Usda Forest Service Dakota Prairie Grasslands

April 2018

Environmental Assessment

Antelope Master Development Plan McKenzie County, North Dakota

USDA FOREST SERVICE

DAKOTA PRAIRIE GRASSLANDS

MCKENZIE RANGER DISTRICT AND USDI BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, COOPERATING

AGENCY

Table of Contents

ACRONYMS ...... IV

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Introduction ...... 1 1.2 Purpose and Need ...... 1 1.3 Authorizing Actions ...... 1 1.3.1 Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the Dakota Prairie Grasslands ...... 3 1.3.2 Dakota Prairie Grasslands Oil and Gas Leasing Record of Decision .... 3 1.4 Documents Incorporated by Reference ...... 4 1.4.1 12 Point Requirements ...... 4 1.4.2 Conditions of Approval ...... 4 1.5 Decisions To Be Made ...... 4 1.6 Public Involvement and Issue Identification ...... 4 1.7 Permits and Jurisdictions ...... 7 1.8 Federal Lease Rights ...... 8

2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ...... 9 2.1 Development of Alternatives ...... 9 2.2 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis ...... 10 2.3 No Action Alternative ...... 11 2.4 Proposed Action Alternative ...... 11 2.4.1 Project Summary ...... 11 2.4.2 Description of Project Actions ...... 17 2.4.3 Design Features and Best Management Practices ...... 24

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...... 34 3.1 Introduction ...... 34 3.1.1 Chapter Organization ...... 34 3.1.2 Affected/Analysis Area Definitions ...... 34 3.1.3 Resources Evaluated ...... 34 3.1.4 Cumulative Actions ...... 36 3.2 Air Quality ...... 39 3.2.1 Affected Environment ...... 41 3.2.2 Environmental Consequences ...... 42 3.3 Soils and Topography ...... 45 3.3.1 Affected Environment ...... 45 3.3.2 Environmental Consequences ...... 45 3.4 Geology and Minerals...... 50 3.4.1 Affected Environment ...... 51 3.4.2 Environmental Consequences ...... 52 3.5 Water Resources ...... 52 3.5.1 Affected Environment ...... 53 3.5.2 Environmental Consequences ...... 56 3.6 Biological Resources ...... 57 3.6.1 Affected Environment ...... 58 3.6.2 Environmental Consequences ...... 63 3.7 Cultural Resources and Paleontology ...... 68 3.7.1 Affected Environment ...... 69

April 2018 i

Table of Contents (Cont.)

3.7.2 Environmental Consequences ...... 69 3.8 Recreation and Visual Resources ...... 74 3.8.1 Affected Environment ...... 74 3.8.2 Environmental Consequences ...... 75 3.9 Noise ...... 78 3.9.1 Affected Environment ...... 78 3.9.2 Environmental Consequences ...... 79 3.10 Public Health and Safety ...... 80 3.10.1 Affected Environment ...... 80 3.10.2 Environmental Consequences ...... 80 3.11 Socioeconomics ...... 82 3.11.1 Affected Environment ...... 82 3.11.2 Environmental Consequences ...... 85 3.12 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ...... 86 3.12.1 Affected Environment ...... 86 3.12.2 Environmental Consequences ...... 87

4.0 CONSULTATION AND PREPARERS ...... 88 4.1 Introduction ...... 88 4.2 Summary of Public Participants ...... 88 4.3 List of Preparers ...... 88 4.4 Disclosure ...... 89

5.0 REFERENCES ...... 90

April 2018 ii

Table of Contents (Cont.)

IN-TEXT TABLES

Table 1-1: Concerns Identified through Comments Received ...... 5 Table 2-1: Proposed Action Summary ...... 12 Table 2-2: Surface Disturbance of Project Area ...... 12 Table 2-3: Summary of Environmental Protection Measures for the Project ...... 25 Table 3-1: Summary of Potential Impacts and Approvals of Proposed Action...... 35 Table 3-2: Past, Present, and Future Wells within the Antelope MDP Area ...... 37 Table 3-3: National and State Air Quality Standards ...... 39 Table 3-4: Ambient Air Quality Levels ...... 41 Table 3-5: Proposed Action Year 5 Emissions (tons per year) ...... 43 Table 3-6: Cumulative Year 5 Emissions (tons per year) ...... 44 Table 3-7: Soil Map Units within the Disturbance Area ...... 46 Table 3-8: Major Past, Present, Future Disturbance Estimates within the MDP Area ...... 50 Table 3-9: Hydrologic Units (HUCs) within the MDP Area ...... 53 Table 3-10. Federally Listed, Proposed, and Candidate Resources ...... 59 Table 3-11. Sensitive Wildlife Species of the LMNG ...... 60 Table 3-12. Sensitive Plant Species of the LMNG ...... 61 Table 3-13. Vegetation Communities within the Project Area ...... 64 Table 3-14. Summary of Determinations for Threatened and Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat ...... 65 Table 3-15. Summary of Determinations for Sensitive Wildlife ...... 66 Table 3-16. Summary of Determinations for Sensitive Plants ...... 66 Table 3-17. Cultural Resource Inventories Conducted for the Proposed Action ...... 71 Table 3-18: Population and Demographics ...... 82 Table 3-19: Employment Summary ...... 83 Table 3-20: Income Summary ...... 83 Table 3-21: Poverty Summary ...... 84 Table 4-1: Preparers and Contributors to EA ...... 88

IN-TEXT FIGURES

Figure 1. Project Overview Map ...... 2 Figure 2. Charolais Facilities ...... 15 Figure 3. Harms and Wolverine Facilities ...... 16 Figure 4. Past, Present, and Future Oil and Gas Wells within the MDP Area ...... 38 Figure 4. Soils Map of Charolais Facilities ...... 47 Figure 5. Soils Map of Harms and Wolverine Facilities ...... 48 Figure 7. Hydrology of MDP Area ...... 54 Figure 8. Recreational Sites and Historic Trails Near the MDP Area ...... 76

APPENDICES

Appendix A Scoping Letter and Distribution List Scoping Comments Summary Public Scoping Responses

April 2018 iii

Acronyms

AAQS Ambient Air Quality Standards APD Application for Permit to Drill ATV All-terrain vehicle BCA Badlands Conservation Alliance BLM Bureau of Land Management BMP Best Management Practice CEQ Council of Environmental Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulations CH4 Methane CO Carbon monoxide CO2 Carbon dioxide COA Conditions of Approval CTB Central tank battery DPG Dakota Prairie Grasslands EA Environmental Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement FSH Forest Service Handbook GHG Greenhouse gas H2S Hydrogen sulfide HAP Hazardous air pollutants HDD Horizontal directional drilling IPC Initial Planning Conferences LACT Lease Automatic Custody Transfer LMNG Little Missouri National Grasslands LRMP Land and Resource Management Plan MA Management Area MDP Master Development Plan N2O Nitrous Oxide NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAIP National Agriculture Imagery Program ND North Dakota NDCTWS North Dakota Chapter of The Wildlife Society NDDH North Dakota Department of Health NDDTL North Dakota Department of Trust Lands NDGFD North Dakota Game and Fish Department NDIC North Dakota Industrial Commission NO2 Nitrogen dioxide NTL Notices to lessees O3 Ozone OSHA Occupational Health and Safety Administration ppb Part per billion Pb Lead PM Principal Meridian PM2.5 Particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter PM10 Particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition

April 2018 iv

Acronyms (Cont.)

SO2 Sulfur dioxide SUPO Surface Use Plan of Operation TPY Tons per year USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers USDI United States Department of Interior USDA United States Department of Agriculture USFS United States Forest Service USFWS United State Fish and Wildlife Service VOC Volatile organic compound

April 2018 v

1.0 Introduction

1.1 INTRODUCTION

The Antelope Master Development Plan (MDP) is a joint project proposed by Continental Resources, Inc. (Continental) and Slawson Exploration Company, Inc. (Slawson) (the Companies) to develop up to 49 new oil and gas wells on a combination of seven new well pads and expansion of three existing well pads on the Little Missouri National Grasslands (LMNG) in northeastern McKenzie County, North Dakota (ND) (referred to collectively as the Project; Figure 1). The LMNG is managed by the United States Forest Service (USFS) as part of the Dakota Prairie Grasslands (DPG). The Project includes the oil and gas development planned on USFS lands by the Companies within the defined area for the next five to ten year period. The Project would consist of constructing, drilling, completing, and operating the wells and would include construction of up to 4.1 miles of access roads and installation of associated utilities.

The federal Proposed Action is to consider allowing the Companies to develop their federal mineral rights through the development of the wells on USFS lands. An Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared according to the format established by the Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations which implement the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1500-1508). The purpose of the Antelope MDP EA is to analyze and disclose, as a whole, the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the Proposed Action and No Action alternatives.

Additional documentation pertaining to or referred to within the EA can be found in the project planning record (i.e., Project Record) at the USFS McKenzie Ranger District Office in Watford City, ND. These records are available for public review.

1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED

The purpose of the Proposed Action is to honor valid existing mineral rights while minimizing impacts to the federal surface resources. The need for the Proposed Action is that the USFS is required to respond to a Surface Use Plan of Operation (SUPO) that is submitted in conjunction with a valid mineral right. The response must take the form of a determination as to whether the submitted SUPO is consistent with federal mineral lease stipulations and laws; is consistent with the current land management plan; meets or exceeds the surface use requirements of 36 CFR 228.108(a) through (j); and applies necessary Conditions of Approval (COAs) to ensure protection of federal surface resources.

Per 43 CFR 3162.3, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is the permitting agency and must approve the federal applications for permit to drill (APDs), of which the SUPOs are a part, with conditions identified by the USFS.

1.3 AUTHORIZING ACTIONS

The Proposed Action and No Action alternative are subject to and have been reviewed for conformance with the applicable land use plan and decisions for the McKenzie District.

April 2018 1

Figure 1. Project Overview Map

April 2018 2

1.3.1 Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the Dakota Prairie Grasslands

The current land use plan is titled the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) for the DPG, approved in 1987 as the 1987 Custer National Forest Management Plan (USFS 1987) and revised in 2001 as the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the Dakota Prairie Grasslands (USFS 2001a). Relevant amendments include the Addendum for the Final Environmental Impact Statement and Land Resource Management Plans, 2001 Revisions (USFS 2001b); the Record of Decision for the Dakota Prairie Grasslands Final Environmental Impact Statement and Land and Resource Management Plan (DPG FEIS ROD) (USFS 2002a); and associated maps, Little Missouri National Grasslands FEIS Alternative 3 (McKenzie) (USFS 2002b) and Little Missouri National Grasslands Modified Alternative 3 Final (McKenzie) (USFS 2002c).

According to the LRMP, the DPG-wide goal for minerals and energy is to improve the capability of the Nation’s forests and grasslands to provide a desired level of uses, values, products, and services (LRMP, p. 1-5).

LRMP objectives for minerals and energy are to: 1) Provide opportunities for oil and gas exploration and development with Plan direction; 2) Ensure reclamation provisions of operating plans are completed to standard; 3) Honor all valid existing mineral rights; and 4) Respond in a timely manner to applications for special use permits, mineral leasing exploration and development (LRMP, pp.1-6 and 1-8).

The Proposed Action would occur in Management Area (MA) 6.1 “Rangelands with Broad Resource Emphasis,” with the following direction: This MA is primarily a rangeland ecosystem managed to meet a variety of ecological conditions and human needs. Ecological conditions will be maintained while emphasizing selected biological (grasses and other vegetation) structure and composition that considers the range of natural variability. These lands often display high levels of development, commodity uses, and activity; density of facilities; and evidence of vegetative manipulation. Users expect to see other people and evidence of human activities. Facilities supporting the various resource uses are common. Motorized transportation is common on designated roads and two-tracks. (LRMP, p. 3-43).

Standards and Guidelines for Minerals and Energy Resources within MA 6.1 include: honoring all valid existing oil and gas leases; allowing oil and gas leasing and development; and allowing removal of mineral materials. (LRMP, pp. 1-12 and 3-43).

DPG-wide Standards and Guidelines for infrastructure are also referenced in Section Q, Chapter 1 (pp. 1-26 and 1-27), and the Geographic Area Direction in Chapter 2 (pp. 2-9 through 2-23) of the LRMP (USFS 2001a). Standards and Guidelines also require that provisions to prevent the spread of noxious and invasive plants be included in contracts and permits, including permits related to oil development (LRMP, p. 1-20).

1.3.2 Dakota Prairie Grasslands Oil and Gas Leasing Record of Decision

The 2003 DPG Oil and Gas Leasing Record of Decision (USFS 2003) documents the USFS decision concerning which specific lands the USFS is authorizing the BLM to offer for lease in accordance with 36 CFR 228.102(e). The USFS calls this the “Leasing for Specific Lands” decision. This decision incorporates the lease terms and stipulations determined necessary to mitigate effects to surface resources. The Purpose and Need and the Proposed Action meet Forest-wide objective 2c.5: “…respond to requests for leasing, exploration, and

April 2018 3

development of mineral and energy resources in accordance with regulations and Forest Plan availability and specific lands decisions” (p. 1-12).

1.4 DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Documents incorporated by reference include the 12 Point Requirements and COAs. Documents issued for the Proposed Action are available to the public in the Project Record or on file at the USFS McKenzie Ranger District Office in Watford City, ND.

1.4.1 12 Point Requirements

The 12 Point Requirements (also referred to as the 12-Point SUPO) is required by both the USFS and BLM CFRs (36 CFR 228, Subpart E, 43 CFR 3162.3-1(f) and (Onshore Order Number One) [Revised 2007]). It provides additional information to the SUPO concerning use of existing roads, construction or reconstruction of the access road, proximity to existing facilities, source and use of materials, handling wastes, well layouts, and plans for reclamation.

1.4.2 Conditions of Approval

Approval of the SUPO is contingent upon acceptance of the USFS COAs. The COAs are compatible with the LRMP, and consistent with the terms of the lease, state laws, and other federal regulations. They specify acceptable design features and Best Management Practices (BMPs) regarding safety, soil erosion control, water protection, reclamation standards, native seed mixtures, noxious weed control, waste control, spill policy, road construction and maintenance specifications, road management, buried lines, plats, fire, etc. The BLM will include these USFS COAs in their approval of the APD as well as approve or add any additional drilling or downhole requirements.

1.5 DECISIONS TO BE MADE

The McKenzie District Ranger will be the Responsible Official for making the decision regarding the SUPOs for the Proposed Action, and will decide whether to approve, deny, or modify the SUPOs as submitted and revised. Following USFS approval of the SUPOs, the BLM Field Office Manager will be the Responsible Official for deciding whether to approve the federal APDs as submitted, return the application and advise the applicant(s) of the reasons for disapproval, or advise the applicant(s) of the reasons why final action will be delayed. Based on the analysis in this EA and a consideration of public comments on the Proposed Action, the Responsible Officials will issue a decision record documenting the selected alternative and the basis for the selection. If the analysis finds no significant impacts to the human environment, the decision will be documented in a Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). If the analysis determines significant impacts may occur, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be prepared to further analyze the significant issues.

1.6 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND ISSUE IDENTIFICATION

The Proposed Action was made available for public review and comment on April 28, 2016, including publication in an area newspaper, the Bismarck Tribune, and a letter sent to a total of thirty-seven (37) organizations, individuals, and federal, state, and local government agencies, as well as ten (10) individuals within four (4) tribal governments, known to have an interest in the Proposed Action. The notices provided information about the Project and a 30-day comment period.

April 2018 4

Four entities responded during the comment period: North Dakota Department of Trust Lands (NDDTL); North Dakota Chapter of The Wildlife Society (NDCTWS); Badlands Conservation Alliance (BCA); and North Dakota Game and Fish Department (NDGFD). Upon technical analysis of this EA by resource specialists and comments from the public, the following issues were identified relative to the Proposed Action: 1) Potential impacts to water quality and associated land features from a large-scale hydrocarbon and/or saltwater spill, specifically with regard to large storage facilities and pipelines. Such an event from a multi-well pad located near drainages that lead directly into Lake Sakakawea could impact wooded draws and/or drainages that have ephemeral wetlands, shallow groundwater, lake shore habitat, and lake water. Several design features and BMPs would be required for the Project, as listed in Section 2.4.3. 2) Potential impacts to wildlife at Antelope WMA may occur from development of the Brangus location. Concerns with this were minimized by siting the Brangus location as far as possible from the WMA while still meeting drilling spacing requirements. 3) Potential impacts on visuals may occur to the Lewis and Clark Trail with the construction of the Charolais and Brangus locations. 4) The Project may affect, and would likely adversely affect, the Dakota skipper (Wenck 2016). Formal Section 7 consultation under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) was initiated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) which resulted in a Biological Opinion and Incidental Take Permit for the Project (Shelley 2017).

Some comments relating to this Proposed Action do not necessarily constitute issues for a variety of reasons, including: 1) the issue is outside the scope of the Proposed Action; 2) the issue is already decided by law, regulation, Forest Plan, or other higher-level decision; 3) the issue is irrelevant to the decision to be made; or 4) the issue is conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence. Refer to Appendix A for those comments that were not considered issues related to the Proposed Action.

provides a summary of the concerns identified by the public that will be discussed in greater detail in Chapters 2 and 3. Specific comments received, along with responses explaining how each has been addressed and considered through the analysis, are provided in Appendix A.

Table 1-1: Concerns Identified through Comments Received Topic Section Concerns Identified Agriculture 3.3 • Pipeline systems

Alternatives & 2.1, 2.2 • Existing pipelines Project Design • Existing wells on planning decisions • Spacing units, lateral routes • Planning process and results • Other leaseholders • Support for multi-well pads • Support for Proposed Alternative

April 2018 5

Topic Section Concerns Identified • Analysis of effects of multi-well pads • Need for and location of new roads Air Quality 0 • Fugitive dust • Flaring and related regulations • Road building • Vehicle emissions, greenhouse gas emissions, VOCs • Impacts on Theodore Roosevelt National Park (TRNP) Cumulative All • Potential for additional future development Effects • Associated infrastructure • Existing pipelines • Existing wells on planning decisions • Economic efficiencies of shared infrastructure • Bakken-wide effects DPG Oil & Gas Appendix • More opportunities for public involvement Supplemental A, • Scope of SEIS analysis too narrow EIS (SEIS) Comment • Scope of Draft RFD inadequate Responses • Opportunity for adapting management based on comprehensive analysis of changed conditions • Oppose future leasing of unleased tracts • More appropriate to update DEIS Economics Appendix • DPG management capabilities in terms of staff numbers A, and expertise Comment • Flaring analysis based on multiple economic scenarios, Responses effects on national and global scale • Effects of low oil and gas prices Mitigation and Appendix • Revised Conditions of Approval Monitoring A, • USFS authority on phased development Comment • USFS capabilities to monitor well locations, roads, illegal Responses activities on public lands NEPA Adequacy Appendix • MDP process A, • Relation to Supplemental EIS Comment • 2013 Draft Reasonable and Foreseeable Development Responses; Scenario 4.0 • Consultation with federal, state, and local agencies • Adequacy of NEPA review of pad expansions Noise 3.9 • Mitigation

Public Health 3.10 • Traffic coordination during drilling and Safety • Pipeline systems • Waste disposal • Road building, increased traffic • USFS capabilities to monitor illegal activities on public lands Recreation and 3.8 • Effects to three units of TRNP Protected Areas • Suitable for Wilderness Areas • Ebert Ranch/Elkhorn Ranchlands • Effects of increased oil development on outdoor recreation • NDIC Special/Extraordinary Places; Areas of Interest Soils 3.3 • Sterility from produced water spills

Threatened and 3.6 • Analysis of: Endangered o Dakota Skipper and Critical Habitat Species o Northern Long-Eared Bat o Least Terns

April 2018 6

Topic Section Concerns Identified o Piping Plovers

Visual 3.8 • Lighting, flaring • Reassessment of Scenic Integrity decisions • Viewshed effects to TRNP Water 3.5 • Spill prevention, plans, monitoring, response Resources • Consultation with the US Army Corps of Engineers • Produced water disposal • Fracturing water source • Quality and quantity • Surface waters and groundwater • Impacts of water use on other resources Wildlife 3.6 • Impacts from traffic, noise, flaring, disturbance, "fugitive" dust, pipeline systems • No Surface Occupancy and Timing Limitation considerations • Spill prevention, plans, monitoring, response • Analysis of: o Antelope Creek State Wildlife Area o Bighorn Sheep o Eagles o Mule Deer o Meadowlarks o Pronghorn o Sharp-tailed grouse • Direct habitat loss from Project footprint • Fish and wildlife law enforcement

USFS directives provide for the identification of issues to be analyzed in depth (Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.15, 12.4). Issues serve to highlight effects or unintended consequences that may occur from the Proposed Action and alternatives, giving opportunities during the analysis to reduce adverse effects and compare trade-offs for the decision maker and public to understand. Issues are best identified during public involvement early in the process to help set the scope of the actions, alternatives, and effects to consider; but, due to the iterative nature of the NEPA process, additional issues may come to light at any time.

Upon technical analysis of this EA by resource specialists and comments from the public, the following issues were identified relative to the Proposed Action: 5) Potential impacts to water quality and associated land features from a large-scale hydrocarbon and/or saltwater spill, specifically with regard to large storage facilities and pipelines. Such an event from a multi-well pad located near drainages that lead directly into Lake Sakakawea could impact wooded draws and/or drainages that have ephemeral wetlands, shallow groundwater, lake shore habitat, and lake water. Several design features and BMPs would be required for the Project, as listed in Section 2.4.3. 6) Potential impacts to wildlife at Antelope WMA may occur from development of the Brangus location. Concerns with this were minimized by siting the Brangus location as far as possible from the WMA while still meeting drilling spacing requirements. 7) Potential impacts on visuals may occur to the Lewis and Clark Trail with the construction of the Charolais and Brangus locations.

April 2018 7

8) The Project may affect, and would likely adversely affect, the Dakota skipper (Wenck 2016). Formal Section 7 consultation under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) was initiated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) which resulted in a Biological Opinion and Incidental Take Permit for the Project (Shelley 2017).

1.7 PERMITS AND JURISDICTIONS

Since the Proposed Action includes oil and gas development of federal minerals on federal lands, the proposal constitutes a federal action, which requires approval under a federal Application for Permit to Drill (APD). The APD consists of two main parts: 1) an 8-Point Drilling Plan and 2) the SUPO, which consists of a 12-Point SUPO, the COAs, and a road package.

A complete APD for federal leases requires final approval by the BLM. However, the agency managing the surface approves the SUPO portion before the BLM may approve the APD. Because the proposals lie on USFS lands, it is the USFS’s responsibility to review the SUPO and determine whether to approve, deny, or modify them with certain terms and conditions. The USFS will notify the BLM in writing whether the plans are approved or denied, and if approval is subject to specific terms and conditions. Drilling Plans for operations on federal leases are approved by the BLM, and the USFS has no authority over these plans. The operator has up to two years to drill a well after the BLM has approved the APD. However, a two-year extension may be granted, if the operator files a timely request.

The operator is responsible for obtaining necessary permits from other regulatory agencies, such as 404 permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), drilling permits from the State of North Dakota, transportation permits, etc.

1.8 FEDERAL LEASE RIGHTS

Leaseholders retain rights to drill, extract, remove, and market oil and gas products. National mineral leasing policies and the regulations that enforce them recognize the statutory right of lessees to develop Federal mineral resources to meet continuing national needs and economic demands, so long as undue and unnecessary environmental degradation does not occur. Also included is the right of the lessee to build and maintain necessary improvements, subject to renewal or extension of the lease, in accordance with the appropriate authority. Rights granted are subject to applicable laws, terms, conditions, and attached stipulations of each lease, the Secretary of Interior’s regulations and formal orders in effect as of lease issuance, and to the regulations and formal orders hereafter promulgated when not inconsistent with the lease rights granted or specific provisions of the leases.

The lease contains Standard Lease Terms, notices for protection of cultural and paleontological resources, and protection of floodplains and wetlands. The lease contains specific legal descriptions for No Surface Occupancy (NSO), Controlled Surface Use (CSU), and Timing Limitations (TL) stipulations. The company’s leases are under nationwide federal

April 2018 8

bonds held by the BLM. The intent of the bonds is to cover the costs of plugging the wells and reclamation for these federal leases.

April 2018 9

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

2.1 DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES

The development of alternatives began with review of existing documents governing the McKenzie Ranger District of the LMNG. Those documents included: • North Dakota Administrative Code 43-02-03-18, Drilling Units – Well Locations • Custer National Forest and National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan (USFS 1987) • Land and Resource Management Plan for the Dakota Prairie Grasslands (USFS 2001a) • Addendum for the Final Environmental Impact Statement and Land and Resources Management Plans, 2001 Revisions (USFS 2001b) • Record of Decision for the Dakota Prairie Grasslands Final Environmental Impact Statement and Land and Resource Management Plan (DPG FEIS ROD) (USFS 2002a) • Little Missouri National Grasslands FEIS Alternative 3 (McKenzie) (USFS 2002b) • Little Missouri National Grasslands Modified Alternative 3 Final (McKenzie) (USFS 2002c) • Dakota Prairie Grasslands Oil and Gas Leasing Record of Decision (USFS 2003) • Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species Status for Dakota Skipper and Endangered Species Status for Poweshiek Skipperling; Final Rule (United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2014) • Guidance for Interagency Cooperation under Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act for the Dakota Skipper, Dakota Skipper Critical Habitat, and Poweshiek Skipperling Critical Habitat, Version 1.1 (USFWS 2016a)

Upon review of established guidelines, the USFS eliminated areas where the guidance prohibited development and established the Antelope MDP area based on watershed boundaries and other factors (see Figure 1 for Antelope MDP boundary). The Antelope MDP area totals approximately 29,872 acres, which includes 10,572 acres USFS lands, 1,927 USACE land, 1,580 State land, and 15,793 private lands. Lessees within the MDP area were sent letters inviting them to participate in the MDP environmental review process and EA. At an earlier stage another company, Petro-Hunt, Inc. (Petro-Hunt), was involved in the MDP (see Section 2.2 for further information). Continental and Slawson represent those lessees who ultimately chose to participate.

As the Companies reviewed available locations for the proposed new well pads and expansions within the established MDP area, factors taken into consideration included proximity to Lake Sakakawea, designated critical habitat areas, land ownership, engineering constraints, and target bottom-hole locations. Initial Planning Conferences (IPCs) were conducted at the proposed well pad sites on various dates attended by USFS personnel, Company representatives, and subcontractors (refer to the Project Record for detailed IPC records). The proposed location of the well pads and access roads, road and utility alignments, required road designs, cuts and fills, soil handling, erosion control, resource protection measures, and reclamation potential were reviewed. Minor adjustments were made to minimize resource impacts.

April 2018 10

2.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED ANALYSIS

Petro-Hunt Alternative During earlier stages of the Antelope MDP process, Petro-Hunt was involved and had proposed one new well pad to include five (5) wells, with associated access road and utility corridor, referred to as the USA facilities. The pad would have been within the NWSW, Section 11, T.153N., R.97W., 5th Principal Meridian (PM), McKenzie County, ND. This well pad and associated facilities were included during the scoping stage of the Project. Since that time, Petro-Hunt has ended their proposal and is no longer a part of the MDP.

Private Land Development During the preliminary planning for the Antelope MDP, over 20 Continental well pads were proposed on USFS lands. Of these proposed pads, 14 were eliminated from the Project by moving proposed wells to existing well pads or supported by constructing new pads on private lands. The well pads moved to private lands have been permitted and developed independently from the wells and associated facilities on USFS lands.

Continental Proposal including Charolais and Brangus Locations The full proposal and ideal location for these spacing units would have located well pads in an area closer to the lake, adjacent to Antelope Creek State Wildlife Management Area (WMA) and within or near USACE lands. That area has restrictions from the USACE and is listed as a Special Interest Area by the state of North Dakota. The consideration of these earlier alternatives and additional reasons they were eliminated is described below.

Continental had proposed up to five well pads in the Charolais area. Production facilities would have been on each pad, instead of a central tank battery (CTB). Two well pads (Charolais C and D; now eliminated) would have been in the NENE Section 15, T153N, R94W, closer to Lake Sakakawea. In order to reduce total disturbance, wells proposed on the Charolais C and D well pads were redistributed to the Charolais A, Charolais B, and Brangus well pads. By consolidating wells and adding the Charolais CTB under the current proposed action, disturbance of native prairie was reduced from 50.7 acres to 42.3 acres in the Charolais area. The reduction of disturbance in native prairie is a benefit to Dakota Skipper in terms of potential habitat. The increased distance of the Charolais A and B well pads and the CTB from the Lake, compared to the Charolais C and D well pads with production facilities on each pad, reduced the potential for spills reaching the Lake and would reduce traffic in the long term to the remaining locations under the proposed action. Due to the spacing units for these wells, and topographic limitations, Charolais A and B pads could not be located further west from Lake Sakakawea.

As explained above, the Brangus well pad was expanded from 4.5 acres to 8.5 acres to support additional wells after the elimination of Charolais C and D pads. Public scoping comments indicate concerns over the proximity of the Brangus Pad to Lake Sakakawea and the Antelope Creek State WMA (see Appendix A, Public Scoping Responses). Due to spacing units for these wells and limitations due to sensitive species habitat in native prairie, the pad could not be located further west from Lake Sakakawea. The current pad is on a heavily grazed crested wheatgrass flat which would have fewer biological effects than placing it to the west. Topographic limitations to the north and south, with steep ravines and badlands topography, prevent moving the pad in those directions. The placement of the Brangus Pad minimizes the overall effects of the Project by reducing the total disturbance footprint and by reducing the effects to native prairie and associated species. Potential effects to Lake Sakakawea and the Antelope Creek State WMA based on the current location are disclosed in Sections 3.5, Surface Waters and 3.7, Biological Resources.

April 2018 11

Alternative Charolais Access Road Alignments The route to access the Charolais facilities is limited by rugged topography, cultural resources, sensitive plant species, and wildlife habitat. In order to reduce disturbance, the proposed access road would follow the existing NFSR 882, a two-track trail; this trail would be upgraded to support semi-truck traffic as part of the Proposed Action. During on-site meetings, alternative alignments were considered that deviated slightly from NFSR 882. Consideration was given to topography, engineering constraints, safety, cultural resource sites and natural resources. Alternative configurations were considered, but were discarded because they resulted in major topographic changes or impacted cultural resources. The tradeoff to relocations for these reasons is that the current Proposed Action would result in potential impacts to native prairie, which are likely to negatively impact Dakota skipper habitat, disclosed in Section 3.7, Biological Resources.

2.3 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE

Under the No Action Alternative, the 49 wells associated with the Proposed Action would be denied. The No Action Alternative serves as a baseline against which the Proposed Action can be compared. Under this alternative, the Forest Service SUPOs and BLM APDs would not be approved. The Companies would not be allowed to exercise their rights to access and develop the mineral rights covered under their federal mineral leases. The well pads, access roads, production facilities, and utility lines would not be constructed or installed.

2.4 PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE

2.4.1 Project Summary

The Antelope MDP is intended to describe the reasonably foreseeable development strategy of the Companies over the next five to ten years given current market conditions and company constraints. The Companies propose to develop their federal, state, and private mineral rights through the expansion of three existing pads and the construction of six new pads. Combined, these pads would support 49 new wells if fully implemented; the existing pads currently have six wells (Table 2-1). The development proposals of each company are described below and illustrated in Figures 1, 2 and 3. Each new well pad may require construction of an access road and installation of utilities, such as but not limited to, electrical lines; fiber optic lines; gas, oil, freshwater, and saltwater pipelines; and other equipment deemed necessary for drilling, stimulating, production, development and sale of oil and gas products. New utilities or modifications to existing utilities may be required for the well pad expansions to accommodate additional wells; these new or modified utilities would follow access roads and utility corridors within existing rights-of-way. Full development of the Proposed Action would not preclude additional future developments on the associated Federal leases; however, potential future developments are speculative and beyond the scope of the EA.

April 2018 12

Table 2-1: Proposed Action Summary New or Number of Number of Operator Well Pad Name Location Existing Existing New Wells Pad Wells Continental Charolais A SWSW 10-T153N- New 5 0 R94W Charolais B NENW 15-T153N- New 6 0 R94W Brangus A NESW/SWNW 14- New 14 0 T153N-R94W Charolais CTB NWSE 15-T153N- New 0 0 R94W Harms A SESW 32-T153N- Existing 8 2 R93W Harms B SESE 31-T153N- New 2 0 R93W Slawson Wolverine Pad 240 SWSW 31-T153N- Existing 4 2 R93W Wolverine Pad 241 SESE 31-T153N- Existing 4 2 R93W Wolverine Pad 278 SWSE 31-T153N- New 6 0 R93W TOTAL 9 49 6

In the proceeding sections, the “Project area” is defined as the maximum physical footprint of the Project. It includes the area of surface disturbance for the proposed well pads, access roads, and utility corridors, which is summarized in Table 2-2. A total of approximately 4.1 miles of new road would be constructed for the proposed project, with 3.4 miles on USFS land and 0.7 miles on private land. Final road alignments may be slightly higher depending on landowner negotiations. The estimated area of project disturbance (project footprint) is 42.7 acres for the well pads and soil stockpiles and 27.1 acres for the access roads/utility corridors (Table 2-2), for a total of 69.7 acres. Of this area, 64.7 acres is on USFS land and 5.0 acres is on private land. The outer edges of the well pads and access roads would be reclaimed and revegetated during interim reclamation (described below under “Operations”), leaving 42.9 acres of the surfaced areas of the well pad and access road as long-term disturbance (Table 2-2).

Table 2-2: Surface Disturbance of Project Area Total Disturbance Long-term Disturbance Length of Roads Well Pad (ac) (ac) and Utilities (mi) Name Road and Pad Total Pad Road Total Total Utilities Charolais A* 4.0 16.2 20.2 3.5 6.4 9.9 2.8

Charolais B 4.1 3.7 7.8 3.6 0.5 4.1 0.3

Brangus A 8.5 5.4 13.9 7.8 1.6 9.4 0.8 0.1 Charolais CTB 3.8 3.8 3.4 0.1 3.5 0.01

Harms A 4.8 0.1 4.9 3.4 0.1 3.5 .02

April 2018 13

Total Disturbance Long-term Disturbance Length of Roads Well Pad (ac) (ac) and Utilities (mi) Name Road and Pad Total Pad Road Total Total Utilities Harms B 3.6 0.3 3.9 2.6 0.1 2.7 .07 Wolverine Pad 4.3 0.0 4.3 3.1 0.0 3.1 0.0 240 Wolverine Pad 4.3 0.0 4.3 2.6 0.0 2.6 0.0 241 Wolverine Pad 5.3 1.3 6.6 3.6 0.5 4.1 0.13 278** Totals 42.7 27.1 69.7 33.3 9.3 42.9 4.13 Short-term Disturbance Assumptions (during construction, drilling, and completion phases): Well Pad – The perimeter of the grading limit of the pad or pad expansion from survey plats. Road – The average road disturbance corridor is 60 feet in width. Utilities – All utilities would be buried adjacent to a road and would be required to be within the 60 foot disturbance corridor width. Long-term Disturbance Assumptions (during production phase following interim reclamation): Well Pad – The working area of each pad or pad expansion that is surfaced with gravel/scoria. Road – The average active road corridor surfaced with gravel/scoria is 18 feet. Utilities – The entire disturbance area for utilities would be reclaimed and is therefore not included in long-term disturbance. *Assumes road access agreement with private landowner is obtained; if it is not, disturbances might be slightly higher to route road access around private land. Documentation should be provided at time SUPO is submitted. **Final alignment of road access might be slightly higher.

2.4.1.1 Continental Continental has proposed five (5) new well pads to include 27 new wells and a new central tank battery; these project elements are referred to collectively as the Charolais facilities: • The Charolais A well pad would be in the SWSW, Section 10, T153N, R94W, 5th PM, McKenzie County, ND (Figure 2). This pad would have five wells named Charolais Federal South 1-10H, Charolais Federal South 2-10H2, Charolais Federal South 3- 10H, Charolais Federal South 4-10H1, and Charolais Federal South 5-10H. • The Charolais B pad would be in the NESW/SWNW, Section 14, T153N, R94W, 5th PM, McKenzie County, ND (Figure 2). This pad would have six wells named Charolais Federal South 6-10H, Charolais Federal South 7-10H1, Charolais Federal South 8-10H, Charolais Federal South 9-10H2, Charolais Federal South 10-10H, and Charolais Federal South 11-10H. • The Brangus A pad would be within the NENW, Section 14, T153N, R94W, 5th PM, McKenzie County, ND (Figure 2); most of this well pad would be on private surface. This pad would have fourteen wells named Brangus Federal 2-11H2, Brangus Federal 3-11H, Brangus Federal 4-11H, Brangus Federal 5-11H, Brangus Federal 6-11H1, Brangus Federal 7-11H, Brangus Federal 8-11H2, Brangus Federal 9-11H, Brangus Federal 10-11H1, Brangus Federal 11-11H, and four additional wells yet to be named. • The Charolais CTB would be within the NWSE, Section 15, T153N, R94W, 5th PM, McKenzie County, ND (Figure 2). This pad would house production facilities to include, but not be limited to, flare(s), Lease Automatic Custody Transfer (LACT) meter(s), 3-phase separator(s), test treater(s), recycle(s), and saltwater and oil tanks.

April 2018 14

Continental has proposed one well pad expansion to include eight (8) additional wells and one new well pad that would support two (2) new wells; these project elements are referred to collectively as the Harms facilities: • The existing Harms A pad is within the SESW, Section 32, T153N, R93W, 5th PM, McKenzie County, North Dakota (Figure 3). Eight new wells are proposed named Harms Federal 4-32H2, Harms Federal 5-32H, Harms Federal 6-32H1, Harms Federal 7-32H, Harms Federal 8-32H2, Harms Federal 9-32H, Harms Federal 10-32H1, and Harms Federal 11-32H. • The new well pad, named the Harms B, pad would be within the SESE, Section 31, T153N, R93W, 5th PM, McKenzie County, ND (Figure 3). This pad would have two wells, one named Harms Federal 12-32H, and one well yet to be named.

2.4.1.2 Slawson Slawson has proposed two well pad expansions to include four (4) additional wells each, for a total of eight (8) additional wells. The proposal also includes one new well pad, which would support six (6) wells. These project elements are referred collectively as the Wolverine facilities: • The existing Wolverine Pad 240 is within the SWSW, Section 31, T153N, R93W, 5th PM, McKenzie County, North Dakota (Figure 3). Four new wells are proposed named Wolverine Federal 8-31-30H, Wolverine Federal 10-31-30TF2H, Wolverine Federal 11-31-30TF2H, and Wolverine Federal 18-31-30TF3H. • The existing Wolverine Pad 241 is within the SESE, Section 31, T153N, R93W, 5th PM, McKenzie County, North Dakota (Figure 3). Four new wells are proposed named Wolverine Federal 9-31-30H, Wolverine Federal 13-31-30TF2H, Wolverine Federal 14-31-30TF2H, and Wolverine Federal 15-31-30TF3H. • The new pad, named Wolverine Pad 278, would be in SWSE, Section 31, T153N, R93W, 5th PM, McKenzie County, ND (Figure 3). This pad would have six wells named Wolverine Federal 3-31-30H, Wolverine Federal 6-31-30TFH, Wolverine Federal 7-31-30TFH, Wolverine Federal 12-31-30TF2H, Wolverine Federal 16-31- 30TF3H, and Wolverine Federal 17-31-30TF3H. Proposed utilities would leave the pad and parallel the proposed access road, tying into an existing utility corridor on private lands.

April 2018 15

Figure 2. Charolais Facilities

April 2018 16

Figure 3. Harms and Wolverine Facilities

April 2018 17

2.4.2 Description of Project Actions

The development of each of the surface facilities and multiple wells includes several overall phases; each phase includes several steps or activities. All phases include activities on the land surface. Drilling and operation of the wells would include subsurface activities.

2.4.2.1 Development Phase Site Preparation Prior to construction of well pads and access roads, the proposed construction footprint would be prepared to meet engineering specifications. Surveyors would stake the road and utility centerlines, well pad corners, and limits of clearing and grading (i.e., project footprint). Erosion control structures such as straw wattles, fiber mats, silt fences, or a combination of methods would be installed throughout the planned disturbance area, as detailed on engineering plan sheets. Locations of sensitive features would be marked and fenced by a qualified professional prior to clearing. All terrain vehicles (ATVs) are typically used for surveying and staking by a crew of up to five people that can occur at any time throughout the year.

The Project footprint would be cleared of vegetation and other obstacles using heavy construction equipment, including scrapers and dozers. Topsoil and grassy vegetation would be stripped from the soil surface, stockpiled separately from subsoil, and protected with erosion control. Clearing and grubbing would occur once per well pad and its associated access road and would take up to two days.

