DECISION NOTICE AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

Transcription

1 DECISION NOTICE AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT PLAINS EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION COMPANY HELL S GULCH NORTH, PHASE 2 April 2008 USDA Forest Service Region 2 White River National Forest Rifle Ranger District Mesa County, Colorado T8S, R92W, 6 th P.M. Sections 14,15, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 34, 35 & BACKGROUND The Forest Service, in response to a natural gas exploration and development proposal from Plains Exploration and Production Company (PXP), conducted an Environmental Analysis (EA) to evaluate the impacts from the proposal. PXP holds an oil and gas lease (COC-66918) with rights to drill on National Forest System (NFS) lands in T8S, R92W sections 23, 24, 25, and 26. The Forest Service has a need to authorize PXP to explore for and produce natural gas within their lease for the purpose of facilitating the production of energy resources. Beginning in early 2005, the original proponent of the proposed action was Laramie Energy, LLC (Laramie). However, in May of 2007, while the environmental assessment activities for the proposed action were underway, federal mineral lease COC was transferred by assignment from Laramie Energy, LLC to Plains Exploration and Production Company (PXP). Upon transfer, PXP assumed all responsibility for completion of proposed projects. During the environmental analysis process and public scoping conducted pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) design changes were incorporated into the original proposed action. Public scoping comments led to development of the Modified Proposed Action and phased development variations of the Modified Proposed Action as Alternatives 1 and 2. The Modified Proposed Action and alternatives were made available for public comment in the January 2007 Hells Gulch North, Phase 2 Environmental Assessment. Subsequently, the new proponent (PXP) suggested several additional modifications that were designed to further reduce impacts to NFS lands and reduce traffic into the lease area during the winter. These changes resulted in minor changes to the Modified Proposed Action, which are described in detail in Section 2.1 of the EA. The USFS has surface management responsibilities for these lands and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has responsibility for managing all federal minerals. The White River National Forest (WRNF) has evaluated and disclosed the potential surface impacts of the proposed natural gas development, which includes new road construction, upgraded access Page 1 of 27

2 roads, well pad and pipeline construction, gas well drilling and completion operations, the installation of ancillary facilities, and long-term production if the wells are determined to be productive. Lease stipulations for the Hells Gulch North lease include areas of no surface occupancy (NSO) for steep slopes and areas of controlled surface use (CSU) for visual resource management. The NSO stipulation for steep slope applies to the following lands within the lease with slopes greater than 60%: T. 8 S., R. 92 W., 6 th PM Sec. 23: W2NE, SENE, E2NE, E2NW, N2S2, S2SE; Sec. 24: S2NE, N2S2; Sec. 26: E2SW, W2SE. The Modified Proposed Action does not impact any lands with slopes greater than 60%. The CSU stipulation applies to the following lands along sensitive level 1 travel routes: T. 8 S., R. 92 W., 6 th PM Sec. 23: NW, NWSW. These lands are not affected by the Modified Proposed Action. All lands within the lease are subject to the December 1 through April 30 timing stipulation for big game winter range and subject to the requirement that new oil and gas roads on public lands will be closed year-round to the public. The big game winter range timing stipulation precludes drilling and construction activities between December 1 and April 30, but allows normal maintenance and operations to continue as further defined in Section of the EA. Though not part of the current proposal, if the operator were to propose a waiver, exception, or modification to the big game winter timing stipulation additional NEPA analysis would be required. An EA, Biological Assessment (BA), Biological Evaluation (BE), and Management Indicator Species (MIS) report that analyze the proposed exploration and development in detail are on file in the Glenwood Springs Energy Office. PXP s Application for Permit to Drill (APD) for each well will require BLM approval prior to drilling. The APD includes a drilling plan, a Surface Use Plan of Operations (SUPO), evidence of bond coverage, and other information requested by the BLM for evaluating the proposed wells in accordance with 43 CFR Each of these components must be approved before the final APD is approved. As the surface management agency, the Forest Service evaluates, modifies, and/or approves the SUPO with any necessary and appropriate Conditions of Approval (COA) before forwarding the SUPO to the BLM for review and final approval of the APD. The decision document associated with this National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis is the mechanism by which the SUPO is approved by the Forest Service. Page 2 of 27

