United States Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management

Northeastern States District Office

LLESM03200

_______________________________________

Environmental Assessment

NEPA #: DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA

Oil and Gas Leasing, Wayne National Forest,

Marietta Unit of the Athens Ranger District,

Monroe, Noble, and Washington Counties, Ohio

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Date: October 2016

Type of Action: Oil and Gas Leasing

Locations: Benton, Center, Green, Jackson, Lee, Perry, Summit, Washington, and Wayne Townships, Monroe

County, Ohio

Lawrence and Liberty Townships, Washington County, Ohio

Elk Township, Noble County, Ohio

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Bureau of Land Management

Northeastern States District Office

626 E. Wisconsin Ave., Suite 200

Milwaukee, WI 53202

414-297-4400 (phone) 

414-297-4409 (fax)
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 2 

MISSION STATEMENT

It is the mission of the Bureau of Land Management to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of 

the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations.
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 3 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 4 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) to evaluate 

the anticipated environmental impacts of the Proposed Action to lease federal mineral estate within the 

proclamation boundary of the Wayne National Forest (WNF), Athens Ranger District, Marietta Unit. 

The Marietta Unit is located within Monroe, Noble, and Washington Counties in Ohio. The parcels that 

could be leased as part of the Proposed Action consist of all federal mineral estate underlying National 

Forest System (NFS) lands and total approximately 40,000 acres. The proposed parcels would be leased 

for potential future oil and gas development. Maps depicting the location of the Proposed Action are 

included in Chapter 6 of this EA. 

The purpose of the Proposed Action is to support the development of oil and natural gas resources that 

are essential to meeting the nation’s future needs for energy while minimizing adverse effects to natural 

and cultural resources. The BLM minimizes adverse effects to resources by identifying appropriate lease 

stipulations and notices, best management practices, and mitigations. It is the policy of the BLM as 

mandated by various laws, including the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended (30 United States 

Code [USC] 181 et seq.), the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), and the Energy 

Policy Act of 2005 to make mineral resources available for development to meet national, regional, and 

local needs. The oil and gas leasing program managed by the BLM encourages the sustainable 

development of domestic oil and gas reserves which reduces the dependence of the United States on 

foreign sources of energy as part of its multiple-use and sustainable yield mandate. The Proposed 

Action is consistent with the BLM’s mission and requirement to evaluate nominated parcels and hold 

quarterly competitive lease sales for available oil and gas lease parcels. In depth analysis of the purpose 

and need of the Proposed Action can be found in Chapter 1 of this EA.

Interested parties, such as private individuals or companies, may file Expressions of Interest (EOIs) to 

nominate parcels for competitive bid and leasing by the BLM. The BLM has received at least 50 EOIs to 

nominate parcels on the Marietta Unit of the WNF. Any nominated parcels reviewed and approved for 

competitive leasing by the BLM and United States Forest Service (Forest Service) after the initial lease 

sale, in which parcels are auctioned, would be addressed with a Determination of NEPA Adequacy (DNA) 

document to confirm the analysis in this EA is still adequate. Once the DNA is complete, approved lease 

parcels would then be auctioned at future BLM Eastern States competitive oil and gas lease sales. 

A federal oil and gas lease is a legal contract that grants exclusive rights to the lessee to develop 

federally-owned oil and gas resources, but does not authorize surface-disturbing activities or obligate 

the lessee to drill a well on the parcel in the future. Should the parcel be leased and a detailed plan for 

oil and gas development on the parcel be identified, the BLM and Forest Service would conduct future 

site-specific environmental analysis and any required consultations, prior to any ground disturbing 

activities. The site-specific analysis and additional consultations would occur at the Application for 

Permit to Drill (APD) stage. The Proposed Action evaluated in this EA is described in further detail in 

Chapter 2.
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 5 

Chapter 3 of this EA describes the environment that would be affected by implementation of the 

Proposed Action, as required by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for 

implementing NEPA (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508). The discussion in Chapter 3 focuses on the relevant 

resources and issues and only those elements of the affected environment that have the potential to be 

impacted are described in detail. 

The anticipated environmental consequences associated with direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of 

the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative are examined in Chapter 4. The Proposed Action of 

leasing parcels would, by itself, have no direct impact on any resources in the lease area since there 

would be no surface disturbing activities. All anticipated resource impacts would be associated with 

potential future oil and gas development. As previously stated, additional site-specific NEPA analysis 

would be conducted at the (APD stage prior to ground disturbing activities, if actual mineral 

development on a lease parcel(s) is proposed.

This EA has been prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969; the 

CEQ regulations implementing NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 1500-1508), the United 

States Department of the Interior (DOI) NEPA requirements (Department Manual 516, Environmental 

Quality) and the BLM NEPA Handbook H-1790-1. The information presented within this document 

serves as the basis for the BLM Authorized Officer to decide whether the Proposed Action would result 

in significant impacts to the environment. Significant impacts would require the preparation of an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). If the BLM Authorized Officer determines that no significant 

impacts would occur, a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) would be issued.

The Proposed Action and alternatives are in compliance with the Final Revised Land and Resource 

Management Plan, Wayne National Forest (2006 Forest Plan) (U.S. Forest Service, 2006). Since the BLM 

was a cooperating agency in development of the 2006 Forest Plan, this EA incorporates, where 

appropriate, the information from that plan and associated NEPA documentation. This EA also 

incorporates the information from a related review effort resulting in a Supplemental Information 

Report (SIR) on potential oil and gas development in the WNF (U.S. Forest Service, 2012). The SIR was

prepared by the Forest Service in coordination with the BLM.

The anticipated environmental impacts of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative are 

summarized in Table ii. Table ii is a summary; more detailed analyses are found in the chapters that 

follow.
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 6 

Table ii. Anticipated environmental effects of Proposed Action and No Action Alternative.

Resource No Action 

Alternative

Proposed Action

Air Resources/Climate No effect No direct effects from leasing. Effects can be expected 

from emissions associated with potential future 

construction activities and well completion, including 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) criteria 

contaminants and hazardous air pollutants. Effects from 

emissions may include health hazards, reduced visibility, 

and contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions. 

Effects minimized by Standard Operating Procedures 

(SOPs), best management practices (BMPs) and conditions 

of approval (COAs) at the time of drilling.

Plant and Animal Habitat 

and Populations

No effect No direct effects from leasing. Potential for minor to 

moderate habitat modification through clearing 

vegetation for potential future construction of roads, 

pads, and other infrastructure. Potential effects 

dependent on locations of proposed wells. Some clearing 

would be temporary, and all areas would be restored 

during interim or final reclamation. Effects minimized by 

2006 Forest Plan’s measures protecting sensitive species 

and habitats.

Geology and Mineral 

Resources

No effect No direct effects from leasing. Low risk of induced 

seismicity from potential future oil and gas development. 

Over time, there is the potential for mineral depletion.

Soils No effect No direct effects from leasing. Potential for minor soil 

compaction, increased erosion, and polluted runoff from

potential future mineral development. Future reasonably 

foreseeable effects would be minimized by lease 

stipulations and BMPs.

Water Resources and 

Water Quality

No effect No direct effects from leasing. Potential for large surface 

water withdrawals for drilling and completion associated 

with potential reasonably foreseeable future 

development. Some risk of chemical spills and erosion 

from roads and well pads. Future reasonably foreseeable 

effects minimized by Forest Service policies for water 

withdrawal and waterway protection and soilconservation measures. Additional protections required 

by the Onshore Orders.
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 7 

Resource No Action 

Alternative

Proposed Action

Wastes, Hazardous or 

Solid

No effect No direct effects from leasing. Wastes would be 

generated from reasonably foreseeable development, 

with a potential for short- and long-term adverse impacts 

if wastes are not properly handled, stored, and disposed. 

SOPs, BMPs, and COAs at the APD stage would minimize 

risk from spills.

Public Health & Safety No effect No direct effects from leasing. From future reasonably 

foreseeable development, effects include potential 

exposure to contamination that may cause health 

conditions in sensitive or susceptible populations. 

However, federal, state, and local regulations, as well as 

health standards and protocols ensure that potential 

operations do not compromise public health and safety.

Transportation No effect No direct effects from leasing. Within future reasonably 

foreseeable development, potential effects to existing 

roads and traffic may occur. Development of new roads 

may not be extensive or necessary and traffic patterns 

may vary depending on use. More traffic could increase 

traffic related accidents or suspended dust particles that 

may hamper wildlife or scenery. Vehicle movement would 

tend to lessen after initial development. Adhering to 

Forest Service regulations and mitigations would address 

potential accidents or concerns. 

Land Use and Recreation No effect No direct effects from leasing. Effects may include minor, 

short- and long-term changes to land use from reasonably 

foreseeable development activities due to conversion of 

undeveloped areas to areas that support oil and gas 

development. Future reasonably foreseeable effects 

minimized by stipulations and other Forest Service 

measures for protecting recreation resources. 

Noise No effect No direct effects from leasing. Effects of future reasonably 

foreseeable development activities could include the 

generation of unwanted sounds, making the area less 

attractive to residents or visitors while possibly displacing 

wildlife nearby, therefore affecting surrounding 

ecosystems. However, noise effects would subside after 

initial development and drilling. BMPs would minimize 

potential adverse noise effects. 

Cultural 

Resources/Paleontology/

No effect No direct effects from leasing. Additional surveys and 

tribal consultation under the NHPA would be conducted, 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 8 

Resource No Action 

Alternative

Proposed Action

Native American Religious 

Concerns

as required, at the APD stage. 

Visual Resources/Scenic 

Quality

No effect No direct effects from leasing. Effects include minor, 

short- and long-term adverse visual impacts from 

reasonably foreseeable development associated with the 

proposed lease parcels. 

Socioeconomics and 

Environmental Justice

Loss, 

reduction, or 

delay of 

revenues 

generated 

through 

leasing and

royalties.

Direct effects of leasing would generate revenues that 

would be shared with counties. Effects based on 

reasonably foreseeable development may generate 

additional royalties, economic stimulation in form of 

additional employment, output, and support services. 

Environmental justice concerns are not expected. 

Minority populations are not present. Although there are 

low-income populations, disproportionate adverse effects 

are not expected. 

Cumulative Impacts N/A Minor cumulative effects overall. Forest Service 

management of WNF provides long-term improvement of 

all resources through implementation of 2006 Forest Plan. 

Oil and gas leasing and potential development are 

considered in the 2006 Forest Plan along with other 

activities and do not threaten the Plan’s desired outcomes 

or objectives for WNF. Indirect effects may include 

development of oil and gas resources on non-Federal 

lands.
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 9 

Acronyms

AMD - Acid Mine Drainage FONSI - Finding of No Significant Impact

AMDAT - Acid Mine Drainage Abatement and 

Treatment

FOOGLRA - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing 

Reform Act

AML - Abandoned Mine Land FWS - Fish and Wildlife Service

APD - Application for Permit to Drill GHG - Greenhouse Gas

ATV - All Terrain Vehicle GWP - Global Warming Potential

BE - Biological Evaluation HA - Habitat Alterations

BLM - Bureau of Land Management HF - Hydraulic Fracturing

BMP - Best Management Practice HVHF - High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing

BO - Biological Opinion HUC - Hydraulic Unit Code

CAA - Clean Air Act IBI - Index of Biotic Integrity

CAIR - Clean Air Interstate Rule ICI - Invertebrate Community Index

CCS - Carbon Capture Sequestration LOC - Levels of Concern

CFR - Code of Federal Regulations LRMP - Land and Resource Management Plan

CEQ - Council on Environmental Quality LUP - Land Use Plan

CERCLA - Comprehensive Environmental Response 

Compensation and Liability Act

MACT - Maximum Achievable Control Technology

CH4 - Methane MBTA - Migratory Bird Treaty Act

CO - Carbon Monoxide MJ - Megajoules

MLA - Mineral Leasing Act

CO2 - Carbon Dioxide mm - millimeter

CO2e - Carbon Dioxide Equivalent NAAQS - National Ambient Air Quality Standards

COA - Conditions of Approval NAGPRA - Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act

CSAPR - Cross-State Air Pollution Rule NEPA - National Environmental Policy Act

CWA - Clean Water Act NESHAP - National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants

DAPC - Division of Air Pollution Control IBI - Index of Biotic Integrity

DNA - Determination of NEPA Adequacy NFS - National Forest System

DOGRM - Division of Oil and Gas Resources 

Management

NHPA - National Historic Preservation Act

DOI - Department of the Interior NOx - Nitrogen Oxides

DR - Decision Record NOI - Notice of Intent for Geophysical Exploration

EA - Environmental Assessment NSD - Northeastern States District

EO - Executive Order O3 - Ozone

EOI - Expression of Interest ODNR - Ohio Department of Natural Resources

EPA - Environmental Protection Agency OHV - Off-Highway Vehicle

ESA - Endangered Species Act Pb - Lead

ESO - Eastern States Office PCBs - Polychlorinated Biphenyls

FA - Flow Alteration PM - Particulate Matter

FLPMA - Federal Land Policy and Management Act TT - Total Toxics

PSD - Prevention of Significant Deterioration USC - United States Code

RCRA - Resource Conservation and Recovery Act USFWS - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

UTV - Utility Task Vehicle
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 10 

RFDS - Reasonably Foreseeable Development

Scenario

SCC – Social Cost of Carbon

SIO - Scenic Integrity Objectives

VMS - Visual Management System

VOC - Volatile Organic Compound

SIP - State Implementation Plan

SMS - Scenery Management System

SO2 - Sulfur Dioxide

SOP - Standard Operating Procedure

SIO - Scenic Integrity Objectives

TMDL - Total Maximum Daily Load

TSS - Total Suspended Solids

VQO - Visual Quality Objectives

VRM - Visual Resource Management

WNF - Wayne National Forest

VMS - Visual Management System

TMDL - Total Maximum Daily Load

TSS - Total Suspended Solids
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 11 

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................4

Acronyms..................................................................................................................................................9

1. PURPOSE AND NEED...........................................................................................................................15

1.1. Introduction ...............................................................................................................................15

1.2. Location of the Proposed Action................................................................................................15

1.3. Purpose and Need of the Proposed Action................................................................................16

1.4. Management Objectives of the Proposed Action ......................................................................16

1.5. Relationship to Statutes, Regulations, Land Use Plans, and Policy..........................................16

1.6. Decision to be Made ...................................................................................................................17

1.7. Scoping, Consultations, and Issues of Importance....................................................................18

1.7.1. Internal scoping .................................................................................................................18

1.7.2. Agency and Tribal Consultations.......................................................................................18

1.7.3. Public involvement ............................................................................................................19

1.7.4. Issues identified through public scoping ..........................................................................20

1.7.5. Public Comment Period for the Draft EA...........................................................................21

2. PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES .........................................................................................21

2.1. Proposed Action.........................................................................................................................21

2.2. Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario (RFDS) for Potential Oil and Gas 

Development..........................................................................................................................................23

2.2.1. Phases of Oil and Gas Development ..................................................................................26

2.3. No Action Alternative.................................................................................................................29

2.4. Alternatives Considered but not Analyzed in Detail ................................................................29

2.4.1. Offer all leases with a no-surface-occupancy stipulation .................................................29

2.4.2. Lease minerals for vertical drilling only ...........................................................................29

3. DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT............................................................................29

3.1. Land Use .....................................................................................................................................30

3.2. Air Resources .............................................................................................................................30

3.2.1. Air quality...........................................................................................................................30

3.2.2. Visibility .............................................................................................................................34

3.2.3. Atmospheric deposition ....................................................................................................36

3.2.4. Air quality in Ohio ..............................................................................................................36

3.2.5. Climate and Climate Change ..............................................................................................37

3.2.6. Ohio Climate .......................................................................................................................41
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 12 

3.3. Plant and Animal Habitat and Populations...............................................................................42

3.3.1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................42

3.3.2. Oak-hickory forest .............................................................................................................44

3.3.3. Pine forest ..........................................................................................................................44

3.3.4. Early successional habitat .................................................................................................44

3.3.5. Mature interior forest........................................................................................................45

3.3.6. Mature, riparian forest/headwater streams ....................................................................45

3.3.7. Grassland habitat...............................................................................................................45

3.3.8. Species of viability concern ...............................................................................................46

3.3.9. Species of public interest...................................................................................................53

3.3.10. Non-native, invasive species..............................................................................................54

3.4. Geology and Minerals.................................................................................................................54

3.4.1. Minerals..............................................................................................................................55

3.4.2. Mineral development.........................................................................................................57

3.5. Soils.............................................................................................................................................58

3.6. Water Resources and Water Quality .........................................................................................58

3.6.1. Surface water......................................................................................................................58

3.6.2. Groundwater ......................................................................................................................62

3.6.3. Riparian areas ....................................................................................................................63

3.7. Wastes, Hazardous or Solid .......................................................................................................64

3.8. Public Health and Safety ............................................................................................................65

3.9. Transportation...........................................................................................................................66

3.10. Recreation..................................................................................................................................67

3.11. Noise...........................................................................................................................................70

3.12. Cultural Resources/Paleontology .............................................................................................71

3.13. Native American Religious Concerns ........................................................................................72

3.14. Visual Resources and Scenic Quality.........................................................................................72

3.15. Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice .............................................................................73

3.15.1. Socioeconomics .................................................................................................................73

3.15.2. Environmental Justice.......................................................................................................80

4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ..................................................................................................................80

4.1. Land Use .....................................................................................................................................81

4.2. Air Resources .............................................................................................................................81

4.2.1. Air Quality .........................................................................................................................81
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 13 

4.2.2. Visibility .............................................................................................................................84

4.2.3. Climate and Climate Change ..............................................................................................84

4.2.4. Possible Future Best Management Practices, Standard Operating Procedures, and/or 

Mitigation Measures ..........................................................................................................................95

4.3. Plant and Animal Habitat and Populations...............................................................................96

4.3.1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................96

4.3.2. Oak-hickory forest .............................................................................................................98

4.3.3. Pine forest ..........................................................................................................................98

4.3.4. Early-successional habitat.................................................................................................98

4.3.5. Mature interior forest........................................................................................................98

4.3.6. Mature, riparian forest/headwater streams ....................................................................99

4.3.7. Grassland habitat...............................................................................................................99

4.3.8. Species of viability concern ...............................................................................................99

4.3.9. Species of public interest.................................................................................................102

4.3.10. Non-native, invasive species............................................................................................102

4.4. Geology and Minerals...............................................................................................................103

4.4.1. Geology..............................................................................................................................103

4.4.2. Minerals ............................................................................................................................103

4.4.3. Possible Future Best Management Practices, Standard Operating Procedures, and/or 

Mitigation Measures ........................................................................................................................104

4.5. Soils...........................................................................................................................................104

4.5.1. Possible Future Best Management Practices, Standard Operating Procedures, and/or 

Mitigation Measures ........................................................................................................................105

4.6. Water Resources and Water Quality .......................................................................................105

4.6.1. Surface water....................................................................................................................105

4.6.2. Groundwater ....................................................................................................................106

4.7. Wastes, Hazardous or Solid .....................................................................................................107

4.7.1. Possible Future Best Management Practices, Standard Operating Procedures, and/or 

Mitigation Measures ........................................................................................................................108

4.8. Public Health and Safety ..........................................................................................................109

4.9. Transportation.........................................................................................................................110

4.9.1. Possible Future Best Management Practices, Standard Operating Procedures, and/or 

Mitigation Measures ........................................................................................................................111

4.10. Recreation.................................................................................................................................111

4.10.1. Possible Future Best Management Practices, Standard Operating Procedures, and/or 

Mitigation Measures ........................................................................................................................113
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 14 

4.11. Noise .....................................................................................................................................113

4.11.1. Possible Future Best Management Practices, Standard Operating Procedures, and/or 

Mitigation Measures ........................................................................................................................114

4.12. Cultural Resources/Paleontology .......................................................................................114

4.13. Native American Religious Concerns ..................................................................................114

4.14. Visual Resources/Scenic Quality .........................................................................................115

4.14.1. Possible Future Best Management Practices, Standard Operating Procedures, and/or 

Mitigation Measures ........................................................................................................................115

4.15. Socioeconomics ....................................................................................................................115

4.15.1. Economic stimulation from potential future construction and drilling activity.......115

4.15.2. Payments from the federal government .....................................................................117

4.15.3. Environmental Justice..................................................................................................119

4.16. Cumulative Effects................................................................................................................120

4.16.1. Context for Cumulative Effects Analysis......................................................................120

4.16.2. Cumulative Effects Analysis .........................................................................................122

4.17. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources...............................................133

4.18. Relationship between Local Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity......................133

4.19. No action alternative for all resources................................................................................134

5. LEASE-SPECIFIC OIL AND GAS NOTIFICATIONS AND STIPULATIONS.............................................134

5.1. Introduction .........................................................................................................................134

5.2. Notifications .........................................................................................................................134

5.3. Management Areas Requiring Special Stipulations ...........................................................136

5.4. Resources Requiring Special Stipulations ..........................................................................137

6. MAPS .................................................................................................................................................140

7. PERSONS, GROUPS, AND AGENCIES CONSULTED .............................................................................148

7.1. List of Persons, Agencies and Organizations Consulted.....................................................148

7.2. List of Preparers...................................................................................................................148

8. REFERENCES.....................................................................................................................................150

9. APPENDICES .....................................................................................................................................160

Appendix A: Public Comment Matrix..................................................................................................161

Appendix B: Shale Layer Map .............................................................................................................193

Appendix C: Permitting of Oil and Gas Operations on Non-Federal Surface....................................195

Appendix D: Marietta Unit Envirofacts Hazardous Sites Data Map...................................................203

Appendix E: U.S. EPA Emissions Factors for Greenhouse Gas Inventories .......................................204
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 15 

1. PURPOSE AND NEED

1.1. Introduction

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) to evaluate 

the anticipated environmental impacts of the Proposed Action to lease federal mineral estate within the 

proclamation boundary of the Wayne National Forest (WNF), Athens Ranger District, Marietta Unit. The 

Marietta Unit is located within Monroe, Noble, and Washington Counties in Ohio. The parcels that 

could be leased as part of the Proposed Action consist of all federal mineral estate underlying National 

Forest System (NFS) lands and total approximately 40,000 acres. The parcels would be leased for 

potential future oil and gas development. 

Interested parties, such as private individuals or companies, may file Expressions of Interest (EOIs) to 

nominate parcels for competitive bid and leasing by the BLM. The BLM has received at least 50 EOIs to 

nominate parcels on the Marietta Unit. Consistent with the BLM mission and requirement to evaluate 

nominated parcels and hold quarterly competitive lease sales for available oil and gas parcels, this EA 

would be used as a vehicle to lease parcels in the Marietta Unit for several future oil and gas lease sales. 

Before each future competitive lease sale; however, the BLM and Forest Service would review and 

approve nominated parcels and prepare a Determination of NEPA Adequacy (DNA) document to confirm 

the adequacy of the environmental analysis within this EA and to ensure it is still appropriate to use as a 

vehicle for leasing. 

A federal oil and gas lease is a legal contract that grants exclusive rights to the lessee to develop 

federally-owned oil and gas resources, but does not authorize surface-disturbing activities or obligate 

the lessee to drill a well on the parcel in the future. Should the parcel be leased and a detailed plan for 

oil and gas development on the parcel be identified, the BLM and Forest Service would conduct future 

site-specific environmental analysis and any required consultations, prior to any ground disturbing 

activities. The site-specific analysis would occur at the Application for Permit to Drill (APD) stage. The 

Proposed Action evaluated in this EA is described in further detail in Chapter 2.

This EA has been prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969; the 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations 

[CFR] Parts 1500-1508), the United States Department of the Interior (DOI) NEPA requirements 

(Department Manual 516, Environmental Quality) and the BLM NEPA Handbook H-1790-1. The 

information presented within this document serves as the basis for the BLM Authorized Officer to 

decide whether the Proposed Action would result in significant impacts to the environment. Significant 

impacts would require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). If the BLM 

Authorized Officer determines that no significant impacts would occur, a Finding of No Significant 

Impact (FONSI) would be issued.

1.2. Location of the Proposed Action

The Proposed Action is located in Monroe, Noble, and Washington Counties within the proclamation 

boundary of the WNF in Ohio. Location maps are included in Chapter 6 of this EA. Map 1 depicts an 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 16 

overview of the WNF showing each ranger district/unit proclamation boundary. Map 2 is an overview of 

the Marietta Unit. Map 3 indicates the locations of EOIs on the Marietta Unit that have been received 

as of the release date of this EA. 

1.3. Purpose and Need of the Proposed Action

The purpose of the Proposed Action is to support the development of oil and natural gas resources that 

are essential to meeting the nation’s future needs for energy while minimizing adverse effects to natural 

and cultural resources. The BLM minimizes adverse effects to resources by identifying appropriate lease 

stipulations and notices, best management practices, and mitigations. It is the policy of the BLM as 

mandated by various laws, including the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended (30 United States 

Code [USC] 181 et seq.), the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), and the Energy 

Policy Act of 2005 to make mineral resources available for development to meet national, regional, and 

local needs. The oil and gas leasing program managed by the BLM encourages the sustainable 

development of domestic oil and gas reserves which reduces the dependence of the United States on 

foreign sources of energy as part of its multiple-use and sustainable yield mandate.

The leasing of federal minerals is vital to the United States as it seeks to maintain adequate domestic 

production of this strategic resource. Industry uses the BLM EOI process to nominate federal minerals 

for leasing. The Proposed Action is consistent with the BLM’s mission and requirement to evaluate 

nominated parcels and hold quarterly competitive lease sales for available oil and gas lease parcels.

1.4. Management Objectives of the Proposed Action

The management objective of the Proposed Action is to make federal minerals available for 

development in an environmentally sound manner.

1.5. Relationship to Statutes, Regulations, Land Use Plans, and Policy

In addressing environmental considerations of the Proposed Action, the BLM is guided by relevant 

statutes (and their implementing regulations) and Executive Orders that establish standards and provide 

guidance on environmental and natural resources management and planning. These include but are not 

limited to the following:

● NEPA (1969) and the associated Council on Environmental Quality regulations at 43 CFR Parts 

1500-1508;

● FLPMA (1976) as amended and the associated regulations at 43 CFR Part 1600;

● Mineral Leasing Act (MLA) (1920), as amended and supplemented (30 USC 181);

● National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (1966) as amended and the associated regulations at 

36 CFR Part 800;

● American Indian Religious Freedom Act;

● Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) (1990);

● Endangered Species Act (ESA) (1973) as amended;

● Clean Water Act (CWA) (1972) as amended;

● Clean Air Act (CAA) (1970) as amended;
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 17 

● Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act (FOOGLRA) (1987);

● Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (1918);

● Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (1976) as amended;

● Executive Order (EO) 11988- Floodplain Management;

● EO 11990 – Protection of Wetlands;

● EO 12898 – Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations;

● EO 13045 - Protection of Children from Environmental Health and Safety Risks; and

● EO 13007 – Indian Sacred Sites.

In addition to the above statutes and regulations, the following BLM and Forest Service policies are 

applicable to oil and gas leasing:

● Memorandum of Understanding between the USDOI BLM and USDA Forest Service Concerning 

Oil and Gas Leasing and Operations (Forest Service Agreement No. 06-SU-11132428-052; BLM 

MOU WO300-2006-07); and

● Oil and Gas Leasing Reform – Land Use Planning and Lease Parcel Reviews (BLM WO IM 2010-

117).

The Proposed Action and alternatives are in conformance with the 2006 Final Revised Land and 

Resource Management Plan, Wayne National Forest (2006 Forest Plan) (U.S. Forest Service, 2006). Goal 

10.1 in the 2006 Forest Plan states, “Provide a supply of mineral commodities for current and future 

generations, while protecting the long-term health and biological diversity of ecosystems. Facilitate the 

orderly exploration, development, and production of mineral and energy resources on land open to 

these activities” (2006 Forest Plan, p. 2-41). The BLM was a cooperating agency in development of the 

2006 Forest Plan and its related Final Environmental Impact Statement (2006 Forest Plan Final EIS) (U.S. 

Forest Service, 2005). The Forest Service signed its Record of Decision on December 14, 2005. 

This EA is also consistent with a related review effort resulting in a Supplemental Information Report 

(SIR) on oil and gas (U.S. Forest Service, 2012) that was prepared by the Forest Service in coordination 

with the BLM. This EA incorporates by reference the relevant information from the 2006 Forest Plan, 

Final Environmental Impact Statement and the 2012 SIR, in accordance with 40 CFR 1502.21. All of the 

documents are available to the public for inspection at the following location:

http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/wayne/landmanagement/planning. 

1.6. Decision to be Made

The BLM must decide whether to make available for lease present and future parcels that total 

approximately 40,000 acres of federal minerals within the Athens Ranger District, Marietta Unit of the 

WNF at future competitive oil and gas lease sale(s). These acres encompass all the possible EOIs, and 

their respective parcels, that may be approved by the Forest Service in the future. The BLM, in 

coordination with the Forest Service, must also determine which stipulations and notices must be 

attached to such leases to promote oil and gas development if it meets the guidelines and regulations 

set forth by the NEPA of 1969 and other subsequent laws and policies passed by the U.S. Congress.
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 18 

1.7. Scoping, Consultations, and Issues of Importance

1.7.1. Internal scoping

A BLM interdisciplinary team consisting of Land Law Examiners, Natural Resources Specialists, NEPA 

Specialists, Geologists, GIS Specialists, and Cultural Resources Specialists contributed to this EA in 

coordination with Forest Service personnel. The interdisciplinary team used various sources of 

information to prepare the EA, including existing data inventories, peer-reviewed studies, online 

resources, and information collected onsite. The BLM conducted site visits on October 26 and 27, 2015 

within portions of the Marietta Unit that have already been requested for leasing to document the 

physical characteristics of the area and collect information on baseline conditions. The BLM did not 

identify any issues of concern from internal scoping or the site visits.

1.7.2. Agency and Tribal Consultations

1.7.2.1. NHPA and Tribal Consultation

The BLM conducted required consultation with the Ohio State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and 

tribes. The BLM initiated consultation with the Ohio SHPO under Section 106 of the NHPA, by letter 

dated November 16, 2015. To date, the SHPO has not responded to the letter, indicating that they have 

found no adverse effects within the scope of the Proposed Action. Further consultation would occur at 

the APD phase prior to ground disturbing activities. On November 6, 2015, the BLM sent certified letters 

to seven federally recognized tribes who have a known connection to the area notifying them of the 

Proposed Action and asking to identify any concerns with respect to the Proposed Action. To date, the 

BLM has received no responses to these letters. The following tribes were contacted:

● The Delaware Tribe of Indians;

● The Delaware Nation;

● The Shawnee Tribe;

● The Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma;

● The Absentee Shawnee Tribe of Indians;

● The Wyandotte Nation; and

● Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma.

1.7.2.2. ESA Section 7 Consultation

The Forest Service has consulted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) under Section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act with respect to federally listed species in the development of the 2006 Forest 

Plan/ EIS. As part of this consultation, the Forest Service completed a Biological Evaluation (BE) and the 

USFWS issued its Biological Opinion (BO) on November 22, 2005. The BO established a tiered approach 

to the Section 7 consultation. The programmatic (Tier I) BO (November 22, 2005) covers all the activities 

described in the 2006 Forest Plan/EIS at a programmatic, non-site-specific level. Because the BLM was a 

cooperating agency in the 2006 Forest Plan and EIS, the consultation conducted with respect to the 

2006 Forest Plan and EIS applies to the Proposed Action analyzed in this EA.
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 19 

As part of the 2012 SIR, the Forest Service reviewed new information related to hydraulic fracturing and 

whether there could be additional effects to threatened and endangered species that had not been 

previously analyzed in the 2006 Plan/ EIS. The Forest Service and the USFWS concluded that no further 

analysis or consultation was needed and that the consultation conducted under the 2006 Plan/EIS was 

still valid.

As the BLM analyzes individual projects pursuant to the Forest Plan, the BLM is responsible for 

reinitiating consultation and providing the USFWS with additional information; this process is called Tier 

II consultation. The BLM would submit a Tier II Biological Assessment to the USFWS when it receives an 

APD, if it determines that potential effects to critical habitat, fish or wildlife could occur. In order to 

reinitiate the consultation the FS should submit to the USFWS a:

● description of the Proposed Action and area affected;

● list of the species that may be affected and their locations;

● description of the nature of the potential effects;

● determination of the effects;

● cumulative total of incidental takes to date under the Tier I BO; and

● description of additional actions that were not described in the Tier I BO.

More recently, a BO was issued by the USFWS in 2016 for the 4(d) rule for the federally listed, 

threatened northern long-eared bat. This rule exempts incidental take of northern long-eared bat for 

federal actions that adhere to certain, basic conservation measures. The Forest Service operates under 

this BO and therefore the Proposed Action is also covered under the BO.

1.7.3. Public involvement

Consideration of the views and information of all interested persons promotes open communication and 

enables more informed decision making. Therefore, the BLM invites public participation in the NEPA 

process. All agencies, organizations, and members of the public having a potential interest in the 

Proposed Action, including minority, low-income, disadvantaged, and Native American groups, are 

encouraged to participate in the decision making process.

The BLM conducted external scoping for the Proposed Action through a series of public meetings, 

requesting public comments, and through close coordination and data sharing with the Forest Service. 

Public notices appeared in local newspapers including the Marietta Times, Athens Messenger, and the 

Ironton Tribune for two consecutive weeks starting on November 1, 2015. The BLM also issued a press 

release to various news outlets on November 2, 2015, notifying the public of dates, times, and locations 

of the public meetings. Public meetings were held on November 17, 2015 in Marietta, November 18, 

2015 in Athens, and November 19, 2015 in Ironton. The primary purpose for those public meetings was 

to provide information and gather public input regarding issues that the BLM should consider in this EA. 

At each meeting, the BLM and the Forest Service provided information regarding proposed oil and gas 

leasing activities throughout the WNF; displayed maps showing locations of requested leases and 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 20 

posters detailing the administrative processes associated with EOIs, leasing, and the NEPA; and 

answered inquiries regarding the project. 

The BLM also created a project website for the EA in November 2015 that is accessible through the BLM 

national NEPA register at 

https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front-office/eplanning/nepa/nepa_register.do

The website provides links to documents, opportunities for public involvement, including methods for 

comment submission, maps, EOI information, and links to additional project information. 

The BLM Eastern States Office (ESO) leasing process and policy incorporates a mandatory 30-day public 

comment period on all completed EAs and unsigned FONSIs. The documents were made available for 

public review and comment from April 28, 2016 through May 31, 2016 (to account for the Memorial Day 

holiday).

In addition to the public involvement activities conducted for this Proposed Action, the WNF previously 

conducted extensive public outreach for the development of the 2006 Forest Plan and EIS. Public 

involvement activities included comment periods on the Notice of Intent, Draft EIS and Proposed 

Revised Forest Plan, public meetings, and collaborative workshops (see page 1-9 and Appendix A of the 

Final EIS; U.S. Forest Service, 2005). The WNF published a news release for the Finding for the 

Supplemental Information Report on August 27, 2012. All of these documents are available online at: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/wayne/landmanagement/planning. 

1.7.4. Issues identified through public scoping

The BLM received approximately 3,400 comments during its scoping period (November 1, 2015 to 

January 22, 2016), which included three public meetings in November 2015. Many of these comments 

reflected common themes, which are summarized below: 

1. Oil and gas activities will disturb forestlands and degrade the wildlife habitats of the WNF;

2. Oil and gas activities will cause toxic chemicals to be spilled or be discharged into the 

environment, threatening wildlife populations, degrading water quality, and harming human 

health;

3. Oil and gas activities will create air pollution;

4. Oil and gas activities will degrade recreational opportunities and the visual character of the 

WNF;

5. Leasing should be delayed until the oil and gas market improves;

6. Enabling oil and gas activities will provide private landowners the opportunity to develop their 

minerals, and withholding leasing the federal minerals will pose an obstacle to development of 

private minerals; and

7. Restricting development of oil and gas minerals prohibits economic growth for the state of 

Ohio. 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 21 

The BLM has carefully considered comments received during the scoping period and 30-day comment 

period on the Draft EA in the development of this Final EA. 

1.7.5. Public Comment Period for the Draft EA

The public had the opportunity to review and comment on the BLM Draft EA between April 28, 2016 and 

May 31, 2016. Approximately 13,700 comments were received by email and 480 comments by U.S. 

postal service or FedEx. Approximately 300 substantive comments were identified including:

 

● air quality and climate change (≈50 comments), 

● hydraulic fracturing (≈50 comments), 

● water quality (≈25 comments), 

● cumulative impacts (≈20 comments). 

● the validity of the NEPA process in development of the EA (≈50 comments),

● public health (≈10 comments), 

● traffic & noise (≈10 comments), 

● environmental justice (≈10 comments), 

● seismic risk (≈10 comments), and 

● waste disposal (≈10 comments). 

Comments were addressed by either expanding existing sections or creating new ones that either 

included more information or synthesized already existing information. Additional changes to the Draft 

EA are summarized in a comment matrix attached in Appendix A to this document.

2. PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

The CEQ’s Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy 

Act (CEQ, 2016) establish a number of policies for federal agencies, including “using the NEPA process to 

identify and assess reasonable alternatives to the Proposed Action that would avoid or minimize adverse 

effects of these actions on the quality of the human environment” (40 CFR 1500.2 (e)). This chapter 

provides a detailed description of the Proposed Action and alternatives carried forward for analysis in 

the EA, as well as the alternatives considered but dismissed.

2.1. Proposed Action

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) proposes to make available for lease up to approximately 

40,000 acres of federally-owned mineral estate located in the Wayne National Forest, Athens Ranger 

District, Marietta Unit in Monroe, Noble, and Washington Counties in Ohio. This approximate acreage 

represents the total amount of federally-owned minerals that could be nominated and potentially be 

made available for leasing on the Marietta Unit. Although this EA analysis assumes that both oil and gas 

may be produced in the future within the Marietta Unit, natural gas is more likely to be produced.

Surface land and sub-surface mineral ownership within the boundaries of the Wayne National Forest 

(WNF) falls into four categories:
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 22 

● Federal Land/Private Minerals - Approximately 59% of the WNF surface ownership is underlain 

by private minerals, as in scenario B in Figure 2.1., below. Partial mineral interest accounts for 

approximately 18,200 acres underlying National Forest Service lands on the Marietta Unit. 

There would be very little federal oversight in the development of private minerals under 

federal surface, as this development is subject to State of Ohio regulations (see Appendix C: 

Permitting of Oil and Gas Operations on Non-Federal Surface).

● Federal Land/Federal Minerals - Approximately 41% of surface ownership is underlain by federal 

minerals, as in scenario A in Figure 2.1, below. The federal government owns a 100% mineral 

interest in approximately 10,000 acres of the WNF. Leasing and development of federal 

minerals under federal surface is subject to more stringent federal government regulation than 

non-federal minerals. 

● Federal Land/Future Federal Minerals - An additional 13,000 acres of reserved minerals will 

revert to the federal government over the next 20 years that will fall under this Proposed 

Action. When these sub-surface minerals revert to the federal government, they will then be 

subject to the same federal regulation as current full mineral interest lands.

● Private Land/Private Minerals – Within the Wayne National Forest boundaries, there are also 

inholdings of private land with private minerals. These lands and minerals were not included in 

the Proposed Action, but are acknowledged as a potential cumulative action (see Section 4.16).

Figure 2.1. Mineral and surface ownership scenarios on Forest Service lands
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 23 

The Proposed Action only applies to the federal minerals regardless of the amount of federal mineral 

interest. The Forest Service has authority to purchase lands, which may add to the total acreage of 

federal minerals that are available for lease. 

Industry uses the BLM Expression of Interest (EOI) process to nominate federal minerals for leasing. To 

date, industry has submitted over 50 EOIs totaling approximately 18,000 acres for parcels located on the 

Marietta Unit (see Map 3 in Chapter 6 of this EA). The BLM and the U.S. Forest Service (Forest Service) 

review deeds on a parcel-by-parcel basis to verify federal mineral ownership as leasing nominations are 

received. The BLM plans to lease some parcels now and make the rest available for the future.

In accordance with 43 CFR 3120, approved parcels would be identified, along with any attached 

stipulations and notices, through a Notice of Competitive Lease Sale that is posted at least 45 days prior 

to a lease sale. Oil and gas leases are issued for a 10-year period and continue for as long thereafter as 

oil or gas is produced in paying quantities.

A federal oil and gas lease is a legal contract that grants exclusive rights to the lessee to develop

federally-owned oil and gas resources, but does not authorize surface-disturbing activities or obligate 

the lessee to drill a well on the parcel in the future. Before conducting any surface disturbing activities, 

the lease owner/operator is required under 43 CFR 3162 to obtain approval of an application for permit 

to drill (APD). Upon receipt of an APD, the BLM conducts an onsite inspection with the applicant in 

cooperation with the landowner. The BLM also conducts site-specific NEPA analysis and consultations 

under the ESA and NHPA prior to approving the APD.

Although there would be no surface disturbance from the action of leasing, the EA analyzes a reasonably 

foreseeable development scenario (RFDS) to address the potential environmental effects from potential 

future oil and gas development. For example, estimates can be made on the most likely number of 

wells that could be constructed, but the specific locations cannot be determined until APDs are filed. 

The detailed RFDS is included as an appendix to the 2006 Forest Plan EIS (Appendix G of the EIS), and a 

summary of the RFDS is included below in Section 2.2.

2.2. Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario (RFDS) for Potential Oil 

and Gas Development

This EA uses the 2006 RFDS (Appendix G of the 2006 Forest Plan/EIS) and the updated 2012 SIR for oil 

and gas to project the anticipated impacts of future oil and gas development in the Marietta Unit. The 

2012 SIR covered several resources of concern in relation to the use of horizontal drilling and highvolume hydraulic fracturing (HVHF) technology:

• Water resources;

• Wildlife;

• Fragmentation (an impact that affects wildlife habitat);

• Botany;

• Waste disposal;
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 24 

• Noise and light pollution;

• Air quality;

• Infrastructure/transportation;

• Public safety;

• Heritage; and 

• Soils.

The 2006 RFDS projected a total of 135 acres of disturbance (see Table 2-1, below) to federal surface in 

the Marietta Unit from exploration and production activities, regardless of mineral ownership (scenarios 

A and B in Figure 2.1.), with 121 acres needed to support long term production. The analysis assumed 

that after exploration and production ceased, 151 acres would be reclaimed per state and federal 

requirements. The projected surface disturbance included all acreage potentially affected by future oil 

and gas development activities, such as road construction, well pad construction, construction of 

turnaround/production facility areas, pipelines, and other related activities.

For the Marietta unit, the 2006 RFDS projected up to 110 vertical well pads (2006 Forest Plan EIS, p. G1), and the 2012 SIR projected 10 horizontal well pads (SIR, p. 3). The 2012 SIR was issued because 

horizontal wells were becoming more of the standard approach to mineral development on private 

surface in the area. The surface disturbance projected for 10 horizontal well pads is approximately 55 

acres, substantially less than what was initially projected under the 2006 RFDS. As shown in Table 2-1, 

approximately 10 acres have already been disturbed from oil and gas development in the Marietta Unit; 

therefore, the remaining acreage of surface disturbance that could occur within the Marietta Unit that is 

analyzed in this EA, is approximately 70 acres. Of those 70 acres, approximately 40 acres of disturbance 

would persist for the long term, until final reclamation is completed. This disturbance is still well within 

the projected disturbance of the RFDS from the 2006 Forest Plan EIS. 

While the RFDS does not project any disturbance on private lands, this EA analysis covers the potential 

impacts of future oil and gas development on both the Forest Service lands and on adjacent private 

lands within the Marietta Unit to allow for maximum NEPA flexibility and coverage in case conditions 

should change in the future.

Table 2.1. Potential Disturbance in the Marietta Unit Projected by the RFDS

2006 RFDS 

projection of acres 

disturbed

2012 SIR forecast 

of acres disturbed 

by horizontal wells

Acres disturbed to 

date from oil and 

gas development

Net surface 

disturbance below 

2006 RFDS

Total initial acres of 

surface disturbed by 

oil and gas drilling 

before reclamation

135 55 10

70

(135-65) = 70

Total acres of 

surface needed to 

support long term 

production (i.e. 

remaining 

59 13.8 5

40.2

(59-18.8) = 40.2
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 25 

2006 RFDS 

projection of acres 

disturbed

2012 SIR forecast 

of acres disturbed 

by horizontal wells

Acres disturbed to 

date from oil and 

gas development

Net surface 

disturbance below 

2006 RFDS

disturbance after 

reclamation)

Reasonably foreseeable activities that could occur as a result of future oil and gas development 

associated with leasing in the Marietta Unit include surface disturbance associated with preparation for 

drilling including construction of a road, drilling pad, and reserve pit. Constructed access roads normally 

have a running surface width of approximately 12 to 16 feet; the length is dependent upon the well site 

location in relation to existing roads or highways. The average length of road construction is 

approximately 0.5 miles per well pad. Therefore, approximately two acres would likely be affected by 

road construction. Typically from 3 to 5.5 acres are cleared and graded level for the construction of the 

drilling pad. If horizontal drilling occurs, each drilling pad could have up to eight lateral lines. If the well 

produces natural gas, and the flowline is in the road, another 0.5 acres may be affected by flowline 

construction. These disturbances are typical for private or federal ownership well pad locations but may 

be subject to adjustment based on site-specific conditions, which have not yet been determined. The 

excavation reserve pit is typically about five feet deep and is lined with bentonite clay to retain drilling 

fluids, circulated mud, and drill cuttings. Plastic or butyl liners (or an equivalent), that meet state 

standards for thickness and quality, are used on occasions when soils are determined incapable of 

holding pit fluids. 

Drilling typically continues around the clock. Once drilling is completed, excess fluids are pumped out of 

the pit and disposed of, along with the drill cuttings, in a state authorized disposal site. The RFDS 

assumes that wells would be drilled by rotary drilling using mud as the circulating medium. Mud pumps 

would be used to force mud down the drillpipe, thereby forcing the rock cuttings out the wellbore. 

Water would likely be obtained from a local surface water source, such as the Ohio River, through a pipe 

laid on the surface or by tanker trucks. Approximately 1,500 barrels of drilling mud would be typically 

kept on the location. If water production is expected, then processing facilities may be needed on or off 

site. 

During well pad construction, the topsoil would likely be stockpiled for use during restoration activities. 

If the well is successful, the drill pad would be reduced to about 100 feet x 100 feet with the remaining 

surface area, including the reserve pit, re-graded and restored as per the surface owner requirements. 

A lease notice for the proposed lease encourages the use of non-invasive cover plants during all 

restoration and stabilization activities. Final seed mixtures and plantings are determined with 

recommendations from BLM with approval of the land owner. The remaining 100 feet x 100 feet pad 

would be maintained for the life of the well. The life of a productive well may be 25 years. Following 

abandonment, the pad is subject to the same restoration parameters. 

Chapter 5 of this EA contains the lease stipulations and lease notices that are applicable to surface 

acreage owned by the WNF. These recommended lease stipulations and notices have been developed 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 26 

to provide general habitat protection and setbacks to exclude sensitive habitats from oil and gas 

development. Additional surveys or consultations may be required after site-specific proposals have 

been received by BLM during the development phase. In addition, if some development were to occur 

on privately owned surface federal and state regulation do exist in order to address any potential 

concerns regarding contamination or spills (see Section 3.8, Public Health and Safety). For example, the 

Onshore Oil and Gas Orders implement and supplement the oil and gas regulations found at 43 CFR 

3160 for conducting oil and gas operations related to federal minerals, even if they are accessed from 

private surface. In particular, Onshore Order No. 2 and No. 7 provide requirements and standards for 

safe drilling and well abandonment, as well as provide the methods and approvals necessary to dispose 

of produced waters associated with oil and gas operations. The Onshore Orders may be accessed at:

https://www.blm.gov/programs/energy-and-minerals/oil-and-gas/operations-and-production/onshoreorders. 

