5 mile to access proposed Well Pad Federal 12-97-30- 1. Beyond the exit to this well pad, the primary access route continues for approximately 0.8 mile to the end of Lands End Road (beyond this point, the road becomes a Forest Service road). The access route turns left onto a paved road that would not require upgrades and heads west for approximately 0.1 mile to access Water Take Point 2 and another 1 mile to access proposed Well Pad Federal 12-98-24-2. From here, the route turns right onto an improved road that would not require upgrades and proceeds north for approximately 1.1 miles to join Whitewater Creek Road, an improved road that would not require upgrades. At this point, an existing unimproved road (upgrades required) would lead approximately 0.8 mile northeast to proposed Well Pad Federal 12-97-7-1.
4 Map 2
5 The southern access route follows Whitewater Creek Road for approximately 0.4 mile, then turns right (north) onto an improved road that would not require upgrades, proceeds approximately 0.2 mile to access Water Take Point 3, and continues for approximately 0.8 mile to the existing Sink Creek Facility. Approximately 0.6 mile beyond this facility, the access route follows an existing unimproved road (upgrades required) for approximately 0.7 mile, at which point an existing unimproved road (upgrades required) exits to the left and proceeds approximately 1.8 miles southwest to proposed Well Pad Federal 2-2-2-1. Beyond this exit, the access route proceeds 1.5 miles to a Y junction. To the left, an existing unimproved road (upgrades required) would lead 3.4 miles to proposed Well Pad 1-2-33-1. To the right, the access route continues for approximately 1.8 miles to an X junction. Straight beyond this junction, an existing unimproved road (upgrades required) would proceed 2.7 miles to proposed Well Pad Federal 1-2- 25-2. Turning right at the junction, an existing unimproved road (upgrades required) would proceed 0.4 mile to proposed Well Pad 1-2-26-2. Turning left at the junction, the access continues approximately 1.4 miles to a Y junction. To the right, an existing unimproved road (upgrades required) leads 0.5 mile to proposed Well Pad Federal 1-2-15-1. To the left, the access route continues 0.4 mile, where another existing unimproved road (upgrades required) turns south for approximately 0.4 mile to access proposed Well Pad Federal 1-2-22-1. The access route continues for 0.3 mile beyond the exit to proposed Well Pad Federal 1-2-22-1, at which point 0.1 mile of new resource road would be constructed to access proposed Well Pad Federal 1-2-16-1. 1.2.4 Northern Access Route: C Road (Proposed Action) From SH 141/32 Road, the northern access route follows C Road approximately 2.8 miles to the Whitewater Unit boundary, where it enters the Project Area. The access route, which would require minimal upgrading (within the existing disturbance) east of 34 Road, passes through approximately 0.7 mile of a northwestern corner of the unit, leaves the unit for approximately 0.7 mile, re-enters the unit, and proceeds approximately 2.0 miles to a resource road leading to proposed Well Pad Federal 1-2-16-1. At this point, the northern access route would use the same roads as the primary (southern) access route, and continues 0.3 mile to a resource road leading to Well Pad Federal 1-2-22-1, another 0.4 mile to a resource road leading to proposed Well Pad Federal 1-2-15-1, and proceeds 1.4 miles to a four-way X junction. Straight ahead, the access route continues 0.4 miles to proposed Well Pad Federal 1-2-26-2. Turning right at the junction, the access route proceeds 1.8 miles to a resource road that continues 3.4 miles to proposed Well Pad Federal 1-2-33-1. Resource roads to each well pad accessed by the northern access route were described above in the description of the primary (southern) access route. 1.2.5 Northern Access Route: B Road (Preferred Alternative) Under this alternative, traffic from I-70 and Grand Junction would continue south on 32 Road for 1 mile beyond C Road and turn left (east) onto B Road for winter access to well pads in the northern portion of the Project Area. This route would follow B Road, which is paved, for 0.76 mile and turn left (north) onto Valley View Drive, which is unpaved. The route would follow Valley View Drive in a generally northeastern direction for 0.35 mile and continue for 0.11 mile on a new road segment that would be constructed to link the route with an existing unpaved road. The route would turn left onto this road and proceed north for 0.22 mile, at which point the route would turn right onto an existing unpaved road that is east of and separated from B-½ Road by an irrigation ditch. The access route would follow this road 0.44 mile east to enter the Project Area and continue for approximately 3.6 miles in a generally eastern direction to join the access road leading to Well Pad Federal 1-2-33-1. In early 2015, BLM and Fram conducted a field visit and made minor modifications (six road segments) to B Road. The sixth segment was added east of the access road leading to Well Pad Federal 1-2-33-1 bringing the total length of B Road to 5.8 miles. Short segments of road associated with the minor modifications would be reclaimed at the time of the road improvements. Beyond this point, the B Road Alternative would access well pads Federal 1-2-33-1, Federal 2-2-2-1, Federal 1-2-26-2, Federal 1-2-22- 1, 1-2-16-1, and Federal 1-2-15-1. Resource roads to each well pad accessed by the northern access route were described above in the description of the primary (southern) access route.
6 1.3 SEASONAL ACCESS DESCRIPTION
The Project Area includes sensitive big game winter habitats (see Map 3). Proposed well pads located within these habitats are subject to lease stipulations which include timing limitations for construction and drilling/completion during winter months (December 1 through April 30). Other proposed well pads have access through sensitive big game wildlife habitats, but there are no lease stipulations associated with the well pad. In accordance with BLM GJFO’s Standard Conditions, BLM would impose a 60 day timing limitation (January 1 to March 1) for construction and drilling/completion for these well pads. Several well pads in the northern portion of the Project Area are not located in sensitive big game winter habitats, but would cross through such habitats using the southern access route. Use of a northern access route would eliminate the need for general access from the south through the sensitive big game winter habitats, allowing those pads to be constructed and used for drilling/completion December 1 and April 30. Use of the northern access route (B Road – the Preferred Alternative) during the winter months will also allow for a reduction in operational traffic through sensitive big game winter habitats that would otherwise occur on the southern access route. Operational traffic includes pumper and maintenance light- vehicles and oil and produced water heavy-vehicles. Table 3 provides a listing of proposed seasonal access routes by well pad for both construction and operation.
1.4 ROAD CONSTRUCTION, USE, AND MAINTENANCE
1.4.1 Existing Roads Fram proposes to use approximately 16.84 miles of existing, mostly paved roads within the Whitewater Unit that would not require upgrading (Table 1). For winter access an additional 5.59 miles and 2.80 miles of existing roads would be used under the Proposed Action and the Preferred Alternative, respectively. These roads are identified in Table 2 above, along with the party responsible for road maintenance and are shown on Map 1. In addition, approximately 19.46 miles of existing unimproved roads could be used for access within the Project Area during construction/drilling. For winter access under the Preferred Alternative, an additional 2.46 miles of existing roads would require improvement. When site conditions are appropriate and when approved by the BLM, these roads may be used as “primitive” roads to drilling locations when it is not certain that the well would be productive, or to producing wells where vehicle traffic is infrequent due to the use of off-site production facilities and automated well monitoring (BLM and Forest Service 2007). The use of primitive roads is site-specific and would be based on anticipated dry or frozen soil conditions, seasonal weather conditions, flat terrain, low anticipated traffic, and/or driller’s or operator’s access needs. Low vehicle speed (20 mph or less) will be used on primitive roads, which would require four-wheel drive or high clearance vehicles. Minor or moderate grading may occur, but primitive roads will not be flat bladed. Drainage would be maintained, where appropriate, to avoid erosion or the creation of a muddy, braided road. Primitive roads are not intended for use as all-weather access roads. Any resource damage would be repaired as soon as possible and Fram would consult with the BLM to determine if all or a portion of the road should be upgraded to an all-weather access road.