3 1.1 PURPOSE AND NEED The Forest Service has identified a need to authorize Plains Exploration & Production Company (PXP) to use National Forest System (NFS) lands subject to a Federal oil and gas lease for operations associated with exploring for and producing gas in the Hells Gulch North lease. To accomplish this, the Responsible Official (WRNF Forest Supervisor) has a need to authorize PXP to conduct surface operations associated with developing its Federal mineral lease under the terms and conditions described in the lease and in accordance with the White River National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 2002 Revision (Forest Plan) (USFS, 2002). The purpose of this action is to facilitate production of energy resources and allow PXP to exercise Federal lease rights that would include constructing roads and facilities to allow the exploration and production of potential gas resources from Federal land. Specifically, up to 6 well pads on NFS lands would be constructed, up to 45 natural gas wells would be drilled on NFS lands, approximately 6 miles of access road on NFS lands would be built, up to 6 miles of gas gathering and water pipelines on NFS lands would be constructed, and associated facilities would be constructed to develop the natural gas resource within the lease. The proposed project responds to the goals, objectives, and desired conditions for mineral exploration and development as outlined in the Forest Plan. The WRNF Forest Plan EIS identified that: human activities are managed so that deer and elk can effectively use the area. Activities that may be managed or restricted include burning, rangeland management, timber harvest, habitat manipulation, recreation, minerals exploration and development, and road management. Population herd objectives are established in coordination with the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW). Specifically, Goal 2 (Multiple Benefits to People) and Objective 2c states: Improve the capability of national forests and rangelands to sustain desired uses, values products, and services (USFS 2002; p. 1-11). Strategies to achieve Objective 2c include 2c.5: Over the life of the plan, respond to requests for leasing, exploration, and development of mineral and energy resources in accordance with regulations and forest plan availability and specific lands decisions; and 2c.8: Over the life of the plan, provide for mineral exploration and development, in accordance with laws and regulations (USFS 2002; p1-12). The proposed project also responds to national goals as stated in the Forest Service Manual (2802): 1. Encourage and facilitate the orderly exploration, development, and production of mineral and energy resources within the National Forest System in order to maintain a viable, healthy minerals industry and to promote self-sufficiency in those mineral and energy resources necessary for economic growth and the national defense (USFS 2002; p. AA-7). This project would contribute to meeting the need for energy resources developed and produced in an environmentally sound manner. Further, the proposed project is consistent with management objectives outlined in the Oil and Gas Leasing Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision, White River National Forest (USFS 1993). By allowing oil and gas leasing and development in this area, the WRNF Forest Plan acknowledged that the area may at some future time support facilities necessary for production of gas. Page 3 of 27

4 2.0 DECISION AND REASONS FOR THE DECISION I have reviewed the Forest Plan, Hells Gulch North, Phase 2 EA, comments received for the EA, and the project record. Based on this review, I have decided to implement the Modified Proposed Action as presented in the EA and summarized below. My decision approves the Master Surface Use Plan of Operations with the attached Conditions of Approval (Appendix A of this document). This decision authorizes the surface-use operations associated with oil and gas development and is designed to minimize environmental effects by integrating the following items during implementation: Forest Plan standards and guidelines. The Master SUPO s incorporation of design criteria (EA, Table 2.1-6) and lease stipulations. Best management practices (EA, Table 2.1-6). Conditions of Approval (Appendix A of this document). Construction activity guidelines described in The Gold Book, Surface Operating Standards for Oil and Gas Exploration and Development (BLM and USFS 1989). My decision to select the Modified Proposed Action authorizes use of approximately 2,550 acres of leased NFS lands for exploration, development and production of natural gas. Specifically, the action will include: Drilling up to 45 natural gas wells. Approximately 50 acres of new surface disturbance (pads, roads, and pipelines). Construction of 6 well pads. Construction of approximately 6 miles of new access road. If the first well is a producer, the following components which were also analyzed in this EA, would be permitted for the long-term (20-30 years) production of the wells: Construction and burial of approximately 6 miles of 6 diameter gas gathering pipeline and 6 miles of 4 diameter water pipeline in one trench, within the access road corridor. Up to 45 gas meters (one per well). Up to 45, 400-bbl storage tanks for produced water (one per well). Up to 13 dehydrator heater units (3 and 4-pack heaters; 2 to 3 heaters per well pad). The pipelines were analyzed in the Hells Gulch North, Phase 2 EA, however, approval for the pipelines will be granted by means of a special use authorization. It is estimated that approximately 26 of the 50 acres of new disturbance will remain un-vegetated for the life of the project (20 to 30 plus years) if the first well is a producer. As indicated above, if the first well is a producer, subsequent infrastructure and facilities would be permitted for the long-term production of the wells. The 4-inch diameter water conveyance pipelines are being installed to address water management in the Hells Gulch project area. The water lines will be used to transport produced water from the well heads to a centralized water Page 4 of 27