2.2.1. Phases of Oil and Gas Development

In this section, additional information on the phases of oil and gas development is presented. While 

site-specific activities are not yet proposed or known, the following types of activities have been 

considered in this EA for NEPA analysis: 

Geophysical exploration and exploratory drilling occur in the first phases of mineral development. 

Geophysical exploration is used to obtain detailed geologic information. A variety of exploration 

methods may be employed, ranging from placing electrodes in the ground, using geophones and lines, 

detonating explosives to create shockwaves, and/or employing specially constructed off-road vehicles to 

produce vibrations. Exploratory drilling begins the actual development of the lease. An access road and 

a well pad are constructed for each well, if needed. Minimal or no geophysical exploration is expected 

in the Marietta unit since there is a long history of oil and gas development.

In-field drilling of additional exploration wells typically occurs when initial exploratory drilling has 

located oil and gas, to define the limits of the oil and gas reservoir. The process of in-field drilling is the 

same as that employed for initial exploratory drilling, although new roads and well pads may not be 

required in every instance. Wells may be drilled vertically, if the end of the well (bottom hole location) 

is directly below the well pad; or directionally, if the well pad is not directly above the bottom hole 

location. For example, federal minerals under a state park with a “no surface occupancy” stipulation 

(i.e., no surface disturbance from mineral development is allowed on the state park itself) can be 

accessed by either directional or horizontal drilling from a surface location outside of the park. In 

horizontal drilling the wellbore may extend several thousand feet through the rock formation. For the 

purpose of this analysis, the BLM has assumed a typical maximum horizontal length of 7,500 feet. 

Roads are typically cleared to a width of 24 feet, with a running surface width of 12 to 16 feet. The 

length is dependent upon the well pad location in relation to existing roads or highways. Land is cleared 

and graded for pad construction. If the well is productive, additional land may be affected by pipeline 

construction. The total number of disturbed acres for well pads for vertical wells drilled to the target 

formations in the Marietta Unit is expected to be 0.69 to 1.1 acre, and well pads for horizontal wells 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 27 

drilled to the Utica/Point Pleasant or Marcellus Shales are 3 to 5.5 acres and may contain up to 8 wells. 

However, very little in-field drilling is expected.

Well Stimulation/Hydraulic Fracturing. Well Stimulation may be used to enhance oil and gas recovery. 

Several methods of well stimulation could be used. If the parcels are developed the wells would likely 

be completed using hydraulic fracturing (HF) techniques. HF is one of the well stimulation methods that 

is reasonably foreseeable for leases on this sale. HF is the process of applying high pressure to a 

subsurface formation via a wellbore, to the extent that the pressure induces fractures in the rock. 

Typically the induced fractures are propped open with a granular “proppant” to enhance fluid 

connection between the well and formation. The process was developed experimentally in 1947 and 

has been used routinely since 1950. The Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE) estimates that over one 

million hydraulic fracturing procedures have been pumped in the United States and tens of thousands of 

horizontal wells have been drilled and hydraulically fractured (IOM, 2014; King, 2012). The 

development of these hydraulic fracturing methods and the drilling technology in which it is applied (in 

particular, long wells drilled horizontally within the targets) can greatly increase the yield of a well, 

enabling production of oil and gas from tight formations, something that was formerly not economically 

feasible.

Following hydraulic fracturing, which takes a few hours to a few days, there is a period where the 

hydraulic fracturing fluid is allowed to flow back to the surface where it is collected for disposal, 

treatment, or reused until a certain point, after which it becomes irredeemable (Rubenstein, 2015). 

During well stimulation activities, the types of chemicals that may be used include acids, hydrocarbons, 

thickening agents, lubricants and other additives that are operator and location specific. However, 

water and sand are the largest components of the HF fluids. Nevertheless, the federal government and 

the state of Ohio require operators to disclose all chemical additives on the FracFocus website, which is 

available for public viewing at https://fracfocus.org/.

The use of large volumes of water in HF is understood and closely monitored by the BLM before, during 

and after the drilling of wells. No wells would be drilled on these parcels until the operator submits an 

APD. The filing of an APD triggers a site-specific environmental analysis on the impacts of drilling a well.

The APD establishes:

1. The well location and plat;

2. Drilling plan per BLM Onshore Order #2;

3. Surface plan for the drilling site;

4. Bonding;

5. Operator Certification;

6. Onsite inspection plan; and

7. Other information as noticed to the operator by the BLM.

At the APD stage, geologic and engineering reviews are performed to insure that proposed mud, 

cementing, and casing activities are adequate to protect all downhole resources.
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 28 

In addition, BLM Onshore Order #2 requires the protection of usable water zones. This includes proper 

casing cementing and plugging (upon abandonment) procedures, making contamination of groundwater 

resources highly unlikely. Surface casing and cement would be extended beyond usable water zones. 

Production casings will be adequately cemented within the surface casing to protect other mineral

resources in addition to the useable water bearing zones. The strict requirements ensure that drilling 

fluids, HF fluids, produced water and hydrocarbons all remain within the wellbore and do not enter 

groundwater or other formations.

Based on input received during the scoping and public comment period, potential impacts to water 

resources and concern about induced seismicity associated with HF are areas of public interest and 

concern. These resources are discussed in detail in Chapter 3 and 4 of this EA (see Surface Water (3.6.1 

& 4.6.1); Groundwater (3.6.2 & 4.6.2); Wastes (3.7. & 4.7); and Geology (3.4 & 4.4) sections).

Production begins only if oil and gas can be transported to a market and sold at a profit. Production 

facilities may include one or more of the following: a well head, pumping equipment, a separation 

system, pipelines, a metering system, storage facilities, water treatment and injection facilities, cathodic 

protection systems, electrical distribution lines, compressor stations, communication sites, roads, salt 

water disposal systems, dehydration sites, and fresh/salt water plant sites. Drilling typically continues 

around the clock. The RFDS assumes that wells would be drilled by rotary drilling using mud as the 

circulating medium. Mud pumps would be used to force mud down the drillpipe, thereby forcing the 

rock cuttings out the wellbore. While it is uncertain at this stage where the drilling water could come 

from, it would likely come from the Ohio River, but could also come from a local waterway. 

Approximately 1,500 barrels of drilling mud would be typically kept on the location in a tank or pit. If 

water production is expected, then processing facilities may be needed on the site. Once drilling is 

completed, excess fluids are pumped out of the pit and disposed of in a state authorized disposal site 

and the cuttings are buried. 

Well abandonment may be temporary or permanent. Wells are sometimes shut-in because pipelines or 

roads needed for production and marketing do not exist and the cost for construction is not justified by 

the quantity of oil discovered. These wells may later be re-entered when their production can be 

marketed. The permanent abandonment of a well occurs when the well is determined to no longer 

have a potential for economic production, or when the well cannot be used for other purposes.

Reclamation involves revegetation and recontouring of disturbed areas. During well pad construction, 

the topsoil would likely be stockpiled for use during restoration activities. If the well is successful, the 

drill pad would be reduced to about 100 feet x 100 feet with the remaining surface area, including the 

reserve pit, re-graded and restored as per the surface owner requirements. The BLM encourages the 

use of non-invasive cover plants during all restoration and stabilization activities. Final seed mixtures 

and plantings are determined with recommendations from BLM with approval of the surface owner. 

The remaining 100 feet x 100 feet pad would be maintained for the life of the well. The life of a 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 29 

productive well may be 25 years. Following abandonment, the pad is subject to the same restoration 

parameters.

2.3. No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the BLM would not offer federal minerals in the Marietta Unit for oil 

and gas leasing, including both the parcels requested in currently pending EOIs and all other federal 

minerals in the Marietta Unit. Without a lease (No Action Alternative), operators would not be 

authorized to access federal minerals at the time of development but could develop adjacent privately 

owned minerals, potentially resulting in drainage of federal minerals without benefit to the government. 

Therefore, not leasing the parcel would not meet the purpose of and need for the Proposed Action. 

Also, since CEQ guidelines stipulate that a No Action Alternative should be analyzed to assess any 

environmental consequences that may occur if the Proposed Action is not implemented; the No Action 

Alternative has been retained for analysis in this EA. This analysis serves also as a baseline for 

comparing the potential impacts of the Proposed Action. 

2.4. Alternatives Considered but not Analyzed in Detail

2.4.1. Offer all leases with a no-surface-occupancy stipulation

Offering all leases with a no-surface-occupancy (NSO) stipulation was suggested through public 

comment. However, this alternative would not fulfill the purpose and need described in Chapter 1. 

This alternative would unnecessarily constrain oil and gas occupancy, especially in this highly 

fragmented landscape, where the ability to cross federal land may be critical to enabling an operator to 

develop.

2.4.2. Lease minerals for vertical drilling only

Offering all leases with a vertical drilling only stipulation was suggested through public comment. 

However, this alternative would not fulfill the purpose and need described in Chapter 1. First, a vertical 

drilling only stipulation would require far greater surface disturbance, and result in the least efficient 

extraction of Federal minerals. The rule of capture is an oil and gas doctrine that allows one to produce 

oil and gas from their lands even though said oil and gas flows from the lands of their neighbors. In 

Ohio, the rule of capture entitles landowners to “offset” wells, or wells that do not need to conform 

with state conservation standards, when one's neighbor is draining their mineral interest. Second, a 

vertical drilling only alternative is equivalent to a ban on directional drilling, which in turn would be 

tantamount to a ban on development of the Utica, Marcellus, and other tight formations underlying the 

forest. Such tight formations require horizontal drilling to extract trapped oil and gas.

3. DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

This chapter describes the environment that would be affected by implementation of the Proposed 

Action, as required by CEQ regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508). The discussion 

in this chapter focuses on the relevant resources and issues and therefore, only those elements of the 

affected environment that have the potential to be impacted are described in detail. Under the 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 30 

Proposed Action, operators could choose to locate potential future well pads and other infrastructure 

on land owned by the WNF. If infrastructure is located on adjacent private lands, federal minerals could 

be accessed by directional or horizontal drilling. For this reason, the potential area of effect includes the 

entire proclamation boundary of the Marietta Unit of the WNF (Map 2; see Chapter 6 of this EA). 

This chapter includes baseline data from and refers to the 2006 Forest Plan Final EIS and 2012 SIR, with 

additional updated information where applicable. The 2012 SIR reviewed the projections for oil and gas 

activity (RFDS) on the WNF and found that potential effects associated with high volume, hydraulic 

fracturing (HVHF) are not seriously different from those effects analyzed and disclosed in the 2006 

Forest Plan Final EIS. An amendment or supplement to the 2006 Forest Plan was determined to be 

unnecessary at this time (as documented in the Findings Project file, dated August 27, 2012 and located 

online at http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5387932.pdf). The 2012 SIR also 

concluded that the Forest Service and BLM could provide for the appropriate protection of natural 

resources and the public if HVHF were to occur on the WNF (SIR, p. 1). Therefore, the 2006 Forest Plan 

EIS and 2012 SIR both provide an adequate source for incorporating baseline information into this EA. 

Based on a review of the context and scale of the Proposed Action, the following resources are 

discussed in detail in this EA: Land Use; Air Resources; Climate and Climate Change; Plant and Animal 

Habitat and Populations; Geology and Minerals; Soils; Water Resources and Water Quality; Wastes, 

Hazardous or Solid; Transportation; Recreation; Noise; Cultural Resources/Paleontology; Native 

American Religious Concerns; Visual Resources and Scenic Quality; Public Health; Socioeconomics; and 

Environmental Justice.

3.1. Land Use

The Marietta Unit lies mostly within the Ohio Valley Lowlands Subsection of the Southern Unglaciated 

Allegheny Plateau Section. This subsection is characterized by steep, wooded lands with high-gradient, 

often ephemeral streams. Ongoing uses of the land in the WNF include timber harvest, recreation, and 

mineral development. Private lands in the area are primarily for agriculture, business, recreation, and 

residential uses.

Oil, gas, and coal have been produced in the Appalachian Basin, which includes the Wayne National 

Forest, for well over 100 years. As of June 2015, there are 1,275 active vertical wells on the Wayne 

National Forest. This total includes federal and private mineral operations. Since the implementation of 

the 2006 Forest Plan, 14 vertical wells have been produced. As of June 2012, approximately 38,858 

acres of federally-owned minerals have been leased, leaving approximately 61,281 acres not leased (U.S. 

Forest Service, 2016f). 

3.2. Air Resources

3.2.1. Air quality

Air quality is affected by various natural and anthropogenic factors. The primary sources of air pollution 

in the United States are dust from blowing wind on disturbed or exposed soil, exhaust emissions from 

motorized equipment, oil and gas development, agriculture, and industrial sources. To address national 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 31 

air quality the first comprehensive federal air pollution legislation, known as the Clean Air Act (CAA) was 

enacted in 1970. This law, as amended, required the United States Environmental Protection Agency 

(US EPA) to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The NAAQS (summarized in Table 3.1), 

are criteria pollutants that include carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3), particulate 

matter (PM10 & PM2.5), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and lead (Pb). USEPA calls these pollutants “criteria” air 

pollutants because it regulates them by developing human health-based and/or environmentally-based 

criteria (science-based guidelines) for setting permissible levels. The NAAQS set a primary and, in some 

cases, a secondary standard for each of the criteria pollutants. Primary standards provide public health 

protection, including protecting the health of "sensitive" populations such as asthmatics, children, and 

the elderly. Secondary standards provide public welfare protection, including protection against 

decreased visibility and damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings. A geographic area with air 

quality that is cleaner than the primary standard is called an "attainment" area; areas that do not meet 

the primary standard are called "nonattainment" areas.

Air pollution emissions are characterized as point, area, biogenic or mobile (USEPA, 2016a). Point 

sources are large, stationary facilities such as power plants and manufacturing facilities and are 

accounted for on a facility by facility basis. Area sources are smaller stationary sources and, due to their 

greater number, are accounted for by classes. Production emissions from an oil and gas well and dust 

from construction of a well pad would be considered area source emissions. Biogenic sources are 

stationary sources that produce associated CO2 emissions from combustion of biological gases and 

materials such as municipal solid wastes, manure management processes, and landfill wastes. Mobile 

sources consist of non-stationary sources such as cars and trucks. Mobile emissions are further divided 

into on-road and off-road sources. Engine exhaust from truck traffic to and from oil and gas locations 

would be considered on-road mobile emissions. Engine exhaust from drilling operations would be 

considered off road mobile emissions.

Although the USEPA was given the authority for air quality protection, it had the provision to delegate 

this authority to each state as appropriate under federal law. In Ohio, most of the authority for air 

quality protection has been delegated to the Ohio Division of Air Pollution Control (DAPC), which 

monitors the NAAQS pollutants at a state level, while abiding by the federal standards.
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 32 

Table 3.1. National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

Primary Standards Secondary Standards

Pollutant [final rule cited] Level Averaging Time Level Averaging 

Time

Form

Carbon 

Monoxide (CO)

[76 FR 54294, 8/31/2011]

9 ppm 

(10 mg/m3) 

8 hours None Not to be exceeded more than once 

per year

35 ppm 

(40 mg/m3)

1 hour 

Lead (Pb)

[73 FR 66964, 

11/12/2008]

0.15 μg/m3 (1) Rolling 3-Month 

Average

Same as Primary Not to be exceeded

Nitrogen 

Dioxide (NO2)

[75 FR 6474, 2/9/2010]

[77 FR 20218, 4/3/2012]

53 ppb (2) Annual 

(Arithmetic 

Average)

Same as Primary Annual Mean

100 ppb 1-hour None 98th percentile of 1-hour daily 

maximum concentrations, averaged 

over 3 years

Primary Standards Secondary Standards

Pollutant [final rule cited] Level Averaging Time Level Averaging 

Time

Form

Particulate 

Matter (PM10)

[78 FR 3086, 12/14/2012]

150 μg/m324-hour Same as Primary Not to be exceeded more than once 

per year on average of 3 years

Particulate 

Matter (PM2.5)

[78 FR 3086, 12/14/2012]

12.0 μg/m3Annual 

(Arithmetic 

Average)

15.0 μg/m3Annual 

(Arithmetic 

Average)

Annual mean, averaged over 3 years

35 μg/m324-hour Same as Primary 98th percentile, averaged over 3 

years

Ozone (O3)

[80 FR 65292, 

11/26/2015]

0.070 ppm (3) 8-hour Same as Primary Annual fourth-highest daily 

maximum 8-hr average 

concentration, averaged over 3 

years

Sulfur 

Dioxide (SO2)

[75 FR 35520, 6/22/2010]

[77 FR 20218, 4/3/2012]

75 ppb (4) 1-hour

0.5 ppm 3-hour 

99th percentile of 1-hour daily 

maximum concentrations, averaged 

over 3 years

Not to be exceeded more than once 

per year

Source: (USEPA, 2016e)

(1) In areas designated nonattainment for the Pb standards prior to the promulgation of the current (2008) standards, and for which 

implementation plans to attain or maintain the current (2008) standards have not been submitted and approved, the previous 

standards (1.5 μg/m3 as a calendar quarter average) also remain in effect.

(2) The level of the annual NO2 standard is 0.053 ppm. It is shown here in terms of ppb for the purposes of clearer comparison to the 1-

hour standard level.

(3) Final rule signed October 1, 2015, and effective December 28, 2015. The previous (2008) O3 standards additionally remain in effect in 

some areas. Revocation of the previous (2008) O3 standards and transitioning to the current (2015) standards will be addressed in 

the implementation rule for the current standards.
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 33 

(4) The previous SO2 standards (0.14 ppm 24-hour and 0.03 ppm annual) will additionally remain in effect in certain areas: (1) any area 

for which it is not yet 1 year since the effective date of designation under the current (2010) standards, and (2)any area for which 

implementation plans providing for attainment of the current (2010) standard have not been submitted and approved and which is 

designated nonattainment under the previous SO2 standards or is not meeting the requirements of a SIP call under the previous SO2 

standards (40 CFR 50.4(3)), A SIP call is an EPA action requiring a state to resubmit all or part of its State Implementation Plan to 

demonstrate attainment of the require NAAQS.

According to the USEPA (2016b), nationwide air quality has improved for all common NAAQS air 

pollutants since 1990 (Figure 3.1). Nationally, air pollution emissions were lower in 2014 than in 1990 

for: Carbon Monoxide (CO), by 62%, Nitrogen Oxides (NOx), by 51%, Lead (Pb), by 80%, Volatile Organic 

Compounds (VOC), by 38%, Direct PM10, by 19%, Direct PM2.5, by 25% and Sulfur Dioxide (SO2), by 79%.

Figure 3.1. Comparison of national levels of the six common pollutants to the most recent NAAQS, 1990-2014

*National levels are averages across all monitors with complete data for the time period. 

**Note: Air quality data for PM2.5 starts in 1999. Source: (USEPA, 2016b) 

Nationally, annual PM2.5 concentrations were 24% lower in 2014 compared to 1999 and 24-hour PM2.5 

concentrations were 38% lower in 2014 compared to 1999. Ozone levels did not improve in much of the 

East until 2002, after which there was a significant decline. Eight-hour ozone concentrations were 20% 

lower in 2014 than in 2002. This decline is largely due to reductions in nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions 

required by EPA rules, including the NOx State Implementation Plan (SIP) call, preliminary 

implementation of the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), and Tier 2 Light Duty Vehicle Emissions 

Standards (USEPA, 2016b). In January 2015, the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) replaced the 

CAIR and went into effect in Ohio and in 27 other eastern states, with the goal of significantly improving 

air quality by reducing power plant emissions that contribute to ozone and/or fine particle pollution in 

other states (USEPA, 2016c).
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 34 

Hazardous Air Pollutants 

Under the CAA, the USEPA is required to regulate emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). HAPs 

are substances that are known or suspected to cause cancer or other serious health effects. These 

include reproductive effects or birth defects, or adverse environmental impacts. The USEPA classified 

187 air pollutants as HAPs (USEPA, 2015a). Examples of listed HAPs associated with the oil and gas 

industry include formaldehyde, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, isomers of xylene (BTEX) compounds, 

and normalhexane (n-hexane). 

The USEPA has developed a list of source categories that must meet control technology requirements 

for these toxic air pollutants. Section 112(d) of the CAA (USEPA, 2016g) requires the USEPA to develop 

regulations that establish national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for each 

category or subcategory of major sources and area sources of HAPs, being industries that manage oil 

and gas production, transmission or storage no exception. Furthermore, the USEPA estimates that 

these promulgated NESHAP will reduce national HAP emissions from major sources in the oil and natural 

gas production source category by 77% and from major sources in the natural gas transmission and 

storage source category by 95.0% (USEPA, 1999). The standards require the maximum degree of 

emission reduction that the USEPA determines to be achievable by each particular source category, and 

such reduction is only possible by using the maximum achievable control technology (MACT). 

3.2.2. Visibility

Visibility, also referred to as visual range, is a subjective measure of the distance that light or an object 

can clearly be seen by an observer. Light extinction is used as a measure of visibility and is calculated 

from the monitored components of fine particle mass (aerosols) and relative humidity. It is expressed in 

terms of deciviews, a measure for describing perceived changes in visibility. One deciview is defined as 

a change in visibility that is just perceptible to an average person, which is approximately a 10% change 

in light extinction. Visibility can also be defined by standard visual range (SVR) measured in miles, which 

is the farthest distance at which an observer can see a black object viewed against the sky above the 

horizon. In other words, a larger SVR equals cleaner air. To estimate potential visibility impairment, 

monitored aerosol concentrations are used to reconstruct visibility conditions for each day monitored 

including: ammonium sulfate, ammonium nitrate, organic mass, elemental carbon, soil elements, and 

coarse mass (Malm et al., 2013). The daily values are then ranked from clearest to haziest and divided 

into three categories; the mean visibility for all days (average), the 20% of days with the clearest 

visibility (20% clearest), and the 20% of days with the worst visibility (20% haziest). 

A wide variety of pollutants can impact visibility, including particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide, nitrates 

(compounds containing NO3), and sulfates (compounds containing SO4). In addition, fine particles 

suspended in the atmosphere can decrease visibility by blocking, reflecting, or absorbing light. In 

addition, two types of visibility impairment can be caused by emission sources: plume impairment and 

regional haze. Plume impairment occurs when a section of the atmosphere becomes visible due to the 

contrast or color difference between a discrete pollutant plume and a viewed background, such as a 

landscape feature. Haze, on the other hand, is caused when sunlight encounters tiny pollution particles 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 35 

in the air, which reduce, particularly during humid conditions, the clarity and color of what we see. 

Regional haze occurs when pollutants from widespread emission sources become mixed with the 

atmosphere and travel long distances (Malm, 1999).

There are three visibility classifications for areas that attain NAAQS, Class I; Class II; and Class III (Figure 

3.2.). These classifications were established by Congress to facilitate implementation of the prevention 

of significant deterioration (PSD) of the air quality provisions of the Clean Air Act. Congress established 

certain national parks and wilderness areas as mandatory Class I, or areas where only a small amount of 

air quality degradation is allowed. Since 1980, the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual 

Environments (IMPROVE) network has measured visibility in Class I areas. These areas are managed as 

high visual quality under the federal visual resource management (VRM) program. The 1977 Clean Air 

Act Amendments (CAAA), Section 169A declared “as a national goal the prevention of any future, and 

the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I federal areas which 

impairment results from manmade air pollution” (42 U.S.C. § 7491(a)(1)). All other areas of the U.S. are 

designated as Class II, which allow a moderate amount of air quality degradation, and no areas of the 

U.S. have been designated Class III, which would allow more air quality degradation. The CAA gives 

federal managers the affirmative responsibility, but no regulatory authority, to protect air qualityrelated values, including visibility, from degradation.

Figure 3.2. Mandatory Class I Visibility Areas, United States 

Source: (USEPA, 2016j)
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 36 

PSD increments limit air quality degradation and ensure that areas with clean air continue to meet 

NAAQS, even during economic development. The PSD program goal is to maintain pristine air quality 

required to protect public health and welfare from air pollution effects and “to preserve, protect and 

enhance the air quality in national parks, national wilderness areas, national monuments, national 

seashores, and other areas of special national or regional natural, recreational, scenic or historic value” 

(USEPA, 2015b).

Furthermore, PSD increments have been established for NO2, SO2, and PM10. Comparisons of potential 

PM10, NO2, and SO2 concentrations with PSD increments are intended only to evaluate a threshold of 

concern. The allowable PSD increment depends on an area’s classification. Class I areas have lower 

increments, due to their protected status as pristine areas. 

3.2.3. Atmospheric deposition

Atmospheric deposition refers to processes in which air pollutants are removed from the atmosphere 

and deposited into terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Air pollutants can be deposited by precipitation 

(rain and snow) or the gravitational settling of gaseous pollutants on soil, water, and vegetation. Much 

of the concern about deposition is due to secondary formation of acids and other compounds from 

emitted nitrogen or sulfur species, such as NOx and SO2, which can contribute to the acidification of 

lakes, streams, and soils, which may in turn affect other ecosystem characteristics, including nutrient 

cycling and biological diversity.

Substances deposited include: 

• Acids, such as sulfuric (H2SO4) and nitric (HNO3), sometimes referred to as acid rain;

• Air toxics, such as pesticides, herbicides, and volatile organic compounds (VOC);

• Heavy metals, such as mercury; and

• Nutrients, such as nitrates (NO3) and ammonium (NH4+).

The accurate measurement of atmospheric deposition is complicated because of contributions to 

deposition by several different components including but not limited to rain, snow, cloud water, particle 

settling, and gaseous pollutants. Deposition varies with precipitation and other meteorological variables 

(e.g., temperature, humidity, winds, and atmospheric stability), which in turn, vary with elevation and 

time. The U.S. Forest Service and the National Park Service have established guidelines for Levels of 

Concern (LOC) for total deposition of nitrogen and sulfur compounds in Class I Wilderness Areas. Total 

nitrogen deposition of up to 1.5 kilograms (kg) per hectare (ha) per year is considered unlikely to harm 

terrestrial or aquatic ecosystems and for total sulfur deposition, the LOC is 5 kg/ha-yr. The USFS is also 

considering sulfur LOC of 1.5 kg/ha-yr. (U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 2010). There are no Class I Wilderness Areas located near the Marietta Unit. 

3.2.4. Air quality in Ohio

The Marietta Unit in the WNF contains no Class I or sensitive Class II areas. Monroe and Noble Counties 

are currently in attainment for NAAQS pollutants; however, Washington County is currently in 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 37 

nonattainment for Sulfur Dioxide (Table 3.2) (USEPA, 2016f). The 2006 Forest Plan Final EIS previously 

showed Washington County in nonattainment for eight-hour ozone and particulate matter (these 

designations were revoked in 2006 and 2012, respectively). 

Table 3.2. Attainment Status for Washington County, Ohio

County

 

Pollutant Area Name

Nonattainment 

in Year

Redesignation

to 

Maintenance Classification

City 

NA

Washington 8-Hr 

Ozone 

(1997) -

NAAQS 

revoked 

ParkersburgMarietta, WV-OH2004-2006 6/15/2007 Former 

Subpart 1

Whole

Washington PM-2.5 

(1997) 

ParkersburgMarietta, WV-OH2005-2012 8/29/2013 Former 

Subpart 1

Whole

Washington Sulfur 

Dioxide 

(1971) 

Waterford Township 

(Washington 

County), OH

1992-1993 10/21/1994 Part

Washington Sulfur 

Dioxide 

(2010) 

Muskingum River, 

OH

2013-2015 Currently in 

Nonattainment

Part

Source: (USEPA, 2016f)

In Table 3.2, the nonattainment area identified as Muskingum River, Ohio is located in Waterford 

Township in Washington County. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) submitted a 

Request for Redesignation letter to the USEPA on April 3, 2015 proposing to shutter the Muskingum 

River Power Plant to return the area to attainment status (Ohio EPA, 2015).

3.2.5. Climate and Climate Change

Climate change refers to any significant change in measures of climate (e.g., temperature or 

precipitation) lasting for an extended period (decades or longer). Climate change may result from 

natural processes, such as changes in the sun’s intensity or within the climate system (such as changes in 

ocean circulation) as well as human activities that change the atmosphere’s composition (such as 

burning fossil fuels) and the land surface (such as urbanization) (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change (IPCC), 2007). Climate is both a driving force and limiting factor for ecological, biological, and 

hydrological processes, and has great potential to influence resource management. 

Secretarial Order 3285, issued on March 11, 2009, established a Department-wide approach for applying 

scientific tools to increase understanding of climate change and to coordinate an effective response to 

its impacts on tribes, and on the land, water, ocean, fish and wildlife, and cultural heritage resources the 

Department manages. The Secretarial Order states that one must “consider and analyze potential 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 38 

climate change impacts when undertaking long-range planning exercises, setting priorities for scientific 

research and investigations, and/or when making major decisions affecting DOI resources.” BLM does 

recognize the importance of climate change and the potential effects it could have on natural and 

socioeconomic environments. Since the assessment of GHG emissions and climate change is in its 

formative phase it is currently not feasible to predict the exact impacts the Proposed Action would have 

on climate. However, for the purpose of NEPA analysis and consistent with CEQ regulations, this EA 

includes a qualitative and quantitative analysis of possible greenhouse gas emissions that could occur as 

a result of reasonably foreseeable oil and gas development in the Marietta Unit (see Section 4.2). More 

detailed emissions would be available and calculated at a site specific level of analysis such as those that 

occur at an APD stage. 

3.2.5.1. Greenhouse Gases

It is accepted within the scientific community that global temperatures have risen at an increased rate 

and the likely cause is gases that trap heat in the atmosphere, referred to as greenhouse gases 

(GHG). GHGs are composed mostly of carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), methane (CH4), water 

vapor, and ozone. The greenhouse gas effect is the process in which the radiation from the sun that 

heats the surface of Earth gets blocked by GHG molecules in Earth’s atmosphere. Since GHGs are 

composed of molecules that absorb and emit infrared electromagnetic radiation (heat), they form an 

intrinsic part of the greenhouse effect.

Some GHGs such as CO2 and water vapor occur naturally and are emitted into the atmosphere through 

natural processes. Other GHGs (e.g., fluorinated gases) are created and emitted solely through human 

activities. However, atmospheric concentrations of both the natural and man-made gases have been 

rising over the last few centuries due to the industrial revolution. The primary GHGs that enter the 

atmosphere as a result of anthropogenic activities include CO2, CH4, N2O, and fluorinated gases such as 

hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. Fluorinated gases are powerful GHGs 

that are emitted from a variety of industrial processes including production of refrigeration/cooling 

systems, foams and aerosols. Fluorinated gases are not primary to the activities authorized by the BLM 

and will not be discussed further in this document. Ongoing scientific research has identified the 

potential impacts of anthropogenic GHG emissions and changes in biological sequestration due to land 

management activities on global climate. Through complex interactions on a regional and global scale, 

these GHG emissions and net losses of biological carbon sinks may cause a net warming effect of the 

atmosphere, primarily by decreasing the amount of heat energy re-radiated by the earth back into 

space. However, other activities could help sequester carbon, such as managing vegetation to favor 

perennial grasses and increase vegetation cover, which could help build organic carbon in soils and 

function as “carbon sinks.”

In addition, GHGs have a sustained climatic impact over different temporal scales. For example, recent 

emissions of CO2 can influence climate for 100 years. In contrast, black carbon is a relatively short-lived 

pollutant, as it remains in the atmosphere for only about a week. It is estimated that black carbon is the 

second greatest contributor to global climate change behind CO2 (Ramanathan and Carmichael, 2008). 

Black carbon is a highly light-absorbing component of particulate resulting from the incomplete 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 39 

combustion of fossil fuels, biofuels, and biomass. Most black carbon in the Unites States comes from 

mobile sources (diesel engines and vehicle use) or biomass burning (wildfires, residential heating, and 

industry) (USEPA, 2012). Without additional meteorological monitoring systems, it is difficult to 

determine the spatial and temporal variability and change of climatic conditions, but increasing 

concentrations of GHGs may accelerate the rate of climate change in either a positive or negative 

direction depending upon location and site specific factors.

Greenhouse gases are often presented using the unit of Metric Tons of CO2 equivalent (MT CO2e) or 

Million Metric Tons (MMT CO2e), a metric to express the impact of each different greenhouse gas in 

terms of the amount of CO2 making it possible to express greenhouse gases as a single number. For 

example, 1 ton of methane would be equal to 25 tons of CO2 equivalent, because it has a global 

warming potential (GWP) 25 times that of CO2 (The Guardian, 2011).

As defined by USEPA, the GWP provides “ratio of the time-integrated radiative forcing from the 

instantaneous release of one kilogram of a trace substance relative to that of one kilogram of CO2.” The 

GWP of greenhouse gas is used to compare global impacts of different gases and used specifically to 

measure how much energy the emissions of one ton of gas will absorb over a given period of time (e.g. 

100 years), relative to the emissions of one ton of CO2. The GWP accounts for the intensity of each 

GHG’s heat trapping effect and its longevity in the atmosphere. The GWP provides a method to quantify 

the cumulative effects of multiple GHGs released into the atmosphere by calculating carbon dioxide 

equivalent for the GHGs.

● Carbon dioxide (CO2), by definition, has a GWP of 1 regardless of the time period used because it 

is the gas being used as the reference. CO2 remains in the climate system for a very long time; 

CO2 emissions cause increases in the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 that will last thousands 

of years (USEPA, 2016h).

● Methane (CH4) is estimated to have a GWP of 28-36 times that of CO2 over 100 years. CH4

emitted today lasts about a decade on average, which is much less time than CO2. But CH4 also 

absorbs much more energy than CO2. The net effect of the shorter lifetime and higher energy 

absorption is reflected in the GWP. The methane GWP also accounts for some indirect effects, 

such as the fact that methane is a precursor to ozone, and ozone is in itself a greenhouse gas 

(USEPA, 2016h).

● Nitrous Oxide (N2O) has a GWP of 265-298 times that of CO2 for a 100-year timescale. N2O 

emitted today remains in the atmosphere for more than 100 years, on average (USEPA, 2016h). 

Table 3.3. contains GHGs regulated by USEPA and global warming potentials.
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 40 

Table. 3.3. GHG Regulated by USEPA and Global Warming Potentials 

Air Pollutant Chemical Symbol/ 

Acronym

Global Warming Potential

Carbon Dioxide CO2 1

Methane CH4 25

Nitrous Oxide N2O 298

Hydrofluorocarbons HFCs Varies

Perfluorocarbons PFCs Varies

Sulfur hexafluoride SF6 22,800

Source: (USEPA, 2016h)

Although still debated, GHG levels have varied for millennia, and it is theorized that recent 

industrialization and burning of fossil carbon sources have caused CO2e concentrations to increase 

dramatically, and are likely to contribute to overall global climatic changes. The IPCC (2007) concluded 

that “warming of the climate system is unequivocal” and “most of the observed increase in global 

average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in 

anthropogenic GHG concentrations.” Extensive research and development efforts are underway in the 

field of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology, which could help direct management 

strategies in the future. The IPCC has identified a target worldwide “carbon budget” to estimate the 

amount of CO2 the world can emit while still having a likely chance of limiting global temperature rise to 

2°C above pre-industrial levels. The international community estimates this budget to be 1 trillion 

tonnes of carbon (IPCC, 2016). 

Because GHGs circulate freely throughout Earth’s atmosphere, climate change is a global issue. The 

largest component of global anthropogenic GHG emissions is CO2. Global anthropogenic carbon 

emissions reached about 7,000,000,000 MT per year in 2000 and an estimated 9,170,000,000 MT per 

year in 2010 (Boden, Marland, & Andres, 2013). Oil and gas production contributes to GHGs such as CO2 

and methane. Natural gas systems were the largest anthropogenic source category of CH4 emissions in 

the United States in 2014 with 176.1 MMT CO2 e of CH4 emitted into the atmosphere. Those emissions 

have decreased by 30.6 MMT CO2 e (14.8 percent) since 1990 (USEPA, 2016). In 2006, natural gas 

production accounted for 8% of global methane emissions, and oil production accounted for 0.5% of 

global methane emissions (URS Corporation, 2010). 

Global mean surface temperatures have increased nearly 1.0°C (1.8°F) from 1890 to 2006 (National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Institute for Space Studies, 2007). In 2001, the IPCC 

(2007) indicated that by the year 2100, global average surface temperatures would increase 1.4 to 5.8°C 

(2.5 to 10.4°F) above 1990 levels. The National Academy of Sciences (Hansen et al., 2006) has confirmed 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 41 

these findings, but also indicated that there are uncertainties regarding how climate change may affect 

different regions. Observations and predictive models indicate that average temperature changes are 

likely to be greater in the Northern Hemisphere. Data indicate that northern latitudes (above 24° N) 

have exhibited temperature increases of nearly 1.2°C (2.1°F) since 1900, with nearly a 1.0°C (1.8°F) 

increase since 1970 alone. It also shows temperature and precipitation trends for the conterminous 

United States. For both parameters we see varying rates of change, but overall increases in both 

temperature and precipitation.

3.2.6. Ohio Climate

Climate is the composite of generally prevailing weather conditions of a particular region throughout the 

year, averaged over at least 30 years, and Ohio has a geographically variable climate. Ohio is exposed 

equally to cool air from the arctic or Canada and warmer air from the tropics. Northern Ohio has a 

variety of lake related weather patterns from Lake Erie, while southern and eastern Ohio may 

experience varied local conditions due to extreme topography. Ohio experiences a wide range of 

temperature and climatic conditions, including cold winters and warm, humid summers. Hot, dry air can 

occasionally envelop the state (high temp 113 ̊ 1934), but also cold, dry polar air masses during both 

winter and summer (low temp -39 ̊ 1994). Ohio is often affected by mid-latitude storms, often 

originating in Canada, Colorado, or the Gulf of Mexico. These can increase precipitation in any season 

(Rogers, n.d.). From February 2011 to January 2016, Ohio has had a 0.7 degree departure from the 20th 

Century average of 10.2 degrees. The freeze free periods (growing seasons) vary from 160-180 days in 

South Ohio, to 125-155 in Northern Ohio. In coastal areas on Lake Erie, the growing season can extend 

up to 200 days. High humidity and dew points can also cause heavy fog, and Ohio experiences high 

levels of fog and cloudiness in the winter. Ohio also has abundant precipitation, especially during midlatitude wave cyclones and storms (heaviest from October-March). Ohio has also had a 635 millimeter 

(mm) departure in precipitation from the 20th century average of 5,493.77mm (3rd wettest 60 Month 

period) (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2016). Also of note, El Niño and La Niña 

events have had increasing effects on Ohio’s, and the regional, climate. In addition, during the last 

century, Ohio has experienced rising temperatures, increased precipitation, more extreme weather 

events, and decreased water availability. While the most recent climate modeling predicts warmer 

temperatures and lower water levels for much of Ohio, these changes will be more pronounced if global 

emissions of greenhouse gases are not reduced (NCSL, 2008).

In 2010, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) ranked Ohio fourth in the United States for 

carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel consumption (2016). Ohio University and Ohio State University 

collaborated on a GHG emissions inventory for the state of Ohio in 2011. The inventory used standard 

approaches consistent with other state and USEPA reporting inventory standards. The inventory also 

used guidelines from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report (2006) which 

provides conversion factors for CO2 equivalency for common GHGs. The inventory found that 93% of 

CO2e (carbon dioxide equivalent) emissions were related to energy production, and the bulk of CO2

emissions were the results of coal-fired power plants. Methane emissions were primarily from enteric 

fermentation in agriculture and solid waste landfills. Nitrous oxide emissions were mostly from manure 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 42 

management and manufacturing (Ohio University and The Ohio State University, 2011). Fugitive 

emissions from fuels of oil and gas were quantified as 1.67 MMT CO2e, and energy production 

accounted for 117.63 MMT (mostly attributed to coal production) (Ohio University and The Ohio State 

University, 2011). Monroe County contributed very little to the overall Ohio GHG emissions, but 

Washington County was the second largest contributor in the southeast region of the state. Washington 

County emissions were mostly attributed to energy production, likely from the two coal combustion 

facilities (Muskingum River Power Plant and R.H. Gorsuch Station). 

3.3. Plant and Animal Habitat and Populations

3.3.1. Introduction

The description of plant and animal habitat and population information is derived from the 2006 Forest 

Plan and EIS and incorporates by reference the supplemental information provided in the 2012 SIR, for 

which both the USFWS and the FS concurred that the conclusions of the 2006 Plan were still well 

founded. The BLM also made observations of habitat and wildlife during a site visit conducted in 2015.

For the purpose of management, the WNF is divided into 14 separate, non-contiguous management 

areas, which are defined by their history, geography, suitability for various types of use, and other 

factors. The Marietta Unit contains seven of these management areas, listed below by acreage in 

descending order and shown on Map 4 (see Chapter 6 of this EA):

1. Diverse Continuous Forest: Comprises more than half of the Marietta Unit, or more than 

114,000 acres. It is characterized by large blocks of mature forest with a variety of species and 

ages providing diverse wildlife habitat types. Openings and patches of early-successional 

habitat are present generally around the edges of otherwise continuous blocks of mature forest. 

While wildland fire is used to promote oak and hickory stand types, many stands are becoming 

increasingly dominated by maple and other fire-intolerant species. Oil and gas development is 

permitted on NFS lands within this management area. This management area in the Marietta 

Unit contains 160 acres of managed wildlife openings, which are small breaks in forest canopy 

that are under special management for the benefit of targeted wildlife species or habitat types.

2. Forest and Shrubland Mosaic: Comprises around 68,000 acres in the Marietta Unit and 

contains forests with a higher proportion of early- and mid-successional components than the 

Diverse Continuous Forest. There are permanent herbaceous openings dispersed throughout 

the forests, and prescribed fire and even-aged timber harvests are used to ensure the desired 

amount of young habitat types. Oil and gas development is permitted on NFS lands within this 

management area. This management area in the Marietta Unit contains 49 acres of managed 

wildlife openings.

3. River Corridors: Comprises about 35,000 acres in the Marietta Unit and follows the Little 

Muskingum and Ohio Rivers. The primary emphasis of this management area is on habitats that 

comprise a healthy riparian area, such as floodplain forests, open wetlands, and properly 

functioning stream channels. Oil and gas activities are permitted but are subject to a controlled 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 43 

surface use stipulation. This management area in the Marietta Unit contains 112 acres of 

managed wildlife openings.

4. Future Old Forest with Mineral Activity: Comprises about 17,000 acres and is present only on 

the Marietta Unit, due to the abundance of existing oil and gas wells, pads, and access roads. 

This area contains a largely uneven-aged forest that is managed very non-intensively. Over 

time, the area is expected to become dominated by maples and other fire-intolerant, shadetolerant species, while occasional, natural disturbances will maintain a small component of 

early-successional habitat. This management area is closed to timber production and open for 

oil and gas activities.

5. Special Areas. These areas are managed to preserve and study unique natural areas. There are 

seven Special Areas in the Marietta Unit, totaling about 2,600 acres, mostly in the eastern half of 

the Unit. No surface occupancy (NSO) is allowed on new federal leases here.

6. Developed Recreation. Two areas totaling 366 acres make up the federally-owned component 

of this area within the Marietta Unit. This management area emphasizes providing safe areas 

for recreational activity. NSO is allowed on new leases in this management area.

7. Research Natural Area. This management area consists of “nationally significant areas with 

unique ecosystems deemed worthy of preservation for scientific purposes” (2006 Forest Plan, p. 

3-53). The Marietta Unit contains one such area, known as Reas Run Research Natural Area, a 

78-acre mature Virginia pine stand. NSO is allowed in this management area.

The 2006 Forest Plan (and EIS) emphasizes that various habitat types and all major successional stages 

are necessary for the WNF to meet its mandate of sustaining a diverse population of native plants and 

animals. The 2006 Forest Plan (and EIS) uses several habitat indicators in an effort to summarize the 

impacts of management activities within the WNF:

● Amount and trends in oak-hickory forest;

● Amount and trends in pine forest and trends in pine warbler (Setophaga pinus) habitat and 

population;

● Amount and trends in early successional habitat and trends in yellow-breasted chat (Icteria 

virens) and ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus, an upland game bird) habitat and populations;

● Mature, interior forest ─ amount and trends cerulean warbler (Setophaga cerulea, a songbird) 

and worm-eating warbler (Helmitheros vermivorum), and pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus 

pileatus) habitat for and populations;

● Mature riparian forest and headwater streams ─ amount and trends in Louisiana waterthrush 

(Parkesia motacilla);

● Grassland habitat ─ amount and trends in Henslow’s sparrow (Ammodramus henslowii) 

population and habitat;

● Species of viability concern ─ threatened and endangered species and Regional Forester 

Sensitive Species;

● Species of public interest, such as white-tailed deer and ginseng;

● Non-native, invasive species; and
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 44 

● Amount of Forest Service land open for timber harvesting.

For this EA, the BLM analyzed all of these indicators except timber harvesting and prescribed fire, since 

they relate strictly to amounts of land allocated to certain land management practices that are not 

affected by oil and gas leasing. Specific design criteria and/or mitigation measures have been used to 

implement project work in and around existing oil and gas production infrastructure.

3.3.2. Oak-hickory forest

Oak-hickory and mixed oak communities dominate the WNF (2006 Forest Plan Final EIS, p. 3-40). The 

Southern Unglaciated Allegheny Plateau ecological section was dominated by oak-hickory and mixed 

oak-pine communities at the time of first European settlement. The primary changes to the vegetation 

since then have been the initial cutover of the primeval forest and the broad suppression of wildfire that 

accompanied widespread European settlement. This second factor has resulted in the invasion of 

maples, beech, and yellow poplar into the oak-dominated communities, to such an extent in many areas 

that shade-intolerant, mast-bearing species (oaks and hickories) are declining. The primary factor in 

maintaining oak-hickory forest is periodic disturbance, primarily harvest and fire, either wild or 

prescribed.

3.3.3. Pine forest

Pine-dominated communities made up 6%, and mixed-pine communities 5% of the WNF in 2006 (2006 

Forest Plan Final EIS, p. 3-55). As farms failed in southeastern Ohio in the 1930s, the Civilian 

Conservation Corps planted pines widely as an erosion-control practice. Pines on the WNF include four 

native species: shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata), pitch pine (P. rigida), Virginia pine (P. virginiana), and, in 

the eastern portion of the Marietta unit, white pine (P. strobus). Red pine (P. resinosa) is not native to 

Ohio but is widely planted and in present on the WNF. Pines are propagated by disturbances, such as 

blowdown, fire, and timber harvest.

Pine warbler is identified by the Partners in Flights Northern American Landbird Conservation Plan as a 

Stewardship Species for the Eastern Avifaunal Biome. This species has increased throughout the region 

in the last half century. The 2006 Forest Plan Final EIS projects a decline in pine-dominated stands and 

pine warbler population.

3.3.4. Early successional habitat

As in the case of oak-dominated and pine communities, early successional habitat types depend on 

periodic disturbances. Disturbances such as fire and timber harvesting expose the ground to sunlight 

and permit the growth of shrubby communities that favor certain types of wildlife. Wildfire once 

provided periodic disturbance to a large portion of southern Ohio but has been widely suppressed over 

the past century. Abandoned farms created a large component of early successional habitat, but this 

component declined from 25% of the WNF in 1968 to the 2006 level of 5.4% (2006 Forest Plan Final EIS, 

p. 3-60). A large component of current early successional habitat is on reclaimed mine lands. Yellowbreasted chat and ruffed grouse are species of conservation concern on the WNF that require young 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 45 

stands with open canopies. These and many other early successional forest birds have experienced 

population declines as early successional habitat has given way to closed-canopy forests.

3.3.5. Mature interior forest

94% of the WNF and 80% of the surrounding landscape were forested in 2006 (2006 Forest Plan Final 

EIS, p. 3-70). Mature forests have been increasing throughout southern Ohio over the last half century. 