7 Map 3
8 Table 3 Proposed Seasonal Access Routes by Well Pad for Construction and Operation Sensitive Big Big Game TL Timing Proposed Well Game Winter Stipulation on Limitation for Development Traffic Oil/Water Collection Points Pad Habitats1 Pad Development2 Access3 Production Traffic Access during Production3,4 Federal 13-98-12-2 Access Only Yes 12/1 – 4/30 Southern: 5/1 – 11/30 Southern: year-round Reeder Mesa Facility year-round Federal 13-97-8-2 Yes Yes 12/1 – 4/30 Southern: 5/1 – 11/30 Southern: year-round Reeder Mesa Facility year-round Federal 12-97-30-1 Yes Yes 12/1 – 4/30 Southern: 5/1 – 11/30 Southern: year-round Reeder Mesa Facility year-round Federal 12-98-24-2 Yes Yes 12/1 – 4/30 Southern: 5/1 – 11/30 Southern: year-round Sink Creek Facility year-round Federal 12-97-7-1 Yes Yes 12/1 – 4/30 Southern: 5/1 – 12/1 Southern: year-round Sink Creek Facility year-round Southern: 5/1 – 11/30 Southern: 5/1 – 11/30 Sink Creek Facility 5/1 – 11/30 Federal 1-2-15-1 No No None Northern: 12/1 – 4/30 Northern: 12/1 – 4/30 Well Pad 12/1 – 4/30 Southern: 5/1 – 11/30 Southern: 5/1 – 11/30 Sink Creek Facility 5/1 – 11/30 Federal 1-2-16-1 No No None Northern: 12/1 – 4/30 Northern: 12/1 – 4/30 Well Pad 12/1 – 4/30 Southern: 5/1 – 11/30 Southern: 5/1 – 11/30 Sink Creek Facility 5/1 – 11/30 Federal 1-2-22-1 No No None Northern: 12/1 – 4/30 Northern: 12/1 – 4/30 Well Pad 12/1 – 4/30 Southern: 5/1 – 11/30 Southern: 5/1 – 11/30 Sink Creek Facility 5/1 – 11/30 Federal 1-2-26-2 No No None Northern: 12/1 – 4/30 Northern: 12/1 – 4/30 Well Pad 12/1 – 4/30 Southern: 5/1 – 11/30 Southern: 5/1 – 11/30 Sink Creek Facility 5/1 – 11/30 Federal 1-2-33-1 No No None Northern: 12/1 – 4/30 Northern: 12/1 – 4/30 Well Pad 12/1 – 4/30 Southern: 5/1 – 11/30 Federal 1-2-25-2 Yes Yes 12/1 – 4/30 Southern: 5/1 – 11/30 Sink Creek Facility year-round Northern: 12/1 – 4/30 Southern: 5/1 – 11/30 Southern: 5/1 – 11/30 Federal 2-2-2-1 Access Only No 1/1 – 4/30 Northern: 12/1 –2/31 Sink Creek Facility year-round Northern: 12/1 – 4/30 Northern: 3/1 – 4/30 1 Sensitive Big Game Winter Habitats include CPW (2011) mule deer and elk severe winter range, winter concentration areas, and/or mule deer critical winter range, and COGCC (2008) sensitive wildlife habitat for mule deer critical winter range and elk winter concentration areas. Within the Project Area, the CPW and COGCC GIS coverages overlap entirely. 2 Development includes well pad construction, well drilling, and well completion. 3 The southern route provides year- round access to Reeder Mesa Facility. 4 Access to Sink Creek Facility for oil and produced water collection via southern route from May 1 to November 30 and northern route from December 1 to April 30.
9 1.4.2 Road Construction Upgrading of roads would occur mostly within the existing road disturbance, but disturbance outside of the existing road footprint may be necessary for the road to meet anticipated traffic flow and all-weather requirements. The existing unimproved roads are generally 14 to 16 feet in width and upgrading outside the disturbance footprint would not exceed 24 feet in width. Approximately 1.67 miles of new resource roads would be required to access the proposed well pads from existing local roads. The new resource roads would be constructed at the same time as the respective well pad construction. The resource roads could require up to 24 foot width for construction. Under the Preferred Alternative (B Road Access), approximately 0.52 mile of new road would be constructed. If the well proves productive and it is determined that an all-weather route is required, the associated access road(s) would be upgraded to meet standards for the anticipated traffic flows and all-weather requirements. Road construction would be in compliance with the BLM GJFO Standard Conditions for Road Construction, Use, and Maintenance, and the BLM/Forest Service Surface Operating Standards and Guidelines for Oil and Gas Development, also known as the Gold Book (BLM and Forest Service, 2007). Drainage control would be ensured over the entire road through the use of drainage dips, drainage ditches, ditch turnouts, armored crossings, and/or culverts. Site-specific road design measures would consider grades, soils, and local hydrology. Where culverts or drainage crossings are needed, they would be designed for a 25-year or greater storm event, without development of a static head at the pipe inlet. Culverts would be constructed to replace low water crossings of municipal ditches on existing roads. BLM Road 7265 crosses Long Mesa Ditch, Lockhart Ditch, and Brandon Ditch, and would require culverts at these locations. Fram would implement the following measures in accordance with the BLM GJFO Standard Conditions for Road Construction, Use, and Maintenance. Where appropriate, these measures would apply to existing roads and new road construction: • Roads would be crowned or sloped, drained with ditches, culverts and/or water dips, and constructed, sized, and surfaced in compliance with BLM Gold Book standards (pp. 24-28). Water outlets would incorporate BMPs such as riprap, sediment catchments, and anchored check structures to slow water velocity and prevent erosion and sediment transport. If applicable, initial gravel application would be to a minimum depth of 3 inches. • When saturated soil conditions exist on access roads or locations, or rutting deepens to 3 inches, construction and travel would be halted until soil material dries out or is frozen sufficiently or is otherwise brought to standards appropriate for resource protection and road construction. Use will not proceed under conditions of undue damage and erosion to soils, roads and/or locations. All drainage ditches and culverts would be kept clear and free flowing, and would be maintained in good condition. • Where roads are located near drainages, vegetated buffer strips would be left between areas of disturbance and drainages. • Fram would provide timely maintenance of roads. A regular schedule for maintenance would include, but not be limited to dust abatement; reconstruction of the crown, slope, or water dips/bars; blading or resurfacing; clean-out of ditches, culverts, catchments; and other BMPs. When rutting of the travelway reaches a depth of 3 inches, maintenance or upgrade would be conducted as approved by the BLM. • Roads that access active construction and drilling sites would be posted with warning signs to alert hunters and recreational vehicle users to Project personnel and vehicles in the area. Project personnel would restrict activities and travel to permitted roads and sites.
10 • Fram would install speed control measures on project-related unpaved roads. • Ditches may be revegetated and/or include large rocks or other BMPs to slow drainage velocity and settle sediment. Ditch seeding and revegetation may be required in erodible soils. • All cut and fill slopes for roads and well pad locations would be protected against rilling and erosion with BMPs such as soil texturing and seeding or additional measures approved by the BLM. Measures may include geotextiles, weed-free straw crimping/bales/wattles/matting, as needed or as detailed by storm water plan or BLM permit. BMPs would be monitored and maintained in functional condition. Fram would coordinate with the Mesa County Public Works – Road and Bridge Department to ensure that use of county roads conforms to issued use permits, rights of way, and other county requirements. Paved roads are not likely to require improvement or maintenance prior to or during Project construction. Paved roads used for access would be maintained by the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and Mesa County. Additionally, Mesa County would maintain Whitewater Creek Road, which is unpaved but graveled (see Table 2). Fram would maintain other roads with unpaved surfaces, including B Road east of Valley View Drive, during construction and operation. Fram would restrict activities and travel to permitted roads and sites. Speed limits would be posted and followed. Where there is no posted speed limit, speeds on unpaved access roads and disturbed areas would not exceed 20 miles per hour. Dust suppression would be implemented by spraying water onto unpaved roads on an as-needed basis. Magnesium chloride and other surfactants, binding agents, or other dust-suppression chemicals would not be used for dust control without prior approval from the BLM.
1.5 TRAFFIC LEVELS
1.5.1 Development Traffic During summer project-related traffic during construction, drilling, completion, and dust control would use the southern access route, and could potentially include from 90 to 110 light-vehicle round trips for 15 to 20 days depending on the method of HF, see Tables 4 through 6. Heavy-vehicle round-trips in the summer would range from 215 to 1,044 for 15 to 20 days depending on the HF method. During the winter (December 1 to April 30), project-related construction traffic would use the northern access route (B Road Preferred Alternative), and would include from 90 to 110 light-vehicle round trips for 15 to 20 days and 170 to 984 heavy-vehicle round trips for 15 to 20 days, depending on the HF method (see Tables 4 through 6). Additional traffic would occur during periods of well pad construction and rig mobilization. Constructing a well pad is expected to include 20 light-vehicle and 10 heavy-vehicle round trips over 10 days. Rig mobilization and demobilization are expected to require 10 heavy-vehicle round trips on the southern access route. A drilling rig would enter the Project Area via the southern access route at the beginning of construction and remain in the Project Area throughout drilling. Traffic associated with rig mobilization and dust control (summer only) would not use the northern access route. Rig mobilization/demobilization is expected to require 4 days. Once a well proves successful, Fram would improve the access road and install gathering lines to the well pad. Traffic associated with access road/gathering line construction is expected to include five light- vehicles transporting ten workers for 10 days (50 light-vehicle round trips). In addition, approximately four heavy-vehicle round trips would be required to deliver pipe and other materials at the start of access road/gathering line construction (two vehicles for 2 days). After the last well is drilled on a pad, traffic associated with interim reclamation is expected to require two light-vehicles and one heavy-vehicle for 3 days.