5 management facility which will be constructed after sufficient data is available to size and select an appropriate location for the facility. Construction of a water management facility on NFS lands would require additional environmental analysis as the Hells Gulch North, Phase 2 EA did not analyze the impacts of a water facility. Installing the water lines during the initial road construction phase of the Hells Gulch North, Phase 2 project will eliminate additional construction disturbance in the event that the water pipelines are needed. When compared to the other action alternatives, the Modified Proposed Action provides the most flexibility while maximizing development and minimizing the duration for lease development. Furthermore, the modified proposed action fully meets the purpose and need for the project. PXP has the right to explore and develop natural gas somewhere within their mineral lease area since they have purchased the Federal mineral lease within the project area. The No Action alternative would have essentially denied their right to explore and develop their mineral lease, and except for cases where a law, such as the Endangered Species Act, would be violated by selecting an action alternative, it is not within my discretion to deny this right. My discretion is generally limited to determining when, where, and how oil and gas exploration and development will occur within a federal lease. The No Action Alternative and other alternatives considered are discussed in Section 3.0 of this document. 2.1 APPLICABLE LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES This decision is consistent with applicable laws, regulations, and policies (refer to Sections 1.1 and 6.0 of this document and EA, Section 1.3). Activities approved by this decision are on NFS lands. These NFS lands are within and adjacent to existing federal oil and gas leases, are consistent with rights granted under federal oil and gas leases, and are consistent with Forest Plan direction. 2.2 ISSUES CONSIDERED Concerns related to the project s effects on the natural and human environment were identified as Issues (EA, Section 1.7.1) and addressed in the effects analysis. Most of these concerns were addressed by careful design and implementation requirements of the proposed action and alternatives (EA, Section 2.0). Specific discussion on how key resource issues were addressed in the analysis is addressed in Section 4.0 of this document. 2.3 FACTORS OTHER THAN ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS CONSIDERED The Purpose and Need of this project is to authorize a holder of federal oil and gas leases on the National Forest to explore for and develop gas reserves. My decision supports the Purpose and Need for this project. My decision fulfills the Federal Government s policy to foster and encourage mineral development (Mining and Mineral Policy Act of 1970); supports the Forest Service minerals program objectives to ensure exploration, development and production of energy resources are conducted in an environmentally sensitive manner and to facilitate orderly exploration, development and production of energy resources within NFS lands open to these activities; and Page 5 of 27

6 complies with the WRNF Forest Plan direction to encourage environmentally sound energy development (USFS 2002). 2.4 ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION AND DOCUMENT(S) CONSIDERED This decision was made after carefully considering the contents of the EA, public comments, and the supporting project record. The 1993 WRNF Oil and Gas Leasing EIS and the Forest Plan were also reviewed. The EA (Section and Table 2.1-6) incorporated best management practices appropriate for the site-specific conditions. In reviewing the project record and EA, I have determined the analysis considered the best available science. 2.5 HOW CONSIDERATIONS WERE WEIGHED AND BALANCED Existing oil and gas leases underlie the surface, giving the leaseholder the right to construct drill pads and roads on the surface needed to develop the oil and gas resources, subject to the lease stipulations. Drill pads and roads for mineral exploration have previously been approved, constructed, and then reclaimed in various portions of the WRNF and surrounding area. These areas have been successfully reclaimed, and returned to acceptable uses over time. This project facilitates exercising these lease rights and is a part of the ongoing minerals program on the WRNF. The design features of the Modified Proposed Action (EA, Section and Table 2.1-6) along with the Conditions of Approval (Appendix A of the document), limit the effects of the proposed activities to a level that presents little risk to resources (EA, Chapter 3). 2.6 RELATIONSHIP TO PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Public comment and input was sought throughout this project (EA, Sections 1.7 and 5.0 and Section 4.0 of this document). I considered public comment while making my decision. Response to Comments document (project file) contains a summary of all public comments received and Agency responses to each comment. The Response to Comments is available upon request. I recognize that some public comments requested an Environmental Impact Statement be written because of resource impacts, notably impacts to air quality, adequacy of cumulative impacts analysis, adequacy of the WRNF 1993 Oil and Gas Leasing EIS, and other reasons. I carefully considered both the comments expressing these concerns and the information presented in the EA. I have concluded the environmental analysis adequately studied and disclosed potential consequences of the proposed action and alternatives. I have determined that no significant impacts would occur as the result of my decision (refer to Section 5.0 of this document for a detailed Finding of No Significant Impact) and therefore preparation of an EIS is not needed. Page 6 of 27