Most stands are even-aged or nearly so, since most stands originated following clearcuts or farm 

abandonment. Many wildlife species thrive in mature forest conditions, and there is a wide variety of 

types of structure in mature forests, such as semi-open canopies and tight canopies that provide dense 

shade. The most abundant management area on the Marietta Unit is Diverse Continuous Forest, which 

is managed to emphasize large blocks of unbroken forest.

Three bird species, cerulean warbler, worm-eating warbler, and pileated woodpecker, were selected as 

indicators of mature forest conditions because they represent a broad cross-section of the habitat needs 

of mature-forest-dependent wildlife. Cerulean warblers require uneven-aged forests with large trees for 

cavity-nesting. Worm-eating warblers nest on the ground and require well-developed understory with 

plenty of coarse, woody debris. Pileated woodpeckers favor old forests but will use less-mature 

habitats. All of these birds protect large territories and require large, unbroken tracts of mature forest.

3.3.6. Mature, riparian forest/headwater streams

Riparian areas are the zones of interaction between the terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, including the 

floodplains and the land whose vegetation, microclimate, and wildlife are directly influenced by the 

presence of the aquatic ecosystem. The WNF provided a GIS file showing riparian areas within the 

Marietta Unit. There are almost 15,000 acres of riparian area within the Marietta Unit, and the Forest 

Service manages 15 percent of this area. Most of the federally-managed riparian areas are forested, and 

some of the lands in riparian areas are used for agriculture and roads.

Louisiana waterthrush is a bird species that lives in large riparian forests. The Louisiana waterthrush is 

considered a good indicator of riparian area health because it eats insects that live in various 

microhabitats that are present in a healthy riparian area. Louisiana waterthrush is listed as a 

Stewardship Species in the Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan with a goal of 

maintaining its current population, and the species is considered stable on the WNF.

3.3.7. Grassland habitat

Much of the grassland habitat on the WNF was created by reclaimed mine lands. The Marietta Unit 

does not contain any of the major prairie areas of the WNF, and the Unit contains no land allocated to 

the Grassland Forest Mosaic management area.

Henslow’s sparrow, a grassland-dependent species, has been declining in southeastern Ohio in recent 

decades but is not known to be present on the Marietta Unit.
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 46 

3.3.8. Species of viability concern

3.3.8.1. Federally endangered or threatened species

Sensitive species managed by the Forest Service include federally listed endangered, threatened, and 

candidate species under the Endangered Species Act as well as Regional Forester Sensitive Species (see 

Section 3.3.8.2, Regional Forester Sensitive Species). The Forest Service, including both the WNF and 

Region 9, has previously consulted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) under Section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act with respect to federally listed species. As part of this consultation, the USFWS 

issued a Biological Opinion (BO) on November 22, 2005. The BO provided a tiered approach to the 

Section 7 consultation. The programmatic BO (Tier I) covers all the activities described in the 2006 

Forest Plan described in the 2006 Forest Plan and EIS at a programmatic, non-site-specific level. Because 

the BLM was a cooperating agency in the 2006 Forest Plan/EIS, the consultation conducted with respect 

to the 2006 Forest Plan and EIS applies to the Proposed Action analyzed in this EA.

As part of the 2012 SIR, the Forest Service reviewed new information related to hydraulic fracturing and 

whether there could be additional effects to threatened and endangered species that had not been 

previously analyzed in the 2006 Plan/EIS. The Forest Service and the USFWS concluded that no further 

analysis or consultation was needed and that the consultation conducted under the 2006 Plan/EIS was 

still valid

The information below summarizes the status of the threatened or endangered species that may be 

present in or near the Marietta Unit. Table 3.4 lists the species that were covered in the 2005 BO and 

additional species such as the northern long-eared bat, sheep nose, and snuffbox. A discussion of each 

species follows the table:
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 47 

Table 3.4. Species addressed in the Tier I Biological Opinion and in the current analysis

Common name Scientific name Listing status Determination, Tier I BO

Mammals

Indiana bat Myotis sodalis endangered LAA

Northern long-eared 

bat

Myotis septentrionalis threatened n/a

Insects

American burying 

beetle

Nicrophorus 

americanus

endangered NLAA

Birds

Bald eagle Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus

delisted, but still 

protected under Bald and 

Golden Eagle Protection 

Act

NLAA

Common name Scientific name Listing status Determination, Tier I BO

Mussels

Fanshell Cyprogenia stegaria endangered NLAA

Pink mucket 

pearlymussel

Lampsilis abrupta endangered NLAA

Sheepnose Plethobasus cyphus endangered n/a

Snuffbox Epioblasma triquetra endangered n/a
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 48 

Common name Scientific name Listing status Determination, Tier I BO

Plants

Northern monkshood Aconitum 

noveboracense

threatened NLAA

Running buffalo clover Trifolium stoloniferum endangered LAA

Small whorled pogonia Isotria meleoloides threatened NLAA

Virginia spirea Spirea virginiana threatened NLAA

LAA - likely to adversely affect; NLAA - not likely to adversely affect; n/a - not included in the Tier I BO

The WNF previously considered in its analysis the entire Forest proclamation boundary and a one-mile 

buffer around the Forest, which fully encompasses the area being analyzed for potential oil and gas 

activities on the Marietta Unit.

3.3.8.1.1. Indiana bat

Indiana bat, which has similar habitat requirements to the northern long-eared bat, is well-documented 

on all units of the WNF and is present year-round. The WNF contains one documented hibernaculum, 

and it is not on the Marietta Unit (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2011, p. 3). Likewise, lactating 

and post-lactating females and adult males have been captured within the WNF, which indicates that 

roost trees are most likely present on the WNF. While suitable summer habitat exists on all three units 

of the WNF, the Athens and Ironton Units most likely contain the most heavily concentrated populations 

of Indiana bat, based on thorough surveys conducted previously throughout the WNF by the USFWS 

(USFWS, 2011, p. 3).

3.3.8.1.2. Northern long-eared bat

Northern long-eared bats live in forested areas during the summer, where they forage on flying insects 

and roost in trees with exfoliating bark and other natural or artificial crevices. The Marietta Unit 

contains ample suitable foraging and roosting habitat for this species, based on the similarities between 

the habitat requirements of this species and the Indiana bat. The primary threat to this species is the 

highly contagious and widespread disease, white-nose syndrome. White-nose syndrome is caused by 

the fungus Pseudogymnoascus destructans and generally infects hibernating bats, resulting in up to 100 

percent mortality in hibernacula. Because the primary threat to this species is a disease and not 

anthropogenic (originating in human) activities, the USFWS has instituted a rule, known as a 4(d) rule, 

which permits take of this species under certain circumstances. This species was listed as threatened in 

April 2015 and, as such, was not addressed in the 2006 Forest Plan and EIS or its related BO. However 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 49 

the USFWS issued a new, programmatic BO in 2016 for all Federal agencies for the northern long-eared 

bat (USFWS, 2016) to account for this species.

3.3.8.1.3. American burying beetle

American burying beetles live in various types of habitats. They require dove- or chipmunk-sized 

carrion, which they bury and feed to their young until the larvae pupate. This species was released on 

state-owned lands near the WNF and on the WNF Athens Unit in 2009. These locations are all far 

enough from the Marietta Unit that it is unreasonable to think that the American burying beetle would 

have naturally migrated to, and established a population on, the Marietta Unit.

3.3.8.1.4. Freshwater mussels

Fanshell and pink mucket pearlymussel are not documented anywhere on the WNF (U.S. Forest Service, 

2005, p. F1-116 and F1-129). The WNF contains suitable habitat for fanshell host fish species but not for 

fanshell or pink mucket pearlymussel. Sheepnose and snuffbox may be present on waterways within 

the WNF and were not included in the 2005 BO, but the USFWS concurred with the Forest Service that 

the 2012 SIR did not need any update regarding these species because neither of these species would be 

affected by oil and gas activities on the national forest (U.S. Forest Service, 2012, p. 58) and therefore 

the Section 7 consultation for the 2006 Plan was sufficient.

3.3.8.1.5. Northern monkshood, small whorled pogonia, and Virginia spirea

Northern monkshood lives in shaded to partially-shaded habitats cliffs, talus slopes, or other locations 

with cool air, soil, or groundwater. One of the three populations known to exist in Ohio is in Hocking 

County, which overlaps the Athens Unit, but is not on federal land. The WNF contains no known 

potential reintroduction sites (U.S. Forest Service, 2006).

One population of small whorled pogonia is near the Athens Unit, and the Ironton District contains 

abundant suitable habitat. However, this species has not been identified on the Marietta Unit.

Also, Virginia spirea has not been identified on the WNF. The nearest known population is located near 

the Ironton District, outside of the WNF.

3.3.8.1.6. Running buffalo clover

This species is known to occur on the Ironton District (Historic Forest with Off-Highway Vehicles 

Management Area) on lands that are not protected, but where stipulations limit minerals development. 

This species was recently discovered on the Athens Unit in 2013; however, to date there are no known 

occurrences on the Marietta Unit.

3.3.8.2. Regional forester sensitive species

Regional Forester Sensitive Species include candidate species under the Endangered Species Act, species 

that have been federally delisted within the past five years, and species documented within the 

proclamation boundary with a global, trinomial, or national rank of G1-G3, T1-T3, or N1-N3. The 

Biological Evaluation (BE) that was drafted for the 2006 Forest Plan addressed 14 animal species and 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 50 

nine plant species, and several have been added and/or removed from the list since then, as detailed in 

Tables 3.5 and 3.6.

Table 3.5. RFSS animal species

Common name Scientific name 2006 2016 Occurrence/Habitat

Mammals

Bobcat Lynx rufus X Forest-wide

Black bear Ursus americanus X X Forest-wide

Little brown bat Myotis lucifugus X Forest-wide

Tri-colored bat Perimyotis subflavus X Forest-wide

Birds

Bald eagle Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus X

Forest-wide but no 

documented nests

Cerulean warbler Dendroica cerulea X X Forest-wide

Henslow’s sparrow Ammodramus 

henslowii X X

Athens Unit and Ironton 

Ranger District

Reptiles

Timber rattlesnake Crotalus horridus X XAthens Unit and Ironton 

Ranger District

Amphibians

Eastern hellbender Cryptobranchus 

alleganiensis X X

Marietta Unit (Little 

Muskingum River)

Four-toed 

salamander

Hemidactylium 

scutatum

X

Ironton Ranger District

Green salamander Aneides aeneus X Ironton Ranger District

Mud salamander Pseudotriton 

montanus

X

Ironton Ranger District

Fishes

Ohio lamprey Ichthyomyzon 

bdellium X X

Marietta Unit (Little 

Muskingum River)
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 51 

Common name Scientific name 2006 2016 Occurrence/Habitat

Fishes

Western lake 

chubsucker

Erimyzon sucetta X XIronton Ranger District

Eastern sand darter Etheostoma 

pellucidum X

Redside dace Clinostomus 

elongatus X

Witten Fork and Ohio River 

tributaries

Mollusks

Round hickorynut Obovaria 

subrotunda X

Lilliput Toxolasma parvus X

Little spectaclecase Villosa lienosa X XIronton Ranger District 

(Symmes Ck.)

Salamander mussel Simpsonaias 

ambigua X X

Marietta Unit (Little 

Muskimgum R.), Ironton RD 

(Symmes Creek)

Insects

Grizzled skipper Pyrgus wyandot X X Athens Unit (Dorr Run area)

Northern metalmark Calephelis borealis X Athens and Ironton Units

Green-faced clubtail Gomphus viridifrons XMarietta Unit (Little 

Muskingum R. watershed)

Rapids clubtail Gomphus 

quadricolor X

Marietta Unit (Little 

Muskingum R. watershed)
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 52 

Table 3.6. RFSS plant species.

Common name Scientific name 2006 Forest Plan Current Habitat

Juniper sedge Carex juniperorum X X Open woodland, fire-adapted

Yellowish gentian Gentiana alba X X Open woodland, fire-adapted

Striped gentian Gentiana villosa X X Semi-open woodland

Butternut Juglans cinerea X X Semi-open woodland

Umbrella magnolia Magnolia tripetala

X X

Mature woodland

Blue scorpionweed Phacelea 

ranunculacea X X

Semi-open woodland; Ironton 

Ranger District

Yellow-fringed 

orchid

Platanthera ciliaris X XOpen woodland, fire-adapted

Rock skullcap Scutellaria saxatilis X X Mature woodland

Pigeon grape Vitis cinerea X Riparian

Dwarf iris Iris verna X Semi-open woodland

Sparse-lobed grape 

fern

Botrychium 

biternatum X

Mature woodland

Lined sedge Carex striatula X Mature woodland

Pinxter flower Rhododendron 

nudiflorum X

Semi-open woodland

Carolina thistle Cirsium 

carolinianum X

Open woodland, fire-adapted

Hirsute sedge Carex complanata X Open woodland, fire-adapted

Slender blazingstar Liatris cylindracea X Open woodland, fire-adapted

Wild pea Lythyrus venosus X Open woodland, fire-adapted

Fern-leaf false 

foxglove

Aureolaria 

pedicularia X

Open woodland, fire-adapted

Yellow crownsbeard Verbesina 

occidentalis X

Open habitat

Featherbells Stenanthium 

gramineum X

Open habitat
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 53 

Common name Scientific name 2006 Forest Plan Current Habitat

Bushy broom-sedge Adropogon 

glomeratus X

Open habitat

Small white 

snakeroot

Ageratina 

aromatica X

Open habitat

Large sedge Carex gigantea X Riparian

Louisiana sedge Carex louisianica X Riparian

3.3.9. Species of public interest

Species of public interest are defined as meeting one or more of the following criteria: 

● Fish, wildlife, and plant species commonly enjoyed and used by the public for hunting, 

fishing, trapping, gathering, observing, or sustenance;

● Conditions and trends in the 2006 Forest Plan area are associated with these species; and

● The use and enjoyment of these species contributes to social and economic sustainability.

Species of interest considered in this EA are Whitetail deer and Wild American ginseng, discussed below.

3.3.9.1. Whitetail deer

The southeastern third of Ohio has the state’s highest population densities of whitetail deer. The ODNR 

attempts to manage the deer herd throughout the state through harvest management. The objectives 

are to maintain a healthy deer population and hunting opportunities while mitigating damage to crops. 

Most of the federal land throughout the WNF is open for hunting. Table 3.7 contains deer harvest data 

for Monroe, Washington, and Noble Counties combined, gleaned from the ODNR website (Ohio 

Department of Natural Resources, 2016b).

Table 3.7. Deer harvested in Monroe, Washington, and Noble Counties

Year Harvest Year Harvest

2006-07 15,018 2011-12 11,886

2007-08 13,020 2012-13 11,024

2008-09 15,156 2013-14 9,012

2009-10 15,289 2014-15 7,535

2010-11 12,808 2015-16 9,006

Source: ODNR, 2016b
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 54 

3.3.9.2. Wild American ginseng

Wild ginseng is a medicinal herb that may be harvested by permit in most of the Marietta Unit. 

Management areas in the Marietta Unit where harvest is prohibited include special areas and future old 

forest with minerals. Overharvesting poses the greatest threat to populations on the WNF (2006 Forest 

Plan Final EIS, p. 3-150).

3.3.10. Non-native, invasive species

Non-native, invasive species include non-native plants, animals, and plant diseases that aggressively 

displace native species and alternative plant communities and ecosystems. Roughly one-third of the 

WNF is infested with one or more non-native, invasive species. Most of the documented non-native, 

invasive species in Ohio and on the WNF are plants, and the 2006 Forest Plan lists 47 non-native, 

invasive plant species known to occur on the WNF. Staff from the BLM observed garlic mustard, 

Japanese stilt grass, and multiflora rose on multiple locations on the Marietta Unit during site visits 

conducted in 2015 as part of this EA effort.

Non-native, invasive diseases include several fungal pathogens that attack particular tree species, such 

as butternut canker and Dutch elm disease.

Invasive insects include Gypsy moth and emerald ash borer. Gypsy moth feeds on hundreds of plant 

species, but its most common hosts are oaks and aspen, which are abundant on the WNF. The Ohio 

Department of Agriculture conducts treatments to suppress Gypsy moth populations in cooperation 

with willing landowners.

Emerald ash borer, an insect that kills all species of ash (genus Fraxinus), is widespread in Ohio and has 

been identified on the Athens Unit of the WNF. It may be present on the Marietta Unit as well (Ohio 

Department of Agriculture, 2016).

3.4. Geology and Minerals

Bedrock outcrops on the WNF are composed of clay, shale, siltstone, sandstone, conglomerate, and 

limestone, mostly from Pennsylvanian and Permian systems. Some Mississippian rocks also occur on the 

surface. Coal seams are found interbedded in the Pennsylvanian and Permian formations. These rock 

units – as well as the thick sequence of sedimentary rocks of Devonian, Silurian, Ordovician and 

Cambrian Ages – overlie an igneous and metamorphic Pre-Cambrian complex. 

Formations in the vicinity of the WNF generally strike in a northeast-southwest direction and dip gently 

to the southeast, averaging less than five degrees. 

The correlation between the Appalachian Plateau and a subsurface feature called the Appalachian Basin 

accounts for the southeasterly dip of rock formations underlying the WNF. This basin was likely formed 

by slow subsidence during the Paleozoic era. The subsidence is believed to have been most rapid 

towards the center of the basin, which lies southeast of the Forest. Sedimentation into the basin kept 

up with the subsidence during most of the basin’s formation, consequently, sedimentary rock units 

thicken as they dip towards the basin’s center, resulting in an increased dip of older (deeper) rock units. 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 55 

This dip represents the only known major structural feature within the Athens Ranger District, Athens 

Unit and Ironton Ranger District, Ironton Unit. However, within the Marietta Unit the major structural 

feature is the north-south trending Burning Springs Anticline, which has smaller features on its flanks. 

No large faulting is known in the area, although small faults do occur. 

Additionally, there are as many as 15 discontinuous coal beds within the Pennsylvanian Conemaugh and 

Allegheny Groups. 

Given the nature of the sedimentary formations outcropping or close to the surface, mineral materials 

(sand and gravel, dolomite, limestone, clay, etc.) are abundant within the WNF. 

There are several fossiliferous marine members of the Pennsylvanian system. The marine fossils within 

these members consist of gastropods, corals, cephalopods, fusulinid protozoans, clams, brachiopods, 

bryozoans, and trilobites. These are all fairly common invertebrate fossils. A few formations have 

yielded fish fossils and scales. Plant fossils in the form of plant fragments, fern fronds, trunks, pyritized 

logs, stumps, spores, and roots, can be found in a variety of deposits including coal, clay, shale, 

sandstone, and limestone. Some formations have an abundance of plant fossils. Others only have 

traces, while the majority has none (2006 Forest Plan Final EIS, pp. 3-253 – 3-255).

Ohio ranks 28th amongst the 50 states in seismic activity with 8 earthquakes (3.5 or above) between 

1974 and 2003. Geologic mapping and 2-D and 3-D seismic data can locate faults within the area but 

current science may not be able to differentiate a “natural” earthquake from an earthquake induced by 

fluid injection. 

Wells that undergo HF may be drilled vertically, horizontally, or directionally and the resultant fracture 

induced by HF can be vertical, or horizontal, or both. Wells may extend to depths greater than 20,000 

feet or less than 1,000 feet, and horizontal sections of a well may extend several thousand feet from the 

production pad on the surface.

To ensure that oil and gas exploration and development is conducted in a safe and environmentally 

sound manner, the BLM approves and regulates all drilling and completion operations, and related 

surface disturbance on federal public lands. Prior to approving a Notice of Intent for Geophysical 

Exploration (NOI) or APD, the BLM identifies all potential subsurface formations that may be penetrated 

by the wellbore. This includes all groundwater aquifers and any geologic ones that would present 

potential safety or health risks that may need special protection during drilling. Once the geologic 

analysis is completed, the BLM reviews the proposed casing and cementing programs to ensure the well 

construction design is adequate to protect the surface and subsurface environment, including the 

potential risks identified by the geologist and all known or anticipated zones with potential risks.

3.4.1. Minerals

Ohio has a long history of oil and gas exploration and production. The location of the first discovery of 

oil was from a drilled well in Noble County in 1814 and Ohio’s first commercial oil well began production 

in 1860 in Washington County (Ohio Oil and Gas Energy Education Program, 2016). Beginning in the late 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 56 

1800’s oil and gas exploration and production focused on the Devonian Ohio -Bedford shales and the 

Berea sandstone, and earlier Ordovician Trenton limestone. During the 1960s the Cambrian 

Trempealeau, Rose Run, and Beekmantown reservoirs became targets for drilling and continue to be 

active drilling targets. The Clinton sandstone was extensively drilled in the 1970’s and 1980’s and 

remains a major petroleum reservoir (Ohio Oil and Gas Energy Education Program, 2016). In eastern 

Ohio the major hydrocarbon source rock groups can be divided into six general units:

● Pennsylvanian Pottsville, Allegheny, Conemaugh, and Monongahela Groups;

● Upper Devonian Olentangy, Ohio, and Bedford Shales;

● Middle Devonian Marcellus Shale;

● Silurian Rochester Shale;

● Upper Ordovician Utica and Queenston Shales; and

● Middle Ordovician Point Pleasant Formation.

Hydrocarbon source rocks and adjacent porous rock formations constitute a petroleum reservoir from 

which oil and gas are produced. Major oil and gas producing zones in eastern Ohio include:

● Devonian Ohio, Bedford, and Marcellus Shales, and Berea Sandstone;

● Ordovician Trenton and Lexington limestones, Point Pleasant and Utica shales, and the Clinton 

Sandstone; and

● Cambrian Knox Dolomite including the Trempealeau Dolomite, Rose Run Sandstone, and 

Beekmantown Dolomite.

Since the early 2000s, the focus of petroleum exploration and production has moved to the Marcellus, 

Utica, and Point Pleasant Shales (see Chapter 9, Appendix B, for map). Previously oil shales were not 

considered good hydrocarbon producers due to their low permeability but advances in horizontal 

drilling and hydraulic fracturing methods have enabled the production of oil, natural gas, and gas liquids 

possible from these reservoirs in paying quantities.

The Marcellus Shale is a large natural gas reservoir of black, organic-rich shale of middle Devonian age. It 

extends an estimated 95,000 sq. miles under large portions of New York, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, 

and Ohio (Pickett, 2011). In eastern Ohio the Marcellus Shale lies approximately 5,000 to 6,000 feet 

below the surface. Due to the thinness of the Marcellus Shale in eastern Ohio there has been relatively 

little drilling compared to locations further east. 

Below the Marcellus Shale, some 2,000 – 3,000 feet, is a thicker and more extensive hydrocarbon 

reservoir known as the Utica Shale. This Ordovician-aged formation consists of a dark-gray to black, 

calcareous, organic-rich shale that contains light oil and natural gas. In contrast to the Marcellus Shale, 

the thickness of the Utica in Ohio increases from east to west (Pickett, 2011). 

The deepest and oldest of the shale formations is the Point Pleasant. Resting on top of the Trenton 

Limestone and immediately below the Utica Shale, the Point Pleasant Shale is found 6,000 to 10,000 

feet deep in eastern Ohio. As the Trenton Limestone trends westward it gradually thins into the inter-
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 57 

bedded limestone and organic-rich shale of the Point Pleasant formation (Wickstrom, Riley, Erenpreiss, 

& Perry, 2012). This interlayered formation is thicker and higher in total carbon content than the Utica 

(Pickett, 2011) suggesting a larger reservoir than the Utica. In the eastern Ohio counties of Washington 

and Monroe, the Point Pleasant formation is rich in oil and natural gas liquids, also known as wet gas. 

3.4.2. Mineral development

Since 2010, Ohio has seen an increase in the drilling and production of oil and gas. The ODNR reported 

that 15,707,339 barrels of oil and 651,193,106 million cubic feet (Mcf) of gas were produced from Ohio’s 

horizontal shale wells in the first nine months of 2015. This exceeds the 15,062,912 barrels of oil and 

512,964,465 Mcf of gas produced by all wells in Ohio for the entire year of 2014. Approximately 715 

new wells were drilled in Ohio with Monroe and Washington counties ranking fourth and tenth 

respectively in the number of new wells drilled (Stucker, 2015). The majority of exploration and 

production in 2014 occurred in the Ohio - Marcellus, Utica/Point Pleasant, and Trempealeau producing 

zones.

Mineral ownership on the WNF is complicated and consists of a mix of Forest Service and private surface 

ownership along with federal and private mineral ownership. Table 3.8 details the ownership within the 

Marietta unit of the WNF. Approximately 59% of the WNF surface ownership is underlain by private 

minerals. The remaining approximately 41% of surface ownership is underlain by federal minerals (U.S. 

Forest Service, 2012). When federal minerals are leased by BLM, all surface and downhole activities 

must comply with federal regulations.

Table 3.8. Wayne National Forest surface/mineral ownership

Ownership Marietta Unit

(acres)

Athens Unit

(acres)

Ironton District

(acres)

Forest Totals

(acres)

Federal

Surface

Federal

Minerals

100% minerals

Unencumbered

100% minerals

with deed lease1

Total Federal Minerals

8,507

8,760

17,267

10,382

8,069

18,451

43,491

17,037

60,528

62,380

33,866

96,246

Private

Minerals2

Reserved Minerals

Outstanding Minerals

Combination3

Total Private Minerals

4,384

7,622

34,725

46,731

5,663

12,468

36,565

54,696

9,182

11,000

21,642

41,824

19,229

31,090

92,932

143,251

Total Federal Surface 63,998 73,147 102,352 239,497

Private

Surface

Federal Minerals 7 116 708 831

Private Minerals 204,053 195,682 214,273 614,008

Total Private Surface 204,060 195,798 214,981 614,839

Total Acres within the WNF 268,058 268,945 317,333 854,336

Source: (2006 Forest Plan Final EIS, Table 3-62)

1 Most of these leases appear to be inactive and/or may have expired, but their legal status is currently unknown.

2

Reserved, Outstanding, and Combination minerals may not all be 100% private minerals. Partial Federal interests may exist as well.

3

Combination indicates a parcel with two or more outstanding, reserved or deed lease rights.
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 58 

Currently, there are 493 active federal wells on the Wayne National Forest in the following counties:

● Washington County: 285 Wells;

● Monroe County: 117 Wells;

● Perry County: 30 Wells;

● Athens County : 25 Wells;

● Hocking County: 31 Wells; and

● Lawrence County: 5 Wells.

3.5. Soils

The 2006 Forest Plan Final EIS states that the forest is located in Ohio’s Hill Country, consisting of a long 

series of narrow ridges and U-shaped valleys. The slopes tend to be benched or segmented with 

alternating sections of steep and moderately sloped gradients due to the resistance of different strata to 

erosion. Due to the steep gradients and soil textures (surface texture = silt loam, loam, or sandy loam; 

subsoil texture = sandy loam to clay) erosion is probable if the duff layer is disturbed. 

Soil loss within the Marietta Unit proclamation boundary ranges from up to one-half ton per acre per 

year on undisturbed forested lands and to up to seven tons per acre per year on croplands. Soil mass 

movement is possible on the steepest areas of the forest, with nearly all valleys containing evidence of 

slide areas. Serious erosion is usually limited to road use during excessively wet periods where roads are 

poorly located or not engineered for proper drainage or flow, which is usually most likely on 

unauthorized roads and trails. Intermingled farms and rural roads, rather than forested land, are the 

major sources of soil erosion. 

For more detailed information refer to the Soils section of the 2006 Forest Plan Final EIS, pages 3-21. 

3.6. Water Resources and Water Quality

3.6.1. Surface water

3.6.1.1. Overview

On average the state of Ohio sees approximately 133 days with rain each year with an annual average of 

56.11 inches (U.S. Climate Data, 2016). However, this average annual precipitation can vary by 15 

inches. Levels of precipitation are lowest in the northwestern part of the state and highest in the 

south/southwest of Ohio. The inconsistent quantities of evapotranspiration combined with a consistent 

level of precipitation throughout the year increases the average monthly streamflow; therefore, there 

are higher flow rates in winter and early spring and lower flow rates in the summer and fall months 

(Schiefer, 2002).

The Marietta Unit is entirely contained within the Little Muskingum Middle Island Hydraulic Unit Code 

(HUC)-8 sub-basin (also known as a level-4 watershed). The Marietta Unit overlays five HUC-10 (level-5) 

watersheds, as shown in Map 5 (see Chapter 6 of this EA) and Table 3.9 below. This analysis omits the 

small portions of the Seneca Fork-Wills Creek and Sunfish Creek watersheds, since there are no federal 

lands associated with the Marietta Unit in those watersheds. The Ohio River forms the southern edge of 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 59 

the Marietta Unit, and all of the watersheds in the Marietta Unit drain to the Ohio River. The Marietta 

Unit contains over 1,250 miles of streams.

Table 3.9. HUC-10 (Level-5) Watersheds in the Marietta Unit

Watershed Area in Marietta Unit 

(acres)

Federally owned area 

(acres)

West Fork Duck Creek 2,523 164

East Fork of Duck Creek 15,001 1,484

Clear Fork Little Muskingum River-Little 

Muskingum River 100,597 28,421

Headwaters Little Muskingum River 92,956 15,009

French Creek- Ohio River 53,686 19,560

Total 264,763 64,638 (24%)

Furthermore, the Marietta Unit contains over 1,250 miles of streams. However, the streams within the 

proclamation boundary are low-order (small size) or ephemeral (flow only during and immediately after 

precipitation) streams, both being headwaters for the Little Muskingum River or Ohio River. Low order 

streams do not have many tributaries contributing to their flow, and about two-thirds of that length is 

intermittent. 

3.6.1.2. Surface water quality

According to the Clean Water Act (CWA) each state is required to identify a prioritized list of their 

Section 303 (d) impaired waters. Each state submits their Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) to the EPA 

and the TMDLs are either approved or denied. TMDLs are determined by taking into account the 

loading capacity of the water body as it relates to different pollutants and what actions would need to 

occur in order to control them. TMDLs are significant because they are the link between causes of 

impairment and the actions needed to meet water quality standards. Once the causes of point and nonpoint pollution or impairment are identified TMDLs for each pollutant are determined. The probable 

causes for impairments in the Marietta Unit are non-irrigated crop production, pasture land, and acid 

mine drainage (AMD).

In 1996 the Forest Service assessed 200 miles of impaired streams within the WNF finding that 11% of 

the streams met Ohio’s water quality standards, 48% were impaired, and 41% had not been assessed 

yet by the Ohio EPA or Forest Service. The causes of impairment are generally attributed to abandoned 

mines and agriculture. In the Marietta Unit, impairment is attributed to nutrients, siltation, pasture land 

run-off, agricultural run-off, and on-site wastewater systems (2006 Forest Plan EIS, 3-11).
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 60 

In 2010, the USEPA conducted an assessment analyzing stream impairment on the Little MuskingumMiddle Island Watershed (HUC-12 Watersheds). Of the 36 watersheds (1555 miles of streams) in the 

Little Muskingum-Middle Island Watershed, 25 (1245.7 miles) were impaired and the remaining 9 (309.3 

miles) were not assessed. Of the streams that were analyzed in the Little Muskingum-Middle Island 

Watershed, 19 are within the Marietta Unit. In the Marietta Unit, 17 of the streams were impaired and 

the remaining 2 were not analyzed. The causes of impairment include: flow alterations (FA), 

sedimentation or siltation (S), total suspended solids (TSS), total toxics (TT) or unknown toxicity, organic 

enrichment/ low dissolved oxygen/ Oxygen Depletion (O), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), 

Pesticides/DDT (P), nutrients (N), metals (M), habitat alterations (HA), or other toxicity levels exceeding 

Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) standards. The reasons for impairment are listed in Table 3.10 as 

they correspond with the risks they pose on aquatic life, human health, recreation, or public drinking 

(USEPA, 2016d). 

Table 3.10. Impairment of Little Muskingum- Middle Island Watershed streams within Marietta Unit

Waterbody Name Waterbody ID

Waterbody 

Type

Size 

(miles)

Status Aquatic Life

Human 

Health

Public 

Drinking

Recreation

Archers Fork OH050302010702 Stream 28.6 Impaired

impaired: 

FA, N, S

not assessed 

(na)

na na

Clear Fork Little 

Muskingum River

OH050302010701 Stream 73.2 Impaired

impaired: 

FA, N, S

na na na

Cranenest Fork OH050302010602 Stream 43.6 Impaired impaired: S na na na

Eightmile Creek-Little 

Muskingum River

OH050302010705 Stream 64.2 Impaired

impaired: 

FA, N, S

na na na

Fifteen Mile Creek OH050302010704 Stream 28.7 Impaired

impaired: 

FA, N, S

na na na

Haynes Run-Ohio 

River

OH050302011004 Stream 27.9

Not

Assessed

na na na na

Leith Run-Ohio River OH050302011007 Stream 38.1

Not

Assessed

na na na na

Lower East Fork Duck 

Creek

OH050302010805 Stream 26.1 Impaired

impaired: 

HA, FA, M, 

O, S, TSS, TT

na na na

Middle East Fork 

Duck Creek

OH050302010803 Stream 60.9 Impaired

impaired: 

HA, FA, M, 

O, S, TSS, TT

na na na

Middle Sunfish Creek OH050302010103 Stream 35.5 Impaired

impaired: 

unknown

na na na
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 61 

Waterbody Name Waterbody ID Waterbody 

Type

Size 

(miles)

Status Aquatic Life Human 

Health

Public 

Drinking

Recreation

New Years CreekDuck Creek

OH050302010903 Stream 44.6 Impaired

impaired: 

FA, O, S, TT

impaired: 

unkown

na na

Paw Paw Creek OH050302010804 Stream 43.9 Impaired

impaired:HA

, FA, M, O, S, 

TSS, TT

na na na

Rich Fork OH050302010601 Stream 38.3 Impaired impaired: S na na na

Straight Fork-Little 

Muskingum River

OH050302010605 Stream 53.1 Impaired

impaired:

Sedimentati

on

na na na

Sugar Creek-Duck 

Creek

OH050302010904 Stream 26.4 Impaired

impaired: 

FA, O, S, TT

impaired: P, 

PCBS

na na

Upper East Fork Duck 

Creek

OH050302010801 Stream 54 Impaired

impaired: 

HA, FA, M, 

O, S, TSS, TT

na na na

Wingett Run-Little 

Muskingum River

OH050302010703 Stream 55.4 Impaired

impaired: 

FA, N, S

na na na

Witten Fork OH050302010604 Stream 71.6 Impaired impaired: S na na na

Wolfpen Run-Little 

Muskingum River

OH050302010603 Stream 37.5 Impaired impaired: S na na na

Total 851.6

Impaired HUC-12 watershed within Marietta Unit from 2010 EPA report, the causes of impairment include: flow alternations (FA), 

sedimentation or siltation (S), total suspended solids (TSS), total toxics (TT) or unknown toxicity, organic enrichment/ low dissolved oxygen/ 

Oxygen Depletion (O), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), Pesticides/DDT (P), nutrients (N), metals (M), habitat alterations (HA) and Ohio 

Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report from 2014 (Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 2016).

The most recent Ohio Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report was conducted in 

2014, and is also known as the Integrated Report. The Integrated Report satisfies the CWA 

requirements for both Section 305 (b) for biennial reports on the state's waters conditions and Section 

303 (d) for prioritized list of impaired waters. Overall it indicates that larger rivers in Ohio are more 

likely to be in attainment than smaller streams; that is where most of the nonattainment waterways are 

found. There are four major components to the Integrated Report; human health use, recreation use, 

aquatic life use, and public drinking water use. Human health evaluation occurs by comparing 

contaminated fish tissue to determine fish consumption advisories. Recreation evaluation methodology 

is a bacterial water assessment. Aquatic life is evaluated through the use of a biological assessment and 

a biocriteria program which measured by using two indices, the Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) and the 

Modified Index of Well-Being (MIwb) for fish and Invertebrate Community Index (ICI) for aquatic 

macroinvertebrates. Public drinking water conditions are determined by the level of algae and 

associated cyanotoxins. Also, the populations of certain micro or macro invertebrates can be indicators 

of poor or good stream health. 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 62 

The human health analysis found that one-third of the Watershed Assessment Units (AUs) or HUC-12 

watersheds and more than half of the lakes in Ohio were unimpaired for this use. Most of the 

impairments for human health were attributed to polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) contamination. 

Recreation use assessment found that beaches located near population centers had a higher frequency 

of swimming advisories because of elevated bacteria levels. The only areas that were identified as 

impaired or put on a watch list for public drinking water use are located in the northwestern part of 

Ohio and parts of central Ohio. 

Acid Mine Drainage 

Southeastern Ohio has several abandoned mine sites and these point sources of pollution have been 

known to impact watershed health and alter the flow of groundwater. During the 19th and 20th 

centuries, significant damage was done to riparian areas. In some cases, streams were overloaded with 

sediment polluted by AMD that may have collapsed the limestone cap over underground mines causing 

freshwater to be captured and contaminated in abandoned mines. Gob piles (accumulated spoil piles) 

contaminated the water and surrounding areas, and the natural landscape was altered by strip-mining 

(2006 Forest Plan Final EIS, pp. 3-6 & 3-7). In 1972, Ohio statutes began to require restoration of 

desirable environment that had been disturbed by mining. Prior to these reclamation standards, Ohio 

was left with 1,300 miles of AMD-polluted streams, 500 miles of streams affected by sediment 

deposition, and polluted domestic water supplies. In March 1995, the ODNR established the Acid Mine 

Drainage Abatement and Treatment (AMDAT) fund to aid in long-term cleanup of AMD problems. This 

program addresses source control and then treatment which can be active or passive (Ohio Department 

of Natural Resources, 2015a). The way AMD is addressed is continuously evolving. An example of active 

treatment would be using chemical treatment systems and an example of passive treatment would be 

allowing natural occurring chemical or biological processes to aid in AMD treatment. In 1977, the 

federal government passed the Surface Mining Control Reclamation Act in recognition of all the 

abandoned mines, and then created the federal Abandoned Mine Land (AML) Program. The results of 

this program up until 2014 include a total of more than 10,000 acres of reclaimed lands in Ohio that 

were impacted by the 200 years of coal mining in Ohio. Through 2014, the AML Program has also 

replaced 339 supplies of polluted residential water supplies, completing 94.7% of the completed current 

inventory (Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 2016a). 

3.6.2. Groundwater

3.6.2.1. Groundwater quantity

Nearly all rural populations in Ohio obtain drinking water from groundwater sources (USGS). There are 

888 drinking water wells within the Marietta Unit proclamation boundary (Ohio Department of Natural 

Resources, 2015b and 2015c). Their static water levels range from zero feet below surface to 183 feet 

below surface with a mean of 32 feet. The mean depth of drinking water wells in the Marietta Unit is 86 

feet, with a maximum depth of 475 feet. Most of these wells have a yield of less than ten gallons per 

minute. The higher-yielding wells are located in the floodplains of the Ohio River and Little Muskingum 

River. According to the SIR, HVHF operations require anywhere from 3.5 – 4 million gallons of water per 

well, whereas conventional hydraulic fracturing operations use approximately 44,000-85,000 gallons of 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 63 

water (SIR, 2012, Table 1, p. 2). Because of the low production rates of groundwater, it is not likely that 

a proposal would ever be made to utilize groundwater from the WNF for HVHF. Nevertheless, a Forestwide guideline directs the WNF to control the withdrawal of water.

However, there is no agency (federal or state) that regulates water withdrawals from streams and rivers 

in the State of Ohio. ORC section 1521.16 requires that the owner/operator of any facility that is

capable of withdrawing 100,000 gallons/day or more must register with ODNR Division of Soil and Water 

Resources. Amended Substitute Senate Bill 315 was signed into law by the Governor on June 11, 2012. 

This bill amends Ohio Revised Code to provide for the disclosure on a permit application of the sources 

of ground and surface water to be used in the development of the well. Applicants must disclose if the 

water is from the Lake Erie or Ohio River watershed and must provide the estimated rate and volume of 

withdrawal (Amended ORC 1509.06(A)(8)(a)).

3.6.2.2. Groundwater quality

Groundwater under the Marietta Unit flows largely through fractures in bedrock (Thompson, 2012). 

These fractures are most abundant near the surface, and at depths of a few hundred feet. The relative 

absence of fractures inhibits groundwater flow keeping it in contact with the bedrock for an extended 

time, which allows it to dissolve minerals from the bedrock, producing brackish water. 

The potable groundwater under the Marietta Unit is largely free of contaminants at levels above human 

health standards (Ohio EPA, 2012). There are sites in Washington County with elevated nitrates, and 

Washington County has two sanitary landfills that are sources of groundwater contamination. 

Groundwater pollution potential is highest in the riparian areas, most likely because of the short depth 

to groundwater in those areas (Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 2002).

3.6.3. Riparian areas

Riparian areas connect terrestrial habitat to aquatic habitat creating an essential and dynamic 

ecosystem for a variety of species. Riparian areas can also be defined as wetlands, floodplains, or 

shoreline that can occasionally be submerged in water. The Marietta Unit contains about 15,000 acres 

of riparian areas, as detailed in Table 3.11. Mining practices, the impoundment of water, and early 

settlements near and in the WNF have affected riparian areas. In the Marietta Unit, the creation of the 

Ohio River Lock and Dam system allowed water to back up into embayments and the barges created 

waves that caused erosion of riverbanks and additional adverse impacts on riparian areas (U.S. Forest 

Service, 2006).
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 64 

Table 3.11. Riparian areas in the Marietta Unit

Watershed Total riparian area 

(acres)

Federally owned 

riparian area (acres)

West Fork Duck Creek 556 5

East Fork Duck Creek 2,285 53

Clear Fork Little Muskingum R.-Little Muskingum R. 5,182 1,046

Headwaters Little Muskingum River 4,515 777

French Creek-Ohio River 2,459 387

Total 14,997 2,266

3.7. Wastes, Hazardous or Solid

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 established a comprehensive program for 

managing hazardous wastes from the time they are produced until their disposal. The USEPA 

regulations define solid wastes as any “discarded materials” subject to a number of exclusions. On 

January 6, 1988, USEPA determined that oil and gas exploration, development and production wastes 

would not be regulated as hazardous wastes under the RCRA. The Comprehensive Environmental 

Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, deals with the release (spillage, leaking 

dumping, accumulation, etc.), or threat of a release of hazardous substances into the environment. 

Therefore, despite many oil and gas constituent wastes being exempt from hazardous waste regulations 

under RCRA, certain exempt contaminants could be subject to regulations as a hazardous substance 

under CERCLA.

Results reviewed from a search of the EPA’s Envirofacts web page on September 22, 2016 (a map is 

included as Appendix D) showed no known hazardous waste sites within the WNF boundary. The 

Envirofacts Multisystem Search integrates information from a variety of databases and includes latitude 

and longitude information. Each of these databases contains information about facilities that are 

required to report activity to a state or federal system. Information retrieved from the system includes 

hazardous waste (including the Biennial Report), toxic and air releases, Superfund sites, and water 

discharge permits. More information on the Envirofacts Multisystem search can be found at 

https://www.epa.gov/enviro/envirofacts-overview. 

In discussions with Region 9 Forest Service personnel, it was noted that the only known sites being 

cleaned up and/or monitored on the WNF are related to old/abandoned coal mines. None of the sites 

known by the Forest Service are related to oil and gas development and were not identified through the 

Envirofacts Multisystem Search. Most public lands, however, are victim to illegal trash/waste dumping 

typically related to private landowners in the area or the illegal production of drugs, both of which can 

include hazardous waste products regulated under RCRA. 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 65 

3.8. Public Health and Safety

NEPA requires federal agencies to evaluate whether a proposed action is significant based on the 

“degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety” (40 CFR 1508.27). Public health 

and safety is often considered within the context of other resources, such as air quality, water quality 

and/or quantity, environmental justice, or transportation, among others, and is typically assessed in 

terms of what the expected risk is to the human environment as a result of the Proposed Action. For 

this EA, public health and safety issues are generally considered within the proclamation boundary of 

the Marietta Unit; although some issues related to public health and safety, such as air quality, requires 

consideration of a larger affected environment due to the potential dispersion of air emissions. 

A fundamental agency value of BLM and the Forest Service is to operate in a safe manner and to provide 

a safe environment for the public. As specified in the 2012 SIR, it is intrinsic to all projects introduced

and implemented on the WNF that safety be the most important factor. This safety outlook applies to 

all types of projects within the WNF, including mineral development. If something cannot be completed 

in a safe manner, then it may not be permitted to move forward into implementation, no matter the 

ownership status of the minerals. That is, regardless if the minerals are federal or private, the WNF has 

a responsibility along with state and local authorities to implement the appropriate measures, when 

needed to provide for public safety.

The 2006 Forest Plan/EIS identifies standards for mineral development that the WNF implements to 

provide a healthy and safe environment for people and wildlife. Some examples are: 

● SFW-MIN-2: Require that all proposed surface-disturbing mineral activities have an 

approved operation and reclamation plan before the activity begins; 

● SFW-MIN-3: Require that operators conduct activities and maintain equipment to prevent 

the discharge of oil or brine onto the ground or into surface waters; 

● SFW-MIN-4: Upon discovery or notification of an accidental spill of crude oil or brine that 

discharges, or threatens to discharge, into surface waters, notify the Ohio Environmental 

Protection Agency Emergency Response and Special Investigations unit in Columbus; and

● SFW-SAFE-19: Any wastewater that originates from oil and gas operations would be 

considered non-federal and so disposal would not be allowed on Wayne National Forest 

lands (including the roads under jurisdiction of the WNF). In addition, the Ohio Revised 

Code only allows for four different disposal methods of fluids associated with oil and gas 

operations: injection, surface application (on roads only, and only when permitted by the 

authority with jurisdiction over the road), enhanced recovery (reuse of the fluids in other 

wells) or other methods to test new technologies and methodologies (ORC 1509.22(C)(1)). 

Furthermore, the law specifically states that no one is allowed to place fluids associated with oil and gas 

operations in surface or groundwater or in or on the land in amounts that cause or could cause pollution 

of water used for human or domestic animal consumption or damage/injury to public health and safety 

or the environment (ORC 1509.22). 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 66 

Other provisions for employees and the public that provide for safety within the WNF include:

● SFW-SAFE-17: Post warnings of dangerous conditions and threats of immediate concern for 

the safety of Forest employees and the public; and 

● SFW-SAFE-18: Issue closure orders to protect the public when clear and present dangers 

cannot be mitigated in a timely manner. 

The Division of Oil and Gas Resources Management (DOGRM) within Ohio’s Department of Natural 

Resources (DNR) maintains an electronic database with information needed in the case of an emergency 

situation that poses a threat to public health, safety or the environment. Minimum information 

required is that which is also required for the Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act 

regulations (ORC 1509.23(B)). Amended Substitute Senate Bill 315 was signed into law by the Governor 

on June 11, 2012. This bill amends Ohio Revised Code to require the owner of a well to provide 

emergency responders with the exact chemical composition of all fluids used in the drilling and 

stimulating of a well. Exact composition of each proprietary component is made available upon request 

from emergency responders (Amended ORC 1509.10(H)).

In addition, Onshore Oil and Gas Orders are a way in which BLM implements and supplements the oil 

and gas regulations found at 43 CFR 3160 for conducting oil and gas operations on federal lands, 

particularly at the APD stage. These Onshore Orders are listed below: 

● Order No. 1 - Approval of Operations: This Order provides procedures for submitting an 

Application for Permit to Drill and all required approvals of subsequent well operations and 

other lease operations;

● Order No. 2 – Drilling: This Order provides requirements and standards for drilling and 

abandonment;

● Order No. 3 - Site Security: This Order provides requirements and standards for site security;

● Order No. 4 - Measurement of Oil: This Order provides requirements and standards for 

measurement of oil;

● Order No. 5 - Measurement of Gas: This Order provides the requirements and standards for 

the measurement of gas;

● Order No. 6 - Hydrogen Sulfide Operations: This Order provides the requirements and 

standards for conducting oil and gas operations in an environment known to or expected to 

contain hydrogen sulfide (H2S) gas; and

● Order No. 7 - Disposal of Produced Waters: This Order provides the methods and approvals 

necessary to dispose of produced water associated with oil and gas operations.