11 1.5.2 Production Traffic Traffic associated with producing wells would include pumper and maintenance vehicles to individual well pads, and dust suppression, oil and produced water trucks to well pads and central facilities and/or directly to markets. Pumper visits to well pads would be determined by information gathered from telemetry equipment and would average one pumper vehicle per day. One maintenance vehicle would visit each well pad for approximately 10 days per year. Water trucks would apply water to unpaved road surfaces on as-needed basis. Oil production is expected to peak in the early years of a well’s productive life and decline rapidly thereafter. Once wells prove successful and gathering lines are installed, from May 1 to November 30, oil and produced water from all wells would be gathered in the proposed gathering lines and stored at the Sink Creek and Reeder Mesa facilities. During the winter, gathering lines would continue to carry oil and produced water from well pads Federal 13-98-12-2, Federal 13-97-8-2, and Federal 12-97-30-1 to the Reeder Mesa Facility; and gathering lines would continue to carry oil and produced water from well pads Federal 12-98-24-2, Federal 12-97-7-1, Federal 1-2-25-2, and Federal 2-2-2-1 to the Sink Creek Facility. During the winter, trucks would collect the liquids at the two facilities for off-site transport. Oil and produced water from all other wells would normally flow to the Sink Creek or Reeder Mesa facilities; however, to minimize traffic within big game sensitive wildlife habitat in the winter, trucks would pick up the oil and water directly at the remaining well pads (see Table 3) using the northern access. It is estimated that each well could produce up to 50 barrels of oil per day; however well productivity would decrease over the life of the project. Assuming an average production of 25 barrels of oil per well or 2,700 barrels of oil per day for 108 wells, 14 oil trucks (200 barrel capacity) per day are expected to be required to transport field-wide production to markets. It is estimated that each well would produce 3 to 5 barrels of water per day. Assuming an average of 4 barrels of water per well or 432 barrels per day for 108 wells, five water trucks per day are expected to haul produced water to the Deer Creek Disposal Facility off US 50. One water truck (80 barrel capacity) is expected to be required for dust control during operations. Actual traffic levels would be highly dependent on the amount of oil and water produced per well, and would decrease over the life of the project due to declining well productivity.
12 Table 4 Traffic Associated with Drilling and Completion (Access HF) Vehicle Round-Trips per Well Duration Light Heavy Total Development Activity (days) Vehicles Vehicles Vehicles Drilling 101 502 562. 106 Completion 53 103 1143 124 Dust Control 15 0 454 45 Deliveries 15 305 0 30 Total Development Traffic – Northern Access Route,6 90 170 260 Total Development Traffic – Southern Access Route 90 215 305 1 Source: Whitewater Unit Master Development Plan. 2 Assumes 5 light-vehicles per day for 10 days (50 light-vehicle trips). Assumes 120-barrel water trucks deliver 1,950 barrels of water over 10 days (16 heavy-vehicle trips). Assumes four additional heavy truck trips per day (40 heavy-vehicle trips). 3 Assumes 2 light-vehicles per day for 5 days (10 light-vehicle trips). Assumes 120-barrel water trucks deliver 10,700 barrels of water over 5 days (89 heavy-vehicle trips). Assumes five additional heavy truck trips per day (25 heavy-vehicle trips). 4 Assumes that 40 barrels of water would be required per mile (6 mile total unpaved road surface) per day (240 barrels total), delivered in 80 barrel capacity trucks for 15 days during summer months. Trucks applying water for dust control would not use the northern access route. 5 Assumes two deliveries per day for 15 days (30 light-vehicle trips). 6 Assumes that dust control does not occur during the winter.
Table 5 Traffic Associated with Drilling and Completion (Nitrogen Foam HF) Vehicle Round-Trips per Well Duration Development Activity Light Heavy Total (days) Vehicles Vehicles Vehicles Drilling 101 502 562. 106 Completion 53 103 1643 174 Dust Control 15 0 454 45 Deliveries 15 305 0 30 Total Development Traffic – Northern Access Route,6 90 220 310 Total Development Traffic – Southern Access Route 90 265 355 1 Source: Whitewater Unit Master Development Plan. 2 Assumes 5 light-vehicles per day for 10 days (50 light-vehicle trips). Assumes 120-barrel water trucks deliver 1,950 barrels of water over 10 days (16 heavy-vehicle trips). Assumes four additional heavy truck trips per day (40 heavy-vehicle trips). 3 Assumes 2 light-vehicles per day for 5 days (10 light-vehicle trips). Assumes 120-barrel water trucks deliver 16,700 barrels of water over 5 days (139 heavy-vehicle trips). Assumes 5 additional heavy truck trips per day (25 heavy-vehicle trips). 4 Assumes that 40 barrels of water would be required per mile (6 mile total unpaved road surface) per day (240 barrels total), delivered in 80 barrel capacity trucks for 15 days during summer months. Trucks applying water for dust control would not use the northern access route. 5 Assumes two deliveries per day for 15 days (30 light-vehicle trips). 6 Assumes that dust control does not occur during the winter.
13 Table 6 Traffic Associated with Drilling and Completion (Slickwater HF) Vehicle Round-Trips Per Well Duration Development Activity Light Heavy Total (days) Vehicles Vehicles Vehicles Drilling 101 502 562. 106 Completion 103 203 9283 948 Dust Control 20 0 604 60 Deliveries 20 405 0 40 Total Development Traffic – Northern Access6 110 984 1,094 Total Development Traffic – Southern Access 110 1,044 1,154 1 Source: Whitewater Unit Master Development Plan. 2 Assumes five light-vehicles per day for 10 days (50 light-vehicle trips). Assumes 120-barrel water trucks deliver 1,950 barrels of water over 10 days (16 heavy-vehicle trips). Assumes four additional heavy truck trips per day (40 heavy-vehicle trips). 3 Assumes two light-vehicles per day for 10 days (20 light-vehicle trips). Assumes 120-barrel water trucks deliver 105,300 barrels of water over 10 days (878 heavy-vehicle trips). Assumes five additional heavy truck trips per day (50 heavy-vehicle trips). 4 Assumes that 40 barrels of water would be required per mile (6-mile total unpaved road surface) per day (240 barrels total), delivered in 80 barrel capacity trucks for 20 days during summer months. Trucks applying water for dust control will not use the northern Access. 5 Assumes two deliveries per day for 20 days (40 light-vehicle trips). 6 Assumes that dust control does not occur during the winter.
References: Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service (BLM and Forest Service). 2007. Surface Operating Standards and Guidelines for Oil and Gas Exploration and Development. Gold Book. Fourth Edition.
14
Appendix F Biological Resources Protection Plan
Left blank for two-sided copying.
Biological Resources Protection Plan
Whitewater Unit Master Development Plan Fram Operating, LLC
Presented to:
Bureau of Land Management Grand Junction Field Office Grand Junction, Colorado
Updated February 2018
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES PROTECTION PLAN WHITEWATER UNIT MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
1. INTRODUCTION This Biological Resources Protection Plan describes measures to be taken by Fram Operating, LLC (Fram) and its contractor(s) (Contractor) to avoid or minimize adverse effects to biological resources during construction, operation, and eventual abandonment and reclamation of the Fram Whitewater Unit Master Development Plan Project. Measures identified in this Plan apply to work within the project area defined as surface-disturbing activities and traffic. Fram and its Contractor(s) personnel are to be thoroughly familiar with this Plan and its contents prior to initiating construction on the Project.
2. PURPOSE This Plan was developed to mitigate potential impacts to biological resources from construction, operation, and abandonment of the Project. The mitigation measures identified, below, are intended to minimize or avoid short- and long-term effects to biological resource habitats and populations.
3. RESPONSIBILITIES 3.1 Fram Fram is responsible for meeting the goals and objectives of this Plan and for monitoring Project-related work to ensure that the Contractor(s) applies the measures and complies with the natural resources constraints. Fram is responsible for pre-construction surveys to identify sensitive areas, determine status of raptor nests, and apply appropriate buffers and/or timing restrictions recommended by the agencies. 3.2 Fram Contractor The Fram Contractor is responsible for adhering to timing restrictions related to biological resources during construction, drilling, and completion activities, as described below.
4. PROTECTION MEASURES To avoid long-term effects to key wildlife species and to threatened, endangered, or BLM sensitive species, Fram has developed protection measures in consideration of the requirements of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Grand Junction Field Office (GJFO). 4.1 Seasonal Limitations and Buffer Zones A number of seasonal timing limitations and required buffer zones for sensitive resources are applicable within the project area. A seasonal timing limitation is defined as the time of year when no surface- disturbing activities or drilling/completion are allowed in a particular sensitive area. These timing limitations are also referred to as seasonal closures or construction constraints. Buffer zones are areas surrounding a sensitive location (e.g., raptor nest or special status plants) where seasonal timing and spatial limitations would apply. Timing limitations, whether mandated by lease stipulations or applied by the BLM conditions of approval during review of Applications for Permit to Drill (APDs) submitted by Fram, provide protections for the following potentially affected species: Amphibian breeding sites Midget faded Rattlesnake hibernacula (winter dens) Breeding habitat for migratory birds Active raptor nests
1 White-tailed prairie dog towns Kit fox denning sites Mule deer sensitive winter range or production areas Rocky Mountain elk sensitive winter range or production areas Colorado hookless cactus occupied habitat (Federally listed as threatened) 4.2 Pre-construction Surveys Fram conducted surveys for biological resources within the project area from 2010 through 2015 (WestWater Engineering 2010, 2011, 2012a, 2012b, 2014, 2015a, 2015b, and 2015c). The purpose of these surveys, including all BLM-administered lands as well as private lands where survey permission was granted, was to help guide project design. Resources previously surveyed, or to be included for future pre-construction surveys include the following: Special Status Plants – During the flowering season for the Colorado hookless cactus (threatened species) and BLM sensitive species in suitable habitat within 100 meters of pipelines and access road improvements/construction, and 200 meters of proposed well pads. Amphibians Breeding Sites (no previous surveys) – During the spring/early summer breeding season at potentially suitable surface waters within 200 meters of proposed construction activities. Midget Faded Rattlesnake Hibernacula (no previous surveys) – During the spring/early summer emergence season at potentially suitable rock outcrops within 200 meters of proposed construction activities. Raptor Nests -- Within 0.25 mile (within 0.5 mile for golden eagle cliff nesting areas) of proposed well pads and associated pipelines and access roads. Future surveys will be expanded to 0.5 mile for certain additional raptors based on current guidance from CPW and FWS (see Table 1). Burrowing Owls – During the spring/early summer nesting season within 0.25 mile of proposed disturbance in accordance with the Colorado Department of Parks and Wildlife (CPW) burrowing owl survey protocol. White-tailed Prairie Dog and Kit Fox – In suitable habitat within 100 meters of proposed surface disturbance (previous surveys limited to 100 meters). Future surveys will be expanded to 0.25 mile for both species. Wetlands and Other Waters of the U.S. – All surface waters and known or potential wetlands, in accordance with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, within 200 meters of proposed surface disturbance. Noxious Weeds and Other Invasive Non-Native Plant Surveys – During the growing season within 100 feet of proposed surface disturbance.