7 3.0 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED In addition to the selected alternative, I considered six other alternatives, three of which were eliminated from detailed study (EA, Section 2.5) and three of which were carried forward for analysis in the EA. A detailed comparison of these alternatives can be found in Chapter 2 of the EA (Table 2.6-1) and are summarized below. No Action NEPA regulations require that federal agencies evaluate in detail an alternative of no action as a baseline for comparing and measuring the effects of other alternatives. The No Action Alternative means that none of the activities incorporated in the Modified Proposed Action (clearing of well sites, development of roads, and installation of infrastructure) would occur. The 1993 WRNF Oil and Gas Leasing EIS made the currently leased Hells Gulch North, Phase 2 area available for leasing, and the 2002 WRNF Forest Plan reaffirmed the project area in which operations are proposed as suitable for oil and gas development. The No Action Alternative (EA, Section 2.2) was not selected because it would not meet the purpose and need for the project. Furthermore, it would not support the right of the lessee to explore for gas on their federal oil and gas leases. The federal oil and gas lease grants the lessee the right to explore for and develop the mineral resources. They were also given the right to construct roads and drill pads needed to explore for the mineral reserves, in locations that were not restricted by lease stipulations. Terms of the lease on which operations are proposed do not prohibit surface occupancy. Conducting surface activities necessary to develop the oil and gas resources under a lease can be denied only when the activity constitutes a violation of law and regulation or would cause unacceptable impacts [30 U.S.C. 226(g); 36 CFR , 106, & 107; 43 CFR ]. Authority for complete denial can be granted only by Congress which can order the leases forfeited subject to compensation. Alternative 1 Alternative 1 imposes a moderate level of staging on the implementation of the Modified Proposed Action. The north and south lease development could be concurrent, but limited in that only one well pad and associated roads in each lease area would be constructed and drilled at a time. It would then be required that all wells on each pad be drilled and completed prior to constructing subsequent roads and pads. Alternative 1 would have resulted in less intensive activities occurring at the same time in the project area relative to the Modified Proposed Action. Because the staging limitation would have limited the pace of construction and drilling it would have effectively extended the period of time required to develop the lease. Under the staging limitation of Alternative 1, it was estimated that the proposed development could be implemented in approximately 5 years (EA, Section ) compared to duration of 3 to 5 years for the Modified Proposed Action. Page 7 of 27

8 Alternative 2 Alternative 2 imposes a maximum level of staging on the Modified Proposed Action. Development of the north and south lease portions would be subsequent; therefore only one well pad and associated roads within a lease area would be constructed and drilled at a time. For example, if the north lease portion was developed first, the access road and 24-5 well pad would be constructed and all wells on the 24-5 well pad would need to be drilled and completed prior to constructing the access road and 24-7 well pad and so on. Development of the remaining lease area would be staged in the same manner; new construction would not commence until a previous area was fully developed. Alternative 2 would have resulted in even less intensive activities occurring at one time in the project area relative to the Modified Proposed Action. Because the staging limitation would have limited the pace of construction and drilling it would have extended the period of time required to develop the lease even longer. Under the staging limitation of Alternative 2, it was estimated that the proposed development could be implemented in approximately 9 years (EA, Section ), compared to 3 to 5 years for the Modified Proposed Action. 4.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Section 1.7 and Chapter 5.0 in the EA provide a discussion of public involvement and consultation undertaken for the project. Mailing lists used for the scoping effort are contained in the project file. Non-key issues were determined to be 1) outside the scope of the proposed action; 2) already decided by law, regulation, Forest Plan, or other higher level decision; 3) irrelevant to the decision to be made; 4) conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence; or 5) general opinions or position statements of a general nature. The project was first listed on the Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) the first quarter of A public scoping notice introducing the original Purpose and Need and Proposed Action was published in the Glenwood Springs Post Independent, newspaper of record, on February 21, 2006 in addition to other local newspapers. A scoping document was also mailed on to 37 state and federal agencies, tribal governments, adjacent landowners, organizations, the Garfield and Mesa County Commissioners, and other parties interested in proposed activities on the White River National Forest in February Eight comment letters were received in response to the scoping notice. The IDT reviewed, analyzed, and summarized the comments to represent the issues and concerns of the respondents. Based on these issues and concerns alternatives and additional design criteria were developed. The Forest Service separated the issues into two groups, key and non-key issues, in regards to their relationship with the proposed action. Key issues were defined as issues that 1) drive the analysis of environmental effects; 2) prescribe or necessitate the development of mitigation measures; and/or 3) drive the development of additional project alternatives. Key issues are summarized below; a more detailed discussion is presented in Section of the EA. Page 8 of 27