3.9. Transportation

The WNF is within a few hours’ drive of several major metropolitan areas in Ohio including Columbus, 

Toledo, Cleveland, and Cincinnati, as well as Huntington, West Virginia. Principal access routes running 

near or through the WNF include U.S. Highways 23, 33, 35, 50, and 52 and State Highways 7, 26, 32, and 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 67 

93. Compared with many National Forests, the WNF has an extensive road network maintained by local 

governments and the State of Ohio. Townships and counties maintain hundreds of miles of roads within 

the WNF proclamation boundary. Many of the county roads are paved. In contrast, many of the 

township roads are single-lane, aggregate surfaced, low-standard roads (U.S. Forest Service, 2006 

[Appendix I]). The WNF also maintains several miles of Forest Service roads.

A Forest Scale Roads Analysis was completed in 2002 for the 2006 Forest Plan/EIS, which reviewed the 

condition of the existing road system on the WNF. The study found that approximately 18% of the roads 

on the WNF are Forest Service system roads and approximately 82% are comprised of county right-ofways, state right-of-ways, private right-of-ways, non-system roads, and other Federal jurisdiction roads 

that are all maintained by others (U.S. Forest Service, 2002). The vast majority of the local roads under 

Forest Service jurisdiction are dead-end roads, terminating on NFS land and gated or otherwise closed to 

public motorized vehicles. As with the rest of the WNF, the Marietta Unit contains an extensive road 

network (see Marietta Unit Motor Vehicle Use Map located at

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm9_005758.pdf)

Regarding the use of existing roads for mineral development, the WNF may implement road use 

agreements with oil and gas operators to reclaim expenses associated with use of Forest Development 

Roads for access to oil and gas wells. The agreement would allow the Forest Service to reclaim expenses 

associated with the use of the roads by the operator’s heavy equipment through surface replacement 

dollars where applicable. The counties have local frost laws which restrict use of the roads by heavy 

vehicles when the roads would be most easily damaged during days of freeze and thaw. Vehicle 

operators are also subject to county road use and bridge weight requirements (U.S. Forest Service, 2002, 

p. 22). Further, all State of Ohio and local regulations related to transportation apply on roads that are 

not within the jurisdiction of the WNF.

3.10. Recreation 

The WNF is a popular location for both dispersed and developed recreation activities and is located 

within a one day drive of several urban areas including Akron, Columbus, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Toledo, 

Huntington, West Virginia, and Pittsburgh. It is also the “second largest supplier of public recreation 

lands” in Ohio after the State Park system (U.S. Forest Service, 2006). Hiking, fishing, hunting, boating, 

canoeing wildlife viewing, off-highway vehicle trails, camping, and visiting historic site are all popular 

activities on the Marietta Unit. There are several access points to the Ohio River for watercraft and 

fishing, and the Little Muskingum River is a popular site for canoeing. The WNF is also a popular area for 

off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and contains several OHV trails; however none of the OHV trails are 

located on the Marietta Unit. 

As listed below in Table 3.12, the WNF manages 17 developed or designated recreation sites on the 

Marietta Unit including trailheads, campgrounds, and boat launches. Unless otherwise noted, the open 

season for all recreation sites is April 15 to December 15. An in-depth review of recreational activities 

and sites can be found in the 2006 Forest Plan Final EIS.
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 68 

Table 3.12. Developed Recreation Sites, Marietta Unit 

Name Notes

Frontier Boat Launch Access to the Ohio River. Includes 70 parking spaces for truck/trailers 

and cars. Open year round, weather river flood stage permitting. 

Haught Run Campground Closed in spring 2014 due to erosion and safety issues. Normally 

contains 4 campsites and access to Little Muskingum River and local 

trails.

Hune Bridge Campground Three developed campsites which provide access to the Little 

Muskingum River and the North Country Trail. Five-mile trail to Haught 

Run Campground. Site also includes interpretive panels discussing the 

history of the Hune Bridge and local oil and gas industry. 

Lamping Homestead Developed recreation complex with six walk-in campsites, eight picnic 

sites, a picnic shelter, five miles of hiking trails, and a 2-acre fishing 

pond. Includes a small cemetery and several structures related to the 

Lamping Homestead, which dates to the late-1800s. 

Lane Farm Campground Four developed campsites along Little Muskingum River. 

Rinard Covered Bridge Interpretive site with discussing the history of the Rinard Bridge, 

originally built in 1875. The Bridge is open to pedestrian traffic only. 

Ring Mill House Remains of grist mill, saw mill, and renovated house. 

Leith Run Recreation Area

Developed campground with 21 campsites, RV dump station, picnic 

areas, horseshoe pit, and volleyball court, and showers. Site provides 

access to the Ohio River with a canoe launch and various piers for 

fishing. Also serves as trailhead for the Scenic River Trail. 

Source: (U.S. Forest Service (2016d)

In addition to the developed recreation sites, the WNF also manages approximately 300 miles of 

designated trails for hiking, horse riding, mountain biking, and OHVs (however no OHV trails on the 

Marietta Unit). Unless otherwise noted, trails are open year round for foot travel and from April 15 to 

December 15 for mountain biking. Distances listed in Table 3.13 below are for trails located on WNF 

land, unless otherwise noted. 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 69 

Table 3.13. Trails and scenic roads on the Marietta Unit 

Name Description

Archers Fork Trail 9.5-mile loop trail which visits several areas of natural interest 

including Irish Run Natural Bridge and a rock shelter. 

Covered Bridge Trail 5-mile trail between Haught Run and Hune Bridge Campground 

along the Little Muskingum River. 

Covered Bridge Scenic Byway 35 miles of SR26 between Marietta and Woodsfield, paralleling 

the Little Muskingum River. Provides access to four covered 

bridges located in the decision area and numerous other historic 

era sites (see Cultural Resources section for more information). 

Davis Spur Run 3.9 miles, hiking and horse trail, offshoot of the Kinderhook Trail.

Green Wood Trail 6.5-mile linear trail connecting North Country Trail and Scenic 

River Trail. Hiking and mountain biking. Open year round. 

North Country National Scenic 

Trail/Buckeye Trail

Trails are co-located. Consist of approximately 53 miles of trail 

which travels through the Marietta Unit, approximately 39 of 

which are WNF managed land. 

Ohio River Scenic Byway 750-mile National Scenic Highway which travels along the Ohio 

River from Indiana to the Ohio/West Virginia border. 

Approximately 30 miles of the Byway travels through the Marietta 

Unit on CR7. 

Lamping Homestead Trails Two loop trails of 3.5 and 1.5 miles. Provides access to the 

Lamping Homestead area. 

Kinderhook Trail 12.3-mile trail open to hiking, horses, and mountain biking. 

Ohio River Scenic Byway Covers approximately 35 miles of SR7 along the Ohio River. 

Ohio View Trail 7-mile trail which follows the Ohio River between SR7 and SR260. 

Connects to the North Country Trail. Open year round. 

Scenic River Trail 9.5-mile linear trail which connects to the North Country Trail at 

CR9 and ends at Leith Run Recreation Area. Open year round. 

Shay Ridge Trail 3-mile trail connecting Archers Fork and Covered Bridge trails. 

Source: (U.S. Forest Service (2016d)

Vehicles can contribute to noise along roadways and trails. The forest also permits logging activities and 

prescribed fire to treat and manage lands. All of these approved activities contribute to the current 

levels of noise in the forest that could affect recreational and wildlife utilization (for more information 

see Noise section).
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 70 

3.11. Noise

Noise may be defined as unwanted sound, and noise is usually objectionable because it causes 

disturbance or annoyance to the noise receptors, however this depends on the susceptibility of the 

receptors. Typically, levels of noise are measured in units called decibels (dB). The zero on the decibel 

scale is based on the lowest sound level that the healthy, unimpaired human ear can detect. A number 

of factors affect how the human ear perceives sound: the actual level of noise, frequency, period of 

exposure, and fluctuations in noise levels during exposure. Because the human ear cannot perceive all 

pitches or frequencies equally well, noise measurements are adjusted or weighted to compensate for 

the human lack of sensitivity to low-pitched and high-pitched sounds. The A-weighting scale closely 

resembles the frequency response of the human ear and, therefore, the adjusted unit of measurement, 

the A-weighted decibel, or dBA, is used to characterize noise, and to quantify the impact of noise, 

produced by transportation (e.g., vehicle traffic) and construction activities.

Construction equipment generates between 70 and 115 decibels (dB) (Bureau of Land Management, 

1998). Typical noise associated with oil and gas activities include the actual drilling, the pumps (that 

extract the oil), the engines, the compressor and the vehicle traffic to and from the site. However, the 

forest has a natural damping effect and a forest may damp noise by 5 to 20 dB per 100 feet. This effect 

is highest in summer and winter (when leaves and snow cover are present). As a result of this natural 

damping, the area of potential disturbance surrounding a construction site can range from 

approximately 1.6 acres and 160 acres per point source of the described construction noise. Noise 

associated with oil and gas development typically continues non-stop for 30 days for each well that is 

constructed, but after this initial development period the noise is expected to subdue. 

Ohio’s primary oil and gas law (Ohio Revised Code Chapter 1509) explicitly provides the Ohio 

Department of Natural Resources (“ODNR”) with the authority to adopt regulations regarding noise 

mitigation with respect to (1) wells and production facilities in urbanized areas and (2) horizontal wells 

and associated production facilities. ODNR promulgated a rule in 2005 with respect to urbanized areas 

providing that “drilling, well servicing and well site maintenance operations in urbanized areas shall be 

conducted in a manner to mitigate noise, including the reasonable use of screening and appropriate 

mufflers on drilling and servicing equipment.” “Urbanized areas” are defined to include any municipality 

with a population of more than 5,000 residents according to the most recent federal census. ODNR has 

yet to promulgate noise control rules with respect to horizontal wells (the language in ORC 1509 

authorizing the promulgation of noise control rules for horizontal wells was not added until 2012). Thus, 

under Ohio’s regime, the state requires all oil and gas operators with wells and production facilities in 

municipalities of more than 5,000 residents to mitigate noise, including the “reasonable use” of 

screening and “appropriate” mufflers. Ohio’s oil and gas law and regulations also establish minimum 

setback requirements (typically 100–200 feet) from occupied dwellings and property lines. 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 71 

3.12. Cultural Resources/Paleontology

A cultural resource is a location of human activity, occupation, or use identifiable through field 

inventory, historical documentation, or oral evidence. Cultural resources include both historic and 

prehistoric archaeological sites, structures, places of architectural significance, locations with important 

public and scientific uses, and may include traditional cultural properties, which are definite locations of 

traditional and or cultural importance to specific social and or cultural groups. Cultural resources 

include but are not limited to the following types: prehistoric archaeological resource, ethnographic 

resource, and historic-period archaeological and built environment resources. Cultural resources may 

be, but are not necessarily eligible, for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).

The Ohio River Valley is known for its history dating to the early European exploration and settlement in 

the 1600s. During the 1700s and early 1800s, southeastern Ohio saw the most intensive settlement in 

what was then called the Northwest Territory because of its proximity to Pennsylvania and Virginia, with 

Marietta becoming the first major town in the region (Arbogast, 2004). The majority of the land in the 

Marietta Unit was subjected to farming and logging. The Forest Service began to acquire such land in 

1935 with official boundaries being determined in 1951. Until 1993, the WNF was managed as a section 

of the Wayne-Hoosier National Forest until official separation in 1993 (Arbogast, 2004). 

The majority of the Marietta Unit has not been surveyed for cultural resources and there is little known 

about its prehistoric component (A. Cramer, personal communication, October 29, 2015). As part of the 

consultation process required by the National Historic Preservation Act Section 106, the BLM sent a 

consultation letter to the Ohio State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on November 16, 2015, 

requesting information on archeological sites in the Marietta Unit. The Ohio SHPO has not responded to 

date, indicating that they have not found any adverse effects related to the proposed action. Further 

consultation will take place on a site by site basis at the APD phase, prior to ground disturbance.

Most of the known historic era resources in the Marietta Unit consist of covered bridges and the 

remains of homesteads and farms. Most of the land of the Covered Bridge Scenic Byway allows access 

to four covered bridges and several historic locations located along the Little Muskingum River in the 

decision area. Several of these sites are listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), including 

the Rinard Bridge, originally built in 1879 (Buonopane, Ebright, & Smith, 2012). The Hills Covered 

Bridge, built in 1878, contains an interpretive display discussing the history of the bridge and its Howe 

Truss design (U.S. Forest Service, 2015). Hune Bridge, built in 1877 and listed in the NRHP, is the only 

covered bridge on the byway still open to traffic and allows access to the Hune Campground. The 

campground contains interpretive panels discussing the history of the bridge and the local oil and gas 

industry; part of this display includes an active tank which collects oil from nearby wells and an 

interpretive panel discussing the process and history of the oil and gas industry in the region (U.S. Forest 

Service, 2016a). The Walter Ring House, originally constructed in the 1850s and also listed in the NRHP, 

includes interpretative panels discussing its prior use as a grist mill and sawmill (U.S. Forest Service, 

2016e). 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 72 

Other sites accessed by the Covered Bridge Scenic Byway include the Lamping Homestead. The Lamping 

Homestead contains the remains of several buildings constructed by the Lamping family during the 

1800s as well as the family cemetery (Reed, 2014). The Lane Farm Campground is located at the former 

site of the Lane Family Farm, of which there are little remnants except a walnut plantation (U.S. Forest 

Service, 2016b). 

Paleontology

Paleontology refers to the branch of science related to fossils. There are no known paleontology 

localities within the Marietta Unit. 

3.13. Native American Religious Concerns

The BLM sent letters to seven Federally Recognized Tribes who have a known connection to the area on 

November 6, 2015, asking to identify any concerns which would need special consideration with respect 

to the Proposed Action (see Section 1.7.2 for list of Tribes). The BLM has received no responses to these 

letters, to date.

3.14. Visual Resources and Scenic Quality

Visitors to the WNF are not only attracted to the area for the many recreational opportunities it offers, 

but also to enjoy the natural scenic beauty of its landscape. Most of the land that became the WNF 

consisted of land cleared for timber, agricultural use, or mined for coal and other minerals. During the 

Great Depression in the 1930s, much of the land was abandoned and reverted back to the federal 

government. The landscape is highly dissected by rolling hills, striking rock bluffs and shelters, and caves 

of sandstone and shale. There are areas of unique natural beauty and cultural history. 

The natural appearing landscape is composed predominantly of oak-hickory forest with scattered pines 

and is interspersed with private farms and pastureland. The character of the landscape includes such 

cultural features as historic barns, log structures, iron furnaces, covered bridges and minerals 

development. Also contributing to the scenic quality are the temporary openings created by timber 

harvests, mineral development and natural events (i.e. ice storms, fire, or insect infestations). These 

openings can seem visually out of place; however, they do contribute to the spatial diversity and 

opportunities for viewing the progression of successional vegetative stages. The deep valley bottoms 

consist of a network of streams and rivers. 

The scenic resources of the WNF are currently managed in accordance with the 2006 Forest Plan, which 

lays out how the scenic resources will be managed under the Visual Quality Objectives (VQO) 

determined by the Visual Management System (VMS). The VQS defines acceptable levels of alteration 

of scenic resources with the WNF. In the 2006 Forest Plan Final EIS, the VMS language was updated to 

the newer Scenery Management System (SMS) utilizing Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIO) that were 

developed for each management area. The SMS responds to the deficiencies of, builds on, and validates 

the original VMS inventories. 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 73 

Table 3.14. Cross-walk of VMS and SMS Objectives 

Visual Quality Objective 

(VQO)

Appearance to Casual 

Observer

Scenic Integrity Objective 

(SIO)

Preservation (P) Unaltered Very High (VH)

Retention (R) Appears Unaltered High (H)

Visual Quality Objective 

(VQO)

Appearance to Casual 

Observer

Scenic Integrity Objective 

(SIO)

Partial Retention (PR) Slightly Altered Moderate (M)

Modification (M) Moderately Altered Low (L)

Maximum Modification (MM) Heavily Altered Very Low (VL)

Source: (U.S. Forest Service, 1995)

For more information on scenic quality and scenic integrity objectives refer to the 2006 Forest Plan Final 

EIS (pp. 3-231 - 3-241) and Map 6 (see Chapter 6 of this EA). 

3.15. Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice

3.15.1. Socioeconomics

Socioeconomics can be defined as the basic attributes and resources associated with the human 

environment, particularly population and economic activity. Economic activity typically encompasses 

employment, personal income, and economic growth. The socioeconomic analysis for this EA focuses 

on the counties that are in or directly adjacent to the Marietta Unit: Monroe, Noble, and Washington 

Counties in Ohio and Pleasants and Tyler Counties in West Virginia.

Population

Southeastern Ohio and the adjacent portion of West Virginia are largely rural, with the largest city being 

Marietta. Based on U.S. Census Bureau projections between 1990 and 2015, the population in Ohio 

increased by 7.1% and the population in West Virginia increased by 2.8% (see Table 3.15). Of the five 

counties considered in this analysis, Noble County experienced the greatest population increase (26.4%) 

and Tyler County experienced the greatest population decrease (-8.4%).
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 74 

Table 3.15. Population

Nationwide 1990 2000 2010 2015

(estimate)

Difference in Population as 

a Percentage 1990-2016

United States 248,709,873

281,421,906 308,745,538 321,418,820 29.2%

States 1990 2000 2010 2015

(estimate)

Difference in Population as 

a Percentage 1990-2016

Ohio 10,847,115 11,353,140 11,536,504 11,613,423 7.1%

West Virginia 1,793,477 1,808,344 1,852,994 1,844,128 2.8%

Counties 1990 2000 2010 2015

(estimate)

Difference in Population as 

a Percentage 1990-2016

Monroe County 15,497 15,180 14,642 14,409 -7.0%

Noble County 11,336 14,058 14,645 14,326 26.4%

Washington County 62,254 63,251 61,778 61,112 -1.8%

Pleasants County 7,546 7,514 7,605 7,674 1.7%

Tyler County 9,796 9,592 9,208 8,975 -8.4%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010. Annual Estimates of the Resident Population by Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin for the United 

States, States, and Counties

Race and Ethnicity

Evaluating the ethnic characteristics of an area can help determine whether a minority population is 

present. The CEQ defines minorities as individuals in the following population groups: American Indian 

or Alaskan Native; Asian or Pacific Islander; Black, not of Hispanic origin; or Hispanic. A minority 

population is identified where “(a) the minority population of the affected area exceeds 50% or (b) the 

minority population percentage of the affected area is meaningfully greater...” (CEQ, 1997). 

Additionally, “[a] minority population also exists if there is more than one minority group present and 

the minority percentage, as calculated by aggregating all minority persons, meets one of the abovestated thresholds” (CEQ, 1997).
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 75 

As shown in Table 3.15 below, all of the counties considered in the socioeconomic analysis for this EA 

are predominantly White (over 95%), which is higher than the average for Ohio (approximately 83%), 

West Virginia (approximately 91%), and the United States overall (72.4%). The counties overall have a 

lower percentage of minority populations (ranging from 1.0% to 3.9%) than Ohio (17%), West Virginia 

(6%), and the United States (27.6%). Of all the counties, Noble County has the largest percentage of a 

single minority population at 2.51%, Black or African American.

Table 3.16. Distribution of Races

COUNTIES

Different Races Totals

White

Black or 

African 

American

Asian

American 

Indian 

and 

Alaska 

Native

Native 

Hawaiian

/ other 

Pacific 

Islander

Other

Two 

or 

More 

Races

Total 

Minority 

Population 

(%)

Total 

Population

Monroe 

(OH) 98.06% 0.42% 0.11% 0.12% 0.01% 0.11% 1.17% 1.9% 14,642

COUNTIES

Different Races Totals

White

Black or 

African 

American

Asian

American 

Indian 

and 

Alaska 

Native

Native 

Hawaiian

/ other 

Pacific 

Islander

Other

Two 

or 

More 

Races

Total 

Minority 

Population 

(%)

Total 

Population

Noble

(OH) 96.09% 2.51% 0.14% 0.29% 0.02% 0.17% 0.79% 3.9% 14,645

Washington 

(OH)

96.47% 1.07% 0.55% 0.22% 0.02% 0.20% 1.46% 3.5% 61,778
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 76 

Different Races Totals

COUNTIES White

Black or 

African 

American

Asian

American 

Indian 

and 

Alaska 

Native

Native 

Hawaiian

/ other 

Pacific 

Islander

Other

Two 

or 

More 

Races

Total 

Minority 

Population 

(%)

Total 

Population

Tyler

(WV) 98.96% 0.15% 0.13% 0.20% 0.00% 0.03% 0.53% 1.0% 9,208

COUNTIES

White

Black or 

African 

American

Asian

American 

Indian 

and 

Alaska 

Native

Native 

Hawaiian

/ other 

Pacific 

Islander

Other

Two 

or 

More 

Races

Total 

Minority 

Population 

(%)

Total 

Population

Pleasants 

(WV)

97.32% 1.31% 0.11% 0.16% 0.00% 0.14% 0.96% 2.7% 7,605

STATES

Different Races Totals

White

Black or 

African 

American

Asian

American 

Indian 

and 

Alaska 

Native

Native 

Hawaiian 

/other 

Pacific 

Islander

Other

Two 

or 

More 

Races

Total 

Minority 

Population 

(%)

Total 

Population

Ohio (OH) 82.69% 12.20% 1.67% 0.22% 0.04% 1.13% 2.06% 17.0% 11,536,504

West 

Virginia 

(WV)

93.90% 3.41% 0.67% 0.20% 0.02% 0.33% 1.46% 6.0% 1,852,994
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 77 

Nationwide

Different Races Totals

White

Black or 

African 

American

Asian

American 

Indian 

and 

Alaska 

Native

Native 

Hawaiian

/other 

Pacific 

Islander

Other

Two 

or 

More 

Races

Total 

Minority 

Population 

(%)

Total 

Population

United 

States

72.4% 12.6% 4.8% 0.9% 0.02% 6.38% 2.9% 27.6% 308,758,105

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010. Annual Estimates of the Resident Population by Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin for the United 

States, States, and Counties

Employment and Income

This EA uses several data sources to assess the economic characteristics near the WNF; these sources 

include studies conducted by the WNF, Appalachian Regional Commission, and data from the U.S. 

Census Bureau.

WNF compiled an economic assessment in 2004 (Arbogast, 2004). This report states that the counties 

that comprise the WNF generally have lower per capita incomes, higher unemployment rates, and lower 

rates of college graduation than the rest of Ohio. They also had a higher degree of economic 

diversification, which is an index of the spread of economic activity across economic sectors.

The Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC), a regional economic development agency that seeks to 

build community capacity and strengthen economic growth in the 420 counties in the 13 Appalachian 

states. The counties considered in this EA analysis are within the purview of the ARC. The ARC ranks the 

Appalachian counties on a continuum ranging from distressed to attainment, using unemployment, per 

capita income, and poverty data. These rankings are defined as follows:

● Attainment - ranking among the nation’s top 10%;

● Competitive - ranking in the top quartile but not in the top 10%;

● Transitional - ranking in the middle two quartiles;

● At-Risk - ranking in the bottom quartile but not in the bottom 10%; and

● Distressed - ranking in the bottom 10%.

Aggregate economic data take time to collect, process, and vet, and the rankings provided by the ARC 

are typically based on data that are three or more years old. Table 3.13 lists the rankings of the counties 

in or adjacent to the Marietta Unit since 2002 (Appalachian Regional Commission, 2016). As shown in 

the table, the counties are currently ranked as “at-risk” (Noble, Monroe, and Tyler counties) and 

“transitional” (Washington and Pleasants counties).
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 78 

Table 3.17. Economic status as ranked by the Appalachian Regional Commission

Fiscal Year Noble Monroe Washington Pleasants Tyler

2002 transitional distressed transitional transitional transitional

2003 transitional distressed transitional transitional transitional

2004 transitional transitional transitional transitional transitional

2005 transitional transitional transitional transitional transitional

2006 transitional transitional transitional at-risk transitional

2007 at-risk at-risk transitional transitional at-risk

2008 at-risk at-risk transitional transitional at-risk

2009 at-risk distressed transitional transitional at-risk

2010 at-risk distressed transitional transitional at-risk

2011 at-risk at-risk transitional transitional at-risk

2012 distressed at-risk transitional transitional at-risk

2013 distressed at-risk transitional transitional at-risk

2014 distressed at-risk transitional at-risk at-risk

2015 at-risk transitional transitional transitional at-risk

2016 at-risk at-risk transitional transitional at-risk

Source: (Appalachian Regional Commission, 2016)

According to recent data obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau, the median household income for the 

five counties within and adjacent to the WNF ranged from $40,646 (Monroe County) to $45,048 

(Washington County) and poverty levels ranged from 15.7% (Monroe and Washington counties) to 

16.5% (Tyler County), as shown below in Table 3.18 and Table 3.19. As shown in Table 3.18, the five 

counties had a lower median household income than the U.S. average. Poverty levels for the counties in 

Ohio were comparable to the state average of 15.8%. Poverty levels for the counties in WV were slightly 

below the state average of 18.3%. All of the counties had a slightly higher poverty level than the U.S. 

average. 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 79 

Table 3.18. Median Household Income

Name Median Household Income

United States (USA) $53,657

Ohio (OH) $49,349

West Virginia (WV) $41,030

Monroe County (OH) $40,646

Noble County (OH) $43,953

Washington County (OH) $45,048

Pleasants County (WV) $44,801

Tyler County (WV) $41,019

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates (SAIPE) Program

Table 3.19. Poverty Levels

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates (SAIPE) Program

Counties Poverty Percent

Monroe (OH) 15.7%

Noble (OH) 16.3%

Washington (OH) 15.7%

Tyler (WV) 16.5%

Pleasants (WV) 15.8%

States Poverty Percent

Ohio (OH) 15.8%

West Virginia (WV) 18.3%

Nationwide Poverty Percent

United States (USA) 14.8%
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 80 

3.15.2. Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations,” formally requires Federal agencies to incorporate environmental justice as 

part of their missions. Specifically, it directs Federal agencies to address, as appropriate, any 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their actions, programs, 

or policies on minority or low-income populations.

Per CEQ – Environmental Justice Guidance under the National Environmental Policy Act (1997),

minorities can be defined as individuals in the following population groups: American Indian or Alaskan 

Native; Asian or Pacific Islander; Black, not of Hispanic origin; or Hispanic. A minority population is 

identified where “(a) the minority population of the affected area exceeds 50% or (b) the minority 

population percentage of the affected area is meaningfully greater...” (CEQ, 1997). The term 

“meaningfully greater” varies by agency, but a reasonable threshold is typically 10%. Additionally, “[a] 

minority population also exists if there is more than one minority group present and the minority 

percentage, as calculated by aggregating all minority persons, meets one of the above-stated 

thresholds” (CEQ, 1997).

Also per the CEQ guidance, while there is no specific criteria defining a “low income population,” Federal 

agencies are directed to identify low-income populations using Census data poverty thresholds (CEQ, 

1997). If a community as a whole has an average income at or below the poverty level, that community 

is considered a low income community. Therefore for the purpose of determining whether a low 

income population is present, comparisons are made between the poverty levels of the project area and 

the states of Ohio, West Virginia, and the U.S. overall. Neither the CEQ nor other federal guidelines call 

for a “meaningfully greater” analysis for low income populations comparable to that conducted for 

minority populations.

Based on a review of socioeconomic data for the five counties within and directly adjacent to the WNF, 

the potential for low-income environmental justice populations residing near the Marietta Unit does 

exist. Median household incomes for the five counties is lower than the state and national average and 

the overall poverty level is slightly higher (see Table 3.19). Compared to state and national averages, 

however, the percent of minorities is much lower. Therefore, minority environmental justice 

populations within the project area are not likely present.

4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

This chapter assesses the anticipated environmental consequences associated with direct, indirect, and 

cumulative effects of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative. The Proposed Action of leasing 

parcels would, by itself, have no direct impact on any resources in the lease area since it does not 

propose authorizing any surface-disturbing activities. All anticipated resource impacts would be 

associated with the potential impacts of future oil and gas development on both the Forest Service lands 

and on adjacent private lands within the Marietta Unit. 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 81 

For the purpose of this EA, a RFDS is used to assess the potential impacts from reasonably foreseeable, 

but yet uncertain, future oil and gas development as a result of leasing federal minerals in the Marietta 

Unit. Short-term impacts from potential development are considered those that would be stabilized or 

mitigated within five years and long-term impacts are those that would substantially remain for more 

than five years. Cumulative impacts include the combined effect of past projects, specific planned 

projects and other reasonably foreseeable future actions such as infill wells (wells drilled between 

producing wells for the purpose of more efficient recovery of petroleum from the reservoir) being 

located within these leases. Cumulative impacts are addressed at the end of this Chapter. Possible best 

management practices, standard operating procedures, and mitigation measures that could be 

implemented are also discussed within the context of each resource section below. What is important 

to note is that additional site-specific NEPA analysis will be conducted at the APD stage, if actual mineral 

development on a lease parcel(s) is proposed. 

4.1. Land Use

While the act of leasing would produce no changes to existing land use since a lease would not authorize 

any surface-disturbing activities, potential future mineral development would result in short and longer 

term changes in land use due to conversion of undeveloped areas to those used for oil and gas activities. 

In particular, future mineral development would lead to construction of well pads, roads, and other 

supporting infrastructure. These potential land use changes on federal land would need to be in 

conformance with desired management objectives (such as vegetation and species) identified in the 

2006 Forest Plan, and land use changes on private land would need to be in conformance with local 

planning and zoning requirements. Affected areas would be reclaimed at the end of their use as well 

pads or construction areas. Potential mineral development is consistent with activities identified in the 

2006 Forest Plan and would not be a new activity introduced to the forest; therefore potential future oil 

and gas activities would be consistent with ongoing uses of the forest.

4.2. Air Resources

4.2.1. Air Quality

Leasing the subject parcels would have no direct impacts on air quality. Any potential effects on air 

quality would occur if and when the leases are developed for oil and gas activities. For the purpose of 

NEPA analysis, this EA includes both a qualitative and quantitative discussion of air emissions that could 

result from reasonably foreseeable oil and gas development in the Marietta Unit. The following sections 

discuss the type of air emissions that could be expected from future oil and gas development including 

quantified estimates of potential GHG emissions and the possible relationship to climate change (see 

Section 4.2.3). Section 4.16 includes a discussion of potential cumulative effects on air quality. 

It is important to note that at the leasing stage, there is a degree of speculation and uncertainty with 

regard to the amount of air emissions (and GHGs) that could occur since specific design details are not 

yet known. Therefore, the BLM would conduct additional analysis on air quality at the APD stage if 

development is proposed in the future. However, for the purpose this EA, the BLM used assumptions to 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 82 

quantify potential emissions associated with the pre-production and post-production phases of 

development in order to identify an order of magnitude estimate of potential future emissions. The 

methodology used is described in Section 4.2.3.

Vehicle and equipment make, model, engine size, etc. and trip length, project acreage, and construction 

schedule are among several variables required to generate meaningful emissions estimates. Combined, 

these factors determine the intensity, duration, and characteristics of associated pollutants. 

Specifically, information needed to reasonably quantify emissions associated with well exploration and 

production activities include:

● The number, type, and duration of equipment needed to construct/reclaim, drill and complete 

(e.g., belly scrapers, rig, completions, supply trucks, compressor, and production facilities);

● The technologies which may be employed by a given company for drilling any new wells to 

reduce emissions (e.g. Selective Catalytic Reduction [SCR] on diesel powered drill rigs, natural 

gas fired drill rig engines, the use of “green” completion technology, and multi-stage flare 

stacks);

● Area of disturbance for each type of activity (e.g. roads, pads, pipelines, electrical lines, and 

compressor station);

● Compression per well (sales and field booster), or average horsepower for each type of 

compressor, if needed; and

● The number and type of facilities utilized for production operations.

The American Petroleum Institute (API) categorizes sources of emissions from all oil and gas operations 

into the classifications listed below. The degree of impact would vary according to the characteristics of 

the geological formations from which production occurs but emissions associated with oil and gas 

operations would likely incrementally contribute to increases in air quality emissions into the 

atmosphere no matter the degree of future impact.

Direct Emissions from Future Development

 Combustion Sources – includes stationary devices (boilers, heaters, internal combustion 

engines, flares, burners) and mobile devices (barges, railcars, and trucks for material transport; 

vehicles for personnel transport; forklifts, construction equipment, etc.).

 Process Emissions and Vented Sources - includes process emissions from glycol dehydrators, 

stacks, vents, ducts; maintenance/turnaround; and non-routine activities such as pressure relief 

valves, emergency shutdown devices, etc.

 Fugitive Sources - includes fugitive emissions from valves, flanges, pumps, connectors, etc.; and 

other non-point sources from wastewater treatment.

Indirect Emissions from Future Development

Emissions associated with company operations, such as off-site generation of electricity, hot water or 

steam, and compression for on-site power, heat and cooling. Direct and indirect air emissions may 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 83 

occur from various sources during each phase of exploration and development. During exploration and 

development, emissions are generated from well pad and access road construction, rigging up/down, 

drilling, well completion, and testing phases. Air emissions for these phases are mainly CO2 emissions 

from fuel in internal combustion engines of diesel trucks, equipment, and rigs.

Specifically, the primary sources of emissions anticipated during future oil and gas exploration or 

development include the following:

● Combustion engines (i.e. fossil fuel fired internal combustion engines used to supply electrical or 

hydraulic power for hydraulic fracturing to drive the pumps and rigs used to drill the well, drill 

out the hydraulic stage plugs and run the production tubing in the well);

● Electric generators to power drill rig engines, pumps, and other equipment;

● Compressors used to increase the pressure of the oil or gas for transport and use;

● Tailpipe emissions from vehicles transporting equipment to the site;

● Venting (i.e. fuel storage tanks vents and pressure control equipment);

● Mobile emissions (i.e. vehicles bringing equipment, personnel, or supplies to the location); and

● Fugitive sources (i.e. pneumatic valves, pipelines, tank leaks, and dust).

These sources have the potential to produce and release a number of pollutants associated with 

combustion of fossil fuels: CO, NOx, SO2, Pb, PM, CO2, CH4, and N2O. Venting may release VOC/HAP, H2S, 

and CH4. Mobile source emissions are likely to include fugitive particulate matter from dust and NOx 

associated with vehicle engine combustion, traffic and/or construction activities. In addition, during the 

completion phase, the most significant emissions of criteria pollutants emitted by oil and gas operations 

in general are VOCs, particulate matter and NO2. The primary sources of GHGs associated with oil and 

gas exploration and production are CO2, CH4, and N2O.

VOCs and NOx contribute to the formation of ozone and aid in prolonging the life of methane in the 

atmosphere. The EPA’s Natural Gas STAR Program (2014) is a voluntary program that identifies sources 

of fugitive methane sources and seeks to minimize fugitive CH4 through careful tuning of existing 

equipment and technology upgrades. Data provided by STAR show that some of the largest air 

emissions in the natural gas industry occur as natural gas wells are fractured and are being prepared for 

production. During well completion, flowback, fracturing fluids, water, and reservoir gas come to the 

surface at high velocity and volume. This mixture includes a high volume of VOCs and CH4, along with air 

toxins such as benzene, ethylbenzene, and n-hexane. The typical flowback process lasts from three to 

ten days. Additional emissions from other processes and equipment during production and 

transportation of the oil and gas from the well to a processing facility may occur.

Degradation of air quality may damage ecosystem resources. For example, ozone can damage 

vegetation, adversely impacting the growth of plants and trees. These impacts can reduce the ability of 

plants to uptake CO2 from the atmosphere and can then indirectly affect the larger ecosystems. 

Although air emissions are expected from future oil and gas development in the Marietta Unit, activities 

(and therefore air emissions) would be staggered over time therefore decreasing the overall intensity of 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 84 

potential impacts. Section 4.2.3 includes additional discussion of air emissions (specifically GHGs) that 

could occur from reasonably foreseeable mineral development in the Marietta Unit. 

A discussion of potential public health and safety impacts associated with air emissions is located in 

Section 4.8 of this EA. All proposed activities including, but not limited to, exploratory drilling activities 

would be subject to applicable local, State, and Federal air quality laws and regulations.

4.2.2. Visibility

Section 169A of the CAA requires the examination of certain categories of air pollution sources on 

atmospheric clarity in downwind National Park or wilderness areas (Implemented in 64 FR 35714 and 70 

FR 39104) using Guidelines for Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART). An air pollution source 

meeting the specific criteria are considered BART-eligible. The Ohio EPA published a report on BARTeligible sources and impacts in 2011, which were all in adjacent states (Ohio Environmental Protection 

Agency, 2011). Twelve facilities were found to need more analysis for potential impacts to 17 total Class 

1 Areas. Impacts for all but one coal combustion facility fell well below the eight days/year exceedance 

levels for Sulfur Dioxide, Nitrous Oxide, and particulate matter. Sulfur Dioxide was the only contributing 

factor to two Class 1 areas after a zero out test, and the facility was put on a five-year reduction permit 

to eliminate 90% of the emissions. Taking the Ohio EPA report into account, potential reasonably 

foreseeable oil and gas activities would only contribute negligible amounts to local visibility, and would 

not impact any Class 1 or Sensitive Class 2 areas in adjacent states.

4.2.3. Climate and Climate Change

Climate change has the potential to pose challenges for many resource uses. Increased temperatures, 

drought and evaporation may reduce seasonal water supplies for wildlife and could impact forage 

availability. However, in non-drought years, longer growing seasons resulting from thermal increases 

may increase forage availability throughout the year. Shifts in wildlife habitat due to climate change 

may influence hunting and fishing activities. Drought and resulting stress on vegetation is likely to 

increase the frequency and intensity of forest fires and invasive species, causing even more disruption 

within the ecosystem.

There would be no GHG emissions as a direct result of the Proposed Action, which is administrative in 

nature. Nevertheless, the BLM recognizes that GHG emissions are a potential effect of fluid mineral 

exploration and/or development subsequent to leasing. Oil and gas activities may lead to the 

installation and production of new wells, which may consequently produce an increase in GHG 

emissions. The primary sources of GHG emissions include the following:

● Fossil fuel combustion for construction and operation of oil and gas facilities – vehicles driving to 

and from production sites, engines that drive drill rigs, etc. These produce CO2 in quantities that 

vary depending on the age, types, and conditions of the equipment as well as the targeted 

formation, locations of wells with respect to processing facilities and pipelines, and other sitespecific factors;
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 85 

● Fugitive CH4 – CH4 that escapes from wells (both gas and oil), oil storage, and various types of 

processing equipment. This is a major source of global CH4 emissions. These emissions have 

been estimated for various aspects of the energy sector, and starting in 2011, producers are 

required under 40 CFR 98, to estimate and report their CH4 emissions to the USEPA; and

● Combustion of produced oil and gas – it is expected that future operations would produce 

marketable quantities of oil and/or gas. Combustion of the oil and/or gas would release CO2

into the atmosphere. Fossil fuel combustion is the largest source of global CO2.

In recent years, many states, tribes, and other organizations have initiated GHG inventories, tallying 

GHG emissions by economic sector. The U.S. EPA provides links to statewide GHG emissions inventories 

(USEPA, 2015c). Guidelines for estimating project-specific GHG emissions are available (URS 

Corporation, 2010), but some additional data, including the projected volume of oil or natural gas 

produced for an average well, number of wells (as well as other factors described in Section 4.2.1. Air 

Quality) were used to provide GHG estimates.

4.2.3.1. Greenhouse Gases

Greenhouse Gas Analysis and Calculations

As previously stated, this EA analysis includes quantified estimates of potential GHGs associated with 

reasonably foreseeable oil and gas development in the Marietta Unit. Although this EA analysis assumes 

that both oil and gas may be produced in the future within the Marietta Unit, natural gas is more likely 

to be produced and is therefore used in the assumptions for the GHG analysis. Even though this GHG 

analysis assumes that natural gas would be the primary product, potential GHGs that would also be 

expected from oil development would be similar or lower than those projected for natural gas. 

The analysis of GHG emissions focused on the preproduction and postproduction phases. The 

preproduction phase includes well site investigation, preparation of well pads including grading and 

construction of well pads and access roads, well drilling, hydraulic fracturing, and well completion. After

this preproduction phase is completed, the well becomes operational and starts producing. Production

can require additional processing to remove water, CO2, and/or liquids before it enters the natural gas 

transmission and distribution system, which delivers it to final end users. Figure 4.1 shows the various 

components associated with each phase. Preproduction is considered “upstream” or direct emissions 

and may be calculated more effectively at the APD stage, when specific construction details are known. 

“Downstream” or indirect emissions are associated with the postproduction phase. The BLM used 

readily available scientific information and reasonable assumptions to estimate potential GHGs for 

upstream and downstream emissions.
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 86 

Figure 4.1. Preproduction and After Preproduction Phases

Source: (Jiang et. al., 2011)

Preproduction Phase

Summary of Preproduction GHG Emissions

The scientific paper, Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of Marcellus shale gas (and associated 

supplementary data) (Jiang et al., 2011) was used as the basis for estimating GHG emissions from the 

preproduction phase of potential oil and gas development in the Marietta Unit. Jian, M. et al, estimated 

GHGs for the complete life cycle of an average producing well using horizontal drilling and hydraulic 

fracturing to reach Marcellus Shale. Some of the key assumptions in the paper with regard to oil and gas 

development included the following (see Jiang et al., 2011, Table 2, p. 4 for the complete list of 

parameters and assumptions):

● Disturbance for wellpad – approximately 5 acres

● Approximately 6 wells per wellpad (per the 2006 RFDS)

● Approximately 25 years for the lifetime of a well

● Use of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 87 

Based on the location of the proposed lease, geological formations, and similar construction techniques 

that would be used if future production was to occur in the Marietta Unit, the preproduction data 

gleaned from Jiang et al., 2011, is applicable to possible foreseeable mineral development within the 

Wayne National Forest.

Carbon Loss Due to Vegetative Clearing

Carbon loss resulting from the land and vegetative disruption for horizontal wells was estimated based 

on the value of CO2 sequestration, which can range from 24g per sq. ft. to 30g per sq. ft. per year 

(Tillman, Hill, & Lehman, 2006). Thus, approximately 31 MT CO2e (0.000031 MMT CO2e) on average, are 

released per well (Table 4.1).

Table 4.1. Emissions from Carbon Loss due to Vegetative Disruption (MT CO2e)

Minimum Maximum

CO2 Sequestration 

(g/square foot/year)

24 30

Well Pad Area (square 

feet/well pad)

96,000 260,000

Carbon Loss (MT 

CO2e/well)

11 43

Average Carbon Loss (MT 

CO2e/well)

31

Source: (Jiang et al., 2011)

Stages of Preproduction

The lifecycle of Marcellus shale natural gas begins with a ‘preproduction phase’ which includes the well 

site investigation, preparation of the well pad including grading and construction of the well pad and 

access roads, drilling, hydraulic fracturing, and well completion (Soeder & Kappel, 2009). At the 

moment that this phase is complete the well becomes operational and starts producing natural gas. 

This natural gas may then require additional processing to remove water, natural gas liquids and/or CO2

before it enters transmission and distribution systems, which delivers it to final end users (Jiang et al.,

2011). The following stages such as processing, transmission, distribution, and finally combustion are 

considered downstream end uses. Methodology and assumptions for calculating GHG emissions for the 

preproduction phase are available within the supplementary data provided in Jiang et al., 2011.
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 88 

Table 4.2. Total GHG Emissions from Preproduction (MT CO2e/well)

Source: (Jiang et al., 2011)

Based on the study, a total average of GHG emissions expected from the preproduction phase is 

approximately 5,500 MT (0.0055MMT) CO2e/per well. Figure 4.2 provides the same information 

regarding preproduction emissions in grams of CO2e/ Megajoules. As seen in the figure, the completion 

stage has the largest projected GHG emissions, which result from flaring and/or venting. The figure also 

depicts the limits of the 90% confidence interval of the emissions from each stage based on the 

uncertainty analysis conducted by Jiang. et. al. 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 89 

Figure 4.2. GHG Preproduction Emissions in grams of CO2 e/ Megajoules

Source: (Jiang et al., 2011) 

Post-Production Phase

Summary of Post-production GHG Emissions

While preproduction GHG emissions were based on an existing scientific study, emissions associated 

with the post-production phase of development were calculated based on reasonable assumptions and 

standard emissions factors. Mean emission factors used in this EA for production of natural gas, 

processing, transmission and storage, distribution, and combustion were provided by Venkatesh et. al. 

(2011) within the scientific study. Below are the emission factors used for post-production GHG 

calculations. 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 90 

Table. 4.3. Emission Factors (EF) for Post-production Processes for Natural Gas in g CO2/MJ

Greenhouse Gas Emission Factors for Post-production Processes

Production 9.7 g CO2e/MJ

Processing 4.3 g CO2e MJ

Transmission and storage 1.4 g CO2e/MJ

Distribution 0.8 g CO2e/MJ

Combustion 50 g CO2e/MJ

Source: (Venkatesh et. al. 2011)

Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions can be calculated in several ways. A common methodology 

for calculating GHG includes using high and low estimates for production, multiplying by each emission 

of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, then converting the GHG emissions to carbon dioxide 

equivalents according to the global warming potential (GWP) factors reported by the U.S. EPA or IPCC. 

An example calculation of CO2e for combustion emissions of CO2, CH4, and N2O is provided below. This 

calculation could be expanded to include additional GHGs. The units of CO2e are the same as the units 

used to represent the quantity of CO2, CH4, and N2O emissions. Please refer to Appendix E of this EA for 

U.S. EPA emission factors for greenhouse gas inventories.

CO2 emissions= [(Production Amount x CO2 emission factor)]

CH4 emissions= [(Production Amount x CH4 emission factor)]

N2O emissions= [(Production Amount x N2O emission factor)]

CO2e= [(CO2 emissions x GWP] + [CH4 emissions x GWP] + [N2O emissions x GWP]

Ohio’s Natural Gas and Crude Oil Exploration and Production Industry and Emerging Utica Gas 

Formation Economic Impact Study estimated that the average amount of natural gas per the life of a 

natural gas well is 5 billion cubic feet (bcf) (Kleinhenz & Associates 2011). This figure is based on a range 

of 3.7 bcf to 9.9 bcf with an expectation that 40% of the 5 bcf would occur within the first 5 years. Using 

emission factors provided by Venketesh. et. al (2011), calculations were obtained for total postproduction of GHGs per natural gas horizontal well/per year. The methodology used for the calculations 

is presented below. Conversion factors include the following: 1 bcf= 1,000,000,000 cubic feet (cf), 1 

Million (MM) Cubic Feet= 1,000,000 cf, 1 Thousand (M)cf= 1,000 cf, 1 cf= 1.0551 Megajoules.

Conversion factors were obtained from kylesconverter.com. The summary of results for estimated GHG 

emission for post-production is provided in Table 4.4.
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 91 

Methods of Calculating Average production of well per year:

● (Average Production Amount for Life of Well (cf) X Percentage of Expected Production (%)) / 5 

Years (Yrs)= Average production of well per year (cf/year)

● Average production per well per year converted to Megajoules (MJ/year)

Methods of Calculating GHG:

● [Average production per year (MJ/per year) X (EF of Natural Gas Post-production Phase) (gCO2 

e/MJ))] = gCO2e /MJ

● Convert gCO2e to MT CO2e (MMT CO2e)

Actual Calculation for Average production of natural gas well per year:

● (5,000,000,000 cf) X 0.40 / 5 Years= 400,000, 000 cf/per year (400,000 Mcf)

● 400,000,000 cf X 1.0551 (MJ/cf) = 422,040,000 MJ/per well per year

Actual GHG Calculation for Production:

 422,040,000 MJ/per year

 422,040,000 MJ X 9.7 CO2e (g/MJ) = 4,093,788,000 gCO2e

 4,093,788,000 (gCO2e ) X 1E-6 Metric Tons(MT) = 4,093.799 MT CO2e (0.004094 MMT CO2e) of

GHG per well/year.