5. GENERAL PROTECTION MEASURES In February 2014, Fram and CPW signed a Wildlife Mitigation Plan, to which the BLM was not a party, identifying best practices for oil and natural gas development within the Whitewater Unit to protect wildlife and to document that consultation on wildlife issues has occurred. Fram has agreed to all measures included in the Wildlife Mitigation Plan. In addition to site-specific seasonal timing limitations and buffer zones identified below, Fram will comply with the following plant and wildlife protection measures: Construction will not proceed in restricted areas until final clearance is obtained by the applicable Federal and state agencies. This restriction applies to raptors, migratory birds, white-tailed prairie dogs, and listed plants.
2 Fugitive dust will be controlled during construction of well pads and along unpaved access roads as needed. Posted speed limits will be followed. Where there is no posted speed limit, speeds on unpaved roads and disturbed areas will not exceed 20 miles per hour to reduce fugitive dust and minimize potential wildlife collision. After well pad construction, wildlife-friendly fencing will be erected around well-pad disturbance to exclude livestock grazing and promote successful revegetation. Fencing will be in place during the first two growing seasons after well pad construction, or until it is no longer necessary. A policy stating that no guns, dogs, drugs, or alcohol will be in place for all employees and subcontractors to minimize potential conflicts with wildlife. Fram will install natural gas, oil, and produced water-gathering pipelines to reduce operational traffic and associated dust. Fram will provide environmental awareness training to all employees during orientation to address native wildlife, sensitivity to various kinds of impacts, consequences of poaching, information about Federal and state wildlife laws, licensing and residency requirements, and outdoor recreation opportunities. Workers will carpool to construction locations to reduce traffic. Single-purpose roads will be gated and general public ac(FI(Fcess will be restricted to reduce traffic disruptions to wildlife where possible, and with landowner consent. Remote telemetry will be used for all well locations during operations. Initially, regular visits (daily) are necessary, but once the well has been put into in production, the daily trips can be reduced to a single weekly or monthly visit. Earthwork will not be conducted when the wind speed exceeds 30 mph. Vegetation will be cleared by mowing or brush hogging where appropriate, leaving the root structure intact – instead of scraping the surface (and in agreement with landowner conditions). All pipeline-related disturbance will be reclaimed within one growing season after construction. Interim reclamation at well pads will occur within 6 months of the last scheduled well on a pad or within 12 months of a well drilled on the pad. All disturbed surfaces not to be used during operation will be revegetated/reclaimed with native, palatable species for wildlife, with grasses, shrubs, and forbs. Disturbed areas will be recontoured and graded to pre-project contours to create physical diversity of landforms (e.g., slopes, surface undulations, minor depressions, rock piles, etc.). Multi-well pads will be used to minimize surface disturbance. Up to 108 wells are proposed on the 12 well pads.
6. AQUATIC WILDLIFE (FISH AND BREEDING AMPHIBIANS) To minimize adverse effects at the drainage crossings with water present, Fram will comply with the following aquatic wildlife protection measures: Follow measures described in the Stormwater Management Plan to minimize the potential for spills of fuel and/or other hazardous materials to reach drainages. Use native streambed materials for trench backfill. Avoid applying herbicides within 100 feet of streams, wetlands, and floodplains, unless approved by the BLM.
3 Avoid construction activities within 200 meters of any pond, seasonal pool, stream, or wetland found to support breeding by amphibian species.
7. BLM SENSITIVE FISH SPECIES To mitigate adverse effects to the Blue Lineage Colorado River cutthroat trout, a BLM sensitive species known to occur in some streams and ditches within the Project Area, Fram will implement the following measures: To avoid injury or mortality during withdrawal of water from known or potential fish-bearing streams and ditches, including Brandon Ditch, North Fork Kannah Creek, and an unnamed tributary to Kannah Creek, the intakes of hoses or pipes used to withdraw water be fitted with a maximum 0.25-inch mesh screen across the intake. When feasible, the intakes of hoses or pipes used to withdraw water will be placed into faster flow areas, where eggs and larvae are less likely to be located. Water used for hydrostatic testing of pipelines will not be discharged onto the ground but collected and transported to a disposal location approved by the BLM. These measures will also minimize impacts to any additional BLM sensitive species, native nongame species, and non-native sportfish present in the streams and ditches to be used as water sources.
8. MIDGET FADED RATTLESNAKE WINTER DENS Fram will construction within 200 meters of bedrock outcrops considered by the BLM as suitable for winter denning, if feasible. If this distance cannot be avoided, Fram will not conduct construction within the buffer during the hibernation season of October 1 to May 1.
9. OCCUPIED WHITE-TAILED PRAIRIE DOG TOWNS Fram will avoid construction within 0.25 mile of occupied white-tailed prairie dog towns, if feasible. If activities within this distance cannot be avoided, Fram will not conduct construction activities within the buffer during the pupping season from April 1 through July 1.
10. ACTIVE KIT FOX DENS Fram will avoid construction within 0.25 mile of active kit fox dens, if feasible. If activities within this buffer cannot be avoided, Fram will not conduct construction, or initiate drilling or completion activities within the buffer during the pupping season of February 1 to May 1.
11. MULE DEER AND ELK SENSITIVE WINTER HABITATS AND PRODUCTION AREAS Fram will implement the following mule deer and elk protection measures: Redistribute large, woody material salvaged during clearing operations. Disperse materials over disturbed surfaces from which the trees and brush were originally removed to provide wildlife habitat and a deterrent to vehicular traffic. As required by a stipulation on certain leases, avoid construction and initiation of drilling and completions activities within sensitive big game sensitive winter habitats (severe winter range and winter concentrations areas) from December 1 through April 30. Where a lease lacks this stipulation, avoid construction and initiation of drilling and completion activities from January 1 through March 1, consistent with BLM conditions of approval in the GJFO area.
4 During operations, to minimize traffic within big game sensitive winter wildlife habitat from December 1 through April 30, oil and produced water from selected well pads (Federal 1-2-15-1, Federal 1-2-16-1, Federal 1-2-22-1, Federal 1-2-26-2, and Federal 1-2-33-1) that is delivered to the Sink Creek Facility from May 1 to November 30 will be collected by truck directly at the well pad for transport offsite. Avoid construction, drilling, and completion activities in mapped big game production (fawning, calving) areas from May 15 to June 15. Maintain locked gates leading into mapped big game sensitive habitats.
12. MIGRATORY BIRD NESTING HABITAT Fram will comply with the following migratory bird protection measures: Vegetation clearing will not occur between May 15 and July 15.
13. RAPTOR NESTS Each year during the development phase, or in years when any additional construction, drilling, or completion activities are planned, Fram will retain a qualified contractor to conduct surveys for raptor nest structures or raptors exhibiting apparent courtship or territorial behavior. The surveys will be conducted during the raptor nesting season of February 1 to August 15. Nesting seasons for various species potentially present in the project area are listed in Table 1. Table 1 Raptor Species that Could Nest in or near the Project Area, and Associated Seasonal Timing and Spatial Buffers Recommended by FWS and CPW Breeding Season Species Nesting Dates Spatial Buffer (mile) Bald Eagle November 15 - July 31 0.5 Burrowing Owl March 1 -August 15 0.25 Cooper’s Hawk April 1-August 15 0.25 Ferruginous Hawk February 1- July 15 0.5 Flammulated Owl March 1-August 15 0.25 Golden Eagle December 15-July 15 0.5 Great Horned Owl February 1- August 15 0.25 Long-eared Owl March 1 – August 15 0.25 Merlin March 1-August 15 0.25 Northern Goshawk May 15 – August 15 0.5 Northern Harrier April 1-August 15 0.25 Northern Pygmy-owl March 1-August 15 0.25 Northern Saw-whet Owl March 1-August 15 0.25 Osprey April 1- August 31 0.25 Peregrine Falcon March 15- July 31 0.5 Prairie Falcon March 15- July 31 0.5 Red-tailed Hawk February 15-Julyt15 0.33 Sharp-shinned Hawk April 1-August 15 0.25 Swainson’s Hawk April 1- July 15 0.25 Sources: Romin and Muck 2002, CPW 2008, BLM 2011.