9 Ground disturbance and activity associated with drilling for gas in the Project Area is the primary key issue surrounding the Proposed Action, due to potential negative impacts to the following: Impacts to various wildlife species and their habitats: Implementation of the Modified Proposed Action or Alternative 1 or 2 would disrupt and displace wildlife. The effects analysis determined that impacts would be a short-term effect during active construction and drilling. Impacts to air quality: Implementation of the Modified Proposed Action or Alternative 1 or 2 would increase air emissions in the project area. Short-term emissions would primarily be fugitive dust from construction and traffic and NOx from diesel powered vehicles and equipment. Long-term emissions would primarily be NOx, CO, and PM 10. Spread of noxious weeds in the project area: Implementation of the Modified Proposed Action or Alternative 1 or 2 would result in surface disturbance and leave the areas more susceptible to the spread of weeds. Surface water quality in the Alkali Creek watershed: Implementation of the Modified Proposed Action or Alternative 1 or 2 would remove vegetation and leave exposed soil susceptible to erosion. Impacts to recreation: Implementation of the Modified Proposed Action or Alternative 1 or 2 would increase human activity and noise in the project area. The lease area is generally seldom visited by the public and the primary recreation use is big game hunting. Active construction and drilling activities could change big game use patterns and result in fewer animals occupying areas near active work. The effects analysis determined construction and drilling activities and fewer big game animals occupying the lease would likely displace hunters to other areas of game management unit 42. This effect is expected to be temporary and limited to the period of active construction and drilling. Grazing resources in the project area: Implementation of the Modified Proposed Action or Alternative 1 or 2 would reduce the amount of vegetation available for livestock forage. For the project location, this is most important to early season grazing. Following review of the scoping comments, we considered these issues by incorporating project design criteria and Best Management Practices (BMPs) into the Modified Proposed Action to minimize or mitigate potential effects (EA, Table 2.1-6). Non-key issues were not carried forward in the analysis (EA, Section 1.7.2). The EA was sent out for a 30-day public review and comment period in January A legal notice was published on January 10, 2007 in the Glenwood Springs Post Independent, newspaper of record, in addition to other local newspapers. The EA was mailed to 41 addressees. Fifteen parties submitted comments during the comment period and two parties provided comments after the closing of the comment period. A summary of those public comments and the Agency Response to Comments are contained in the project file and are available upon request. No new issues were identified that resulted in the modification of the Modified Proposed Action. Again, the original proposed action was changed to the Modified Proposed Action and Page 9 of 27

10 Alternatives 1 and 2 were developed as a result of public scoping of the proposed action. The comments received on the EA during the public review and comment period resulted in additional analysis being completed and subsequent updating of the final EA. Minor changes were made to the Modified Proposed Action as a result in the lease transfer from Laramie Energy, LLC to Plains Exploration and Production Company. These minor changes are discussed in Chapter 2.0 of the EA. Page 10 of 27

11 5.0 FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSI) After considering the context and intensity of environmental impacts described in the EA, I have determined that the modified proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. An environmental impact statement will not be prepared. My determination is based on criteria outlined in the implementing regulations for the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR ). Context Locality: The Hells Gulch North, Phase 2 Project is an exploration project first and development project second should the first well drilled prove to be a producer. It is possible not all drilling locations, new roads and gathering lines would be constructed. In the event that all locations are used for exploration and development, this decision could initially affect about 50 acres of National Forest System lands on the Rifle Ranger District for drilling location construction, access road construction, and installation of natural gas gathering and produced water lines. In context of the land area available for use, 2,550 total lease acres, long-term disturbance associated with drilling locations, access roads, and gas gathering lines represents approximately 1 percent of the lease area acreage. In addition, the project lease area has been the site of previous projects that have altered about 40 acres of land. Of the 40 acres of previously disturbed lands within the lease, approximately 9 acres of land were anticipated to be long-term disturbance, or less than a half of a percent. Combined, the Hells Gulch North, Phase 2 project and the already developed Hells Gulch project, less than 1.5 percent of the lease area acreage would have long-term disturbance. The land disturbance associated with this project does not substantially change the existing character of this local landscape. Active oil and gas drilling operations have been a part of the Hells Gulch landscape for the past 5 years while oil and gas pipelines have been a part of the landscape in the Hells Gulch area for the past 40 years. The inclusion of this project s activities is part of the overall allowable management activities for this area. Intensity Criterion 1: Impacts that may be both beneficial and adverse: A significant effect may exist even if the federal agency believes that on balance the effect will be beneficial. The effects of the proposed action, both beneficial and adverse, have been adequately addressed in the EA (Chapter 3) and considered in Section 2.0 of this Decision Notice. Impacts of this decision will be similar to those of previous decisions regarding oil and gas exploration and oil and gas development in portions of this project area and in adjacent areas on the WRNF. A benefit of the project would be providing natural gas to help meet the nation s energy needs. Both beneficial and adverse effects have been considered and all impacts are either, in and of themselves, not significant, or design features and best management practices listed in Table of the EA are expected to minimize the effects as well as the conditions of approval requirements in Appendix E of the EA. None of the expected beneficial or adverse impacts have a significant amount of intensity that would require documentation in an EIS. Page 11 of 27