Actual GHG Calculations for Processing: 

● 422,040,000 MJ/per year 

● 422,040,000 MJ X 4.3 CO2e (g/MJ) = 1,814,772,000 gCO2e

● 1,814,772,000 (gCO2e ) X 1E-6 Metric Tons(MT) = 1,814.772 MT CO2e (0.00181 MMT CO2e) of 

GHG per well/year.

Actual GHG Calculations for Transmission and Storage: 

● 422,040,000 MJ/per year 

● 422,040,000 MJ X 1.4 CO2e (g/MJ) = 590,856,000 gCO2e

590,856,000 (gCO2e ) X 1E-6 Metric Tons(MT) = 590.856 MT CO2e (0.000591 MMT CO2e) of 

GHG per well/year.

Actual GHG Calculations for Distribution: 

● 422,040,000 MJ/per year 

● 422,040,000 MJ X 0.8 CO2e (g/MJ) = 337,632,000 gCO2e

337,632,000 (gCO2e ) X 1E-6 Metric Tons(MT) = 337.632 MT CO2e (0.000338 MMT CO2e) of

GHG per well/year.
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 92 

Actual GHG Calculations for Combustion: 

● 422,040,000 MJ/per year 

● 422,040,000 MJ X 50 CO2e (g/MJ) = 21,102,000,000 gCO2e

21,102,000,000 (gCO2e ) X 1E-6 Metric Tons(MT) = 21,102 MT CO2e (0.021102 MMT CO2e) 

Production of GHG per well/year

Table. 4.4. Total GHG emissions from Post-production (MT CO2e/well)

Stage MT CO2e/well MMT CO2e

Production 4,0934 0.004094

Processing 1,815 0.00181

Transmission 591 0.000591

Distribution 338 0.000338

Combustion 21,102 0.021102

Total 64,780 0.027935

Table 4.5. Total Result amount of GHG per Horizontal Well/Year

Source

GHG Emissions in 

Metric Tons (Per 

well/Yr)

GHG Emissions per well 

pad (6 wells per pad)

Projections using RFD 

estimates of 10 

Horizontal well pads

Preproduction Phase 

(well pad preparation, 

carbon loss due to 

vegetative disruption, 

well drilling, hydraulic 

fracturing, well 

completion) (Table 4.2)

5,500 MT CO2e

(0.0055 MMT)

33,000 MT CO2e

(0.033 MMT)

330,000 MT CO2e

(0.3300 MMT)

Post-production

(production, processing, 

transmission and 

storage, distribution, 

and combustion)

64, 790 MT CO2e

(0.06479 MMT)

388,740 MT CO2e

(0.38874 MMT)

3,887,400 MT CO2e

(3.8874 MMT)

Total 70,290 MT CO2e

(0.70290 MT)

421,740 MT CO2e

(0.421740 MMT)

4,217,400 MT CO2e

(4.21740 MMT)

Uncertainties of GHG Calculations

Although this EA presents a quantified estimate of potential GHG emissions associated with reasonably 

foreseeable oil and gas development in the Marietta Unit, there is significant uncertainty in GHG 

emission estimates due to uncertainties with regard to eventual production volumes and variability in 

flaring, construction, and transportation.
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 93 

Also, there is uncertainty with regard to the net effects of reasonably foreseeable oil and gas 

development on climate – that is, while BLM actions may contribute to the climate change 

phenomenon, the specific effects of those actions on global climate are speculative given the current 

state of the science. Inconsistencies in the results of scientific models designed to predict climate 

change on regional or local scales limits the ability to quantify potential future impacts of decisions 

made at this level and determining the significance of any discrete amount of GHG emissions is beyond 

the limits of existing science at the present time. More site-specific information on oil and gas activities 

resulting in GHG impacts would be described in detail at the APD stage. At the APD stage, the BLM 

would evaluate operations, require mitigation measures, and encourage operators to participate in the 

voluntary STAR program.

End Uses

The estimates above provide a complete GHG lifecycle of a well from site inspection to possible indirect 

emissions through combustion. A rough estimate was possible using publicly available information and 

using estimates from future production for reasonably foreseeable development. With respect to the 

rough estimates of indirect CO2 emissions, it should be noted that it is a difficult to discern with certainty 

what end uses for the fuels extracted from a particular leasehold might be reasonably foreseeable. For 

instance, some end uses of fossil fuels extracted from Federal leases include: combustion of 

transportation fuels, fuel oils for heating and electricity generation, as well as production of asphalt and 

road oil, and the feedstocks used to make chemicals, plastics, and synthetic materials. Since natural gas 

is the most likely product that would be obtained within the Marietta Unit, it was used in the 

assumptions for GHG analysis; however, oil could also be developed. At this time, there is some 

uncertainty with regard to the actual development that may occur. 

Estimates for combustion may vary depending on the calculation used as well as the uncertainty 

associated with what products would be combusted. For this particular EA, a combustion emission 

factor was provided by Venkatesh et. al (2011) and was used to estimate GHG emissions from 

combustion. Alternatively, the formula CO2e= [(CO2 emissions x GWP] + [CH4 emissions x GWP] + [N2O 

emissions x GWP] can also be used to calculate GHG emissions. Using this formula and U.S. EPA 

combustion emission factors for natural gas (see Appendix E) allowed BLM to compare combustion 

emissions to those calculated for this EA (see above, Table 4.4). Calculations using the alternate formula 

show that GHG estimates for combustion would be approximately 21,798 MT CO2 e. This estimate is 

comparatively close to the estimates provided in Table 4.4 above (21,102 MT CO2 e). 

It is important to note that the BLM does not exercise control over the specific end use of the oil and gas 

produced from any individual federal lease. The BLM has no authority to direct or regulate the end use 

of the produced oil and/or gas. As a result, the BLM can only provide an estimate of potential GHG

emissions using national approximations of where or how the end use may occur because oil, 

condensate, and natural gas could be used for combustion of transportation fuels, fuel oils for heating 

and electricity generation, as well as production of asphalt and road oil, and the feedstocks used to 

make chemicals, plastics, and synthetic materials.
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 94 

Rule of Reason

Agencies should be guided by a “rule of reason” in ensuring that the level of effort expended in 

analyzing GHG emissions or climate change effects is reasonably proportionate to the importance of 

climate change related considerations to the agency action being evaluated. This statement is grounded 

in the purpose of NEPA to concentrate on matters that that are truly significant to the proposed action 

(40 CFR §§ 1500.4(b), 1500.4(g), 1501.7.). CEQ guidance cautions against using a comparison of global 

GHG emissions to project-specific GHG emissions as a stand-alone reason for no detailed analysis (CEQ 

2016). In light of the difficulties in attributing specific climate impacts to individual projects, CEQ 

recommends agencies use the projected GHG emissions as a proxy for assessing a Proposed Action’s 

potential climate change impacts (CEQ, 2016).

Availability of Input Data

In light of the difficulties in attributing specific climate impacts to individual projects, CEQ recommends 

agencies use the projected GHG emissions as a proxy for assessing a Proposed Action’s potential climate 

change impacts. Estimates were made based on readily available data and reasonable assumptions 

about potential future development in the Marietta Unit. There are many factors that affect the 

potential for GHG emissions estimates at the leasing stage: a lease may not be purchased, so no GHG 

emissions would be expected; a lease may be purchased but never explored, so again there would be no 

GHG emissions; a lease may be purchased and an exploratory well drilled that showed no development 

potential, so minimal GHG emissions would occur; or a lease may be purchased, explored, and 

developed. If developed there are notable differences in the potential for emissions related to a wide 

variety of variables, including the production potential of the well, economic considerations, regulatory 

considerations, and operator dynamics, to name a few. Further NEPA analysis would be conducted at 

the APD stage, when specific development details with which to analyze potential GHG emissions are 

known, and their relationship to climate impacts.

Monetizing Costs and Benefits: Social Cost of Carbon

The 2016 CEQ guidance, Final Guidance for Federal Departments and Agencies on Consideration of 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Effects of Climate Change in NEPA Reviews states that “NEPA does 

not require monetizing costs and benefits” and allows for agency discretion in including monetized 

assessment of the impacts of GHGs in NEPA documents (CEQ, 2016). In addition, the BLM finds that 

including monetary estimates of the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) in its NEPA analysis for this Proposed 

Action would not be useful. There is no court case or existing guidance requiring the inclusion of SCC in 

the NEPA context. Estimating SCC is challenging because it is intended to model effects at a global scale 

on the welfare of future generations caused by additional carbon emissions occurring in the present. 

The Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Carbon, convened by the U.S. Office of 

Management and Budget, developed estimates of the SCC, which reflect the monetary cost incurred by 

the emission of one additional metric ton of carbon dioxide (CO2). BLM finds that including meaningful 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 95 

monetary estimates of the SCC would not provide additional pertinent information to the decision 

maker. 

Given the global nature of climate change, estimating SCC of an individual decision requires assessing 

the impact of the project on the global market for the commodity in question. While the BLM is able to 

estimate the GHG emissions associated with reasonably foreseeable oil and gas development in the 

Marietta Unit, this EA does not estimate the net effect of this action on global GHG emissions or climate 

change. Depending on the global demand for oil and gas, the net effect of this project may be partially 

offset by changes in production in other locations. Accounting for this potential substitution effect is 

technically challenging.

4.2.4. Possible Future Best Management Practices, Standard Operating Procedures, 

and/or Mitigation Measures

The BLM holds regulatory jurisdiction over portions of natural gas and petroleum systems, identified in 

the USEPA Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks (USEPA, 2016i). Exercise of this 

regulatory jurisdiction has led to development of Best Management Practices (BMPs), which are stateof-the-art mitigation measures applied to oil and natural gas drilling and production to help ensure that 

energy development is conducted in an environmentally responsible manner. The BLM encourages 

industry to incorporate and implement BMPs to reduce impacts to air quality through reduction of

emissions, surface disturbances, and dust from field production and operations. Typical measures are 

mentioned below.

● Open burning of garbage or refuse would not occur at well sites or other facilities;

● Drill rigs would be equipped with Tier II or better diesel engines;

● Vent emissions from stock tanks and natural gas TEG dehydrators would be controlled by 

routing the emissions to a flare or similar control device which would reduce emissions by 95% 

or greater;

● All internal combustion equipment would be kept in good working order;

● Flared hydrocarbon gases at high temperatures in order to reduce emissions of incomplete 

combustion through the use of multi-chamber combustors;

● Watering dirt roads during periods of high use to reduce fugitive dust emissions;

● Co-location wells and production facilities to reduce new surface disturbances;

● Use of natural gas fired or electric drill rig engines;

● The use of selective catalytic reducers and low-sulfur fuel for diesel-fired drill rig engines;

● Adherence to BLM’s Notice to Lessees’ (NTL) 4a concerning the venting and flaring of gas on 

Federal leases for natural gas emissions that cannot be economically recovered;

● Protecting frac sand from wind erosion;

● Implementation of directional drilling and horizontal completion technologies whereby one well 

provides access to petroleum resources that would normally require the drilling of several 

vertical wellbores;
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 96 

● Requiring that vapor recovery systems be maintained and functional in areas where petroleum 

liquids are stored; and

● Performing interim reclamation to reclaim areas of the pad not required for production facilities 

and to reduce the amount of dust from the pads.

Additionally, the BLM encourages oil and natural gas companies to adopt proven, cost-effective 

technologies and practices that improve operational efficiency and reduce natural gas emissions. In 

October 2012, USEPA promulgated air quality regulations for completion of hydraulically fractured gas 

wells (USEPA, 2015b). These rules required air pollution mitigation measures that reduced the 

emissions of volatile organic compounds during gas well completions. Mitigation included utilizing a 

process known as a “green” completion in which natural gas brought up during flowback is captured in 

tanks rather than in open fluid pits. Among other measures to reduce emissions include the USEPA’s 

Natural Gas STAR program. The USEPA U.S. inventory data shows that industry’s implementation of 

BMPs proposed by the program has reduced emissions from oil and gas exploration and development 

(USEPA, 2016i). 

4.3. Plant and Animal Habitat and Populations

4.3.1. Introduction

The analysis in this section is based on findings from the 2012 SIR, which notes that the anticipated 

environmental impacts of high-volume, horizontal fracturing technology are within the range of impacts 

analyzed and disclosed in the 2006 Forest Plan Final EIS. The amount of surface disturbance projected 

on the WNF with the use of high-volume, horizontal fracturing technology is within the amount of 

surface disturbance analyzed in the 2006 Forest Plan Final EIS (2012 SIR, p. 45, 47, 49). Second, the 

regulations enforced by the BLM and ODNR and measures prescribed by the 2006 Forest Plan reduce 

impacts from land clearing and other activities that may impact wildlife habitat and populations (2012 

SIR, p. 45).

The Proposed Action would have no direct impacts on plant and animal habitat and populations, since a 

lease would not authorize any surface-disturbing activities. This section describes potential effects that 

may result from reasonably foreseeable future development of lease parcels. The primary effect to 

plants and animals from oil and gas development would be habitat modification from land clearing, 

grading, and reclamation. While contamination of water, soil, and air may affect wildlife, those effects 

are not discussed in detail in these sections, since they are covered in those relevant sections.

The effects from future-proposed development may occur on federal or non-federal (primarily private) 

lands. Given the highly fragmented nature of land ownership in the Marietta Unit, a well pad on one 

parcel, federal or private, may be serviced by roads, pipelines, tank batteries, and other infrastructure 

on other parcels in other ownerships. Second, an operator may use directional drilling to locate a pad 

on a parcel not directly above the bottom hole location for various reasons, thus enabling federal 

minerals to be accessed from outside the federal surface.
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 97 

The vegetative cover types on the federal lands are well delineated and easily accessible to the BLM in 

the form of a geographic database. Likewise, the Forest Service’s goals for vegetative cover in each 

delineated zone are detailed in the Forest Plan. This information enables the BLM to state where 

development may have different types of impact and where development would be restricted in order 

to protect plant and animal habitat and populations. This is not true for the private lands. Some 

analysis of the private lands may be done through aerial photo analysis and on-the-ground observation, 

but a complete assessment of vegetative cover on the private lands would be prohibitively expensive. 

Each separate private landowner would be responsible for setting the terms for land clearing and 

reclamation. The discussions that follow focus primarily on the federal lands, where sufficient 

information is available, and makes generalizations, where applicable, regarding differences in expected 

impacts on private lands.

The Forest Service seeks to maintain a particular range of open habitat for each management area, and 

these ranges are as follows:

● Diverse Continuous Forest - 2-4%;

● Forest and Shrubland Mosaic - 3-6%;

● Future Old Forest with Mineral Activity - 0-1%; and

● River Corridors - 3-6%.

While some proposed lease stipulations (see Chapter 5 of this EA) target particular species, other 

measures would be taken to protect wildlife and habitats in general at the APD stage. For example, as 

described in the 2012 SIR, the Forest Service would require operators to use closed-loop systems (i.e., 

tanks) for containing wastewater (2012 SIR, p. 45). The only fluids that may be contained in open pits 

would be fresh water and drill cuttings, and pits would be backfilled promptly after they are used. The 

Forest Service would also require operators to promptly drill all the planned wells on a pad or partially 

reclaim portions of the pad while drilling is not occurring on the pad (2012 SIR, p. 63). These measures 

would help minimize the effects from well pad construction, should development occur in the future. 

Land clearing associated with potential future mineral development could result in fragmentation and 

edge effects. These two terms refer to effects to portions of forested habitat that are adjacent to open 

habitat. Fragmentation is the division of a large block of one type of habitat – in this case, forest – into 

smaller blocks. Certain species require large blocks of unbroken forest, and the removal of a few acres 

of forest canopy for a road through the forest may render the entire forest block unsuitable for that 

species. Edge effects to wildlife are similar; they occur from the loss of suitable habitat due to proximity 

to another, unsuitable habitat type. This can be due to predation from predators (such as hawks) that 

forage or hunt near a forested edge.

Fragmentation and edge effects pose more of a risk to habitat types and management areas that 

emphasize large, unbroken forests. For example, construction of a temporary road would present a 

larger impact in a Diverse Continuous Forest management area, which emphasizes habitat for forest 

interior species, than it would in the Forest and Shrubland Mosaic management area, which emphasizes 

abundant, small openings and breaks in the forest canopy. Any proposed oil and gas activity in a 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 98 

managed wildlife opening would be subject to additional conditions of approval (at the APD stage) by 

the Forest Service in order to protect the particular management objectives of the managed opening.

Following is a discussion of potential effects from reasonably foreseeable mineral development to the 

habitat indicator types identified in Section 3.3.1 of this EA. 

4.3.2. Oak-hickory forest

In general, potential future mineral development could result in some loss of oak-hickory forest. 

Development in a forested area such as oak-hickory forest would result in longer-term impacts than 

development in an area dominated by herbaceous vegetation. This is because forest vegetation takes 

longer to replace than grasses and wildflowers during reclamation. However, periodic disturbance is 

necessary for the propagation of oaks. For this reason, any future construction that results in clearing a 

portion of oak-hickory forest would not necessarily result in a negative impact to the forest as a whole. 

The 2006 Forest Plan goal for herbaceous or shrubby habitat in the Diverse Continuous Forest 

Management Area is 2 to 4%; an APD may not be approved that threatens to create open habitat in 

excess of that goal. Likewise, the Forest and Shrubland Mosaic management area in the Marietta Unit is 

intended to contain openings in the forest canopy for diverse wildlife and to ensure the long-term 

health of the oak-hickory ecosystem. Therefore, vegetation loss associated with potential future oil and 

gas development would not be expected to adversely affect the sustainability of oak-hickory forest areas 

in the Marietta Unit overall. 

4.3.3. Pine forest

Impacts to pine forests would be similar to the impacts described above for oak-hickory forests. In 

locations where the Forest Service has determined that openings are beneficial for wildlife populations, 

clearing for development may enhance habitat and species diversity or benefit a particular target 

wildlife species. In areas where more permanent openings are not a goal of the Forest Service, the 

impact from clearing would not last as long as it would in a hardwood community. This is because pines 

are relatively fast-growing, enabling pines to reinvade openings where desired by land managers.

4.3.4. Early-successional habitat

Land cleared for future oil and gas development would result in an increased amount of earlysuccessional habitat. If early-successional habitat is cleared for roads or well pads, then the vegetation 

and plant structure that were removed would take less time to recover upon reclamation than would 

forest habitat, since the vegetation in early-successional habitat consists of grasses, forbs, and young 

shrubs and trees. The private lands in the Marietta Unit contain more early-successional habitat, 

although each individual landowner may have different goals for that habitat and may impose different 

restrictions on an oil and gas operator regarding land clearing and reclamation.

4.3.5. Mature interior forest

Some future oil and gas development would likely occur within mature interior forest areas, including 

the Diverse Continuous Forest management area and a smaller block of Future Old Forest with Mineral 

Development. This management area does have a target proportion of open habitat and contains 160 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 99 

acres of managed openings. Development in this area may create new openings and/or hold existing 

openings longer in an open condition. Since the desired outcome for this management area is some 

component of oaks, which require disturbances such as timber removal, some clearing in this 

management area may be desirable. Even if all the projected future mineral development were to occur 

on the Marietta Unit within this management area, the total area of disturbance would not exceed the 

WNF management goal for this area.

Cerulean warbler, the indicator species for this habitat type, is a Regional Forester Sensitive Species and, 

as such, is protected by a controlled-surface-use stipulation.

The amount of land that these projects would alter is very small in relation to the total acreage of the 

WNF. Therefore, these projects would not have a major effect on efforts to restore and maintain an oak 

ecosystem on the Forest. As described above, fragmentation and edge effects have greater implications 

in a mature interior forest than in oak-hickory forests or early-successional habitat, which depend on 

periodic disturbance. In a mature interior forest, the loss of a few acres of canopy can result in the loss 

of suitability of hundreds of acres of habitat for a wildlife species, such as Cerulean warbler, that 

depends on the presence of large blocks of unbroken forest.

4.3.6. Mature, riparian forest/headwater streams

As discussed in the 2006 Forest Plan, riparian areas and floodplains are protected in the 2006 Forest 

Plan by a controlled-surface-use stipulation, which enables the Forest Service to protect certain critical 

elements of those areas. Stipulations #15 and #16 allow the Forest Service to set additional conditions 

of approval on proposed development in riparian areas and floodplains. These stipulations are expected 

to protect the habitat of the Louisiana waterthrush. Other potential impacts to this species, which may 

be due to water quality impacts, are addressed in the relevant sections. Development on private lands 

in floodplains and adjacent to streams would be subject to State and federal laws protecting wetlands 

and floodplains.

4.3.7. Grassland habitat

Development in a grassland area would have less durable impact on vegetative structure than would 

development in a forest, since grassland vegetation can be restored to preconstruction conditions more 

quickly than woody vegetation. Since the Marietta Unit contains less abundant grassland habitat than 

the rest of the forest, and since most management areas are managed to include some component of 

open habitat, it is possible that the Forest Service may choose to have a cleared area restored with 

grassland species even if it is originally woodland, which would assist in the Forest Service in obtaining 

its desired component of open habitat. Stipulation #14 enables the Forest Service to protect managed 

openings.

4.3.8. Species of viability concern

4.3.8.1. Federally endangered or threatened species

The Forest Service consulted with the USFWS under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act for the 

2006 Forest Plan, and the BLM was a cooperating agency in developing the 2006 Forest Plan and EIS. As 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 100 

part of this consultation, the USFWS issued a Biological Opinion (BO) on November 22, 2005. The BO 

provided a tiered approach to the Section 7 consultation. The programmatic BO (Tier I) covers all the 

activities described in the 2006 Forest Plan described in the 2006 Forest Plan and EIS at a programmatic, 

non-site-specific level. Because the BLM was a cooperating agency in the 2006 Forest Plan and EIS, the 

consultation conducted with respect to the 2006 Forest Plan and EIS applies to the Proposed Action 

analyzed in this EA.

Also, as part of the 2012 SIR, the Forest Service reviewed new information related to hydraulic fracturing 

and whether there could be additional effects to threatened and endangered species that had not been 

previously analyzed in the 2006 Forest Plan and EIS. The Forest Service and the USFWS concluded that 

no further analysis or consultation was needed and that the consultation conducted under the 2006 

Forest Plan and EIS was still valid.

However, the northern long-eared bat was not listed at the time of the 2006 Forest Plan’s development; 

therefore the 2016 USFWS BO for the northern long-eared bat was used. The Forest Service activities 

fall under the 4(d) rule that exempts incidental take of northern long-eared bat, provided those activities 

adhere to certain, basic conservation measures to protect hibernacula and roost trees (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 2016).

Following is a discussion of potential impacts to federally listed species. As noted throughout this EA, 

leasing is an administrative action and would not result in impacts to species; however, there may be 

impacts associated with potential future mineral development. Should the leases be issued and a 

specific plan of development proposed, additional site-specific NEPA analysis would be conducted 

including required ESA Section 7 consultation and/or surveys. Any new information pertaining to 

threatened or endangered species that arises before an APD is submitted would be considered at the 

APD stage, as specified in Notification #3 in Chapter 5 of this EA. The Forest Service would require the 

use of closed-loop systems (i.e., tanks instead of open pits) for containing drilling and completion fluids, 

which would remove the risk of animals ingesting toxic fluids or becoming entangled in nets over open 

pits (2012 SIR, p. 47).

4.3.8.1.1. Indiana bat

The Forest Service determined that oil and gas activities are likely to adversely affect Indiana bat (2006 

Forest Plan Final EIS, p. F1-58). However, the USFWS determined that the 2006 Forest Plan’s activities 

are not likely to jeopardize the Indiana bat’s continued existence (BO, p. 75), and potential negative 

impacts to individual bats are not expected to have measurable negative impacts on colonies or discrete 

populations. Based on this finding, the USFWS issued an incidental take permit that applies to activities 

conducted pursuant to the 2006 Forest Plan, including oil and gas activities.

4.3.8.1.2. Northern long-eared bat

It is possible that tree removal may result in impacts to individual northern long-eared bats. This risk is 

minimized by the application of lease stipulations designed to protect Indiana bat. The stipulations that 

pertain to oil and gas leasing on the Wayne National Forest are more restrictive than the requirements 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 101 

provided in the Fish and Wildlife Service’s 4(d) rule for northern long-eared bat, and any incidental take 

of northern long-eared bat would comply with the exemption provided by the 2016 4(d) rule. The 4(d) 

rule exempts take from tree-removal activities that take place more than one-quarter mile from a 

known hibernaculum, and it exempts tree removal outside of the pup season (June 1 - July 31). There 

are no known bat hibernacula on the Marietta Unit. 

4.3.8.1.3. American burying beetle

Potential future oil and gas activities on the Marietta Unit would have no effect on burying beetle 

because the species is most likely not present on the Marietta Unit. Stipulations requiring preconstruction habitat surveys, minimal disturbance, and prompt reclamation would further reduce the 

potential for suitable habitat to be degraded.

4.3.8.1.4. Freshwater mussels

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concurred with the Forest Service on November 22, 2005, that forest 

activities proposed in the 2006 Forest Plan are not likely to adversely affect fanshell and pink mucket 

pearly mussel (BO, p. 6). On April 12, 2012, USFWS concurred with the Forest Service determination 

that forest activities would have no effect on sheepnose and snuffbox (2012 SIR, Appendix G), and 

therefore the 2006 Plan was sufficient to account for the possible affected species.

4.3.8.1.5. Northern monkshood, small whorled pogonia, and Virginia spirea

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service agreed with the Forest Service on November 22, 2005, that forest 

activities proposed in the 2006 Forest Plan are not likely to adversely affect Northern monkshood, small 

whorled pogonia, and Virginia spirea (BO, p. 8).

4.3.8.1.6. Running buffalo clover

The only known populations of running buffalo clover are located outside of the Marietta Unit in 

Lawrence and Vinton Counties. The Proposed Action would have no effect on this species.

4.3.8.2. Regional forester sensitive species

The BE for the 2006 Forest Plan details that oil and gas activities have the potential to impact water 

quality, which may therefore impact aquatic species (mussels, aquatic insects, amphibians, and fishes). 

Water quality impacts may affect also bats and other mammals that drink from contaminated water 

sources or bald eagles that hunt from them. Such impacts to bald eagles are unlikely, since eagles in the 

area likely hunt from large waterways, where the volume of water would quickly dilute minor spills that 

may occur from potential future oil and gas activities. Water quality impacts in general are mitigated by 

no-surface-occupancy stipulations pertaining to steep slopes, controlled-surface-use stipulations 

pertaining to riparian areas and floodplains, and berms around stored fluids. Oil and gas activities may 

impact terrestrial species through conversion of habitat to more open conditions, in the case of species 

that require closed canopies. Stipulation #13 in Chapter 5 of this EA enables the Forest Service to 

protect known locations of Regional Forester Sensitive Species.

The BE concluded that the alternatives considered in the 2006 Forest Plan and EIS would potentially 

impact individuals of the species considered but would not negatively impact them to the point of 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 102 

reducing their viability or moving their populations in the direction of needing protection under the 

Endangered Species Act. The BE extended this conclusion to the species that had not yet been 

designated as Regional Forester Sensitive Species, since those species had been proposed for listing and 

were analyzed in the BE.

4.3.9. Species of public interest

4.3.9.1. Whitetail deer

The 2006 Forest Plan identifies the long-term management of oak-dominated stands, which provide 

abundant food for deer, and management for early-successional habitat types, which provide cover. Oil 

and gas activities may affect local deer populations for the duration of construction by scaring deer 

away. Habitat modifications would likely have little effect on deer populations overall, since deer are 

highly adaptable to human presence on the landscape.

4.3.9.2. Wild American ginseng

Ginseng harvests across Ohio declined significantly in the decade leading up to the 2006 Forest Plan, and 

overharvesting is considered the greatest threat to the species. The WNF requires collectors to obtain 

an annual permit, which allows the collection of up to one pound, dry weight, of ginseng. Future 

construction from oil and gas development in wooded areas may destroy American ginseng plants or 

convert shady habitats to open habitats, but population effects are expected to be minimal.

4.3.10. Non-native, invasive species

Construction of roads, well pads, pipelines, and other structures associated with potential future oil and 

gas development can spread invasive species and/or noxious weeds in two general ways. First, 

increased vehicle traffic may carry seeds, plant parts, or other live organisms that may become 

established within the proposed lease area. This could introduce new species from outside the 

proposed lease area, and could result in them spreading from one area to another. The risk of such 

propagation may be estimated in terms of the area disturbed, the volume of vehicle traffic, and the 

presence of invasive species in locations along the routes that traffic uses on the way to and within the 

Marietta Unit. While it would be unreasonable to attempt to quantify the last two variables without 

site-specific analysis, this analysis considers various scenarios of infestation. Areas that are disturbed by 

well pads or other development would be susceptible to direct infestation by non-native, invasive plant 

species that thrive in disturbed conditions. However, many of these species are able to propagate into 

undisturbed areas, and large areas of otherwise intact habitat could be infested by plants that are 

introduced into the Marietta Unit on equipment and vehicles. Therefore, it is possible that far more 

than the directly-disturbed area of land could be infested by non-native, invasive plant species as a 

result of the initial disturbance.

The second way that oil and gas development may result in the propagation of invasive species is by 

creating open corridors and forest edges that are highly susceptible to edge-loving species. Where the 

forest canopy is broken, invasive species that thrive in sunny conditions may be introduced into the 

newly cleared area and quickly populate areas of disturbed soil.
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 103 

4.3.10.1. Possible Future Best Management Practices, Standard Operating Procedures, 

and/or Mitigation Measures

The Forest Service and the BLM will require operators to reclaim disturbed areas as soon as they are no 

longer necessary, which will reduce the area of disturbed soil remaining after construction, and the BLM 

requires an operator using private land to have a land use agreement with the private owner, which may 

detail minimum reclamation requirements. Likewise, operators will be required to submit a drilling and 

operations plan before an APD is approved, and these plans will be used to ensure that areas that are 

highly prone to invasion by non-native, invasive species are avoided to the extent practicable. Finally, 

the stipulations that restrict development on steep slopes will minimize soil erosion, thereby minimizing 

the area of disturbed soil and the consequent vulnerability to invasion that disturbed soils present.

4.4. Geology and Minerals

4.4.1. Geology

There would be no direct geologic effects from issuing new oil and gas leases because leasing does not 

directly authorize oil and gas exploration and development activities. However, potential geologic 

hazards may result from future development and production operations. Induced seismic activity, 

seismic events attributable to human activities, may include landslides or earthquakes. Landslides 

involve the mass movement of earth materials down slopes and can include debris flows, soil creep and 

slumping of large blocks of material. Earthquakes occur when energy is released due to blocks of the 

earth’s crust moving along areas of weakness of faults. 

A study conducted by the National Academy of Sciences examined the issue of induced seismic activity 

from energy development. As a result of the study, they found that: (1) the process of hydraulic 

fracturing a well as presently implemented for shale gas recovery does not pose a high risk for inducing 

felt seismic events; and (2) injection for disposal of wastewater derived from energy technologies into 

the subsurface does pose some risk for induced seismicity, but very few events have been documented 

over the past several decades relative to the large number of disposal wells in operation (National 

Academy of Sciences, 2012).

On April 11, 2012, the Deputy Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior, David Hayes, 

stated that scientists have been investigating the recent increase in the number of earthquakes in the 

United States to determine whether there is scientific evidence of a link between unconventional oil and 

gas production and seismic activity. The preliminary findings did not suggest that HF caused the 

increased rate of earthquakes. Instead, “at some locations the increase in seismicity coincides[d] with 

the injection of wastewater in deep disposal wells” (Hayes, D. J., 2012).

4.4.2. Minerals

There would be no direct impacts to minerals from the Proposed Action, since there would be no 

surface disturbing activities at this stage; however, subsequent exploration and oil and gas development 

could impact the production horizons and reservoir pressures. If production wells are established, the 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 104 

resources allotted to the wells would eventually be depleted. There could also be impacts to other 

mineral resources as a result of exploration/development through the loss of available surface or 

subsurface area needed to develop or access the other mineral resource overlapping the subject lease 

parcel. The extent of the impacts to mineral resources, if any, would be further determined once sitespecific development information is available at the APD stage. 

4.4.3. Possible Future Best Management Practices, Standard Operating Procedures, 

and/or Mitigation Measures

The ODNR now requires operators drilling within three miles of a known fault or area of seismic activity 

greater than 2.0 to install seismometers. If seismic activity above 1.0 is detected, work must pause 

while the seismic activity is investigated, and work must stop if the investigation reveals a probable 

connection to the drilling operation. This regulation would affect drilling primarily in the southern half 

of the Marietta Unit, since the known and inferred faults and seismic areas are generally in Washington 

County or near the Washington-Monroe County line (Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 2014). 

Before HF takes place, all casings from the surface to the bottom of the well bore are cemented and the 

mechanical integrity of the well is tested. The cemented well is pressure tested to ensure there are no 

leaks and a cement bond log is run to ensure the cement has bonded to the casing and the formation. If 

the fracturing of the well is considered to be a “non-routine” fracture for the area, the BLM would be 

onsite during those operations as well as when abnormal conditions develop during the drilling or 

completion of a well.

4.5. Soils

While the act of leasing federal minerals would not affect soils, subsequent exploration/development 

may produce short and long term impacts by physically disturbing the topsoil and exposing the 

substratum soil on subsequent Marietta Units. Direct impacts resulting from reasonably foreseeable oil 

and gas construction of well pads, access roads, and reserve pits include removal of vegetation, 

exposure of the soil, mixing of horizons, compaction, loss of top soil productivity and susceptibility to 

wind and water erosion where construction of these facilities are necessary. 

Indirect impacts from reasonably foreseeable development such as runoff, erosion and off-site 

sedimentation could result from construction and operation of well sites, access roads, gas pipelines and 

facilities. Contamination of soil from drilling/completion and production wastes mixed into soil or 

spilled on the soil surfaces could cause a long-term reduction in site productivity if not adequately 

identified and addressed. Contaminated soil could also potentially affect nearby surface waters if not 

properly contained. Some of these impacts can be reduced or avoided through proper design, 

construction and maintenance, and implementation of best management practices. Additionally, 

reclamation would restore soil conditions where they had previously been disturbed, thus lessening 

some of the potential longer term effects. 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 105 

4.5.1. Possible Future Best Management Practices, Standard Operating Procedures, 

and/or Mitigation Measures

The 2006 Forest Plan and EIS directly addresses soil concerns and mitigations in many different sections 

including Watershed, Aquatic and Riparian Resources, Scenic Management, Minerals and Geology and 

Transportation. A notification and three stipulations notify potential lessees at the leasing stage to the 

presence of slopes and/or unstable soils that may result in limited surface occupancy on the lease 

parcels.

All State of Ohio regulations related to mitigating soil impacts would also apply at the site-specific level 

for horizontal drilling and fracturing operations. Many of the stipulations are in the Ohio Revised Code, 

as well as the ODNR manual of “Best Management Practices for Oil and Gas Well Site Construction”. 

Provisions in the manual are incorporated into a state-issued permit as terms and conditions of the 

permit.

4.6. Water Resources and Water Quality

4.6.1. Surface water

4.6.1.1. Surface water quality

While the act of leasing federal minerals would produce no impacts to surface water quality, subsequent 

exploration and development of the lease parcels have the potential to produce impacts. The potential 

effects to surface water from reasonably foreseeable mineral development include sediment loading of 

stream channels due to the erosion associated with site development or operational transport and 

introduction of pollutants, toxic chemicals, sediment or debris, via spills and releases to surface water 

from oil/produced water treatment, storage tanks, handling and sanitary facilities or oil/produced water 

transportation mediums (trucks or pipelines). The magnitude of these impacts to surface water quality 

would depend on the proximity of the disturbance to the drainage channel, slope aspect and gradient, 

degree and area of soil disturbance, soil character, duration and time within which construction activity 

would occur, and the timely implementation of mitigation measures. 

Risks to surface water quality would be reduced by requiring contaminated water to be stored in tanks 

rather than in open pits, which would reduce the likelihood of a spill and contain the maximum likely 

volume of a spill to a single tank’s capacity. Per SFW-MIN-3, the Forest Service requires operators to 

“conduct activities and maintain equipment to prevent the discharge of oil or brine onto the ground or 

into surface waters.” Stipulations restricting oil and gas development on steep slopes (U.S. Forest 

Service, 2012, pp. 6 and 8) and restricting oil and gas development in floodplains or riparian areas (U.S. 

Forest Service, 2012, pp. 7-8) would further reduce the likelihood of a spill reaching surface waters.

4.6.1.2. Surface water quantity

Drilling and completion operations use anywhere from 4,000,000-8,000,000 gallons per well. Because 

HF technology is continuously evolving it is difficult to isolate an exact quantity of water that would be 

needed. There is likely not enough surface water in the Marietta Unit for water to be withdrawn and 

used so HF water would either need to be brought into the area or potentially withdrawn from the Ohio 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 106 

River, although a local waterway may be used if it is determined to be an appropriate water source. 

Water withdrawals of an average of more than two million gallons per day in any thirty-day period have 

to be registered with the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water Resources (Ohio 

Department of Natural Resources, 2016). The BLM and Forest Service would not approve water 

withdrawals that would draw down a surface waterbody to the extent that aquatic life would be 

measurably adversely impacted, for example, by dewatering a stream enough to entrap fish or expose 

mussels to dry conditions in a stream that would normally have perennial flow.

4.6.2. Groundwater

4.6.2.1. Groundwater quantity

Local aquifers (within the Marietta Unit) do not yield sufficient water to support industrial activities 

within the Marietta Unit. Therefore, the likelihood that the proposed leasing action and potential future 

mineral development would affect groundwater quantity is negligible. 

4.6.2.2. Groundwater quality

Future mineral development activities would pose some risk of accidental spills of drilling fluids, 

produced water, and other chemicals (see also Section 4.7, Wastes, Hazardous or Solid). This risk would 

be minimized by the requirement, described in the 2012 SIR, for operators to use tanks, instead of open 

pits, to hold all fluids other than fresh water. Since tanks are smaller than typical open pits, a spill from 

a tank would produce less of a hazard than an accidental discharge from a pit.

The only areas where a spill would pose an unacceptable risk to groundwater quality are designated 

wellhead protection areas or certain locations within the Ohio River and Little Muskingum River 

floodplains (Thompson, 2012). Other locations throughout the Marietta Unit tend to have low 

groundwater pollution potential due to low hydraulic conductivity and depths of groundwater (around 

200 feet or less from the surface).

Drilling to a production zone that is below a potable water-bearing formation poses the risk of allowing 

brine and other chemicals to migrate up into a potable water zone. This risk is mitigated in federal wells 

by casing and cementing requirements in Onshore Oil and Gas Order Number 2. The Ohio DNR, Division 

of Oil and Gas Resources Management (DOGRM) also requires cementing and casing in all wells as well 

as sampling of all water wells within 1,500 of a proposed horizontal well prior to a permit being issued. 

Also, preexisting orphaned wells could be in the area. However, the DOGRM addresses these types of 

situations in the permitting process, and federal lessees are liable to plug and abandon orphan wells on 

their leases.

The potential for fluids to migrate from the hydraulic fracture zone is considered very low, because of 

the thousands of feet separating the likely production formations, which mainly consist of rocks of very 

low permeability, such as shale. As noted in the 2012 SIR, BLM and DOGRM are required to be notified 

in advance of drilling and, in most cases, to have inspectors onsite at the time of drilling. Operators are 

required to submit cementing logs. Further, if the DOGRM suspects that the cementing is insufficient, 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 107 

the inspector may require the operator to conduct cement tests, and well stimulation is not permitted 

to take place until cementing passes inspection testing.

The Ohio Department of Natural Resources permits the construction of new underground injection wells 

or conversion of existing wells to injection wells. The risk of groundwater contamination through this 

method of disposal is minimized by the regulations pertaining to underground injection wells. The 

ODNR defines an area for review, the area to be analyzed before the permit is approved, typically as the 

area within a one-quarter mile or one-half mile radius of the well, depending on the volume to be 

injected, per Ohio Administrative Code 1501:9-3-06.

4.6.2.3. Riparian areas

As detailed in the Plant and Animal Habitat and Populations section previously, stipulations #15 and 

#16 establish protections for riparian area and floodplain function. These same stipulations are 

designed to protect the functions of riparian areas and floodplains in regulating water flows, capturing 

sediment, and recharging aquifers. Therefore, adverse impacts to riparian areas are not anticipated as a 

result of reasonably foreseeable mineral development activities.

4.7. Wastes, Hazardous or Solid

Though the Proposed Action of leasing would not create or produce wastes, subsequent reasonably 

foreseeable actions related to oil and gas exploration and development would typically generate the 

following wastes, (1) discharge of drilling fluids and cuttings into the tanks on location; (2) wastes 

generated from used lubrication oils, hydraulic fluids, and other fluids used during production of oil and 

gas, some of which may be characteristic or listed hazardous waste; and (3) service company wastes 

from exploration and production activities as well as containment of some general trash. Generation of 

wastes could result in the need for additional landfill space, disposal sites, and injection wells. Certain 

wastes unique to the exploration, development, and production of crude oil and natural gas have been 

exempted from Federal Regulations as hazardous waste under Subtitle C of the RCRA of 1976. The 

exempt waste must be intrinsic to exploration, development or production activities and cannot be 

generated as part of a transportation or manufacturing operation. The drilling fluids, drill cuttings, and 

produced waters are classified as a RCRA exempt waste, and potential drilling that could occur would 

not introduce hazardous substances into the environment if they are managed and disposed of properly 

under federal, state, and local waste management regulations and guidelines. Properly used, stored, 

and disposed of hazardous and non-hazardous substances greatly decreases the potential for any impact 

on any environmental resources. One way operators and the BLM ensure hazardous and non-hazardous 

substances are properly managed is through the preparation of a Spill Prevention, Control, and 

Countermeasure (SPCC) plan. 

After the fracturing procedure is complete, 15% to 80% of the fluid returns to the surface as waste 

water (Throupe, Simons, & Mao, 2013). In hydraulic fracturing, chemical substances other than water 

make up a small percentage of the fluid composition; however, the very large volumes used require 

correspondingly large volumes of a variety of compounds. These substances range from the relatively 

benign to the highly toxic at certain concentrations. In addition to these added chemicals, naturally 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 108 

occurring toxicants such as heavy metals, volatile organics, and radioactive compounds are mobilized 

during extraction and return to the surface with the produced water. Although the risk is low, the 

potential exists for unplanned releases that could have effects on human health and environment. A 

number of chemical additives are used that could be hazardous, but are safe when handled properly 

through adherence to chemical safety procedures and long-standing industry practices. In addition, 

many of these additives are common chemicals which people regularly encounter in everyday life 

(Ground Water Protection Council & ALL Consulting, 2009).

Surface spills of drilling mud and additives, hydraulic fracturing fluids and additives, flowback water, and 

other produced water can happen at a variety of points in the development and production phases. 

Spills that occur can span a range of different spill sizes and causes of failure at any point in the process. 

For example, small spills often happen as the result of poor pipe connections or leaks; large spills 

sometimes occur as the result of a major well blowout, but such blowouts rarely occur. Additionally, 

spills from some parts of the phases may be the result of human error (i.e. vehicle collisions, improper 

handling, improper equipment operation or installation, etc.), while others could stem from equipment 

failure (i.e. broken pipes, torn pit liners, leading tanks, etc.) or acts of nature. The most common cause 

of spills comes from equipment failure and corrosion (Wenzel, 2012).

The cause of the spill, the spill size, the hazard rating of the spilled material, response time to clean up 

the spill and the effectiveness of the cleanup, all play a critical role in determining the overall impact on 

the environment. The volume of a spill can significantly vary with spill types. Pipe spills are not 

expected to release more than 1,000 gallons into the environment, truck spills are not expected to 

release more than 10,000 gallons of fluid, and blowouts are expected to cause the largest spills, with the 

potential to release tens of thousands of gallons into the environment. Small spills occur with greater 

frequency than large spills. Secondary containment or recovery for small spills would likely minimize, if 

not eliminate, any potential release into the environment. However, for spills on the order of several 

thousands of gallons of fluid, it is expected that less than half the fluid may be captured by secondary 

containment or recovery. The vast majority of operations do not incur reportable spills (5 gallons or 

more), indicating that the fluid management process can be, and usually is, managed safely and 

effectively (Fletcher, 2012).

4.7.1. Possible Future Best Management Practices, Standard Operating Procedures, 

and/or Mitigation Measures

If federal minerals are proposed for development in the future, an APD would be required and the BLM 

would conduct additional site-specific analysis of potential impacts from wastes. Specific mitigation is 

deferred to the APD process. The following measures to reduce adverse impacts from wastes are 

common to most projects: all trash would be placed in a portable trash cage and hauled to an approved 

landfill, with no burial or burning of trash permitted; chemical toilets would be provided for human 

waste; fresh water zones encountered during drilling operations would be isolated by using casing and 

cementing procedures; a berm or dike would enclose all production facilities if a well is productive; and 

wastes from all waste streams on site would be removed to an approved disposal site. Future mineral 

development activities would be regulated under the RCRA, Subtitle C regulations. Additionally, waste 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 109 

management requirements are included in the 12 point surface use plan and the 9 point drilling plan 

required for all APDs. Leaseholders proposing development would be required to have approved SPCC 

plans, if the applicable requirements of 40 CFR §112 are met, and comply with all requirements for 

reporting of undesirable events. Lease bonds would not be released until all facilities have been 

removed, wells are plugged, and satisfactory reclamation has occurred.

The BLM would apply Conditions of Approval (COAs) in conjunction with the Forest Service at the APD 

stage regarding handling and disposing of wastes based on what the operator proposes at that time.

4.8. Public Health and Safety

There would be no direct impacts to public health and safety from leasing, since leasing is an 

administrative action. Public health and safety considerations associated with potential future oil and 

gas development include effects from air emissions, potential exposure to contamination, and increased 

truck traffic. BLM acknowledges that if the leasing area was to be developed in the future, 

environmental hazards of exploration, production or extraction of oil and gas may produce some effects 

to public health or safety if not properly managed. For an environmental hazard to pose a risk to public 

health, a vulnerable human population must first come into contact or be exposed to the 

hazard. Therefore communities or workforce residing or working near the potential development sites 

may be at higher risk for accidental spills, fugitive emissions or releases of gas from a future well bore. 

The level of effect would depend on the product released or spilled, level of activity, density of 

development, technological and safety controls/regulations in place, and the receptors’ susceptibility to 

risk.

As of 2014, most studies addressing the public health implications of oil and gas development have been 

either predictive and/or descriptive hypothesis generating. The few analytic studies are preliminary and 

do not provide enough evidence to conclusively determine if oil and gas operations directly result in 

health effects in nearby populations. Existing studies have provided evidence that hazards are 

inherently present in and around oil and gas operations and populations can be exposed to these 

hazards if safety measures are not implemented. People living near oil and gas operations have 

reported that oil and gas operations affect their health and quality of life, particularly through traffic 

accidents, air and water pollution, and social disruption expressed as psychosocial stress (University of 

Colorado at Boulder, 2015). Some short term health effects reported by people living near oil and gas 

operations include irritation of the eyes, nose, throat, lungs or skin, or other symptoms like headache, 

dizziness or nausea and vomiting. Some also report sleep disturbance or anxiety associated with noise 

or light effects from mineral development activities. There is very little information about long term 

health effects in people living near oil and gas operations. The amount of scientific literature 

connections between oil and gas related exposures and a health effect is currently limited but is growing 

(Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), 2016).