Access Road and Well Pad Construction Construction of each well pad and associated access road would follow standards outlined in the “Gold Book” (United States Department of Interior-United States Department of Agriculture (USDI-USDA) 2007) and per COAs. To construct well pads and access roads, subsoil on-site would be cut and filled according to engineering design plans, specifications, and COAs to provide a level work surface and support drilling operations. Subsoil would be graded and compacted to appropriate standards. Surfacing throughout the project would consist of a six inch depth scoria base capped with four inches gravel. A minimum two-foot high earthen containment berm would be constructed around the perimeter of the well pad and would remain in place as long as the wells are active. Culverts would be installed where necessary to accommodate drainage. A fence would be installed around the perimeter of each pad and a cattle guard would be installed at each pad entrance to exclude grazing livestock. Cut and fill activities would occur once per well pad and its associated access road and would take up to 20 days with a crew of up to 15 people.

A number of above-ground facilities would be assembled and erected at each well pad to prepare the site for drilling. Storage and containment vessels for fuel and fluids would be set, connected, and diked (per COA #37.05). Emergency shutdown systems and emission control devices would be installed. These facilities would be constructed once per well pad within a period of up to 10 days using a crew of 5-10 people. Activities and access to the site would be within the surfaced area of the road and well pad.

2.4.2.2 Drilling and Completion Phase The Companies’ drilling and completion operations would be conducted in compliance with applicable rules and regulations including but not limited to Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Orders (43 CFR 3100), Notices to Lessees (NTLs), the APD, and COAs.

April 2018 18

Rig and Containments Installation A rig mat would be installed where necessary on the surface of the well pad. A rig mat provides a protective, heavy-duty flooring underneath the entire rig set-up; it is constructed of a system of interlocking pieces of material such as wood or plastic composite. The spud rig or drill rig would be transported to the site in this phase via access roads previously constructed. Moving the rig components requires approximately 50 tractor-trailer loads over the course of 5-8 days with a crew of up to 20 people.

On-site assembly of the drill rig would take approximately seven days for each site. As part of this process, the drilling mud pit tanks and monitoring and protective equipment would be placed and leveled. An arrangement of piping, pumps and other structures that circulate the drilling mud and control the drilling process would be constructed. A variety or cranes, pole trucks, and winch trucks would position the sub-structure over the well surface hole location on top of the rig mat. The sub-structure is a frame-like support structure for the drill rig. The rig, consisting of the main parts of rig floor and derrick, would then be erected in place on the sub-structure.

Storage tanks, containment vessels, and other drilling equipment would be surrounded by either steel containment or earthen berms of sufficient capacity to contain 100% of the contents of the largest vessel within it plus one day’s production (COA #37.05). Load lines would also be inside the dike and would have adequate drip containment catch basins. A covered leak-proof container (with placard) for filter sock disposal would be installed and would remain on-site during clean-out, completion, and flow-back whenever filtration operations are conducted.

Drilling and Cementing Multiple wellbores planned on a shared pad would be drilled and completed consecutively and simultaneously within one drilling season when possible. However, drilling may require an extended period, depending on site-specific circumstances. Because of geologic and market uncertainties, the Companies may drill fewer wells than those described in this EA. Production results for wells drilled during the first year would be used to plan and design the drilling program for subsequent years.

There would be 45 foot spacing between Continental wellheads and 25 foot spacing between Slawson wellheads. Both Continental and Slawson would utilize a closed loop “pit-less” drilling system, in which all drilling fluids and cuttings would be contained in tanks and trucked off-site to an approved commercial disposal location1. (COA #37.20B)

Drilling would require approximately 15 days to reach target depth, using a rotary drilling rig rated for drilling approximately 20,000 feet. For the first approximately 2,500 feet drilled, a freshwater mud system with non-hazardous additives would be used to minimize containment concerns of fluid dispersion. Water would be trucked or piped overland with temporary lines to the site from an existing state-permitted commercial or private source for this drilling stage2; surface waters within the Project area would not be used. Depending on how fast the rig is drilling, approximately two tractor-trailer loads of freshwater would be hauled every third day of drilling. The well bore would be cased and cemented to a minimum depth of 50 feet below the base of the Fox Hills formation (approximately 2,500 feet below ground surface in the Pierre Shale), per North Dakota

1 Slawson has indicated it intends to use White Owl Energy Services and Goodnight Midstream Bakken, LLC at this time. 2 Slawson has indicated it intends to use commercial sources (i.e. New Town water, water wells).

April 2018 19

Industrial Commission (NDIC) regulations, to permanently seal the well bore from surrounding groundwater aquifers.

After setting and cementing the surface section to ground level and performing an integrity test, an oil-based mud system (80 to 85 percent diesel fuel and 15 to 20 percent water) would be used to drill to approximately 11,000 feet, depending on the formation targeted. Oil-based drilling fluids reduce potential for hole sloughing while drilling through water- sensitive formations. The horizontal reach of the borehole would be drilled using saltwater as mud and adding polymer sweep as necessary to clean the borehole. Additives to the mud systems are required to conform to Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 as amended in 1996.

Anytime there are 24-hour operations, which is typical during drilling, 5-10 light towers would be in place on the edge of the well pad facing toward the drill rig in the center. Lights on the rig and other equipment would also be in use during drilling. Crews of 15-40 people would be on a site at a given time. On an average drilling day, estimated traffic would include 5 tractor-trailers and 10 pickups. All activities would occur within the surfaced area of the road and well pad.

Casing and De-Mobilization Upon completion of drilling, geophysical well logs would be run if necessary to evaluate the presence and concentration of hydrocarbons. If hydrocarbons are present and recoverable, then steel production casing with isolating swell packers would be installed according to well design. Casing would be designed to isolate and protect shallower formations encountered in the well bore and prevent migration of fluid between geological zones. The Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 2 (43 CFR 3160) and NDIC regulations would be followed during casing and cementing operations. Drilling equipment would then be disassembled and mobilized off the site.

Well Completion Completion activities are expected to last less than seven days per well. Multiple wells would be completed simultaneously when possible. During this period, a variety of post-drilling activities would be done, including perforating and stimulating each stage in the well bore (fracturing), cleaning out the well bore, capturing flow-back of fracturing fluids, flow testing to determine post-fracture productivity, and running production tubing for commercial production. Light towers (5-10) on the edge of the well pad facing toward the center and lights on equipment would be in use anytime there are 24-hour operations during this phase.

Fracturing is a commonly used technology on potentially productive reservoirs below depths of freshwater aquifers. Typical fracturing procedures begin by pumping sand and a carrier (in this case water) down the wellbore, and then entering the formation via perforations in the casing. Other non-toxic chemical additives would be used in the sand slurry to ensure the quality of the fracture fluid. Pressure would build down the wellbore until it causes the sand slurry to radiate outward from the perforations into the formation, causing the sand to flow rapidly into the fractures. The sand would prop open the fractures after the pressure drops, allowing reservoir fluids to move readily into the well, increasing the maximum efficiency of the drainage field.

Fracturing would require a one-time mobilization and demobilization of pump trucks to include approximately 30 tractor-trailers and 6 pickups. A one-time set up of water tanks would require approximately 150 tractor-trailer trips. In addition, daily traffic would consist of at least 150 tractor-trailer loads for water, 200 tractor-trailer loads for sand, and 10

April 2018 20

pickups over the course of up to 7 days of fracturing operations. As an alternative to trucking the water, operators may use temporary “flat line” pipelines, in which freshwater pipelines are laid on the ground surface in road ditches from the freshwater source to the site. Water for hydraulic fracturing would be sourced from state-permitted commercial water depots; no surface water resources in the Project area would be used for hydraulic fracturing water.

After stimulation, a completion rig would be erected on site to clean out the well bore, run production tubing, and capture flow-back fracturing fluids and reservoir fluids. A flow-back crew would capture flow-back fluids and test the produced fluid to determine post-fracture productivity. The flow-back crew stays on site until the well site facilities can effectively handle the rates and pressure of the flowing well. Recovered fracturing fluids would be trucked off-site to an existing private or commercial state-permitted disposal location, requiring approximately four to six tractor-trailer loads and five pickup trips for the crew per day. Initial flow-back would require approximately four tractor-trailer trips per day for produced fluids; once stabilized approximately two tractor-trailer trips and two pickup trips would be required, unless or until pipelines are installed (refer to “Operations” section).

The containment system for all drilling and completion materials would then be cleaned, with all materials and water trucked off-site and disposed of per NDIC regulations at existing private or commercial approved facilities. Tanks used in the process would be cleaned and moved off location.

2.4.2.3 Production Phase Installation of Utilities and Production Facilities If the wells are commercially productive, production facilities and utility lines would be installed to support production. Continental typically installs these facilities prior to drilling after the access road and well pad have been constructed, whereas Slawson typically installs production facilities after drilling.

Production facilities could include pumping units (e.g., prime movers, electronic submersible pump (ESP), or gas lift), a compressor, vertical heater/treaters, a gas meter, a flare stack, a tank battery (usually consisting of multiple 400-barrel or 750-barrel steel and fiberglass tanks), and if or when pipeline infrastructure becomes available, a LACT unit. Eventually, artificial lift equipment would be installed when the well ceases to flow (outlined below in “Well Pumping” section). Facilities would be installed within the surfaced portion of the well pad. These facilities would be constructed, painted, diked, operated, and maintained per USFS COAs.

If a tank battery is constructed on location, each tank setting, treater, and separator would be surrounded on all sides by steel containment or an impermeable dike of sufficient capacity to contain 100% of the contents of the largest vessel within it plus one day’s production (COA #37.05). If flare stacks are needed, they must be anchored at least 125 feet from wellheads and positioned downwind of prevailing wind direction. Flare stack height is variable, depending on the amount of gas to be flared and surroundings of the site. A thirty foot minimum bare ground buffer zone shall be maintained around any facility (equipment and/or accessories) capable of producing a flame, e.g. heater-treaters, flares, separators, etc. (COA #37-10C). Small outbuildings may be equipped with exterior, low- intensity fluorescent lights for periodic use by maintenance personnel; otherwise, no night lighting would be used.

Utilities, which could include such lines as freshwater, electric, crude oil, saltwater, and gas, would be installed and maintained underground and parallel to roads within previously April 2018 21

disturbed road and utility corridors per industry standards and USFS COA #37.19. (Temporary freshwater “flat lines” may alternatively by installed on the ground surface along roads.) Trenching would be completed in such a way that minimizes additional soil and vegetation disturbance, using rotary trenching machines, track-mounted backhoes, or other similar standard equipment. If open excavation is required, topsoil would be stripped from the corridor and stockpiled separately from subsoils. The trench would be designed to be wide enough to accommodate the diameter of the pipe or cables and a minimum 48 inches (4 ft.) deep. Boring or horizontal directional drilling (HDD) may be required for road crossings and waterways/drainages. Pipe or other lines would be lowered into the trench using a series of side-boom tracked machinery, moving along the route as the lines are installed. The trench would be backfilled with sub-soil first, followed by the topsoil, using bladed equipment or backhoes. Crews would screen the material as needed to remove rocks or obtain a more suitable fill.

Utility installation typically demands up to five days of work per site using a crew of up to 10 people and would typically be done once per well pad. However, future consolidation of production, with the goal to reduce trucking and the overall number of production facilities, may include the construction of additional utility lines within the approved ROW, paralleling the access road or existing lines.

Interim Reclamation Interim reclamation involves reclaiming the outer portions of the cleared and graded project footprint, portions of the well pad not needed for the production phase, and the out-slopes of the access road (COA #37.24). Gravel or scoria surface material would be removed where necessary and subsoils would be re-contoured to a gentler grade and covered with topsoil. The earthen containment berm would be reconstructed and reconfigured around the modified perimeter of the well pad and surface drainage would be established to minimize ponding and divert water from the well pad. The reclaimed area would be seeded with a USFS-approved native grass and forb mix as soon as possible after completion of the last well (COA #37.28 and #37-28A).

Seeding is typically most successful between April 15 and November 1, depending on weather and site conditions in a given year. If wells are completed in the fall, a cover crop of oats may be planted until the next growing season. For areas reclaimed in winter months or late fall such that no germination is possible, operators would use sprayed reinforcement, lain matting reinforcement, spread and crimp straw, straw wattles and/or silt fences to minimize erosion through winter months. All activity would occur within the previously disturbed boundary of the project footprint. If all steps are done consecutively, the interim reclamation process takes up to two days with a crew of up to two people and would occur once per well pad and associated access road.

Operation and Maintenance of Surface Facilities When the well ceases to flow naturally, a pumping unit or ESP powered by an electric motor would be installed to assist the flow of produced fluids to the surface. Well pumping occurs daily throughout the year for each well. Produced fluids (oil, water, gas) flow co- mingled from the wellhead into a heater-treater, which allows the fluid streams to separate. The heater-treater dumps oil and water into their respective production tanks and sends gas to the sales line. If an oil gathering pipeline is available, a LACT unit would be used to draw oil from the tanks, measure the volume and quality of the petroleum product, and then pump it into the gathering pipeline. If a pipeline is not available or becomes temporarily out of service, oil would be transported from the tanks by truck to a terminal. Produced water would be temporarily stored in tanks on the well pad and then

April 2018 22

trucked off-site to a state-permitted commercial disposal facility3. The gas would flow from the separator through a meter, and then into the gathering pipeline. A flare stack would flare gas if a pipeline is not available, or if the pressure in the line is too high for entry. The flare stack would also be utilized to flare gas vented off the produced oil tanks.

Operators would maintain and implement site-specific SPCC Plans during production and operation to conform with the general requirements of the SPCC Rule under 40 CFR Part 112. Industry standard inspection, testing, and monitoring would be done during the production phase to ensure pipeline integrity and minimize the possibility of leaks and spills (see “Spill Response and Remediation Activities” below). Production sites would be monitored on-site regularly to detect erosion problems, monitor tank levels, and ensure Project facilities are operating correctly. In addition to the SPCC Plan, Slawson facilities in this area would have remote monitoring on a 24-hour basis via a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) System to monitor tanks levels, production facilities, and flow lines, with the ability to immediately detect abnormalities.

Each site would be visited by a pumper daily. On a typical day the pumper’s activities include, but are not limited to, gauging the production tanks, performing maintenance on equipment at the wellhead and in the treater house, checking for leaks, and ensuring the flare stack is operating properly. Third parties such as electricians, technicians and chemical companies would be permitted to enter the site when their services are required.

Tanker trucks would enter the location 10 times per day on average to haul loads of oil to the purchaser and water to a disposal site until other pipelines are installed for transport. Gas will be transported via existing pipelines. Later in the life of the wells, access would be less frequent. Motorized vehicle use would be restricted to access roads and no off-road vehicle use would be authorized.

Maintenance of Roads Operators would be responsible for road maintenance and upkeep for the life of the wells, unless a formal road maintenance agreement is in place designating another entity for maintenance. Road maintenance would include the following activities: Road surface grading and surface replacement (graveling); Relief ditch, culvert and cattle guard cleaning; Gate and sign maintenance; Erosion control measures for cut and fill slopes and other disturbed areas; Road closures in periods of excessive soil moisture to prevent rutting caused by traffic; Road and slope stabilization measures as required until final abandonment and reclamation; Weed control; Dust abatement, using techniques and frequencies determined by USFS and the Companies; Other maintenance activities as stipulated in the road use permit.

Workovers or Recompletions Periodically, the workover or recompletion of a well may be required to ensure that efficient production is maintained. Workovers can include repairs to the wellbore equipment (casing, tubing, rods, or pump), the wellhead, or the production facilities. These repairs would usually be completed during daylight hours, for a period of seven to 10 days; however, at times it may be necessary because of restrictions to complete repairs during the night. The frequency of this type of work cannot be accurately projected because workovers vary well by well. In the case of multi-well pads, space for equipment

3 Slawson has indicated that it intends to use White Owl Energy Services and Goodnight Midstream Bakken, LLC at this time.

April 2018 23

would usually be limited to the “working” (i.e., surfaced) area of the well pad, although it is possible that interim reclamation could be delayed by workover operations.

Weed/Invasive Species Control Noxious weeds and invasive species would be controlled within the road ROW, well pad, and areas disturbed from construction by approved chemical or mechanical means, such as mowing or herbicide treatment (COA #37-15). Control activities would be done prior to interim and final reclamation and regularly throughout the production life of the wells. These activities are estimated to take one day with a crew of one or two people. They would occur one to four times per year per site, typically from May 1 to October 1.

If herbicide treatment is done, application would be site-specific and would only be done within the project footprint. Spot treatment involves either the use of a backpack sprayer with the applicator accessing patches on foot or the use of an ATV with a small boom sprayer for larger areas. Herbicide application would be done by a certified applicator according to label directions (i.e., concentrations, timing, and weather conditions) to avoid drift to potential adjacent Dakota skipper habitat per USFS COAs (COA #37-32B) and as specified in USFS-approved standards (per Alternative 2 of the DPG Noxious Weed FEIS).

Erosion and Sediment Control Installation Throughout the construction and reclamation phases, and any time during the life of the wells when soils could be disturbed and left exposed, temporary erosion and sediment controls would be installed, inspected, and maintained to minimize erosion (COA #37.07 and #37.34). Examples include water bars, straw wattles, fiber mats, mulch, rip-rap, silt fences, or a combination of methods. Installation would take up to one day by a crew of up to five people and would typically be done between April 1 and November 1 based on site conditions and needs.

Equipment Refueling Equipment refueling would be required on site on a daily basis during several stages of well development, including surface facility construction, well drilling and completion, decommissioning and reclamation. Refueling would be done in designated areas only within the confines of the well pad with a portable berm under equipment, following spill prevention BMPs as outlined in SPCC plans and COAs.

Spill Response and Remediation Activities Spills or leaks of produced fluids within or beyond primary and secondary containment berms would follow response and clean-up protocols outlined in the SPCC Plan and per COAs. Spill response activities may include constructing berms or applying absorbent materials on the spill to physically contain fluids; use of light to heavy vehicles and equipment within and surrounding the spill area; and removal of waste and contaminated soils and vegetation. Remediation activities may include replacing subsoils and topsoils with noxious weed free materials (per COA #37-15.7); seeding with a USFS-approved native grass and forb mix; and monitoring, as described above.

2.4.2.4 Abandonment and Final Reclamation Phase Well and Pipeline Plugging and Abandonment Final reclamation would occur in the short term if the wells are not deemed commercially feasible or later upon final abandonment of commercial operations, per NDIC and BLM regulations and USFS COA #37.24. A Sundry Notice would be submitted by the operator to the USFS that describes the engineering, technical, or environmental aspects of final plugging and abandonment. Final abandonment can be up to 20-40 years or more after drilling for a productive well. Surface facilities would be disassembled and removed in this stage. Well April 2018 24

bores would be plugged with cement and dry hole markers would be set. Fences and cattle guards may be removed at this step, or during “Monitoring and Maintenance”, once vegetation is established. Subsurface pipelines would be flushed, cut, and capped at specific intervals; pipelines are typically left in place to avoid additional surface disturbance. These activities would require up to five days with a crew of up to five people. They would occur once per well pad.

Cut and Fill/Recontouring In this step, gravel or scoria surface material would be removed. Uncontaminated material could be buried in cuts on-site or all material may be hauled off site, per USFS approval. Topsoil would be removed from the area of interim reclamation and temporarily stockpiled. The subsoils of the well pad and access road would be leveled or backfilled and graded to approximate original contours or to blend with the surrounding landform. Topsoil would be redistributed on the surface. All activity would occur within the previously disturbed boundary of the project footprint. No fill would be spread outside of the project footprint and fill from off-site sources would not be used. These activities typically are completed from March 1 to November 31 and would take up to 10 days using a crew of up to five people. Exceptions to removal of roads may occur according to USFS road system plans.

Seeding The reclaimed area would be scarified and seeded with a USFS-approved native grass and forb mix (COA #37.28 and #37-28A). Seeding is typically most successful between April 15 and November 1, depending on weather and site conditions in a given year. If wells are completed in the fall, a cover crop of oats may be planted until the next growing season. For areas reclaimed in winter months or late fall such that no germination is possible, operators would use sprayed reinforcement, lain matting reinforcement, spread and crimp straw, straw wattles and/or silt fences to minimize erosion through winter months. If all steps are done consecutively, the final reclamation process takes up to two days with a crew of up to five people and would occur once per well pad and associated access road.

Monitoring and Maintenance Monitoring would be done by visiting each site on foot or ATV and documenting vegetation growth, species composition, areas of bare ground, etc. within the previously disturbed reclaimed area. Monitoring would be done one to four times per year per site by the operator and once per year by the USFS until established. Final reclamation would be considered successful when seeded areas have a minimum 70 percent vegetation ground cover and noxious weeds are under control. If problems are documented at the site, maintenance activities could include weed or invasive species control (see above “Other Activities”), scarifying the soil, adding topsoil or soil amendments, re-seeding, mulching, or other methods that would assist in vegetation establishment. If fences were left in place to protect seeded areas, they would be removed once vegetation is established. These activities would take up to an estimated five days per year of monitoring with a crew of up to five people; the days would not necessarily be consecutive.

2.4.3 Design Features and Best Management Practices The Companies have committed to specific environmental protection measures as part of the Project to minimize potential impacts during construction and operation. These Best Management Practices (BMPs) or design features would be included in the COAs and APDs for each well associated with the Proposed Action. These measures are applicable Project- wide unless otherwise specified. Table 2-3 summarizes these protection measures by resource.

April 2018 25

Table 2-3: Summary of Environmental Protection Measures for the Project

Resource Environmental Protection Measure

Air Quality Airborne dust would be reduced during Project construction on existing gravel roads in the Project area by treating with watering solutions containing calcium/magnesium chloride or an alternative with equal or greater effectiveness on dust but with no greater environmental risk. Application would occur at a frequency appropriate to ensure dust moving offsite would be minimized to the extent practicable on all road segments where occupied, assumed occupied or potential Dakota skipper habitat is located (within 131 ft (40 m) of all dust sources associated with the Project). It is estimated that one application would be effective for seven months and thus one application would be required for the duration of each construction season. Application of chloride solutions would be required Project-wide per USFS.

Construction would be done using methods and equipment to minimize the discharge of exhaust, dust, or other contaminants to the atmosphere according to federal, state, and local requirements.

The BMPs outlined below would be followed as practicable to limit air emission magnitude and duration in the Project area (BLM 2011): • Transportation BMPs to reduce associated dust and tailpipe emissions o Use directional drilling to drill multiple wells on a single pad o Use centralized water storage and delivery and gathering systems o Use telemetry and well automation to monitor and control production o Use water and dust suppressants to control fugitive dust on roads o Control road speeds • Drilling BMPs to reduce rig emissions o Use cleaner diesel (Tier 2, 3 and 4) engines o Use bi-fuel engines or grid power if available o Use high efficiency engineered flares/combustors if gas is not recoverable • Production Phase o Use solar power for chemical pumps and well monitoring telemetry (typically backup, not primary) o Use enclosed tanks instead of open pits to recover fugitive VOC emissions o Use vapor recovery units on storage tanks o Use and maintain proper hatches, seals, and valves to minimize VOC emissions o Optimize glycol circulation and install a flash tank separator o Use selective catalytic reduction o Use dry seals in centrifugal compressors o Replace high-bleed with low-bleed devices on pneumatic pumps o Install plunger lift systems and automated systems in gas wells • Monitoring and Maintenance o Use direct inspection and maintenance methods to identify and cost-effectively fix fugitive gas leaks

April 2018 26

Resource Environmental Protection Measure

Soils During construction, topsoil would be removed and stored separately from the subsoil, and would be replaced with minimum handling.

Erosion control such as straw wattles, fiber mats, silt fences, or a combination of methods, would be installed prior to soil moving activities and maintained until construction is complete to reduce sediment migration and erosion.

For stormwater events during construction, vehicle traffic and equipment would be restricted to prevent rutting in areas where topsoil is intact (excluding areas where topsoil has been removed/segregated). Vehicular traffic would be restricted if ruts occur greater than 4-inches deep.

The use of fuels and chemicals would be carefully controlled. Such materials would be clearly labeled and used only by personnel trained in handling, use, and storage. Refueling would be done in designated areas only within the confines of the well pad with a portable berm under equipment, following spill prevention BMPs as outlined in SPCC plans and COAs.

Industry standard inspection, testing, and monitoring would be done during the production phase to ensure pipeline integrity and minimize the possibility of leaks and spills. Production sites would be monitored on-site regularly to detect erosion problems, monitor tank levels, and ensure Project facilities are operating correctly. Slawson facilities in this area would have remote monitoring on a 24-hour basis via a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) System to monitor tanks levels, production facilities, and flow lines, with the ability to immediately detect abnormalities.

Site-specific SPCC plans for each well pad would be followed to respond to emergencies or spills to stop, contain, and clean up leaks to the extent possible. Contaminated soils would be removed, appropriately treated, and disposed at a state-permitted disposal facility. The removed soils would be replaced with clean soils, certified free of noxious weeds.

Geology and The well bore would be cased and cemented to a minimum 50 feet below Minerals the Fox Hills Formation (approximately 2,500 feet depth in the Pierre Shale) per NDIC regulations, to seal the well bore from surrounding groundwater aquifers and prevent loss of produced fluids and natural gas.

Surface Waters The Project area has been sited to avoid streams, riparian areas, wetlands, and Wetlands floodplains, or other waters of the U.S.

A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit would be required for the construction of each well pad.

Erosion and sediment control structures (waterbars, geotextiles, revegetation, etc.) would be in place during soil disturbing activities to increase infiltration, stabilize soils, minimize runoff, and dissipate runoff energy. Culverts would be installed, where necessary, to facilitate natural drainage patterns.

April 2018 27

Resource Environmental Protection Measure

If dewatering is necessary, dewatering effluent would pass through sediment filters (straw bale structures and/or filter bags) to ensure compliance with applicable water quality requirements and NPDES permit.

Refueling would be done in designated areas at least 100 feet from intermittent/ephemeral waterbodies or drainageways with a portable berm under equipment. Hydraulic, fuel, and lubricating systems on operating equipment would be maintained to avoid leaks into watercourses.

No debris would be placed or left where it would enter a river or stream. Depositing earthen material or harmful substances into a drainageway or adjacent to wetlands or waterbodies is prohibited.

Produced fluids and wastes generated during project construction and operation would be disposed of at state-permitted disposal facilities.

Water for hydraulic fracturing would be sourced from state-permitted water depots or commercial sources.

Each well pad would be surrounded by a two-foot high berm during drilling and production to prevent migration of contaminants to surface waters. Storage tanks during drilling or production would be surrounded by either steel containment or earthen berms designed to hold 100 percent of the volume of the largest tank plus one day of production.

A Blowout Preventer with a minimum of two down-hole barriers would be in use anytime there are open-hole operations, such as during drilling, completions, or work-overs.

Industry standard inspection, testing, and monitoring would be done during the production phase to ensure pipeline integrity and minimize the possibility of leaks and spills. Production sites would be monitored on-site regularly to detect erosion problems, monitor tank levels, and ensure Project facilities are operating correctly. Slawson facilities would have remote monitoring on a 24-hour basis via a SCADA System to monitor tanks levels, production facilities, and flow lines, with the ability to immediately detect abnormalities.

For productive wells, a site-specific SPCC Plan would be developed for each well pad and implemented to conform with the general requirements of the SPCC Rule under 40 CFR Part 112.

If a spill or leak were to occur, contamination would be removed using the appropriate containment and cleanup technologies and disposed at a state- permitted disposal facility, per the SPCC Plan.

Groundwater Freshwater would be used during drilling of the vertical portion of each well to a depth below aquifers in the Fox Hills Formation.

April 2018 28

Resource Environmental Protection Measure

The well bore would be cased and cemented to a minimum 50 feet below the Fox Hills Formation (approximately 2,500 feet depth in the Pierre Shale) per NDIC regulations, to seal the well bore from surrounding groundwater aquifers.

Vegetation Disturbance would be minimized in general to reduce impacts to suitable Resources sensitive species habitat and native vegetation communities, and to reduce spread of invasive species.

Refueling would be done in designated areas only within the confines of the well pad, following spill prevention BMPs as outlined in SPCC plans and COAs.

USFS-approved revegetation seed mixes of native grasses and forbs would be applied Project-wide in non-cropland areas for interim and final reclamation, except where private landowners request a different seed mix, during the first appropriate season after redistribution of topsoil.

Post-construction monitoring of areas under interim or final reclamation would be done for three to five years after the first growing season to determine the success of desirable vegetation cover and control of noxious weeds. On private lands, if, after the third growing season (or any year prior), revegetation is successful, no additional monitoring would be required. On federal-managed lands, if, after the fifth growing season (or any year prior), revegetation is successful, no additional monitoring would be required. The Companies are responsible for reseeding areas which do not show adequate establishment after two growing seasons.

Noxious Weeds Noxious weeds and invasive species would be controlled within road ROWs, well pads, and areas disturbed from construction by approved chemical or mechanical means at least two weeks prior to construction, at least annually during operations, prior to reclamation, and during monitoring, as specified in USFS-approved standards (per Alternative 2 of the DPG Noxious Weed FEIS).

Vehicles and equipment used for construction would be pressure-washed prior to entering federally administered lands to remove plant propagules (seeds and vegetative parts that may sprout) to prevent the potential introduction and spread of noxious weeds and invasive species.

If straw or hay is used for erosion control, it must be certified weed free.

Borrow materials would be obtained from sources that have been inspected and certified as weed free sites by the McKenzie County Weed Board or other individual County Weed Board and approved prior to use.

Wildlife and To reduce the area of direct removal of potential habitat and to avoid Fisheries habitat fragmentation, Project facilities have been routed/sited in areas of previous disturbance to the extent practicable, following existing roads or utility corridors.

No harassment or depredation of wildlife species or livestock by the Companies or their contractors would be allowed.

April 2018 29

Resource Environmental Protection Measure

Areas potentially hazardous to wildlife would be adequately protected (e.g., fenced, netted) to prevent access by wildlife.

During soil-moving construction activities, BMPs and appropriate erosion or stormwater control structures would be used to prevent sediments from entering drainages.

Construction-related vehicles would be required to observe 15 mph speed limits and would be limited to specified haul routes to limit resource damage to other roads and prevent wildlife collisions.

To reduce impacts to habitat for grassland-dependent species, disturbance to native prairie would be reclaimed using a USFS-approved native seed mix of grasses and forbs.

Site-specific SPCC plans would be followed to respond to emergencies or spills to stop and contain leaks to the extent possible.

Special Status Spoil piles and work spaces would be located outside of Dakota skipper Species reproductive habitat.

Construction activities would not occur from June 10 to July 25 adjacent to identified habitat to avoid vehicle induced injury and death to the adult Dakota skippers during their flight stage. This construction timing limitation would apply on the following well pads and roads: Charolais facilities (all pads and roads), Brangus access road, Wolverine 278, Wolverine 241, and Harms B.

Dust abatement measures would be implemented with watering solutions containing calcium/magnesium chloride (or an alternative with equal or greater effectiveness on dust but with no greater environmental risk) as an additive. Dust abatement treatments shall occur at an appropriate frequency to ensure that dust moving offsite will be minimized to maximum extent practicable on all road segments where occupied, assumed occupied or potential Dakota skipper habitat is located (within 131 ft (40 m) of all dust sources associated with the Project). (USFS Incidental Take Permit, Term and Condition 1.) Application of chloride solutions would be required Project-wide per USFS.

April 2018 30

Resource Environmental Protection Measure

The USFS as the lead Federal agency shall provide a report summarizing the following information: a) the extent and location of Dakota skipper habitat removal (Project footprint); b) the frequency and locations of dust abatement activities; c) the verification that calcium chloride (or a functional equivalent) was used as an additive to the watering solution during the construction period; and d) the extent of fugitive dust migration into Dakota skipper habitat adjacent to the Project footprint. The report shall be provided on a monthly basis throughout the construction period with the first report due to the USFWS (North Dakota Field Office) within 45 days of the initiation of construction activities. Monthly reports are to be terminated once all the well pads and associated wells are production- ready. An annual summer inspection (one-time in July) and report by USFS personnel is required during the operational period to ensure the roads and pads are being maintained with dust abatement measures to minimize the effects of fugitive dust during the oil production/operational period. (USFS Incidental Take Permit, Term and Condition 2).

To reduce impacts to habitat for grassland-nesting migratory birds and the Dakota skipper, Ottoe skipper, regal fritillary, and tawny crescent, disturbance to native prairie would be reclaimed using a USFS-approved seed mix consisting of native grasses and forbs, including forbs used by Dakota skippers and other insects for nectaring.

Herbicide type and application would be done according to label directions and in such a way to avoid drift to potential Dakota skipper habitat and desirable native grasses and forbs (i.e., concentrations, timing, weather conditions) and as specified in USFS-approved standards (per Alternative 2 of the DPG Noxious Weed FEIS).

Broadcast spraying of herbicides would be prohibited. Application would be site-specific using spot treatment and targeting of invasive plants/noxious weeds in Dakota skipper habitat to avoid adverse effects to nectar plants, or grasses used by larvae and pupae.

Herbicide applicators must be certified and readily able to recognize and locate native grass and forbs required by Dakota skippers and other prairie butterflies to ensure native plants are not treated with herbicides.

Removal of potential roosting trees would only occur during winter hibernation (October 1 through March 31) of the northern long-eared bat. Within the Project disturbance area, this stipulation would apply to the Charolais A access road (2 trees, edge of woody draw), Charolais A well pad (11 trees, upper tip of a woody draw going into the well pad), Charolais B access road (4 trees).

If a whooping crane is sighted within one mile of the Project area while it is under construction, work shall cease within one mile of that part of the Project or within line-of-sight of the crane(s). The USFWS would be contacted immediately. In coordination with the USFWS, work may resume after the bird(s) leave the area.

April 2018 31

Resource Environmental Protection Measure

The Service is to be notified within three working days upon locating a dead, injured or sick endangered or threatened species specimen (see 50 CFR 402. l 4(i)(l)(v)). Initial notification must be made to the nearest U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office of Law Enforcement at (701) 255-0593. Notification must include the date, time, precise location of the injured animal or carcass, and any other pertinent information. Care should be taken in handling sick or injured specimens to preserve biological materials in the best possible state for later analysis of cause of death, if that occurs. In conjunction with the care of sick or injured endangered or threatened species or preservation of biological materials from a dead animal, the finder has the responsibility to ensure that evidence associated with the specimen is not unnecessarily disturbed.

If construction is scheduled during the eagle breeding season (February 1 through August 15), prior to on-the-ground activities, the Companies would conduct a raptor survey to determine if there are nesting eagles or other raptors within one mile of the Project boundary. Aerial surveys would be conducted between March 1 and May 15, before leaf-out, so that nests are visible and their status (active or inactive) can be determined. A nesting territory or inventoried habitat would be designated as unoccupied by golden eagles only after at least two complete aerial surveys in a single breeding season. Aerial surveys would include the following, 1) the Companies would record any observations of golden eagle nest sites using a global positioning system. The date, location, nest condition, activity status, and habitat would be recorded for each sighting. 2) the Companies would share the qualifications of the biologist(s) conducting the survey, method of survey, and results of the survey with the USFWS.

If any eagle nests are found to be active, no Project activities would be allowed within 0.5 mile of the nest from February 1 to August 15.

If a bald or golden eagle, or previously undocumented eagle nest were identified and encountered during construction, ground-disturbing activities in the immediate area would be stopped and the USFWS would be notified immediately for instructions on how to proceed.

Surface use, including construction or reclamation activities, would be prohibited from March 1 through June 15 within one mile (line of sight) of a sharp-tailed grouse display ground (lek). This stipulation would apply to the Charolais and Brangus facilities, including pads and access roads.

Sensitive plant populations within or very near the ROW would be noted on alignment sheets and clearly marked (stake/fence/flag) prior to construction, reclamation, and treatments of noxious or invasive plants to ensure they are avoided. This stipulation would apply to the Charolais facilities, including well pads and access roads, where 10 populations of Easter daisy are within the Project area (one individual is within the Disturbance area and has approval to be removed per USFS).

April 2018 32

Resource Environmental Protection Measure

Discoveries of sensitive or watch plants within the Project area after Project approval would be reported to the USFS. Last-minute alterations of the Project design or access route may be requested in order to avoid negative impacts to such populations.

Cultural and Multiple cultural sites/resources have been identified near the analyzed APE Paleontological for the Project. Impacts to these resources would be avoided by fencing Resources and monitoring by a qualified archeologist during construction near the sites.

Discovery and Education Stipulation: All persons associated with operations under this authorization must be informed that any objects or sites of cultural, paleontological, or scientific value such as historic or prehistoric resources, graves or grave markers, human remains, ruins, cabins, rock art, fossils, or artifacts shall not be damaged, destroyed, removed, moved, or disturbed. If in connection with operations under this authorization any of the above resources are encountered, the proponent shall immediately suspend all activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery that might further disturb such materials and notify the DPG-authorized officer of the findings. The discovery must be protected until notified in writing to proceed by the authorized officer (36 CFR 800.110 & 112, 43 CFR 10.4).

Recreation and Permanent, aboveground structures would be painted colors that would Visual Resources blend in with the natural landscape.

To prevent unauthorized use of the ROW by off-road vehicles and subsequent potential impacts to soil, vegetation, and wildlife resources, access would be blocked at locations specified by the USFS or private landowners.

Noise Project design has included consideration of siting facilities to minimize noise levels.

Construction would generally be limited to daytime hours. If construction commences after soil is frozen, 24-hour operations must be performed until all subsoil is removed or the soil continues to freeze as the upper protective layers are removed.

Construction equipment and other motors or generators used on the Project during construction or operation would be equipped with suitable mufflers to reduce noise.

Traffic noise would be minimized by controlling road speeds.

Public Health and The Companies would be responsible (or have contracts with companies Safety with equipment and capabilities) for maintaining a sufficient supply of spill containment and clean-up equipment, including suitable commercial absorbent material on the work site, with the responsibility to adequately and immediately respond to a spill or leak of harmful chemicals, pollutants, or other materials. The contaminated material would either be drummed in marked 55-gallon drums or hauled to an authorized disposal area.

April 2018 33

Resource Environmental Protection Measure

The Companies would implement fire prevention and control measures including, but not limited to: 1) ensuring that sufficient suppression equipment and qualified personnel are present during hot work jobs; 2) requiring construction crews to carry fire extinguishers in their vehicles and/or equipment; 3) training construction crews in the proper use of fire extinguishers; and 4) coordinating with the local fire district to provide fire response services.

Hazardous The use of hazardous materials would be carefully controlled. Such Materials and Solid materials would be clearly labeled and used only by authorized personnel Waste trained in the transportation, handling, use, and storage of the specific hazardous materials.

A covered leak-proof container (with placard) for filter sock disposal would be installed and would remain on-site during clean-out, completion, and flow-back whenever filtration operations are conducted.

Drilling fluids and cuttings and recovered fracturing fluids would be contained in tanks and trucked off-site to a state-permitted disposal location.

Non-hazardous and solid waste generated by the Project would be collected in enclosed containers and disposed at a state-permitted landfill.

During construction, portable toilets would be used for sewage; a sanitation company would periodically haul waste to approved landfills.

Land Use Construction personnel would be directed to stay within the approved ROW or would follow designated access roads to prevent disturbance outside the ROW and approved work areas. Existing roads would be used for the majority of the Project length to avoid impacts to adjacent lands.

A fence would be installed around the perimeter of each pad and a cattle guard would be installed at each pad entrance to exclude grazing livestock.

Range improvements such as fences, gates, cattle guards, and developed water sources that are damaged during construction and are located within the Disturbance area or access roads would be repaired to the satisfaction of the USFS or private landowner.

April 2018 34

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter describes the human and natural resources that may affect or be affected by the Proposed Action or No Action alternative. The chapter first presents the existing or baseline condition of each resource and then analyzes the anticipated effects of implementing the Proposed Action or No Action alternative.

3.1.1 Chapter Organization

The introduction of each subsection summarizes relevant laws or regulations and defines the limits of the analysis specific to the resource (see “Affected/Analysis Area Definitions”). Effects may be direct or indirect, positive (beneficial) or negative (adverse), and long-term (permanent, long-lasting) or short-term (temporary). Measures that would be implemented to reduce, minimize or eliminate impacts are discussed for each resource and referred to as design features or BMPs. Cumulative effects, which result from other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions that are not part of the Project, are discussed at the end of each subsection.

3.1.2 Affected/Analysis Area Definitions

The affected area encompasses the communities, land, water, and other aspects of the physical and human environment that may be affected by the Proposed Action or No Action alternative. The boundaries of the affected area extend to where effects can be reasonably measured and have meaning for the project proposal; thus, the affected/analysis area may differ for each resource. For the analysis of most resources, the following two boundaries have been used to define the extent of the affected area:

• The Project area is the maximum physical footprint of the proposed project. It includes the area of surface disturbance for the proposed well pads, access roads, and utility corridors, summarized in Table 2-2. • The Antelope MDP area is the exterior boundary shown on Figure 1.

The affected/analysis area is defined in the introduction of each resource. The affected area and effects analyzed represent complete Project development as described in Chapter 2; it is possible that due to economic or other factors the Project may not be fully implemented.