12 Criterion 2: The degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety. Protection of public health and safety is required during the Application for Permit to Drill (APD) process (EA, Section 2.1.3). The protection must be built into the Surface Use Plan of Operations (SUPO) prior to approval of the SUPO. The project design and mitigation measures incorporated into the Master SUPO reduce the risk to public health and safety to very low levels for key resources like air quality and water. Additionally, natural gas drilling is regulated by state and federal safety standards. In my determination, there will be no significant effects to public health and safety based on the effects disclosed in the EA. Criterion 3: Unique characteristics of the geographic area such as proximity to historic or cultural resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas. There will be no significant effects on unique characteristics based on the fact no identified park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas were identified in the project area. There were no historic or cultural resources eligible for the National Register of Historic Places identified in the project area. The project will have No Effect on cultural resources. Criterion 4: The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly controversial. Surface related impacts are expected to be consistent with past impacts from similar projects in this project area and elsewhere in the project vicinity. The quality and use of the human environment in the project area is understood and have been analyzed and are not highly controversial from a scientific standpoint. Given that construction and drilling activities will occur for short periods of time at specific locations, there is very low risk of effects spreading to local communities. Monitoring of other drilling projects has shown that revegetation and rehabilitation of impacted areas will successfully occur. Criterion 5: The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks. The effects of the proposed action on the human environment are known so there is not a high level of uncertainty or unique or unknown risk with this project. This decision and its effects are not unique. Mineral-related (oil and gas) drilling decisions have been made on this National Forest for the past 50 years. Furthermore, it was acknowledged when these lands were made available for oil and gas leasing, that site-specific operations could be proposed and would have to be considered and included as part of the management direction for the area. Chapter 3 of the EA discusses in detail the direct impacts expected from this project. Page 12 of 27

13 The proposed activities are not unique to this project area or the WRNF. Mineral related drilling projects have been previously approved in close proximity to and within the same project area. The Forest Service has experience in implementing and monitoring similar projects, the effects of which have been found to be reasonably predictable. Based on the environmental analysis and experience with other natural gas projects specifically on the Rifle Ranger District and the White River National Forest, in general the potential effects on the human environment are not uncertain and do not involve unique or unknown risks. The intensity of this factor does not require documentation in an EIS. Criterion 6: The degree to which the action may establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration. The Hell s Gulch Project Area and surrounding area is within a region designated as administratively available for oil and gas leasing (USFS 1993, 2002). The WRNF has previously analyzed and permitted oil and gas drilling activities in the immediate project area, in areas in proximity to the this project area, and on other areas on the Forest. Any future actions in or near the project area will require an additional, appropriate level of environmental analysis under NEPA, which will take a critical look at the significance of all potential effects at that time. My decision does not set a precedent or represent a decision in principle about a future consideration therefore documentation in an EIS is not required. Criterion 7: Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts. Significance exists if it is reasonable to anticipate a cumulatively significant impact on the environment. The long-term effects of oil and gas leasing and production across the White River National Forest and within this Federal Lease were evaluated and disclosed in the WRNF Oil and Gas EIS (USFS 1993). Other oil and gas production and associated facilities are already located in the project area, and the Forest Service anticipates additional drilling and associated infrastructure on already existing drill pads for natural gas exploration and production, additional drilling on other NFS lands, additional pipelines, and prescribed burning in the future. Other reasonably foreseeable actions include continued livestock grazing, road improvements, and recreational activities. With specific regard to effects to air quality, the Cumulative Effects Analysis (CEA) predicts substantial adverse air quality effects to Class I areas and a Class II Wilderness Area collectively from current and future emissions sources in comparison to assumed natural visibility background and measured baseline acid neutralizing capacity conditions. These impacts are primarily due to emission from power plants but also include emissions from oil and gas exploration and development as well as from a variety of mining and mineral-processing operations (EA, Section 3.3.4). Given the small scale, localized impacts associated with this project, the understanding of local resource conditions, and an understanding of the air quality effects, the incremental contribution of this project to existing air quality conditions is not considered significant. Based on the cumulative impacts analysis sections in Chapter 3 of the EA and the information in the project record, I have determined that the cumulative impacts are not significant. Page 13 of 27