One of the primary ways in which the public could be exposed to pollutants associated with potential 

future oil and gas operations is through the air. There is also the possibility of exposure through surface 

water, groundwater or soil, but this is much less likely under normal operating conditions due to the 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 110 

numerous safety protocols implemented by oil and gas operations (CDPHE, 2016). Numerous scientific 

studies have linked air pollution to a variety of health problems including: (1) respiratory and 

cardiovascular disease, (2) decreased lung function, (3) increased frequency and severity of respiratory 

symptoms such as difficulty breathing and coughing, (4) increased susceptibility to respiratory 

infections, (5) effects on the nervous system, including the brain, such as IQ loss and impacts on 

learning, memory, and behavior, (6) cancer, and (7) premature death. Sensitive individuals or those at 

high risk appear to be at even greater risk for air pollution-related health effects, for example, those 

with pre-existing heart and lung diseases (e.g., heart failure/ischemic heart disease, asthma, 

emphysema, and chronic bronchitis), diabetics, older adults, and children. Future mineral development 

operations within the Marietta Unit that would violate a state and/or federal air quality standard would 

not be approved. 

As discussed in Section 4.9 Transportation, Section 4.11 Noise, and Section 4.2.2 Visibility, future mineral 

development within the Marietta Unit would likely result in an increase in truck traffic, noise, and 

potential visual and light pollution effects. These sections of the EA discuss potential effects as well as 

best management practices, standard operating procedures, and potential mitigations for future oil and 

gas development activities. 

Through the NEPA process and adherence to federal, state, and local regulations, laws, permits and 

policy, as well as numerous safety standards and protocols, the BLM and Forest Service ensures that 

future oil and gas leasing operations would not compromise public health and safety. Additional sitespecific analysis on public health and safety will be conducted at the APD stage. 

4.9. Transportation

Leasing minerals within the WNF would not result in any direct impacts to the existing transportation 

network due to the administrative nature of the action; however, potential impacts to existing roads 

and traffic may occur from future mineral development. As discussed in Chapter 2 of this EA, the RFDS 

projects some additional roads may be needed to support future oil and gas development. Adequate 

access to a well can be provided by:

• Using existing roads, some of which may need upgrading;

• Constructing a new road; or/and

• A combination of both.

As previously discussed in Chapter 3, the WNF (including the Marietta Unit) already contains an 

established road network. Therefore, while some new roads would be needed, it is likely that new road 

construction to support potential future mineral development would not be extensive. The location of 

existing roads primarily dictates the need for additional construction for access to the drill pad. The 

closer the pad is to an existing road, the shorter the distance of the new construction. Existing roads 

may need to be improved to support heavy equipment associated with oil and gas development. 

Additional maintenance on existing roads may also be needed, as heavy equipment causes greater 

damage to a road compared to passenger vehicles or light trucks. The American Association of State 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 111 

Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) estimate that up to 91% of road damage is due to heavy 

over-the-road equipment. This is a concern on Forest Service roads and seasonal closures to this type of 

activity may be needed in some areas.

The effects to existing roads would differ between hot-mixed paved highways and gravel or other rock 

based material roads. Heavy vehicles may cause paved roads to crack, or deteriorate, especially along 

the edges of the narrower roadways. Gravel and dirt roads may be subject to the formation of ruts, 

potholes, and washboard effects. The level of impact is dependent upon the amount of activity, 

weather conditions during the activity and the level of road maintenance. The greatest effects would 

likely occur during the drilling and plugging phases of future oil and gas operations which usually require 

the use of heavy vehicles and equipment.

Future mineral development within the Marietta Unit would likely result in increased truck traffic to the 

area and potential collisions with wildlife crossing the roads, such as the whitetail deer. Effects to traffic 

patterns on the road system within the Forest may vary depending on the location(s) of the future 

well(s) and the time of day the roads are used. Increases in vehicle traffic associated with potential 

future mineral development could result in longer drive times for recreational visitors to the WNF or 

nearby residents. An increase in truck traffic may also increase the risk of potential traffic-related 

accidents. Such traffic may create dust on dirt roads, hampering wildlife viewing and degrading scenic 

views, while possibly disrupting normal activity patterns, such as hiking. The length and duration of 

disruption would depend on the amount of future exploration and drilling. After exploration and 

drilling, the vehicle traffic would decline but would still be subject to the occasional need for vehicle 

access to the well sites.

4.9.1. Possible Future Best Management Practices, Standard Operating Procedures, 

and/or Mitigation Measures

Although future mineral development would result in some impacts to the existing transportation 

network, adhering to required federal, state, and local laws and regulations (such as speed limits and 

safety standards for operating heavy vehicles) would minimize potential roadway and traffic impacts in 

the Marietta Unit. The Forest Service also addresses infrastructure activities and mitigations relating to 

traffic and roads from the oil and gas development in the 2006 Forest Plan and EIS and 2012 SIR (see 

page 77 in U.S. Forest Service, 2012).

4.10. Recreation

There would be no direct impacts from leasing, since there would be no ground disturbance at this 

stage. Subsequent mineral development, such as well construction, operation, and, eventually, 

abandonment would create noise and change views in ways that could make the area less attractive to 

people who desire solitude and natural surroundings.
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 112 

Reasonably foreseeable mineral development activities would also indirectly affect developed 

recreation sites and possibly increase travel time to such sites because of increased vehicle traffic during 

drilling. The noise from construction may drive away game animals.

Developed recreation areas and trails would be declared NSO and would not be affected by any ground 

disturbing activities; however, truck traffic, noise, and visual impacts can be expected. Vehicle traffic 

would increase during initial exploration activities, possibly resulting in longer drive times for forest 

visitors. Recreation sites within 0.28 miles of drilling activities would be temporarily affected by the 

noise. However, because of the dense forest in the general area, visual impacts from drilling are 

expected to be minimal. Most of the recreation sites within the Marietta Unit are either closed from 

December 15 through the winter or receive little visitation, meaning that the majority of effects to 

recreation would be limited primarily to late spring through early winter. 

Future exploration activities would also result in visual effects on recreational users. Vehicle traffic 

during this period would create dust on dirt roads, hampering wildlife viewing and degrading scenic 

views. The length and duration of disruption would depend on the amount of exploration and drilling. 

After exploration and drilling, the vehicle traffic would decline but would still be subject to the 

occasional support vehicle for the wells. 

Recreation on the WNF is expected to increase over the next few years. This is projected because of the 

increased retirement of the “Baby Boomer” generation and their increased leisure time, and because 

the population of southeastern Ohio has been increasing at a larger rate than the rest of the state 

(Arbogast, 2004). Recreation contributes to the local economy in the form of gas being bought by 

recreationists, lodging, camping fees, restaurants, outfitters, outdoor stores, OHV suppliers and other 

retail and service centers which cater to outdoor recreation. Vendors in the 12 counties of 

southeastern Ohio also purchase a disproportionately high number of nonresident hunting licenses 

(Arbogast, 2004). 

According to a socioeconomic review created by the Forest Service in 2004 in preparation for the 2006 

Forest Plan (Arbogast, 2004), after hunting, OHV use and mountain biking tend to be the recreational 

uses which contribute most to the local economy. However, day use such as sightseeing or nature 

watching, hiking, boating, and fishing tend to be the most common recreational activities on the WNF. 

Noise and visual effects caused by future exploration are expected to have temporary effects on all of 

these activities, and it can be expected that money contributed to the local economy through recreation 

would decline during the initial exploration and drilling phase, but how much, and the duration, would 

depend on the amount of time and the amount of exploration being conducted. However, long term 

impacts to recreation and tourist dollars should be nonexistent to minimal since future construction 

associated with mineral development would be located outside of developed recreation areas. 

This analysis does not consider the recreational values of private lands that may be located within the 

boundary of the WNF. Private lands indeed provide recreational opportunities, and sometimes these 

opportunities may be available to the public, since some state-sponsored land management programs 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 113 

require participants to permit public use of their lands. Recreational values of private lands would be 

considered in future NEPA analysis evaluating an APD, since it would be more reasonable to assess such 

values on a site-specific basis.

4.10.1. Possible Future Best Management Practices, Standard Operating 

Procedures, and/or Mitigation Measures

If future development occurs, the BLM, in consultation with the Ohio DNR, WNF, operators, and other 

parties, would seek to minimize auditory or visual impacts on recreational resources through simple, 

reasonable measures, such as restricting construction to certain times of year or requiring the 

preservation of plants that provide visual screening.

4.11. Noise

There would be no direct noise impacts from leasing, since there would be no ground disturbance at this 

stage. However, subsequent mineral development activities could generate noise in a way that could 

make some areas less attractive to people who desire solitude and natural surroundings. Noise impacts 

on wildlife may also occur as a result of reasonably foreseeable mineral development activities such as 

construction and increased truck traffic. Noise may cause wildlife to relocate and may displace 

migratory birds or other species residing or passing through the area. The BLM will conduct additional 

detailed analysis on potential noise impacts once specific development details are known at the APD 

stage. 

Noise management continues to be an ongoing challenge for the shale oil and gas sector. While many of 

the noise impacts associated with shale play surface operations are relatively temporary in nature, 

neighbors, communities, and recreational users who have been accustomed to the quietude of the rural

landscape may be intolerant of even temporary intrusions. Noise that is generated by construction or 

operation, however, is naturally damped as it travels through the environment. The nature of the 

environment through which noise travels, such as open air, buildings, or forest, determines the rate at 

which noise is damped.

Noise impacts on certain user groups would likely vary throughout the year. For example, most of the 

recreation sites within the Marietta Unit are either closed from December 15 through the winter or 

receive little visitation, meaning that the majority of effects to recreation, due to noise, could be limited 

primarily to late spring through early winter. Hunters would also likely be affected only during certain 

times of the year due to specific hunting seasons for certain game animals. This is why the time of year 

of construction and the length and duration of the operations could have a critical effect on the 

magnitude of the potential disruption.

Horizontal drilling operations may cause more noise impacts than conventional drilling. When 

describing drilling operations the 2006 Forest Plan EIS states: “Since drilling is a continuous operation 

until the total depth of the well is reached, the engine noise from the rig are evident throughout the day 

and night. It takes a rotary rig about 3 to 5 days to drill a typical well on the WNF” (2006 Forest Plan EIS 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 114 

Appendix G, p G-6). One study conducted found that many bird types were significantly less dense in 

noisy areas vs. non-noisy areas, and that removing this excessive sound could help conserve high-quality 

habitat for birds in the region (Bayne, et al., 2008). Other studies on periodic but intense noise 

disturbances have concurred with this assessment, finding that animals tend to abandon areas where 

anthropogenic noise is occurring and return only after the noise is dissipated (Bayne, et al., 2008). This 

implies that noise generated by fracking processes could have the capacity to influence habitat quality in 

surrounding ecosystems, which could adversely affect the rest of the ecosystem (Bayne et al., 2008).

4.11.1. Possible Future Best Management Practices, Standard Operating 

Procedures, and/or Mitigation Measures

There are various measures that can be used to minimize the potential impacts of noise, such as using 

mufflers on equipment, taking advantage of topography when siting roads and other facilities, and using 

sound barriers. In addition, various notifications and stipulations may apply for noise control, for 

example, to coincide with periods when impacts to wildlife species would be the lowest, or to utilize 

specific noise dampening technologies. Also, the WNF can include measures related to muffling of noise 

if the well site is located in close proximity to private homes and/or populated areas or to or their 

habitat. Furthermore, the WNF can strive to schedule mechanized activities along travel ways, use 

areas, and water bodies to occur during low-use periods to alleviate noise and visual impacts.

4.12. Cultural Resources/Paleontology

There would be no direct impacts to cultural resources/paleontology as a result of leasing as there 

would be no surface disturbance at this stage. Direct and indirect impacts from reasonably foreseeable 

future oil and gas development may occur to cultural resources if there is ground disturbance. Any 

known archeological sites within the leasing area, however, would be avoided and declared NSO to the 

extent possible in accordance with BLM and Forest Service policy. If development is proposed, the 

Forest Service, as the surface land manager, would conduct site-specific Section 106 compliance 

measures including surveys, records search, and the appropriate Tribal and SHPO consultation prior to 

any ground disturbing activities. 

The BLM initiated consultation with the Ohio SHPO under Section 106 of the NHPA, by letter dated 

November 16, 2015; to date, the SHPO has not responded to the letter, indicating that they have found 

no adverse effects on historic properties within the scope of the Proposed Action. Further consultation 

will take place at the APD phase prior to ground disturbing activities.

4.13. Native American Religious Concerns

There would be no direct impacts to Native American Religious interests as a result of leasing as there 

would be no surface disturbance at this stage. On November 6, 2015, the BLM sent certified letters to 

seven federally recognized tribes who have a known connection to the area notifying them of the 

Proposed Action and asking to identify any concerns with respect to the Proposed Action. The BLM 

received no responses to these letters; therefore, no concerns were identified.
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 115 

As discussed above under Section 4.8, the Forest Service, as surface land manager, would conduct the 

appropriate consultations and site-specific surveys, as needed, prior to any ground disturbing activities. 

4.14. Visual Resources/Scenic Quality

There would be no direct impacts on visual resources or scenic quality as a result of leasing as there 

would be no surface disturbance at this stage; however, subsequent mineral development could result 

in impacts. Should a lease result from this action a lessee would have to submit an APD and any 

pertinent rights-of-way (ROW) requests and receive approval. Should mineral development occur, land 

may be cleared for roads, pipelines, lightened areas and well pads that could create visual impacts to 

surrounding private land owners, passersby, recreational, and cultural/historic users. Upon receiving an 

APD/ROW, more site-specific NEPA would be required to analyze the impacts of the scenic quality in 

accordance with the most recent version of the 2006 Forest Plan. This analysis would determine any 

site-specific mitigation measures to be placed on the application which could include moving the 

proposed location, low profile tanks, paint color, 3D modeling or various other measures to meet the 

SIO objectives where development is allowed. Upon completion of drilling and completion operations 

the well pad, pipeline and any areas not necessary for production would be placed into interim 

reclamation further reducing the footprint and visual impacts of the location. While there may be some 

long-term residual effects to visual resources/scenic quality even after reclamation, those impacts would 

be considered negligible or minor. See Chapter 5 of this EA for a more detailed list of potential 

stipulations that would be applied upon receipt of an EOI. 

4.14.1. Possible Future Best Management Practices, Standard Operating 

Procedures, and/or Mitigation Measures 

As discussed above, further site-specific NEPA analysis would be conducted at the APD stage, if 

development is proposed. The Forest Service will evaluate each parcel proposed and apply the 

appropriate lease stipulations depending on the SIO rating and resources, including the viewshed, of the 

area. More site-specific mitigation measures, if needed, will be developed at the APD level.

4.15. Socioeconomics

4.15.1. Economic stimulation from potential future construction and drilling 

activity

The direct effect of leasing would be the payments received, if any, from the leasing of the proposed 

parcels in the WNF. There would also be various effects from potential future mineral development 

activities. This analysis draws from studies on economic stimulus from development of the Utica Shale 

because most current drilling activity is in the Utica Shale and because economic studies on shale 

development are readily available. Impacts to economic activity from future mineral development may 

be divided into the following three principal types of impact (Thomas, et al., 2012):

1. Additional drilling stimulates oil and gas businesses to do more business, including hiring 

additional people and contractors and purchasing more equipment. This is a direct effect.
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 116 

2. Additional contractors hire suppliers, and heightened business activity may stimulate new 

entrants into an industry or new companies moving into a local market from another area. This 

is an indirect effect.

3. Laborers who have moved into a community demand housing, food, haircuts, entertainment, 

etc., and laborers who have just gotten a promotion or a new job have additional income on 

hand to spend on all of these things. This effect is a kind of indirect effect that economists call 

induced effects.

These effects can be quantified by measuring additional business revenues and profits, numbers of jobs 

created, workers’ incomes, and taxes collected (Thomas et al., 2012). All of these effects and variables 

are difficult to collect, process, and interpret over a complex regional economy. For example, if the 

number of jobs created by oil and gas activities were known, it cannot be assumed that all of those jobs 

were truly added to the economy because some of those employees likely transferred into those jobs 

from others, while some of the laborers are likely transient employees who will leave the area at the 

end of the project.

The total value added to Ohio’s economy, in terms of the effects and variables described, of oil and gas 

development in Ohio through 2014 was estimated at $162 million for 2011 and projected to be $4.8 

billion in 2014. Thirty-three horizontal wells were drilled in Ohio in 2011, and the report projected 1,075 

wells being drilled in 2014. A comparable study that makes similar projections into the next decade or 

beyond was not available for inclusion in this EA. 

A workforce analysis has been completed to project the numbers, types, and incomes of the jobs that oil 

and gas development will demand in Ohio (Lendel, Thomas, Townley, Murphy, & Kalynchuk, 2015). One 

important difference in labor demand between horizontal drilling and vertical drilling is that the need 

for labor declines precipitously after one well has been drilled on a pad. The next well to be drilled on 

the same pad does not require pad, roadway, or pipeline construction that was required for the first 

well.

The authors of the workforce analysis described above predict that it will take several years for the 

industry to provide many jobs that can employ local laborers. The pre-drilling phase of oil and gas 

development primarily requires highly technical professions, such as geologists, GIS specialists, 

attorneys, and engineers. In the early phase of an oil and gas play, these professionals are usually 

brought in by the companies. As a play matures, companies may open local offices, providing local 

employment opportunities, and local people may complete education and training that would qualify 

them to work in those types of jobs. One-third of all jobs generated by projected Utica Formation 

development and 58% of those in the pre-drilling phase require post-secondary education, certification, 

or specialized experience, which will limit the number of jobs that are available to local residents. In 

time, as area universities and technical schools implement or augment training programs targeted at the 

growing industry’s needs, more workers from Ohio may be hired for jobs in Utica shale development.
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 117 

The workforce analysis predicts that Utica shale development will generate 7,558 jobs in Ohio in 2015 

and 10,505 in 2019. In all of Ohio, 700 wells were drilled in the Utica formation in 2015, and 879 wells 

are predicted to be drilled in 2019. The RFDS for the WNF projects the drilling of 110 wells on the 

Marietta Unit over a period of 10 years. If we assume a linear year-to-year increase through 2019 and 

that drilling on the Marietta Unit follows the same pattern, then the number of wells drilled per year on 

the Marietta Unit is about 3.5% of the statewide development. This percentage of the projected 

number of jobs is about 320 jobs. Only a small proportion of these jobs would go toward reducing 

unemployment in the five counties for the reasons discussed above, notably the abundant use of 

transient workers and the lack of technical qualifications among the workforce in southeastern Ohio and 

northwestern West Virginia.

4.15.2. Payments from the federal government

Federal lands are exempt from property taxes, and the federal government compensates communities 

for lost property taxes in several ways (Arbogast, 2004). The federal government supports counties with 

federal land through reimbursements for highway construction, law enforcement, and fire protection 

and through rural development grants, but the three primary sources of compensation to the states and 

counties are the 25 Percent Fund, payments in lieu of taxes (PILT), and mineral royalties.

Through the 25 Percent Fund, the federal government pays to the states 25% of the fees collected from 

timber harvests, camping, grazing, and special use permits. These funds are transferred to the counties 

based on their proportions of federal land ownership. These payments peaked in the mid-1980s and 

declined precipitously after that due to a nationwide decline in timber harvesting and a litigation-related 

stop to timber harvests on the WNF. Payments in lieu of taxes are made by the federal government to 

counties based on each county’s proportion of federal lands that were acquired from private owners 

and several other indicators. The method for calculating PILT payments has changed through the years, 

and counties have had options for how they collect the funds, making simple statements of PILT 

payments less meaningful than they would be if the calculations were simple and consistent. These

payments increased in the mid-1990s due to legislation that changed the method for calculating PILT. 

Finally, mineral royalties have been paid at the rate of 25%. These funds were, until 1992, paid through 

the 25 Percent Fund and earmarked for schools and roads. Since then royalty payments have been 

shifted into a separate fund for counties. Each county receives a proportion of mineral royalties based 

on its proportion of federal lands, regardless of which county’s federal lands generated the royalties. 

That is to say, a county that had no mineral extraction in a given year could receive a share of royalties, 

and a county that had high mineral extraction could have a disproportionately low share of royalties.

Federal oil and gas leases generate revenue through initial bids as well as annual rents. The minimum 

competitive lease bid is $2.00 per acre. Lease rental costs $1.50 per acre per year for the first five years 

and $2.00 per acre per year thereafter. Oil and gas leases expire after 10 years unless they are 

producing, under which circumstance they last for the duration of production. Annual lease rents 

continue until production begins, at which point rents are replaced by royalties, which are set at 12.5% 

of production revenue. The average expected production of a Utica well is 3.5 billion cubic feet (Lendel 

et al., 2015), but natural gas prices have fluctuated too wildly for a meaningful price projection.
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 118 

There have been many changes through the years to the payment programs described above, and a 

major increase in Forest Service ownership in the WNF in the late 1990s reduced the average per-acre 

payments to counties. From the mid-1980s through the late-1990s, average per-acre payments to 

counties declined by 64%. Table 4.5, below, summarizes payments made by the federal government to 

Noble, Monroe, and Washington Counties (U.S. Forest Service, 2016c). These figures are not adjusted 

for inflation and are not directly comparable across years.

Table 4.5. Federal government payments to counties.

Monroe, 

total

Monroe, 

royalties

Noble, 

total

Noble, 

royalties

Washington, 

total

Washington, 

royalties

2001 $28,441 $2,432 $998 $63 $72,924 $3,895

2002 $31,750 $1,142 $1,048 $33 $73,695 $1,828

2003 $48,525 $1,565 $1,038 $44 $62,668 $2,486

2004 $50,171 $4,581 $1,142 $126 $70,091 $7,123

2005 $41,276 $4,411 $1,148 $125 $70,368 $7,113

2006 $45,370 $7,262 $1,208 $207 $74,344 $11,772

2007 $41,588 $3,620 $1,176 $177 $69,210 $6,417

2008 $97,154 $9,690 $3,882 $277 $131,624 $15,706

2009 $92,083 $4,693 $3,766 $134 $127,651 $7,606

2010 $58,214 $9,423 $2,602 $269 $81,482 $15,273

2011 $49,203 $5,912 $2,322 $169 $83,347 $9,583

2012 $51,149 $6,812 $2,289 $195 $86,103 $11,041

2013 $58,581 $5,336 $2,107 $152 $92,598 $8,649

2014 $61,356 $6,265 $1,665 $179 $95,673 $10,155

Source: U.S. Forest Service (2016c)
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 119 

4.15.3. Environmental Justice

Per Executive Order 12898, an environmental justice concern arises if a Federal agency action results in 

disproportionate high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income 

populations. The CEQ (1997) provides the following criteria for assessing disproportionately high and 

adverse environmental effects:

“(a) Whether there is or will be an impact on the natural or physical environment that 

significantly (as employed by NEPA) and adversely affects a minority population, low-income 

population, or Indian tribe. Such effects may include ecological, cultural, human health, 

economic, or social impacts on minority communities, low-income communities, or Indian tribes 

when those impacts are interrelated to impacts on the natural or physical environment; and

(b) Whether environmental effects are significant (as employed by NEPA) and are or may be 

having an adverse impact on minority populations, low-income populations, or Indian tribes 

that appreciably exceeds or is likely to appreciably exceed those on the general population or 

other appropriate comparison group; and

(c) Whether the environmental effects occur or would occur in a minority population, lowincome population, or Indian tribe affected by cumulative or multiple adverse exposures from 

environmental hazards.”

While the act of leasing Federal minerals would have no direct effects, subsequent oil and gas 

development within the Marietta Unit may result in impacts to people living near potential development 

sites, including potential low income populations. As noted in Chapter 3 of this EA, minority 

environmental justice populations, as defined by CEQ criteria, are not expected. Future exploration, 

drilling or production could create an inconvenience to people living adjacent to development areas due 

to increased traffic and traffic delays, as well as light, noise and visual impacts. These impacts would be 

particularly noticeable in areas where oil and gas development has not occurred previously. The level of 

inconvenience would depend on the activity affected, traffic patterns within the area, noise levels, the 

length of time and season in which these activities occurred, and other factors. Creation of new access 

roads would potentially allow increased public access and exposure of private property to vandalism. 

For leases in which the surface is privately owned and the mineral estate is federally owned, surface 

owner agreements, standard lease stipulations, and BMPs would potentially address many of the 

concerns of private surface owners. Although there is potential for future mineral development within 

the Marietta Unit to affect low income populations in the area, the level of affect is not expected to be 

disproportionate and high as defined by CEQ criteria. Therefore, the proposed action would not be 

expected to result in environmental justice concerns.

Should future development be proposed and specific oil and gas development plans be identified, the 

BLM would conduct additional site-specific analysis to further assess potential environmental justice 

issues associated with oil and gas development in the Marietta Unit.
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 120 

4.16. Cumulative Effects

CEQ regulations direct action proponents to consider the potential environmental impacts resulting 

from “the incremental impacts of the action when added to past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions regardless of what agency or person undertakes such other actions" (40 CFR 1508.7). 

CEQ guidance in considering cumulative effects (1997) involves defining the scope of the other actions 

and their interrelationship with the Proposed Action. The scope must consider geographical and 

temporal overlaps among the Proposed Actions and other actions. It must also evaluate the nature of 

interactions among these actions.

Cumulative effects are most likely to arise when a relationship or synergism exists between the 

Proposed Action and other actions expected to occur in a similar location or during a similar time period. 

Actions overlapping with or in proximity to the Proposed Action would be expected to have more 

potential for a relationship than those more geographically separated.

To identify cumulative effects, three fundamental questions need to be addressed:

● Does a relationship exist such that affected resource areas of the Proposed Action might interact 

with the affected resource areas of past, present, or reasonably foreseeable actions;

● If one or more of the affected resource areas of the Proposed Action and another action could 

be expected to interact, would the Proposed Action affect or be affected by impacts of the other 

action; and

● If such a relationship exists, then does an assessment reveal any potentially significant impacts 

not identified when the Proposed Action is considered alone?

The scope of the cumulative effects analysis involves both the geographic extent of the effects and the 

time frame in which the effects could be expected to occur. 

4.16.1. Context for Cumulative Effects Analysis

For this EA, the affected area for the cumulative effects analysis includes the Marietta Unit and 

surrounding vicinity. The timeframe considered is ten years and beyond (oil and gas leases are issued for 

a 10-year period and continue for as long as oil or gas is produced in paying quantities; the life of a well 

may extend to 25 years). Aside from air quality and climate change, the cumulative effects analysis does 

not consider potential leasing in other areas of the WNF, such as the Athens Unit or Ironton District. 

This is because any impacts associated with leasing in these areas would be separated sufficiently in 

time and location from the Proposed Action such that cumulative impacts would not be expected. 

The analysis of potential cumulative effects incorporates information from both the 2006 Forest Plan 

and EIS and 2012 SIR as well as new information. For example there are several specific, planned and 

completed projects on the Marietta Unit with the potential to contribute to cumulative effects in 

combination with the Proposed Action, as listed below. These projects are authorized under the 2006 

Forest Plan and EIS and are listed on the WNF website:
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 121 

(http://www.fs.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsinternet/projects/wayne/landmanagement/projects?archive=1&

sortby=1)

● Approval of an electric line that crosses 600 feet of NFS lands, 2009;

● Habitat improvement for yellow-fringed orchid on 38.5 acres using a variety of mechanical and 

chemical treatments and minor construction activities, 2010;

● Approval of three oil and gas wells, 2010;

● Renewal of two miles of electric pipeline permits, ranging in width from 15 to 80 feet, 2010

● Renewal of 61 acres of hay and row-crop cultivation and 114 acres of grazing, most of which is in 

river corridor management area, 2010;

● Renewal of permits for 3,300 feet of road access, 2010;

● Approval of laying approximately 2,500 feet of 11⁄2-inch plastic pipeline on surface;

● Mechanical treatments on managed openings, 2011;

● Habitat management, including 564 acres of early successional habitat creation, 432 acres of allaged stands using single-tree and group selection, and 870 acres of prescribed burning, 2011;

● Approval of an Application for Permit to drill a vertical oil and gas well on a 0.74-acre pad with a 

250-foot access road, 2013;

● Plugging and abandonment of six orphaned wells, 2014;

● 4.4-mile expansion of Kinderhook equestrian trail, 2015; and

● Approval of a 150-foot-by-10-foot ATV trail to serve an oil and gas well, 2015.

In addition to the discrete projects listed above, the cumulative effects analysis also considers recent 

past, ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable mineral development (private and federal) within the 

Marietta Unit. As of 2015, there were 285 federal wells in Washington County, 117 federal wells in 

Monroe County, and none in Noble County. There were a total of 790 active wells on private lands in 

the Wayne National Forest. Leasing federal minerals within the Marietta Unit may lead to additional 

future mineral development on private land and private minerals within the area. Although federal 

oversight of mineral development on federal land/federal minerals is more stringent than on private 

land/private minerals, there are numerous state laws and regulations in place. Appendix C of this EA 

summarizes the laws and regulations that govern mineral development activities on private land in Ohio. 

The ability to accurately assess potential cumulative impacts in this EA is limited due to the lack of sitespecific information for potential future oil and gas development activities. Therefore at this stage, the 

RFDS can be used to generalize the types of cumulative impacts that could occur associated with the 

proposed leasing action; however, it is important to note that leasing is an administrative action and no 

ground disturbance would occur at this time. Therefore, there are technically no cumulative effects 

associated with the action of leasing since it is purely administrative. However, for the purpose of NEPA 

analysis, the BLM has considered potential cumulative effects based on what is reasonably foreseeable 

at this time. Upon receipt of an APD, which would identify specific parcel(s) for development, a sitespecific analysis would be conducted along with additional cumulative effects analysis. The following 

sections discuss potential cumulative effects from the Proposed Action. 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 122 

4.16.2. Cumulative Effects Analysis

4.16.2.1. Cumulative Effects on Air Resources

Even though the Proposed Action of leasing would not contribute to cumulative effects on air resources, 

future foreseeable development could contribute to cumulative GHG emissions. The primary sources of 

emissions include the following:

● Fossil fuel combustion for construction and operation of oil and gas facilities – vehicles driving to 

and from production sites, engines that drive drill rigs, etc. These produce CO2 in quantities that 

vary depending on the age, types, and conditions of the equipment as well as the targeted 

formation, locations of wells with respect to processing facilities and pipelines, and other sitespecific factors.

● Fugitive CH4 – CH4 that escapes from wells (both gas and oil), oil storage, and various types of 

processing equipment. This is a major source of global CH4 emissions. These emissions have 

been estimated for various aspects of the energy sector, and starting in 2011, producers are 

required under 40 C.F.R. §98, to estimate and report their CH4 emissions to the EPA.

● Combustion of produced oil and gas – it is expected that operations will produce marketable 

quantities of oil and/or gas. Combustion of the oil and/or gas would release CO2 into the 

atmosphere. Fossil fuel combustion is the largest source of global CO2.

Cumulative Effects of Greenhouse Gas Emissions

When considering the cumulative effects of GHGs, existing oil and gas activity in the area must be 

considered. As of June 2015, there are approximately 1,275 active vertical wells on the Wayne National 

Forest. This includes both private and federal. Of these there are 493 active federal wells, as shown in 

Table 4.6. 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 123 

Table. 4.6. Total Federal Active Wells by County

Wayne National Forest Counties Active Federal Wells

Washington County 285

Monroe County 117

Perry County 30

Athens County 25

Hocking County 31

Lawrence County 5

Noble 0

(Source: U.S. Forest Service, 2015)

The 2012 RFDS for this EA projected 10 Horizontal well pads in the Marietta Unit. A well pad might have 

as few as 1 well per pad (single well pad) and as many as 16 horizontal wells per pad, but more typically 

6-8 horizontal wells per pad (IFC International, 2009; NYSDEC, 2009; Currie & Stelle, 2010). The 

estimated GHGs associated with the preproduction and postproduction phases of reasonably 

foreseeable oil and gas development in the Marietta Unit would be approximately 70,290 MT CO2e 

(0.70290 MMT CO2e) per horizontal well/year. This represents a GHG contribution of approximately 

0.00102% per horizontal well per year when compared to the total GHG emissions of the United States 

(approximately 6,870,000,000 MT CO2e (6,870 MMT CO2e) in 2014 [USEPA, 2016]). This total is the 

cumulative amount of GHG from preproduction (5,500 MT CO2e) and postproduction processes (64,790 

MT CO2e). Combustion is the primary source of indirect GHG emissions and make up close to a third of 

postproduction GHG emissions.

Comparatively, if all 10 projected horizontal well pads were constructed with an average of 6 wells per 

pad and were actively producing as well as combusted in a single year, the total GHG emissions would 

be approximately 4,217,400 MT CO2e (4.22 MMT CO2 equivalent) in 2014 (USEPA, 2016), the estimated 

emissions at most would contribute a 0.06% contribution to nationwide greenhouse gas emissions. The 

contribution put in perspective from a nationwide scale shows a negligible impact to overall GHG

emitted by the U.S. 

There is much uncertainty, though, in terms of whether all 10 well pads would be constructed or 

whether all of the wells would result in actual production of oil or gas. Furthermore, this would have to 

constitute that the entire source of natural gas production would also be used for combustion which is 

not always the case in regards to oil and gas. Assumptions could be made that 50% would be for plastic 

the other 50% could be propane/butane mix. It should be noted that it is difficult to discern with 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 124 

certainty what end uses for the fuels extracted from particular leasehold might be reasonably 

foreseeable. 

Oil and gas activity would be staggered over time and therefore, the overall intensity of potential 

impacts would also be staggered. The RFDS states that for the past ten years, oil and gas drilling on 

federally owned surface has been lagging behind the average drilling pace on Forest Service surface of 

the previous twenty years (USDA, 2012). Surface disturbance projected in the RFDS projects 10 

horizontal wells resulting in approximately 55 acres disturbance; substantially less than the 135 acres 

that was initially projected under the 2006 RFDS. Approximately 10 acres have already been disturbed 

to date from oil and gas development in the Marietta Unit. The lifespan of a producing well is 

approximately 15-30 years. Although this EA analysis assumes that both oil and gas may be produced in 

the future within the Marietta Unit, natural gas is more likely to be produced. Horizontal drilling to 

natural gas would result in higher amounts of GHGs than that of vertical drilling; however there would 

be more surface disturbance required for vertical drilling. Further analysis would be conducted at the 

APD stage to assess the potential for cumulative effects to air resources, once specific design details are 

known.

Increases in GHGs are thought to be related to climate change, which may affect various resources and 

contribute to changes such as earlier “greening” of vegetation in the spring and longer thermal growing 

seasons (IPCC, 2007). Climate change may combine with other human-induced stress to further 

increase the vulnerability of ecosystems to other pests, invasive species, and loss of native species. 

Climate change may also affect breeding patterns, water and food supply, and habitat availability to 

some degree. Sensitive species could experience additional pressures as a result of climate change.

The assessment of GHG emissions, their relationship to global climatic patterns, and the resulting 

impacts, however, is still an ongoing scientific process. It is not known with certainty the net impacts 

that reasonably foreseeable mineral development in the Marietta Unit could have on climate – that is, 

while BLM actions may contribute to the climate change phenomenon, the specific effects of those 

actions on global climate are speculative given the current state of the science. The BLM does not have 

the ability to directly associate a BLM action’s contribution to climate change with impacts in any 

particular area. Inconsistencies in the results of scientific models designed to predict climate change on 

regional or local scales limits the ability to completely quantify potential future impacts of decisions 

made at this level and determining the significance of any discrete amount of GHG emissions is beyond 

the limits of existing science (see also Section 4.2.3, Uncertainties of GHG Calculations). When further 

information on the impact to climate change is known, such information would be incorporated in the 

BLM’s planning and NEPA documents as appropriate.

In recent years, many states, tribes, and other organizations have initiated GHG inventories, tallying 

GHG emissions by economic sector. The EPA provides links to statewide GHG emissions inventories 

(USEPA, 2015c). Guidelines for estimating project-specific GHG emissions are available (URS 

Corporation, 2010), but some additional data, including the volume of oil produced and the number of 

wells, are not available for the Proposed Action. Uncertainties regarding the numbers of wells and other 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 125 

factors result in a moderate to high degree of uncertainty and speculation with regard to GHG estimates 

at the leasing stage. At the APD stage, more site-specific information on oil and gas activities resulting in 

GHG impacts would be described in detail. Also at the APD stage, the BLM would evaluate operations, 

require mitigation measures, and encourage operators to participate in the voluntary STAR program.

Although the Proposed Action of leasing, in itself, would not result in any air quality or climate change 

effects, potential reasonably foreseeable mineral development could increase GHGs that may influence 

climate change within the region and result in some cumulative effects when combined with other past, 

present, and future actions in the area. For instance, as previously acknowledged in this EA, it is 

possible that there could be additional oil and gas development on private surface and private minerals 

within the Marietta Unit in the future. These activities could result in additional air emissions. 

Reclamation and other stipulations and best management practices, as described earlier in this EA, 

would help to minimize the potential for significant adverse cumulative effects. Appendix C of this EA 

summarizes the laws and regulations governing activities resulting in air emissions on private surface.

4.16.2.2. Cumulative Effects on Plant and Animal Habitat and Populations

The most important actions contributing to cumulative effects in the Marietta Unit are the intensive 

resource extraction – especially timber removal – that dominated much of the Twentieth Century, which 

greatly simplified vegetative structure and wildlife habitat, as well as the development of the Wayne 

National Forest, which has restored healthy forests throughout the Marietta Unit. Timber extraction 

focused on clearcutting, removing whole stands and leaving denuded areas to regenerate as single-aged 

stands of just a few, shade-intolerant species. A related effect of intensive settlement of the area was 

the suppression of wildfire, which is a natural force that is important to the propagation of oak forests.

The development of the WNF has resulted in the active reforestation of cleared sites and the 

development of long-term goals, objectives, and targeted management areas. This long-term process 

has coincided with the passive and active reforestation of tens of thousands of additional acres 

throughout the Marietta Unit, as farming has declined as a land use and less-destructive methods for 

mineral extraction have been employed over the last several decades.

The broader actions that are described in the 2006 Forest Plan/EIS are expected, over the coming 

decades, to result in a decline in oak-dominated stands, which depend on periodic disturbance, and to 

produce an increase in acres forested in shade-tolerant, fire-intolerant species like maples. The Forest 

Service will continue to promote early-successional habitats and will use site-specific stipulations and 

guidelines to manage known locations and suitable habitats for threatened and endangered species. 

The Ohio DNR’s hunting regulations are the primary tool for managing the state’s deer herd at a level 

that ensures recreational hunting opportunities while mitigating crop damage, and the WNF restrictions 

on ginseng harvesting are expected to ensure the viability of that species for collection. 

Although the Proposed Action would not result in any changes to plant and animal populations or their 

habitats from leasing, potential reasonably foreseeable mineral development could affect these 

resources and would contribute incrementally to effects on biological resources. As stated previously, 

leasing of federal minerals in the Marietta Unit may lead to additional mineral development on adjacent 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 126 

private lands. Increased mineral development activities in the Marietta Unit would affect native plant 

communities and priority vegetation species. Surface disturbing activities are also likely to increase the 

potential for invasive plant species to spread within a site and for new species to be introduced. 

Increases in mineral development would collectively result in direct loss of habitat, displacement of fish 

and wildlife, and habitat degradation and fragmentation. Wildlife may be temporarily affected by 

fugitive dust emissions from construction of facilities. Additional habitat could be degraded in the 

vicinity of oil and gas wells and facilities through accidental spills or leaks. There would likely be an 

increase in habitat fragmentation and creation of edge habitat, particularly in areas where potential oil 

and gas development may be more concentrated. Aquatic species could be affected by water 

withdrawals needed to support hydraulic fracturing operations, although the Forest Service would not 

approve any water withdrawals on federal land that would result in adverse effects to aquatic species. 

Despite the potential for cumulative effects to fish and wildlife and their habitats, reclamation and other 

stipulations and best management practices, as described earlier in this EA, would help to minimize the 

potential for significant adverse cumulative effects. Additionally, conducting required consultation 

under the ESA ensures that potential impacts to federally listed species are identified and managed in 

accordance with the law. Additional protections may be applied at the APD stage. Appendix C of this EA 

summarizes the laws and regulations that would apply to mineral development activities on private land 

with regard to federally listed species. 

4.16.2.3. Cumulative Effects on Water Resources and Water Quality

Potential cumulative effects to water resources and water quality in the Marietta Unit must be 

evaluated within the context of several decades of activities that have affected water resources within 

the WNF overall. Intensive mining, timber extraction, and farming through much of the Twentieth 

Century had broad impacts on surface water resources in the WNF. Surface mining activities included 

rerouting waterways, and acid mine drainage polluted many waterways and extirpated much of the 

aquatic life in them. Timber extraction left many steep slopes denuded of vegetation and cleared 

vegetation from riparian areas, leading to mass wasting and severe soil erosion into waterways. 

Riparian areas serve a critical role in watershed and local hydrology health and any disturbance to its 

function could be harmful to habitat in surrounding areas (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1996).

The formation of the WNF has initiated and continued the restoration and management of the 

watersheds in the Marietta Unit. The Forest Service has conducted many acid mine drainage and 

abandoned mine lands restoration projects, reducing sedimentation and acidification in many 

waterways. By reestablishing vegetation and managing healthy forests, especially on steep slopes and 

other erosion-prone areas, the Forest Service has reduced sediment loads in streams. At the same time, 

forests on private lands throughout the Marietta Unit have been reforested in recent decades, further 

reducing erosion and improving surface water quality.

Although the Proposed Action of leasing the parcels would not result in any changes to water resources, 

potential reasonably foreseeable mineral development could affect this resource and could contribute 

detrimentally to it in the future. As stated previously, leasing of federal minerals in the Marietta Unit 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 127 

may lead to additional mineral development on adjacent private lands. Increased mineral development 

in the area would collectively result in the removal of vegetation, long-term reduction in overall 

vegetation cover, and disturbance of soils. This would increase overland flow, result in accelerated soil 

erosion, and decrease the stability of watersheds to buffer high flows and filter water, sediment, and 

nutrients. Soil mobilized by wind and water erosion would be transported downslope and to nearby 

water bodies, which would increase sediment and nutrient loads to surface waters and thereby degrade 

water quality. Increases in overland flow also would directly increase the amount of water transported

to streams and rivers, which could lead to increased downcutting, widening, and overall degradation of 

stream channels.

Cumulative impacts on groundwater resources from future oil and gas development could also occur. Oil 

and gas wells would have the potential to affect groundwater quality and quantity through withdrawal, 

injection, and unintentional leakage and spills. Proper well design, construction, drilling, and completion 

methods would reduce these impacts but would not entirely eliminate them. Hydraulic fracturing is 

used to enhance recovery by enlarging fractures through which oil and gas can be drawn to a wellbore 

and brought to the surface. After fluids are injected at high pressures to expand fractures, injected 

fracture fluids and some formation water flows back to the surface and is removed to allow gas and/or 

oil to flow into the wellbore. In recent years there has been an elevated public concern about the 

possibility of subsurface hydraulic fracturing operations creating fractures that extend well beyond the 

target formation to water aquifers, allowing methane, contaminants naturally occurring in formation 

water, and fracturing fluids to migrate from the target formation into drinking water supplies. For 

completion or formation fluids to escape the wellbore and affect the usable quality water or 

contaminate or cross contaminate aquifers, the fluid would have to breech several layers of steel casing 

and cement. Failure of the cement or casing surrounding the wellbore is a possible risk to water 

supplies. If the annulus is improperly sealed, natural gas, fracturing fluids, and formation water 

containing high concentrations of dissolved solids may be transferred directly along the outside of the 

wellbore among the target formation, drinking water aquifers, and layers of rock in between. 

Complying with BLM and state regulations regarding casing and cementing, implementing best 

management practices, testing casings and cement prior to continuing to drill or introducing additional 

fluids and continual monitoring during drilling and hydraulic fracturing, allow producers and regulators 

to check the integrity of casing and cement jobs and greatly reduce the chance of aquifer 

contamination.

Casing specifications are designed and submitted to the BLM. The BLM independently verifies the 

casing program, and the installation of the casing and cementing operations are witnessed by a 

Petroleum Engineer. Petroleum products and other chemicals used in the drilling and/or completion 

process could result in groundwater contamination through a variety of operational sources including 

but not limited to pipeline and well casing failure, well (gas and water) construction, and spills. 

Produced and flowback water from oil and gas operations would be managed in accordance with the 

Onshore Orders, best management practices, and numerous state regulations. The preferred method of 

disposal would be underground injection into a suitable geologic formation isolated from freshwater 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 128 

aquifers. Injection would require a permit as would surface disposal from oil and gas operations. 

Accidental leakage of drill fluids, hazardous waste spills, or leakage from tanks could be introduced into 

the groundwater as well. Accidental leakage of drill fluids, hazardous waste spills, or leakage from 

reserve pits on private lands, if they are used, could be introduced into the groundwater as well.

Although potential impacts on groundwater from accidental leaks would be reduced through the 

implementation of federal, state, and local regulations that require site characterization and corrective 

action for hazardous waste and spills, such impacts would not be eliminated.

Despite the potential for cumulative effects to water resources, reclamation and other stipulations and 

best management practices, as described earlier in this EA, would help to minimize the potential for 

significant adverse cumulative effects. Additional protections may be applied at the APD stage. 

Appendix C of this EA summarizes the laws and regulations that would apply to mineral development 

activities on private land. 

4.16.2.4. Cumulative Effects on Soils

There would be no cumulative impacts to soils from the administrative action of leasing, but increases in 

mineral development, construction activities, and the conversion of land to developed landscapes 

collectively could result in the removal of vegetation, long-term reduction in vegetation cover, and 

disturbance of soils. This would expose soils to the erosive forces of wind and water, destabilize soils, 

and increase overland flow, which in turn could result in accelerated erosion. Accelerated erosion could 

mobilize soils and remove nutrient-rich topsoil, and thereby reduce soil productivity and vegetation 

growth rates. Accidental spills or leaks could result in soil contamination. Depending on the size and 

type of spill, the impact to soils would primarily consist of the loss of soil productivity. Typically, 

contaminated soils would be removed and disposed of in a permitted facility or would be bio 

remediated in place using techniques such as excavating and mulching to increase biotic activities that 

would break down petrochemicals into inert and/or common organic compounds. The use of best 

management practices such as those discussed in Section 4.5 would minimize cumulative effects on 

soils.

Although the Proposed Action of leasing the parcels would not result in any changes to soil, potential 

reasonably foreseeable mineral development could affect this resource and could contribute 

incrementally to it in the future. Reclamation and other stipulations and best management practices, as 

described earlier in this EA, would help to minimize the potential for significant adverse cumulative 

effects. Additional protections may be applied at the APD stage. 

4.16.2.5. Cumulative Effects on Geology and Mineral Resources

There would be no cumulative impacts to minerals from the administrative action of leasing, but the 

potential reasonably foreseeable development projected under the RFDS in combination with other 

mineral development activities in the Marietta Unit would result in a minor incremental effect from 

development on BLM federal mineral estate. As stated previously, leasing of federal minerals in the 

Marietta Unit may also lead to additional mineral development on adjacent private lands. At this stage 

it is uncertain how productive the wells accessing the federal or private mineral estate would be, should 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 129 

development occur in the future. If developed, the mineral resources would be drained and depleted 

over time. 

As described in Section 4.4 of this EA, studies have shown that while the likelihood is low, there is some 

potential for seismic events associated with injection wells. The Ohio Department of Natural Resources 

requires companies to install seismometers when drilling within three miles of known faults or near an 

area that recently experienced earthquakes. Drilling is halted if an earthquake occurs. These measures 

would minimize the potential for adverse cumulative effects from seismic events due to increased 

mineral development. 