5 If a raptor nest is found to be active (occupied or being attended in preparation for nesting), Fram will avoid surface-disturbing activities within 0.25 mile (0.5 mile for certain species) until the nest has successfully fledged its young or been destroyed or abandoned due to natural causes. Table 1 lists the typical breeding periods and the buffer distances recommended by CPW and FWS for each potential nesting species. If a raptor nest is inactive at the time of the survey, but survey dates do not coincide with the typical nesting period for the species believed to have constructed the nest, the contractor will return to the nest during the appropriate period to confirm whether the nest is active or inactive. If active during the follow-up survey, the procedure in the first bullet, above, will be applied. If inactive during the follow-up survey, the timing restriction on construction, drilling, and completion activities will not apply to that nest and associated buffer distance.
14. THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND SENSITIVE PLANT PROTECTION MEASURES Fram conducted surveys for the Colorado hookless cactus and BLM sensitive plant species (special status plants, collectively) that could occur within the project area (WestWater Engineering, 2010, 2011, 2012a, 2012b, 2013, 2014, 2015a, 2015b, and 2015c) on BLM-administered lands and on private lands where survey access was permitted. The following measures will be applied to minimize or avoid effects to special status plants: No well pads will be constructed within 20 meters of documented Colorado hookless cactus plants. Where feasible, well pads will be placed farther than 20 meters from BLM sensitive plants. Pipeline corridors will be constructed adjacent to existing disturbance (roads or existing pipeline corridors) where feasible, or collocated with new proposed access roads. Pipeline corridors and new access roads will be constructed farther than 20 meters from documented Colorado hookless cactus plants and BLM sensitive plants, if feasible. In situations where this is not possible, Fram will minimize effects to special status plants by reducing the construction corridor width, constructing the pipelines on the opposite side of existing disturbance if special status plants are not present, or constructing the pipelines within an existing road if special status plants are present on both sides of the road. No construction would occur within 100 meters of Colorado hookless cactus plants during the flowering season (April and May). Orange fencing will be erected along well pad, pipeline, and access road construction disturbance extents within 20 meters of known Colorado hookless cactus and BLM sensitive plant species to ensure construction traffic and workers would not accidentally crush plants. During construction, Fram will water (no additives) existing gravel/dirt roads, pipeline construction corridors, and/or well pads within 100 meters on either side of known special status plants to reduce possible dust deposition. Water will be obtained from an approved water source. Straw bales, straw wattles, silt fences, or other measures will be installed on the edge of proposed ground-disturbance and existing access roads within 20 meters of documented Colorado hookless cactus and/or BLM sensitive plants to reduce the potential for altering hydrology and vegetation. A biological monitor will be present onsite during all ground-disturbing activities, including installation of best management practices (conservation measures) and reclamation activities to ensure effects to special status plants are minimized as much as possible. Areas requiring a biological monitor will be determined in conjunction with the BLM.
6 Fram will follow BLM’s Noxious and Invasive Management Plan for Oil and Gas Operators (BLM 2007) to control or eliminate noxious weeds and other undesirable plants documented within the project area. Fram will inform all employees about prohibitions against possessing, damaging, and destroying ESA-listed plants. In areas where permission from the landowner cannot be obtained, but which could provide potential habitat for the threatened Colorado hookless cactus, Fram will have a biological monitor present to avoid or minimize effects to Federally listed species, where feasible. These efforts could include: Adjustments to the pipeline alignment to avoid removal of a Colorado hookless cactus plant(s). Reduce the pipeline construction corridor to minimize effects to potentially suitable habitat. Reconfigure the proposed well pad to avoid removal of Colorado hookless cactus plant(s). In addition, Fram will provide details of cactus plant locations, as well as actions taken to minimize effects to the plants and/or habitat, to the BLM when and if additional Colorado hookless cactus plants are encountered. The BLM will in turn provide the updated information to the FWS.
15. WEED CONTROL Fram will monitor and promptly control Colorado State-listed Class A and Class B noxious weeds and other undesirable plants as described within BLM’s Noxious and Invasive Weed Management Plan for Oil and Gas Operators (BLM 2007). Weed infestations will be treated and monitored, and retreated, if necessary. Weeds within sensitive resource areas will be spot-treated. Reports would be provided to the BLM by December 1 of each year until the desired level of control is achieved.
16. REFERENCES Bureau of Land Management. 2007. Noxious and Invasive Weed Management Plan for Oil and Gas Operators. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Glenwood Springs Field Office. Glenwood Springs, Colorado. March. Bureau of Land Management. 2011. Draft Standard Stipulations for Raptors. Colorado State Office. Colorado Parks and Wildlife (formerly Colorado Division of Wildlife). 2008. Recommended buffer zones and seasonal restrictions for Colorado raptors. February. Romin, L.A., and J.A. Muck. 2002. Utah Field Office Guidelines for Raptor Protection from Human and Land Use Disturbances. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Utah Field Office, Salt Lake City, Utah. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Programmatic Biological Opinion for the Whitewater Master Development Plan. Colorado Ecological Services, (ES/GJ-6-CO-13-F-007; TAILS 06E24100-2013- F-0078). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2017. Programmatic Biological Opinion for Water Depletions Associated with Bureau of Land Management’s Fluid Mineral Program with the Upper Colorado River Basin in Colorado. ES/GJ-6-CO-08-F-0006, TAILS 65413-2008-F-0073-R00l. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, Grand Junction, Colorado. WestWater Engineering. 2010. Biological Survey Report, Fram Americas, LLC, Mesa County, Colorado. Prepared for Fram Americas, LLC. September. WestWater Engineering. 2011. Biological Survey Report, Fram Operating, LLC, Mesa County, Colorado. Prepared for Fram Operating, LLC. September. WestWater Engineering. 2012a. Biological Survey Report, Fram Operating, LLC, Mesa County, Colorado. Prepared for Fram Operating, LLC. May.
7 WestWater Engineering. 2012b. Biological Survey Report, Fram Operating, LLC, North Access Road, Mesa County, Colorado. Prepared for Fram Operating, LLC. October. WestWater Engineering. 2013. Fram Operating, LLC, Whitewater Unit Alternate North Access Road, Special Status Species Plant Preliminary Survey Report. December. WestWater Engineering. 2014. Fram Operating, LLC, Whitewater Unit Alternate North Access Road. Biological Survey Report. August.
WestWater Engineering, Inc. 2015a. Fram Operating, LLC, and Whitewater Unit: Alternate North Access Road Reroutes, Biological Survey Report Addendum. May.
WestWater Engineering, Inc. 2015b. Fram Operating, LLC, Whitewater Unit: Alternate North Access Road Reroute, Biological Survey Report Addendum. July.
WestWater Engineering. 2015c. Fram Operating, LLC, 2015 2D Seismic Project, Special Status Plants Survey Report. September.
8 Left blank for two-sided copying.
Appendix G Typical Drawings
Left blank for two-sided copying.
Left blank for two-sided copying.