3.1.3 Resources Evaluated

Laws, regulations, policies, and concerns raised during public involvement (see Section 1.4, Table 1-1) have determined the human or natural resources evaluated in this EA. The presence of pertinent resources and whether they are potentially affected are summarized in Table 3-1. If a resource is not present, it is not addressed further in the EA.

April 2018 35

Table 3-1: Summary of Potential Impacts and Approvals of Proposed Action1 Present and Present, but Potentially Resource Not Present Not Affected Affected Air Quality and Climate X Special Designations, Areas of Critical X Environmental Concern (ACECs) Wilderness Study Areas and Lands with X Wilderness Characteristics Wild and Scenic Rivers X Cultural Resources X Native American Religious Concerns X Farmlands (Prime or Unique) X Soils X Vegetation Management (incl. Forestry, X Forest Products) Invasive, Non-Native Species X Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive Species X Migratory Birds X Wildlife, Terrestrial X Wildlife, Aquatic X Riparian Zones and Wetlands (incl. X Floodplains) Hydrology - Surface X Hydrology - Ground X Wastes (Hazardous or Solid) X Environmental Justice X Socioeconomics X Access and Transportation X Realty Authorizations X Livestock Grazing/Rangeland Health X Fire Management X Noise X Recreation X Visual Resources Management X Geology and Mineral Resources X Paleontological Resources X 1Analysis of impacts is determined after implementation of mitigation measures and BMPs. Refer to individual resource sections for further analysis on resource impacts and specific measures used to reduce effects.

April 2018 36

3.1.4 Cumulative Actions

NEPA requires the identification and consideration of incremental impacts that are related to the Project when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or private entity undertakes such other actions (40 CFR 1508.7). Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time (40 CFR 1508.7). Impacts first must be identified for the Project before an analysis of cumulative impacts with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions can occur.

The extent of cumulative effects would vary by resource, but in general, the limits of the Antelope MDP area has been considered a practical boundary to consider past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, as outlined below.

The Proposed Action analyzes effects on USFS lands within the next 5-10 years. The total MDP analysis area is about 29,872 acres. Of that area, about 10,566 acres, or 35 percent, are USFS lands; 2,223 acres, or 7 percent, are USACE lands; 1,579 acres, or 5 percent, are state lands; and 15,504 acres, or 52 percent, are private lands.

An analysis of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions was completed within the Antelope MDP area. The analysis focused on oil and gas well pads, agricultural lands, roads, and associated pipeline/utility corridors. These types of development are the major surface disturbances on the landscape, represent the primary land uses of the MDP area, and are readily quantified using publicly available data. Data for oil and gas wells were obtained from the NDIC (NDIC 2017). Since multiple wells may be present on one shared pad, current aerial images were used to determine how many current and reclaimed well pads are present in the MDP area and to estimate their acreage (National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) 2016; Google Earth). Past and present agricultural disturbance was estimated by using USFS GIS data and aerial images, digitizing the perimeter of agricultural fields. Surface disturbance from roads and pipeline corridors was estimated using USFS GIS data and current aerial images to determine centerlines, totaling lengths, and assuming the footprints of gravel/scoria roads and pipelines were about 50 feet wide. In the MDP area, pipelines and utility corridors typically follow existing roads, so the area of disturbance is associated and these features were not analyzed separated.

Within the Antelope MDP area, there are a total of 67 active well/infrastructure pads supporting 197 oil and gas wells (Table 3-2; Figure 4). On USFS lands, there are currently 15 well pads supporting 23 wells.

April 2018 37

Table 3-2: Past, Present, and Future Wells within the Antelope MDP Area Private/State/USACE Total USFS Lands Total Status Lands Well Wells Wells Well Pads Wells Well Pads Pads Past (Abandoned, Plugged/Abandoned, 7 6 48 45 55 51 Temporarily Abandoned, Inactive) Present (Active) 23 15 174 52 197 67 Future1

MDP/Proposed Action 49 6 - - 49 6 Confidential (in 20 1 28 6 48 7 addition to MDP wells) TOTAL2 99 28 250 103 349 131 Source: NDIC 2017; NAIP 2016 1For future estimates, only new well pads are listed (i.e., excludes expansions to existing pads).

The NDIC “confidential” category typically denotes proposed wells that have yet to receive permits, shown in Table 3-2 under the future well status. For the purposes of this EA, the assumption is these wells are reasonably foreseeable future actions. On USFS lands, the NDIC (2017) data within the Antelope MDP Area, combined with 2016 aerial imagery (NAIP

April 2018 38

Figure 4. Past, Present, and Future Oil and Gas Wells within the MDP Area

April 2018 39

2016), showed 17 confidential/proposed wells on 4 existing well pads and 3 wells on one new well pad, for total new development of 20 wells and one well pad (Table 3-2; Figure 4). These wells and pads are those in addition to the Proposed Action. On private lands, 8 confidential/proposed wells were identified on 2 existing well pads and 20 wells on 6 new well pads, for total new development of 28 wells and 6 pads (Table 3-2). These 6 new well pads were all within cultivated agricultural land, where surface disturbance had previously occurred. In sum, future actions would increase the total well/infrastructure pads from 15 to 22 on USFS lands and from 52 to 58 on other lands within the MDP area.

3.2 AIR QUALITY

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the North Dakota Department of Health (NDDH) regulate air quality in North Dakota through implementation of the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) (42 U.S.C. §§ 7401-7671q). Through the CAA, the EPA established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six criteria pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter of two sizes [less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10) and less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5)], and lead (Pb) (USEPA 2017a). North Dakota has state standards for SO2 and hydrogen sulfide (H2S) in addition to the federal criteria standards, developed in response to high petroleum sulfur content in historical oil wells (NDDH 2017a). The primary and secondary NAAQS for criteria pollutants and the North Dakota Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) are shown in Table 3-3.

Table 3-3: National and State Air Quality Standards Primary Secondary North Pollutant Averaging Period Standard Standard Dakota (NAAQS) (NAAQS) AAQS

1-hour1 35 - 35 CO (parts per million [ppm]) 8-hour1 9 - 9

Lead (micrograms per cubic Rolling 3-month 3 0.15 0.15 0.15 meter of air [µg/m ]) average 1-hour3 100 - 100 NO2 (parts per billion [ppb]) Annual mean 53 53 53

4 O3 (ppb) 8-hour 70 70 70

3 2 PM10 (µg/m ) 24-hour 150 150 150

24-hour3 35 35 35

3 PM2.5 (µg/m ) 1-year5 12 15 12

1-hour3 75 - 75 3-hour1 - 500 500 SO2 (ppb) 24-hour1 140 - - Annual mean 30 - -

April 2018 40

Primary Secondary North Pollutant Averaging Period Standard Standard Dakota (NAAQS) (NAAQS) AAQS Instantaneous - - 10 1-hour - - 0.20 H2S (ppm) 24-hour1 - - 0.10 3-month - - 0.02 1 Not to be exceeded more than once per year. 2 Not to be exceeded more than once per year on average over 3 years. 3 th th To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 98 percentile (for NO2 and PM2.5) or 99 percentile (for SO2) of 24- hour concentrations at each population-oriented monitor within an area must not exceed standard. 4 To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the fourth-highest daily maximum must not exceed the standard. The Federal ozone standard was recently lowered in October 2015 from 75 ppb to 70 ppb. The NDDH 2015 report reflects the previous standard. 5 Annual mean, averaged over 3 years.

Sources: USEPA 2017a; NDDH 2017a.

Under the CAA, the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program is designed to ensure areas with air quality better than the NAAQS do not significantly deteriorate. Under PSD, future incremental emission increases, called air quality increments, are limited based on an area’s air quality classification (USEPA 2016a). A Class II attainment area is subject to maximum limits on air quality degradation called air quality increments. A Class I attainment area is an area of national significance that has more stringent air quality standards than a Class II attainment area. Class I attainment areas include national parks greater than 6,000 acres, national monuments, national seashores, and federal wilderness areas larger than 5,000 acres designated prior to August 7, 1977. A Class III area has no air quality increments and air quality may be degraded to levels correspondent to NAAQS. As part of the PSD program, the EPA and state agencies issue permits, if necessary, for new stationary sources of air pollutants (USEPA 2016a).

Hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), also known as air toxics, are a class of compounds that cause or may cause cancer or other serious health effects, such as reproductive or birth defects, or adverse environmental and ecological effects (USEPA 2016b). HAPs are regulated separately from criteria air pollutants, with several hundred compounds recognized by the EPA and the state of North Dakota. HAPs are usually localized problems near the emission source. In contrast to criteria pollutants, there are no ambient air quality standards for HAPs. If a project would result in a new HAPs emissions source, the NDDH would review and may require an applicant to prepare a risk assessment.

Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are called greenhouse gases (GHGs). Intergovern- mental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scientists conclude that most of the observed changes in climate, including increased temperatures, are very likely due to observed increases in anthropogenic GHG concentrations (IPCC 2014). The EPA collects data on and encourages limiting or reducing emissions of anthropogenic sources of GHGs to the earth’s atmosphere (USEPA 2017b). The principal GHGs that enter the atmosphere because of human activities as the following: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and fluorinated gases (USEPA 2017b).

April 2018 41

3.2.1 Affected Environment

The NDDH operates a network of ambient air quality monitoring (AAQM) stations around the state that continuously measure pollutant levels to determine if state or federal standards are being met. The Project is in northeast McKenzie County. The nearest air quality monitoring stations are Williston (Site No. 381050003), about 35 miles west/northwest and Teddy Roosevelt National Park – North Unit (TRNP-NU) (Site No. 380530002), about 30 miles southwest of the Project area. Ambient levels of pollutants for the Williston and TRNP-NU stations are shown in Table 3-4. The sites provide a representative estimate for current ambient conditions near the Project area and are considered the air quality analysis area. Currently, no state monitoring stations measure lead, H2S, HAPs, and the only active CO monitor is in Cass County in the eastern part of the state, not relevant to the analysis area (NDDH 2017a).

Table 3-4: Ambient Air Quality Levels Pollutant Levels Averaging Pollutant Ranking1 Year Period Williston TRNP-NU (381050003) (380530002)

NO 1-hour 98th 2013-2015 2 - 12.3 Percentile Average Annual H1H 2015 - 1.66 O 8-hour H4H 2013-2015 3 58 59 Average PM 24-hour H2H 2013-2015 10 992 34.32 Average

PM 24-hour 98th 2013-2015 2.5 252 182 Percentile Average Annual H1H 2013-2015 6.92 3.42 Average

SO 1-hour 99th 2013-2015 2 - 6.7 Percentile Average 3-hour H2H 2015 - 5.3 24-hour H2H 2015 - 2.6 Annual H1H 2015 - 0.33

1 H1H represents the highest overall value for the given year. H2H represents the high second high concentration (the second highest value from the highest impact receptor). The 98th and 99th percentile values were averaged over three years. 2 3 All PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations are expressed in units of µg/m . Source: USEPA Air Monitoring Network Data Archives Website, USEPA 2015.

The Project area is designated as a Class II attainment area and would be regulated by federal air quality standards. As indicated in Table 3-4, the analysis area is in attainment for all criteria pollutants; North Dakota currently is in attainment for all criteria pollutants in all counties (NDDH 2017a). The nearest Class I attainment areas are TRNP North Unit (30 miles southwest) and Lostwood Wilderness Area (35 miles northeast).

In addition to the ambient air quality monitoring sites operated by the NDDH, the owners of certain industrial sources of air emissions operate air quality monitoring sites within their immediate spheres of influence (NDDH 2017a). One industrial site, the Hess North Dakota Pipelines LLC – Hawkeye Compressor Station, is 0.75 miles west of the western extent of the

April 2018 42

MDP area. The Hawkeye Compressor Station is monitored for NO2 and Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), and both are considered minor emissions (USEPA 2018). In 2016, the Hawkeye Compressor Station was a major point source for CO2 (greater than or equal to 100 tons per year [TPY]), NOx (greater than 100 TPY), VOC (greater than or equal to 100 TPY), and SO2 (greater than 100 TPY), and was also the nearest major HAPs source, reporting greater than or equal to 10 TPY of a single HAP or greater than or equal to 25 TPY aggregate HAPS in 2016 (NDDH 2017a).

3.2.2 Environmental Consequences

3.2.2.1 Proposed Action Alternative The Project would include surface construction and operation of oil and gas wells and associated infrastructure and facilities. The Project would not include construction or operation of compressor stations or other treatment facilities regulated by PSD program permits.

The Project would result in temporary and intermittent releases in three primary areas: combustion, fugitive, and vented emissions (BLM 2011). Combustion emissions include SO2, VOCs, GHGs, and HAPs. Sources include engine exhaust, dehydrators, and flaring. Fugitive emissions include criteria pollutants, H2S, VOCs, HAPs, and GHGs. Potential sources include evaporation pits, produced water tanks, storage tanks, flares, treater stacks, airborne dust from truck and tanker traffic, and construction activity. Vented emissions include GHGs, VOCs, and HAPs. Primary sources are emergency pressure relief valves and dehydrator vents. Example HAPs released in oil and gas development include benzene, toluene, xylene, and formaldehyde (BLM 2011).

An emissions inventory was completed for the LMNG with a series of emissions models that can be used to estimate Project-specific emissions (USFS 2015a, draft). Error! Reference source not found.5 summarizes annual emissions in year 5 of the Project for criteria pollutants, VOCs, methane (CH4), HAPs, and GHGs. The models were run using a multi-well pad of 7 wells (average wells per pad for the Proposed Action), assuming 10 wells would be drilled each year, over the course of 5 years, to complete the 49 proposed wells. Year 5 emissions account for wells drilled in that year plus the accumulated production, maintenance, and reclamation of wells drilled in the previous 5 years. Numerous additional assumptions were used in the models which are detailed in the project record; in summary, they include: Bakken-specific drilling features such as large rigs, long horizontal drills, fracture-stimulation; well and access road construction; vehicle travel during different phases; use of Tier 1-3 combustion engines; restoration of well pads and roads; venting; and flaring.

Air quality would be reduced locally during construction and drilling near the Project area. At any given time, multiple construction or drilling crews could be working at different locations across the Project area. Traffic associated with construction and drilling/completion would range from 5 to 50 vehicles per day at each well pad. Emissions are reduced during the production and operations phase, with minimal emissions contributed by maintenance and reclamation activities (Table 3-5). Refer to the descriptions of expected traffic and duration for each phase of construction and operation in Section 2.2.2, Description of Project Actions.

April 2018 43

Table 3-5: Proposed Action Year 5 Emissions (tons per year)

Seven Wells per Pad Proposed Action Leases Total Construction Production Annual Pollutant & Drilling & Operations Maintenance Reclamation Emissions

PM10 71.49 45.81 0.03 0.00 117

PM2.5 12.89 4.48 0.00 0.00 17 NOx 125.52 75.62 0.03 0.00 201

SO2 2.55 0.06 0.00 0.00 3 CO 34.14 169.99 0.05 0.00 204 VOC 9.94 316.98 0.02 0.00 327 HAPs 0.99 18.22 0.00 0.00 19

CO2 13,850.84 4,015.65 4.23 0.08 17,871

CH4 0.16 125.35 0.00 0.00 126

N2O 0.20 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.2

CO2eq 13,915.15 6,658.66 4.37 0.08 20,578 CO eq 2 12,627.17 6,042.34 3.96 0.07 18,674 metric tons Source: USFS 2015a, draft

Simulations of local effects to air quality (i.e., “near-field” emissions) (USFS 2014) were completed as part of the LMNG emissions inventory. Overall, the results showed emissions of criteria pollutants below the respective NAAQS standard. However, during drilling, fracturing and completion phases, the 1-hour NAAQS standard for NO2 was exceeded using equipment with Tier 1 to 3 emission limits. If Tier 4 equipment was used, which has stricter emission limits, NO2 emissions were still high, with individual exceedances out to a distance of approximately 1,690 feet (0.3 miles) from the well pad. Similarly, simulations of fugitive emissions (with no emissions controls) showed high values for 1-hour PM2.5 emissions, though the NAAQS standard was not exceeded. The nearest occupied residences are approximately 3.5 miles southwest of the Charolais facilities and approximately one mile southeast of the Harms/Wolverine facilities. The Proposed Action is 45 miles away from the east boundary of the North Unit of TRNP and its closest point to the recreational Maah Daah Hey Trail (Section 3.8.1). Therefore, members of the public or local residents are unlikely to be affected by any temporary near-field emissions; workers within that area are working within the safety precautions required by Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) standards.

The emissions estimated above would be minimized during construction and operation using methods and equipment to minimize the discharge of exhaust, dust, or other contaminants to the atmosphere according to federal, state, and local requirements. Numerous transportation, drilling, and production phase BMPs would be used as practicable, as outlined in Table 2-3. Airborne dust would be reduced during Project construction on existing gravel roads in the Project area by treating with calcium/magnesium chloride or alternative. Based on existing air quality in the region, simulated air emissions estimates, and the implementation of design features and BMPs, in concert with federal and state emissions controls, the increase in emissions associated with the Proposed Action would occur predominantly during construction and drilling phases and would be localized and largely temporary.

3.2.2.2 Cumulative Effects Oil and gas development in western North Dakota is anticipated to continue at the current rate over the next few years and contribute to cumulative air quality impacts. The Proposed

April 2018 44

Action would incrementally contribute to emissions from oil and gas development occurring within the MDP area and the region. The Proposed Action would contribute to emissions from the construction of an estimated six wells per year and operation and maintenance of producing wells as wells are completed over the course of ten years. Emissions within the MDP area would also result from the assumed foreseeable future 48 wells on 7 well pads over the ten-year time period (see Table 3-2, Section 3.1.4).

To compare the contribution of the Proposed Action to cumulative foreseeable LMNG emissions, the emissions inventory models were run using an estimate of 9 additional wells being drilled per year across the LMNG as a whole, for a total of 15 per year including the Proposed Action. An assumption of a multi-well pad of 4 wells was used for the other leasing activity. Table 3-6 summarizes annual emissions in year 5 for the Project and for other anticipated drilling/production activity. Other assumptions are the same as summarized above (Section 3.2.2.1) and detailed in the references in the project record.

Table 3-6: Cumulative Year 5 Emissions (tons per year) Seven Wells per Cumulative Pad Proposed Four Wells per Annual Pollutant Action Leases Pad Other Leases Emissions

PM10 117 106 223

PM2.5 17 16 33 NOx 201 181 382

SO2 3 2 5 CO 204 184 388 VOC 327 294 621 HAPs 19 17 37

CO2 17,871 16,090 33,961

CH4 126 113 238

N2O 0.2 0.2 0.5

CO2eq 20,578 18,533 39,111 CO eq 2 18,674 16,818 35,491 metric tons Source: USFS 2015a, draft

The LMNG emissions inventory compared total annual LMNG emissions (including reasonably foreseeable and existing oil and gas wells) to total reported annual emissions for the four counties in which the LMNG is located (McKenzie, Billings, Golden Valley, and Slope) and to statewide annual emissions (USFS 2015a, draft). In comparison to the surrounding four counties, a 2015 report showed total LMNG oil and gas emissions contributed 21 percent of NOx, 5 percent of VOC, 23 percent of CO, 22 percent of SOx, and 38 percent of PM emissions. In comparison to statewide emissions, the predicted emissions were approximately one percent or less of each pollutant. The contributions of the Proposed Action (Table 3-5) to cumulative annual emissions would be a fraction of these estimates. Therefore, the Project is not expected to affect attainment of state or national air quality standards for the Project area (Class II), the nearest Class I attainment area, or the state.

3.2.2.3 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, the Project would not be approved and developed, and therefore Project construction and operation would have no temporary effects on current air quality in the analysis area.

April 2018 45

3.3 SOILS AND TOPOGRAPHY

Soil types across the landscape are mapped into units based on similar characteristics and profiles by the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) (NRCS 2006). Typical characteristics are steepness, length, and shape of the slopes, the general drainage patterns, type of vegetation these soils support, and the kinds of bedrock. The objective of soil maps is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements (NRCS 2006).

Some soil types are protected by federal legislation. The 1981 Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) requires examination of the effects of federally funded projects prior to the acquisition of farmlands classified by the NRCS as Prime, Prime if Irrigated, or Statewide/Locally Important Farmlands. Prime farmland soils are protected because of their ideal characteristics for cultivation (NRCS 2016a). Hydric soils (NRCS 2016b) are typically present in wetland areas, which are protected by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. 1344). Hydric soils are often organic and may not be suitable for construction. Soils can also be a concern due to practical reasons such as susceptibility to wind or water erosion which can affect the success of reclamation.

The LRMP has several stipulations that relate to soil resources (Standards and Guidelines, Physical Resources, C. Soils, pp. 1-11, USFS 2001a). Management focus is on limiting soil disturbance from construction activities, minimizing and maintaining roads and other facilities during and after construction, and limiting disturbance on slopes greater than 40 percent and on soils susceptible to mass failure. The Plan also expedites reclamation of soils after completion of activities.

The analysis of soil resources was limited to the maximum area that would potentially be disturbed during construction, which has been defined as the Project area.

3.3.1 Affected Environment

The Project area has 10 soil map units (NRCS 2017) as listed in Table 3-7 (next page) and shown in Error! Reference source not found.4 and 5. These soils are well drained silt loams and clay loams derived from sandstone, siltstone, shale, alluvium, and sedimentary rock. Most of the soils have a moderate infiltration rate (Hydrologic Group B), though one area is rated with a very slow infiltration rate (Hydrologic Group D), likely due to clay components. All map units except one have a hydric rating of zero, which indicates the percentage of soil types comprising the map unit that meet the criteria for hydric soils. The exception is 0.5 acres on private lands, Map Unit E4143A, Korchea loam, which has a hydric rating of 43 percent (Table 3-7). The soils in the Project area are in wind erodibility groups (WEG) 4L or 6, indicating that they have moderate to low susceptibility to wind erosion. WEG 4L soils are typically loams with a calcareous component, while WEG 6 soils are typically non-calcareous loams or silt loams with a clay component. None of the soils in the Project area are classified farmland of statewide importance/prime farmland (NRCS 2017).

3.3.2 Environmental Consequences

3.3.2.1 Proposed Action Alternative Construction of the Project would include cut and fill excavation for construction of well pads, well pad expansions, roads, and utilities. These activities would directly disturb soils in an estimated 69.7 acres, equivalent to the Project area (refer to Table 2-2 and Table 3-7). Topsoil would be removed where necessary and stockpiled separately from the underlying

April 2018 46

subsoil. After grading is complete and utilities are installed, subsoils would be backfilled, recontoured, and de-compacted as necessary. Topsoil would be replaced in areas of interim reclamation (i.e., road ditches, utility routes, and well pad edges) and prepared for seeding. The reclaimed portion of the Project area totals 26.8 acres (38 percent), and would be considered a short-term disturbance, within which topsoil and subsoil would be replaced following construction. The portion of the Project area with well and road surfaces would total 42.9 acres (62 percent) and would be considered a long-term disturbance, with the area being used for the 20 to 40-year duration of well production (Table 2-2).

Table 3-7: Soil Map Units within the Disturbance Area Map Hydrologic Drainage Area Symbol Map Unit Name WEG1 Group2 Class (acres) USFS Lands Arikara-Shambo-Cabba loams, E2725F 6 B Well drained 1.4 9 to 70 percent slopes Cabba-Badland, outcrop complex, E3107F 4L D Well drained 2.1 9 to 70 percent slopes Williams-Zahl loams, E3541B 6 B Well drained 8.0 3 to 6 percent slopes Williams-Zahl loams, E3541C 6 B Well drained 16.6 6 to 9 percent slopes Zahl-Cabba-Arikara complex, E3607F 4L B Well drained 2.8 9 to 70 percent slopes Zahl-Cabba-Maschetah complex, E3609F 4L B Well drained 0.2 3 to 70 percent slopes Zahl-Cabba-Williams complex, E3641D 4L B Well drained 19.5 9 to 15 percent slopes Zahl-Max loams, dissected, 15 to E3567F 4L C Well drained 4.4 45 percent slopes Zahl-Williams loams, E3559E 6 B Well drained 2.7 15 to 25 percent slopes Zahl-Williams loams, E3555D 4L B Well drained 7.0 9 to 15 percent slopes Subtotal USFS Lands 64.8 Private Lands Korchea loam, channeled, E4143A wooded, 4L B Well drained 0.5 0 to 2 percent slopes Williams-Zahl loams, E3541B 6 B Well drained 2.9 3 to 6 percent slopes Zahl-Cabba-Maschetah complex, E3609F 4L B Well drained 1.5 3 to 70 percent slopes Zahl-Williams loams, dissected, E3555D 4L B Well drained 0.1 15 to 45 percent slopes Subtotal Private Lands 5.0 Total 69.7 1WEG=wind erodibility group. Wind erodibility is rated on a scale of one to eight with one being the most susceptible and eight being the least. 2Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils are assigned to one of four groups (A, B, C, and D) according to the rate of water infiltration when the soils are not protected by vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and receive precipitation from long-duration storms. Source: NRCS 2017

April 2018 47

Figure 5. Soils Map of Charolais Facilities

April 2018 48

Figure 6. Soils Map of Harms and Wolverine Facilities

April 2018 49

The Companies have designed and sited the Project to maximize the use of previously disturbed areas to minimize the impact to native, undisturbed soils. The Project area consists of approximately 69.7 acres, with 45 percent of the area (31.3 acres) being previously disturbed from pipeline or road corridors, well pad construction, and agriculture. The remaining 38.4 acres, or 55 percent of the Project area would affect previously undisturbed soils (Table 3-14).

Along with direct effects from excavation, soils could also be impacted through the potential for wind and water erosion during Project construction and reclamation while disturbed soils are exposed. Small portions of the Project area have up to 70 percent slopes, but the majority of the area is rolling topography with less than 15 percent slopes (Table 3-7). Susceptibility to wind erosion is moderate to low and soils are well-drained with good infiltration of water during precipitation events. The implementation of BMPs and the use of erosion control would ensure erosion is controlled and sediment migration is minimized (see Table 2-3 for complete list). The Project would not affect hydric soils, prime farmland soils, or farmland of statewide importance.

Normal operation of the Project is not expected to affect soils. If there are maintenance activities that would result in surface disturbance, it would occur within the previously disturbed Project area. Therefore, effects to soils during the operation phase would be unlikely.

Chemical contamination of soils could potentially occur if a spill or leak of chemicals, fuels, or oil occurred during Project activities. The risk of contamination would be minimized by restricting fuel and chemical storage in the Project area and monitoring utilities during Project operation. If a spill or leak were to occur, site-specific SPCC plans would be implemented to minimize the extent of the incident and remove and replace contaminated soils (see Table 2-3).

3.3.2.2 Cumulative Effects Past and current disturbances to soils in the MDP area are primarily related to oil and gas development, roads, and tilled agricultural land. Within the MDP area, past and present oil and gas well pads total about 407 acres, the majority occurring on private/state lands (Table 3-8). Roads and associated pipeline/utility corridors contribute to about 253 acres of direct disturbance within the MDP area. Wells on private land are typically on flat agricultural land along established roads. USFS lands are typically rugged; as a result, long roads have been constructed to traverse the rugged topography to access well pads on flat plateaus. The largest disturbance to native communities in the MDP area has been agriculture; past and present acreages total an estimated 9,881 acres, the majority occurring off USFS lands (Table 3-8). Taken together, oil and gas infrastructure, roads, and agricultural land have disturbed about 35 percent of the 29,872 acre Antelope MDP area.

Estimates of future surface disturbance within the MDP area include the Proposed Action and additional confidential wells and new well pads discussed in Section 3.1.4 as reasonably foreseeable future actions. The Proposed Action would incrementally contribute to cumulative effects to soils in the MDP area from the surface disturbance of 42.7 acres for the well pads and soil stockpiles and 27.1 acres for the access roads/utility corridors (Table 2-2). Approximately 31.5 acres (45 percent) of the Project area would occur on land that has been previously disturbed. On USFS lands, the one additional new well pad would disturb at least five acres, with a short access road/utility corridor of less than 500 feet and less than one acre disturbance. Combined with the Proposed Action, total estimated future surface disturbance on USFS lands would include about 76 acres (Table 3-8). On private

April 2018 50

lands, the 6 new well pads were all within cultivated agricultural land next to active roads where short access road/utility corridors of less than 100 feet would be required, also within previously disturbed agricultural land. Therefore, new surface disturbance would not occur for these proposed wells and well pads (Table 3-8).

Table 3-8: Major Past, Present, Future Disturbance Estimates within the MDP Area

Major Development Disturbed Area (Acres) Total Type USFS Private/State/USACE Past/Present Oil and Gas Pads/Tank 94 314 407 Batteries1 Roads/Pipelines/Utility 53 200 253 Corridors Agricultural Lands 1,612 8,269 9,881 Total 1,759 8,783 10,541 Future Oil and Gas Pads/Tank 48 0 48 Batteries Roads*/Pipelines/Utility 28 0 28 Corridors Agricultural Lands - - - Total 76 0 76

*Final alignment of roads may alter this amount slightly

3.3.2.3 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, Project construction and operation would not occur. Therefore, no effects to soils would occur.

3.4 GEOLOGY AND MINERALS

Federal laws allow for mineral development on USFS lands. These laws include the following:

• Mineral Leasing Act, • The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, • The USFS and the BLM Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), signed April 14, 2006, in compliance with Section 363 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which requires coordination between these agencies related to the leasing and management of federal minerals under USFS lands, and • The Energy Policy Act of 2005 makes it clear that domestic energy development from renewable and nonrenewable sources is of national importance and oil and gas development is an important component of resource management on USFS land.

The Minerals Policy of the USFS was adopted from the Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C 21a). The USFS program under this policy is to 1) ensure that exploration, development and production of mineral and energy resources are conducted in an environmentally sensitive manner and that these activities are integrated with the planning

April 2018 51

and management of other resources using the principles of ecosystem management; 2) facilitate the orderly exploration, development and production of mineral and energy resources within the USFS on lands open to these activities or on withdrawn lands consistent with valid existing rights; 3) maintain opportunities to access mineral and energy resources which are important to sustain viable rural economies and to contribute to the national defense and economic growth; and 4) ensure that lands disturbed by mineral and energy activities, both past and present, are reclaimed using the best scientific knowledge and principles and returned to other productive uses (Forest Service Minerals Program Policy 1995).

The DPG LRMP includes a goal to improve the capability of the Nation’s forests and grasslands to provide a desired sustainable level of uses, values, products and services (Goal 2c, pp. 1-5, USFS 2001a). Two objectives of this goal are to provide opportunities for oil and gas exploration and development consistent with direction contained with the Plan and to honor valid existing mineral rights (Mineral and Energy Resources Objectives, pp. 1- 5, USFS 2001a).

The geology of McKenzie County and the broader region is described generally to understand the affected environment. The analysis area used for geology and minerals is the MDP area and broader Bakken region.

3.4.1 Affected Environment

The Project is in the northern portion of McKenzie County in northwestern North Dakota in the Glaciated Missouri Plateau Section of the Great Plains Province (Carlson 1985). In the glaciated section, the drift is generally thin with topography reflective of pre-glacial conditions. The surficial geology in the Project area is as follows (Carlson 1985; North Dakota Geological Survey Plate 1, Geology of McKenzie County):

• Sentinel Butte Formation (Tertiary; Paleocene): Interbedded buff and light gray sand, silt, clay, lignite and some bentonitic clay and petrified wood zones. • Coleharbor Group (Quaternary; Pleistocene): Yellowish brown unsorted clay, silt, sand, pebbles, cobbles, and boulder.

McKenzie County is in the Williston Basin; a depression on the North American Craton covering parts of North and South Dakota, Montana, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan (NDGS 2017). The basin is roughly circular and is deepest at the center near Williston, ND where the sedimentary section is 16,000 ± feet. Mineral resources in the Project area include oil and natural gas associated with the Bakken formation. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) has estimated the mean undiscovered volumes of oil and associated/dissolved natural gas to be 7.4 billion barrels and 6.7 trillion cubic feet, respectively, from the Bakken and Three Forks Formations in the Williston Basin of Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota (USGS 2013).

Existing oil and gas development within the MDP area was summarized to provide context for the Proposed Action. There are 197 active wells and 55 abandoned, inactive, plugged/abandoned, or temporarily abandoned wells within the MDP area (Figure 4) (NDIC 2017). Plugged and abandoned wells on public lands have been or will be reclaimed per the APDs.

April 2018 52

3.4.2 Environmental Consequences

3.4.2.1 Proposed Action Alternative If the proposed wells become productive, completion of the Project would result in crude oil, natural gas, and saltwater to be produced from hydrocarbon-bearing shale within the Bakken and Three Forks Formations. The amount of crude oil and natural gas that would be produced from these wells would depend on specific drilling and fracturing techniques, but estimated average production throughout the Bakken formation is at least 75 barrels of crude oil and 110 MCF of natural gas per day (NDIC 2016). Assuming all wells are productive, the Proposed Action would result in 3,675 barrels of crude oil and 5,390 MCF of natural gas per day. Production from these wells would contribute to draining of hydrocarbon-bearing reservoirs within the Bakken formation, an action that is consistent with BLM and USFS objectives.

Natural gas and crude oil resources would be isolated to the well bore. Surface casing would be used to a minimum 50 feet below the Fox Hills formation per NDIC regulations (approximately 2,500 feet below the surface in the Pierre Shale) to isolate produced fluids from migrating into adjacent groundwater aquifers. The natural capping formation of the Madison Unit over the Bakken and Three Forks formations would prevent upward movement of fractures and produced fluids.

3.4.2.2 Cumulative Effects The Proposed Action would add 49 wells to the existing oil and gas wells within the MDP area on the LMNG and in the Bakken oil-producing region as a whole. Within the MDP area, foreseeable future development includes 20 wells on USFS lands and 28 wells on private lands, for a total of 48 wells in addition to the Proposed Action (Table 3-2; Figure 4). In sum, future actions would increase the total existing active wells from 197 to 294 within the MDP area. The combination of these wells would cumulatively serve to remove extractable oil and gas from the Bakken geological shale formation.

3.4.2.3 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action for developing Federal minerals would not be approved. No oil or natural gas would be accessed by the Project and no effects to geology and minerals would be anticipated.

3.5 WATER RESOURCES

The CWA of 1977 (as Amended, 33 U.S.C. Section 1251) sets the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants to waters of the United States, including wetlands. The CWA gives the EPA authority to establish water quality standards, control discharges into surface and ground waters, develop waste treatment management plans and practices, and issue permits for pollutant and wastewater discharges (Sections 401 and 402) and for discharges of dredged or fill material (Section 404). The CWA makes it unlawful to discharge any pollutant from a point source into any navigable water of the U.S., which includes some types of wetlands, without a permit obtained through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Under EO 11990, Protection of Wetlands, each federal agency must minimize the destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands, and preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands. Construction activities causing the disturbance of earth require a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in conjunction with EPA’s Construction General Permit.

April 2018 53

The Oil Pollution Prevention Act (OPPA) requires non-transportation-related facilities engaged in drilling, producing, gathering, storing, processing, refining, transferring, distributing, or consuming oil and oil products, and that stores over 1,320 gallons of oil- related product on-site to have on record a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan (40 CFR 112).

The LRMP includes an overall goal to improve and protect watersheds and water quality (Goal 1a, pp. 1-2, USFS 2001a). Several standards and guidelines apply specifically to water resources and describe how surface water, groundwater, wetlands, and hydrology should be protected (Standards and Guidelines, Physical Resources, B. Water, pp. 1-9 to 1- 11, USFS 2001a).

The analysis area for direct and indirect effects to water resources and hydrology focused on where effects could extend. This included the immediate Project area; areas hydrologically connected to the Project area (water resource features such as wetlands, groundwater, floodplains); and perennial streams and rivers downstream from the Proposed Action. Cumulative effects were assessed at the watershed level.

3.5.1 Affected Environment

Surface Waters The MDP Area includes portions of the Antelope Creek Wildlife Management Area watershed (1011010118) and portions of the Sand Creek watershed (1011010110) (Figure 7; Table 3-9). Specifically, the MDP area covers the entire Little Antelope Creek (101101011802) sub-basin; portions south of the Lake of the sub-basins of Phelps Bay (101101011006) and Rat Lake (101101011801); and a small portion of an unnamed sub-basin (101101011804).

Table 3-9: Hydrologic Units (HUCs) within the MDP Area Subregion Watersheds Sub-basins (HUC 8) (HUC 10) (HUC 12) Lake Sakakawea Antelope Creek Wildlife Rat Lake (101101011801) (10110101) Management Area Little Antelope Creek (1011010118) (101101011802) Unnamed (101101011804) Sand Creek (1011010110) Phelps Bay (101101011006) Source: NDSWC 2017

The rugged dissected topography near Lake Sakakawea dictates most drainage patterns in the MDP area. Both Rat Lake and Phelps Bay have relatively small drainage areas (27,324 acres [43 square miles] and 12,304 acres [19 square miles], respectively) that are comprised of steeply dissected woody draws with no named streams or rivers. Water flows down the draws northward into intermittent streams leading into Lake Sakakawea. Little Antelope Creek is the major named drainage in the MDP area. It is in the southern portion of the MDP area and flows generally east to west into Lake Sakakawea in the southeastern portion of the Antelope Creek Wildlife Management Area. The east to west drainage pattern is a function of the steep topography to the north along Lake Sakakawea which blocks the drainage in the south part of the MDP area.

Surface waters are not present within the Project area. The Charolais facilities would be high in the landscape on ridges or plateaus; no intermittent streams or other surface water features are present in this area (Figure 2). Lake Sakakawea is the closest feature to the

April 2018 54

Figure 7. Hydrology of MDP Area

April 2018 55

Charolais facilities, approximately 0.3 miles north of the Project area at its closest point. In the Harms/Wolverine area, the closest perennial waterbody is Little Antelope Creek, approximately 300 feet east of the proposed expansion of the existing Wolverine 240 pad. The proposed new Wolverine 278 well pad would be approximately 350 feet east of this stream (Figure 3).

Water Quality North Dakota has established standards to protect the quality of waters of the state. Waters are classified to protect present and future beneficial use. The Missouri River, including the Lake Sakakawea Reservoir, is classified as a Class I stream (NDCC Chapter 33-16-02.1 Appendix I). Minor or intermittent flowing watercourses not specifically listed in the NDCC, such as the streams within the Project area, are classified as Class III streams. The quality of Class I streams is protective of fish, aquatic biota, swimming, boating, recreation, and is suitable for irrigation, stock watering, and wildlife; water from Class I streams shall also be suitable for municipal or domestic use after treatment. For Class III streams, due to their low average flows and intermittent nature, water quality is regulated to be suitable for agricultural and industrial uses and to be protective of secondary recreation uses, fish and aquatic biota, and wildlife uses. Measurable water quality standards have been established based on stream/waterbody classification.

The Clean Water Act (CWA) requires states to report on water quality. The North Dakota 2016 Integrated Section 305(b) Water Quality Assessment Report and Section 303(d) List of Waters Needing Total Maximum Daily Loads identifies Lake Sakakawea as listed as impaired for Methylmercury/Fish Consumption (NDDH 2017b). There are no other waterbodies identified as impaired within the MDP area.

Wetlands There are no wetlands within the Project area. The wetland features identified by the National Wetland Inventory within the Antelope MDP area include an estimated 417 wetlands, totaling an area of about 160 acres (USFWS 2017). In addition, there are 18 designated wetlands totaling 46 acres along the shorelines of Lake Sakakawea.

Groundwater Infiltration from precipitation is the source of groundwater in McKenzie County. There are several aquifers present in the underlying geology. Dissolved mineral matter and chemical concentrations determine the suitability of groundwater from each aquifer for various uses.

The Fox Hills and basal Hell Creek aquifer system underlie all of McKenzie County. The system is generally 1,100 to 1,800 feet below the surface with shallow depths along the shoreline of Lake Sakakawea (Croft 1985). The system is recharged by subsurface inflow from surrounding areas; groundwater flow is generally northeastward. Water from the aquifer system is suitable for domestic, livestock, and industrial uses.

The Ludlow aquifer system is present beneath McKenzie County at depths of more than 500 feet. Head within the system indicates recharge is from the underlying deposits. Water from the system is suitable for most domestic and livestock uses.

The Tongue River aquifer system is present at depths of 140 to 500 feet below land surface in most areas. Recharge of the system is primarily from precipitation and lake and stream seepage with some recharge from the underlying materials. General flow is from south to north. Water from the system is suitable for most domestic and livestock uses.

April 2018 56

There are six quaternary-age aquifers located in McKenzie County underlying generally small portions of the total County area; none of these aquifers are present beneath the Project area. The shallow aquifers closest to the Project area are the Tobacco Garden and Cherry Creek aquifers located near Watford City (about 25 miles southwest) and Johnson’s Corner (about 20 miles south). These aquifers are approximately 85 and 100 feet thick, respectively, and are suitable for domestic and livestock use.

