Submitted electronically at: [email protected] and via U.S. Post Service May 23, 2017 Forest Supervisor Patricia O’Connor, Reviewing Officer USDA Forest Service Bridger-Teton National Forest P.O. Box 1888 340 N. Cache Jackson, WY 83001 Objection to: True Oil—Lander Peak Area Exploratory Proposal Draft Decision Notice to the Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact, Big Piney Ranger District, Bridger-Teton National Forest Objector: Cathy Purves Trout Unlimited 220 North 8th Street Lander, Wyoming 82520 307-332-6700 ext. 10 [email protected] Project Being Objected To: True Oil – Lander Peak Area Exploratory Proposal Responsible Official: Donald Krandendonk, Responsible Official, Big Piney District Ranger Ranger District Project Location: Big Piney Ranger District, Bridger-Teton National Forest Dear Ms. O’Connor, Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the United States Forest Service (USFS) pre-decisional objection process. Trout Unlimited (TU) submitted scoping comments on the True Oil, LLC – Lander Peak Area Exploratory Proposal (the “Proposal) in both 2012 and 2015. Trout Unlimited respectfully objects to the Forest Service’s Draft Decision and Finding of No Significant Impact authorizing the Proposal for the reasons we will discuss below. Statement of the Issue(s): The Bridger-Teton National Forest Draft Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact by the Big Piney District Ranger for the True Oil—Lander Peak Area Exploratory Proposal does not meet the required “hard look” on environmental impacts for a major federal action. The Forest Service failed to analyze a proposed Master Development Plan (MDP) to drill up to 40 new wells in the South Cottonwood drainage submitted by True Oil, LLC, in October 2010 to the Bridger-Teton National Forest. This MDP was not analyzed or discussed in any length in the Environmental Assessment (EA). Instead, the USFS analyzed only two wells out of the reasonably foreseeable 40 wells that have been proposed by True Oil, LLC. This narrow scope of analysis violates federal law and regulation and leaves all other analysis conducted in the EA questionable. In order for plan decision to be improved, TU requests that the Forest Service prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that analyzes the potential effects of all 40 proposed wells. The following issues are connected to this objection: 1) The Forest Service failed to analyze the cumulative effects of the Proposal by ignoring True Oil, LLC’s Master Development Plan. 2) The Forest Service has failed to take a hard look at the impacts associated with the Proposal. 3) The Forest Service should require additional Mitigation Measures and Bonding requirements. 4) The Forest Service should require additional Monitoring requirements. Demonstration Statement for Filing the Objection: Trout Unlimited has been a participant in the public process for this project proposal from the beginning, submitting comments to the Big Piney Ranger District during the original scoping process in 2012 and during the second scoping process in 2015.1 In addition, in June 2013 TU submitted additional watershed guidelines for this project to the Big Piney Ranger District based on new data that became available.2 In each set of scoping comments we have requested that an EIS be prepared in light of the numerous environment issues presented in the proponent’s project location and the presence of an MDP, and the numerous reference and research documents which support our requests. It is through these references and our history of participation that we provide the required “link” demonstrating prior substantive written comments. Discussion of the Issues: 1) The Forest Service failed to analyze the cumulative effects of the Proposal by ignoring True Oil, LLC’s Master Development Plan. In 2010, True Oil submitted a MDP for the Lander Peak Area that proposes drilling up to 40 wells on 5 pads over a six to ten year period. The MDP also details the need for additional road and pipeline construction associated with the project, and notes that True Oil expects to operate two drilling rigs simultaneously to construct and complete up to “six wells per year.” 3 Due to the small and compact area of the South Cottonwood and Bare Creek drainages, the sensitive fish and wildlife habitat contained therein, and the high value placed on the area by Wyoming sportsmen and sportswomen, we asked the Forest Service to conduct a full EIS based on the MDP in our scoping comments in both 2015 and 2012 (Attachments 1 and 2). 1 Trout Unlimited Scoping Comments for Lander Peak Area Exploratory Proposal.; December 1, 2015: Sent to Mike Thom, District Ranger, Big Piney Ranger District- Attachment 1.: Trout Unlimited Scoping Comments for Lander Peak Exploration Project EA; May 15, 2012: Sent to Eric J. Winthers, Acting District Ranger, Big Piney Ranger District- Attachment 2. 