Appendix H Water Rights Tables
Left blank for two-sided copying. Table 1 Water Rights Summary UTM X UTM Y Point of Diversion Name Type Water Source (NAD 83) (NAD 83) DIVERSIONS 1 DOUBLE TREE P/A POD Diversion INDIAN CREEK 209484 4313353 2 NORTHWESTERN DITCH Diversion KANNAH CREEK 210555 4314485 3 M A CONCRETE POND FEEDER PIPELINE Diversion KANNAH CREEK 208524 4314506 4 SMITH IRR DITCH Diversion KANNAH CREEK 209343 4314543 5 BROWN & CAMPION D Diversion KANNAH CREEK 208562 4314567 6 WASHBURN & DOWNING DITCH Diversion KANNAH CREEK 211454 4314652 7 BROUSE PIPELINE NO 2 Diversion KANNAH CREEK 211694 4314653 8 VANPELT COX SEEPAGE D Diversion KANNAH CREEK 211346 4314688 9 CALVIN PIT-WELL P/A Diversion KANNAH CREEK 212039 4314713 10 CALVIN PIT-WELL P/A POD Diversion KANNAH CREEK 212039 4314713 11 SULLIVAN RANCH DRAIN Diversion KANNAH CREEK 212706 4314814 12 SULLIVAN BOWEN DITCH Diversion KANNAH CREEK 213659 4314850 13 WYNNE GENERATOR Diversion KANNAH CREEK 213456 4314862 14 BOYACK DITCH AND PUMP Diversion NORTH FORK KANNAH CREEK 210290 4314910 15 KANNAH ESTATES PIPELINE Diversion KANNAH CREEK 211103 4315079 16 COULTER DITCH Diversion KANNAH CREEK 212414 4315129 17 WALTER SIMINOE DITCH Diversion KANNAH CREEK 211829 4315172 18 KANNAH VALLEY EST SUBD P/A Diversion KANNAH CREEK 210402 4315209 19 KANNAH VALLEY EST SUBD P/A POD Diversion KANNAH CREEK 210402 4315209 20 WALTER SIMINOE DITCH ALTERNATE P Diversion KANNAH CREEK 212154 4315242 21 SULLIVAN DITCH Diversion KANNAH CREEK 213672 4315253 22 SHARPE'S SPRING Diversion KANNAH CREEK 209194 4315255 23 BOWEN PRIVATE DITCH Diversion KANNAH CREEK 214141 4315559 24 DALE'S SPRING Diversion WHITEWATER CREEK 208710 4315780 25 SHELNUTT SPG PIPELINE Diversion KANNAH CREEK 215920 4315955 26 FLORENCE H BERRY DITCH Diversion KANNAH CREEK 214492 4316008 27 BLACK DITCH Diversion KANNAH CREEK 214724 4316411 28 TERNAHAN&BOWMAN SEEP&W D Diversion NORTH FORK KANNAH CREEK 211752 4316466 29 PURDY MESA SPRING Diversion NORTH FORK KANNAH CREEK 212566 4316642 30 WM H WILLIAMS DITCH Diversion KANNAH CREEK 215297 4316686 31 BALES WILLIAMS MORRISON Diversion KANNAH CREEK 216552 4316695 32 SMITH DIVERSION PUMP Diversion KANNAH CREEK 216949 4316725 33 RABER HIGHLINE DITCH Diversion KANNAH CREEK 216546 4316740 34 MUCK SPRING NO. 1 Diversion KANNAH CREEK 215182 4316837 35 PURDY MESA RES #2 Diversion NORTH FORK KANNAH CREEK 212573 4316843 36 BONNELL MIDDLE DITCH Diversion KANNAH CREEK 213532 4316870 37 BOGGESS SPRINGS Diversion NORTH FORK KANNAH CREEK 212763 4316883 38 GARDNER DITCH Diversion KANNAH CREEK 217163 4316919 39 SJW SPRING 4 Diversion KANNAH CREEK 218063 4317089 40 RABER DAVIS DITCH Diversion KANNAH CREEK 217935 4317283 41 SJW SPRINGS 5 & 6 Diversion KANNAH CREEK 218235 4317330 42 JUNIATA DITCH Diversion KANNAH CREEK 219366 4317424 43 DALTON DITCH & PUMP #2 Diversion KANNAH CREEK 216858 4317446 44 DALTON SPRING NO. 1 Diversion KANNAH CREEK 216485 4317451 45 JUNIATA DITCH 1ST ENL Diversion KANNAH CREEK 219364 4317464 46 ANDERSON SPRINGS PUMP Diversion KANNAH CREEK 219568 4317475 47 KANNAH CREEK HIGHLINE D Diversion KANNAH CREEK 219985 4317494 48 PURDY MESA WASTE DITCH Diversion WHITEWATER CREEK 208970 4317586 49 SECRET DITCH Diversion KANNAH CREEK 216486 4317613 50 GREEN POND DIVERSION Diversion WHITEWATER CREEK 210518 4317679 51 PURDY RES. STOCKPOND Diversion WHITEWATER CREEK 207975 4317822 52 VOGEL DITCH Diversion GUNNISON R TRB SPS 212403 4317857 53 WRIGHT DITCH Diversion NORTH FORK KANNAH CREEK 213979 4318060
1
54 BROUSE PIPELINE NO 1 Diversion KANNAH CREEK 219999 4318182 55 BROKEN SPOKE RANCH C D Diversion NORTH FORK KANNAH CREEK 213620 4318228 56 BROKEN SPOKE R C D BOYLES ENLG Diversion WHITEWATER CREEK 211073 4318295 57 LANDERS EXT OF HIGHLINE DITCH Diversion NORTH FORK KANNAH CREEK 214599 4318435 58 HENTSCHEL DITCH Diversion NORTH FORK KANNAH CREEK 213791 4318469 59 PURDY MESA FLOWLINE Diversion NORTH FORK KANNAH CREEK 214565 4318481 60 ANDERSON SPG POND NO 3 Diversion NORTH FORK KANNAH CREEK 213895 4318565 61 ANDERSON SPG POND NO 1 Diversion NORTH FORK KANNAH CREEK 213798 4318669 62 ANDERSON SPG POND NO 4 Diversion NORTH FORK KANNAH CREEK 213910 4318967 63 ANDERSON SPG POND NO 5 Diversion NORTH FORK KANNAH CREEK 213910 4318967 64 BOLEN DITCH NO 1 Diversion NORTH FORK KANNAH CREEK 214030 4319466 65 DAVIS DRAW DITCH Diversion WHITEWATER CREEK 207418 4319641 66 BOLEN DITCH NO 2 Diversion NORTH FORK KANNAH CREEK 214644 4319642 67 ANDERSON DITCH 4 Diversion NORTH FORK KANNAH CREEK 214964 4319736 68 CITY DITCH Diversion NORTH FORK KANNAH CREEK 214966 4319737 69 CITY DITCH BYPASS MEASURING POINT Diversion NORTH FORK KANNAH CREEK 214966 4319737 70 SOMERVILLE DITCH Diversion WHITEWATER CREEK 210434 4319738 71 MATTHEWS SPG PIPELINE Diversion KANNAH CREEK 215264 4320018 72 SEEGAR & BEDFORD D Diversion NORTH FORK KANNAH CREEK 215264 4320018 73 BAUER DITCH Diversion NORTH FORK KANNAH CREEK 215536 4320602 74 LAURENT DITCH Diversion NORTH FORK KANNAH CREEK 216086 4321301 75 ADA SUPPLY DITCH Diversion WHITEWATER CREEK 211512 4321711 76 EWERS DITCH Diversion WHITEWATER CREEK 210907 4321735 77 GIRIN'S PUMP STATION NO1 Diversion WHITEWATER CREEK 207893 4322249 78 IRA VINCENT DITCH Diversion WHITEWATER CREEK 207706 4322270 79 IRA VINCENT PETTINGELL ENLG Diversion WHITEWATER CREEK 209115 4322613 80 SOMERVILLE RANCH IRR SYS Diversion WHITEWATER CREEK 213056 4322768 81 BRANDON D CITY OF GJ Diversion WHITEWATER CREEK 214644 4322776 82 BRANDON D LOCKHART DRAW Diversion WHITEWATER CREEK 214644 4322776 83 GULCH DITCH Diversion WHITEWATER CREEK 211855 4323220 84 PIONEER OF WHITEWATER D Diversion WHITEWATER CREEK 215276 4323351 85 GUILD DITCH NO 2 Diversion WHITEWATER CREEK 212663 4323595 86 GUILD DITCH NO 1 Diversion WHITEWATER CREEK 213077 4324384 87 WATSON DITCH Diversion WATSON CREEK 210244 4326403 88 GUILD DITCH Diversion WHITEWATER CREEK 209948 4326513 89 WATSON