Review of online ground and surface water information indicates seventeen water wells are in the Antelope MDP area (NDSWC 2017). • 15309424BCB: Stock Water (10/18/1993) • 15309514DDD: Domestic Water (01/21/1983) • 15309523DCD: Domestic/Stock (10/04/1993) • 15309525BCA: 4 Monitoring Wells (All drilled 10/15/2015) • 15309430CAD: Stock Water (11/16/2006) • 15309519CDD: Domestic/Stock (10/19/1993) • 15309419CD: Stock Water (01/18/1976) • 15309432DB: 3 Industrial Wells, (two on 09/23/1986 and one on 09/06/2011) • 15309423CCC: Stock (10/21/1993) • 15309426CC: Stock (06/26/1974) • 15209402ACD: Stock (01/23/2001) • 15209412BAA: Domestic/Stock (10/10/2007)

3.5.2 Environmental Consequences

3.5.2.1 Proposed Action Alternative Surface Waters and Wetlands No streams or wetlands are present in the Project area; therefore the Project would not directly disturb or cross surface water or wetland resources. No dredge or fill material would be placed into jurisdictional waters and a USACE Section 404 permit would not be required.

Drilling and completion phases would follow federal and state laws regarding surface water resources. Water used for hydraulic fracturing would be from state-permitted water depots; no surface water resources from the Project area would be used for hydraulic fracturing water. Water used for hydraulic fracturing would be disposed of at state-permitted disposal facilities; no waste water would be disposed of in surface waters. A Blowout Preventer would be in use anytime there are open-hole operations, such as during drilling, completions, or work-overs.

Surface water resources could be indirectly impacted if the Project resulted in release of sediment or contaminants from the well pads or access roads during construction or operation. Most of the well pads are high in the landscape at the tops of drainages (Figures 2 and 3). A maximum of 69.7 acres of soils would be disturbed for construction of the proposed project facilities. Surface disturbance has the potential to liberate sediment, which could migrate to upland and intermittent drainages during heavy precipitation events. Spills occurring during refueling of construction vehicles would also have the potential to contaminate surface waters. During operation, storage tanks and pipelines would have the potential to leak produced water or crude oil, which could migrate into drainages if not detected promptly or if a high volume was involved. Design features and BMPs, including secondary containment, would be part of the Proposed Action to avoid and mitigate these potential effects (See Table 2-3 for complete list). Exposed soils would be reclaimed and vegetation establishment monitored to ensure soils are stabilized within a period of one to five years from construction.

April 2018 57

Well pad surfaces and access roads would remain in place for the life of each well (i.e., 20 to 40 years or longer) and would channel runoff during precipitation events. The well pads and roads have been designed and culverts would be installed to prevent sedimentation and drainage impacts.

Normal operation of the Project is not expected to affect water resources. If a spill or leak of chemicals, fuels, or oil occurred during Project activities, contamination of surface waters could potentially occur if the spill was large enough to reach drainages. The risk of contamination would be minimized by restricting fuel and chemical storage in the Project area and monitoring utilities during Project operation. If a spill or leak were to occur, site- specific SPCC plans would be implemented to minimize the extent of the incident and remove and replace contaminated soils (see Table 2-3).

Groundwater The Project could affect groundwater by contamination of surficial aquifers during drilling. To prevent potential effects, freshwater would be used for drilling of the vertical portion of the well to a minimum 50 feet below the Fox Hills Formation (approximately 2,500 feet depth in the Pierre Shale), then the well bore would be cased and cemented to permanently seal the well bore from surrounding aquifers. Groundwater resources are naturally protected from contamination of the horizontal portion of the wells because of the geological setting of the Bakken and Three Forks Formations, which are isolated by formations of the Madison Unit that form an impermeable barrier to upward fracturing and fluid movement. With the implementation of the above-described measures, combined with the natural geological setting, no direct or indirect impacts to groundwater resources are anticipated as a result of the Project.

3.5.2.2 Cumulative Effects The Project would avoid direct impacts to perennial or intermittent streams, waterbodies, wetlands, and groundwater in the Project area. Multiple BMPs would be used during Project construction and operation to avoid and minimize indirect impacts (such as erosion or contamination) to waterways. Spills or releases would be remediated should a release occur. Therefore, the Project is not likely to measurably contribute to cumulative impacts to water resources within or downstream of the MDP area.

3.5.2.3 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, no activity would occur, and therefore no effects to surface waters, wetlands, or groundwater resources would be anticipated.

3.6 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Federal agencies must ensure any action they authorize, fund, or carry out would not adversely affect a federally listed threatened or endangered species. The ESA (16 U.S.C. 153 et seq.), as amended, directs federal agencies to consult with the USFWS when their activities “may affect” a federally listed species or designated critical habitat (referred to as Section 7 consultation). The ESA mandates that federal agencies contribute to the conservation of federally listed species by using their authorities to conserve (recover) federally listed species so that listing is no longer necessary. These mandates are further specified in USFS Manual (FSM) Chapter 2670, Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plants and Animals. The state of North Dakota does not have an endangered species law or special protections for species, other than hunting restrictions.

April 2018 58

Migratory birds are protected under the MBTA (16 USC 703-711) and Executive Order 13186. The MBTA prohibits the taking, killing, possession, and transportation (among other actions) of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and nests, except when permitted by regulations. EO 13186 requires federal agencies support the conservation intent of migratory bird conventions and integrate bird conservation principles into their activities. While EO 13186 emphasizes the preservation of migratory bird habitat, destruction of habitat is not included in the definition of “take” in the MBTA and is therefore not unlawful under the MBTA (Refer to EO 13186 and 50 CFR 10.12).

Bald and golden eagles are federally protected under the MBTA and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA). The BGEPA prohibits anyone without a permit from taking bald or golden eagles, including their parts, nests, or eggs.

Each USFS Region designates a list of species for which viability is a concern. These are termed “sensitive species”. One of the objectives of a Biological Evaluation is to ultimately ensure that management actions do not contribute to the loss of viability of plant or animal species. (FSM 2670.22). Also, under current direction, the DPG has designated Management Indicator Species (MIS). Their habitats and populations are monitored against management actions. (USFS 2001a).

The survey area for vegetation and wildlife habitat was a 200-foot radius from the Project area. The evaluation of specific effects to vegetation resources focused on the Project area, where direct soil and vegetation disturbance would occur. Evaluation of effects to wildlife resources included effects to individuals or habitat within the 200-foot survey area. Cumulative effects to vegetation and wildlife were assessed within the MDP area (referred to as the action area in the BA and BE).

3.6.1 Affected Environment

Vegetation and Resident Wildlife The MDP area borders the south shoreline of Lake Sakakawea (referred to as the Lake, or Lake Sakakawea) in a rural setting. The Project would be about ¼ mile at its closest point to the Lake from the northern Charolais facilities and about one mile east of the easternmost well in the proposed Harms/Wolverine facilities. Along this portion of the Lake shore, topography is rugged and steep, dissected by coulees and wooded draws. As distance from the Lake increases to the south and west, topography levels out to gently rolling hills and flat benches of grassland or agricultural land.

The major uses of the land near the Lake are for rangeland and oil and gas development; agricultural land increases in frequency moving south from the Lake. The Antelope Creek State Wildlife Management Area (WMA) covers 890 acres along the Lake Sakakawea shoreline; approximately 73 percent of the WMA area is within the MDP area (NDGF 2017).

Mixed grass prairie is the primary plant community of the Project area. The composition of the mixed grass prairie varies with topography. Gently sloping to flat topography is dominated by western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii), with inclusions of introduced species such as crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum), Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis), and smooth brome (Bromus inermis). Steep topography is dominated by little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium) and needlegrass species (Hesperostipa sp.). Forbs are typically most abundant on steep topography.

Woody draws and slopes are typically on north facing hillsides or in draws. The overstory is dominated by green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) and Rocky Mountain juniper (Juniperus April 2018 59

scopulorum). Typical shrubs on these hillsides and draws include chokecherry (Prunus virginiana), buffaloberry (Shepherdia argentea), and western snowberry (Symphoricarpos occidentalis). For detailed descriptions of plant communities on each proposed well pad and wildlife survey results, refer to the Biological Evaluation (Wenck 2017) and Biological Assessment (Wenck 2016) for the Project, available in the project record.

Wildlife species that may occur within the Project area and MDP area are typical of the grassland, shrubland, and woodland terrestrial habitats of west-central North Dakota. Mule deer (secondary range, outside of the Little Missouri Badlands), white-tailed deer, pronghorn (primary range), and mountain lion are large mammals known to inhabit or pass through the rugged terrain near Lake Sakakawea; the MDP area is outside of Bighorn sheep range (Seabloom 2011; NDGF 2013). Small mammals such as porcupine, striped skunk, raccoon, muskrat, coyote, badger, red fox, squirrel, jackrabbit, bats, voles, and gophers are also typical in this part of North Dakota (Seabloom 2011). These species have wide distributions in North Dakota and are found within all habitat types present in the Project area. Upland birds such as sharp-tailed grouse, ring-necked pheasant, mourning dove, and wild turkeys occur in a variety of grassland, shrubland, woodland, and agricultural habitats (Stokes and Stokes 1996). Numerous species of waterfowl, raptors, and songbirds nest in, and migrate through, the Project region, utilizing open water, wetland, and woodland habitats (Stokes and Stokes 1996). Reptile species that could occur within the Project area include the short-horned lizard, common snapping turtle, common garter snake, bullsnake, prairie rattlesnake, and western hognose snake (USGS 2006). No aquatic habitats are within the Project area.

Threatened and Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat Five federally endangered species, four threatened species, and two designated critical habitats listed under the ESA may occur in McKenzie County (USFWS 2016b) (Table 3-10). Eight species have the potential to occur in the analysis area and were addressed in the BA (Wenck 2016). The remaining one species, the black-footed ferret, does not have the potential to occur in the action area due to a lack of suitable habitat and is not analyzed further.

Table 3-10. Federally Listed, Proposed, and Candidate Resources within the Action Area Species/Critical Status Potential to Habitat Description Habitat Occur in the and Range in North Dakota Action Area Black Footed Ferret E No Large prairie dog towns. (Mustela nigripes) Gray Wolf E Yes Opportunistically uses a variety of (Canis lupus) habitats for dispersal through the State. Interior Least Tern E Yes Midstream sandbars along the (Sterna antillarum) Yellowstone and Missouri Rivers. Pallid Sturgeon E Yes Turbid main stem shallow river (Scaphirhynchus albus) channels of the Yellowstone and Missouri. Whooping Crane E Yes Migrates through ND, using wetlands (Grus americana) and agricultural land as stopover habitat. Dakota Skipper T, CH Yes Native prairie habitat with high forb (Hesperia dacotae) diversity and abundance. In McKenzie

April 2018 60

Species/Critical Status Potential to Habitat Description Habitat Occur in the and Range in North Dakota Action Area County, typically found in little bluestem dominated communities. Northern Long-Eared T Yes Forested habitats, emergent wetlands, Bat (Myotis agricultural fields, old fields, pastures. septentrionalis) Piping Plover T, CH Yes In McKenzie County, sparsely vegetated (Charadrius melodus) sandbars, sand and gravel beaches on islands in the Yellowstone and Missouri Rivers. Rufa Red Knot T Yes Migratory transient through ND using (Calidris canutus rufa) similar habitat as the piping plover and least tern for stopover habitat. 1 Status Codes: E=federally listed endangered; T=federally listed threatened; P= federally proposed for listing; C= federal candidate for listing; and CH=designated critical habitat

Sensitive Species Thirteen wildlife species are listed as sensitive by the USFS in the Little Missouri National Grasslands (LMNG), which includes the Project area (USFS 2011) (Table 3-11). Potential habitat was identified within or near the Project area for the Baird’s Sparrow, Loggerhead Shrike, Ottoe Skipper, Regal Fritillary Butterfly, Sprague’s Pipit, and Tawny Crescent Butterfly (Wenck 2017). Refer to the BE for detailed survey results (Wenck 2017).

Table 3-11. Sensitive Wildlife Species of the LMNG Common Name Scientific Global/ Documented Habitat on the LMNG Name State Ranking Baird’s sparrow Ammodramus G4/SU Mixed-grass upland prairies with blue grama, bairdii needle-and-thread, and little bluestem; light grazing; low shrub cover. Halieetus G5/S1 Breeding pairs are found along the Missouri Bald eagle leucocephalus River south of the Garrison Dam. Migratory individuals have been observed in the western part of ND. Bighorn sheep Ovis canadensis G4/S2 Established range follows the Little Missouri River through northern Dunn, southeast McKenzie, and western and southern Billings County. Black-tailed Cynomys G4/SU Relatively flat terrain with short-stature prairie dog ludovicianus vegetation that has been heavily grazed by cattle. Burrowing owl Speotyto G4/SU Heavily grazed prairie near abandoned prairie cunicularia dog colonies or other dens that are lacking vegetation. Greater sage Centrocercus G3G4/SU Restricted to approximately 800 square miles in grouse urophasianus western Bowman and Slope counties and southern Golden Valley County where big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) communities are common.

April 2018 61

Common Name Scientific Global/ Documented Habitat on the LMNG Name State Ranking Loggerhead Lanius G4/SU Typically open native prairie with thickets of shrike ludovicianus trees and shrubs nearby. Long-billed Numenius G5/S2 Expansive, open, level to gently sloping or curlew americanus rolling grasslands with short vegetation such as shortgrass or recently grazed mixed-grass prairie. Northern Phoxinus eos G5/S4 Larger tributaries of the Missouri River, not redbelly dace including the Little Missouri River Ottoe skipper Hesperia ottoe G3G4/SNR Dry, ungrazed or lightly grazed, and diverse native prairie hilltops. Regal fritillary Speyeria idalia G3/S2 Extensive tracts of native prairie with a wheatgrass-needlegrass association and the presence of violet (Viola sp.) Sprague’s pipit Anthus G4/S3 Ungrazed or lightly grazed mixed-grass prairie spragueii that is open and extensive with minimal woody cover nearby; avoid habitat edges. Tawny crescent Phyciodes G4G5/S3 North-facing slopes and other moist batesii environments, associated with the presence of green ash forests bordering little bluestem prairies. *The international network of Natural Heritage Programs employs a standardized ranking system to denote global (G) or state (S) status. Species are listed on a scale from 1 to 5, 1 being the highest risk of extinction or extirpation and 5 being common, widespread, and abundant.

Fourteen plants are listed as sensitive by the USFS in the LMNG (Table 3-12) (USFS 2016a; USFS 2011). Of these, one species, Easter daisy (Townsendia exscapa), has been historically documented within 200-foot radius survey area for the Project (USFS 2015b). Ten populations of Easter Daisy were documented within the survey area during Project surveys. Refer to the BE for detailed survey results (Wenck 2017).

Table 3-12. Sensitive Plant Species of the LMNG Global/ Scientific Common State Documented Habitat on the LMNG Name Name Ranking Chenopodium Smooth G2G4/S1 Sandbars, terraces, and dune complexes along subglabrum goosefoot rivers and creeks. Exposed sandy substrates in uplands, blowouts, outcrops, colluvium, etc. Collinsia Blue lips G5/S2 Woody understories, including green ash/elm parviflora draws, Rocky Mountain juniper, mesic shrub communities, and occasional xeric shrub communities. Cryptantha Torrey's G5/S1 Two population sites discovered during 2013 torreyana cryptantha were located along scoria ridgelines, also reported from dry plains, rock outcrops, escarpments, pine slopes. Eriogonum Nodding G5/S1 Exposed sand substrates with low plant cover in cernuum buckwheat grasslands, hillsides, sandstone outcrops.

April 2018 62

Global/ Scientific Common State Documented Habitat on the LMNG Name Name Ranking Eriogonum Dakota G3/S2S3 Relatively exposed clay/silt substrates with low visheri buckwheat plant cover such as outwash zones around eroding buttes, saddles, steep convex slopes, erosional breaks on prairie slopes. Occasional populations among dense saltgrass communities. Escobaria Missouri G5/SNR Prairie slopes and plains, stony to loamy to missouriensis pincushion clayey short-grass to mixed-grass prairies. Also cactus reported in woodlands of ponderosa pine or Quercus spp. Leucocrinum Sand lily G5/S2 Generally, shortgrass communities with fine montanum textured substrates but also found in crested wheatgrass communities. Reported from open coniferous woodlands and hillsides, sagebrush scrub, and sandy flats, but common name seems to be a misnomer. Mentzelia Dwarf G4/S1 Scoria exposures and colluvium with low plant pumila mentzelia cover. Also reported on slopes and sandy plains; occasionally on hard clays and rocky soils. Phlox Alyssum- G5/S1S2 Sandy or gravelly soil on and around Bullion alyssifolia leaved phlox Butte. Also reported on clay banks and limestone ridges of open prairie. Pinus Limber pine G5/S1 Semi-arid exposed rocky ridges and foothills in flexilis the Limber Pines RNA, likely of Native-American origin. Populus x Lanceleaf HYB/S2 Mesic woody draws, often with springs/seeps, acuminata cottonwood occasional near springs on open hillsides. Floodplains and stream banks. Sporobolus Alkali sacaton G5/S2 Secondary succession on clay outwash where airoides tolerant of saline conditions, also on dry to moist sandy or gravelly soil. Townsendia Hooker's G5/S1 Low to moderate plant cover on dry plains, hookeri Townsendia hillsides, gravelly benches and weathered scoria, but often clay matrix subsoil. Townsendia Easter daisy G5/SNR Dry plains and hillsides, often with loamy or exscapa increased soil development and increased plant cover relative to T. hookeri. *The international network of Natural Heritage Programs employs a standardized ranking system to denote global (G) or state (S) status. Species are listed on a scale from 1 to 5, 1 being the highest risk of extinction or extirpation and 5 being common, widespread, and abundant.

Migratory Birds Migratory birds pass through or breed and nest in North Dakota, including the Project area, beginning as early as February 1, but primarily from April 15 to July 15. Representative bird species that occur in the region of the Project area include killdeer, common nighthawk, eastern kingbird, western kingbird, eastern bluebird, common yellowthroat, clay-colored sparrow, vesper sparrow, lark sparrow, western meadowlark, Say’s phoebe, horned lark,

April 2018 63

barn swallow, black-billed magpie, common raven, and lark bunting (Stokes and Stokes 1996).

Raptors Raptors, including bald and golden eagles, are monitored on the LMNG (USFS 2001a). No historic raptor or eagle nests are present in the survey area or within the larger MDP area boundary. The nearest golden eagle nests are approximately one mile northwest of the MDP area (which is over five miles northwest of the nearest Project facilities). The analysis area contains both secondary and primary breeding habitat for the golden eagle (NDGF 2013); primary habitat is along the rugged slopes bordering Lake Sakakawea, with secondary habitat on uplands beyond the Lake Sakakawea shoreline.

Management Indicator Species Two USFS Management Indicator Species have the potential to inhabit the Project area; these are the black-tailed prairie dog and sharp-tailed grouse (USFS 2001a). No black-tailed prairie dog colonies have been documented within one mile of the Project area. Seven sharp-tailed grouse leks have been documented within the MDP area; of these, one is within one mile of the Project area and is within the 0.25 mile NSO (no surface occupancy) area (USFS 2016b; refer to the BE, Wenck 2017).

Noxious and Invasive Plants One noxious weed, as defined by the current state and county noxious weed lists (NDDA 2017a, 2017b) were present in the botanical survey area (Wenck 2017). Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) was intermittently scattered throughout the survey area near the Wolverine/Harms facilities.

Several introduced plants, meeting the definition of invasive species under EO 13112 and FSM 2900, were present or dominant within the Project area. Crested wheatgrass, because it had been possibly planted in road ditches, is the principle introduced species (Wenck 2017). Other common to dominant invasive species throughout the project area included Kentucky bluegrass, smooth brome, and yellow sweetclover (Melilotus officinalis) (Wenck 2017).

3.6.2 Environmental Consequences

3.6.2.1 Proposed Action Alternative Vegetation and Resident Wildlife The Proposed Action has been designed to minimize the acreage of disturbance to native habitat by having multiple-wells (versus single-well) pads and to reduce habitat fragmentation by siting pads, roads, and utilities along existing roads and within previously disturbed areas as feasible.

Construction of the Project would result in direct effects to vegetation via crushing, trampling, or removal within the Project area. Vegetation would be cleared prior to construction to the edges of the Project area, totaling 69.7 acres of disturbance, of which 38.4 acres (55 percent) would represent new disturbance of currently native grassland or woodland communities (Table 3-13)4. Portions of the disturbance area may currently provide potential foraging or nesting habitat for grassland birds and sheltering or dispersal habitat for reptiles and mammals.

4 Acreages may change slightly as final road alignments are submitted.

April 2018 64

Though unlikely, construction or operation of the Project could result in direct mortality to wildlife from collisions with vehicles or equipment, which would be mitigated by reduced speed limits and traffic control (Table 2-3). More likely, some species of wildlife would relocate to adjacent habitat while other species would be temporarily displaced during construction and drilling of the wells. Studies have shown varied effects to behaviors and reproductive success of terrestrial species in response to oil and gas activity and intensity, including positive effects and predator-development interactions (Dyke et al. 2011, Burr 2014, Ciuti et al. 2014). During operation, most species would resume use of the area since human presence and vehicle use would be reduced. Approximately 34 percent of the Proposed Action would be adjacent to existing oil and gas development, specifically the Wolverine and Harms facilities. Wildlife are likely currently deterred from using habitat near these facilities due to the existing disturbance regime. Several BMPs would be in place to avoid or minimize impacts to wildlife and fisheries in the Project area (see Table 2-3 for complete list).

Table 3-13. Vegetation Communities within the Project Area Habitat Type Disturbance Area Native Grassland 35.4 Introduced Grassland 17.8 Disturbed/Developed 10.3 Agricultural 3.2 Woody/Shrubby 3.0 Total 69.7* *Acreages may change slightly as final road alignments are submitted

The Project would be near the Antelope Creek WMA (Figure 1). Of the two units (north and south) of the WMA, the north unit is adjacent to the east boundary of the proposed Brangus well pad and the south unit is approximately 0.7 miles to the east of the Harms A well pad. The entire North Unit is in the MDP area, while 117.9 acres of the South Unit is in the MDP area. No direct effects would occur to the WMA, but potential indirect effects would be similar to that described above including temporary displacement of wildlife during construction and drilling.

Effects to vegetation and wildlife would be mitigated by revegetating the Project area during interim and final reclamation using native seed mixtures to re-establish grassland habitat. The disturbed area would be re-vegetated with native species during interim reclamation of the road ditches and edges of the well pads after drilling and completion of the wells (within a one year timeframe). Approximately 26.8 acres (38 Percent) of the Project area would be reclaimed at this stage, leaving 42.9 acres as long-term disturbance (Table 2-2). Final reclamation would occur at the end of production for the wells, typically 20 to 40 years or longer. Monitoring would be done to ensure adequate establishment of vegetation (see Table 2-3 for details).

Threatened and Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat Potential effects to threatened and endangered wildlife would result from the proximity of industrial facilities to Lake Sakakawea and the conversion of native grassland to industrial use. With the implementation of design features, BMPs, or timing restrictions (see Table 2- 3 for complete list), the Proposed Action is expected to have no effect to the black-footed ferret, the gray wolf, the whooping crane, the northern long eared bat and the rufa red knot. The determination was made by a combination of a lack of sightings that have been documented, lack of suitable habitat, and the implementation of mitigation measures and April 2018 65

best management practices. The proposed project would have no effect to designated critical habitat for the Dakota skipper. With the implementation of design features, BMPs, or timing restrictions (see Table 2-3 for complete list), the Proposed Action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the interior least tern, pallid sturgeon, piping plover, and designated critical habitat for the piping plover due to the proximity of Project facilities to the shoreline of Lake Sakakawea (Table 3-14) (Wenck 2016; Kienzle and Warm 2016; Shelley 2017)

The Project may affect, and is likely to adversely affect, the Dakota skipper due to the diverse native prairie habitat in the Project area and the presence of a dispersal corridor to designated critical habitat (Table 3-14) (Wenck 2016; Kienzle and Warm 2016). Adverse effects are primarily from proposed construction of the access road to the Charolais facilities. The road would impact approximately 3.3 acres of habitat that is assumed occupied. With consideration to the broader MDP area, the BA concluded that at the population level, the proposed project would likely delay recovery by removing and fragmenting potential recovery habitat. Potential habitat is abundant in the surrounding action area. Fragmentation would result from construction of the Charolais access road, which would act as a semi-permeable barrier to dispersal; Dakota skippers could still cross this road to access habitat within and beyond the Project area. Therefore, the project could delay recovery, but is unlikely to compromise the survival of the Dakota skipper. A detailed discussion of impacts, effects, and environmental mitigation measures are discussed in the BA (Wenck 2016). A Biological Opinion (BiOp) from the USFWS concluded the proposed Project is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Dakota skipper, but that there is reasonable certainty the species inhabits native grasslands that will be destroyed during construction of the Project (Shelley 2017). An incidental take statement was issued with the BiOp and the terms and conditions for the permit are included in the design features and BMPs for the Project (Table 2-3).

Table 3-14. Summary of Determinations for Threatened and Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat Not likely to Likely to Beneficial Species No effect adversely adversely effect affect affect Black Footed Ferret X Gray Wolf X Interior Least Tern X Pallid Sturgeon X Whooping Crane X Dakota Skipper X Dakota Skipper Designated X Critical Habitat Northern Long-Eared Bat X Piping Plover X Piping Plover Designated X Critical Habitat Rufa Red Knot X

Sensitive Species Construction of the Project would potentially cause temporary displacement of individuals or habitat loss or degradation for six sensitive wildlife species within the Project area: Baird’s sparrow, Loggerhead shrike, Ottoe Skipper, Regal Fritillary, Sprague’s pipit, and Tawny

April 2018 66

Crescent (Table 3-15) (Wenck 2017; Wold and Warm 2017). Potential habitat for these species is present surrounding the Project area and within the LMNG. Interim reclamation of the road ditches and edges of the well pads, which would occur within a year if the wells enter production, would mitigate habitat loss during operation of the wells; final reclamation of the site after production ceases (20 to 40 years or longer) would re-establish potential habitat for these species in the long-term. For these reasons, loss or degradation of habitat within the Project area would not be expected to impact the long-term viability of these species (Wenck 2017; Wold and Warm 2017). Table 3-15. Summary of Determinations for Sensitive Wildlife Beneficial Species No Impact May Impact Will Impact Impact Baird’s Sparrow X Bald Eagle X Bighorn Sheep X Black-tailed Prairie Dog X Burrowing Owl X Greater Sage Grouse X Loggerhead Shrike X Long-billed Curlew X Northern Redbelly Dace X Ottoe Skipper X Regal Fritillary X Sprague’s Pipit X Tawny Crescent X

Populations of the sensitive plant Easter Daisy (Townsendia exscapa) were observed during botanical surveys of the Project. Potential habitat for this species was present on the edges of old two track trails, creeping juniper hillsides, and little bluestem habitats with exposed soils. A total of ten populations were documented in the 200-foot radius survey area for the Project; one individual occurs within the proposed disturbance area for the Charolais wells (Gawin 2017). Potentially suitable habitat, or undiscovered individuals, was present for two other sensitive species, the Missouri pincushion cactus (Escobaria missouriensis) and blue lips (Collinsia parviflora) (Table 3-16) (Wenck 2017). There are documented populations of these sensitive plant species in other areas of the LMNG that would contribute to the continued maintenance of each species. Several BMPs would be implemented to avoid or minimize impacts (see Table 2-3). Therefore, the impacts to individuals or potential habitat from the Proposed Action are unlikely to contribute toward a trend of federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the species (Gawin 2017; Wenck 2017).

Table 3-16. Summary of Determinations for Sensitive Plants Species No Impact May Impact Will Impact Beneficial Impact Smooth goosefoot X Blue lips X Torrey’s cryptantha X Nodding buckwheat X Dakota buckwheat X Missouri pincushion cactus X Sand lily X

April 2018 67

Dwarf mentzelia X Alyssum-leaved phlox X Limber pine X Lanceleaf cottonwood X Alkali sacaton X Easter daisy X Hooker’s townsendia X Migratory Birds The Project would have potential temporary and permanent effects to migratory birds or their habitat, specifically migratory species that utilize grassland habitats. Potential effects during construction include vehicle collision, displacement, and temporary and permanent habitat removal. The potential for these effects and their duration would be eliminated or reduced through the implementation of mitigation measures (see Table 2-3). The reclaimed portion of the Project area totals 26.8 acres (38 percent), and would be considered a short-term disturbance, in which soils and vegetation would be replaced following construction. Long-term well and road surfaces would total 42.9 acres (62 percent) of the Project area.

Raptors No historic raptor nests are present in the MDP area. Potential nesting habitat is present for raptor species on steep badland buttes along the shoreline of Lake Sakakawea. However, Project construction and facilities would not directly affect this habitat and raptor surveys would be required each year construction is scheduled during the eagle breeding season to ensure no new nests would be affected (see Table 2-3 for details) (Wenck 2017; Wold and Warm 2017).

Management Indicator Species The Project would have no effect to the black-tailed prairie dog, since no colonies are present within one mile of the Project area. Seven sharp-tailed grouse leks have been documented within the MDP area, and one of these is within the 0.25 mile NSO (no surface occupancy) area along the Charolais access road (USFS 2016b; Wenck 2017). To mitigate the impacts of the Project to lekking grouse on display grounds, a timing limitation of no surface use would be implemented from March 1 to June 15 (Table 2-3) (Wold and Warm 2017). Specifically, this relates to construction of the Charolais access road. The Project may affect individuals or habitat, but will not result in the abandonment of a display ground or measurably affect reproductive success, with the implementation of the timing limitation (Wold and Warm 2017). Refer to the BE for further discussion (Wenck 2017).

Noxious and Invasive Plants Soil disturbing activities during construction, interim reclamation, or final reclamation could promote the spread or dominance of invasive and introduced species currently present within or adjacent to the Project area into new areas of disturbance, particularly crested wheatgrass, smooth brome, and yellow sweetclover (Wenck 2016). Populations of Canada thistle are also present in the survey area, but are typically isolated and not prevalent. Seeds of undesirable plant species could also be dispersed or introduced through equipment and vehicle use to, from, and within the site. To prevent adverse consequences to native plant communities and diversity in the Project area and MDP area, design features to control and treat noxious and invasive plants would be implemented including chemical and mechanical control, washing vehicles and equipment, and using weed-free erosion control and borrow materials (see Table 2-3).

April 2018 68

3.6.2.2 Cumulative Effects The Project would contribute to cumulative wildlife habitat degradation and fragmentation along with other past and future development in the MDP area. Past and present direct surface disturbance of native habitats include about 407 acres from oil and gas well pads, about 253 acres from roads and associated pipeline/utility corridors, and an estimated 9,881 acres from agriculture (see Table 3-8 in Section 3.3.2.2). In total, this amounts to 10,541 acres, or about 35 percent of the 29,872 acre Antelope MDP area. Future direct disturbance to currently native habitats within the MDP area include an estimated 38.4 acres (55 percent of the total 69.7 acres) from the Proposed Action and about 6.3 acres from other foreseeable future actions (see Section 3.3.2.2), for a total of about 44.7 acres. Considering these combined future actions, direct native habitat disturbance would remain at about 35 percent within the MDP area.

No species or habitat would be impacted in such a way that would affect the long-term viability, continued existence, or listed status of the species. No migratory birds or resident wildlife species in the area would be impacted in such a way that would cause their populations to be listed or adversely affected.

3.6.2.3 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, the Project would not be constructed and therefore, no effects to biological resources would occur as a result of Project construction or maintenance.

3.7 CULTURAL RESOURCES AND PALEONTOLOGY

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470a, et seq.) and its implementing regulations (36 CFR Part 800) requires that federal actions take into account the effect of a proposed action on cultural resources included in or potentially eligible to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). To be eligible for listing, a property must meet the National Register Criteria for Evaluation based on the property’s age, integrity, and significance. Federal agencies must consult with Historic Preservation Officers who are responsible for administering programs at the state or tribal level.

The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) (25 U.S.C. Part 3001-3013) requires that Native American cultural items be returned to lineal descendants and/or culturally affiliated Indian tribes. Cultural items include human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony. NAGPRA also establishes procedures for the inadvertent discovery of Native American cultural items on federal or tribal lands and makes it a criminal offense to traffic in Native American human remains without right of possession or if cultural items were obtained in violation of the act. NAGPRA applies to all projects, regardless of the funding source.

The 2009 Paleontological Resources Preservation Act (PRPA) (P.L. 111-011 Title VI Subtitle D) directs federal agencies to manage, protect, and preserve paleontological resources. Paleontological resources are defined in the PRPA of 2009 as “any fossilized remains, traces, or imprints or organisms, preserved in or on the earth’s crust, that are of paleontological interest and that provide information about the history of life on earth…,” excluding archeological and cultural resources. In North Dakota, the North Dakota PRPA addresses protection of paleontological resources. Fossils on private land belong to the landowner, and must not be collected without landowner permission.

April 2018 69

The Area of Potential Effect (APE) is defined in 36 CFR 800.16(d) as the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist. The APE for the Project is the combined construction area of all Project components and includes access road and utility route ROWs and proposed well pad areas.

3.7.1 Affected Environment

Cultural Resources Class I and Class III cultural resource investigations of the Project area were completed from 2011-2016. The Class I file search involved a review of site files and survey reports maintained by the ND State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for a one-mile-wide radius from the APE. The Class III Inventory involved an intensive pedestrian survey of the APE and also typically included a wider survey area from the APE, defined for each individual survey based on site characteristics. Multiple cultural sites and cultural resources were previously recorded or newly encountered within the survey area, as summarized in Table 3-17. The survey data and associated reports are available in the project record.

The MDP area borders the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail (NHT) corridor which is the historic route of the Lewis and Clark Expedition along the historic channel of the Missouri River that is now inundated by Lake Sakakawea (NPS 2017) (see Figure 8 in Section 3.8).

Paleontological Resources The distribution of paleontological resources is directly related to the distribution of sedimentary geological units exposed on the ground surface, and this relationship allows prediction of fossil potential on a formation-wide scale (BLM 2016). The Potential Fossil Yield Classification (PFYC) system was developed by the BLM to classify geological units based on the relative abundance of fossils and their sensitivity to adverse impacts (BLM 2016). Geological units are ranked 1 through 5, with PFYC 1 having limited and PFYC 5 having the highest potential to yield scientifically significant paleontological resources. The intent of the PFYC system is to provide guidance for predicting, assessing, and mitigating paleontological resources.

The Project area is underlain by the Coleharbor and Sentinel Butte Formations which have PFYC ranks of 3 and 2, respectively. Characteristic fossils in the Coleharbor unit include plants, mollusks, insects, amphibians, and large mammals (horse, bison, and ground sloth). Characteristic fossils in the Sentinel Butte formation includes leaves, petrified wood, mullusks, and rarely vertebrate fossils (NDGS 1986).

According to records of known paleontological resources, the proposed location of Project area has no inventoried paleontological sites (Hanna 2016).

3.7.2 Environmental Consequences

3.7.2.1 Proposed Action Alternative Cultural Resources Multiple cultural sites were located within the survey areas of the inventories. The sites were either recommended ineligible for listing with no avoidance necessary or were recommended for avoidance with an archeological monitor present during construction near the sites. If cultural resources are encountered during construction or other activities, construction shall stop and the USFS must be notified (Table 2-3). Provided these recommendations are followed, no impacts to cultural heritage resources are anticipated

April 2018 70

from the Proposed Action, and a finding of No Historic Properties Affected was recommended for the Project (Table 3-17). The North Dakota State Historic Preservation Office (NDSHPO) concurred with the determinations (Table 3-17).

April 2018 71

Table 3-17. Cultural Resource Inventories Conducted for the Proposed Action Facility SHPO Concurrence Cultural Resource Report Findings Name Date Brangus A Person, A. 2016. A Class III Cultural One previously recorded isolated find was within August 22, 2016 (Well Pad, Resource Inventory of the Brangus Federal 2- the APE survey area; it has been recommended ND SHPO Ref: 16-1681 Access Road) 11H2, 3-11H, 4-11H, 5-11H, 6-11H1, 7-11H, ineligible to the NRHP and no avoidance is 8-11H2, 9-11H, 10-11H1, 11-11H Well Pad required. No additional cultural resources were and Access Road in McKenzie County, North observed within the survey area. Recommend Dakota. Prepared for: Continental Resources, finding of No Historic Properties Affected. Inc. Beaver Creek Archeology, Inc. 36 p. Domine, A. 2015. A Class III Cultural One previously recorded isolated find was within November 24, 2017 Resource Inventory of the Charolais Federal the APE survey area; it has been recommended ND SHPO Ref: 18-0170 15-11H2 & 16-11H and Charolais 17-11H1, ineligible to the NRHP and no avoidance is 18-11H, & 19-11H2 Well Pad required. No additional cultural resources were and Access Road in McKenzie County, North observed within the survey area. Recommend Dakota. Prepared for: Continental Resources, finding of No Historic Properties Affected. Inc. Beaver Creek Archeology, Inc. 33 p. Charolais A Person, A. and W. Burns. 2015. A Class III Seven previously recorded cultural resources are January 31, 2018 Well Pad and Cultural Resource Inventory and Limited within the survey area. No additional cultural ND SHPO Ref: 18-0337 Access Road Testing of the Charolais Federal 1-10H1, 2- resources were observed within the survey area. 10H, 3-10H2, 4-10H, and 5-10H1 Well Pad Recommend avoidance, fencing and monitoring by and Access Road in McKenzie County, North a qualified archeologist during construction near Dakota. Prepared for: Continental Resources, the previously recorded sites. If done, recommend Inc. Beaver Creek Archeology, Inc. 93 p. finding of No Historic Properties Affected. Charolais B Domine, A. 2015. A Class III Cultural Three previously recorded cultural resources are November 24, 2017 Well Pad and Resource Inventory of the Charolais Federal within or near the survey area, one of which is ND SHPO Ref: 18-0165 Access Road 6-10H, 7-10H2, 8-10H, 9-10H1, and 10-10H within the APE. No new cultural resources were Well Pad and Access Road in McKenzie observed within the survey area. The report County, North Dakota. Prepared for: recommended an onsite meeting. Onsite meetings Continental Resources, Inc. Beaver Creek were held October 27-28, 2015 and June 7, 2016 Archeology, Inc. 32 p. where road adjustments were made to avoid the cultural site. Charolais CTB Domine, A. 2015. A Class III Cultural One previously recorded cultural site was within November 24, 2017 Pad Resource Inventory of the Charolais Federal the survey area but outside the APE. No new ND SHPO Ref: 18-0169 CTB in McKenzie County, North Dakota. cultural resources were observed within the survey Prepared for: Continental Resources, Inc. area. Recommend avoidance of nearby sites, Beaver Creek Archeology, Inc. 28 p. fencing, and monitoring by a qualified archeologist during construction. If done, recommend finding of No Historic Properties Affected.

April 2018 72

Facility SHPO Concurrence Cultural Resource Report Findings Name Date Charolais Bohner, C. 2016. A Class III Cultural Six previously recorded cultural resources are November 24, 2017 Access Road Resource Inventory and Shovel Probe Testing within the survey area. No additional cultural ND SHPO Ref: 18-0164 Revisions of the Charolais Federal Access Road in resources were observed within the APE during McKenzie County, North Dakota. Prepared multiple surveys from 2013-2016. Recommend for: Continental Resources, Inc. Beaver Creek avoidance, fencing and monitoring by a qualified Archeology, Inc. 54 p. archeologist during construction near the previously recorded sites. If done, recommend finding of No Historic Properties Affected. Wolverine Pad Morrison, J.G. 2011. Wolverine 1-31-30H One cultural site was observed within the survey January 26, 2018 240 Well Pad and Access Road: Class III Cultural area. Recommend avoidance by 50 feet and ND SHPO Ref: 11-0892 Resource Inventory, McKenzie County, North monitoring by a qualified archeologist during Dakota (MS 12087). Prepared for: Slawson construction near the site. If done, recommend Exploration Corporation. Juniper LLC. 17 p. finding of No Historic Properties Affected.

Wolverine Pad Rohe, C. 2017. Wolverine Federal 16-31- One new cultural site was observed within the January 24, 2018 278 30TF3H Well Location: Class III Cultural survey area. Recommend avoidance by 50 feet and ND SHPO Ref: 18-0309 Resource Inventory, McKenzie County, North monitoring by a qualified archeologist during Dakota (MS 17020) Prepared for: Slawson construction near the site. If done, recommend Exploration Corporation, Inc. Juniper, LLC. 24 finding of No Historic Properties Affected. p. Wolverine Pad Morrison, J.G. 2011. Wolverine 4-31-30TFH One cultural site was observed within the survey March 30, 2011 241 Well Pad and Access Road: Class III Cultural area. Recommend avoidance by 50 feet and ND SHPO Ref: 11-0983 Resource Inventory, McKenzie County, North monitoring by a qualified archeologist during Dakota (MS 12088). Prepared for: Slawson construction near the site. If done, recommend Exploration Corporation. Juniper LLC. 21 p. finding of No Historic Properties Affected.