Along with existing oil and gas operations, there is the potential for orphaned wells to be present. The 

BLM’s Northeastern States District Orphan Wells Program identifies and oversees plugging operations 

for abandoned wells in their jurisdiction. Additional site-specific analysis would be conducted at the 

APD stage and measures would be implemented to minimize interwell communications resulting in 

adverse cumulative effects. 

4.16.2.6. Cumulative Effects from Wastes

As noted in the Proposed Action description, impacts from waste storage, handling, and disposal would 

be minimized through the use of BMPs, SOPs, and COAs at the APD stage, should federal minerals be 

proposed for development. Other mineral development, agriculture, and timber management activities 

in the area would need to comply with all required laws and regulations with regard to wastes. 

Although the Proposed Action of leasing the parcels would not result in any changes to wastes, potential 

reasonably foreseeable mineral development could affect waste generation, storage, handling and 

disposal and could contribute incrementally to it in the future. Additional mineral development on 

federal and private land may lead to an increase in waste storage and disposal facilities which may occur 

on or off site. However, adherence to required laws and regulations, SOPs, and best management 

practices, as described earlier in this EA (see Section 4.7), would help to minimize the potential for 

significant adverse cumulative effects. Appendix C of this EA summarizes the laws and regulations that 

would apply to mineral development activities on private land. 

4.16.2.7. Cumulative Effects on Public Health and Safety

Although lacking in definitive proof of cause and effect, self-reporting health surveys and environmental 

testing have suggested possible adverse health outcomes from oil and gas development. However, the 

administrative act of leasing would have no cumulative effects on public health and safety in the 

Marietta Unit. Should development occur on leased parcels, there could be cumulative effects based on 

the dispersion of potential pollutants. This could occur if fracturing fluids come into contact with 

humans by leaks, releases from holding tanks, spills and accidents during transportation of fluids, 

flowback or produced water to and from the well pad, and run-off during blowouts, storms, and flooding 

events. Further, the mixing of these compounds with compounds from other wells or under conditions 

of high pressure—and often high heat—may synergistically create additional potentially toxic 

compounds (Shonkoff, 2014). Compounds found in these mixtures may pose risks to public health 

through numerous environmental pathways, including water, air, and soil. However, potential risks 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 130 

would be mitigated with BMPs, stipulations, and adherence to federal, state, and local regulations, laws 

or policies that address the risk of emissions or accidents during all phases of oil and gas development 

activities. Operators would prepare a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) plan to 

ensure hazardous and non-hazardous substances are properly managed. 

Although the Proposed Action of leasing the parcels would not result in any changes to public health and 

safety, potential reasonably foreseeable mineral development could affect the overall population, 

especially sensitive or high risk individuals, contributing incrementally to it in the future. However, 

reclamation and other stipulations and best management practices, as described earlier in this EA, 

would help to minimize the potential for significant adverse cumulative effects. Appendix C of this EA 

summarizes the laws and regulations for development of oil and gas resources on private lands, which 

are designed to minimize adverse effects on resources such as public health and safety.

4.16.2.8. Cumulative Effects on Transportation

There would be no cumulative impacts to transportation from the administrative action of leasing; 

however, should development occur on leased parcels, there could be cumulative effects based on the 

increase in truck traffic and other heavy equipment in the area. Reasonably foreseeable development of 

minerals and related construction activities would require large trucks and other machinery to travel to 

and from drilling sites with expanded use of state, local and forest roads in the WNF. The estimated 

emissions generated from the truck traffic and use of heavy equipment in oil and gas development 

activities is described in Section 3.2. Traffic would increase in areas of mineral development that could 

lead to an increased risk of vehicle accidents. While some new roads would be needed, it is likely that 

new road construction to support potential future mineral development would not be extensive. 

To mitigate road degradation effects, as described in Section 3.9, the WNF may implement road use 

agreements with oil and gas operators to reclaim expenses associated with use of Forest Development 

Roads for access to oil and gas wells. These agreements would allow the Forest Service to reclaim 

expenses associated with the use of the roads by the operator’s heavy equipment through surface 

replacement dollars where applicable. Reclamation and other stipulations and best management 

practices, as described earlier in this EA, would help to minimize the potential for significant adverse 

cumulative effects.

4.16.2.9. Cumulative Effects on Recreation and Land Use

There would be no cumulative impacts to recreation and land use as a result of leasing; however, there 

would be potential effects to both if future mineral development activities occur on or near the leased 

parcels. As discussed in Section 4.11 of this EA, noise caused by mineral development activities would 

result in wildlife temporarily vacating the area, reducing hunting and wildlife viewing opportunities for 

that time. Reasonably foreseeable development of minerals would also affect other recreational 

activities, particularly those located at developed recreation sites, and noise may cause forest visitors to 

look for recreational activities elsewhere until exploration is complete. 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 131 

Although the Proposed Action of leasing the parcels would not result in any changes to recreation and 

land use, potential reasonably foreseeable mineral development could affect these resources, 

contributing incrementally to them in the future. Increased mineral development on federal and private 

land could result in long-term changes to the landscape in some areas of the Marietta Unit; however, 

this change would likely occur over many years. Also due to the small amount of surface disturbance 

projected by the RFDS in comparison to the total acreage in the Marietta Unit, it is unlikely that the 

Marietta Unit would experience widespread land use changes or that the landscape characteristics of 

the forest would be significantly altered overall. While some recreation areas may be affected, 

particularly those where activities such as hunting, wildlife viewing, and trail use occur, overall 

recreation within the Marietta Unit would not be expected to change. There are many acres in the 

forest where recreation would still occur uninterrupted. The Forest Service would ensure oil and gas 

activities are conducted in a manner that does not interfere with desired management objectives for 

public recreation in the Marietta Unit and other areas of the WNF. Reclamation and other stipulations 

and best management practices, as described earlier in this EA, would help to minimize the potential for 

significant adverse cumulative effects to land use and recreation. 

4.16.2.10. Cumulative Effects on Noise

There would be no cumulative impacts regarding noise from the administrative action of leasing, but 

increases in mineral development, and initial construction activities could result in the generation of 

noise. The majority of the noise produced would subside after the initial development period, in which 

the drilling would stop. Parallel constructions may increase the sound within the area but these 

situations are not likely to occur extensively. In addition, the circulation of vehicles going to different 

pre-existing well sites could potentially create a combined increase in traffic noise; however this could 

be mitigated by well-established schedules and routes identified during the APD stage.

Although the Proposed Action of leasing the parcels would not result in any changes to noise, potential 

reasonably foreseeable mineral development could affect noise generation or incrementation, 

contributing incrementally to it in the future. However, reclamation and other stipulations and best 

management practices, such as equipment baffling, as described earlier in this EA, would help to 

minimize the potential for significant adverse cumulative effects. 

4.16.2.11. Cumulative Effects on Cultural Resources and Native American Concerns

There would be no cumulative impacts to cultural resources as a result of leasing; however, potential 

cumulative effects to cultural resources could occur if future development activities on or near the lease 

parcels are conducted without proper surveys and consultations under the NHPA or state requirements. 

Cumulative effects from repetitious illegal activity, primarily archaeological vandalism, may occur on 

certain sites or site types unless perpetrators are apprehended and prosecuted. The degree of 

cumulative effects to known properties from BLM activities, however, should be slight as inventory, 

assessment, protection, and mitigation measures would be implemented at the APD stage if federal 

minerals are accessed. Under the No Action Alternative, operators in the vicinity would be required to 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 132 

comply with all required laws and regulations with regard to protection of cultural resources and Native 

American Concerns.

Although the Proposed Action of leasing the parcels would not result in any changes to cultural 

resources or Native American concerns, potential reasonably foreseeable mineral development could 

affect this issue, incrementally contributing to it in the future. However, reclamation and other 

stipulations and best management practices, as described earlier in this EA, would help to minimize the 

potential for significant adverse cumulative effects. 

4.16.2.12. Cumulative Effects on Visual Resources and Scenic Quality

The act of leasing would have no cumulative effects on visual resources and/or scenic quality of the 

Marietta Unit. Should development occur on leased parcels, there could be cumulative effects based on 

the number of well pads, roads and any other associated development which could include pipelines 

and power. Upon receipt of an APD, further site-specific analysis would be completed and cumulative 

effects on visual resources and scenic quality analyzed in relation to other projects or potential projects. 

Although the Proposed Action of leasing the parcels would not result in any changes to visual resources 

or scenic quality, potential reasonably foreseeable mineral development could affect this resource and 

value, incrementally contributing to it in the future. Individuals residing near or recreating near oil and 

gas development would be affected more than others. As discussed under land use, due to the small 

amount of surface disturbance projected by the RFDS in comparison to the total acreage in the Marietta 

Unit, it is unlikely that the Marietta Unit would experience widespread land use changes (and therefore, 

changes to the visual resources) or that the landscape characteristics of the forest would be significantly 

altered overall. However, reclamation and other stipulations and best management practices, as 

described earlier in this EA, would help to minimize the potential for significant adverse cumulative 

effects. 

4.16.2.13. Cumulative Effects on Socioeconomics

The economic conditions of southeastern Ohio have been changing over the past years and decades as a 

result of many factors and decisions. As described above, timber production was once a much larger 

generator of wages and downstream economic activity than it is at present. Mineral production, 

including coal, limestone, dolomite, sand, and gravel, decreased in economic value of production as well 

as in employment between 1970 and 2000. More recently, oil and gas production in the region has 

caused an increase in wages, employment, and downstream economic activity.

One of the primary actions that affect economic conditions in southeastern Ohio is the ownership of the 

Wayne National Forest. The Forest Service’s Social and Economic Assessment (Arbogast, 2004) states 

that federal ownership of lands comprising the WNF is beneficial to local, rural economies for several 

reasons. First, the federal government supports the counties through various types of payments and 

cost-share programs. Second, the federal government maintains the roads and other infrastructure on 

NFS lands. Finally, the presence of the National Forest stimulates local economies as visitors to the 

national forest contribute money that they spend for outdoor gear, lodging, food, and other expenses.
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 133 

Although the Proposed Action of leasing the parcels would not result in any changes to socioeconomics, 

potential reasonably foreseeable mineral development could affect the eventual economic activity, 

incrementally contributing to it in the future. However, reclamation and other stipulations and best 

management practices, as described earlier in this EA, would help to minimize the potential for 

significant adverse cumulative effects. 

4.17. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources

NEPA Section 102(2)C requires a discussion of any irreversible or irretrievable commitments of 

resources that would be involved in the proposal should it be implemented. An irreversible 

commitment of a resource is one that cannot be reversed (e.g., the extinction of a species or 

disturbance to protected cultural resources). An irretrievable commitment of a resource is one in which 

the resource or its use is lost for a period of time (e.g., extraction of any solid mineral ore or fluid 

mineral). 

Reasonably foreseeable future oil and gas development associated with the Proposed Action would 

result in surface disturbing activities that would result in irreversible or irretrievable commitments of 

resources. These surface disturbing activities would result in alterations to soil, removal of vegetation 

cover and wildlife habitat, and possible damage to cultural resources if proper surveys and consultations 

are not conducted under the NHPA. Increases in sediment and nonpoint source pollution that result 

from these activities could result in degradation of water quality within the watershed and habitat for 

aquatic-dependent species, although no major surface waters are located adjacent to the parcel. Use of 

BMPs, SOPs, COAs and stipulations as described in the EA are designed to reduce the magnitude of 

these impacts by preventing habitat degradation.

Development of oil and gas resources would represent an irretrievable commitment of nonrenewable 

fossil fuels.

4.18. Relationship between Local Short-term Uses and Long-term 

Productivity

NEPA requires an analysis of the relationship between a project’s short-term impacts on the 

environment and of the effects that these impacts may have on the maintenance and enhancement of 

the long-term productivity of the affected environment. Impacts that narrow the range of beneficial 

uses of the environment are of particular concern. This refers to the possibility that choosing one 

development option reduces future flexibility in pursuing other options, or that giving over a parcel of 

land or other resource to a certain use eliminates the possibility of other uses being performed at the 

site. 

The Proposed Action would take place within a national forest. While vegetation loss from future 

development would occur, no unique habitat or ecosystems would be lost due to this action. 

Implementation of the Proposed Action or No Action Alternative may result in future oil and gas 

development, which results in surface-disturbing and other disruptive activities that remove vegetation, 

increase soil erosion and compaction, create visual intrusions and landscape alterations, increase noise, 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 134 

and degrade wildlife habitat. Although management actions, BMPs, surface use restrictions, and lease 

stipulations are intended to minimize the effect of short-term uses, some impact on long-term 

productivity of resources could occur. 

4.19. No action alternative for all resources

The no action alternative would preclude leasing of federal minerals under the Marietta Unit of the 

WNF. The direct and indirect effects described above would, for the most part, not occur. If the BLM 

does not sell mineral leases, then the revenues that would be produced by leasing and, potentially, by 

mineral production may not be made available to the counties. Without a lease, operators would not be 

authorized to access federal minerals at the time of development but could develop adjacent privately 

owned minerals, potentially resulting in drainage of federal minerals without benefit to the government. 

5. LEASE-SPECIFIC OIL AND GAS NOTIFICATIONS AND STIPULATIONS

5.1. Introduction

The text of this section is taken directly from Appendix H to the Forest Plan.

The following notifications and stipulations implement the standards and guidelines of the Wayne 

National Forest’s 2006 Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). These are in addition to the 

standard lease terms for oil and gas leases (BLM Form 3100-11). Not all of these notifications and 

stipulations are applied to every lease, rather, only those that are relevant based on site conditions. 

These notifications and stipulations are necessary to protect specific resource values on the lease area. 

They may be made less restrictive or modified for site-specific situations if such change is found to be in 

the public interest. These notifications and stipulations may be made less restrictive or modified only 

after a formal analysis has been completed and specifically approved in writing by a Forest Service line 

officer.

5.2. Notifications

Special Notification #1

Operations under this lease will be consistent with all the standards and guidelines found in the Wayne 

National Forest’s 2006 Land and Resource Management Plan and are hereby incorporated into this lease 

in its entirety. Forest Plan standards and guidelines may restrict location, timing, and methodology of oil 

and gas lease operations. Special surveys for protection of National Forest System land and resources 

will be required. A copy of the WNF’s 2006 Land and Resource Management Plan is available from the 

following website http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/wayne/ or by writing to:

Forest Supervisor

Wayne National Forest

13700 US HWY 33

Nelsonville, OH 45764
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 135 

Notification #1 - Cultural Resources

The Forest Service is responsible for assuring the area to be disturbed is examined for cultural resources 

prior to allowing surface disturbing activities on lands covered by this lease. Important cultural resource 

values may be present on portions of a lease. Surface disturbing activities must avoid these areas unless 

the authorized officer agrees to the mitigation measures. The lessee/operators may, at their discretion 

and cost, conduct the examination on the lands to be disturbed. This examination must be done by or 

under the supervision of a qualified resource specialist approved by the Forest Service. An acceptable 

report must be provided to the Forest Service identifying the anticipated effects of the Proposed Action 

on cultural resource values. If items of substantial archaeological or paleontological values are 

discovered during operations, or a known deposit of such items is disturbed, the lessee (or operator) will 

cease work in the affected area. The lessee (or operator) will then notify the Forest Service and will not 

resume excavation until the Forest Supervisor gives written approval.

Notification #2 - Floodplains

Any activities proposed in, or likely to affect a floodplain will be subject to:

• Analysis and identification of alternate sites

• Public notification and comment period

• Provisions of any other federal, State or local laws and regulations as required under presidential 

Executive Order 11988, Protection of Floodplains.

Notification #3 - Protection of Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened and Regional Sensitive 

Species and their Habitats

The Forest Service is responsible for assuring that the area to be disturbed is examined prior to allowing 

any surface disturbing activities on lands covered by this lease. The examination is to determine effects 

upon any plant or animal species listed, or proposed for listing, as federally endangered or threatened, 

regional sensitive, and their habitats. If the findings of this examination determine that the operation(s) 

may have a detrimental effect on a species covered by the federal Endangered Species Act, the 

operator’s plans may be denied or restrictions added. The presence of regional sensitive species may 

also require some restrictions of the operation(s).

The Forest Service has the responsibility to conduct the required examination. In cases where the 

Forest Service time frames cannot meet the needs of the lessee/operator, the lessee/operator may, at 

his discretion and cost, conduct the examination on the lands to be disturbed. This examination must 

be done by or under the supervision of a qualified resource specialist approved by the Forest Service. 

An acceptable report must be provided to the Forest Service identifying the anticipated effects of the 

Proposed Action on federal endangered or threatened species, regional sensitive species, or their 

habitats.

Notification #4 - Compliance with Public Laws and Federal Regulations

Operators are required to comply with all public laws and federal regulations that apply to National 

Forest System lands and the Wayne National Forest’s 2006 Land and Resource Management Plan.
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 136 

Notification #5 - Steep Slopes and/or Unstable Soils

The area of this lease contains a considerable amount of land with steep slopes and/or unstable soils. 

Accordingly, the opportunity to locate access roads, drilling sites, pipelines, storage tanks and other 

improvements may be extremely limited.

5.3. Management Areas Requiring Special Stipulations

Stipulation #1 - No Surface Occupancy - Future Old Forest

No surface occupancy allowed on the entire lease or on designated areas of the lease (see lease map) 

for the protection of the Future Old Forest resources.

On National Forest System land in Future Old Forest Management Areas, the Forest Service will issue

leases for federal oil and gas only with a No Surface Occupancy (NSO) stipulation. In the case of federal 

leases issued pursuant to the Comprehensive National Energy Policy Act of 1992, the Forest Service will 

recommend to the Bureau of Land Management that operations be allowed to continue provided that 

all activities comply with Forest guidance. When the existing well (or wells) is depleted, all facilities 

must be removed and the site rehabilitated to Forest Service standards. No new wells will be allowed, 

nor will existing wells be allowed to be drilled to deeper formations. The NSO stipulation does not apply 

to reserved or outstanding mineral rights.

Stipulation #2 - No Surface Occupancy - Research Natural Areas

No surface occupancy within designated areas of the lease (see lease map) for the protection of natural 

processes or research, historical, or educational values.

On National Forest System land in Research Natural Area Management Areas, the Forest Service will 

issue leases for federal oil and gas only with a No Surface Occupancy (NSO) stipulation. In the case of 

federal leases issued pursuant to the Comprehensive National Energy Policy Act of 1992, the Forest 

Service will recommend to the Bureau of Land Management that operations be allowed to continue 

provided that all activities comply with Forest guidance. When the existing well (or wells) is depleted, all 

facilities must be removed and the site rehabilitated to Forest Service standards. No new wells will be 

allowed, nor will existing wells be allowed to be drilled to deeper formations. The NSO stipulation does 

not apply to reserved or outstanding mineral rights.

Stipulation #3 - No Surface Occupancy - Special Areas

No surface occupancy within designated areas of the lease (see lease map) to protect natural processes 

or research, historical or educational values.

On National Forest System land in Special Interest Management Areas, the Forest Service will issue 

federal oil and gas leases only with a No Surface Occupancy (NSO) stipulation. In the case of federal 

leases issued pursuant to the Comprehensive National Energy Policy Act of 1992, the Forest Service will 

recommend to Bureau of Land Management that operations be allowed to continue provided that all 

activities comply with Forest guidance. When the existing well (or wells) is depleted, all facilities must be 

removed and the site rehabilitated to Forest Service standards. No new wells will be allowed, nor will
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 137 

existing wells be allowed to be drilled to deeper formations. The NSO stipulation does not apply to 

reserved or outstanding mineral rights.

Stipulation #4 - No Surface Occupancy - Candidate Areas

No surface occupancy within designated areas of the lease (see lease map) for the protection of natural 

processes or research, historical or educational values.

On National Forest System lands in Candidate Research Natural Management Areas, the Forest Service 

will only issue federal oil and gas leases that have a No Surface Occupancy (NSO) stipulation. In the case 

of federal leases issued pursuant to the Comprehensive National Energy Policy Act of 1992, the Forest 

Service will recommend to Bureau of Land Management that operations be allowed to continue 

provided that all activities comply with Forest guidance. When the existing well (or wells) is depleted, all 

facilities must be removed and the site rehabilitated to Forest Service standards. No new wells will be 

allowed, nor will existing wells be allowed to be drilled to deeper formations. The NSO stipulation does 

not apply to reserved or outstanding mineral rights.

Stipulation #5 - No Surface Occupancy - Administrative Sites, Developed Recreation Areas, Trails, and 

Associated Trailheads

No surface occupancy within designated areas of the lease (see lease map) to protect special 

management units such as developed recreation areas, trails and associated trailheads, water supply 

facilities, administrative site, etc.

On National Forest System land within administrative sites, developed recreation areas, trails and 

associated trailheads, the Forest Service will issue leases for federal oil and gas only with a No Surface 

Occupancy (NSO) stipulation. The NSO designation will include a buffer zone, which will be determined 

in accordance with the Implementation Guide for Scenery Management. In the case of federal leases 

issued pursuant to the Comprehensive National Energy Policy Act of 1992, the Forest Service will 

recommend to the Bureau of Land Management that operations be allowed to continue provided that 

all activities comply with Forest guidance. When the existing well (or wells) is depleted, all facilities 

must be removed and the site rehabilitated to Forest Service standards. No new wells will be allowed, 

nor will existing wells be allowed to be drilled to deeper formations. The NSO stipulation does not apply 

to reserved or outstanding mineral rights.

5.4. Resources Requiring Special Stipulations

Stipulation #7 - No Surface Occupancy - Cultural Resources of Known Significance

No surface occupancy is allowed within archaeological or historical sites of known significance (see lease 

map). At the time of any new proposed lease developments, a Forest Service archaeologist shall 

determine the need for any setbacks or restrictions for the protection of objects of historic or scientific

interest.

Stipulation #8 - No Surface Occupancy - Slopes in Excess of 55 Percent

No surface occupancy is allowed on slopes in excess of 55 percent (see lease map) to protect soil and 

water from erosion and mass failure hazards because of steep slopes.
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 138 

Stipulation #9 - No Surface Occupancy - Areas of Mass Instability

No surface occupancy is allowed for the exploration and development of energy minerals on areas with 

mass soil instability, as defined by the USDA County Soil Surveys (see lease map).

Stipulation #10 - No Surface Occupancy - Hibernacula

No surface occupancy within 1⁄4 mile of all known Indiana bat hibernacula.

Stipulation #11 - Controlled Surface Use - Areas of Land with a Scenic Integrity Objective of ‘High’ or 

‘Moderate’

At the time of any new proposed lease developments, the responsible line officer shall determine the 

need for any visual quality mitigation. Some examples of mitigation may include special design and 

reclamation measures, transplanting trees and shrubs, fertilization, mulching, special erosion control 

structures, irrigation, site recontouring to match the original land contour, low profile equipment and 

painting to minimize contrast. Surface occupancy may also be limited or denied in sensitive areas, such 

as unique geologic features and rock formations, visually prominent areas such as designated trails and 

developed recreation sites.

Stipulation #12 - Controlled Surface Use - Known Locations of Federally Listed Species

No cutting of snags (trees with less than 10% live canopy), shagbark or shellbark hickories, or trees that 

are hollow and/or have major splits or broken tops, except during the bat hibernation season 

(September 15 through April 15). If such trees are a safety hazard, they may be cut anytime they pose 

an imminent threat to human safety, but if cut in the nonhibernation season the Forest Service biologist 

must be notified in advance. This stipulation applies only to trees over six inches in diameter.

Protect all supercanopy trees or other identified congregation roost trees for bald eagles along major 

river corridors and lakes. Protect known nests and roosts as described in the Bald Eagle Recovery Plan, 

or as directed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Prior to any surface disturbing activities a Forest Service biologist will conduct an assessment for 

potential American burying beetle habitat and occurrence. Occupancy restrictions will be determined at 

the time of the evaluation.

Stipulation #13 - Controlled Surface Use - Known Locations of Regional Forester Sensitive Species

Controlled surface use may include setbacks or restrictions from portions of the lease to ensure 

protection of habitat for regional sensitive species. At the time of any new proposed lease 

developments, the responsible line officer shall determine the need for any setbacks or restrictions, or 

the need for timing-related stipulation in accordance with the aquatic and terrestrial wildlife and 

botanical resources standards and guidelines.

The leaseholder and Forest Service inspector shall work together to identify locations for development 

and production facilities in order to protect the structural integrity of large old trees found on a portion 

of the tract.
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 139 

Stipulation #14 - Controlled Surface Use - Managed Wildlife Openings

At the time of any new proposed lease developments, the responsible line officer shall determine the 

extent of the surface use restrictions necessary to maintain habitat integrity for plant and animal species 

dependent on such habitats.

Stipulation #15 - Controlled Surface Use - Riparian Areas

At the time of any new proposed lease developments, the responsible line officer shall determine the 

appropriate surface use restrictions necessary to maintain the structural and ecological integrity of 

riparian areas, and aquatic and riparian-dependent species viability.

Stipulation #16 - Controlled Surface Use - Portions of Floodplains Outside Riparian Areas

Oil and gas activities may be allowed within that portion of a floodplain outside riparian areas. Mineral 

activities will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and appropriate mitigation measures will be applied. 

The leaseholder and Forest Service inspector shall work together to identify locations for roads, 

pipelines, well pads and production facilities.

Stipulation #17 - Controlled Surface Use - Slopes Between 35 and 55 Percent

Oil and gas activities will be allowed on slopes from 35 to 55 percent on a case-by-case basis with 

appropriate mitigation. New road construction and maintenance shall be planned to disturb the least 

amount of ground. The leaseholder and Forest Service inspector shall work together to identify 

locations for roads, pipelines, well pads, and production facilities.
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 140 

6. MAPS
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 141 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 142 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 143 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 144 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 145 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 146 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 147 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 148 

7. PERSONS, GROUPS, AND AGENCIES CONSULTED

7.1. List of Persons, Agencies and Organizations Consulted

U.S. Forest Service, Wayne National Forest;

U.S. Forest Service, Eastern Region 9;

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;

Ohio State Historic Preservation Office;

The Delaware Tribe of Indians;

The Delaware Nation;

The Shawnee Tribe;

The Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma;

The Absentee Shawnee Tribe of Indians;

The Wyandotte Nation; and

Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma.

7.2. List of Preparers

BLM Preparers

Name Title Contributor 

Derek Strohl Natural Resources Specialist Soils; Plant and Animal Habitat and 

Populations; Environmental Justice; 

Socioeconomics; Air Resources (Reviewer)

Jarrod Kellogg Archaeologist Cultural Resources; Paleontology; Native 

American Religious Concerns; Recreation; 

Land Use; Noise

Katie Kassander Natural Resources Specialist Water Resources and Water Quality

Kurt Wadzinski Planning and Environmental 

Coordinator

Reviewer; Editor

Carolyn Helm Geologist Geology and Minerals

Kyle Schumacher Natural Resources Specialist Wastes, Hazardous and Solid; Visual 

Resources and Scenic Quality

George Matzke Petroleum Engineer Geology and Minerals (Reviewer)
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 149 

Name Title Contributor 

Carol Zurawski Planning and Environmental 

Coordinator

Cumulative Effects; Reviewer; Editor; 

Justin Katusak Planning and Environmental 

Coordinator/Litigation 

Appendix C; Reviewer

Karlee Yurek Branch Chief, Natural and 

Community Resources, ESO

Reviewer; Editor

Nicole Virella Planning and Environmental 

Specialist

Reviewer; Editor

Kimberly MelendezRiveraPlanning and Environmental 

Specialist, Southeastern States 

District

Air Resources (Climate Change, GHG 

Emissions)
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 150 

8. REFERENCES

Arbogast, K. (2004). Social and Economic Assessment for the Wayne National Forest. Tomas M. Koontz,

PhD (ed.). Nelsonville, OH: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Wayne National Forest.

Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC). (2016). Maps by topic: Economic status. County economic

status in Appalachia, FY 2016. Retrieved from 

http://www.arc.gov/research/MapsofAppalachia.asp?F_CATEGORY_ID=1.

Bayne, E. M., Habib, L., & Boutin, S. (2008). Impacts of chronic anthropogenic noise from energy-sector

activity on abundance of songbirds in the boreal forest. In Conservation Biology, Vol. 22(5), 

1186-1193. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00973.x

Boden, T. A., Marland, G., & Andres, R. J. (2013). Global, regional, and national fossil-fuel CO2

emissions. U.S. Department of Energy. Oak Ridge, TN: Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis

Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory. doi:10.3334/CDIAC/00001_V2013

Buonopane, S., Ebright, S., & Smith, A. (2012). Historic American Engineering Record,

Rinard Bridge: HAER No. OH-130. Washington, DC: National Park Service. Retrieved from

http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/oh1983/

Bureau of Land Management. (1998). Mosquito Creek Lake draft planning analysis/Environmental

assessment. Milwaukee, WI: Milwaukee District Office.

Bureau of Land Management. (2007). Split estate: Rights, responsibilities, and opportunities

(BLM Publication No. BLM/WO/GI-06/022+3161/REV 07). Retrieved from Bureau of Land

Management website: 

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/oil_and_gas/best_management_practices/split_est

ate.html

Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment (CDPHE). (2016). Frequently asked questions. 

Retrieved from https://www.colorado.gov/cdphe/oghealth/faq

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). (1997). Environmental justice: Guidance under the National

Environmental Policy Act. Retrieved from https://ceq.doe.gov/ceq_regulations/guidance.html

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). (2016). Regulations for implementing the procedural

provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act. Retrieved from

https://ceq.doe.gov/ceq_regulations/regulations.html 

Currie, K., & Stelle, E. (2010). Pennsylvania's natural gas boom: Economic and environmental impacts.

Policy Brief from the Commonwealth Foundation, 22(05), 1-12. Harrisburg, PA: Commonwealth 

Foundation for Public Policy Alternatives. Retrieved from: 

www.commonwealthfoundation.org/doclib/20100607_MarcellusShaleDrilling.pdf
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 151 

Fletcher, S. M. (2012). Risk assessment of groundwater contamination from hydraulic fracturing fluid 

spills in Pennsylvania (Thesis S.M. in Technology and Policy). Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts 

Institute of Technology, Engineering Systems Division, Technology and Policy Program. 

Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/72885

Ground Water Protection Council & ALL Consulting. (2009). Modern shale gas development in the

United States: A primer. Oklahoma City, OK. Retrieved from

http://www.gwpc.org/resources/publications

Ground Water Protection Council & International Oil & Gas Compact Commission. (2016). FracFocus

chemical disclosure registry. Retrieved from https://fracfocus.org/

Hansen J., Sato, M., Ruedy, R., Lo, K., Lea, D.W., & Medina-Elizade, M. (2006). Global temperature

change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103(39), 14288-14293. National

Academy of Sciences of the United States. Retrieved from

www.pnas.orgcgidoi10.1073pnas.0606291103

Hayes, D. J. (2012). Is the recent increase in felt earthquakes in the Central US natural or manmade?

Retrieved from https://www.doi.gov/blog/Is-the-Recent-Increase-in-Felt-Earthquakes-in-theCentral-US-Natural-or-Manmade

ICF International. (2009). Technical Assistance for the Draft Supplemental Generic EIS: Oil and Gas and

Solution Mining Regulatory Program. New York: New York State Energy Research and

Development Authority (NYSERDA). Retrieved from: 

https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-ORD-2010-0674-1624

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2006). 2006 IPCC guidelines for national

greenhouse gas inventories. Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Retrieved

from http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/index.html

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2007). Climate change 2007: Mitigation,

contribution of working group III to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel

on Climate Change [B. Metz, O. R. Davidson, P. R. Bosch, R. Dave, L. A. Meyer (eds.)]. 

Cambridge, UK and New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_wg3_

report_mitigation_of_climate_change.htm

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC). (2016). Infographic: The Global Carbon Budget.

http://www.wri.org/ipcc-infographics

Institute of Medicine (IOM) . (2014). Fracturing: Accessing shale and tight gas. David Cole, M.S. In C. 

Coussens and R. M. Martinez (eds.), Health impact assessment of shale gas extraction: 

Workshop summary, 17-22. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Retrieved from 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/18376/health-impact-assessment-of-shale-gas-extractionworkshop-summary
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 152 

Jiang, M., Griffin, W. M, Hendrickson, C., Jaramillo, P., VanBriesen, J., & Venkatesh, A. (2011). Life cycle

greenhouse gas emissions of Marcellus shale gas. Environmental Research Letters, 6(3), 1-10.

Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/6/3/034014

* Supplementary Data retrieved from 

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/3/034014/media/erl381437suppdata.pdf

Kleinheinz & Associates. (2011). Ohio’s natural gas and crude oil exploration and production industry

and emerging Utica gas formation economic impact study. Ohio: Ohio Oil and Gas Energy

Education Program. Retrieved from https://energyindepth.org/wpcontent/uploads/ohio/2011/09/Ohio-Natural-Gas-and-Crude-Oil-Industry-Economic-ImpactStudy-September-2011.pdf

King, G. E. (2012). Hydraulic fracturing 101: What every representative, environmentalist, regulator, 

reporter, investor, university researcher, neighbor and engineer should know about estimating 

frac risk and improving frac performance in unconventional gas and oil wells. SPE 152596. The 

Woodlands, TX: SPE (Society for Petroleum Engineers) Hydraulic Fracturing Technology 

Conference, 6-8 February, 2012. Retrieved from 

https://www.bucknell.edu/script/environmentalcenter/marcellus/default.aspx?articleid=B6GAK

ZRAOQYKMB9YCSTFEFQ7Z

Lendel, I., Thomas, A. R., Townley, B., Murphy, T., & Kalynchuk, K. (2015). Economics of Utica shale in 

Ohio: Workforce analysis. Urban Publications. Paper 1330. Cleveland, OH: Cleveland State 

University. Retrieved from http://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/urban_facpub/1330/

Malm, W. C. (1999). Introduction to visibility. National Park Service Air Resources Division and 

Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere (CIRA). NPS Visibility Program. Under 

Cooperative Agreement CA2350-97-001: T097-04, T098-06. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State 

University. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/visibility/introduction-visibility

Malm, W. C., Schichtel, B. A., Barna, M. G., Gebhart, K. A., Rodriguez, M. A., Collett, Jr., J. L.,...S. M.,

Kreidenweis. (2013). Aerosol species concentrations and source

apportionment of ammonia at Rocky Mountain National Park. In Journal of the Air & Waste

Management Association, 63(11), 1245-1263. doi: 10.1080/10962247.2013.804466

National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Institute for Space Studies (NASA). (2007).

GISS surface temperature analysis. Retrieved from http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). (2016). Climatological rankings. Asheville,

NC: National Centers for Environmental Information. Retrieved from

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/climatologicalrankings/index.php?periods%5B%5D=60¶meter=tavg&state=33&div=0&month=1&year=20

16#ranks-form

National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). (2008). Ohio, Assessing the costs of climate change.

Retrieved from http://cier.umd.edu/climateadaptation/Climate%20change--OHIO.pdf
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 153 

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). (2009). 2009 Draft Supplemental

Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Oil, Gas and Solution Mining. New York: New York

State of Environmental Conservation. Retrieved from 

http://www.dec.ny.gov/energy/75370.html

Ohio Department of Agriculture (ODA). (2016). Plant Health Division - Emerald Ash Borer.

Reynoldsburg, OH: Ohio Department of Agriculture. Retrieved from 

http://www.agri.ohio.gov/divs/plant/eab/eab-index.aspx#tog

Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR). (2002). Groundwater pollution potential, Washington

County, Ohio (GIS data file). Columbus, OH: Ohio Department of Natural Resources. Retrieved

from http://geospatial.ohiodnr.gov/data-metadata/search-by-category

Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR). (2014). Recent Earthquake Epicenters in Ohio (map).

 Columbus, Ohio: Ohio Department of Natural Resources. Retrieved from

 http://oilandgas.ohiodnr.gov/shale#SEIS.

Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR). (2015a). Acid mine drainage abatement program.

 Columbus, OH: Division of Mineral Resources. Retrieved from

 http://minerals.ohiodnr.gov/abandoned-mine-land-reclamation/acid-mine-drainage#AMD

Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR). (2015b). Water well locations in Monroe County, Ohio

 (GIS data file). Columbus, OH: Ohio Department of Natural Resources. Retrieved from

 http://geospatial.ohiodnr.gov/data-metadata/search-by-category

Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR). (2015c). Water well locations in Washington County,

 Ohio (GIS data file). Columbus, OH: Ohio Department of Natural Resources. Retrieved from

 http://geospatial.ohiodnr.gov/data-metadata/search-by-category

Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR). (2016a). Abandoned mine land and reclamation

 programs. Columbus, OH: Division of Mineral Resources. Retrieved from

 http://minerals.ohiodnr.gov/abandoned-mine-land-reclamation/aml-reclamation-

 programs#BAC

Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR). (2016b). Deer harvest numbers. Columbus, OH: Ohio

Department of Natural Resources. Retrieved from http://wildlife.ohiodnr.gov/hunting-trappingand-shooting-sports/hunting-resources-by-species/deer/deer-harvest-yearly-comparison

Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR). (2016c). Diversion & Withdrawal Regulation.

 Columbus, OH: Ohio Department of Natural Resources. Retrieved from

 http://water.ohiodnr.gov/water-use-planning/diversion-withdrawal-regulation#WIT

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. (2011). Analysis of visibility impacts of BART-eligible sources on

the regional scale. Columbus, OH: Division of Air Pollution Control. Retrieved from 

http://www.epa.ohio.gov/portals/27/SIP/regional/D1-BART_TSD_edited_2011-clean.pd
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 154 

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. (2015). State of Ohio nonattainment area state implementation

plan and demonstration of attainment for 1-hour SO2 nonattainment areas. Retrieved from

http://epa.ohio.gov/portals/27/SIP/SO2/2010SO2_AttainDemo_Final.pdf

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. (2016). Ohio integrated water quality monitoring and

assessment report. Columbus, OH: Division of Surface Water. Retrieved from 

http://epa.ohio.gov/dsw/tmdl/OhioIntegratedReport.aspx#156069519-report

Ohio Oil and Gas Association (OOGA). (n.d.). Ohio shale plays. Retrieved from

http://www.ooga.org/?page=OhioShalePlays

Ohio Oil and Gas Energy Education Program. (2016). That was then ... This is now!. Retrieved

from http://oogeep.org/teachers-students/history/

Ohio University and The Ohio State University. (2011). Assuring Ohio’s competitiveness in a

carbon-constrained world: A collaboration between Ohio University and the Ohio State

University. Columbus, OH: Ohio Department of Development. Retrieved from 

http://ohioenergyresources.com/index.aspx

Pickett, A. (2011). Vast Resource Potential Has Operators Gearing Up to Test Utica Shale Formation.

American Oil & Gas Reporter. Retrieved from http://www.aogr.com/magazine

Ramanathan, V., & Carmichael, G. (2008). Global and regional climate changes due to black carbon. In

Nature Geoscience, 1, 221-227. doi:10.1038/ngeo156

Reed, M. (2014). Hiking Ohio: A guide to the state’s greatest hikes. Guilford, CT: Globe Pequot Press. 

Rogers, J. (n.d.). Climate of Ohio. Retrieved from

http://www.geography.ohio-state.edu/faculty/rogers/OOC.pdf

Rubenstein, J. L., & Mahani, A. B. (2015). Myths and facts on wastewater injection, Hydraulic fracturing,

Enhanced oil recovery, and induced seismicity. SRL Early Edition. Seismological Research Letters

86(4), 1-8. Retrieved from 

https://profile.usgs.gov/myscience/upload_folder/ci2015Jun1012005755600Induced_EQs_Revi

ew.pdf

Schiefer, M. C. (2002). Basin descriptions and flow characteristics of Ohio streams. Columbus, OH: Ohio

Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water. Retrieved from

https://water.ohiodnr.gov/portals/soilwater/pdf/stream/Bulletin47.pdf

Shonkoff, S. B. C., Hays, J., & Finkel, M. L. (2014). Environmental public health dimensions of shale and

tight gas development. In Environmental Health Perspectives, 122(8), 787-795. 

doi:10.1289/ehp.1307866 

Soeder, D. J., & Kappel, W. M. (2009). Water resources and natural gas production from the Marcellus

Shale: U.S. Geological Survey fact sheet 2009–3032. U.S. Geological Survey: West Trenton

Publishing Service Center. Retrieved from http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2009/3032/
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 155 

Stucker, J.D., compiler. (2015). 2014 Report on Ohio mineral industries—An annual summary of the

state’s economic geology. Columbus, OH: Department of Natural Resources, Division of 

Geological Survey. Retrieved from http://geosurvey.ohiodnr.gov/mineral-resources/mineralshome

The Guardian. (2011). What are CO2e and global warming potential (GWP)? Retrieved from:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/apr/27/co2e-global-warming-potential

Thomas, A. R., Lendel, I., Hill, E. W., Southgate, D., & Chase, R. (2012). An analysis of the economic

potential for shale formations in Ohio. Urban Publications. Paper 453. Cleveland, OH: 

Cleveland State University. Retrieved from 

http://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/urban_facpub/453/

Thompson, T. (2012). U.S. Forest Service white paper. A summary of the groundwater resources of the

Wayne National Forest. Supplemental information report - Horizontal drilling using high volume 

hydraulic fracturing - Appendix F. Retrieved from 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/wayne/landmanagement/planning/?cid=stelprdb5387922

Throupe, R., Simons, R. A., & Mao, X. (2013). A review of “Hydrofracking” and its potential effect on

real estate. In Journal of Real Estate Literature, 21(2), 205-232. Retrieved from 

https://energyindepth.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/A-review-of-hydrofracking-and-itspotential-effects-on-real-estate.pdf

Tillman, D., Hill, J., & Lehman, C. (2006). Carbon-negative biofuels from low-input high-diversity

grassland biomass. Science, 314(5805), 1598-1600. Retrieved from: 

https://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1133306

University of Colorado at Boulder. (2015). Public health in oil and gas development. Boulder, CO:

Intermountain Oil and Gas BMP Project. Retrieved from 

http://www.oilandgasbmps.org/resources/public_health.php

URS Corporation. (2010). Climate change supplementary information report, Montana, North Dakota

and South Dakota Bureau of Land Management. Denver, CO. Retrieved from 

http://www.blm.gov/mt/st/en/prog/energy/oil_and_gas/leasing/leasingEAs.html

U.S. Climate Data. (2016). Climate Ohio-Columbus. Retrieved from 

http://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/ohio/united-states/3205

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). (1996). Riparian areas environmental uniqueness, functions,

and values. Washington, DC: Natural Resources Conservation Service. Retrieved from

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/technical/?cid=nrcs143_014199

U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Interior, & U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(USDA, USDOI, & USEPA). (2011). Memorandum of Understanding among the U.S. Department
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 156 

of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Interior, & U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Regarding

air quality analysis and mitigation for federal oil and gas decisions through the National

Environmental Policy Act process. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/nepa/air-qualityguidance-national-environmental-policy-act-reviews

U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2016). State carbon dioxide emissions. Washington, DC:

Department of Energy. Retrieved from http://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/state/

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (1999). 64 FR 32610 - National emissions standards for

hazardous air pollutants: Oil and natural gas production and national emission standards for

hazardous air pollutants: Natural gas transmission and storage. Federal Register, 64(116),

32610-32664. Retrieved from 

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/pagedetails.action?granuleId=99-12894&packageId=FR1999-06-17&acCode=FR&collectionCode=FR

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2002). Exemption of oil and gas exploration and

production wastes from federal hazardous waste regulations. EPA530-K-01-004. October 2002.

Washington, DC: Office of Solid Waste (5305W). Retrieved from

http://www3.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/industrial/special/oil/

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2012). Report to Congress on black carbon.

Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010. EPA450/R-12-001. March 2012. Research Triangle, NC: Office of Air and Radiation and Office of Air

Quality Planning and Standards. Retrieved from https://www3.epa.gov/blackcarbon/

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2013). Greenhouse gas reporting program. Retrieved

from http://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting/reporters/subpart/w.html

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2015a). Hazardous air pollutants. Retrieved from

http://www.epa.gov/haps

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2015b). Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)

basic information. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/nsr/prevention-significantdeterioration-basic-information

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2016a). Air pollution emissions overview. Retrieved

from https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/emissns.html

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2016b). Air quality trends. Retrieved from

https://www3.epa.gov/airtrends/aqtrends.html

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2016c). Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR).

Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/airtransport/CSAPR/

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2016d). Little Muskingum-Middle Island watershed –

05030201. Retrieved from https://cfpub.epa.gov/surf/huc.cfm?huc_code=05030201
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 157 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2016e). NAAQS table. Retrieved from

https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants/naaqs-table

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2016f). Ohio nonattainment/maintenance status for

each county by year for all criteria pollutants. Retrieved from

http://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/anayo_oh.html

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2016g). Section 112(a)-Definitions. 

Retrieved from https://www3.epa.gov/airtoxics/112a_def.html

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2016h). Understanding global warming potentials.

Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warming-potentials

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2016i). U.S. greenhouse gas inventory report, 1990-

 2014. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/us-greenhouse-gas-inventory-report-

 1990-2014

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2016j). Visibility - Regional haze program. Retrieved

 from https://www.epa.gov/visibility/visibility-regional-haze-program

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). (2005). Biological Opinion on the Wayne National Forest Land

 and Resource Management Plan for the Federally-Listed Endangered Indiana Bat (Myotis

 sodalis) and Running Buffalo Clover (Trifolium soloniferum). Retrieved from

 http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm9_005683.pdf.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). (2011). Letter from United States Department of the Interior,

 Fish and Wildlife Service to DeVela J. Clark, District Ranger, Wayne National Forest, Athens

 Ranger District. Re: Proposed Pleasant Bear Vegetation Management Project, Marietta Unit,

 Athens District, WNF. Retrieved from

 https://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/inba/inbaBOs.html

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). (2016). Programmatic biological opinion on final 4(d) rule for the

Northern Long-eared Bat and activities excepted from take prohibitions. Bloomington, MN: 

Ecological Services Midwest Region. Retrieved from 

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/nleb/ 

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). (1995). Landscape aesthetics: A handbook for scenery management. 

 Agriculture Handbook Number 701. Retrieved from

 http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/tonto/landmanagement/planning/?cid=stelprdb5412120

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). (2005). Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Revised Land and 

 Resource Management Plan, Wayne National Forest. Milwaukee, WI: Eastern Region. Retrieved

 from http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/wayne/landmanagement/planning

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). (2006). Final Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, Wayne National 

 Forest. Milwaukee, WI: Eastern Region. Retrieved from

 http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/wayne/landmanagement/planning
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 158 

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). (2012). Supplemental information report - Horizontal drilling using high

 volume hydraulic fracturing. Nelsonville, OH: Wayne National Forest. Retrieved from

 http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/wayne/landmanagement/planning/?cid=stelprdb5387922

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). (2014). Marietta unit - Motor vehicle use map. Nelsonville, OH: Wayne

 National Forest. Retrieved from http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/wayne/maps-pubs

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). (2015). Covered Bridge Scenic Byway (brochure). Nelsonville, OH: Wayne

 National Forest.

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). (2016a). Hune Bridge Campground. Nelsonville, OH: Wayne National

 Forest. Retrieved from http://www.fs.usda.gov/recarea/wayne/recarea/?recid=6218

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). (2016b). Lane Farm Campground. Nelsonville, OH: Wayne National Forest.

Retrieved from 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/recarea/wayne/recreation/wateractivities/recarea/?recid=6217&actid=

79

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). (2016c). Payments to counties. Nelsonville, OH: Wayne National Forest. 

Retrieved from: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detailfull/wayne/landmanagement/resourcemanagement/?cid=fsm9_0

05978&width=full

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). (2016d). Recreation. Nelsonville, OH: Wayne National Forest. Retrieved 

from http://www.fs.usda.gov/recmain/wayne/recreation

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). (2016e). Walter Ring House. Nelsonville, OH: Wayne National Forest. 