CREEK DITCH Diversion WATSON CREEK 214504 4329339 90 VERNE A JONES D HGT NO 2 Diversion WATSON CREEK 214504 4329339 TRANSBASIN DIVERSIONS Trans- 91 JUNIATA RES basin NORTH FORK KANNAH CREEK 215359 4318340 Diversion. Trans- 92 HALLENBECK RES #1 basin NORTH FORK KANNAH CREEK 214659 4318541 Diversion. RESERVOIRS 93 MCDONALD RES Reservoir INDIAN CREEK 210337 4313593 94 M A CONCRETE POND Reservoir KANNAH CREEK 208171 4314443 95 BARKER RESERVOIR 2 Reservoir KANNAH CREEK 212340 4314869 96 BARKER RESERVOIR 1 Reservoir KANNAH CREEK 212341 4314902 97 WHITING AUGMENTATION PD Reservoir KANNAH CREEK 210401 4315208 98 BOGGESS POND Reservoir NORTH FORK KANNAH CREEK 212698 4316825 99 JUNIATA RES Reservoir NORTH FORK KANNAH CREEK 215359 4318340 100 HALLENBECK RES #1 Reservoir NORTH FORK KANNAH CREEK 214659 4318541 101 REEDER RESERVOIR Reservoir WHITEWATER CREEK 212967 4319536 102 ADA RESERVOIR Reservoir WHITEWATER CREEK 211380 4320804 103 GUILD RES Reservoir WHITEWATER CREEK 211879 4324431 104 APACHE DAM Reservoir WATSON CREEK 213801 4329325
2
WELLS 105 CALVIN PIT-WELL Well KANNAH CREEK 212027 4314660 106 WHITTING WELL #1165 Well NORTH FORK KANNAH CREEK 209984 4314820 107 WHITTING WELL #1163 Well KANNAH CREEK 212817 4315114 108 WHITTING WELL #1161 Well KANNAH CREEK 209089 4315158 109 BONNELL SPRING-WELL Well KANNAH CREEK 212775 4316836 110 WHITTING WELL #1164 Well NORTH FORK KANNAH CREEK 210557 4316918 111 ANDERSON WELL NO. 1 Well KANNAH CREEK 213993 4318461 112 MT LEISTEN WELL Well NORTH FORK KANNAH CREEK 215070 4320228 113 LUMBARDY WELL Well WHITEWATER CREEK 209011 4322515 114 SOMERVILLE WELL #2 Well WHITEWATER CREEK 213056 4322768 115 SOMERVILLE WELL #1 Well WHITEWATER CREEK 212663 4323595 Source: CDWR (2012)
3
Table 2 Well Permit Summary
CDWR Depth Date of Well Total Well to Stated Use Issue or Yield Depth Owner Name Permit Water First Use (gpm) (ft) Number (ft)
DOMESTIC AND/OR STOCK USE WELLS 1 20669 DOMESTIC 7/30/1964 -- 2145 -- ANDERSON F E & W L 2 22164 DOMESTIC 11/13/1964 65 50 35 SUMMERVILLE RICHARD 3 22165 DOMESTIC 11/17/1964 20 50 45 LUMBARDY JOSEPH A 4 115722 DOMESTIC 9/30/1980 1.5 16 -- LEISTEN ALAN G. & BRENDA J. 5 119058 DOMESTIC 4/6/1981 ------PRICE C N 6 119615 DOMESTIC 5/8/1981 15 36 -- CRANE BOB 7 124322 DOMESTIC 3/9/1982 22 23 10 CRUTCHFIELD MICHAEL L 8 129875 DOMESTIC 3/13/1983 15 50 6 CLAIR MARK 9 135115 DOMESTIC 4/20/1984 ------SHUPE J 10 144134 DOMESTIC 6/12/1986 ------DAVIS CLIFFORD V. 11 147776 DOMESTIC 4/15/1972 15 17 -- WHITEWATER COMMUNITY INC. 12 148515 DOMESTIC 7/1/1987 ------MURRAY JACK 13 169959 DOMESTIC 5/12/1993 5 360 14 MILLER MARK J 14 173599 DOMESTIC 10/12/1993 4 240 9 ALLEN MITCHELL R 15 177168 DOMESTIC 4/8/1994 9 67 18 STELTER VERNE A & PATRICIA M 16 182125 DOMESTIC 9/23/1994 ------NELSON FRED R 17 186397 DOMESTIC 4/25/1995 2 120 8 HULL DANA N & DEBORAH A 18 188642 DOMESTIC 7/21/1995 0.5 157 10 WEBER RICHARD D 19 191902 DOMESTIC 12/12/1995 11 120 20 FENSKE MARK 20 196674 DOMESTIC 7/17/1996 ------COOPER EDWARD L 21 198207 DOMESTIC 10/9/1996 ------SOMERLOT FRED C 22 206585 DOMESTIC 12/5/1997 ------WORSTER E JOHN 23 221644 DOMESTIC 12/14/1999 15 10 3 MILLER CLINTON 24 224523 DOMESTIC 5/10/2000 ------GRIMWOOD DAVID C 25 248724 DOMESTIC 3/17/2003 ------SHIPP MICHAEL J DOMESTIC AND 26 22584 STOCK 1/13/1965 75 80 60 SUMMERVILLE RICHARD DOMESTIC AND 27 78232 STOCK 8/1/1958 1 12 -- ANDERSON ROY L DOMESTIC AND 28 116979 STOCK 10/29/1980 ------GRIMSLEY J R DOMESTIC AND 29 128840 STOCK 1/24/1983 ------WILSON F E DOMESTIC AND 30 184742 STOCK 2/1/1995 ------DUJAY RICHARD C & ROBIN S DOMESTIC AND 31 238492 STOCK 6/4/2010 25 65 10 BARKER MYRON DOMESTIC AND 32 272072 STOCK 1/12/2007 7 75 5 WYNNE LEE DOMESTIC AND 33 279442 STOCK 12/10/2008 ------BROWN RICHARD MARK 34 282321 DOMESTIC AND 1/6/2010 2 104 16 WYNN LORA SIMINOE
4
STOCK
CDWR Depth Date of Well Total Well to Stated Use Issue or Yield Depth Owner Name Permit Water First Use (gpm) (ft) Number (ft) HOUSEHOLD USE 35 129623 ONLY 3/3/1984 3 105 -- MOLNAR MARCUS & MARIA HOUSEHOLD USE 36 138099 ONLY 12/4/1984 5 63 30 HUDSON CHUCK HOUSEHOLD USE 37 145686 ONLY 10/15/1986 10 60 5 FARM CREDIT BANK OF WICHITA HOUSEHOLD USE 38 154089 ONLY 5/15/1989 15 28 6 LAUFFENBURGER SUSAN HOUSEHOLD USE 39 154090 ONLY 5/15/1989 15 50 6 MARSH LOUIS D HOUSEHOLD USE 40 154712 ONLY 7/18/1989 15 30 7 ASEHEBROOK ORVILLE HOUSEHOLD USE HURLEY WILLIAM A & TRABER KARIN 41 158533 ONLY 10/23/1990 5 445 30 J HOUSEHOLD USE 42 159593 ONLY 3/14/1991 ------MEASE ROCKY & TERRI HOUSEHOLD USE 43 192880 ONLY 2/15/1996 10 120 43 HICKOK ALLISON D HOUSEHOLD USE 44 203064 ONLY 6/30/1997 ------MILLER JEFFREY C HOUSEHOLD USE 45 208379 ONLY 3/30/1998 ------ELLYSON WALLACE & NANCY HOUSEHOLD USE 46 210712 ONLY 7/9/1998 ------GIRIN NATALIE HOUSEHOLD USE 47 224473 ONLY 3/24/2000 ------HAMBRIGHT JOSEPH A HOUSEHOLD USE 48 231750 ONLY 3/28/2001 5 150 8 BUTCHKO TOM HOUSEHOLD USE 49 238493 ONLY 1/4/2002 ------BARKER MYRON
GEOTHERMAL AND MONITORING WELLS 50 8 GEOTHERMAL 11/18/2004 -- 6 -- PHIPPS RALPH E 51 28 GEOTHERMAL -- -- 340 -- CLIFTON SANITATION 52 408 GEOTHERMAL 6/23/2003 -- 200 -- HAWLEY DAVID MONITORING 53 19051 WELL 5/6/1992 ------BURGER KING % ENVIRO 25 ENV SVCS MONITORING 54 20298 WELL 2/5/1993 ------WALEY JIM MONITORING 55 22118 WELL 1/11/1994 5 67 19 GARDNER MIKE MONITORING 56 24909 WELL 12/8/1994 4 68 13 COFFEY TANIA H MONITORING 57 29053 WELL 9/25/1985 ------US DEPT ENERGY MONITORING 58 29054 WELL 9/25/1985 ------US DEPT ENERGY MONITORING 59 29055 WELL 9/25/1985 ------US DEPT ENERGY MONITORING 60 29056 WELL 9/25/1985 ------US DEPT ENERGY MONITORING 61 33065 WELL 4/9/1998 ------FERGUSON ROB MONITORING 62 39495 WELL 3/21/2001 ------WILLIAMS LEONA MONITORING 63 233148 WELL 5/4/2001 ------US GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MONITORING 64 265869 WELL 10/3/2005 ------COHN DAVID Source: CDWR (2012)
5
Left blank for two-sided copying.