Harms A Person, A. 2016. Shovel Probe Testing Forty-seven shovel probes were implemented at May 24, 2016 Outside of Site 32MZ1773 for Harms Federal 10-meter intervals, beginning 50’ south of the ND SHPO Ref: 16-0478A 3-32H, 4-32H2, 5-32H, 6-32Hl, 7-32H, 8- edge of the site boundary and extending south and 32H2, 9-32H, 10-32Hl and 11-32H on east between previously recorded site 32MZ1773 Existing Harms 1-32H and 2-32H Well Pad in and the northern corner of the existing Harms 1- McKenzie County, North Dakota. Prepared 32H and 2-32H well pad. All shovel probes were for: Continental Resources, Inc. Beaver Creek negative for cultural material. Recommend Archeology, Inc. 22 p. avoidance, fencing and monitoring by a qualified archeologist during construction to avoid site 32MZ1773 by 50 feet. If done, recommend finding of No Historic Properties Affected.

April 2018 73

Facility SHPO Concurrence Cultural Resource Report Findings Name Date Person, A. 2015. A Class III Cultural One previously recorded cultural site is within the December 11, 2015 Resource Inventory of the Harms Federal 3- APE but has been recommended ineligible to the ND SHPO Ref: 16-0478 32H, 4-32H2, 5-32H, 6-32H1, 7-32H, 8- NRHP, and no avoidance is required. Four 32H2, 9-32H, 10-32H1, and 11-32H on previously recorded cultural sites are within the Existing Harms 1-32H and 2-32H Well Pad in survey area but outside the proposed well pad McKenzie County, North Dakota. Prepared boundary and will be avoided. No new cultural for: Continental Resources, Inc. Beaver Creek resources were observed within the survey area. Archeology, Inc. 38 p. Recommend avoidance of nearby sites, fencing, and monitoring by a qualified archeologist during construction. If done, recommend finding of No Historic Properties Affected. McCann, E. and W. Burns. 2013. Harms 3- Two previously recorded cultural sites are near the January 31, 2018 14H Well Pad and Access Road: A Class III APE survey area and will be avoided. Three ND SHPO Ref: 18-0338 Intensive Cultural Resource Inventory in additional cultural resources were observed within McKenzie County, North Dakota. Prepared the survey area but outside the proposed well pad for: Continental Resources, Inc. Beaver Creek boundary. Recommend avoidance, fencing and Archeology, Inc. 51 p. monitoring by a qualified archeologist during construction. If done, recommend finding of No Historic Properties Affected. Suess, B. and W. Burns. 2011. Harms 1-32H One previously recorded cultural site was within November 21, 2011 Well Pad and Access Road: A Class III 200 feet of the APE survey area and will be ND SHPO Ref: 12-0187 Cultural Resources Inventory in McKenzie avoided. No additional cultural resources were County, North Dakota. Prepared for: observed within the survey area. Recommend Continental Resources, Inc. Beaver Creek finding of No Historic Properties Affected. Archeology, Inc. 7 p. Harms B Person, A. 2015. A Class III Cultural No previously recorded cultural resources were December 17, 2015 Resource Inventory of the Harms Federal 12- within the survey area. No new cultural resources ND SHPO Ref: 16-0489 32H and 13-32H2 Well Pad in McKenzie were observed within the APE or survey area. County, North Dakota. Prepared for: Recommend finding of No Historic Properties Continental Resources, Inc. Beaver Creek Affected. Archeology, Inc. 34 p.

April 2018 74

According to a USFS viewshed analysis and visual impact assessment (Brooks 2017), the Proposed Action would have an insignificant additional visual impact on the Missouri River and the associated Lewis and Clark NHT corridor. See Section 3.8.2 – Recreation and Visual Resources, for further details.

Paleontological Resources The Proposed Action is not within an inventoried paleontological site and there are no paleontological concerns, however if any vertebrate paleontological resources are discovered as a result of surface disturbance by the Project, they shall be left intact until directed to proceed by the USFS (Hanna 2016) (see Table 2-3).

3.7.2.2 Cumulative Effects With the implementation of mitigation measures for undiscovered cultural or paleontological resources, the Project would avoid or minimize impacts to cultural and paleontological resources and thus, would not measurably contribute to cumulative effects to these resources from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.

3.7.2.3 No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative would not disturb any lands and therefore no potential impacts to cultural resources would occur.

3.8 RECREATION AND VISUAL RESOURCES

Recreational resources are areas designated for public recreation and other public uses. Recreation opportunities are the result of landscape character, level and type of development, presence of fish and wildlife, the amount and type of people in an area, the type of recreation experiences, the type and location of public access, facilities and improvements, interpretation and education efforts and on- or off-site regulations. Changes in any of these characteristics could change the quality of recreation experience that occurs within an area.

Natural settings and landscapes can be visually appealing to people and provide a scenic resource. Natural landscapes are known to provide psychological and physiological benefits to people (USFS 1995). Scenic quality is a subjective experience, but areas with higher scenic quality typically have more diverse or complex landforms, vegetation, color, and other natural or man-made features. The distance from which an area is viewed also affects scenic interpretation (USFS 1995). Generally, people are more sensitive to scenic qualities in areas where they live, areas where they engage in outdoor recreation, or areas where they visit on vacation or for scenic driving.

The analysis of the direct and indirect effects to recreational resources was evaluated within the Project area and immediate surroundings and as a factor of distance to the nearest designated recreation sites. The analysis area for visual/scenic resources focused on the immediate Project area and local viewsheds or viewpoints that would be most commonly seen by public users, including two viewshed analyses from the Missouri River/Lake Sakakawea. Cumulative effects of the project were evaluated within the MDP area, from the Missouri River/Lake Sakakawea corridor, and to the badlands landscape as a whole.

3.8.1 Affected Environment

The Project area is part of the Little Missouri National Grasslands, which is managed for multiple uses and open to the public for recreational purposes. The Proposed Action is within April 2018 75

an area classified as “Roaded Natural” on the LMNG Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (USFS 2001c). Many recreational opportunities are available in the regional setting of the Proposed Action, which are the badlands of western North Dakota. The closest designated recreational areas and facilities are identified on Error! Reference source not found.. The Proposed Action is about 45 miles away from the east boundary of the North Unit of TRNP. Outdoor activities in these and other nearby public recreation areas include backpacking, camping, hiking, bicycling, cross-country skiing, horseback riding, hunting, fishing, bird watching, and wildlife viewing.

The MDP area is adjacent to the Missouri River on its south/west side (Figure 8). The Project area is rated “Low” for Scenic Integrity Objective, meaning an area where the valued landscape character appears to be moderately altered (USFS 2001d). Vegetation of the landscape includes native and non-native grasses, plants, forbs, trees, and shrubs. The viewshed area consists of the Missouri River breaks comprised of ridges, hills, and deeply dissected badlands. The area is presently used for livestock grazing, wildlife habitat, and oil and gas production. Previous disturbances in the immediate vicinity of the Project include fence lines, two-track roads, overhead electric lines, pipeline scars, gravel roads, and multiple well locations within the vicinity (Brooks 2017).

3.8.2 Environmental Consequences

3.8.2.1 Proposed Action Alternative Potential impacts to recreation from the Proposed Action would include temporary and localized disruption during construction activity; however recreational opportunities of similar nature would be available in the surrounding area during this time, and no long-term effects on future recreation would occur. The Proposed Action would not be visible from the Maah Daah Hey Trail or the North Unit of the TRNP and would have no direct or indirect effects to these recreational areas.

Potential impacts to visual and scenic resources would include a viewshed change for users of local NFSR roads within an approximate one to two mile radius of the Project area. The rolling topography typical of the area would allow well sites and access roads to be visible only from certain angles and vantage points. Since existing oil and gas infrastructure is present near the Wolverine/Harms facilities, this change would be minor. Construction of the Charolais facilities would be high in the landscape and visible along existing NFSR roads and along Lake Sakakawea; this would be a visual resource shift from the existing conditions.

Two viewshed analyses were completed to evaluate the effect of the Project on the viewshed from the Missouri River and associated Lewis and Clark NHT corridor. The National Park Service (NPS) study (2017) was general in nature. The study determined the area of the Wolverine/Harms facilities was already significantly impacted by development and relatively out of view from the NHT historic route along the Missouri River. The study determined the area of the Charolais facilities was “highly visible from the lake and currently affords a scenic stretch of natural landscape that is increasingly rare within the surrounding region” (NPS 2017).

April 2018 76

April 2018 77

Figure 8. Recreational Sites and Historic Trails Near the MDP Area

April 2018 78

A viewshed analysis and visual impact assessment was done on behalf of the USFS to assess the effect of the Project on the viewshed from the Missouri River and surrounding landscape (Brooks 2017). The results of these computer-generated assessments were ground-truthed at the Project area for accuracy. The USFS study evaluated six observation points from the Missouri River toward the MDP area, varying from roughly the center of the river, to along the western shoreline. The study used the eye level of a 6-foot observer standing on a watercraft looking toward the highest point of each proposed facility with a 40-foot target height (average height of a standard pump jack) as the maximum for the proposed wellheads and associated production tanks on the CTB. Trees and vegetation can be modeled into the viewshed during ground-truthing but was not done in this study because tree cover was sparse, mostly along the slopes of hills near drainages, and did not affect the visibility of the proposed pad locations (Brooks 2017).

The USFS study found that the Charolais facilities, including Charolais A and B well pads, Brangus A well pad, and the Charolais CTB pad in T153N, R94W would be visible from two of the six observation points from the Missouri River, and would not be visible from the waters along the western shoreline (where the steep bluffs block the view). The distance from these two points range from 1.72 to 2.56 miles from the facilities, with ratings on a scale of visual impact thresholds at “low impact, movement noticeable in good light; becoming noticeable components in the overall landscape” and “becoming indistinct with negligible impact on the wider landscape.”

Of the Wolverine/Harms facilities in T153N, R93W, only the Harms A well pad would be potentially visible from the Missouri River at one of the six observation points from the river, but only a portion of the upward motion of the pump jacks. This point is 2.13 miles from Harms A pad, with a rating of “becoming indistinct with negligible impact on the wider landscape.” The other four well pads (Wolverine Pad 240, Wolverine Pad 278, Wolverine Pad 241, and Harms B) are set far enough back from the river that the topography obscures the view.

According to the USFS study, the Proposed Action would have an insignificant additional visual impact on the Missouri River, for the following reasons:

• The Project would not be visible from the waters along the western shoreline or from the shoreline. • From the waters along the eastern shoreline or from the shoreline, the distance across the river is great enough that the Project would be indistinct or have a negligible impact. • The Charolais facility CTBs and associated production tanks would not be higher than the 40’ pump jacks. • The Wolverine Pad 240 expansion, Wolverine Pad 278, Wolverine Pad 241 expansion, and Harms B are obscured by topography and are not visible from the river. • The Harms A expansion already has two existing wellheads and associated oil production tanks constructed with only a portion of the upward motion of the pump jacks visible from the river, as a hill blocks most of the well pad from view. • Though the proposed well and CTB locations are on USFS property, the land along the Missouri River is owned by the USACE. Camping is only permitted on USACE land at approved campgrounds, reducing visual impacts potentially experienced by recreationists viewing the area. • There are 32 visible existing well locations situated within the vicinity of the nine pads mentioned in this report and are located either closer or a similar distance from the river.

April 2018 79

• Existing disturbances already viewable from the Missouri River include agricultural fields, a series of mobile homes at the White Earth bay boat ramp, existing oil and gas infrastructure, roads, overhead electrical lines, communication towers, gravel pits, fence lines, the Four Bears Memorial Bridge, and the Sanish water tower.

In additions, permanent, above-ground structures would be painted colors that blend in with the surrounding landscape to minimize visual differences (see Table 2-3).

3.8.2.2 Cumulative Effects The Proposed Action would incrementally contribute to the overall cumulative impact of oil development to visual resources and scenic integrity in the badlands region as whole. This impact would primarily affect local residents and potentially recreationists and how they view the landscape. The Proposed Action would have no cumulative impact on recreational opportunities. The general NPS viewshed study concluded that the cumulative effects of the Project would include an impact on visitor experiences (NPS 2017). While disturbances to the foreground scenery along the historic route of the Lewis and Clark NHT may impact visitor experiences, the specific USFS viewshed and visual impact study concluded that due to the distance of the proposed visible facilities from the route and previously disturbed nature of the area, the Project would have an insignificant additional visual impact on the Missouri River when added to the already affected view and a “No Adverse Effect to the Visual Setting of the Missouri River” was recommended (Brooks 2017).

3.8.2.3 No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative would not include construction of above-ground structures and would not disturb any lands and therefore no potential impacts to recreation and visual resources would occur.

3.9 NOISE

The Noise Control Act of 1972 (42 U.S.C. §4901 et. seq.) established a national policy that encourages eliminating noise at levels that jeopardize human health and welfare with a focus on regulating major noise sources in commerce (USEPA 2017c). Most federal regulations governing noise levels relate to worker safety and are administered by the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA). The EPA coordinates federal programs relating to noise research and noise control and recommends the day-night sound level of residential areas should not exceed 55 dB to protect against activity interference and annoyance (USEPA 1981). Primary responsibility for noise control is at the state or local government level. No specific federal, state, or local noise ordinances govern oil and gas activities in the Project area.

Ambient noise and direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the Project are discussed for the MDP area. Effects are evaluated for the nearest occupied residences.

3.9.1 Affected Environment

The MDP area is in a rural setting with a small population. Development in the area is primarily agricultural or oil and gas related with existing well pads and associated infrastructure currently in operation. The majority of oil and gas development has occurred within the past five to ten years. The Harms and Wolverine facilities are within an area that has already been developed for oil and gas extraction, whereas the Charolais facilities are in a currently undeveloped area. The closest occupied residences to the Charolais facilities are

April 2018 80

approximately 3.5 miles southwest; the nearest residence to the Harms/Wolverine facilities is approximately 1.0 miles southeast.

Ambient noise levels in the MDP area are intermittent and seasonal. Existing noise sources in the MDP area include running equipment related to the existing oil and gas infrastructure, flaring, and traffic noise. Traffic noise is primarily from truck traffic serving existing wells and ongoing drilling and completion activities. Ranching and agricultural activities and associated traffic are common in the area. Natural noises contribute to ambient conditions, including wind, birdsong, and other wildlife calls.

Noise levels are not monitored in the MDP area. Results from an EPA noise study indicate that the median outdoor noise level during the day ranges from approximately 20 to 25 dB at a location on the North Rim of the Grand Canyon and approximately 30 to 40 dB at a farm located in a valley (USEPA 1971). Ambient noise in the Project area is likely in a similar range of 20 to 40 dB based on land use and low population density. Noise levels are likely somewhat higher near the existing operating wellfield equipment (at pump/compressor stations and similar facilities) and intermittently near roads.

3.9.2 Environmental Consequences

3.9.2.1 Proposed Action Alternative The Project would result in increased levels of noise during the construction, drilling, completion and operational phases. The duration of these phases, equivalent to the duration of higher noise levels, is described in Section 2.2.2, Description of Project Actions. The noise would be most noticeable along the roads used to haul equipment and at pad locations. At any given time, several construction or drilling crews could be working at several different locations across the Project area. To minimize noise impacts, construction would mostly occur during daytime hours (see Table 2-3). If equipment is in proper working order, construction noise on a typical construction site averages 85 dB(A) at 50 feet, which is below the 90 dB(A) 8-hour exposure threshold set by OSHA (La Plata County 2002). Average construction noise levels would be lower further from a worksite, at about 65 dB(A) at 500 feet and 59 dB(A) at 1,000 feet. Traffic associated with large water and fuel trucks during construction, drilling, and completion phases and tanker trucks during the operation phase average an estimated 68 dB(A) at 500 feet (La Plata County 2002).

Temporary and intermittent increases in noise would be most noticeable at the Charolais facilities, where the surrounding area is in undeveloped rangeland pasture allotments on the uplands along Lake Sakakawea. In contrast, the Harms and Wolverine facilities are within an area with several existing oil and gas facilities, where increases in noise would be less perceptible in the context of the existing regime.

Occupied residences are not present within 0.5 miles of the Project. The closest occupied residences are 3.5 miles southwest of the Charolais facilities and approximately 1.0 miles southeast of the Harms/Wolverine facilities. Residences located along county roads providing primary access to the Project area may experience higher traffic noise levels during construction phases of the Project. While exposure to these noise levels is not likely to be harmful, it is likely to be annoying to residents. Noise will be minimized by using suitable mufflers and controlling road speeds (see Table 2-3). Once the wells are in the operational phases, noise levels would no longer be disruptive to residents in the vicinity of the MDP area.

April 2018 81

3.9.2.2 Cumulative Effects Past and present actions that contribute to the generation of noise in the MDP area include oil and gas development and agricultural activities. Within the Antelope MDP area, there are a total of 67 active well/infrastructure pads supporting 197 oil and gas wells (Table 3-2; Figure 4) and approximately 9,881 acres of agriculture. Future actions including the Proposed Action and foreseeable future actions (see Section 3.1.4) would increase the total well/infrastructure pads from 15 to 22 on USFS lands and from 52 to 58 on other lands within the MDP area (Table 3-2). The operation of the Proposed Action would incrementally contribute to intermittent increases in ambient noise levels within one to two miles of the Project area from increased traffic and human activity.

3.9.2.3 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, noise levels within the Project area would continue at similar levels as existing conditions.

3.10 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY

Health and safety concerns include naturally occurring toxic gases (e.g., H2S); hazardous materials used or generated during installation or production; hazards posed by heavy truck traffic associated with drilling, completion, and production activities; and the potential increase in fugitive dust and noise during construction.

Hazardous materials, including crude oil, are subject to numerous regulations under multiple state and federal agencies. Crude oil is considered a hazardous substance by the OSHA Hazard Communication Standards (29 CFR 1910.1200 and 30 CFR 42). The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) states that solid waste means “any garbage or refuse, sludge from a wastewater treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, or air pollution control facility and other discarded material, resulting from industrial, commercial, mining, and agricultural operations, and from community activities.”

The analysis area for public health and safety included the MDP area and an analysis of the nearest occupied residences.

3.10.1 Affected Environment

The Proposed Action would be in rural McKenzie County. Thirteen (13) residences (i.e. residential houses or mobile homes) are present within the MDP analysis area. Most of these residences are on the southern and western edge of the analysis area. The nearest occupied house to the Charolais facilities is approximately 3.5 miles southwest. The nearest occupied residence to the Harms/Wolverine facilities is approximately one mile southeast.

According to the USEPA’s EnviroMapper website, no hazardous waste or solid waste disposal sites were identified within or near the Project area (USEPA 2017d).

3.10.2 Environmental Consequences

3.10.2.1 Proposed Action Alternative The low population of the MDP area reduces the risk to public safety from oil and gas production and transportation associated with the Project.

April 2018 82

Hydrogen sulfide is present in the Mission Canyon Formation which is above the Bakken and Three Forks Formation; no measurable quantities of H2S have been found within the Bakken. Contingency plans for potential gas leaks during drilling of the proposed wells have been developed and submitted to the USFS, and are in compliance with the Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 6. Emergency response plans have been developed and would protect both the general public and drilling crews. It is unlikely that H2S would be present at dangerous levels within the project area due to these contingency plans.

Hazardous chemicals would not be used, produced, stored, transported, or disposed of in association with the Proposed Action under Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), as amended. No extremely hazardous substances, as defined in 40 CFR 355, would be used, produced, stored, transported, or disposed at the project site. All operations, including flaring, would conform to instruction from the USFS fire management staff (see Table 2-3 for complete list of BMPs).

Potential spills of oil, produced water, or other produced fluids would be reported, cleaned up, and disposed of in accordance with appropriate regulations. A two foot berm would surround each well pad or production facilities, which would limit migration of produced fluids from the well pad. Sewage would be contained in a chemical toilet during construction. Trash would be collected and disposed at an appropriate landfill (Table 2-3).

Increased traffic would occur locally along NFSR 885 and along existing lease roads. Construction and operation vehicles would follow posted speed limits and traffic ordinances. Increased dust as a result of this traffic would be controlled using a water truck, applying magnesium chloride, or other approved dust control methods. Suitable mufflers on internal combustion engines and certain compressor components would be used to mitigate increases in noise. Construction impacts such as noise, fugitive dust, and traffic hazards would be present for about 200 days during construction, drilling, and well completion as equipment and vehicles move to and from the site, and then would diminish sharply during production.

Implementation of the described procedures for handling and reporting of hazardous materials and adherence to traffic laws and limits (see Table 2-3) would result in no adverse impacts to public health and safety.

3.10.2.2 Cumulative Effects Past and present actions that contribute to risks to public health and safety in the MDP area include oil and gas development and agricultural activities. Within the Antelope MDP area, there are a total of 67 active well/infrastructure pads supporting 197 oil and gas wells (Table 3-2; Figure 4) and approximately 9,881 acres of agriculture. Future actions including the Proposed Action and foreseeable future actions (see Section 3.1.4) would increase the total well/infrastructure pads from 15 to 22 on USFS lands and from 52 to 58 on other lands within the MDP area (Table 3-2). With the use of mitigation measures, public health and safety risks have been reduced such that operation of the Proposed Action would not measurably contribute to adverse effects or risks to public health and safety.

3.10.2.3 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, the Project would not be approved. Therefore, no affects to public health or safety would occur.

April 2018 83

3.11 SOCIOECONOMICS

The socioeconomic analysis included McKenzie County, with comparisons to the state of North Dakota. The county level is the reasonable extent of impacts to local businesses and economy.

3.11.1 Affected Environment

Population and Demographics The Project is in Riverview and Elm Tree Townships in McKenzie County (McKenzie County 2016a). The portion of these townships within McKenzie County are rural with no incorporated towns. The population of McKenzie County is 8,333 and nearly equally split between men and women. McKenzie County is predominantly white, at approximately 79 percent of the population, followed by American Indian or Alaska native comprising approximately 17 percent of the population. Due to the geographic location of the Project, it is likely that the majority of the American Indian or Alaska native grouping, as described by the U.S. Census Bureau (USCB), is American Indian. Going forward in this document, this population would be referred to as American Indian. McKenzie County includes a portion of the Fort Berthold Reservation. The population and demographic specifics are shown below in Table 3-18.

Table 3-18: Population and Demographics McKenzie County North Dakota Estimate Percent Estimate Percent Total 8,333 100 704,925 100 GENDER Male 4,389 53 358,862 51 Female 3,944 47 346,063 49 RACE White 6,581 79 628,770 89 American Indian and Alaska native 1,430 17 36,989 5 Other Race(s) 304 4 28,385 4 Black or African American 18 <1 10,781 2 AGE Under 18 2,322 28 158,301 22 18 - 64 5,095 61 445,722 63 65 and older 916 11 100,902 14 Source: USCB 2016a.

Economic Conditions Economic conditions in McKenzie County are similar to overall conditions in North Dakota. The major economic driver in McKenzie County is the oil and gas industry. The County stated in the 2025 McKenzie County Comprehensive Plan the desire to diversify their economic base for down conditions in the oil and gas industry. To aid the diversification effort, seven goals were identified: 1) To aid the long-term focus and expansion of the oil and gas industry, 2) To foster highway commercial opportunities, 3) To make the county an attractive place to live and visit, 4) To capitalize on opportunities as “North Dakota’s Playground,” 5) To enhance rural residential living through quality of life improvements,

April 2018 84

6) To keep tax revenue local, and 7) Develop support for a regional airport (McKenzie County 2016a).

Through this diversification, McKenzie County aims to increase their economic stability.

Employment Approximately three percent of the population in both McKenzie County and the state of North Dakota is unemployed. Occupations are similar with most jobs being found in the management, business, science, and arts occupations for both the State (35 percent) and County (35 percent). Additional detail regarding employment is found in Table 3-19.

Table 3-19: Employment Summary McKenzie County North Dakota Estimate Percent Estimate Percent Labor Force Population over 16 in Labor Force1 4,231 67 397,250 70 Population over 16 not in Labor Force 2,068 33 166,505 30 Total 6,299 100 563,755 100 Employment Employed1 4,115 97 385,037 97 Unemployed 116 3 12,213 3 Total 4,231 100 397,250 100 Occupation Management, business, science, and arts 1,444 35 132,325 35 Service 637 15 65,934 17 Sales and office 724 18 86,342 23 Natural resources, construction, and 745 18 48,307 13 maintenance Production, transportation, and material moving 565 14 47,064 12 Total 4,115 100 379,972 100 1Including Armed Forces Source: USCB 2016b.

Income and Poverty McKenzie County has approximately 2,755 households within the work force. Median household incomes in McKenzie County are slightly higher than the State, with values of $67,578 and $55,579 respectively (USCB 2016b). A summary of household income for McKenzie County and North Dakota is presented in Table 3-20.

Table 3-20: Income Summary McKenzie County North Dakota Households within work force 2,755 292,616 Median household income $67,578 $55,579 Mean income $96,913 $73,272 Source: USCB 2016b

Approximately 15 percent of McKenzie County and 12 percent of the State of North Dakota, are estimated to be below the poverty level as shown in Table 3-21. Of those below

April 2018 85

poverty in McKenzie County, over half are women; approximately one-third are white; and over half are American Indian.

Table 3-21: Poverty Summary McKenzie County North Dakota Estimate Percent Estimate Percent Poverty Below poverty level 1,200 15 80,865 12 Above Poverty level 7,019 85 599,047 88 Total 8,219 100 679,912 100 Below Poverty Level Sex Male 549 46 36,027 45 Female 651 54 44,838 55 Age Under 18 years 540 45 22,498 28 18-64 years 593 49 48,719 60 65 years and over 67 6 9,648 12 Race White 420 35 57,352 71 Black or African American 0 0 3,494 4 American Indian and Alaska native 676 56 14,440 18 Other Race(s) 104 9 5,579 7 Source: USCB 2016c

Public Facilities and Services McKenzie County offers typical government services including the following governmental departments (among others) noted on the County website (McKenzie County 2016b):

• Board of Commissioners • Building Department • County Auditor • County Housing • District Clerk of Court • Emergency Management • Job Development Authority • Landfill • Public Library • Planning and Zoning • Road Dept/Engineer • Sheriff • Veterans Services • Water Resources

The Project area is in McKenzie County School District #1 which consists of an elementary school (K-6) and a high school (7-12). From 2004 to 2011, enrollment averaged 547 students per year. Starting in the 2011/2012 school year, enrollment has increased to the current enrollment of 1,316 students during the 2015/2016 school year (McKenzie County

April 2018 86

School District 2016). Enrollment increases are likely due to the increased oil and gas production and other economic factors in the area.

There are multiple fire departments in McKenzie County serving the cities and rural areas. The Project area is in the McKenzie County Rural Fire Protection District. Volunteer firefighters provide fire protection services; the nearest fire station is in Watford City. The McKenzie County Sheriff’s Office provides law enforcement protection for the Project area.

The McKenzie County Healthcare System is a consolidation of healthcare services including a hospital, clinic, nursing home, assisted living center and a wellness center (McKenzie County 2016b). Healthcare facilities are in Watford City. There is also a clinic located in New Town, Trinity Community Clinic, approximately 30 miles east of the Project area. McKenzie County Ambulance Service provides emergency medical services for the Project area. They provide basic life support via ground ambulance services for an approximately 2,050 square mile area (NDDH 2009).

3.11.2 Environmental Consequences

3.11.2.1 Proposed Action Alternative The Project is not anticipated to have a long-term noticeable impact on population, demographics, or employment. The work force needed for the Project varies from five to up to 40 temporary jobs per well pad and associated facilities, depending on the stage of construction (refer to Section 2.4.2 for estimated workers needed for each phase or activity). Up to five longer-term jobs would be required for a particular well pad during the operation and maintenance phases. If there were no overlap of workers between construction activities, up to 140 people would be needed throughout the lifetime of a particular well pad. These jobs would not necessarily be simultaneous, but would likely not overlap between companies. Therefore, an estimated 300 jobs could be required over the course of Project construction and operation to final abandonment. Overall, the potential impacts to employment in the county would be small with the potentially noticeable impact resulting from the temporary construction jobs, although these benefits would be short- term.

The temporary jobs are not anticipated to cause people to permanently locate to the area or county. Some job seekers may relocate to the broader Bakken region of western North Dakota to seek employment, but generally, existing industry expertise and services in the region are adequate to support additional oil and gas development. Furthermore, some project related jobs would come from existing jobs that would continue as a result of the Proposed Action; some jobs would be newly created parallel or transitional jobs.

Construction jobs would bring a short-term influx of people into the area, which could increase revenue in the county and towns nearest the Project area. Workers would be expected to use lodging and food services, and possible purchase materials and supplies locally, which would be subject to sales and lodging taxes. Royalty taxes and mineral severance, as well as other relevant taxes, may also increase as a result of the increased oil and gas development from the Project.

It is unlikely that increases in population as a result of employment would result in any measurable increases in demand for services or infrastructure in the county or rural communities near the Proposed Action. However, implementation of the Proposed Action may result in a small incremental reduction in unemployment in the county. New jobs would contribute to incremental increases in household income in the county.

April 2018 87

3.11.2.2 Cumulative Effects The Proposed Action would contribute small, but incremental increases in temporary jobs and demand for those jobs in western North Dakota along with existing and future oil and gas development in the region.

3.11.2.3 No Action Alternative There would be limited socioeconomic impacts from the No Action Alternative. If the Project were not built temporary construction jobs and longer-term operations and maintenance jobs would not be created. Future revenues generated by operation of the Project would not be realized.

3.12 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

EO 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, states “each Federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations….”

The purpose of EO 12898 is to identify and address, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on low-income populations, minority populations, or Indian tribes that may experience common conditions of environmental exposure or effects associated with a plan or project. It is important to note that minority populations, low-income populations, or Tribes may experience common effects from a project even if they do not reside in the immediate study area. EO 12898 requires Federal agencies to ensure opportunities for effective public participation by potentially affected low- income populations, minority populations, or Indian tribes.

The CEQ considers a minority community to be one with a minority population greater than 50 percent or “meaningfully greater” than the minority population percentage in the general population or other appropriate geographic area (CEQ 1997). Additionally, environmental justice considers the number of persons or households at or below the poverty level. A low- income community is considered one that has a greater percentage of persons below the poverty level in the general population or other appropriate geographic area.

3.12.1 Affected Environment

The Project is in McKenzie County, approximately eight miles northwest of the Fort Berthold Reservation (Reservation), a portion of which is within McKenzie County. In general, the county and Reservation are comprised of low-income and minority populations (primarily American Indian) that are above the averages for the state of North Dakota overall. These populations are not concentrated in the immediate vicinity of the Project or the MDP area.

The total minority populations (those populations not categorized as White Alone, not Hispanic or Latino) of McKenzie County and North Dakota are approximately 21 percent and 11 percent, respectively (Table 3-18). Of this population, the Indian and Alaska native population is approximately 17 percent of McKenzie County and five percent of the state population. The minority population of McKenzie County is greater than North Dakota, and could be considered “meaningfully greater,” but the minority population can be attributed to the Fort Berthold Reservation. Within the Reservation, the majority of the population is American Indian and Alaska native (89 percent), followed by white (four percent), and other races (six percent) (USCB 2016a). The defined Project area is not considered a minority April 2018 88

community; the area is sparsely populated, and McKenzie County is primarily white outside of the Reservation (approximately 95 percent classified as White Alone, not Hispanic or Latino, excluding the Reservation population). Additional statistics are presented in Section 3.11.1 – Population and Demographics and Table 3-18.

Median incomes for McKenzie County and the Fort Berthold Reservation are $67,578 and $13,188, respectively (USCB 2016b). The State of North Dakota median income is approximately $55,579. Approximately 24 percent of Fort Berthold falls below the poverty level, compared to 15 percent of McKenzie County, and 12 percent for the State of North Dakota (USCB 2016c). Due to the greater proportion of people living below the poverty level in Fort Berthold, it is considered a low-income population. Additional statistics are presented in Section 3.11.1 – Income and Poverty and Table 3-20.

3.12.2 Environmental Consequences

3.12.2.1 Proposed Action Alternative The Project is not anticipated to have negative impacts on minority populations. Residents of the Fort Berthold Reservation would not be affected any differently than the rest of the population. Employment opportunities would be open to all qualified individuals. Minority individuals could obtain temporary construction jobs or a permanent position depending upon skill levels.

The Project is not anticipated to have negative impacts on low income populations as there are no concentrated low-income populations in the Project area or MDP area. Residents of the Fort Berthold Reservation would not be affected any differently than the rest of the population. Employment opportunities and potential revenue generated from the Project may contribute to the local economy.

3.12.2.2 Cumulative Effects The Project is not expected to affect minority and low-income populations and therefore would not contribute to cumulative effects to these populations. Overall socioeconomic benefits, as discussed in Section 3.11.2, would be anticipated to apply to both low-income and minority populations as they would to the general population.

3.12.2.3 No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative would not be anticipated to result in impacts to environmental justice minority or low-income populations.

April 2018 89

4.0 Consultation and Preparers

4.1 INTRODUCTION

The Proposed Action was made available for public review and comment on April 28, 2016, including publication in an area newspaper, the Bismarck Tribune, and a letter sent to a total of thirty-seven (37) organizations, individuals, and federal, state, and local government agencies, as well as six (6) individuals within five (5) tribal governments, known to have an interest in the Proposed Action. The notices provided information about the Project and a 30-day comment period (Appendix A).

4.2 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC PARTICIPANTS

Four entities responded during the comment period: North Dakota Department of Trust Lands (NDDTL); North Dakota Chapter of The Wildlife Society (NDCTWS); Badlands Conservation Alliance (BCA); and North Dakota Game and Fish Department (NDGFD). Specific comments received, along with responses explaining how each has been addressed and considered through the analysis, are provided in Appendix A.

4.3 LIST OF PREPARERS

NEPA takes on an interdisciplinary approach to decision-making to ensure that all potential impacts to the physical, natural, social, and human environments from Project development have been evaluated. As such, the preparation of the Environmental Assessment for the Antelope MDP has been prepared and reviewed by an interdisciplinary team from several areas of expertise. Table 4-1 lists the staff that contributed to the preparation and review of the EA.

Table 4-1: Preparers and Contributors to EA Agency/Company Name Responsibility USFS – McKenzie Nancy J. Veres District Ranger Ranger District Cale Bickerdyke Minerals Area Specialist Niccole Mortenson Minerals NEPA Specialist Liv Fetterman Heritage Program Manager Sabry Hanna Paleontology Laurie Gawin Botanist Jamie Kienzle Wildlife Biologist Arden Warm Wildlife Biologist Kyle Dalzell Range Specialist Kim Grotte Pipeline Specialist/Special Use Permits Jennie Jennings Hydrologist Rob Schilling Recreation Manager USFWS – North Kevin Shelley North Dakota State Supervisor Dakota Ecological Services Field Office Wenck Associates, Inc. Justin Askim Project Manager Luke Toso Project Manager; Author; Botany and Wildlife Habitat Surveys

April 2018 90

Agency/Company Name Responsibility Sara Simmers Author; QA/QC Review Amy Denz Author; Chapters 1 and 2 Mindy Erickson Technical Writing, Document Production Beaver Creek Wade Burns Principal Investigator, Cultural Resources Archeology Juniper LLC John Morrison Principal Investigator, Cultural Resources

4.4 DISCLOSURE

Wenck Associates, Inc. (Wenck) is a third-party consultant and primary author of this environmental document. Pursuant to the requirements of 40 CFR 1506.5, Wenck Associates, Inc. declares under oath that it has no interest, financial or otherwise in the outcome of this project.

______02/12/2018______Signature Date

April 2018 91

5.0 References

BLM (U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management). 2011. Air Resource BMPs, Best Management Practices for Fluid Minerals. Powerpoint slideshow. Updated 05-09-2011. Available online at: http://slideplayer.com/slide/4560719/. 46 p.

------. 2016. Potential Fossil Yield Classification System for Paleontological Resources on Public Lands. Instructional Memorandum No. 2016-124. Available online: https://www.blm.gov/policy/im-2016-124. 5 p.

Brooks, B. 2017. The Antelope Field Master Development Plan Viewshed Analysis, Visual Impact Assessment, and Ground Truthing Inventory, McKenzie County, North Dakota. Prepared for Continental Resources, Inc., on behalf of the United States Forest Service. Prepared by Beaver Creek Archaeology, Inc. USFS Permit No.: MCK 16015. 56 p.

Burr, P. 2014. Impacts of gas and oil development on sharp-tailed grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus) nest success and predator dynamics in western North Dakota. M.Sc. Thesis, University of North Dakota. 132 p.

Carlson, C.G. 1985. Geology of McKenzie County, North Dakota. North Dakota Geological Survey, Don L. Halvorson, State Geologist, Bulletin 80 – Part I. North Dakota Water Commission, Vernon Fahy, State Engineer, County Groundwater Studies 37 – Part I. Grand Forks, North Dakota.

CEQ (Council of Environmental Quality). 1997. Environmental Justice: Guidance Under the National Environmental Policy Act. Available online: https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/nepapub/nepa_documents/RedDont/G- CEQ-EJGuidance.pdf. 34 p.

Ciuti, S., W. Jensen, S. Nielsen, M. Boyce. 2014. An evaluation of historical mule deer fawn recruitment in North Dakota. University of Alberta, Edmonton AB, Canada; North Dakota Game and Fish Department, Bismarck ND, U.S.A; University of Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany. 83 p.

Croft, M.G. 1985. Ground-Water Resources of McKenzie County, North Dakota. Bulletin 80 – Part III. North Dakota Geological Survey. Available online at: http://www.swc.nd.gov/info_edu/reports_and_publications/county_groundwater_stu dies/pdfs/McKenzie_Part_III.pdf. 57 p.

Dyke, S., D. Fryda, D. Kleyer, J. Williams, B. Hosek, W. Jensen, S. Johnson, A. Robinson, F. Ryckman, B. Stillings, M. Szymanski, S. Tucker and B. Wiedmann. 2011. Potential impacts of oil and gas development on select North Dakota natural resources; a report to the director. North Dakota Game and Fish Department. 121 p.

Gawin, L. 2017. Concurrence of Determination of Effects for the Antelope Master Development Plan, USFS Botanist to McKenzie District Ranger, August 7, 2017. 4 p.

Hanna, S. 2016. United States Forest Service Paleontology Internal Scoping Comments.

April 2018 92

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2014. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II, and II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R.K. and Meyer, L.A. (Eds.), IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland. 151 pp. Available online: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/.

Kienzle, J. and A. Warm. 2016. Antelope Master Development Plan BE Concurrence Letter, USFS Wildlife Biologists to McKenzie District Ranger, November 3, 2016. 7 pp.

La Plata County. 2002. La Plata County (Colorado) Oil and Gas Impact Report. 443 p.

McKenzie County. 2016a. 2025 McKenzie County Comprehensive Plan. Prepared by SRF. June 2016. Available online: http://planmckenzie.com/wp- content/uploads/2016/06/McKenzieCountyComprehensivePlan_FINAL-1.pdf. 135 p.

------. 2016b. McKenzie County Website: County Profile. Available at: https://county.mckenziecounty.net/Information. Accessed November 2016.

McKenzie County School District. 2016. Planning for the Future: Status of Enrollment. PowerPoint Presentation, January 5, 2016. Available online: http://www.watford- city.k12.nd.us/files/_MGJc2_/590fdbb2b86d06823745a49013852ec4/McKenzie_ERPr esentation_1516_BOE.PDF. Accessed November 2016. 30 p.

NAIP (National Agriculture Imagery Program). 2016. North Dakota NAIP 2016 Imagery, USDA-FSA Aerial Photography Field Office.

NDAC (North Dakota Administrative Code). Chapter 43-02-03-18 Oil and Gas Conservation, Drilling Units - Well Locations.

NDCC (North Dakota Century Code). Chapter 33-16-02.1 Standards for Quality for Waters of the State. Appendix I, Stream Classifications.

NDDA (North Dakota Department of Agriculture). 2017a. Noxious Weed Program and Species List. Website at: https://www.nd.gov/ndda/plant-industries/noxious-weeds, accessed May 2017.

------. 2017b. North Dakota County and City Listed Noxious Weeds, Revised 2017. Available online at: https://www.nd.gov/ndda/sites/default/files/legacy/2-9- 17_City_County_Noxious_Weeds_List.pdf. 1 p.

NDDH (North Dakota Department of Health). 2009. North Dakota Ambulance Response Areas – Map Book. McKenzie County Ambulance Service, #129. Available online: https://www.health.nd.gov/media/1371/map-book-web-version2.pdf. Accessed November 2016.

------. 2017a. Annual Report. North Dakota Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program Network Plan with Data Summary 2017. Available online: http://www.ndhealth.gov/AQ/ambient/Annual%20Reports/ARNP_16-17.pdf. 36 p.

------. 2017b. North Dakota 2016 Integrated Section 305(b) Water Quality Assessment Report and Section 303(d) List of Waters Needing Total Maximum Daily Loads. Approved February 21, 2017. Available at:

April 2018 93

http://www.ndhealth.gov/wq/sw/Z7_Publications/IntegratedReports/2016_Final_ND _Integrated_Report_20170222.pdf. 355 pp.