14 Criterion 8: The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or may cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources. A cultural resource inventory and report determined the project will have No Effect on cultural resources. The action will have no significant adverse effect on districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), because no direct impacts to NRHP-eligible sites will occur as a result of the proposed action (EA, Section 3.9.2). The action will also not cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources, because none were found in the project area (EA, Section 3.9.2). When implementing the project, any previously unidentified sites discovered would be avoided or mitigated, therefore there would be no effect upon them. A cultural resources education and discovery condition of approval will be attached to each application to permit drilling received for the proposed wells (see Appendix A of this EA). Criterion 9: The degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act of The action will not adversely affect any endangered or threatened species or its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, (EA, Section 3.8 and Project Record BE/BA). This project does not contain any lynx denning or foraging habitat, nor is it within any mapped Lynx Landscape Linkage areas (EA, page 79). A Biological Assessment was completed for this analysis and determined the project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the lynx or its critical habitat. The US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has been consulted during the environmental analysis process and concurred with this determination in a letter dated January 25, The letter is available in the project file. If additional findings regarding threatened or endangered, proposed or sensitive species are discovered, a new biological assessment or evaluation will be written, and any mitigation incorporated into the Conditions of Approval. No habitat for the four listed fish species is found within the project area (EA, page 79). The water sources to be used for this project have been previously consulted on with the USFWS (see discussion in section of EA) (BO # s ES/GJ-6-CO-99-F-033 and ES/GJ-6-CO-99-F-033- CP052). No new depletions will result from this project and therefore no additional consultation was required. Additionally, project BMPs are expected to prevent degradation of water quality (EA, Table 2.1-6). The project area does not include potential habitat for any ESA listed plant species, therefore, it was determined the project would have no effect on ESA plants (EA, page 74). Criterion 10: Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, State, or local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment. Page 14 of 27

15 To the best of my knowledge, this action does not threaten violation of any Federal, State, and local laws or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment. Applicable laws and regulations were considered in the EA (Section 1.6.2) and are summarized in this Decision. 6.0 FINDINGS REQUIRED BY OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS To the best of my knowledge, this decision complies with all applicable laws and regulations related to the environment. The following is a summary of these pertinent legal requirements. Executive Order of May 18, 2001: This Order called the federal agencies to expedite their review of permits for energy-related projects while maintaining safety, public health, and environmental protections. My decision is consistent with this Order. Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976: This Act allows the granting of land use permits on National Forest System lands. The regulations at 36 CFR 251 guide the issuance of permits under this Act. Land use permits are granted on National Forest System lands when the need for such is consistent with planned uses. National Forest Management Act of 1976: The Forest Plan was approved in 1983 and amended in 2002, as required by this Act. This long-range land and resource management plan provides guidance for all resource management activities in the Forest. The National Forest Management Act requires all projects and activities to be consistent with the Forest Plan. The Forest Plan has been reviewed in consideration of this project (EA, Section 1.4.1). This decision is consistent with the Forest Plan. Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970: This Act declared it would be the continuing policy of the Federal government and in the Nation s interest to foster and encourage private enterprise in the development of economically sound and stable domestic mining industries, and the orderly and economic development of domestic mineral resources. This decision is consistent with this Act. Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended by the Federal On Shore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987: This Act authorizes the federal agencies to lease oil and gas reserves. The WRNF Oil and Gas Leasing EIS was prepared to comply with this Act. Further, this Act assigned the Secretary of Agriculture responsibility to approve surface use plans for oil and gas operations. This decision is consistent with this Act. National Historic Preservation Act: All areas of potential disturbance have been surveyed for cultural resources. The project will have no effect on cultural resources. A report has been submitted to the Colorado SHPO and we have received concurrence with this finding. The concurrence letter from the SHPO is in the project record. Ongoing consultation has identified no places of American Indian cultural or religious significance (EA, Section 3.9.1). Endangered Species Act: Compliance with this Act is addressed in Section 5.0 of this document. Page 15 of 27

16 National Environmental Policy Act: The documentation for this project supports compliance with this Act. The process of environmental analysis and decision making for this proposed action, and the associated documentation, have been conducted to fully comply with the requirements of NEPA. These include requirements of the Act itself, CEQ regulations at 40 CFR 1500, Forest Service policies at Forest Service Handbook , and from case law. Energy Policy Act of 2005: With respect to oil and gas, this Act requires the Forest Service to ensure timely action on applications for permits to drill and ensure compliance with all applicable environmental and cultural resource laws. This Decision s approval of a Master APD and SUPO sets the opportunity for expeditious review of APDs. Further, this Act calls agencies managing federal oil and gas resources to have stipulations on oil and gas leases only as restrictive as necessary to protect resources. Clean Air Act: The purpose of this Act is to protect the quality of the nation s air resources along with human health and welfare. The administration and compliance of this Act is addressed in Section of the EA. Clean Water Act: The purpose of this act is to provide the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States and regulating quality standards for surface waters. This decision is consistent with this Act. 7.0 ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OR APPEAL OPPORTUNITIES This decision is subject to administrative review (appeal) pursuant to 36 CFR Part The appeal must be filed by, regular mail, fax, , hand-delivery, or express delivery with the Appeal Deciding Officer ( 215.8) within 45 days following the date of publication of a legal notice of decision in the Glenwood Springs Post Independent at: Regular Mail, Express Delivery Messenger Service: USDA Forest Service, Region 2 Attn: Appeal Deciding Officer 740 Simms Street Golden, CO Fax: (303) appeals-rocky-mountain-regional-office@fs.fed.us The office business hours for those submitting hand-delivered appeals are: 8:00 am to 4:30 pm Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. Electronic appeals must be submitted in a format such as an message, plain text (.txt), rich text format (.rtf), Adobe (.pdf), or Word (.doc). In cases where no identifiable name is attached to an electronic message, a verification of identity will be required. A scanned signature is one way to provide verification. Page 16 of 27