Appendix I Common and Scientific Names of Animals and Plants
Left blank for two-sided copying. Common Names and Scientific Names for Animal and Plant Species Discussed in the Text
Mammals (in taxonomic order) Birds (in taxonomic order) Least chipmunk, Neotamias minimus Bald eagle, Haliaeetus leucocephalus Rock squirrel, Otospermophilus variegatus Northern harrier, Circus cyaneus Golden-mantled ground squirrel, Callospermophilus Sharp-shinned hawk, Accipiter striatus lateralis Cooper’s hawk, Accipiter cooperii White-tailed prairie dog, Cynomys leucurus Northern goshawk, Accipiter gentilis Plains pocket mouse, Perognathus flavescens Swainson’s hawk, Buteo swainsoni Ord’s kangaroo rat, Dipodomys ordii Red-tailed hawk, Buteo jamaicensis Botta’s pocket gopher, Thomomys bottae Ferruginous hawk, Buteo regalis Northern pocket gopher, Thomomys talpoides Golden eagle, Aquila chrysaetos Long-tailed vole, Microtus longicaudus American kestrel, Falco sparverius Western harvest mouse, Reithrodontomys montanus Peregrine falcon, Falco peregrinus Deer mouse, Peromyscus maniculatus Prairie falcon, Falco mexicanus Pinyon mouse, Peromyscus truei Chukar, Alectoris chukar Bushy-tailed woodrat, Neotoma cinerea Gunnison sage-grouse, Centrocercus minimus North American porcupine, Erethizon dorsatum Greater sage-grouse, Centrocercus urophasianus Desert cottontail, Sylvilagus audubonii Wild turkey, Meleagris gallopavo Mountain cottontail, Sylvilagus nuttallii Gambel’s quail, Callipepla gambelii Big free-tailed bat, Nyctinomops macrotis Mourning dove, Zenaida macroura California myotis, Myotis californicus Yellow-billed cuckoo, Coccyzus americanus Long-eared myotis, Myotis evotis Mexican spotted owl, Strix occidentalis Little brown bat, Myotis lucifugus Western burrowing owl, Athene cunicularia Fringed myotis, Myotis thysanodes Common nighthawk, Chordeiles minor Hoary bat, Lasiurus cinereus Common poorwill, Phalaenoptilus nuttallii Silver-haired bat, Lasionycteris noctivagans Black-chinned hummingbird, Archilochus alexandri Western pipistrelle, Parastrellus hesperus Broad-tailed hummingbird, Selasphorus platycercus Big brown bat, Eptesicus fuscus Lewis’s woodpecker, Melanerpes lewisii Spotted bat, Euderma maculatum Downy woodpecker, Picoides pubescens Townsend's big-eared bat, Corynorhinus townsendii Northern flicker, Colaptes auratus Pallid bat, Antrozous pallidus Gray flycatcher, Empidonax wrightii Mountain lion, Puma concolor Cordilleran flycatcher, Empidonax occidentalis Canada lynx, Lynx canadensis Say’s phoebe, Sayornis saya Bobcat, Lynx rufus Ash-throated flycatcher, Myiarchus cinerascens Coyote, Canis latrans Western kingbird, Tyrannus vociferous Kit fox, Vulpes macrotis Loggerhead shrike, Lanius ludovicianus Red fox, Vulpes vulpes Gray vireo, Vireo vicinior Common gray fox, Urocyon cinereoargenteus Plumbeous vireo, Vireo plumbeus Black bear, Ursus americanus Warbling vireo, Vireo gilvus Long-tailed weasel, Mustela frenata Pinyon jay, Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus North American wolverine, Gulo gulo Black-billed magpie, Pica hudsonia Northern river otter, Lontra canadensis American crow, Corvus brachyrhynchos American badger, Taxidea taxus Common raven, Corvus corax Western spotted skunk, Spilogale gracilis Horned lark, Eremophila alpestris Striped skunk, Mephitis mephitis Juniper titmouse, Baeolophus ridgwayi Ringtail, Bassariscus astutus Rock wren, Salpinctes obsoletus Northern raccoon, Procyon lotor Blue-gray gnatcatcher, Polioptila caerulea Elk, Cervus canadensis Mountain bluebird, Sialia currucoides Mule deer, Odocoileus hemionus Townsend’s solitaire, Myadestes townsendii Moose, Alces alces American robin, Turdus migratorius Pronghorn, Antilocapra americana Yellow warbler, Dendroica petechia Desert bighorn sheep, Ovis canadensis nelsoni Black-throated gray warbler, Dendroica nigrescens Western tanager, Piranga ludoviciana
1 Spotted towhee, Pipilo maculatus Mountain sucker, Catostomas platyrhynchus Chipping sparrow, Spizella passerina Razorback sucker, Xyrauchen texanus Brewer’s sparrow, Spizella breweri Vesper sparrow, Pooecetes gramineus Invertebrates (in alphabetical order) Lark sparrow, Chondestes grammacus Black-headed grosbeak, Pheucticus melanocephalus Great Basin silverspot butterfly, Speyeria nokomis Red-winged blackbird, Aegolius phoeniceus nokomis Western meadowlark, Sturnella neglecta Brewer’s blackbird, Euphagus cyanocephalus Plants (in alphabetical order by scientific Brown-headed cowbird, Molothrus ater name) Bullock’s oriole, Icterus bullockii Boxelder, Acer negundo House finch, Haemorhous mexicanus Crested wheatgrass, Agropyron cristatum Lesser goldfinch, Spinus psaltria Utah serviceberry, Amelanchier utahensis Jones blue star, Amsonia jonesii Amphibians (in taxonomic order) Big sagebrush, Artemisia tridentata Barred tiger salamander, Ambystoma mavortium De Beque milkvetch, Astragalus debequaeus Great Basin spadefoot, Spea intermontana Horseshoe milkvetch, Astragalus equisolensis Woodhouse’s toad, Anaxyrus woodhousei Grand Junction milkvetch, Astragalus linifolius Canyon treefrog, Hyla arenicolor Ferron’s milkvetch, Astragalus musiniensis Western chorus frog, Pseudacris triseriata Naturita milkvetch, Astragalus naturitensis Northern leopard frog, Lithobates pipiens Fisher milkvetch, Astragalus piscator San Rafael milkvetch, Astragalus rafaelensis Reptiles (in taxonomic order) Shadscale, Atriplex confertifolia Fourwing saltbush, Atriplex canescens Longnose leopard lizard, Gambelia wislizenii Mat saltbush, Atriplex corrugata Short-horned lizard, Phrynosoma hernandesi Gardner’s saltbush, Atriplex gardneri Sagebrush lizard, Sceloporus graciosus Downy brome (cheatgrass), Bromus tectorum Striped plateau lizard, Sceloporus virgatus Bluejoint reedgrass, Calamagrostis canadensis Tree lizard, Urosaurus ornatus Grand Junction suncup, Camissonia eastwoodiae Side-blotched lizard, Uta stansburiana Hoary cress (whitetop), Lepidium draba Western whiptail, Cnemidophorus tigris Musk thistle, Carduus nutans Plateau striped whiptail, Cnemidophorus velox Mountain-mahogany, Cercocarpus montanus Yellow-bellied racer, Coluber constrictor Lambs-quarters, Chenopodium album Great Plains rat snake, Elaphus guttata Blue mustard, Chorispora tenella Milk snake, Lampropeltis triangulum Rubber rabbitbrush, Ericameria nauseosa Striped whipsnake, Masticophis taeniatus Greene’s rabbitbrush, Chrysothamnus greenei Gopher snake/Bullsnake, Pituophis catenifer Sticky rabbitbrush, Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus Western terrestrial garter snake, Thamnophis elegans Chicory, Cichorium intybus Midget faded rattlesnake, Crotalus oreganus concolor Field bindweed, Convolvulus arvensis
Fish (in taxonomic order) Desert parsley, Cymopterus acaulis fendleri Orchardgrass, Dactylis glomerata Colorado River cutthroat trout, Oncorhynchus clarkii Russian olive, Eleagnus angustifolia cf. pleuriticus Bottlebrush squirreltail, Elymus elymoides Rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss Annual wheatgrass, Eremopyrum triticeum Brown trout, Salmo trutta Kachina fleabane, Erigeron kachinensis Common carp, Cyprinus carpio Grand buckwheat, Eriogonum contortum Speckled dace, Rhinichthys osculus Tufted green gentian, Frasera paniculata Colorado pikeminnow, Ptychocheilus lucius Narrow-stem gilia, Gilia stenothysra Roundtail chub, Gila robusta Curlycup gumweed, Grindelia squarrosa Humpback chub, Gila cypha Broom snakeweed, Gutierrezia sarothrae Bonytail chub, Gila elegans Halogeton, Halogeton glomeratus Fathead minnow, Pimephales promelas Utah juniper, Juniperus osteosperma White sucker, Catostomus commersonii Winterfat, Krascheninnikovia lanata Flannelmouth sucker, Catostomas latipinnis Clasping pepperweed, Lepidium perfoliatum Bluehead sucker, Catostomus discobolus Piceance bladderpod, Lesquerella parviflora
2 Canyonlands biscuitroot, Lomatium latilobum Dolores River skeleton plant, Lygodesmia doloresensis Roan Cliffs blazingstar, Mentzelia rhizomata [Nuttallia rhizomata] Eastwood Monkey-flower, Mimulus eastwoodiae Prickly-pear cactus, Opuntia polyacantha Osterhout’s cateye, Oreocarya osterhoutii Reveal’s cateye, Oreocarya revealii Indian ricegrass, Oryzopsis hymenoides Western wheatgrass, Pascopyrum smithii Aromatic Indian breadroot, Pediomelum aromaticum DeBeque phacelia, Phacelia submutica Pinyon pine, Pinus edulis James’ galleta, Pleuraphis jamesii Narrowleaf cottonwood, Populus angustifolia Plains) cottonwood, Populus deltoides Gambel’s oak, Quercus gambelii Russian knapweed, Rhaponticum repens Skunkbrush, Rhus trilobata Coyote willow, Salix exigua Russian-thistle (tumbleweed), Salsola iberica Black greasewood, Sarcobatus vermiculatus Colorado hookless cactus, Sclerocactus glaucus Intermediate fishhook Cactus, Sclerocactus parviflorus intermedius Tall tumbling-mustard, Sisymbrium altissimum Scarlet globemallow, Sphaeralcea coccinea Needle-and-thread, Stipa comata Tamarisk (saltcedar), Tamarix ramosissima Spiny horsebrush, Tetradymia spinosa Cathedral Bluff’s meadowrue, Thalictrum heliophilum Tumblemustard, Thelypodiopsis sp. Common mullein, Verbascum thapsus Harriman’s yucca, Yucca harrimaniae
3 Left blank for two-sided copying.
Appendix J
Cultural MOAs Left blank for two-sided copying.
Cultural Resources Memorandum of Understanding
Direct Effects
Left blank for two-sided copying.
Left blank for two-sided copying.
Left blank for two-sided copying.
Cultural Resources Memorandum of Understanding
Cumulative Effects Left blank for two-sided copying.