NDGF (North Dakota Game and Fish Department). 2013. Bighorn Sheep Range, Mule Deer Range, Pronghorn Range, Golden Eagle Breeding Range Maps.

------. 2017. Wildlife Management Areas – Listing. NDGF Website. Available at: https://gf.nd.gov/wma-listing, accessed 7/3/17.

NDGS (North Dakota Geological Society). 1986. The Sentinel Butte Formation (Paleocene), North Dakota. Available online: http://archives.datapages.com/data/meta/ndgs/data/008/029/pdfs/029_firstpage.pd f. Accessed July 2016.

------. 2017. Overview of the Petroleum Geology of the North Dakota Williston Basin. Available at: https://www.dmr.nd.gov/ndgs/resources/. Accessed May 2017.

NDIC (North Dakota Industrial Commission). 2016. Oil in North Dakota: 2016 Production Statistics. Department of Mineral Resources Oil and Gas Division.

------. 2017. Department of Mineral Resources, Oil and Gas Division. GIS data. Available at: https://www.dmr.nd.gov/oilgas, downloaded November 7, 2017.

NDSWC (North Dakota State Water Commission). 2017. Map Services: Hydrologic Unit Layers, Drillers Logs. Available online at: http://mapservice.swc.state.nd.us/. Accessed July 2017.

NPS (National Park Service). 2017. Dakota Prairie Grasslands, McKenzie Ranger District Antelope Master Development Plan Viewshed Analysis. Lewis and Clark NHT Integrated Resources Stewardship Division. 11 p.

NRCS (Natural Resource Conservation Service). 2006. Soil Survey of McKenzie County, North Dakota. United States Department of Agriculture. In cooperation with North Dakota Agricultural Experiment Station, North Dakota Cooperative Extension Service, USDA- Forest Service, USDI- National Park Service, and USDI- Bureau of Indian Affairs.

------. 2016a. Prime & Other Important Farmlands Definitions. Available at: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/pr/soils/?cid=nrcs141p2_037285. Accessed November 2016.

------. 2016b. Hydric Soils – Introduction. Available at: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/use/hydric/?cid=nrcs142p2_ 053961. Accessed November 2016.

------. 2017. Custom Soil Resource Reports for McKenzie County, North Dakota: soil types, drainage class, hydrologic group, wind erodibility group, farmland classification, and hydric soils. Generated for the Antelope MDP Project Area from Web Soil Survey at: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm.

Seabloom, R. 2011. The Mammals of North Dakota. North Dakota Institute for Regional Studies, North Dakota State University.

April 2018 94

Shelley, K. 2017. USFWS Concurrence Letter and Biological Opinion on the effects to the Dakota skipper from the Antelope Master Development Plan. Kevin Shelley, ND State Supervisor, USFWS to Nancy Veres, McKenzie District Ranger. USFWS Reference #2017-F-0081.

Stokes, D.W. and L. Q. Stokes. 1996. Field Guide to Birds, Western Region. Little, Brown and Company.

USCB (United States Census Bureau). 2016a. American FactFinder: 2014 American Community Survey. Web application: https://www.census.gov/programs- surveys/acs/. Accessed November 2016.

------. 2016b. American FactFinder: Selected Economic Characteristics: McKenzie County, North Dakota. Web application: https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=A CS_16_5YR_DP03&src=pt. Accessed November 2016.

------. 2016c. American FactFinder: Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months: McKenzie County, North Dakota. Web application: https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=A CS_16_5YR_S1701&prodType=table. Accessed November 2016.

USDI-USDA (U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2007. The Gold Book: Surface Operating Standards and Guidelines for Oil and Gas Exploration and Development. BLM/WO/ST-06/021+3071/REV 07. Bureau of Land Management. Denver, Colorado. 84 pp. Available online: https://www.blm.gov/programs/energy-and-minerals/oil-and-gas/operations-and- production/the-gold-book.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1971. Community Noise. Office of Noise Abatement and Control. Washington, D.C. December 31, 1971. 214 p.

------. 1981. Noise Effects Handbook: A Desk Reference to Health and Welfare Effects of Noise. National Association of Noise Control Officials. Fort Walton Beach, Florida. Available online: http://www.nonoise.org/library/handbook/handbook.htm.

------. 2015. Air Data: Air Quality Data Collected at Outdoor Monitors Across the US. Monitor Values Report. Criteria Pollutant Summary Data for Individual Monitoring Sites, 2013-2015 data. Available online: http://www.epa.gov/airdata/ad_rep_mon.html.

------. 2016a. Prevention of Significant Deterioration Basic Information. Last updated November 2016, available at: https://www.epa.gov/nsr/prevention-significant- deterioration-basic-information. Accessed May 2017.

------. 2016b. Pollutants and Sources. Technology Transfer Network - Air Toxics Web Site. Last updated February 2016, available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttnatw01/pollsour.html. Accessed May 2017.

April 2018 95

------. 2017a. Reviewing National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS): Scientific and Technical Information. Last updated March 2017, available at: https://www.epa.gov/naaqs. Accessed May 2017.

------. 2017b. Overview of Greenhouse Gases. Climate Change, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Last updated January 2017, available at: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases.html. Accessed May 2017.

------. 2017c. Summary of the Noise Control Act. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/laws- regulations/summary-noise-control-act. Accessed May 2017.

------. 2017d. EnviroMapper. McKenzie County, North Dakota; More Data, Search Available Data; Envirofacts Facility Locations (Last Modified: Fri Mar 17 2017). Available at: https://www.epa.gov/emefdata/em4ef.home. Accessed January 2018.

------. 2018. Envirofacts, EPA-Regulated Facilities, Web Mapper Application. Amerada Hess Corporation, Summary Report, Generated 01-15-2018, Available at: https://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/envirofacts.quickstart?pSearch=Map%20Recentered& minx=-103.083172&miny=48.039070&maxx=- 102.777272&maxy=48.142265&ve=11,48.090668,-102.930222. Accessed January 2018.

USFS (United States Forest Service). 1987. Custer National Forest and National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service. Billings, MT. October 1986. 170 p.

------. 1995. Landscape Aesthetics: A Handbook for Scenery Management. Agriculture Handbook Number 701. December 1995.

------. 2001a. Land and Resource Management Plan for the Dakota Prairie Grasslands Northern Region. Available online: http://www.fs.usda.gov/detailfull/dpg/landmanagement/?cid=stelprdb5340280&widt h=full.

------. 2001b. Addendum for the Final Environmental Impact Statement and Land and Resources Management Plans, 2001 Revisions. Dakota Prairie Grasslands, Nebraska National Forest Units, Thunder Basin National Grassland. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern and Rocky Mountain Regions. 65 p.

------. 2001c. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Map, McKenzie Ranger District, Little Missouri National Grassland. Available online at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5340432.pdf

------. 2001d. Scenic Integrity Objective Map, McKenzie Ranger District, Little Missouri National Grassland. Available online at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5340437.pdf

------. 2002a. Record of Decision for the Dakota Prairie Grasslands Final Environmental Impact Statement and Land and Resource Management Plan. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Region. July 2002. 48 p. Available online: https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprd3818959.pdf.

April 2018 96

------. 2002b. Little Missouri National Grasslands FEIS Alternative 3 (McKenzie), Oil and Gas Stipulations Map. Bismarck, ND. July 2002. 1 p. Available online: https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5340413.pdf.

------. 2002c. Little Missouri National Grasslands FEIS Modified Alternative 3 Final (McKenzie), Oil and Gas Stipulations Map. Bismarck, ND. July 2002. 1 p. Available online: https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5340416.pdf.

------. 2003. Dakota Prairie Grasslands Oil and Gas Leasing Record of Decision. Little Missouri and Cedar River National Grasslands. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Dakota Prairie Grasslands, Northern Region and U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Montana State Office. June 2003. 46 p. Available online: https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprd3818893.pdf.

------. 2011. Sensitive Species Lists, Forest Service, Region 1. Signed by Regional Forester L. Weldon February 25, 2011. Available from USFS Region 1 Website: http://www.fs.usda.gov/detailfull/r1/landmanagement/resourcemanagement/?cid=st elprdb5130525&width=full.

------. 2014. Near Field/Visibility Air Quality Impact Analyses for Oil and Gas Leasing and Development Activities on the Little Missouri National Grassland. Prepared by B. Anderson and T. Dzomba, USFS. 25 p.

------. 2015a, draft. Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS), Air Quality and Climate Section and associated spreadsheets. 35 pp.

------. 2015b. Updated sensitive plant shape files for the Dakota Prairie Grasslands as of April 2015. GIS shapefile emailed to botany contractors from Kelly Privratsky, USFS Botany Technician on May 13, 2015, “DPGPlantPoint04032015.”

------. 2016a. Letter and Enclosures from Dakota Prairie Grasslands Deputy Supervisor John Kinney to Wenck Associates, Inc., dated April 25, 2016. Requirements for biology surveys and respective Biological Evaluations (BE) for new project proposals on the Little Missouri National Grasslands (LMNG) during the 2016 calendar year.

------. 2016b. Historical raptor nest sites, sharp-tailed grouse leks, threatened, endangered and sensitive species locations/observations on the Little Missouri National Grasslands. GIS shapefiles.

USFWS (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2014. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species Status for Dakota Skipper and Endangered Species Status for Poweshiek Skipperling; Final Rule. Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 206. P. 63672-63748.

------. 2016a. Guidance for Interagency Cooperation under Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act for the Dakota Skipper, Dakota Skipper Critical Habitat, and Poweshiek Skipperling Critical Habitat, Version 1.1. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Regions 3 and 6. 32 p. Available online: https://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/insects/dask/pdf/DakotaSkipperS7Guidan ceV1.1.pdf.

April 2018 97

------. 2016b. Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC). Web Application. Available online at: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. Accessed July 2016.

------. 2017. National Wetlands Inventory, Wetlands Mapper. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. Available online: http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/. Accessed May 2017.

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2006. Reptiles and Amphibians of North Dakota. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center. Website: http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/herps/amrepnd/index.htm. Accessed November 12, 2013.

------. 2013. National Assessment of Oil and Gas Fact Sheet: Assessment of Undiscovered Oil Resources in the Bakken and Three Forks Formations, Williston Basin Province, Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota, 2013. Fact Sheet 2013 – 3013. April 2013.

Wenck (Wenck Associates, Inc.). 2016. Biological Assessment of Threatened and Endangered Species: Antelope Master Development Plan. November 2016. 68 pp.

------. 2017. Biological Evaluation of Sensitive Species: Antelope Master Development Plan. January 2017. 129 pp.

Wold, S. and A. Warm. 2017. Antelope Master Development Plan BE Concurrence Letter, USFS Wildlife Technician and USFS Wildlife Biologist to McKenzie District Ranger, July 17, 2017. 3 pp.

April 2018 98

Appendix A

Scoping Letter and Distribution List Scoping Comments Summary and Response to Comment Copies of Complete Public Scoping Comments United States Forest Dakota Prairie Grasslands McKenzie Ranger District Department of Service 1905 South Main Street Agriculture Watford City, ND 58854

File Code: 1950/2820 Date: April 25, 2016

To Those Interested in this Project:

The Dakota Prairie Grasslands, McKenzie Ranger District, in cooperation with the Bureau of Land Management, North Dakota Field Office, is inviting comments on a project called the Antelope Master Development Plan (MDP), submitted by Petro-Hunt, L.L.C. (Petro-Hunt), Continental Resources, Inc. (Continental), and Slawson Exploration Company, Inc. (Slawson), proposing new pad development and expansions of existing pads in McKenzie County, North Dakota (ND) (Figure 1). The purpose and need for this proposal is to allow the Companies to develop their federal and private minerals through the development of these wells.

New or Existing Number of Existing wells Operator Proposed Well Pad/Well Location Pad New Wells on Pad

Petro-Hunt, LLC USA153-95-10A/10D NWSW 11-T153N-R95W New 5 0 Wolverine Pad 240 SWSW 31-T153N-R93W Existing 4 2 Slawson Wolverine Pad 241 SESE 31-T153N-R93W Existing 4 2 Wolverine Pad 278 SWSE 31-T153N-R93W New 6 0 Charolais A SWSW 10-T153N-R94W New 5 0 Charolais B NENW 15-T153N-R94W New 6 0 Brangus A NESW/SWNW 14-T153N-R94W New 14 0 Continental Charolais CTB NWSE 15-T153N-R94W New 0 0 Harms A SESW 32-T153N-R93W Existing 8 2 Harms B SESE Sec 31-T153-R93W New 2 0 TOTALS 10 54

Petro-Hunt

 USA153-95-10A/10D

New Development

The proposed USA 153-95-10A/10D pad would have five Petro-Hunt wells located on the proposed pad and are named USA 153-95-10D-3H, USA 153-95-10A-3-2H, USA 153-95-10A-3-4H, USA 153-95-10A-3-5H, and USA 153-95-10A-3-6H. The pad would be located on National Forest System lands within the NWSW, Section 11, T.153N., R.97W., 5th Principal Meridian (PM), McKenzie County, ND (See Figure 4). The proposal includes an access road and utilities, such as but not limited to, an electric line, a fiber optic line, and gas, oil, freshwater, and saltwater pipelines, and any other equipment deemed necessary for the drilling, stimulating, production, development and sale of oil and gas products. Production facilities would be located on-site. Proposed utilities would leave the pad and parallel the proposed access road and tie into an existing utility corridor along Forest Service Road 883.

Slawson

 Wolverine Pad 240  Wolverine Pad 241  Wolverine Pad 278

Caring for the Land and Serving People Printed on Recycled Paper

Expansion

Four proposed Slawson wells would be located on the existing Wolverine Pad 240, and are named Wolverine Federal 8-31-30H, Wolverine Federal 10-31-30TF2H, Wolverine Federal 11-31-30TF2H, and Wolverine Federal 18-31-30TF3H. The pad is located on National Forest System lands within the SWSW, Section 31, T.153N., R.93W., 5th PM, McKenzie County, North Dakota (See Figure 2). The proposal includes use of the existing production facilities and utilities. Utility lines may need to be upgraded but would remain in the current right-of-way and the route would not be changed. Additional utilities may also be needed and could include, but not limited to, a fiber optic line, and gas, oil, freshwater, and saltwater pipelines, and any other equipment deemed necessary for the drilling, stimulating, production, development and sale of oil and gas products. These additional utilities would follow the existing access road.

Four proposed Slawson wells would be located on the existing Wolverine Pad 241, and are named Wolverine Federal 9-31-30H, Wolverine Federal 13-31-30TF2H, Wolverine Federal 14-31-30TF2H, and Wolverine Federal 15-31-30TF3H. The pad is located on National Forest System lands within the SESE, Section 31, T.153N., R.93W., 5th PM, McKenzie County, North Dakota (See Figure 2). The proposal includes use of the existing production facilities and utilities. Utility lines may need to be upgraded but would remain in the current right-of-way and the route would not be changed. Additional utilities may also be needed and could include, but not limited to, a fiber optic line, and gas, oil, freshwater, and saltwater pipelines, and any other equipment deemed necessary for the drilling, stimulating, production, development and sale of oil and gas products. These additional utilities would follow the existing access road.

New Development

The proposed Wolverine Pad 278 would have six Slawson wells located on the proposed pad and are named Wolverine Federal 3-31-30H, Wolverine Federal 6-31-30TFH, Wolverine Federal 7-31-30TFH, Wolverine Federal 12-31-30TF2H, Wolverine Federal 16-31-30TF3H, and Wolverine Federal 17-31-30TF3H. The pad would be located on National Forest System lands within the SWSE, Section 31, T.153N., R.93W., 5th PM, McKenzie County, ND (See Figure 2). The proposal includes production facilities, an access road, and utilities, such as but not limited to, an electric line, a fiber optic line, and gas, oil, freshwater, and saltwater pipelines, and any other equipment deemed necessary for the drilling, stimulating, production, development and sale of oil and gas products. Proposed utilities would leave the pad and parallel the proposed access road, tying into an existing utility corridor on private lands.

Continental

 Charolais A  Charolais B  Brangus A  Charolais CTB  Harms A  Harms B

Expansion

Eight proposed Continental wells would be located on the existing Harms A pad, and are named Harms Federal 4- 32H2, Harms Federal 5-32H, Harms Federal 6-32H1, Harms Federal 7-32H, Harms Federal 8-32H2, Harms Federal 9-32H, Harms Federal 10-32H1, and Harms Federal 11-32H. The pad is located on National Forest System lands within the SESW, Section 32, T.153N., R.93W., 5th PM, McKenzie County, North Dakota (See Figure 2). The proposal includes the use of the existing production facilities and utilities. Utility lines may need to be upgraded but would remain in the current right-of-way and the route would not be changed. Additional utilities

Caring for the Land and Serving People Printed on Recycled Paper

may also be needed and could include, but not limited to, a fiber optic line, and gas, oil, freshwater, and saltwater pipelines, and any other equipment deemed necessary for the drilling, stimulating, production, development and sale of oil and gas products. These additional utilities would follow the existing access road. This location will also act as the Central Tank Battery (CTB) for the Harms B proposal.

New Development

The proposed Charolais A pad would have five Continental wells located on the proposed pad and are named Charolais Federal South 1-10H, Charolais Federal South 2-10H2, Charolais Federal South 3-10H, Charolais Federal South 4-10H1, and Charolais Federal South 5-10H. The pad would be located on National Forest System lands within the SWSW, Section 10, T.153N., R.94W., 5th PM, McKenzie County, ND (See Figure 3). The proposal includes production facilities, an access road, and utilities, such as but not limited to, an electric line, a fiber optic line, and gas, oil, freshwater, and saltwater pipelines, and any other equipment deemed necessary for the drilling, stimulating, production, development and sale of oil and gas products. Proposed utilities would leave the pad and parallel the proposed access road until it reaches the Charolais CTB. Production facilities would be located at the Charolais CTB, which is further described below.

The proposed Charolais B pad would have six Continental wells located on the proposed pad and are named Charolais Federal South 6-10H, Charolais Federal South 7-10H1, Charolais Federal South 8-10H, Charolais Federal South 9-10H2, Charolais Federal South 10-10H, and Charolais Federal South 11-10H. The pad would be located on National Forest System lands within the NESW/SWNW, Section 14, T.153N., R.94W., 5th PM, McKenzie County, ND (See Figure 3). The proposal includes production facilities, an access road, and utilities, such as but not limited to, an electric line, a fiber optic line, and gas, oil, freshwater, and saltwater pipelines, and any other equipment deemed necessary for the drilling, stimulating, production, development and sale of oil and gas products. Proposed utilities would leave the pad and parallel the proposed access road until it reaches the Charolais CTB. Production facilities would be located at the Charolais CTB, which is further described below.

The proposed Brangus A pad would have fourteen Continental wells located on the proposed pad and are named Brangus Federal 2-11H2, Brangus Federal 3-11H, Brangus Federal 4-11H, Brangus Federal 5-11H, Brangus Federal 6-11H1, Brangus Federal 7-11H, Brangus Federal 8-11H2, Brangus Federal 9-11H, Brangus Federal 10-11H1, Brangus Federal 11-11H, and four additional wells yet to be named. The pad would be partially located on National Forest System lands within the NENW, Section 14, T.153N., R.94W., 5th PM, McKenzie County, ND (See Figure 3). A majority of the well pad and portions of the access road will be located on private surface. The proposal includes production facilities, an access road, and utilities, such as but not limited to, an electric line, a fiber optic line, and gas, oil, freshwater, and saltwater pipelines, and any other equipment deemed necessary for the drilling, stimulating, production, development and sale of oil and gas products. Proposed utilities would leave the pad and parallel the proposed access road until it reaches the Charolais CTB. Production facilities would be located at the Charolais CTB, which is further described below.

The proposed Charolais CTB would we used as the CTB for the Brangus A, Charolais A, and Charolais B. The CTB would be located on National Forest System lands within the NWSE, Section 15, T.153N., R.94W., 5th PM, McKenzie County, ND (See Figure 3). The proposal includes an access road and utilities, such as but not limited to, an electric line, fiber optic line, and gas, oil, freshwater, and saltwater pipelines, and any other equipment deemed necessary for the production, stimulating, development and sale of oil and gas products. Production facilities would include, but not be limited to, flare(s), Lease Automatic Custody Transfer (LACT) meter(s), 3-phase separator(s), test treater(s), recycle(s), and saltwater and oil tanks. Proposed utilities would leave the CTB and parallel the proposed access road and tie into exiting utility corridor along 44th Street NW on private land.

The proposed Harms B pad would have two Continental wells located on the proposed pad and are named Harms Federal 12-32H , and one additional well yet to be named. The pad would be located on National Forest System lands within the SESE, Section 31, T.153N., R.93W., 5th PM, McKenzie County, ND (See Figure 2). The proposal includes production facilities, an access road, and utilities, such as but not limited to, an electric line, a fiber optic line, and gas, oil, freshwater, and saltwater pipelines, and any other equipment deemed necessary for the drilling, stimulating, production, development and sale of oil and gas products. Proposed flowlines would leave the pad and

Caring for the Land and Serving People Printed on Recycled Paper

parallel the north side of the existing lease road, tying into the proposed Harms A pad CTB. Additional utilities would follow the proposed access road to private surface.

Interim reclamation would be performed on disturbed areas not needed for operations and maintenance. This entails contouring to provide stable slopes, top soiling and seeding with a Forest Service approved native see mix.

All proposed activities would occur in Management Area (MA) 6.1 “Rangelands with Broad Resource Emphasis”. This management area is primarily a rangeland ecosystem managed to meet a variety of ecological conditions and human needs. Ecological conditions will be maintained while emphasizing selected biological (grasses and other vegetation) structure and composition that considers the range of natural variability. These lands often display high levels of development, commodity uses, and activity; density of facilities; and evidence of vegetative manipulation. Users expect to see other people and evidence of human activities. Facilities supporting the various resource uses are common. Motorized transportation is common on designated roads and two-tracks. Standards and Guidelines for MA 6.1 include:

 Honor all valid existing oil and gas leases  Allow oil and gas leasing and development

Archaeological, botanical, and wildlife surveys are being completed for the project and will be reviewed by Forest Service specialists.

The North Dakota Natural Heritage biological conservation database will be reviewed to determine if any plant or animal species of concern or other significant ecological communities are known to occur within an approximate one-mile radius of the project area. Based on this review, any identified plant or animal species of concern documented within and in adjacent sections to the project area will be discussed in greater detail in an environmental assessment (EA).

An environmental analysis will be documented in an (EA). The McKenzie District Ranger will be the Responsible Official for making the decision regarding the Antelope MDP. I anticipate a decision will be issued in 2016. At this time the USDA Forest Service, Dakota Prairie Grasslands, is seeking public comment on this project pursuant to the pre-decisional objection process described at 36 CFR 218, Subpart A and B. Public comment will be accepted for 30 calendar days following the publication of the legal notice of proposed action in the newspaper of record, the Bismarck Tribune. The publication date of the newspaper is the only means by which to calculate the 30-day comment period. When the comment period would end on a Saturday, Sunday or federal holiday, comments will be accepted until the end of the next federal working day. No comments will be accepted after the 30-day comment period ends. Only those who submit timely comments to this solicitation (or any other formal opportunity) for public comment and meet all the requirements contained in 36 CFR 218.25(a)(3) will have standing to object to the project during the 45-day pre-decisional objection period which will occur following the distribution of the Environmental Assessment and draft decision. This comment period also serves as the scoping period under 36 CFR 220.4(e) and 40 CFR 1501.7.

Comments submitted in response to the solicitation must meet the definition of “specific written comments” as defined at 36 CFR 218.2, particularly “…specific written comments should be within the scope of the proposed action, have a direct relationship to the proposed action, and must include supporting reasons for the responsible official to consider.” Please include your name, postal or email address, Antelope MDP in your comment submittal. Acceptable formats for electronic comments are text or html email, Adobe portable document format (.pdf), and formats viewable in Microsoft Office applications (e.g. .txt, .rtf, .doc). Written comments may be submitted by postal service mail, email, or facsimile as follows:

McKenzie Ranger District 1905 South Main Street Watford City, ND 58854 Email: [email protected] Phone: 1-701-842-8502

Caring for the Land and Serving People Printed on Recycled Paper

Fax: 1-701- 842-8544

Hand delivered written comments will be accepted at the McKenzie Ranger District between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except for federal holidays. Oral comments will also be considered if provided at the above office during normal business hours during the comment period. It is the responsibility of persons providing comments to submit them by the close of the comment period. Only those who submit timely and specific written comments will have eligibility (36 CFR 218.5) to file an objection under 36 CFR 218.8. For objection eligibility, each individual or representative from each entity submitting timely and specific written comments must either sign the comment or verify identity upon request. Individuals and organizations wishing to be eligible to object must meet the information requirements in §218.25(a)(3). Names and contact information submitted with comments will become part of the public record and may be released under the Freedom of Information Act.

For further information on the project, you may contact the Forest Service Project Leader, Cale Bickerdyke, at (701) 842-8502 or by email at [email protected].

Sincerely,

ALEX MICHALEK Acting District Ranger

Enclosures (Figures 1-4)

USDA NON-DISCRIMINATION POLICY STATEMENT: DR 4300.003 USDA Equal Opportunity Public Notification Policy (June 2, 2015) In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: [email protected] .

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender.

Caring for the Land and Serving People Printed on Recycled Paper 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 Williams 30 29 28 27 26

31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 Mountrail

6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 McKenzie 3 2 1 6 5 4 !3 New To2wn

11 7 8 9 10 12 North Dakota state agencies 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 and the ND GIS Hub 8 9 10 11 See Figure 2 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14

d See Figure 4 x m . 6

1 19 0 20 21 2 22 23 8 24 19 1 20 21 4 22 0 23 24 _ 19 20 r 21 22 e 23 t t e L g n i p

o 30 c 29 28 S 27 - 26 25 1 30 29 F 28 \ 27 26 g 25 30 n 29 i 28 27 p 26 o c S \ d x BPA Lake1 Boundary m \ )

1 32 33 34 e Proposed Well Pads 35 k 36 31 a 32 33

L 34 Proposed Access Road and Utility Corridor 35 36 A 31 32 33 P 34 35 B (

Township t n e

m Section p

o See Figure 3 l e v 2 Little Missouri National Grasslands e 1 6

D 5 4 3 f State Owned 2 6 o 1 5 4 3 n 2 1 a 6 l 5 P r e t s a M Source: USGS Topographic Map S F

S 11 12 U 7 8 9 8 10 11 2 12 7 8 \ 0 0.5 1 1.5 Miles 9 2 10 11 12 9 7 8 6

2 ± \ S I G

\ 14 : Date: 4/19/2016 Time: 11:40:18 AM User: AskJD0431 13 18 J 14 13 18 17 17 : 16 15 14 13 18 Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed h 17 16 t 15 a P PETRO-HUNT/CONTINENTAL/SLAWSON APR 2016 Site Location Map Figure 1 USA153-95-10A/10D USA 153-95-10D-3H USA 153-95-10A-3-2H d 10 x

m USA 153-95-10A-3-4H . 6

1 USA 153-95-10A-3-5H 0 2

8 USA 153-95-10A-3-6H 1

4 T153NR 95W 0 _ r e t t 11 e L g n i p o c S - 2 F \ g n i p o c S \ d x m \ ) F 1 ore st Serv e ice R k oad 88 a 3 L

A P B ( t n e m p o l e v e D f o n a l P r e t s a M

Proposed New Well Pad

S 2015 Aerial Photograph (Source: ND GIS Hub) F

S Proposed Access Road and Utility Corridor U

8 2

\ 0 500 1,000 Feet

2 Township 9 6 2 \ 15

S Section I

G 14 \ : Date: 4/18/2016 Time: 1:13:28 PM User: AskJD0431 J

: ± h t a P PETRO-HUNT APR 2016 Proposed Action Figure 2 Wolverine Pad 240 Wolverine Federal 8-31-30H Wolverine Federal 10-31-30TF2H Wolverine Federal 11-31-30TF2H Wolverine Federal 18-31-30TF3H Wolverine Pad 241 Wolverine Federal 9-31-30H T153NR 93W Wolverine Federal 13-31-30TF2H 32 Wolverine Federal 14-31-30TF2H 36 Wolverine Federal 15-31-30TF3H Harms A 31 Harms Federal 4-32H2, Harms Federal 5-32H, Harms Federal 6-32H1, Harms Federal 7-32H, Wolverine Pad 278 Harms Federal 8-32H2, Harms Federal 9-32H, Wolverine Federal 3-31-30H Harms Federal 10-32H1, and Harms Federal 11-32H Wolverine Federal 6-31-30TFH Wolverine Federal 7-31-30TFH Wolverine Federal 12-31-30TF2H Wolverine Federal 16-31-30TF3H Wolverine Federal 17-31-30TF3H d x m . 6 1 0 2 8 1 4 0 _ r e t t e L g n i p o c S - 3 F \ g n i p

o C c

S o \ d u x n Harms B m \ ) t Harms Federal 12-32H 1

y e k One additional well yet to be named a R L o A

P a B

( d t

e 6 m p Proposed Well Pad Expansion o 3 l

e T152NR 94W

v 2 e Proposed New Well Pads D f o

n Proposed Access Roads a l P r

e Proposed Utility Corridor t s a M

Existing Utility Corridor

S 2015 Aerial Photograph (Source: ND GIS Hub) F

S Township U

8 2

\ 0 550 1,100 Feet

2 Section 9 6 2 \

S Little Missouri National Grasslands I G \ : Date: 4/18/2016 Time: 1:13:54 PM User: AskJD0431 J

: ± h t a P CONTINENTAL AND SLAWSON APR 2016 Proposed Action Figure 3 8 9 10 11 12 Charolais B Charolais Federal South 6-10H Charolais Federal South 7-10H1 Charolais Federal South 8-10H Charolais A Charolais Federal South 9-10H2 Charolais Federal South 1-10H Charolais Federal South 10-10H Charolais Federal South 2-10H2 Charolais Federal South 11-10H Charolais Federal South 3-10H Charolais Federal South 4-10H1 Charolais Federal South 5-10H

17 Charolais CTB 16 15 14 13

Brangus A Brangus Federal 2-11H2 d x Brangus Federal 3-11H m . 6

1 Brangus Federal 4-11H 0 2

8 Brangus Federal 5-11H 1

4 Brangus Federal 6-11H1 0 _ r

e Brangus Federal 7-11H t t e

L Brangus Federal 8-11H2 g n

i Brangus Federal 9-11H p T153NR 94W o

c Brangus Federal 10-11H1 S -

4 Brangus Federal 11-11H F \ g Four additional wells yet to be named n i p o c S \ d x m \ ) 1

20 e k

a 21 L 22 A

P 23 B (

24 t n e m p o l e v e D f o

n Proposed New Well Pads a l P r

e Proposed Access Road and Utility Corridor (USFS) t s a M

Proposed Access Road and Utility Corridor (Private)

S 2015 Aerial Photograph (Source: ND GIS Hub) F

S Township U

8 2

\ 0 1,250 2,500 Feet

2 Section 9 6 2 \ 29

S 28 Little Missouri National Grasslands I 27

G 26 \ : Date: 4/18/2016 Time: 1:20:55 PM User: AskJD0431 25 J

: ± h t a P CONTINENTAL APR 2016 Proposed Action Figure 4 Scoping Distribution List Antelope Master Development Plan Environmental Assessment McKenzie County, North Dakota

Entity or Name (First, Last) Name or Title Federal Agencies U.S. Forest Service Grasslands Supervisor Theodore Roosevelt National Park Wendy Ross Natural Resources Conservation Service Kyle Hartel U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Kevin Shelley State of North Dakota North Dakota Forest Service Larry Kotchman North Dakota State University Extension Service Karla Ryan North Dakota Game and Fish Department Steve Dyke North Dakota Industrial Commission Lynn Helms North Dakota Department of Trust Lands Mike Brand North Dakota Parks and Recreation Department Kathy Duttenhefner Counties McKenzie County Auditor Groups, Clubs & Organizations In-State Badlands Conservation Alliance Jan Swenson North Dakota Wildlife Federation Wildlife Society, North Dakota Chapter Todd Frerichs Sierra Club/Teddy Roosevelt Group Wayde Schafer Society for Range Management, ND Chapter Mike Brand Groups, Clubs & Organizations Out of State Natural Resources Defense Council Sharon Buccino Wild Sheep Foundation Kevin Hurley Grazing Associations McKenzie County Grazing Association Jodi Chinn Petroleum Industry Continental Resources, Inc. Jim Canon Whiting Oil and Gas Corporation M Media Minot Daily News Eloise Ogden Individuals/Businesses Lori Gefroh Deborah Reichman Dick Artley Robert Ceynar Lynn Dewhirst Tim Dwyer John Heiser Angelen Larson Virginia Leland Ardehl Leland

1 Entity or Name (First, Last) Name or Title Darrel Minow Gary Mittlestadt Walter Piehl Fred Price Harold Rolfsrud Kathy Skarda

2 Date of Entity Comment Response Comment Topic Comment BCA 5/27/2016 Mapping of oil development must include Refer to Section 2.4 - Proposed Action Alternative, for a proposed development plans including sub- detailed description of the Proposed Action. Pre-drilling surface laterals in order for the public to make information on sub-surface laterals is confidential and appropriate comments on siting, extent of cannot be provided to the public. Operators must lateral reach, and the degree of ingenuity and follow requirements based on leases and North Dakota efficiency in planning. Industrial Commission (NDIC) regulations related to spacing. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) (or Project Design, NDIC for private minerals) is responsible for approving Geology Applications for Permit to Drill (APDs) which includes standard Best Management Practices (BMPs), USFS Conditions of Approval (COAs) and a review of well casing and other drilling components.

BCA 5/27/2016 What are the direct, indirect and cumulative Effects to the Antelope Creek State Wildlife impacts to the Antelope Creek State Wildlife Management Area (WMA) are discussed in Section 3.6 - Wildlife Management Area? Biological Resources. BCA 5/27/2016 What are the impacts to Dakota Skipper Critical Effects to Dakota Skipper and Dakota Skipper Critical Habitat in North Dakota Units 11 and 12? Habitat are described in the Biological Assessment Include consultation findings from the US Fish (Wenck 2016) and Biological Opinion for the Project Threatened & and Wildlife Service and include analysis of (Shelley 2017) and summarized in Section 3.6 - Endangered associated indirect impacts due to industrial Biological Resources, of the EA. The Biological Species traffic and fugitive dust. Assessment and Biological Opinion are available in the Project Record.

Page 1 Date of Entity Comment Response Comment Topic Comment BCA 5/27/2016 Include findings from consultation with the ND Consultation with the NDGF is included in Appendix A, Game and Fish Department for wildlife species Public Scoping Responses, and summarized in this and habitat. NDGF mapped golden eagle table, Comment 81. NDGF concerns included proximity primary breeding habitat and primary range for to the Antelope Creek State WMA and effects to least Wildlife antelope exist in the area. terns and piping plovers. Effects to golden eagles and antelope are described in Section 3.6 - Biological Resources.

BCA 5/27/2016 Include findings from consultation with the The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) was Army Corps of Engineers. consulted on the Project (see Appendix A). The Water operator is required to obtain all state and federal Resources permits where required. BCA 5/27/2016 Are there other lease holders within these Yes. Section 2.1 - Development of Alternatives, includes areas that have not signed on to this proposed a description of the development of the MDP area and AMP? earlier alternatives that included another leaseholder. Project Design, All companies in the MDP area were invited to Alternatives participate and only those with proposed activities are included.

BCA 5/27/2016 What is the potential for additional rightful but All proposed ground-disturbing activites in the MDP separate development? area have been included in the proposed action and/or Cumulative have been covered in the cumulative effects analysis. Effects

Page 2 Date of Entity Comment Response Comment Topic Comment BCA 5/27/2016 What influence and impacts - directly, Planning decisions were based on several factors, indirectly and cumulatively - have existing wells discussed in Section 2.1 - Development of Alternatives. within the areas demarcated on Figure 1 and The Project was designed by siting pads, roads, and outside those areas had on the planning utilities along existing roads and within previously decisions? disturbed areas to the extent possible, including the Cumulative consideration of siting wells/pads on private land Effects, Project where possible. Cumulative actions, including existing Design wells, are discussed in Section 3.1.4 - Cumulative Actions; cumulative effects are discussed within each Resource section.

BCA 5/27/2016 What additional associated infrastructure is Infrastructure associated with the Project is detailed in anticipated in these areas and the surrounding Section 2.4 - Proposed Action Alternative. Cumulative vicinity? Infrastructure associated with cumulative actions is Effects, discussed in Section 3.1.4 - Cumulative Actions. Infrastructure

BCA 5/27/2016 What attention has been paid to the status of All proposed ground-disturbing activites in the MDP existing pipelines in the vicinity: for instance, area have been included in the proposed action and/or Cumulative Targa, Hess, Tesoro, Dakota Gas, Tesoro High have been covered in the cumulative effects analysis. Effects, Plains and ONEOK. Infrastructure

Page 3 Date of Entity Comment Response Comment Topic Comment BCA 5/27/2016 BCA participated in an energy tour led by then Part of the impetus for master development planning District Ranger Frederick and then district was to include replacement of aging infrastructure, minerals manager Dave Valenzuela including pipelines, in the planning process. Utility demonstrating aging, exposed and inadequate upgrades that are part of the proposed action are Cumulative pipelines in the vicinity. We understood at the described in Section 2.4.2.3 - Proposed Action Effects, time that these limitations were to be Alternative, Production Phase. District-wide Infrastructure, addressed as part of the Antelope MDP infastructure upgrades are limited to other lease Project Design, process. How has that been addressed? owner/operator proposals that are not part of the MDP Alternatives area and are not a connected action. The Antelope MDP area itself has, for the most part, newer infrastructure and/or is largely undeveloped.

BCA 5/27/2016 What unique timing and traffic coordination is Well drilling will be staged and is not expected to occur planned for coordinating drilling of 54 new all at one time. In fact, development may take several wells in this area as regards protecting public years. Certain types of traffic would be limited to one and worker safety? time mobilization or demobilization (Section 2.4.2 - Description of Project Actions). BMPs (see Section 2.4.3 Public Safety - Design Features and BMPs) would help maintain road conditions, visibility, and air quality to help protect the public and workers.

BCA 5/27/2016 What is the source for water to be used in Water for drilling and fracturing would be trucked or drilling, in hydraulic fracturing? piped overland with temporary lines (for freshwater) to the site from an existing state-permitted commercial or Water private water depot (refer to Section 2.4.2 - Description Resources of Project Actions).

BCA 5/27/2016 What is the plan for disposal of produced Produced water will be trucked or piped off-site to a Water Quality, waters? state-permitted disposal facility per NDIC regulations Water (refer to Section 2.4.2 - Description of Project Actions). Resources

Page 4 Date of Entity Comment Response Comment Topic Comment BCA 5/27/2016 What emergency and spill plans are in place for Refer to Section 2.4.3 - Design Features and BMPs for this relatively isolated location? complete list of BMPs related to spill prevention. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Water Quality, (NPDES) permit would be required for the construction Water of each well pad. For producing wells, a site-specific Resources SPCC Plan would be developed and implemented to conform with the general requirements of the SPCC Rule under 40 CFR Part 112.

BCA 5/27/2016 How will mapped oil and gas No Surface This is not a leasing decision; mapped lease stipulations Occupancy and Timing Limitation stipulations such as No Surface Occupancy are applied during be addressed in Figure 4? leasing decisions. The proposed action would comply with lease stipulations, but would include additional BMPs and Conditions of Approval deemed necessary for protection of the environment or particular species. Refer to Section 2.4.3 - Design Features and BMPs for complete list of stipulations applied. Project Wildlife disturbance would avoid No Surface Occupancy areas. Timing Limitation stipulations on construction, drilling, completion, and reclamation would apply for the Dakota skipper flight period and near sharp-tailed grouse display grounds; other Timing Limitations may apply based on annual survey results.

Page 5 Date of Entity Comment Response Comment Topic Comment BCA 5/27/2016 What plans will be in place for addressing Refer to Section 2.4.3 - Design Features and BMPs, fugitive dust, noise, lighting and air quality? which include practices to minimize effects such as dust abatement, construction timing, and others. Also refer Air Quality, to Section 2.4.2 - Description of Project Actions, for Noise, Visual description of the anticipated duration, extent, and intensity of lighting and traffic.

BCA 5/27/2016 What plans will be in place for short and long Refer to details in Section 2.4.2.3 - Production Phase, term inspection and monitoring of this and Section 2.4.3 - Design Features and BMPs, for relatively isolated area? complete list of BMPs related to inspection and monitoring. Industry standard inspection, testing, and monitoring would be done during the production phase to ensure pipeline integrity and minimize the possibility of leaks and spills. Production sites would be monitored on-site regularly to detect erosion problems, monitor Spill Prevention tank levels, and ensure Project facilities are operating & Monitoring correctly. Remote monitoring on a 24-hour basis via a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) System would be used to monitor tanks levels, production facilities, and flow lines, with the ability to immediately detect abnormalities.