17 Documents received after the close of the 45-day appeal period will not be considered. The publication date of the legal notice in the newspaper of record, Glenwood Springs Post Independent, is the exclusive means for calculating the time to file an appeal ( (a)). Those wishing to appeal should not rely upon dates or timeframe information provided by any other source. Individuals or organizations who submitted comments or otherwise expressed interest during the comment period may appeal this decision. The notice of appeal must meet the appeal content requirements at 36 CFR Notices of Appeal that do not meet the requirements of 36 CFR will be dismissed. 8.0 IMPLEMENTATION DATE If no appeals are filed within the 45-day time period, implementation of the decision may occur on, but not before, 5 business days from the close of the appeal filing period. When appeals are filed, implementation may occur on, but not before, the 15 th business day following the date of the last appeal disposition. 9.0 CONTACT PERSON For additional information concerning this decision, contact David Francomb, Forest Oil and Gas Administrator, 0094 County Road 244, Rifle, CO 81650, telephone (970) or (970) SIGNATURE AND DATE /s/ Mary Morgan 5/2/2008 Forest Supervisor Date White River National Forest The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC , or call (800) (voice) or (202) (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Page 17 of 27

18 APPENDIX A Page 18 of 27

19 Standard Conditions of Approval (COAs) Location: Hells Gulch North, Phase 2 Application: All Activities The following standard surface use COAs are in addition to all stipulations attached to the respective Federal leases and to any site-specific COAs for individual well pads. Wording and numbering of these COAs may differ from those included in the Hells Gulch North, Phase 2 EA. In cases of discrepancies, the following COAs supersede earlier versions. 1. Reclamation: The reclamation items listed under Master SUPO point 10 (Plans for Restoration of the Surface) are supplemented and/or modified with items a through h below. The specific measures described below shall be followed during interim reclamation of disturbed surfaces associated with well pads, access roads, and pipelines. These measures, except seedbed preparation, shall also apply to temporary reclamation of topsoil storage piles and surfaces that are subject to interim reclamation but not scheduled to undergo interim reclamation until more than 1 year has elapsed following the surface disturbance. a. Seedbed Preparation: For interim reclamation, all slopes shall be reshaped prior to seedbed preparation. Initial seedbed preparation shall consist of backfilling, leveling, and ripping all areas to be seeded. Ripping shall be to a minimum depth of 18 inches, with a maximum furrow spacing of 2 feet. Where practicable, ripping shall be conducted in two passes at perpendicular directions. The ripped surfaces shall be smoothed to the final contour and covered evenly with topsoil. Final seedbed preparation shall consist of scarifying (raking or harrowing) the spread topsoil prior to seeding. If more than one season has elapsed between final seedbed preparation and seeding, and if the area is to be broadcast-seeded or hydroseeded, this step shall be repeated no more than one day before seeding to break up any crust that has formed. Final seedbed preparation in areas for which no topsoil is available shall include discing of the ripped surfaces to smooth the coarse clods, furrows, and windrows. Discing shall be to a depth of 4 to 6 inches and shall be conducted in two passes in perpendicular directions, with the final pass along the contour (across the slope). If more than one season has elapsed between discing and seeding, and if the area is to be broadcast-seeded or hydroseeded, the area shall be scarified (raked or harrowed) no more than one day prior to seeding to break up any crust that has formed. Seedbed preparation is not required for topsoil storage piles or other areas of temporary reclamation. Requests for use of soil amendments, including basic product information, shall be submitted to the FS for approval. b. Seed Mixes: Selection of seed to be used in temporary or interim reclamation shall comply with the menu-based seed mixes in the letter provided to oil and gas operators dated April 16, For private surfaces, the menu-based seed mixes are recommended, but the surface landowner has ultimate authority over the seed mix to be used in reclamation. The seed shall contain no noxious, prohibited, or restricted weed seeds and shall contain no more than 0.5 percent by weight of other weed seeds. Seed may contain up to 2.0 percent of other crop seed by weight, including the seed of other agronomic crops and native plants; however, a lower percentage of other crop seed is recommended. Seed tags or other official documentation shall be supplied to the BLM Glenwood Springs Energy Office Ecologist (Beth Brenneman, or beth_brenneman@blm.gov) at least 14 days before the date of proposed seeding for acceptance. Seed that does not meet the above criteria shall not be applied to public lands. Page 19 of 27