2 Trout Unlimited. June 2013. “Additional Watershed Guidelines Recommended for the Lander Peak Exploration Project within the Bridger-Teton National Forest”. Sent via email to Big Piney District Ranger. Attachment 3. 3 See Lander Peak Area Master Development Plan at p. 1, True Oil, LLC, October 2010, attached hereto as Attachment 2 Trout Unlimited – Objection Letter to Bridger-Teton National Forest – True Oil Lander Peak Proposal The Forest Service failed to analyze, or even acknowledge, the MDP in its EA of the Proposal and in its FONSI. Instead, the Forest Service analyzed only two wells out of the reasonably foreseeable 40 wells that have been proposed by True Oil, LLC. This narrow scope of analysis violates federal law and regulation in two ways. First, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires agencies to consider the cumulative effects of final actions and “reasonably foreseeable future actions,” which are defined as “Federal or non-Federal activities not yet undertaken, for which there are existing decisions, funding, or identified proposals.” 36 C.F.R. § 220.3. Here, True Oil, LLC has previously submitted an identified proposal in the form of its MDP for up to 40 wells in the Lander Peak Area. These 40 wells are reasonably foreseeable future actions that should have been analyzed in the EA. Second, the Council on Environmental Quality’s NEPA regulations require the Forest Service to consider “[p]roposals or parts of proposals which are related to each other closely enough to be, in effect, a single course of action,” to be evaluated in the same environmental impact statement. 40 CFR § 1502.4. Here, the Forest Service has evaluated Phase I of True Oil, LLC’s MDP without regard or analysis of Phase II and III and the additional impacts of 38 more wells on the area. In both circumstances, Federal law and regulation requires the Forest Service to take a hard look at the cumulative environmental impacts of Phase II and III of the MDP. Here, where the Proposed Action is in close proximity to both pure conservation populations of Colorado River Cutthroat trout (CRCT) and the longest mule deer migration route in the United States, the Forest Service should be sure to analyze the potential impacts of the MDP as a whole and be careful not to analyze piecemeal proposals that give the appearance of mitigated impacts. To remedy this, TU asks the Forest Service to consider all three phases of the MDP in one impact assessment, and to prepare and EIS that analyzes the potential effects of all 40 proposed wells. 2) The Forest Service has failed to take a hard look at the impacts associated with the Proposal. Under NEPA, the Forest Service was required to take a “hard look at all information related to the decision” when it analyzed the Proposal.4 Here, the EA supporting the Forest Service’s decision contains unreasonable assumptions that do not support a FONSI. In our scoping comments, TU asked the Forest Service to consider impacts to surface and groundwater resources and accountability for water quantity required for the Proposal, and warned the Forest Service about the minimal amount of truck traffic projected in the Proposal. (See Attachment 1, p. 2.) Here, the EA contains unreasonable assumptions about truck traffic and water usage that do not support a FONSI and should be reexamined in detail. First, the EA grossly underestimates the amount of truck traffic that will be required for dust suppression activities. Based on its own estimates of water required for dust control activities, the stated assumptions for truck traffic are 15 times lower than what will actually be required. See EA Tables 2.3-6 and 2.3-8. A miscalculation of this magnitude demonstrates that the USFS has failed to take a hard look at the impacts to fish and wildlife habitat, especially in an 4 Forest Guardians v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 611 F.3d 692, 711 (10th Cir. 2010). 3 Trout Unlimited – Objection Letter to Bridger-Teton National Forest – True Oil Lander Peak Proposal established migration corridor, when it determined that the Proposal will have no significant impacts and declined to prepare an EIS. Specifically, the EA states that its assumptions regarding water usage for dust control are based on 80 bbls of water being applied per mile to approximately 30 miles of unpaved roads. EA at Table 2.3-6. The EA notes that approximately 65% of the water used during the construction phase (112,800 bbls) will be used for dust control. Id. Despite this projection, in Table 2.3-8, the EA projects only 1 truck trip for dust control per day during the construction phase. This is unreasonable, and understates by 15 times the amount of truck traffic required for dust suppression activities. Based on the USFS’s own assumptions for water usage, the Proposal will require thirty truck trips in an 80 bbl truck every other day to meet the 112,800 bbl projection of water required for dust suppression.