Page 6 Date of Entity Comment Response Comment Topic Comment BCA 5/27/2016 A number of the proposed well pads lie at, Refer to Section 2.4.3 - Design Features and BMPs, for a beside or in near proximity to drainages complete list of water resource protection measures. leading immediately into the Missouri River. Effects to surface waters are discussed in Section 3.5 - What precautions, as impermeable pads and Water Resources. Each well pad would be surrounded diking, will be in place to protect this by a two-foot high berm during drilling and production invaluable resource? to prevent migration of contaminants to surface Water Quality waters. Storage tanks during drilling or production would be surrounded by either steel containment or earthen berms designed to hold 100 percent of the volume of the largest tank plus one day of production.

BCA 5/27/2016 BCA would like clarification as to why non- The NDIC determines the need for and approval of contiguous surface and non-contiguous spacing spacing units, which is beyond the scope of this site- units appear to be the best attainable results specific development proposal. Project Design of this planning process.

BCA 5/27/2016 One of the anticipated gains for master The MDP process for this Project has resulted in development planning that would likewise combining well pads, minimizing the numbers of wells benefit wildlife, humans and landscape values for development of the leases, and using existing was the potential for shared infrastructure and infrastructure to the extent possible. These Infrastructure, ensuing economic efficiencies. While considerations have minimized effects on DPG Economics respecting the privacy of individual operators, resources and resulted in reduced costs to operators. BCA would like to see an economic analysis Refer to Section 2.1 - Development of Alternatives. that demonstrates the result, if any.

Page 7 Date of Entity Comment Response Comment Topic Comment BCA 9/30/2015 Adequately analyze the economics and These planning considerations for the DPG and the practicalities of the Dakota Prairie Grasslands region as a whole are beyond the scope of this site- itself to determine capabilities for executing specific development proposal. management direction, including staffing numbers and oil and gas expertise as impacted Economics by western North Dakota’s competitive hiring climate, the range of willing applicants and even the ongoing loss of institutional memory.

BCA 9/30/2015 Revisit techniques for implementing enhanced Conditions of Approval are included for Project SUPOs protections of the resource including and APDs. Numerous agencies have permitting aggressive Conditions of Approval and USFS authority for development in the MDP area and have Mitigation authority on phased development. been consulted.

Page 8 Date of Entity Comment Response Comment Topic Comment BCA 9/30/2015 Engage and incorporate the expertise of all Applicable permitting and regulatory agencies have natural resource agencies, federal and state, been consulted for the Project. Refer to Section 4.0 - associated with managing water, air quality, Consultation and Preparers and Appendix A - Scoping. wildlife, recreation and tourism including the National Park Service, ND Game and Fish, US Fish and Wildlife Service, ND Department of Health, State Water Commission, the State Historical Society of ND, the ND Department of Trust Lands and ND Parks and Recreation. Consultation Similarly, social and law enforcement agencies, and local, state and federal, should be consulted in Coordination assessing cultural and socio-economic impacts. BCA has repeatedly found that the USFS underestimates its level of inter-agency communications as is expected and sought by sister and related agencies.

BCA 9/30/2015 Include adequate analysis of impacts to The National Park Service (NPS) has been consulted protected areas such as the three units of during this project and has not expressed concerns over Theodore Roosevelt National Park. Include Theodore Roosevelt National Park. We have also had visitor expectations, impacts of neighboring discussions with the NPS over the Lewis and Clark Trail habitat fragmentation and degradation, related to this Project. Effects to recreation, air quality, development activities that degrade Class I air visual resources, and effects of noise are addressed in Recreation, Land quality, soundscapes, viewscapes and night respective sections of Chapter 3.0 - Affected Use, Air Quality, skies. Environment and Environmental Consequences. A Noise, Visual Viewshed Analysis and Visual Impact Assessment (Brooks 2017) were also completed for the Project which is included in the Project Record.

Page 9 Date of Entity Comment Response Comment Topic Comment BCA 9/30/2015 Include adequate analysis for direct, indirect Cumulative actions in the MDP area, including and cumulative impacts not merely of well infrastructure, are described in Section 3.1.4 - pads, but of all associated infrastructure within Cumulative Actions. Cumulative effects have been the boundaries of the LMNG on both private addressed in Chapter 3.0 - Affected Environment and Infrastructure and federal surface and indirect and Environmental Consequences, for each resource area. cumulative impacts associated with the larger geographical area of the Bakken.

BCA 9/30/2015 Include adequate analysis of pipeline systems The Proposed Action describes proposed utilities and including crude, fresh water, produced waters pipeline infrastructure (refer to Section 2.4 - Proposed Agriculture, and natural gas. Address impacts on Action Alternative). Direct, indirect, and cumulative Infrastructure, agriculture, wildlife habitat and public health effects within the MDP area, related to associated Public Health and safety. infrastructure, have been addressed in Chapter 3.0 - and Safety, Affected Environment and Environmental Wildlife Consequences, for each resource area.

BCA 9/30/2015 Include adequate analysis of waste disposal COAs specifically address waste (Table 2.3 in Section whether on federal or intermingled private 2.4.3 - Design Features and BMPs). Effects of waste lands. water disposal are discussed in Section 3.5 - Water Waste Resources. Public health and safety concerns are addressed in Section 3.10 with regard to waste materials.

Page 10 Date of Entity Comment Response Comment Topic Comment BCA 9/30/2015 Include adequate analysis of flaring of natural The NDIC regulates methane waste and capture, which gas. Include a range of scenarios typifying minimizes use of flaring. Flaring is generally limited to terrain limitations, oil price fluctuations and completion activities and is temporary in nature until gathering system operations. Include impacts the wells are put into production. Production facilities to air quality, royalty economics and lost for the Project are included in the Proposed Action or energy sources. Include impacts to night skies, are existing, which further minimizes the time that wildlife movement, and scenic vistas. Include wells may be flared (refer to Section 2.4 - Proposed Air Quality, impacts of flaring (waste of an energy Action Alternative). Flaring as it relates to air quality is Economics, resource) in North Dakota on a national and addressed in Section 3.2 - Air Quality. Flaring and other Visual, Wildlife global scale that reflects transformative Project activities may be visible on the landscape and industrial development of other home are addressed in Section 3.8 - Recreation and Visual landscapes. Resources. Effects on wildlife related to habitat disturbance and potential displacement is discussed in Section 3.6 - Biological Resources.

Page 11 Date of Entity Comment Response Comment Topic Comment BCA 9/30/2015 Include adequate analysis of direct, indirect The Project is not near the the Little Missouri River. and cumulative impacts to water, both quality Watersheds affected feed the Missouri River. Refer to and quantity, groundwater and surface. State Section 3.5 - Water Resources for a description of the permitting of water removal from the Little affected environment and environmental Missouri River impacts the hydrological system consequences of the Proposed Action. Refer to Section within the drainage and should be analyzed; as 2.4.3 - Design Features and BMPs for complete list of should withdrawal from impoundments of all BMPs related to spill prevention. For producing wells, a creeks within drainages that transverse federal site-specific SPCC Plan would be developed and land. Potential spills of both crude and brine, implemented to conform with the general Water Quality, and intentional or accidental dumping, requirements of the SPCC Rule under 40 CFR Part 112. Water Quantity whether on roads or at well sites, must be For freshwater needs during drilling and fracturing, incorporated. Analysis should include the most water would be trucked or piped overland with recent information on movement of injected temporary lines to the site from an existing state- waters contaminated by hydraulic fracturing. permitted commercial or private water depot; surface waters within the Project area would not be used (refer to Section 2.4.2 - Description of Project Actions).

Page 12 Date of Entity Comment Response Comment Topic Comment BCA 9/30/2015 Include analysis of direct, indirect and Traffic, noise, and dust are addressed in Section 3.2 - cumulative impacts from road building, Air Quality, Section 3.9 - Noise, and Section 3.10 - increased traffic and associated vehicle Public Health and Safety. DPG Travel Management emissions, noise and dust. BCA understands planning addresses the public road system and is that the USFS is again entering into a Roads beyond the scope of this decision. This Project does not Analysis in order to satisfy the mandate for a add roads to the public system and uses only existing Air Quality, Travel Management Plan, however, that public roads. We are not proposing the use of gravel Noise, Public proposed action cannot be held separate from pits or roads associated with them here; therefore, the Health and the need in this analysis to look at proliferation comment on gravel mining is not relevant to the Safety, of road access for oil and gas, particularly as to Project. Infrastructure potential for limiting direct, indirect and cumulative impacts. Include analysis of the potential proliferation of gravel mining and its impacts.

BCA 9/30/2015 Include adequate analysis of air quality as it Effects to air quality are addressed in Section 3.2 - Air relates to methane emissions, VOCs Quality. accumulated and released at well sites and associated with Bakken crude, fugitive dust Air Quality and the production of greenhouse gas emissions from flaring, on site equipment and increased traffic.

Page 13 Date of Entity Comment Response Comment Topic Comment BCA 9/30/2015 Include existing and ongoing studies available Effects to wildlife, including mule deer and sharp-tailed from the ND Game and Fish Department grouse, are addressed in Section 3.6 - Biological (NDGF) on impacts to wildlife. In particular the Resources. Reference to studies are included if May 2011 Potential Impacts of Oil and Gas applicable. Development on Select North Dakota Natural Resources available at http://gf.nd.gov/sites/default/files/publication s/specialty-publications/directors-report-oil- Wildlife gasmay-2011.pdf , the ongoing mule deer study: An Evaluation of Historical Mule Deer Fawn Recruitment in ND, March 2014, and the ongoing sharp-tailed grouse nesting study cooperatively under NDGF and UND biology professor Dr. Susan Felege.

BCA 9/30/2015 Include consultation with the USFWS and their Consultation was completed with the USFWS in analysis regarding the recent listing of the September 2017. Effects to threatened and endangered Northern Long-Eared Bat and Dakota Skipper species are described in the Biological Assessment as threatened species under the Endangered (Wenck 2016) and Biological Opinion for the Project Species Act. Additionally, Theodore Roosevelt (Shelley 2017) and summarized in Section 3.6 - National Park now has nesting bald eagles Biological Resources, of the EA. The Biological Threatened & within Park boundaries, which suggests they Assessment and Biological Opinion are available in the Endangered are also nesting within the LMNG. Project Record. The DPG has bald eagles which are Species addressed under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act in Section 3.6 - Biological Resources; bald eagles were delisted from the ESA June 28, 2007.

Page 14 Date of Entity Comment Response Comment Topic Comment BCA 9/30/2015 Include analysis of Forest Service capabilities to Monitoring and inspections are required for properly inspect and monitor development construction and on-going production activities to Monitoring, whether that be site specific, construction and ensure compliance with lease terms, BMPs and COAs Public Safety maintenance of access roads, or the broader (for summary refer to Table 2.3 in Section 2.4.3 - BCA 9/30/2015 Include adequate analysis of impacts Project proposals are made at such time as operators generated by current low oil and gas prices are willing to develop their leases, which may be a that may be authorized by the state of North function of a variety of factors including economics, Dakota but carrying repercussion to the which could result in approved wells not being drilled. Grasslands. For example, industry has The DPG does not approve APD extensions on drilling; Economics proposed extension of the one-year deadline that is the role of the BLM and/or NDIC. requiring completion of wells drilled but not yet hydraulically fractured and producing.

BCA 9/30/2015 Include analysis of the impacts and costs (both This is a site-specific proposal. Regional and national monetary and ecological) to the USFS and trends are beyond the scope of this analysis. LMNG should the current low price remain for an extended period of time as a contrast to Economics current direction. Include a range of development scenarios from boom to bust.

BCA 9/30/2015 Include reassessment of Scenic Integrity This is a site-specific proposal. Effects to visual decisions in the current LRMP based on the resources in the Project area and MDP area, which has pervasive and transformative landscape scale existing oil and gas infrastructure and development, are development that hydraulic fracturing allows. addressed in Section 3.8 - Recreation and Visual Visual There is no longer an over-the-next-hill option. Resources. A Viewshed Analysis and Visual Impact Assessment (Brooks 2017) were also completed for the Project which is included in the Project Record.

Page 15 Date of Entity Comment Response Comment Topic Comment BCA 9/30/2015 Include analysis to consider USFS The 2002 LRMP made determinations regarding recommendation for Wilderness of those areas wilderness suitability and designated management area Land Use managed currently as 1.2a Suitable for 1.2a. This proposal is not within management area 1.2a Wilderness based on agricultural, wildlife, and the NPS has not expressed concern regarding this WWF, BCA, 3/18/2015 The SEIS process thus far has systematically The adequacy of the DPG Oil & Gas SEIS is beyond the NDCTWS, et lacked opportunities for public involvement. scope of this site-specific NEPA analysis. al. Recommendation: USFS should carry out one of the primary purposes of NEPA and provide more opportunities for public engagement in the SEIS process, including but not limited to DPG Oil & Gas an opportunity to make scoping comments as SEIS: NEPA well as the much-delayed opening of a formal Adequacy comment period on the SEIS. (See complete letter in Appendix A for further detail pertaining to this comment.)

Page 16 Date of Entity Comment Response Comment Topic Comment WWF, BCA, 3/18/2015 USFS’ decision to assess only the remaining 5% The adequacy of the DPG Oil & Gas SEIS is beyond the NDCTWS, et of the DPG that is unleased is too narrow a scope of this site-specific NEPA analysis. al. focus. The status and provisions of existing leases have not been fully explored. 1. Recommendation: USFS should consider more than the remaining 5% of lands unleased; instead, the SEIS should review all leased lands and take a hard look at the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of O&G development. 2. Recommendation: For leases that will expire, USFS should not grant extensions and should consider either making the land unavailable to leasing or implementing additional stipulations DPG Oil & Gas for future leases. 3. Recommendation: The SEIS SEIS: Scope of should analyze all lease provisions and Analysis stipulations issued under the current LRMP and before. This analysis should fully explore the flexibility USFS and BLM have to ensure environmental protection measures are in place and address unanticipated impacts to the maximum extent possible, and should consider halting future leasing until a new LRMP is completed. 4. Recommendation: USFS and BLM should exercise their authority in existing leases to influence the pace and nature of development on leased lands based on current circumstances and drastically changed conditions. (See complete letter in Appendix A

Page 17 Date of Entity Comment Response Comment Topic Comment WWF, BCA, 3/18/2015 The draft RFD is inadequate and representative The adequacy of the 2013 Draft RFD Scenario is beyond NDCTWS, et of the entire SEIS process thus far. 1. the scope of this site-specific NEPA analysis. al. Recommendation: USFS should provide details on what information or analyses underscores the estimates and conclusions laid out in the draft RFD. 2. Recommendation: Considering what data we know went into the RFD, USFS should conduct more in-depth analyses, which correctly measure the pace of development and characterize industry methods and their associated environmental impacts accurately. 3. Recommendation: The RFD should address the effects of multiple wells per pad in detail as 2013 Draft RFD well as the potential number of wells and pads Scenario: Scope in spacing units across the Bakken. 4. of Analysis Recommendation: The RFD should analyze more thoroughly the potential effects of predicted development, considering the landscape scale impacts as the DPG is further developed and fragmented. In particular, the effects that increased flaring would have on air quality should be addressed in the RFD and SEIS. (See complete letter in Appendix A for further detail pertaining to this comment.)

Page 18 Date of Entity Comment Response Comment Topic Comment WWF, BCA, 3/18/2015 The SEIS provides an opportunity to adapt The adequacy of the DPG Oil & Gas SEIS is beyond the NDCTWS, et management in the face of rapid development; scope of this site-specific NEPA analysis. al. it should be done right. 1. Recommendation: The SEIS must serve more than a procedural purpose. Rather, it should ensure that the analysis of O&G development is appropriately comprehensive and thorough. 2. Recommendation: The Federal Register Notice’s ‘Purpose and Need for Action’ should be expanded to analyze the changed conditions and circumstances of the Bakken oil field development and the substantial technological DPG Oil & Gas changes that have occurred in the O&G SEIS: Scope of industry since 2001 that have allowed for the Analysis expansion of oil and gas industry. 3. Recommendation: The SEIS should consider the substantial technological changes that have occurred in the O&G industry since 2001. Additionally, it should consider all lease types (e.g. those held by production, those set to expire, unleased lands) and include the rapid growth in development on private land and the pace of public lands leased, as NEPA demands. 4. Recommendation: The SEIS should look at landscape scale impacts as well as conduct traffic, air quality, water quality, and wildlife analyses. (See complete letter in Appendix A

Page 19 Date of Entity Comment Response Comment Topic Comment WWF, BCA, 3/18/2015 The MDP “process” cannot serve in lieu of a The MDP process is not being used in lieu of NEPA NDCTWS, et robust NEPA process. Recommendation: A compliance, but rather as a way to complete adequate al. robust NEPA process, which accurately NEPA analysis for proposed projects that would considers energy development on the otherwise have individual NEPA analyses. The SEIS is a grasslands and existing leasing stipulations, grassland-wide planning effort that is being NEPA Adequacy, should take place before any MDP “process" is accomplished separately from the MDP process, MDP process launched or crafted. (See complete letter in though MDP will be considered during the completion Appendix A for further detail pertaining to this of the SEIS as a way to more thoroughly and effectively comment.) comply with NEPA. While the SEIS is underway, the USFS is legally required to respond to Surface Use Plans of Operation (SUPO) that are submitted in conjunction

Page 20 Date of Entity Comment Response Comment Topic Comment WWF, BCA, 3/18/2015 The MDP plan for the DPG has not been fully The adequacy of the MDP process is beyond the scope NDCTWS, et thought out. What has been presented of this site-specific NEPA analysis. al. informally needs significant revisions in order to be successful. 1. Recommendation: USFS should provide greater incentives to ensure industry involvement and cooperation. 2. Recommendation: Future MDPs should be larger to facilitate timely adaptive management and implement effective landscape-scale planning. 3. Recommendation: In addition to considering areas of heaviest MDP Process development first, USFS should also deem areas of ecological concern as priority areas. 4. Recommendation: USFS should take steps to ensure transparency and public involvement throughout the MDP process. (See complete letter in Appendix A for further detail pertaining to this comment.)

Page 21 Date of Entity Comment Response Comment Topic Comment WWF, BCA, 3/18/2015 USFS has not adequately coordinated with Applicable permitting and regulatory agencies have NDCTWS, et cooperating and participating agencies. been consulted for the Project. Refer to Section 4.0 - al. Greater Consultation and Preparers and Appendix A - Scoping. collaboration with State and Federal agencies will enable a comprehensive NEPA process and alleviate staffing issues. Recommendation: Consultation USFS should do its part to work more closely and with key State and Federal agencies to ensure Coordination better management of the grasslands and alleviate staffing issues. (See complete letter in Appendix A for further detail pertaining to this comment.)

Page 22 Date of Entity Comment Response Comment Topic Comment NDCTWS 5/21/2016 Our first concern is the appropriateness of or Refer to Section 2.1 - Development of Alternatives, and the validity of the proposed MDP. At first read, Section 2.2 - Alternatives Considered but Eliminated, this proposal for 54 new oil wells on ten for a description of the process leading up to the existing and new oil pads and a new tank current scope of the MDP. The MDP boundary began battery covers three separate locations in based on an ecological boundary of connected three different townships. There appears to be subwatersheds. The developments are in different no connection between the developments in townships but are within the same watershed, a each of the townships. The proposed new naturally delimited area on the landscape. Leaseholders wells are submitted by three different oil within the MDP area were asked to propose any plans companies, and from the accompanying maps, for the next 5-10 years, which is a reasonably Project Design there are numerous other wells owned by foreseeable development window. This proposal other companies interspersed among all the emcompasses all company needs at this time. This MDP new proposed wells. There is no suggestion is for the purposes of planning infrastructure and that this is the ultimate or final development access needs and is not intended to be the only analysis proposed for these three townships, as the that occurs on the DPG to allow development concept of a master development plan would indefinitely. imply.

Page 23 Date of Entity Comment Response Comment Topic Comment NDCTWS 5/21/2016 Second, our multi-organization letter of March The MDP process is not being used in lieu of NEPA 18, 2015 to Acting Regional Director Schmid, compliance, but rather as a way to complete adequate copy attached, expressed our concerns about NEPA analysis for proposed projects that would the U.S. Forest Service using the MDP process otherwise have individual NEPA analyses. Part of the in lieu of NEPA compliance. As discussed in the impetus for master development planning was to March 18, 2015 letter, the MDP process seems include replacement of aging infrastructure, including to be piecemeal, and until this public notice, pipelines, in the planning process. Analysis of there has been no public input. The Dakota infrastructure is limited by submission of formal Prairie Grassland (DPG) staff explained to the proposals. Utility upgrades that are part of the Chapter and other conservation organizations proposed action are described in Section 2.4.2.3 - during meetings and on field trips in 2014, that Proposed Action Alternative, Production Phase. While NEPA Adequacy the MDP process was going to be used to plan there is aging infrastructure in the vicinity of the and coordinate replacement and maintenance Antelope MDP area, the area itself has primarily new of much of the 850 miles of 40-50 year infrastructure; large portions are undeveloped with no pipelines in the McKenzie District. This MDP infrastructure and no anticipated need for future appears to be an effort to facilitate permitting infrastructure. large numbers of new wells without adequate NEPA coverage.

Page 24 Date of Entity Comment Response Comment Topic Comment NDCTWS 5/21/2016 Third, we question the appropriatenes of The SEIS is a grassland-wide planning effort that is moving forward with the MDP process without being accomplished separately from the MDP process, having completed the SEIS document proposed though MDP will be considered during the completion in 2015, or more appropriately, a new DEIS on of the SEIS as a way to more thoroughly and effectively the updated oil and gas development on the comply with NEPA. While the SEIS is underway, the DPG. Our September 30, 2015 letter (copy USFS is legally required to respond to Surface Use Plans NEPA Adequacy attached) to Supervisor Neitzke discussed this of Operation (SUPO) that are submitted in conjunction concern. We ask that both of these letters be with a valid mineral right and must proceed with the entered as comments regarding the Antelope form of NEPA analysis that is currently in place. This EA MDP. fulfill's the agency's requirements for NEPA.

NDCTWS 5/21/2016 Fourth, the 2013 draft Reasonable and The adequacy of the 2013 Draft RFD Scenario is beyond Foreseeable Development Scenario (RFD) was the scope of this site-specific NEPA analysis. RFD inadequate, and should be revised to more scenarios are not used for approval of SUPOs or APDs, accurately describe the levels of oil and gas but rather to try to predict effects where site-specific development expected in the future on the proposals do not exist; they may be updated at any DPG. This proposal proves the inadequacy of time. This EA is disclosing site-specific effects of the the 2013 RFD, which largely just proposed Antelope MDP Project's proposed development in more development along the same concept as order to respond to specific proposals. NEPA Adequacy oil development described in the 2003 RFD. This proposal includes multi-well pads with 5 to 14 wells per pad. This level of development was never described in the 2003 RFD or draft 2013 RFD.

Page 25 Date of Entity Comment Response Comment Topic Comment NDCTWS 5/21/2016 We support the idea of multi-pad use and The effects of the Project, using multi-well pads, are clustering wells together where possible and disclosed in Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and appropriate. The proposed development in Environmental Consequences. The use of single-well Figure 3, locating 24 new wells on old and new pads was not formally proposed for the Project pads along the section line on the south side of because it causes more acres of disturbance. Section Sections 31 and 32 illustrate this point. We 2.2 - Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from believe the EA for the Antelope MDP should Detailed Analysis, documents how some of the Project Design, analyze the impacts and/or potential impacts proposals were refined to eliminate additional well pad Alternatives of a reduced "footprint" by multi-pads versus locations and/or wells. the concentrated impacts of more disturbance and development in a concentrated corridor.

NDCTWS 5/21/2016 The proposed development shown in Figure 3 Effects to Biological Resources are summarized in shows 13 oil pads and an estimated 48 (range Section 3.6 - Biological Resources. Additional 40-50) wells located along a mile and a half of information and analyses are included in the project road. The draft EA should describe the impacts record in the Biological Assessment, Biological from traffic, noise, disturbance, "fugitive" dust, Evaluation and USFWS's Biological Opinion. Air Quality, and other indirect factors on wildlife and the Infrastructure, plant community with this level of industrial Noise, development. A similar analysis should be Vegetation, presented for the proposed new development Wildlife in Sections 10, 14, and 15 shown in Figure 4; 25 new wells and a new tank battery located on the end of a new road.

Page 26 Date of Entity Comment Response Comment Topic Comment NDCTWS 5/21/2016 The spacing units for oil development are not Spacing unit boundaries can be obtained from the shown in the Antelope MDP. Are these well NDIC. Operators must follow requirements based on locations the most suitable and least intrusive leases and NDIC regulations. Siting of wells, well pads, to access the private and federal minerals in and access routes was based on several factors, these locations, or are there more suitable discussed in Section 2.1 - Development of Alternatives. locations with fewer impacts that should be Multiple other alternatives for well pads and roads Project Design, selected? have been considered throughout the process, as Alternatives summarized in Section 2.2 - Alternatives Considered. Individual well information may be considered confidential until after drilled and producing.

NDCTWS 5/21/2016 As discussed in our September 30, 2015, letter While there is aging infrastructure in the vicinity of the and as discussed with DPG staff in 2014, is this Antelope MDP area, the area itself has primarily new level of new development compatible with the infrastructure. Large portions that are undeveloped 40-50 year old pipelines for oil, gas, and with no infrastructure may remain undeveloped. produced water, in this area? This area has had a history of spills and leaks, 36 spills over 8 years prior to our field trip and meeting with Infrastructure DPG staff in 2014. Do the old pipelines have the capacity and the strength to handle these levels of new and additional development and production?

NDCTWS 5/21/2016 The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is The Project would follow current, applicable State and developing new guidelines for flaring of natural Federal rules and regulations for flaring during the Air Quality, gas. The ND Oil and Gas Division issued a new production stage of each well. Mitigation, state policy on flaring. How will level of new Consultation and additional development be incorporated and with these guidelines? Coordination

Page 27 Date of Entity Comment Response Comment Topic Comment NDCTWS 5/21/2016 The Chapter asks that the USFS consult with Formal Section 7 consultation under the Endangered the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the Dakota Species Act (ESA) was initiated with the U.S. Fish and Skipper and on other Endangered Species Act Wildlife Service (USFWS) for the Dakota skipper which considerations. resulted in a Biological Opinion and Incidental Take Threatened & Permit for the Project (Shelley 2017). Informal Endangered consultation for other threatened and endangered Species species is documented in a concurrence letter from the USFWS, included in the project record.

NDCTWS 5/21/2016 We suggest that the USFS consult with the Consultation with the NDGF is included in Appendix A, North Dakota Game and Fish Department on Public Scoping Responses, and summarized in this impacts to meadowlarks, sharp-tailed grouse, table, Comment 81. NDGF concerns included proximity mule deer, and other wildlife species of to the Antelope Creek State WMA and effects to least concern described in the updated State terns and piping plovers. Effects to wildlife species of Wildlife Action Plan. Similarly the GFD should concern and the Antelope Creek State WMA are Wildlife be consulted with on potential impacts to the described in Section 3.6 - Biological Resources. Antelope Creek Wildlife Management Area located within a half-mile or less of the proposed wells in 10, 14, and 15, T. 153, R. 94, Figure 4.

NDCTWS 5/21/2016 We also suggest coordinating with the U. S. The USACE was consulted on the Project (see Appendix Army Corps of Engineers about potential A). The operator is required to obtain all state and impacts and mitigation measures to protect federal permits including Section 404 permits where Lake Sakakawea and the Missouri River from required. Refer to Section 2.4.3 - Design Features and Water Quality potential spills, leaks, or incidents on the BMPs for complete list of BMPs related to water proposed wells in all three of these locations. resources, spill prevention, monitoring and response.

Page 28 Date of Entity Comment Response Comment Topic Comment NDCTWS 5/21/2016 At approximately 3 million gallons of water per Water for drilling and fracturing would be trucked or well for fracking, what is the source of the piped overland with temporary lines (for freshwater) to frack water, approximately 450 acre-feet. The the site from an existing state-permitted commercial or EA should describe how the produced water private water depot. Produced water would be trucked Water Quantity, will be handled. or piped off-site to a state-permitted disposal facility Water Quality per NDIC regulations. Refer to Section 2.4.2 - Description of Project Actions.

NDCTWS 5/21/2016 All of this development should be described Refer to Section 2.4.3 - Design Features and Best and covered by Emergency Management and Management Practices (BMPs) for complete list of Spill Prevention plans before any permits are BMPs related to spill prevention. A SWPPP and NPDES issued. permit would be required for the construction of each Spill Prevention well pad. For producing wells, a site-specific SPCC Plan & Monitoring would be developed and implemented to conform with the general requirements of the SPCC Rule under 40 CFR Part 112.

Page 29 Date of Entity Comment Response Comment Topic Comment NDCTWS 9/30/2015 New environmental analyses must account for Disturbance acreages and habitat effects are disclosed the footprint, the direct habitat losses, of the in Section 2.4.1 - Project Summary and Section 3.6 - projected number of new wells. In addition, Biological Resources. The Project includes multi-well there are impacts caused by additional roads, pads which reduce ground disturbance and certain pipelines, pumping stations, tank batteries, and effects to wildlife mobilization, as discussed in above- other oil and gas infrastructure that must be referenced sections. Wells must be placed within accounted for and evaluated. There is acceptable limits of spacing units to ensure that the speculation that these wells may be on multi- units are appropriately developed to prevent damage well pads or eco-pads. Impact analysis must to other leases. To the extent practicable, wells are show whether multi-pads reduce impacts, with combined on pads to both minimize environmental a potentially smaller per well footprint, or effects and comply with mineral resource regulations. Project Design, whether the increased number of wells and Infrastructure, the resultant supplies and truck traffic (2,000 Alternatives to 2,400 truck trips per well) offer any environmental efficiency or only prolong the environmental disturbance period. Can multi- pads be environmentally placed in locations that reduce environmental impacts, or are well locations dictated by spacing unit requirements?

NDCTWS 9/30/2015 DPG-USFS must determine whether it will This MDP is being analyzed in an EA. Wells may be allow small, less than 5-acre well pads under approved under this document without the need for categorical exclusions to be expanded to larger additional categorical exclusions. NEPA Adequacy multi-pads (larger that 5 acres) or require further environmental review of all pads.

Page 30 Date of Entity Comment Response Comment Topic Comment NDCTWS 9/30/2015 The impact analysis must look at water use for Water for drilling and fracturing would be trucked or the projected level of oil production, piped overland with temporary lines (for freshwater) to approximately 2-3 million gallons of water per the site from an existing state-permitted commercial or well needed for hydraulic fracturing, or private water depot (refer to Section 2.4.2 - Description fracking. Fracking was not considered in the of Project Actions). Effects to surface and groundwaters 2001 documents. The impacts on water are discussed in Section 3.5 - Water Resources. The supplies, surface waters or ground water, and issuance of state water permits takes into account Water Quality, necessary permits must be described. The volumes and effects of water used under those Water Quantity impacts of water use must be analyzed for permits. effects on livestock grazing, wildlife and natural resources, recreation, municipal and rural water supplies.

NDCTWS 9/30/2015 Along with water use and supply, disposal of Produced water would be trucked or piped off-site to a produced salt water must be evaluated. state-permitted disposal facility per NDIC regulations Accidental spills and leaks, and illegal disposal (refer to Section 2.4.2 - Description of Project Actions). of salt water must be described. The ND Effects on water resources are discussed in Section 3.5 - Department of Health has reported Water Resources and would be minimized through the approximately 1860 oil and/or salt water spills inclusion and enforcement of BMPs and COAs (refer to in the first nine months of 2015. Salt water Section 2.4.3 - Design Features and BMPs for complete spills of any magnitude create long term list of BMPs related to spill prevention). The proposal Soils, Waste, problems or soil sterility. The DPG should does not include the approval of illegal activities; when Water Quality analyze the impacts and potential remediation or if they are discovered they will be addressed through of all salt water, produced water, and enforcement actions. petroleum spills projected for the LMNG, not only on soils and uplands but on potential receiving waters including the Little Missouri, Yellowstone and Missouri Rivers, and Lake Sakakawea.

Page 31 Date of Entity Comment Response Comment Topic Comment NDCTWS 9/30/2015 During the Chapter's 2014 energy tour, we Part of the impetus for master development planning learned that the McKenzie District, the was to include replacement of aging infrastructure, northern half of the LMNG, has over 850 miles including pipelines, in the planning process. Utility of buried oil, gas, and produced water upgrades that are part of the proposed action are pipelines. Most of these pipelines are 40-50 described in Section 2.4.2.3 - Proposed Action years old, exceeding their life expectancy. The Alternative, Production Phase. District-wide Infrastructure threats and maintenance of this ever-aging infastructure upgrades are limited to other lease infrastructure must be analyzed and updated. owner/operator proposals that are not part of the MDP area and are not a connected action. The Antelope MDP area itself has, for the most part, newer infrastructure and/or is largely undeveloped.

NDCTWS 9/30/2015 The USFS acquired the approximate 5, 100- The Ebert Ranch/Elkhorn Ranchlands are not near the acre Ebert Ranch or Elkhorn Ranchlands MDP area and the activities proposed would have no property in about 2007. This is a new effect on them. The designation of Elkhorn Ranchlands development since the 2001 LRMP. A separate is beyond the scope of this analysis. management planning effort has been discussed for the Elkhorn Ranchlands, but to date this has not been completed. These lands are being affected by oil and gas development; new wells, a proposed gravel pit, and potential bridge crossing. While the gravel pit and the Land Use proposed bridge have been or will be covered by other environmental documents, the opportunity exists to provide for adequate planning for the Elkhorn Ranchlands in this proposed action. We also recommend that the USFS designate the Elkhorn Ranchlands as suitable for National Monument status.

Page 32 Date of Entity Comment Response Comment Topic Comment NDCTWS 9/30/2015 We recommend a thorough and complete Effects on wildlife are addressed in the EA in Section 3.6 analysis of increased oil and gas development - Biological Resources. Effects on recreation are impacts on wildlife and other natural discussed in Section 3.8 - Recreation and Visual Recreation, resources, hunting and fishing, outdoor Resources. A Viewshed Analysis and Visual Impact Visual, Wildlife recreation including bird watching, camping, Assessment (Brooks 2017) were also completed for the hiking, biking, horse back riding, and Project which is included in the Project Record. photography. NDCTWS 9/30/2015 We recommend that the analyses and Effects to wildlife, including mule deer, are addressed in conclusions in these reports be incorporated Section 3.6 - Biological Resources. Reference to studies into the SEIS/DEIS documents. (Potential are included if applicable. Impacts of Oil and Gas Development on Select North Dakota Natural Resources, May 2011, Wildlife and An Evaluation of Historical Mule Deer Fawn Recruitment in North Dakota, March 2014.)

NDCTWS 9/30/2015 In addition, the Department has developed Species and associated habitats have been considered maps of prime habitats and ranges for mule as summarized in Section 3.6 - Biological Resources, of deer, pronghorn, bighorn sheep, golden eagles, the EA. Additional information and analyses are Threatened and and least terns and piping plovers. We request included in the project record in the Biological Endangered that these maps be incorporated in the DPG Assessment, Biological Evaluation and USFWS's Species, Wildlife environmental impact analyses. Biological Opinion.

NDCTWS 9/30/2015 The Department is also conducting two studies Consultation with the NDGF is included in Appendix A, into the impacts of oil development on mule Public Scoping Responses, and summarized in this deer and on sharp-tailed grouse. We table, Comment 81. Effects to wildlife, including mule recommend that the DPG consult with the deer and sharp-tailed grouse, are addressed in Section Department on the preliminary results of these 3.6 - Biological Resources. Reference to studies are Wildlife studies, already provided in professional included if applicable. papers and presentations, and incorporate the analyses in the environmental review.

Page 33 Date of Entity Comment Response Comment Topic Comment NDCTWS 9/30/2015 The Game and Fish Department has also The proposal does not include the approval of illegal documented an increase in fish and wildlife law activities; when or if they are discovered they will be enforcement issues that has accompanied the addressed through enforcement actions. An analysis of increase in oil and gas development. DPG staff DPG-wide enforcement issues is beyond the scope of have also discussed increased law enforcement this site-specific analysis. Land Use, Public issues such as vandalism and off-road vehicle Health and abuse on the LMNG with Chapter members. Safety, Wildlife The DPG must address these issues and the impacts and how such impacts to public lands will be prevented, restored or mitigated.

NDCTWS 9/30/2015 The DPG should consider direct and indirect The NPS has been consulted during this project and has impacts to the three units of Theodore not expressed concerns over Theodore Roosevelt Land Use Roosevelt National Park (TRNP) in this process. National Park.

NDCTWS 9/30/2015 In addition, the USFS should coordinate The NPS has been consulted during this project and has planning and permitting opportunities with the not expressed concerns over Theodore Roosevelt National Park Service (NPS). The NPS staff at National Park. Effects to recreation and visual resources TRNP has very up-to-date maps and analyses of are addressed in Section 3.8 - Recreation and Visual view shed impacts from oil and gas Resources. A Viewshed Analysis and Visual Impact Visual development surrounding the Park. The Assessment (Brooks 2017) were also completed for the Chapter suggests a cooperative effort on Project which is included in the Project Record. analyzing and mitigating impacts to the Park.

Page 34 Date of Entity Comment Response Comment Topic Comment NDCTWS 9/30/2015 The DPG is currently beginning a road DPG Travel Management planning addresses the public management study on the entire LMNG. The road system and is beyond the scope of this decision. Economics, impacts of future oil and gas development of This Project does not add roads to the public system Infrastructure, existing USFS roads and the need for and and uses only existing public roads. Traffic, noise, and Noise, location of new roads should be described and dust are addressed in Section 3.2 - Air Quality, Section Vegetation, analyzed in one current and timely 3.9 - Noise, and Section 3.10 - Public Health and Safety. Water Quality, environmental review rather than the Effects to Biological Resources are summarized in Wildlife piecemeal, road by road analysis that currently Section 3.6 - Biological Resources and effects to Water exists. The impacts not only of road Resources are described in Section 3.5 - Water NDCTWS 9/30/2015 The new RFDS and environmental documents The state and proposed federal flaring policies have the should discuss the compatibility between BLM same intent and are not contradictory. flaring rules and regulations and the State's 2014 Flaring Policy, revised in September 2015, Air Quality by the North Dakota Industrial Commission (NDIC).

NDCTWS 9/30/2015 Similarly, the DPG and the BLM should discuss The NDIC was consulted for the project. Areas of how they will follow the NDIC disturbance around Lake Sakakawea were minimized to Special/Extraordinary Places policy or Areas of the extent possible. Effects to recreation and visual lnterest (AOI) policy and how this will affect resources are addressed in Section 3.8 - Recreation and development on the federal lands included in Visual Resources. A Viewshed Analysis and Visual Land Use, Visual the NDIC Policy. The DPG must insure the Impact Assessment (Brooks 2017) were also completed adequate protection of the public resources. for the Project which is included in the Project Record.

Page 35 Date of Entity Comment Response Comment Topic Comment NDCTWS 9/30/2015 Over the last 2 years or longer, DPG staff The comment refers to a proposed SEIS which is stated that one of the purposes of the beyond the scope of this decision. This is not a leasing proposed Notice and SEIS would be to open analysis. This proposal deals specifically with lessees' the remaining un-leased LMNG tracts to oil and rights and proposals to develop existing leases. gas leasing. This appears not to be included in the Notice as written. The Chapter opposes any future leasing of un-leased tracts on the LMNG. It makes no sense to lease additional NEPA Adequacy, public lands and resources at a time when oil Economics prices and lease prices are low and there is a glut of oil on the world markets and a shortage of storage. Leasing and developing the public's oil at fire sale prices for export to foreign countries is not in the public interest.

NDCTWS 9/30/2015 The Chapter recommends that for all of the The comment refers to a proposed SEIS which is above reasons it is more appropriate for the beyond the scope of this site-specific analysis for DPG to consider preparing an up-to-date DEIS existing lease development. on the new state of oil and gas development NEPA Adequacy on the LMNG, rather than only updating the 2001/2003 documents with an SEIS.

NDCTWS 9/30/2015 The Chapter also believes that as a result of the Comment noted. recent downturn in oil drilling in the State and in the Nation, there is ample time for a NEPA Adequacy thorough review, analysis and planning process for oil and gas development on the LMNG.

Page 36 Date of Entity Comment Response Comment Topic Comment NDDTL 5/20/2016 The NDDTL encourages the McKenzie Ranger Comment noted. Siting of wells, well pads, and access District to allow the proposed Continental routes was based on several factors, discussed in Charolais "A" well pad in Section 10, the Section 2.1 - Development of Alternatives. Multiple Charolais "B" well pad and Charolais CTB in other alternatives for well pads and roads have been Section 15, and the Brangus "A" well pad in considered throughout the process, as summarized in Section 14, T153N, R94W as these facilities will Section 2.2 - Alternatives Considered. support the drilling of sovereign minerals under Lake Sakakawea which the NDDTL manages on behalf of the state of North Dakota. These proposed well pads and CTB allow the most reasonable access to the target minerals utilizing reclaimable access and well pad locations while avoiding the shoreline area Project Design, of the lake. Allowing these surface locations Alternatives precludes Continental from requesting off lease well pad and CTB locations further away from the target minerals, as such requests place an unnecessary and undue burden on School Trust surface and minerals, in this case by increasing surface damage and impacts to trust mineral development on Section 16, T153N, R94W-which lies adjacent to the MDP.

Page 37 Date of Entity Comment Response Comment Topic Comment NDGFD 5/27/2016 The North Dakota Game and Fish Department Effects to the Antelope Creek State Wildlife has serious concerns about the placement of Management Area (WMA) are discussed in Section 3.6 - this well pad (Brangus A) on fish and wildlife Biological Resources. Formal Section 7 consultation resources. The department manages the under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) was initiated Antelope Creek Wildlife Management Area with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for the (WMA) in the NENW & E1/2 of Section 14, Dakota skipper which resulted in a Biological Opinion T153N, R94W, adjacent to the proposed well and Incidental Take Permit for the Project (Shelley pad. Mr. Kent Luttschwager, Wildlife Resource 2017). Informal consultation for other threatened and Management Supervisor, may be contacted at endangered species is documented in a concurrence Fish, Wildlife, 701-774-4320 for additional information letter from the USFWS, included in the project record. Threatened & regarding this WMA. The proposed pad is also Endangered located within designated critical habitat of the Species, Water Least Tern and Piping Plover, both federally Quality listed species. We recommend that the well pad be set-back as far as possible into the NWSW of Section 14, T153N, R94W, to minimize disturbance and possible adverse impacts to wildlife, including threatened and endangered species, and Lake Sakakawea.

Page 38

Badlands Conservation Alliance Field Office 801 North 10 Street Bismarck, ND 58501 701-255-4958 badlandsconservationalliance.org

May 27, 2016

A.J. Michalek Acting District Ranger McKenzie Ranger District 1905 South Main Street Watford City, ND 58854

RE: Antelope Master Development Plan; scoping period and pursuant to pre-decisional objection process

Dear A. J. Michalek:

Badlands Conservation Alliance (BCA) is a non-profit conservation organization focused on public lands management in western North Dakota. Our membership is intimately familiar with the landscape of the Little Missouri National Grassland and values these public lands for their ecological, historic, cultural and recreational significance.

As I recall, it was during a phone conversation with then McKenzie District Ranger Jay Frederick in mid- 2013 that BCA first became aware of the Dakota Prairie Grasslands (DPG) concept of Master Development Planning for oil and gas on the Little Missouri National Grassland (LMNG). Frederick offered up the process as a voluntary agreement having the potential “on a small percentage of ‘operable space’ not already occupied” to function correlatively with an updated RFDS and in depth Oil and Gas Development SEIS for which BCA was advocating. It was stated the Antelope MDP had been initiated in 2012 in cooperation with Continental Resources and others.

Well prior to the December 2012 Notice of Intent for an Oil and Gas SEIS on the Dakota Prairie Grasslands, BCA had repeatedly called for renewed and vigorous analysis that would consider new technology and the speed, scope and scale of industrialization being initiated on the LMNG with the onset of Bakken development. From that first mention of MPDs to the present, BCA has shared our concerns with the limitations of the MPD process and has encouraged the Forest Service to include the public in formulating how it might best work. Through multiple staff changes on the District and within the Supervisor’s Office in Bismarck, we have seen serial staff shortages and transitions in supervisor, district rangers, mineral manager, and oil and gas specialists.

Meanwhile, we have seen little forward movement on the Oil and Gas SEIS. Our repeated queries about its status go pretty much unanswered. While we have continued to hear mention of the Antelope MDP, Forest Service prospects for the project seemed frustrated and with diminishing confidence, less the poster child for development done right.

With the Antelope MDP project letter in hand, we would agree. While we expect the resulting proposal represents a great deal of time and effort, three small non-contiguous parcels, all of which have considerable existing or adjacent surface development already, falls short of anything close to

layperson terminology of a “master development plan.” The FS may know where this project started, but the public does not, and we have no choice but to be highly disappointed - especially so if this is the best that can be done through a master development planning process.

If our recollections are correct (2012 to 2016), it has taken some part of five years to reach this point on a project that addresses approximately 6,000 non-contiguous surface acres. Even if this were a perfect plan, or minimally the best plan possible, it does not bode well for the remaining 1 million acres of the LMNG. We need to get ahead of oil and gas development, not chase its tail.

Attached is a March 18, 2015 letter to then Acting Regional Forester David Schmid representing twelve diverse conservation interests. Also attached is BCA’s letter of September 30, 2015 to then Supervisor Dennis Neitzke in response to the DPG Oil and Gas SEIS letter dated September 14, 2015. BCA asks that both be included as part of our comments for the Antelope MDP. Our concerns and recommendations remain.

Additionally we ask that the USFS address the following specific concerns on the Antelope MDP and the proposed Environmental Assessment:

 Mapping of oil development must include proposed development plans including sub-surface laterals in order for the public to make appropriate comments on siting, extent of lateral reach, and the degree of ingenuity and efficiency in planning.

 What are the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to the Antelope Creek State Wildlife Management Area?

 What are the impacts to Dakota Skipper Critical Habitat in North Dakota Units 11 and 12? Include consultation findings from the US Fish and Wildlife Service and include analysis of associated indirect impacts due to industrial traffic and fugitive dust.

 Include findings from consultation with the ND Game and Fish Department for wildlife species and habitat. NDGF mapped golden eagle primary breeding habitat and primary range for antelope exist in the area.

 Include findings from consultation with the Army Corps of Engineers.

 Are there other lease holders within these areas that have not signed on to this proposed AMP? What is the potential for additional rightful but separate development?

 What influence and impacts - directly, indirectly and cumulatively - have existing wells within the areas demarcated on Figure 1 and outside those areas had on the planning decisions?

 What additional associated infrastructure is anticipated in these areas and the surrounding vicinity?

 What attention has been paid to the status of existing pipelines in the vicinity: for instance, Targa, Hess, Tesoro, Dakota Gas, Tesoro High Plains and ONEOK.

 BCA participated in an energy tour led by then District Ranger Frederick and then district minerals manager Dave Valenzuela demonstrating aging, exposed and inadequate pipelines in

the vicinity. We understood at the time that these limitations were to be addressed as part of the Antelope MDP process. How has that been addressed?

 What unique timing and traffic coordination is planned for coordinating drilling of 54 new wells in this area as regards protecting public and worker safety?

 What is the source for water to be used in drilling, in hydraulic fracturing? What is the plan for disposal of produced waters?

 What emergency and spill plans are in place for this relatively isolated location?

 How will mapped oil and gas No Surface Occupancy and Timing Limitation stipulations be addressed in Figure 4?

 What plans will be in place for addressing fugitive dust, noise, lighting and air quality?

 What plans will be in place for short and long term inspection and monitoring of this relatively isolated area?

 A number of the proposed well pads lie at, beside or in near proximity to drainages leading immediately into the Missouri River. What precautions, as impermeable pads and diking, will be in place to protect this invaluable resource?

 BCA would like clarification as to why non-contiguous surface and non-contiguous spacing units appear to be the best attainable results of this planning process.

 One of the anticipated gains for master development planning that would likewise benefit wildlife, humans and landscape values was the potential for shared infrastructure and ensuing economic efficiencies. While respecting the privacy of individual operators, BCA would like to see an economic analysis that demonstrates the result, if any.

Because this Antelope MDP has been described as having the potential to be used as a precedent or guide for further oil and gas development planning on the LMNG, we have many concerns that need answers. It is questionable whether an EA is adequate to address them.

To that end, we repeat:

 The extent of information BCA seeks in weighing the adequacy, efficiency and wisdom of this very limited MDP is such that we reaffirm our previously stated position: an in depth analysis of oil and gas development on the LMNG/DPG, whether an SEIS or a preferred EIS, is the starting point for dealing with new technology and conditions on the ground under the reality of Bakken development.

 Master development planning should be based on a solid foundation, albeit with some flexibility. That is what a Grassland wide Oil and Gas EIS would provide. Furthermore, if MPDs are to be used they should:

Have a replicable protocol to avoid ambiguity and provide more consistency for industry and the public.

Invite the public, communities and all stakeholders into the process at the earliest stage rather than once an action is proposed. This would likely avoid many of the questions BCA asks here, and eliminate at least a portion of time consumption.

Get ahead of industry rather than follow it.

Planning should be prioritized not only by anticipated industry concentration, but by ecological, cultural and historical sensitivity.

MPDs should be much larger in scope to facilitate timely adaptive management and implement effective landscape-scale planning.

Finally, we must include that the pre-decisional objection process as it currently stands runs contrary to the intent of the NEPA process to gather pertinent input. Issues, actions, or information brought to light later in the process may spur concerns unavailable or without relevancy at this stage but that may become significant over the life of the project. Stakeholders and the interested public should be able to comment or object on all aspects of a proposal at any and all stages.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Respectfully,

Jan Swenson, ED Badlands Conservation Alliance

Badlands Conservation Alliance Field Office 801 North 10 Street Bismarck, ND 58501 701-255-4958 badlandsconservationalliance.org

September 30, 2015

Dennis Neitzke Grasslands Supervisor Dakota Prairie Grassland 2000 Miriam Circle Bismarck, ND 58501

RE: Dakota Prairie Grasslands Oil and Gas Development Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Dear Dennis:

Badlands Conservation Alliance (BCA) thanks you for the opportunity to submit comments on the Dakota Prairie Grasslands (DPG) Oil and Gas Development Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement in this Revised Notice of Intent. As you know, BCA has repeatedly over a number of years sought a comprehensive analysis and planning process for oil and gas development on the Little Missouri National Grassland (LMNG) to address unprecedented scope, scale and pace of industry activity with the onset of the Bakken oil boom.

Ten years ago, prior to the Bakken boom in western ND, one could stand on high points in either the North or South Unit of Theodore Roosevelt National Park and see no boundaries. Yes, an occasional aging oil well could be seen if one knew just where to look, but to the average visitor the Badlands and the Park went on forever without disturbance save for a distant ranch roof, a compatible contrast in the wild into rural West.

Five years ago, one could stand at night on the narrow ridge top of the namesake butte that is the southern extent of the Lone Butte roadless area and look southeast to the flares of wells popping up in the stretch to the Killdeer Mountains. However, there was still reassurance of remaining wild with a simple reverse-face to the dark expanse of roadlessness.

This is no longer true. As has become the case across much of western ND and the public lands that BCA seeks to defend, evidence of oil and gas development is everywhere. A former USFS employee perhaps said it best when he shared that standing WITHIN a protected area no longer serves the soul because those areas of former solitude are now ringed by development. He suggested it is better to stand on the well pad looking into these areas, and thus remember what it was we cherished.

Analyses documented in the 2001 Northern Great Plains Management Plans Revision and Final Environmental Impact Statement, the 2002 Dakota Prairie Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan and the 2003 DPG Oil and Gas Leasing Record of Decision do not reflect current industry technology and the associated development scenario. They were committed to public record at a time when the Bakken was known but remained inaccessible. An industry dream. Yes, circumstances have changed and new analysis must be deep and real.

The Forest Service has previously taken the position that the May 31, 2001 Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario (RFDS) for Oil and Gas Development for the Little Missouri and Cedar National Grasslands needed only minor tweaking as presented in the 2013 Draft RFDS and generally represented current conditions on the ground.

Such a position ignores the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts that accompany the broad scale technological innovation and transformation that is the Bakken Play over 15,000 squares miles of western North Dakota, and neglects to consider industry’s considerable effort to develop mineral leases within the external boundary of the LMNG in such manner as to avoid federal permitting and regulation where ever possible, routinely siting pads on intermingled private surface. While this frees an operator from dealing with federal processes and regulation, it does not do away with the impacts to public land. In some cases it can and does exacerbate them.

In the USFS effort to re-examine current circumstances, the SEIS must properly place your analysis within the broader geographical 15,000 square mile setting that is the Bakken Play, including ND Department of Mineral Resources estimations that 60,000 - 70,000 wells will be drilled in the next two decades and that final reclamation may not be seen in North Dakota before 5 generations.

At the same time, the USFS must consider the detrimental impacts on a landscape scale if development is abbreviated or relinquished prior to final phases of reclamation, whether due to market demands or changing scenarios for sources of energy.

Volatility of the oil and gas industry and public response to global climate change make the potential for stable future development forecasts uncertain. Therein, it is the USFS responsibility to look broadly at this analysis opportunity, applying both focus and findings not only to the previously stated remaining 5% of lands yet unleased but instead to the whole.

The recent drop in oil and gas commodity prices has concentrated rigs in core mature zones offering the greatest prospects for production and lack of certainty as to duration of that low price environment will most certainly have an impact on leases approaching their expiration dates. Now is the time to fully analyze direct, indirect and cumulative impacts as relates to Forest Service lands.

BCA finds reference in the September 14, 2015 scoping letter to the “northern portion of the Little Missouri National Grassland” and “portions of the Medora and McKenzie Ranger Districts north of Interstate 94” to be of concern. The Bakken and Three Forks are described by industry and the ND Department of Minerals Resources (DMR) as “technology plays.” DMR has estimated that the Tyler is a similar technology play and that the industry will have it figured out within five years. Therein, BCA feels strongly that this analysis should include all portions of the LMNG and provide practical direction across the Grassland.

Therein, in keeping with a USFS analysis to disclose environmental effects of changed circumstances and determine management direction to avoid, minimize and mitigate direct, indirect and cumulative oil and gas development impacts on the Dakota Prairie Grasslands, the SEIS must:

 Adequately analyze the economics and practicalities of the Dakota Prairie Grasslands itself to determine capabilities for executing management direction, including staffing numbers and oil and gas expertise as impacted by western North Dakota’s competitive hiring climate, the range of willing applicants and even the ongoing loss of institutional memory.

 Revisit techniques for implementing enhanced protections of the resource including aggressive Conditions of Approval and USFS authority on phased development.

 Engage and incorporate the expertise of all natural resource agencies, federal and state, associated with managing water, air quality, wildlife, recreation and tourism including the National Park Service, ND Game and Fish, US Fish and Wildlife Service, ND Department of Health, State Water Commission, the State Historical Society of ND, the ND Department of Trust Lands and ND Parks and Recreation. Similarly, social and law enforcement agencies, local, state and federal, should be consulted in assessing cultural and socio-economic impacts. BCA has repeatedly found that the USFS underestimates its level of inter-agency communications as is expected and sought by sister and related agencies.

 Include adequate analysis of impacts to protected areas such as the three units of Theodore Roosevelt National Park. Include visitor expectations, impacts of neighboring habitat fragmentation and degradation, development activities that degrade Class I air quality, soundscapes, viewscapes and night skies.

 Include adequate analysis for direct, indirect and cumulative impacts not merely of well pads, but of all associated infrastructure within the boundaries of the LMNG on both private and federal surface and indirect and cumulative impacts associated with the larger geographical area of the Bakken.

 Include adequate analysis of pipeline systems including crude, fresh water, produced waters and natural gas. Address impacts on agriculture, wildlife habitat and public health and safety.

 Include adequate analysis of waste disposal whether on federal or intermingled private lands.

 Include adequate analysis of flaring of natural gas. Include a range of scenarios typifying terrain limitations, oil price fluctuations and gathering system operations. Include impacts to air quality, royalty economics and lost energy sources. Include impacts to night skies, wildlife movement, and scenic vistas. Include impacts of flaring (waste of an energy resource) in North Dakota on a national and global scale that reflects transformative industrial development of other home landscapes.

 Include adequate analysis of direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to water, both quality and quantity, groundwater and surface. State permitting of water removal from the Little Missouri River impacts the hydrological system within the drainage and should be analyzed; as should withdrawal from impoundments of all creeks within drainages that transverse federal land. Potential spills of both crude and brine, and intentional or accidental dumping, whether on roads or at well sites, must be incorporated. Analysis should include the most recent information on movement of injected waters contaminated by hydraulic fracturing.

 Include analysis of direct, indirect and cumulative impacts from road building, increased traffic and associated vehicle emissions, noise and dust. BCA understands that the USFS is again entering into a Roads Analysis in order to satisfy the mandate for a Travel Management Plan, however, that proposed action cannot be held separate from the need in this analysis to look at proliferation of road access for oil and gas, particularly as to potential for limiting direct, indirect and cumulative impacts. Include analysis of the potential proliferation of gravel mining and its impacts.

 Include adequate analysis of air quality as it relates to methane emissions, VOCs accumulated and released at well sites and associated with Bakken crude, fugitive dust and the production of greenhouse gas emissions from flaring, on site equipment and increased traffic.

 Include existing and ongoing studies available from the ND Game and Fish Department (NDGF) on impacts to wildlife. In particular the May 2011 Potential Impacts of Oil and Gas Development on Select North Dakota Natural Resources available at http://gf.nd.gov/sites/default/files/publications/specialty-publications/directors-report-oil-gasmay-2011.pdf , the ongoing mule deer study: An Evaluation of Historical Mule Deer Fawn Recruitment in ND, March 2014, and the ongoing sharp-tailed grouse nesting study cooperatively under NDGF and UND biology professor Dr. Susan Felege.

 Include consultation with the USFWS and their analysis regarding the recent listing of the Northern Long-Eared Bat and Dakota Skipper as threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. Additionally, Theodore Roosevelt National Park now has nesting bald eagles within Park boundaries, which suggests they are also nesting within the LMNG.

 Include analysis of Forest Service capabilities to properly inspect and monitor development whether that be site specific, construction and maintenance of access roads, or the broader concern with proliferating illegal and destructive activities on public lands. Include impacts to public safety.

 Include adequate analysis of impacts generated by current low oil and gas prices that may be authorized by the state of North Dakota but carrying repercussion to the Grasslands. For example, industry has proposed extension of the one-year deadline requiring completion of wells drilled but not yet hydraulically fractured and producing.

 Include analysis of the impacts and costs (both monetary and ecological) to the USFS and LMNG should the current low price remain for an extended period of time as a contrast to current direction. Include a range of development scenarios from boom to bust.

 Include reassessment of Scenic Integrity decisions in the current LRMP based on the pervasive and transformative landscape scale development that hydraulic fracturing allows. There is no longer an over-the-next-hill option.

 Include analysis to consider USFS recommendation for Wilderness of those areas managed currently as 1.2a Suitable for Wilderness based on agricultural, wildlife, scenic, recreation, cultural and historic values, and protection for the three units of Theodore Roosevelt National Park.

The Dakota Prairie Grasslands Oil and Gas Development SEIS has the potential to reconsider management direction for energy development on the Little Missouri National Grassland if done well and in depth, addressing all impacts and providing insights for thoughtful and comprehensive action. If this cannot be accomplished through the current SEIS process, then something larger is called for.

We are at a lull in the storm. But it is most certainly only the eye of that storm. Recent concentration of rigs in core areas is an adjustment by industry based solely on economics. The USFS should root this analysis not on industry forecast, but on resource sensitivity.

BCA thanks you for this opportunity to comment.

Respectfully,

Jan Swenson, ED Badlands Conservation Alliance March 18, 2015

Mr. David Schmid Acting Regional Forester U.S. Forest Service, Northern Region 200 East Broadway Missoula, MT 59807

Re: Oil and Gas Development on the Dakota Prairie Grasslands

Dear Mr. Schmid,

On January 27, we met with Faye Krueger, Dennis Neitzke, and yourself to discuss our concerns with the U.S. Forest Service’s (USFS) Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) on oil and gas development in the Dakota Prairie Grasslands (DPG). This letter serves as a follow-up to that meeting, reiterating those concerns and recommending ways to protect the grasslands in the face of rampant oil and gas (O&G) development in western North Dakota.

The DPG contains the largest grassland in the United States; it is also underlain by the second most productive O&G development in the United States, the Bakken and Three Forks oil plays. The development of these resources affects the grassland resource in a myriad of ways. In addition to natural gas flaring and its serious air quality impacts, wells and their associated infrastructure disturb local wildlife, lead to habitat loss and fragmentation, and spoil the grassland’s sweeping views and quiet nature. Beyond the environmental impacts, O&G development negatively affects the historical and recreational value of the region’s cherished landscapes, including the Little Missouri River, Elkhorn Ranchlands, Theodore Roosevelt National Park, and USFS unroaded wildlands. This development also takes a social and economic toll on local communities as traffic, roads, noise, and the number of spills continues to grow.

In the January 27 meeting, Mr. Neitzke and Ms. Krueger outlined USFS’ plan for tackling these issues. The SEIS process currently underway was characterized as largely procedural, and the primary focus is now on implementing a series of Master Development Plans (MDPs) incrementally across the grassland. We have several concerns with what was discussed, including both the USFS’ overall approach to this issue and specifically with the agency’s suggested solutions.

I. The SEIS process thus far has systematically lacked opportunities for public involvement. The SEIS process to date has neither exhibited transparency nor engaged the public in any meaningful way, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). A federal agency may prepare an SEIS if it determines that doing so will further the purposes NEPA, namely better-informed decisions and citizen involvement. “NEPA procedures must ensure that environmental information is available to public officials and citizens before decisions are made and before actions are taken.” 40 C.F.R. §1500.1. NEPA’s implementing regulations provide public involvement requirements, providing that the agency “shall make diligent efforts to involve the public in preparing and implementing their NEPA procedure.” 40 C.F.R. §1506.6.

Mr. Neitzke stated that public comments were received on the SEIS and that his staff is reviewing them now. However, there is no record of public scoping, and the SEIS Federal Register Notice specifically says comments will not be requested until the draft SEIS is released. This suggests that the comments received to date may be limited or skewed. Although “scoping” is not required for an SEIS, we believe that if USFS had scoped this proposal, it would have generated numerous public comments with respect to the implementation and impacts of the O&G program on the DPG and resulted in a revised EIS rather than a narrowly focused SEIS. An opportunity for public comment is a necessity, not only to hear local concerns but also to ensure USFS is receiving all the information necessary to make an informed decision. For example, during the scoping period for the Oil and Gas Leasing Analysis conducted on the Pawnee National Grassland, USFS received approximately 3,000 public comments, detailing concerns with O&G development in the region. These ranged from impacts to air quality, water quality, wildlife, and recreation to recommendations for an in-depth groundwater analysis and stronger stipulations around future development.

1. Recommendation: USFS should carry out one of the primary purposes of NEPA and provide more opportunities for public engagement in the SEIS process, including but not limited to an opportunity to make scoping comments as well as the much-delayed opening of a formal comment period on the SEIS.

II. USFS’ decision to assess only the remaining 5% of the DPG that is unleased is too narrow a focus. The status and provisions of existing leases have not been fully explored. We are increasingly concerned by USFS’ decision to focus only on the 5% of the DPG that remains unleased. We have found that approximately 345,000 acres leased could expire over the next ten years. Mr. Neitzke claims that these leases will not expire and that every lease will be held by production even if companies have to take a financial loss to do so. However, with 130 leases set to expire in 2015 alone, and the current low oil prices, it is likely some leases will expire even when considering lease extensions or development on adjacent private land. Either leases will expire, or the pace of development will be greater than suggested in the Reasonable Foreseeable Development Scenario (RFD) analysis. According to the draft 2013 RFD, only 181 wells were drilled between 2002 and 2012 on USFS lands. With low oil prices and drill rigs moving out of the area, the former scenario is likely. For leases that will expire, USFS should prohibit lease extensions and consider either making the land unavailable for leasing or implementing additional stipulations for future leases.

Ms. Krueger claimed that USFS only has the legal authority to alter management of unleased lands. This is incorrect. The agency has authority to mandate the use of mitigation technologies not only on new oil and gas leases, but on all future development authorized—including existing leases. This can be accomplished through required conditions of approval (COAs) on all new well approvals. While USFS does not have authority to modify the lease stipulations in pre-existing oil and gas contracts, the agency can impose new restrictions that are not explicitly provided for, such as COAs and other mitigation measures. Moreover, 43 C.F.R. §3101.1-2 permits the agency to use “reasonable measures” to minimize adverse impacts to public resources, reserving the authority to impose COAs on oil and gas leases. The regulation cites various measures that are per se reasonable, but BLM can implement stricter measures at its discretion, which fall under the agency’s “reserved rights” inherent in all modern oil and gas leases. See Yates Petroleum Corp., 176 IBLA 144, 156 (2008). A party challenging a COA, such as a leaseholder, must show “by a preponderance of the evidence that such a requirement is excessive.” Grynberg Petroleum Co., 152 IBLA 300, 307 (2000). Thus, so long as the COAs can be characterized as reasonable measures to minimize adverse environmental impacts – such as necessary mitigation measures to reduce methane pollution – BLM has the authority and, indeed, responsibility, to require these additional measures under 43 C.F.R. § 3101.1-2.

The agency also has the authority to impose controls on the timing, location and pace of development – i.e., “phased development.” Such controls “promote the orderly and efficient exploration, development, and production of oil and gas,” and should be considered in the SEIS. See 43 C.F.R. § 3160.0-4. As the Supreme Court teaches, “[e]ven with respect to vested property rights, a legislature generally has the power to impose new regulatory constraints on the way in which those rights are used, or to condition their continued retention on performance.” U.S. v. Locke, 471 U.S. 84, 104 (1985). While lease rights may convey property rights, leases do not convey an absolute right to develop and, further, the proper vehicle for a lessee to protect such rights is not a takings action but, rather, a contract action. See, e.g., Castle v. U.S., 301 F.3d 1328, 1342 (Fed Cir. 2002).

At the very least, however, limiting the agency analysis to only consider the remaining 5% of lands unleased is impermissible and fails to satisfy the agency’s requirement to take a hard look at the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of actions on the “human environment.” 40 C.F.R. §§ 1502.16(a), (b); 1508.25(c). A cumulative impact is the “impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.” Ocean Advoc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engrs., 402 F.3d 846, 868 (9th Cir. 2005); 40 C.F.R. § 1508.7. BLM’s cumulative impacts analysis “must be more than perfunctory; it must provide a ‘useful analysis of the cumulative impacts of past, present, and future projects.’” Ocean Advoc., 402 F.3d at 868. BLM must therefore “give a realistic evaluation of the total impacts [of the action] and cannot isolate the proposed project, viewing it in a vacuum.” Grand Canyon Trust v. FAA, 290 F.3d 339, 342 (D.C. Cir. 2002). Even “a slight increase in adverse conditions may sometimes threaten harm that is significant. One more factory … may represent the straw that breaks the back of the environmental camel.” Grand Canyon Trust, 290 F.3d at 343. As the Ninth Circuit has cautioned, the failure to assess cumulative impacts “impermissibly subject[s] the decision making process contemplated by NEPA to ‘the tyranny of small decisions.’” Kern v. Bureau of Land Management, 284 F.3d 1062, 1078 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted). Here, USFS fails to satisfy its NEPA mandate by unlawfully isolating its analysis to only unleased lands.

1. Recommendation: USFS should consider more than the remaining 5% of lands unleased; instead, the SEIS should review all leased lands and take a hard look at the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of O&G development. 2. Recommendation: For leases that will expire, USFS should not grant extensions and should consider either making the land unavailable to leasing or implementing additional stipulations for future leases. 3. Recommendation: The SEIS should analyze all lease provisions and stipulations issued under the current LRMP and before. This analysis should fully explore the flexibility USFS and BLM have to ensure environmental protection measures are in place and address unanticipated impacts to the maximum extent possible, and should consider halting future leasing until a new LRMP is completed. 4. Recommendation: USFS and BLM should exercise their authority in existing leases to influence the pace and nature of development on leased lands based on current circumstances and drastically changed conditions.

III. The draft RFD is inadequate and representative of the entire SEIS process thus far. In addition to the overarching concerns discussed above, there are several components of the draft 2013 RFD with which we take issue. First, the draft is inadequate in its scope and depth of analysis. Crucially, it utilizes out-of-date data and fails to adequately evaluate or accurately characterize industry methods and their associated environmental impacts. We are concerned this cursory review will be characteristic of the entire SEIS process. Second, USFS has not provided any details on what information or analyses underscores the estimates and conclusions of the draft RFD. Indeed, it appears that the USFS has merely aimed to refresh the 2003 RFD to enable development to continue in the same manner as in the past – which is simply impossible in light of the changed speed and nature of O&G development in and around the DPG now. Third, while supplementing the 2001 FEIS to consider the changed pattern of O&G development relative to the updated RFD is an important step, it fails to include and consider significant changes occurring on the grasslands, including rapid development on private land, the pace of public land leasing, or changes in technology and industry practices.

The draft RFD’s inadequacy in scope and depth of analysis is particularly problematic because it forms the basis for the USFS’ analysis in the SEIS. The RFD report provides a foundation from which analysis in the SEIS will be based by looking at possible future O&G development scenarios and the potential effects of those scenarios. The Interagency Reference Guide (IRG) document titled “Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenarios and Cumulative Effects Analysis for Oil and Gas Activities on Federal Lands in the Greater Rocky Mountain Region” provides guidance for development of an RFD analysis and summarizes its overall purpose. According to the IRG, an RFD is a “reasonable technical and scientific approximation of anticipated oil and gas activity based on the best available information. [It] includes all interrelated and interdependent oil & gas activities in a defined area regardless of land ownership or jurisdiction.” Furthermore, “the scenario should be scientifically credible and presented in a technical report that may be subject to professional peer review.” According to the IRG, “A scientifically based and well-documented RFD is the critical component of information necessary for performing thorough cumulative effects analysis of oil and gas activities that could occur as a result of leasing.” The IRG also notes, the “RFD is a vital and necessary tool for serving as a context for more localized site-specific decisions on proposed exploration or development projects.”

The 2013 RFD falls short of the guidance provided in the Interagency Reference Guide. It does not consider the scale of development occurring on private land surrounding the DPG, the pace of public land leasing, or the impacts technological advances and drilling practices will have on the grasslands. The analysis uses out-of-date data and fails to capture current industry practices accurately. For example, the draft RFD only briefly discusses the potential for multiple wells per pad, and consideration of inter-well distance is completely absent. The reality of O&G development in the Bakken is vastly different. According to the North Dakota Department of Mineral Resources, in 2014 operators had the capabilities to drill between 15 and 20 wells per pad. However, the RFD states that operators are drilling 4-6 wells per pad, thereby underestimating the number of possible wells. The RFD also posits that utilizing multi-well pads is a limiting factor to disturbance. This is too generous of a conclusion given that infrastructure for production, waste disposal, and water usage will continue to grow. The RFD should address the effects of multiple wells per pad in detail as well as the potential number of wells and pads in spacing units across the Bakken. Furthermore, the RFD should analyze where wells are most likely to occur and identify areas of predicted low, medium, or high development, both of which the draft RFD fails to do.

Lastly, the RFD should analyze more thoroughly the potential effects of predicted development, considering the landscape scale impacts as the DPG is further developed and fragmented. One obvious omission from the RFD is a discussion of gas flaring and its associated air quality impacts. In 2013, emissions from flaring in the Bakken alone were estimated to be 13 billion pounds per year. According to Forbes, the amount of gas being flared in the Bakken is roughly equivalent to 5% of the total energy output in the field. While carbon emissions are of great concern, the waste of this finite resource without putting it to beneficial use is poor public policy, regardless of ownership. Moreover, apart from carbon emissions, the flared gas contains significant quantities of smog-causing, noxious compounds that pose a threat to plant life in the DPG as well as to human health. As detailed above, the agency has the authority to impose conditions on such flaring, including the need for front-end planning and gathering systems to bring this wasted resource to market, as well as back-end mitigation technologies that have been proven both cost-effective and capable of reducing emissions by more than 80%. The effects that increased flaring would have on air quality should be addressed in the RFD and SEIS.

1. Recommendation: USFS should provide details on what information or analyses underscores the estimates and conclusions laid out in the draft RFD. 2. Recommendation: Considering what data we know went into the RFD, USFS should conduct more in-depth analyses, which correctly measure the pace of development and characterize industry methods and their associated environmental impacts accurately. 3. Recommendation: The RFD should address the effects of multiple wells per pad in detail as well as the potential number of wells and pads in spacing units across the Bakken. 4. Recommendation: The RFD should analyze more thoroughly the potential effects of predicted development, considering the landscape scale impacts as the DPG is further developed and fragmented. In particular, the effects that increased flaring would have on air quality should be addressed in the RFD and SEIS.

IV. The SEIS provides an opportunity to adapt management in the face of rapid development; it should be done right. We find it unacceptable that the DPG is taking such a narrow approach in the SEIS. Mr. Neitzke openly acknowledged that the SEIS process was initiated so that future leases could continue to use the Categorical Exclusions identified in Section 390 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. 42 U.S.C. § 15942. This category of Section 390 establishes criteria for the categorical exclusion of drilling permits, including requirements such as prior site-specific analysis, thresholds for acreage disturbance, drilling where prior development has occurred within five years, and foreseeability of development in the current land use plan. Id. at (b)(1)-(5). Notably, the Government Accounting Office (GAO) issued a report in 2011 on BLM’s use of Section 390 categorical exclusions and found that the agency often did not comply with either the law or BLM’s guidance. See GAO, available at http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-941T. First, GAO found several types of violations of the law, including approving projects inconsistent with the law’s criteria and drilling a new well after mandated time frames had lapsed. Second, GAO found numerous examples where officials did not correctly follow agency guidance, most often by failing to justify the use of a categorical exclusion adequately. The SEIS should serve more than a procedural purpose; it should ensure that the analysis of O&G development is appropriately comprehensive and thorough. It must not be used as a vehicle to rubber- stamp the approval of drilling permits, as currently suggested. As mentioned earlier, an SEIS is appropriate where there are significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns bearing on the proposed action or its impacts. Here, there is no question that O&G development since 2001 and its associated environmental impacts represent a significant new circumstance in and around the DPG. Hence, the SEIS is necessary and should be carried out consistent with the purposes of NEPA: to allow for better-informed decisions and public involvement. The DPG warrant nothing less.

1. Recommendation: The SEIS must serve more than a procedural purpose. Rather, it should ensure that the analysis of O&G development is appropriately comprehensive and thorough. 2. Recommendation: The Federal Register Notice’s ‘Purpose and Need for Action’ should be expanded to analyze the changed conditions and circumstances of the Bakken oil field development and the substantial technological changes that have occurred in the O&G industry since 2001 that have allowed for the expansion of oil and gas industry. 3. Recommendation: The SEIS should consider the substantial technological changes that have occurred in the O&G industry since 2001. Additionally, it should consider all lease types (e.g. those held by production, those set to expire, unleased lands) and include the rapid growth in development on private land and the pace of public lands leased, as NEPA demands. 4. Recommendation: The SEIS should look at landscape scale impacts as well as conduct traffic, air quality, water quality, and wildlife analyses.

V. The MDP “process” cannot serve in lieu of a robust NEPA process. In the January 27 meeting, Mr. Neitzke outlined USFS’ plan of addressing O&G development through MDPs and explained that the first MDP was already underway. This MDP process is reminiscent of the transportation planning “process” that was to take place after the Custer National Forest Plan was signed in the mid-1980s during an earlier oil boom. USFS decided to omit transportation planning from the LRMP and tackle the issue after the plan was finalized. However, a meaningful, publicly driven process never unfolded, and shortfalls in the Custer National Forest Plan remained. We must not allow history to repeat itself today in the face of the Bakken boom. Adapting management in response to O&G development should occur first through the SEIS process to ensure a comprehensive, landscape-scale approach.

1. Recommendation: A robust NEPA process, which accurately considers energy development on the grasslands and existing leasing stipulations, should take place before any MDP “process" is launched or crafted.

VI. The MDP plan for the DPG has not been fully thought out. What has been presented informally needs significant revisions in order to be successful. We have several concerns with the MDP process, mainly its voluntary nature, piecemeal approach, and lack of public involvement. Without serious revisions, the MDP process cannot adequately address the environmental impacts associated with development of this scale. According to Mr. Neitzke, O&G developers are incentivized to take part in the MDP process because of the economic savings in sharing infrastructure with other operators. However, the process remains voluntary. Mr. Neitzke also explained that he plans to address areas of heaviest development first. The protocol MDP currently underway covers a 6,000-acre planning area. Each plan would have a predicted timeline of 3 to 18 months. At this pace, future planning will lag behind O&G development on federal land.

The proposed MDP process has also lacked any form of public engagement. Within the MDP process, USFS emphasizes that they would like input from the public and other stakeholders. However, no efforts to achieve this goal have been made thus far. Furthermore, any opportunity for public comment during the required NEPA analysis will occur only after an MDP is drafted and reviewed by USFS and industry. We are troubled by the inability of local communities, conservationists, and other stakeholders to have a voice throughout the process.

The lack of an established process for forming these plans means the public is kept in the dark as they progress. If this process were more collaborative, emphasizing the development of shared goals and identification of go and no-go areas, it would receive wider support. Furthermore, efforts to codify this approach would reduce its ambiguity and provide more consistency for industry and the public alike. Future MDPs must do more to ensure industry participation, bring interested stakeholders to the table in the beginning, and encompass a larger area to implement landscape-scale planning effectively. We are eager to work with USFS in improving the MDP process and establishing a replicable protocol which must complement, not supplement, the important NEPA procedures that serve to give the public a voice in this and like instances.

1. Recommendation: USFS should provide greater incentives to ensure industry involvement and cooperation. 2. Recommendation: Future MDPs should be larger to facilitate timely adaptive management and implement effective landscape-scale planning. 3. Recommendation: In addition to considering areas of heaviest development first, USFS should also deem areas of ecological concern as priority areas. 4. Recommendation: USFS should take steps to ensure transparency and public involvement throughout the MDP process.

VII. USFS has not adequately coordinated with cooperating and participating agencies. Greater collaboration with State and Federal agencies will enable a comprehensive NEPA process and alleviate staffing issues We realize that Mr. Neitzke is facing substantial vacancies, and we are sympathetic to the problems such shortages cause. However, this does not excuse an inadequate management response to growing development. To remedy this issue, we urge USFS to take the necessary steps to get sufficient staff and resources to address an issue of this magnitude. Whether through increased support from the regional office, contract staffing, or greater coordination with cooperating or participating agencies, we support USFS’ efforts to secure the staff they need. To this last point, we also wish to emphasize that USFS should do its part to collaborate with State agencies, such as North Dakota Game and Fish and the North Dakota State Historic Preservation Review Board. Additionally, USFS should do its part to work more closely with the National Park Service (NPS) to understand the potential impacts further O&G development may have on Theodore Roosevelt National Park. Greater coordination with these agencies will not only ensure better management of the grassland but may also alleviate some of the issues that arise from USFS’ staffing shortages.

1. Recommendation: USFS should do its part to work more closely with key State and Federal agencies to ensure better management of the grasslands and alleviate staffing issues. We look forward to fully engaging in the current NEPA process underway and working with USFS and coordinating agencies on these issues. As discussed in our last meeting, we would like to meet with USFS to ensure the MDP process is structured and carried out in a transparent and collaborative way. We will also follow up with USFS to identify conservation areas where development of future MDPs will be prioritized. During a recent conversation with John Kinney, the Deputy Grasslands Supervisor, a tentative meeting in Bismarck was planned during the week of April 27. We look forward to discussing these issues further during that meeting. Lastly, please consider this letter to constitute formal comments of each and all signing organizations. Each signatory reserves the right to submit additional or alternative comments, which together with these comments, shall constitute the formal comments of that organization for the purposes of appealing or objecting to a later decision.

Please direct correspondence regarding this letter to:

Martha Kauffman Jan Swenson World Wildlife Fund Badlands Conservation Alliance 13 S. Willson Avenue, #1 801 N 10th Street Bozeman, MT 59715 Bismarck, ND 58501 406-582-0235 701-255-4958 [email protected] [email protected]

Thank you for your consideration.

Michael McEnroe Lobbying and Government Relations, North Dakota Wildlife Society

Jan Swenson Executive Director, Badlands Conservation Alliance

Keith Trego Executive Director, North Dakota Natural Resources Trust

Joe Satrom President, Friends of Theodore Roosevelt National Park

Mindi Schmitz Government Relations Specialist, Environmental Law and Policy Center

John and Jennifer Hanson Ranchers

Lowell Baier Attorney at Law/Friends of the Elkhorn Ranch/Boone and Crockett Club

David Pieper Retired USFS Supervisor, Dakota Prairie Grasslands

Martha Kauffman Managing Director, World Wildlife Fund Northern Great Plains program

Tom France Executive Director, National Wildlife Federation Northern Rockies and Prairies Region

Bart Melton Northern Rockies Senior Regional Director, National Parks Conservation Association

Bruce Babbitt Former Secretary of the Interior

CC: Robert Bonnie, Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Thomas Tidwell, Chief of the U.S. Forest Service Dennis Neitzke, Supervisor of the Dakota Prairie Grasslands Neil Kornze, Director of the Bureau of Land Management Jamie Connell, State Director of BLM Montana/Dakotas Loren Wickstrom, Acting Field Manager of North Dakota Field Office Jonathan Jarvis, Director of the U.S. National Park Service Wendy Ross, Acting Superintendent of Theodore Roosevelt National Park Wayne Stenehjem, North Dakota Attorney General