Retrieved from 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detailfull/wayne/specialplaces/?cid=fsm9_006037&width=full

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). (2016f). Administration of oil and natural gas activities. Nelsonville, OH: 

Wayne National Forest. Retrieved from 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/wayne/home/?cid=stelprdb5376502

U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (USFS & USFWS) (2010). 

Federal land managers’ air quality related values work group (FLAG): phase I report—revised 

(2010). Natural Resource Report NPS/NRPC/NRR—2010/232. Denver, CO: National Park Service. 

Retrieved from http://www.nature.nps.gov/air/Permits/flag/

Wenzel, C. (2012). A case study—Hydraulic fracturing geography: The case of the Eagle Ford Shale, TX, 

USA (Thesis M.S.). San Marcos, TX: Texas State University-San Marcos, Department of 

Geography. Retrieved from https://digital.library.txstate.edu/handle/10877/4247

Wickstrom, L. H., Riley, R. A., Erenpreiss, M. S., & Perry, C. J. (2012). Geologic overview and activity

update for the Utica-Point Pleasant shale play in Ohio. Search and Discovery Article #10409, 

American Association of Petroleum Geologist Data Pages, 25 June 2012. Columbus, OH: Ohio 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 159 

Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey. Retrieved from 

http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/pdfz/documents/2012/10409wickstrom/ndx_wickstrom.p

df.html
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 160 

9. APPENDICES
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 161 

Appendix A: Public Comment Matrix
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 162 

Issue/ Condensed 

Comment Response

Air/ Climate Change/ GHGs

BLM has failed to take a hard look at 

potential impacts to air quality. The 

Draft EA does not adequately assess all 

of the potential sources of air emissions, 

nor does it fully evaluate the impacts on 

air quality from future oil and gas 

operations. For example, the EA failed 

to adequately discuss:

● volatile organic compounds 

(VOCs) emissions from vehicles, 

diesel emissions from trucks 

(approximately 1,800 heavy 

truckloads, on average, which 

are delivered to/from the 

wellhead of every typical 

fracking well)

● Methane gas

● Fugitive emissions from tanks, 

pipelines

● Emissions from hydraulic 

fracturing (for example: mixing 

of chemicals; use of silica or 

sand as a proppant; and the 

storage of frack fluid)

● Emissions from Evaporation pits

The EA also does not include adequate 

enforceable mitigation measures to 

ensure there would be no significant 

impacts to air resources. 

Sections 3.2 and 4.2 in the Final EA discuss the potential 

sources of air emissions associated with reasonably 

foreseeable future oil and gas development in the 

Marietta Unit as well as the potential effects of those 

emissions. For example, Section 4.2.1 of the EA discloses 

that there are various sources of air emissions from 

potential mineral development, including VOCs, methane, 

fugitive emissions, and emissions associated with 

hydraulic fracturing. As stated in Section 4.3.8.1 (Federally 

endangered or threatened species), the Forest Service 

would require the use of closed-loop systems (i.e., tanks 

instead of open pits); however, evaporation pits may be 

used on private land in compliance with Ohio regulations. 

The air quality analysis in the Final EA has been updated to 

include quantified estimates of potential air emissions 

from the production and pre-production phase of

potential oil and gas development. 

The climate change sections of the EA (Sections 3.2.5 and 

4.2.3) have also been updated to include a quantification 

of potential greenhouse gas emissions associated with 

potential future mineral development and how it relates 

to climate change. 

Section 4.2.4 of the EA includes a list of best management 

practices, standard operating procedures, and mitigations 

for minimizing air emissions. Operators are required to 

ensure their actions do not violate any federal or state air 

quality standards. As the Interior Board of Land Appeals 

(IBLA) determined in Powder River Basin Resource 

Council, 183 IBLA 83, 95 (December 21, 2012), "BLM 

properly may rely on the state, which is subject to 

oversight by the USEPA, to ensure permitted activities do 

not exceed or violate any State or Federal air quality 

standard under the Clean Air Act (CAA).” Section 3.2.1 of 

the Final EA explains the various Ohio laws implementing 

the CAA.

The BLM has taken the requisite “hard look” at air quality 

in compliance with NEPA, utilizing data that is available at 

the leasing stage. Further detailed NEPA analysis, 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 163 

Issue/ Condensed 

Comment Response

including air quality analysis, would be conducted at the 

Application for Permit to Drill (APD) stage when specific 

design details are known. 

Oil & gas activities are exempted from 

major source pollution rules and are not 

monitored or regulated in Ohio. 

Operators are required to ensure their actions do not 

violate any federal or state air quality standards. Appendix 

C, a new appendix added to the Final EA, summarizes

Ohio’s oversight over emissions from oil and gas 

operations (page 155). The Ohio Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) air pollution regulations are 

located in the Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) in Chapters 

3745-14 to 3745-26, 3745-31, 3745-71 to 3745-80, 3745-

100 to 3745-105, 3745-108, 3745-109, and 3745-112 to 

3745-114. 

The Draft EA should be informed by air 

modeling to show where the air 

pollution will flow. 

Sections 3.2 and 4.2 in the Final EA discuss the potential 

sources of air emissions associated with reasonably 

foreseeable future oil and gas development in the 

Marietta Unit as well as the potential effects of those 

emissions. The BLM has revised the EA to include a 

quantified estimate of potential greenhouse gas 

emissions, but has elected not to conduct air modeling. Air 

modeling at the leasing stage would not provide 

meaningful information since specific development plans 

are not yet known. The output of a model is determined 

by the quality of the input data, and the BLM believes that 

air modeling at this time would be too speculative. 

Furthermore, the results of air modeling would not likely 

change the overall conclusion regarding the anticipated 

magnitude of effects of the Proposed Action. Further 

detailed NEPA analysis, including air quality analysis, 

would be conducted at the Application for Permit to Drill 

(APD) stage. At that time, the BLM will reassess whether 

air modeling is appropriate or necessary to make an 

informed decision. 

The BLM cannot defer detailed analysis 

of air quality until the APD stage. 

Sections 3.2 and 4.2 in the Final EA discuss the potential 

sources of air emissions associated with reasonably 

foreseeable future oil and gas development in the 

Marietta Unit as well as the potential effects of those 

emissions. The BLM has revised the EA to include a 

quantified estimate of potential greenhouse gas 

emissions, but has elected not to conduct air modeling. Air 

modeling at the leasing stage would not provide 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 164 

Issue/ Condensed 

Comment Response

meaningful information since specific development plans 

are not yet known. The output of a model is determined 

by the quality of the input data, and the BLM believes that 

air modeling at this time would be too speculative. 

Furthermore, the results of air modeling would not likely 

change the overall conclusion regarding the anticipated 

magnitude of effects of the Proposed Action. Further 

detailed NEPA analysis, including air quality analysis, 

would be conducted at the Application for Permit to Drill 

(APD) stage. At that time, the BLM will reassess whether 

air modeling is appropriate or necessary to make an 

informed decision. 

The Draft EA did not adequately assess 

potential impacts to climate change 

from future oil and gas operations. 

● The Draft EA should have 

included a quantified analysis of 

greenhouse gas emissions 

(GHGs) from oil and gas 

development and combustion. 

BLM has the information 

available to make an attempt to 

quantify GHGs (ex: Ohio 

production data, USEPA tools)

● Impacts from oil and gas 

development and the 

relationship to climate change 

must be evaluated Forest-wide

● BLM deliberately minimizes 

potential GHG impacts by 

comparing to the global volume 

of GHGs

● Any GHG emissions, no matter 

how small, are potentially 

significant.

● The BLM violates NEPA by not 

incorporating mitigation 

measures to reduce the GHG 

effects.

The EA for a recent lease sale in Utah 

undercuts BLM’s assertion that GHGs 

The BLM has revised both the air quality and climate 

change sections of the EA (see Sections 3.2 and 4.2), 

which includes quantified estimates of greenhouse gas 

emissions as well as qualitative discussions on the types of 

emissions that could occur as a result of reasonably 

foreseeable mineral development. Emissions that are 

considered “downstream” emissions, including the end 

uses of oil and gas (i.e., combustion), were not calculated 

within this EA due to the high degree of uncertainty 

associated with possible end use. 

Direct links to climate change are uncertain. The 

inconsistency in results of scientific models used to predict 

climate change at the global scale coupled with the lack of 

scientific models designed to predict climate change on 

regional or local scales, limits the ability to directly 

associate potential mineral development in the Marietta 

Unit with measureable changes in climate. The BLM has 

reviewed the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 

2016 final guidance on greenhouse gas emissions and 

climate change and believes the Final EA is consistent with 

these documents in terms of the approach taken to assess 

potential impacts from greenhouse gas emissions and on 

climate change. 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 165 

Issue/ Condensed 

Comment Response

cannot be quantified at the leasing 

stage for the Wayne National Forest. 

CEQ and the courts have cautioned 

federal agencies that they cannot ignore 

climate change generally, or the 

combustion impacts of fossil fuel 

extraction. 

The Draft EA did not include more up to 

date research on climate change in 

Ohio. 

Section 3.2.6 (Ohio Climate) of the Final EA has been 

updated. 

The Draft EA contains no data on air 

contamination (associated with 

hydraulic fracturing) in Ohio. 

The BLM has revised both the air quality and climate 

change sections of the EA (see Sections 3.2 and 4.2), 

which includes quantified estimates of greenhouse gas 

emissions as well as qualitative discussions on the types of 

emissions that could occur as a result of reasonably 

foreseeable mineral development. The new analysis in the 

Final EA accounts for potential emissions associated with 

hydraulic fracturing. 

Editorial: Table 3.2 only addresses 

Washington County

Washington County is the only one of the three counties 

(where the Proposed Action would take place) that is 

currently in non-attainment for any of the criteria air 

pollutants (Sulfur Dioxide).

The Draft EA does not discuss policies 

which are not market-driven, and there 

is no integration of BLM oil and gas 

leasing with the U.S. international treaty 

commitments respecting reductions in 

fossil fuel usage and emission reduction 

targets.

Agencies continue to have substantial discretion in how 

they tailor their NEPA processes to accommodate 

emissions targets, consistent with the CEQ Regulations 

and their respective implementing regulation and policies, 

so long as they provide the public and decision makers 

with explanations of the basis for their determinations.

The Draft EA does not incorporate the 

U.S. EPA latest inventory of U.S. 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks. 

This report indicates that methane gas 

from the natural gas industry has 

decreased since 1990. 

The Final EA was edited in Section 3.2.5.1 to include data 

and a reference to this report. 

Water

The Draft EA contains no data on water 

consumption and pollution (associated 

with hydraulic fracturing). 

The 2006 Forest Plan/EIS and 2012 SIR have detailed 

analysis on all water resources and the impact of 

development on the resources. The Final EA references 

the SIR on the average water withdrawal/consumption 

associated with hydraulic fracturing in Section 3.6.1.2. 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 166 

Issue/ Condensed 

Comment Response

The EA includes a table (Table 3.9) portraying water 

quality within the Marietta Unit. As described in Section 

4.6.1 of the Final EA, there could be effects to surface 

water quality from reasonable foreseeable oil and gas 

development but effects would be minimized through 

Forest Service protections, best management practices, 

and lease stipulations. Further analysis will be conducted 

at the APD stage. 

The Draft EA does not fully and 

accurately evaluate the surface water 

and groundwater resource impacts of 

potential oil and gas operations. 

The Final EA discusses the potential effects to surface 

water and groundwater, as well as potential cumulative 

effects (see Sections 3.6, 4.6, and 4.16.2.3). 

Before hydraulic fracturing takes place, all surface casing 

and some deeper, intermediate zones are required to be 

cemented from the bottom of the cased hole to the 

surface in accordance to Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 2. 

The cemented well is pressure tested to ensure there are 

no leaks and a cement bond log is run to ensure the 

cement has bonded to the casing and the formation. The 

Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) requires 

new and existing wells that will be stimulated by hydraulic 

fracturing must demonstrate suitable and safe mechanical 

configuration for the stimulation treatment proposed. This 

would ensure that no groundwater gets contaminated.

The Draft EA does not adequately 

describe Forest Service policies for 

water protection.

Sections 4.6.1 and 4.6.2 of the Final EA refer the reader to 

the Safety Measures and Guidelines that the Forest 

Service incorporated in their 2006 Plan/EIS and 2012 SIR. 

The EA does not address the long term 

impacts of hydraulic fracturing on the 

region (including the Athens and Ironton 

Units), including:

● water withdrawals – aquifers, 

aquatic life, water quantity

● waste production and disposal 

● potential contamination to 

water resources (accidental 

spills, unmapped aquifers, 

contamination from drilling 

mud)

● impacts on ecosystems and 

watersheds and how these 

impacts could affect wildlife and 

threatened and endangered 

The Final EA provides a comprehensive discussion of 

potential impacts associated with hydraulic fracturing in 

the Marietta Unit (see Sections 4.4, 4.6, 4.7, and 4.16). 

The EA does not address potential impacts of leasing and 

potential future mineral development within the Athens 

and Ironton Units because these actions, if they occur, 

would occur independently from the Proposed Action and 

are not connected actions. 

Before hydraulic fracturing takes place, all surface casing 

and some deeper, intermediate zones are required to be 

cemented from the bottom of the cased hole to the 

surface in accordance to Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 2. 

The cemented well is pressure tested to ensure there are 

no leaks and a cement bond log is run to ensure the 

cement has bonded to the casing and the formation. For 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 167 

Issue/ Condensed 

Comment Response

species. wells on private surface accessing private minerals the

ODNR requires that all wells, which will be stimulated by 

hydraulic fracturing, demonstrate suitable and safe 

mechanical configuration for the stimulation treatment 

proposed. This would ensure that no groundwater gets 

contaminated. 

There is no Ohio legislation that 

regulates water withdrawals. It is 

unclear which agency will oversee the 

extraction of water for mineral 

development, particularly if it occurs on 

private land. 

Appendix C, pages 149-150, addresses Ohio Department 

of Natural Resources (ODNR) oversight of water 

withdrawals. Appendix C is a new appendix that has been 

added to the Final EA. 

The Draft EA (groundwater quality 

section) fails to acknowledge studies 

suggesting that frack wells – and 

injection wells – can contaminate 

groundwater sources for drinking water 

(USEPA’s Draft Investigation of 

Groundwater Contamination near 

Pavilion, Wyoming). These results have 

been confirmed with follow up studies. 

Ohio does not require monitoring of 

groundwater quality near injection 

wells. 

The EA does acknowledge the risk of groundwater 

contamination due to hydraulic fracturing wells but also 

states that that before hydraulic fracturing takes place, all 

surface casing and some deeper, intermediate zones are 

required to be cemented from the bottom of the cased 

hole to the surface in accordance with Onshore Oil and 

Gas Order No. 2, which would make contamination highly 

unlikely as stated in Section 2.2.1. The cemented well is 

pressure tested to ensure there are no leaks and a cement 

bond log is run to ensure the cement has bonded to the 

casing and the formation. All Federal and State regulations 

concerning water are discussed in the 2006 Forest 

Plan/EIS and 2012 SIR. Both Federal and State regulations 

require new and existing wells, which will be stimulated 

by hydraulic fracturing, demonstrate suitable and safe 

mechanical configuration for the stimulation treatment 

proposed. 

The BLM should have studied the rates 

of well casing failures over time and 

evaluate the likelihood that well casing 

failures can lead to groundwater 

contamination. 

The Society of Petroleum Engineers has conducted studies 

on well failure rates and found them to be extremely low. 

Well failures are extremely rare. A well is comprised of 

about seven layers of thick steel and cement, each of 

which has a specific role in protecting the groundwater. 

For a well to leak every layer would have to break and 

leak. In 2011 the Groundwater Protection Council study 

found that the failure rates for wells in Ohio was less than 

.03 percent. 

The Draft EA fails to mention that water 

from precipitation and snowmelt can 

serve as an avenue through which 

contaminants travel from an operation 

site to sensitive areas, including 

The Final EA discusses atmospheric deposition in Section 

3.2.3 and potential impacts to surface water from runoff 

in Section 4.6.1.1. 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 168 

Issue/ Condensed 

Comment Response

population centers. Contaminated 

water runoff may seep into residential 

areas, polluting streets, sidewalks, soil, 

and vegetation in urban areas, adversely 

affecting human health. 

The Draft EA incorrectly states that 

there would be no direct impacts since 

there is no ground disturbance at this 

time. Groundwater contamination can 

occur without surface disturbing 

activities. 

The Final EA states that there would be no groundwater 

contamination as the direct result of leasing, which is an 

administrative action. The Final EA, Section 4.6, discusses 

the potential effects to groundwater from reasonably 

foreseeable oil and gas development. 

The BLM has ignored the fact that the 

water sacrificed for fracking has limited 

reuse potential, but in the end, is 

irredeemable.

This fact was acknowledged within the Final EA in Section 

2.2.1

The Draft EA should consider including 

reference to a recent University of 

Cincinnati study that found “no 

evidence for natural gas contamination 

from shale oil and gas mining in any of 

the sampled groundwater wells of our 

study.” 

In 2011 a Duke University study failed to show a 

connection between hydraulic fracturing and groundwater 

contamination. The University of Cincinnati study is a 

multi-year, ongoing study and the results were not 

published at the time the Final EA was written.

References to “cement bond logs” in the 

EA should be replaced with “cement 

evaluation tools” or “cement evaluation 

logs” to ensure clarity and eliminate 

potential conflicts with BLM regulations.

The terminology was not changed in the Final EA. A 

cement bond log documents the method of the evaluation 

used to insure the integrity of the cementing job done on 

a well.

Geology/Minerals/Soils

The Draft EA did not assess the 

potentially significant impacts of 

horizontal hydraulic fracturing of the 

deep shale formations that lie beneath 

the WNF. The EA also does not include a 

discussion of the potential impacts of 

hydraulic fracturing on specific 

geological formations. 

The methods and potential effects of hydraulic fracturing 

on geology are discussed in several places in the Final EA 

(see Sections 2.2.1, 3.4, 4.4). The impacts of hydraulic 

fracturing on deep shale formations have been evaluated 

in numerous studies, and based on the results of these 

studies; the BLM believes there would be no significant 

impacts associated with hydraulic fracturing for potential 

future oil and gas development in the Marietta Unit. Further 

analysis will be conducted at an APD stage in regards to 

geology and hydraulic fracturing.

The Draft EA does not fully and 

accurately evaluate the potential effects 

from contamination permeating the 

geologic formations under the WNF. For 

example, frack wells are known to lead 

The Final EA includes a comprehensive discussion of 

potential effects of hydraulic fracturing (see Sections 4.4, 

4.6, 4.7, and 4.16). Before hydraulic fracturing takes place, 

all surface casing and some deeper, intermediate zones 

are required to be cemented from the bottom of the 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 169 

Issue/ Condensed 

Comment Response

to migration of gas and frack chemicals 

up to miles from injection. Geology 

under WNF is highly fractured and 

permeable.

cased hole to the surface in accordance to Onshore Oil 

and Gas Order No.2. The cemented well is pressure 

tested to ensure there are no leaks and a cement bond log 

is run to ensure the cement has bonded to the casing and 

the formation. The Onshore Order No. 2 is discussed in 

Section 3.8 of the Final EA.

Draft EA does not fully and accurately 

evaluate the geologic/seismic risks 

(including locations of faults) of 

potential oil and gas operations. The 

Draft EA does not include: the 

background seismicity of oil- and gasbearing lands including the history of 

earthquake size and frequency, fault 

structure, seismicity rates, failure 

mechanisms, and state of stress of 

faults, the geology of oil- and gasbearing lands including pore pressure, 

formation permeability, and 

hydrological connectivity to deeper 

faults; the hazards to human 

communities and infrastructure from 

induced seismic activity; how the 

distance from a well to a fault affects 

seismic risk, how fluid injection and 

extraction volumes, rates, and pressures 

affect seismic risk; how the density of 

wells affects seismic risk, the time 

period following the initiation of 

injection or extraction activities over 

which earthquakes can be induced, 

extraction or injection activities affects 

induced seismicity, the largest 

earthquake that could be induced...in 

areas for lease; and whether active and 

abandoned wells are safe from damage 

from earthquake activity over the short 

and long-term

The Final EA includes additional information on seismicity 

(see Section 4.4)

Conservatively, over 80% of the peerreviewed science on hydraulic fracturing 

has been composed since the 2006 Final 

EIS and the 2012 SIR. This new 

More information has been added to the Geology and 

Minerals sections (Sections 3.4. & 4.4) of the Final EA.
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 170 

Issue/ Condensed 

Comment Response

information has not been included in 

the Draft EA. 

There never has been a comprehensive 

analysis of the impacts of fracking in the 

WNF that applies increased knowledge 

of the underlying geology and a 

practical grasp of the contemporary 

state of fracking technology to quantify 

the prospects and anticipated damage 

that would follow from large-scale 

fracking in the Wayne. 

The Final EA analyzes potential impacts from developing 

oil and gas resources underlying the Marietta Unit based 

on the Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario 

(RFDS) created for the 2006 Forest Plan/EIS and reviewed 

for the 2012 SIR. Based on the review of new information 

including the potential for hydraulic fracturing in the 

Wayne National Forest, the RFDS was deemed to be 

adequate for the amount and type of development 

anticipated.

The Draft EA does not distinguish 

between 50 years of fracking of vertical, 

comparatively shallow, wells, which did 

not explicitly aim for subsurface 

radioactive shale, and the scant decade 

and a half of horizontal drilling into 

radioactive shale layers.

The 2012 SIR evaluated the impacts of horizontal drilling 

into the shale formations versus the vertical wells 

analyzed in the 2006 Forest Plan/EIS. The findings from 

the 2012 SIR are incorporated into the EA. 

Produced waters from hydraulic 

fracturing operations can contain high 

levels of total dissolved solids, salts, 

metals, and radioactive materials. If 

spilled, soils can become contaminated. 

Radium contamination could remain in 

the soils for thousands of years. 

Section 4.5 of the Final EA acknowledges the potential 

effects to soils from reasonably foreseeable oil and gas 

development. 

The Draft EA contains no data on 

mineral productivity and hydraulic 

fracturing in Ohio. 

Information is included in Section 3.4.1 of the Final EA. 

Biological/ T&E

The Draft EA does not adequately 

analyze the impacts to threatened and 

endangered (T&E) species; it only states 

what plant and animal populations exist 

in the forest. The Draft EA should have 

included analysis on: 

● population-level impacts

● habitat fragmentation

● potential effects to wildlife/T&E 

and vegetation from spills (i.e. 

surface water and on the 

ground)

Section 4.3.8 of the EA contains an analysis on potential 

impacts to threatened and endangered species from 

potential future oil and gas development in the Marietta 

Unit. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) concurred 

that the consultation conducted for the 2006 Plan/EIS was 

sufficient to account for the possible affected species at 

the leasing stage (see Section 4.3.8.1.4). Additional 

consultations would be completed at the APD stage, as 

required. At that time, further analysis would be 

conducted on any potential population-level effects to 

federally listed species. 

The Draft EA should have discussed 

potential impacts from water extraction 

Sections 3.6 and 4.6 of the Final EA analyze water 

resources and potential impacts from reasonably 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 171 

Issue/ Condensed 

Comment Response

such as lowering the water table, 

harming local ecosystems, and affecting 

biodiversity. 

foreseeable oil and gas development. As stated in Section 

4.6.1.2 of the Final EA, “The BLM and Forest Service would 

not approve water withdrawals that would draw down a 

surface waterbody to the extent that aquatic life would be 

measurably adversely impacted, for example, by 

dewatering a stream enough to entrap fish or expose 

mussels to dry conditions in a stream that would normally 

have perennial flow.”

There could be adverse effects to 

Indiana Bat from the proposed action 

because Forest Service requirements 

(closed loop systems) are only required 

on federal surface. 

As stated in Section 3.3.8.1.1 of the Final EA, the Indiana 

Bat is likely present in the Marietta Unit but the most 

heavily concentrated populations are most likely on the 

Athens and Ironton Units. As described in Section 4.3.8.1.1 

of the Final EA, oil and gas activities may adversely affect 

the Indiana Bat and the USFWS issued an incidental take 

permit to the Forest Service. The BLM and Forest Service 

have completed all required Endangered Species Act 

consultations at this time. Further consultations, as 

required, would be conducted at the APD stage. Appendix 

C of this EA (a new appendix), discusses Endangered 

Species Act requirements for private surface. 

The information presented in the T&E 

section of the Draft EA does not apply 

since it has not been re-evaluated or 

assessed since 2006.

As described in Section 1.7.2.2 of the Final EA, the 

information provided in the Final EA with regard to 

potential effects to federally listed species is accurate, and 

no further USFWS consultation is needed at this time. 

Additional consultations, as required, would be conducted 

at the APD stage. 

The BLM should have consulted with 

the USFWS for this EA to account for 

any changes since the 2006 Forest Plan. 

As stated in Section 1.7.2.2 of the Final EA, the Forest 

Service and the USFWS concluded that no further analysis 

or consultation under the Endangered Species Act is 

needed at this time. Additional consultations, as required, 

would be conducted at the APD stage. 

The Draft EA assumes that the Athens 

and Ironton Units contain the most 

heavily concentrated Indiana Bat 

populations, when there is no data in 

the EA to support this statement

As stated in Section 3.3.8.1.1 of the Final EA, this 

statement is based on thorough surveys conducted 

previously throughout the Forest by the USFWS. 

Invasive species may be introduced 

through a variety of pathways that 

would be increasingly common if oil and 

gas activity is allowed to expand.

This statement is acknowledged in Section 4.3.10. of the 

Final EA.

Section 3.3.10 of the Draft EA did not 

mention Phragmites Australis

This section is not intended to be an exhaustive list of 

invasive species that may occur in the Marietta Unit. 

Particular species will be identified more exhaustively at 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 172 

Issue/ Condensed 

Comment Response

the APD stage.

The Draft EA fails to address whether 

roost trees and other suitable habitat 

for the Northern Long-Eared bat (NLEB) 

are within the action area. The fact that 

there are not known hibernacula within 

the areas for lease does not mean that 

NLEB foraging or summer roost sites are 

absent from these areas.

Section 3.3.8.1.2 states that there is suitable habitat for 

roosting and foraging for this bat. Further consultations, 

as required, would be conducted at the APD stage.

It is unclear whether the agencies have 

consulted on the Northern Long-Eared 

bat under ESA section 7. The EA should 

clarify what steps BLM and the Forest 

Service have taken or plan to take to 

ensure that the NLEB is adequately 

protected in compliance with ESA

The consultation process has been clarified in Section 

1.7.2.2 of the Final EA. 

The EA does not address the Indiana Bat 

recovery plan and how it plans to 

comply with this plan.

The recovery plan is beyond the scope of this EA. Tier I 

Section 7 consultation for the Indiana Bat was completed 

by the Forest Service in development of the 2006 Forest 

Plan/EIS. Further consultation with the USFWS on Indiana 

Bat and other species would be completed at the APD 

stage. Also while suitable summer habitat exists on all 

three units of the Wayne National Forest, the Athens and 

Ironton Units most likely contain the most heavily 

concentrated populations of Indiana bat, based on 

thorough surveys conducted previously throughout the 

Forest by the USFWS as stated in Section 3.3.8.1.1 of the 

Final EA. 

The tricolored bat & timber rattler were 

not discussed in the Draft EA. 

These species were not considered at the time of the Tier I 

Section 7 consultation for the 2006 Forest Plan/EIS. 

Additional species, as appropriate, will be considered at 

the APD stage.

The Draft EA should acknowledge that 

Louisiana water thrushes have been 

documented to be affected by fracking. 

The Final EA (Section 4.3.6) states that, “Stipulations #15 

and #16 allow the Forest Service to set additional

conditions of approval on proposed development in 

riparian areas and floodplains. These stipulations are 

expected to protect the habitat of the Louisiana 

waterthrush. Other potential impacts to this species, 

which may be due to water quality impacts, are addressed 

in the relevant sections. Development on private lands in 

floodplains and adjacent to streams would be subject to 

State and federal laws protecting wetlands and 

floodplains.” 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 173 

Issue/ Condensed 

Comment Response

Draft EA should have included a full 

assessment of the direct and indirect 

impacts of unconventional oil and gas 

development on wildlife and 

ecosystems through a suite of 

comprehensive studies on all species 

and ecosystems that could be affected. 

● The studies should be detailed 

for federally and state listed 

species, federal and state 

candidates for listing, and state 

species of special concern. The 

studies should address: habitat 

loss, degradation, and 

fragmentation, including edge 

effects; water depletion; air and 

water contamination; 

introduction of invasive species; 

climate change impacts; health 

and behavioral effects such as 

increased stress and changes in 

life history behaviors; changes 

in demographic rates such as 

reproductive success and 

survival; and potential for 

Population-level impacts such as 

declines and extirpations, 

individually and cumulatively. 

A suite of comprehensive studies on all species and 

ecosystems that could be affected would be beyond the 

scope of this EA, which serves as a broad overview of 

expected impacts from proposed mineral leasing. Sitespecific impacts would be analyzed at the APD stage, 

which may include surveys if needed. The BLM and Forest 

Service have conducted the necessary Endangered Species 

Act consultations and additional consultations would be 

conducted at the APD stage, as required. The Final EA 

provides a sufficient level of analysis to warrant making an 

informed decision at the leasing stage. 

NEPA/Alternatives/Public Involvement

The 2006 Forest Plan did not address 

hydraulic fracturing; therefore, this EA 

cannot be in compliance with that Plan. 

The 2012 SIR was completed to determine if the 2006 

Forest Plan/EIS needed to be updated in light of new 

information regarding hydraulic fracturing. The Forest 

Service determined that the potential effects associated 

with hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling were not 

significantly different from those of vertical drilling and 

that the mitigation measures in place for vertical drilling 

would suffice for horizontal drilling/hydraulic fracturing. 

The EA should specify the amount of 

acreage available for lease in the 

Marietta Unit at this time, not serve as a 

The Final EA (Section 1.6) clearly states that the Proposed 

Action is to lease approximately 40,000 acres. The maps in 

Chapter 6 provide locations of the proposed areas for 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 174 

Issue/ Condensed 

Comment Response

blanket EA for what might be added in 

the future. What is the specific location 

of the acreage (latitude/longitude). 

lease. 

The Draft EA did not adequately 

evaluate alternatives to the proposed 

action, particularly those that are not 

“market driven”

The Final EA analyzes those alternatives that met the 

purpose and need for the Proposed Action. The Final EA 

also discusses alternatives that were considered but 

eliminated because they did not meet the purpose and 

need. (See Section 2.4). 

The EA should clarify that the “vertical 

drilling only” is fundamentally the same 

as the No Action Alternative with regard 

to tight formations, and both 

alternatives do not meet the purpose 

and need.

This is addressed in Section 2.4.2 of the Final EA.

BLM has not considered the no-leasing 

and no-fracking alternatives as part of 

any of its RMP planning processes nor a 

comprehensive review of its federal oil 

and gas leasing program. BLM should 

suspend new leasing until it properly 

considers this alternative in updated 

RMPs or a programmatic EIS for the 

entire leasing program.

The BLM planning process is outside the scope of this EA. 

The analysis presented in the Final EA is sufficient to 

inform the decisionmaker of the reasonably foreseeable 

impacts associated with leasing parcels in the Marietta 

Unit. 

BLM should have prepared an 

Environmental Impact Statement. There 

are three connected actions (Marietta, 

Athens, and Ironton) and BLM must take 

a “hard look” at the potential surface 

impacts from oil and gas development. 

The BLM is minimizing potential impacts 

to less than significant by conducting 

separate EAs, in violation of NEPA. 

Potential leasing in the Marietta, Athens, and Ironton 

Units would occur independently of one another and are 

not connected actions (40 CFR 1508.25). Additionally, 

impacts associated with potential leasing in the three 

units would be separated sufficiently in time and 

geographical location such that cumulative effects would 

not be expected. Therefore, the analysis presented in the 

Final EA is sufficient to inform the decisionmaker of the 

reasonably foreseeable impacts associated with leasing 

parcels in the Marietta Unit. Based on the anticipated 

effects associated with oil and gas leasing in the Marietta 

Unit, an Environmental Impact Statement is not needed. 

BLM should have conducted a 

comprehensive programmatic analysis 

of the potential impacts from mineral 

leasing in the WNF, including a 

programmatic analysis of the potential 

impacts from hydraulic fracturing, on 

public health, and environmental 

justice. BLM should not have conducted 

The 2012 SIR included a programmatic review of the 

impacts of hydraulic fracturing and evaluated new 

information on potential mineral development methods 

compared to the analysis done for the 2006 Forest 

Plan/EIS. The Final EA references information from this 

report and also includes analysis of potential impacts from 

hydraulic fracturing, on public health, and environmental 

justice. Because potential oil and gas development in the 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 175 

Issue/ Condensed 

Comment Response

a “piecemeal” approach using an EA for 

individual lease sales.

three Forest units are not connected actions, a 

programmatic analysis of leasing in the entire Wayne 

National Forest was neither required nor prudent. 

NEPA regulations require BLM to 

evaluate 10 significance criteria. Several 

of these factors are implicated in the 

proposed action:

● The degree to which the effects 

on the quality of the human 

environment are likely to be 

highly controversial (hydraulic 

fracturing is considered a highly 

controversial issue)

● The degree to which the 

possible effects on the human 

environment are highly 

uncertain or involve unique or 

unknown risks (for example, 

there is uncertainty about the 

degree and specific pathways 

through which potential harm 

from oil and gas development 

may occur)

● The degree to which the 

proposed action affects public 

health or safety

● 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 ESA

Further data collection may have helped 

to resolve the potential controversy and 

uncertainty significance factor

These criteria are analyzed in the Finding of No Significant 

Impact (FONSI) document related to the Final EA. Based 

on the analysis presented in the EA; the BLM believes that 

the conclusions presented in the FONSI are accurate. 

The proposed action violates the 

Federal Land Policy (FLPMA) and 

Management Act and the Mineral 

Leasing Act (MLA)

● emissions are an undue and 

unnecessary waste and 

degradation of public lands

It is the policy of the BLM to make mineral resources 

available for use and to encourage development of 

mineral resources to meet national, regional and local 

needs. This policy is based on law, including the Federal 

Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), Sec. 

102(12) “the public lands be managed in a manner which 

recognizes the Nation’s need for domestic sources of 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 176 

Issue/ Condensed 

Comment Response

● New leasing within WNF would 

worsen climate change and 

contradicts BLM’s mandate to 

manage the public lands 

“without permanent 

impairment of the productivity 

of the land and the quality of 

the environment.

minerals...from the public lands” The Mineral Leasing Act 

of 1920 as amended- Subtitle B (FOOGLRA) states: "Lease 

sales shall be held for each State where eligible lands are 

available at least quarterly..." (MLA sec 226(b)(1)(A).

The Public Involvement section of the 

Draft EA does not discuss the fact that 

the November 2015 meeting in Athens 

ended early due to public 

outcry/opposition.

Public involvement is discussed in the Final EA in Section 

1.7, including the meeting in Athens (see Section 1.7.3). 

Sections 1.7.4 and 1.7.5 summarize the primary issues of 

public interest/concern. 

The public comment period should have 

been extended by at least 60 days. 

A primary purpose of NEPA is to inform the public about 

the environmental implications of Federal agency actions 

before they are made. Therefore, it is BLM policy to offer 

a 30-day public comment period on Draft EAs for fluid 

mineral leasing actions. Given that the BLM also 

conducted scoping meetings in November 2015 and 

issued two press releases to inform the public about the 

Proposed Action, a 30-day comment period was sufficient 

and satisfies the requirements of NEPA.

The public involvement process was 

inadequate. The November 2015 

meetings did not meet NEPA 

requirements because officials provided 

few and contradictory answers and the 

public was not given an opportunity to 

be heard. The public was expecting a 

presentation rather than a poster 

session. The meetings were poorly 

advertised. 

Per CEQ regulations, scoping is required for the 

preparation of Environmental Impact Statements, and 

optional for Environmental Assessments. The meetings 

held in November 2015 were designed in an open house 

format to allow informal information exchange between 

BLM, the Forest Service, and the public. The agencies 

documented the feedback and noted the public issues of 

interest in the EA (see Section 1.7.4). The public has 

additional opportunities to be involved in the process 

when the Draft EA is posted for a 30-day review period 

and also during the 30-day protest period. The BLM has 

conducted its public involvement activities in accordance 

with NEPA requirements. 

The Draft EA should include a definition 

of “substantive” public comments. 

A substantive comment for BLM is one that provides new 

information about the Proposed Action, an alternative or 

the analysis; identifies a different way to meet the need; 

points out a specific flaw in the analysis; suggests 

alternate methodologies and the reason(s) why they 

should be used; makes factual corrections, or identifies a 

different source of credible research which, if used in the 

analysis, could result in different effects. 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 177 

Issue/ Condensed 

Comment Response

The 2006 FEIS and 2012 Supplemental 

Information Report (SIR) were legally 

and substantively inadequate to comply 

with NEPA (insufficient analysis on 

hydraulic fracturing, surface impacts 

from hydraulic fracturing and drilling, 

noise and air pollution from compressor 

stations, socioeconomics, drinking 

water contamination, waste, water 

consumption, risk of explosions, 

cumulative effects). Also, an agency 

cannot use a re-evaluation as an 

attempt to remedy any gaps in the 

impact analysis that should have been 

addressed in the original NEPA 

document. 

Therefore it is inappropriate for BLM to 

refer to the analysis in these 

documents. 

BLM was a cooperating agency on the 2006 Forest

Plan/EIS and provided input for the 2012 Supplemental 

Information Report (SIR). The 2012 SIR was developed to 

review certain aspects of mineral operations such as 

horizontal drilling and potential surface impacts 

associated with such operations. The review of new 

information (RONI) noted that potential impacts 

associated with such activities were within the scope of 

analysis already included in the 2006 Forest Plan/EIS. Both 

the Forest Service and the USFWS concurred that no 

further analysis or consultation was needed. Therefore, a 

supplement to the Forest Plan/EIS was not needed. Both 

documents provide adequate information to be used as 

references in the BLM’s Final EA for leasing in the Marietta 

Unit. 

The 2006 FEIS and 2012 SIR need 

considerable supplementation, 

therefore the BLM should not tier to 

these documents. 

Tiering is using the coverage of general matters in broader 

NEPA documents in subsequent, narrower NEPA 

documents (40 CFR 1508.28, 40 CFR 1502.20). This allows 

the tiered NEPA document to narrow the range of 

alternatives and concentrate solely on the issues not 

already addressed. BLM was a cooperating agency on the 

2006 Forest Plan/EIS and provided input for the 2012 SIR. 

Both the Forest Service and the USFWS concurred that no 

further analysis or Endangered Species Act consultation 

was needed at this stage. 

The Draft EA is relying on data a 

generation old to predict that there will 

be minimal surface disturbances on 

public lands, and insignificant effects 

from the proposed action. The Forest 

Service and BLM intend to allow surface 

disturbances on federal leaseholds but 

suggest only that there is room under 

the ceiling they projected in 2006. 

The Forest Service determined in the 2012 SIR that the 

Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario (RFDS) 

developed for the 2006 Forest Plan/EIS was adequate for 

the type and amount of future minerals development 

anticipated. Should conditions change, the Forest Service 

and the BLM would reevaluate the RFDS and the existing 

NEPA analysis would be amended or revised, as 

appropriate. 

The Draft EA is using outdated 

references in general, based on 

information incorporated from the 2006 

Plan and SIR. It is unclear whether the 

The Forest Service determined in the 2012 SIR that the 

Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario (RFDS) 

developed for the 2006 Forest Plan/EIS was adequate for 

the type and amount of future minerals development 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 178 

Issue/ Condensed 

Comment Response

Forest Plan has undergone any 

reevaluations since 2006. The 2012 

supplementation was added to suit the 

fracking industry. 

anticipated.

The review of new information noted that potential 

impacts associated with such activities were within the 

scope of analysis already included in the 2006 Forest 

Plan/EIS. Therefore, a supplement to the Forest Plan/EIS 

was not needed. 

The Draft EA incorrectly uses and cites 

references. For example, Fletcher 2012 

is an unpublished master’s thesis with a 

different conclusion than what was used 

in the EA. Also the EA contains almost 

no peer reviewed documents that are 

actually cited in the EA, only listed as 

references in the bibliography. 

The master’s thesis is published by Massachusetts 

Institute of Technology (MIT) and has been used in other 

BLM leasing EAs. The BLM has used various sources of 

information to prepare the Final EA. References are cited 

and used throughout the EA, but the BLM uses expert 

opinion in some cases. 

The 2012 supplemental information 

report (SIR) was not available for public 

review or comments so therefore it is 

not a legitimate NEPA document. 

The 2012 SIR was prepared in accordance with the Forest 

Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.15 - NEPA Handbook 

Chapter 10, Section 18.1.) This states in part, “If new 

information or changed circumstances relating to the 

environmental impacts of a proposed action come to the 

attention of the responsible official after a decision has 

been made and prior to completion of the approved 

program or project, the responsible official should review 

the information carefully to determine its importance. 

Consideration should be given to whether or not the new 

information or changed circumstances are within the 

scope and range of efforts considered in the original 

analysis.” 

The 2012 SIR was developed to review certain aspects of 

mineral operations such as horizontal drilling and 

potential surface impacts associated with such operations. 

The review of new information noted that potential 

impacts associated with such activities were within the 

scope of analysis already included in the 2006 Forest Plan. 

Therefore, a supplement to the Forest Plan/EIS was not 

needed. 

The Wayne National Forest published a news release for 

the Finding for the 2012 SIR on August 27, 2012. Section 

1.7.3 of the Final EA has been revised to reflect this. 

As described on page 2 of the 2012 SIR and in accordance 

with (FSH) 1909.15 - NEPA Handbook Chapter 10, Section 

18.1, “The SIR itself is not a NEPA analysis or approval, nor 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 179 

Issue/ Condensed 

Comment Response

is it a discrete or circumscribed agency action. It is 

interlocutory in nature and does not mark the 

consummation of a decision-making process or determine 

any legal rights. It simply is a review of available 

information, akin to a memorandum to file, documenting 

assessment of the significance of new information.” 

The BLM needs to indicate if any land 

has been acquired within the WNF since 

the 2006 Plan. If so, new properties are 

subject to NEPA and BLM must indicate 

if NEPA was completed. 

The Forest Service completes NEPA documentation for 

any lands it acquires. Wayne National Forest Current and 

Recent Projects (and archived projects) with any 

associated NEPA documentation can be found at 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/projects/wayne/landmanagemen

t/projects

RFDS predictions

The BLM and FS rely on their 10 year old 

prediction as the outer boundary of 

surface disturbance, without any 

explanation as to why there should be 

confidence in figures presented in Table 

2-1. 

The 2012 SIR was prepared in accordance with the Forest 

Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.15 - NEPA Handbook 

Chapter 10, Section 18.1.) This states in part, “If new 

information or changed circumstances relating to the 

environmental impacts of a proposed action come to the 

attention of the responsible official after a decision has 

been made and prior to completion of the approved 

program or project, the responsible official should review 

the information carefully to determine its importance. 

Consideration should be given to whether or not the new 

information or changed circumstances are within the 

scope and range of efforts considered in the original 

analysis.” 

The 2012 SIR was developed to review certain aspects of 

mineral operations such as horizontal drilling and 

potential surface impacts associated with such operations. 

The review of new information (RONI) noted that 

potential impacts associated with such activities were 

within the scope of analysis already included in the 2006 

Forest Plan/EIS. Therefore, a supplement to the Forest 

Plan/EIS was not needed. 

The Draft EA does not take into account 

that horizontal wells have double the 

surface impact (5.2 acres) of vertical 

wells (2 acres) and emit over 250 

percent more air pollution, including 

toxic volatile organic compounds and 

The 2012 SIR takes a hard look at the impact of horizontal 

wells in the Wayne National Forest versus conventional 

vertical wells. Based on information related to mineral 

operations and specifically, hydraulic fracturing, the 

potential impacts associated with such activities were 

within the scope of analysis already included in the 2006 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 180 

Issue/ Condensed 

Comment Response

greenhouse gases. Horizontal wells also

require 5-10 times more water—which 

leads to more hazardous material to 

dispose of.

Forest Plan/EIS. Section 2.2 of the Final EA discusses the 

total surface impact expected from horizontal well 

development versus vertical wells. The Final EA has been 

updated to include information on quantified estimates of 

air emissions associated with reasonably foreseeable 

mineral development in the Marietta Unit. The Final EA 

also discusses potential water usage associated with 

horizontal well development. 

The Draft EA does not disclose the 

acreage that is potentially available for 

lease now and where it is located. 

The Final EA discloses the acreage that is potentially 

available for lease and where it is located in Section 2.1. 

Also, see Chapter 6 (maps). 

Draft EA indicates that a Reasonably 

Foreseeable Development Scenario 

(RFDS) was developed as part of the 

2006 Forest Plan Final EIS and that this 

EIS was included in Appendix G. 

However, the appendices were not 

included. 

Section 1.5 was updated in the Final EA by including the 

link in which additional documents (including the 2006 

Forest Plan/EIS and 2012 SIR) can be found.

Draft EA does not fully account for all 

potential surface disturbance: gathering 

lines and facilities, mega-pipeline 

projects and associated compressor 

stations, as well as expanded fracking 

waste down-blending, landfilling, 

transmission lines, and injection wells. 

The proposed surface disturbance that 

is therefore incorporated from the 

Forest Plan and SIR are underestimated. 

The anticipated surface disturbance associated with 

reasonably foreseeable mineral development in the 

Marietta Unit is discussed in Section 2.2 of the Final EA. 

Section 4.6, Cumulative Effects, also acknowledges there 

could be additional surface disturbance on private lands. 

Since exact design details are not known at the leasing 

stage, it is not possible to know exactly what supporting 

infrastructure would be needed if development occurs in 

the future, other than acknowledging that additional 

surface disturbance could occur (as identified in the EA). 

The RFDS was developed using industry standards and 

subject matter expertise to assess the potential surface 

disturbance that could occur as a result of leasing federal 

minerals in the Wayne National Forest. Further detailed 

NEPA analysis would be conducted at the Application for 

Permit to Drill (APD) stage. 

The BLM letter (adopted in the SIR) 

estimates that horizontal well pad sites 

average 3-5 acres of disturbance during 

construction and prior to reclamation, 

and 0.68-1.38 acres during the 

production phase, after reclamation. It 

is unclear whether this includes the 

entire limits of disturbance (such as the 

clearing and earth moving impacts 

Table 2 of the May 3, 2012 BLM letter in the SIR shows in 

detail the total estimated surface disturbance (which 

includes clearing and grading) associated with both 

vertical and horizontal wells.
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 181 

Issue/ Condensed 

Comment Response

immediately adjacent to the pad itself). 

The 2004 RFDS suggests the possibility 

of collocation of horizontal and vertical 

wells, but the EA does not analyze this 

scenario. 

The EA analyzes the impact of leasing assuming that 

future development would include horizontal drilling. The 

2006 Forest Plan/EIS had evaluated the impacts of vertical 

wells. The surface impacts from horizontal wells are far 

less than that from horizontal therefore collocation of 

horizontal and vertical would fall below those in the 

Forest Plan/EIS.

The EA is unclear whether surface 

disturbance from vertical well 

development is still expected to occur. 

The Final EA assumes that horizontal wells would be 

constructed as this is the most likely scenario for the 

Marcellus and Utica Shales development.

Commenter is concerned about the 

potential for blasting, given the many 

private inholdings within the WNF. 

Any use of explosives on private land would need to be 

conducted in accordance with federal, state, and local

safety laws, regulations, and policy. 

Waste

The Draft EA contains no data related to 

waste generation (associated with 

hydraulic fracturing) in Ohio.

The Final EA (Section 4.7) discusses the potential waste 

products associated with hydraulic fracturing. Appendix C 

of the Final EA (page 157) discusses ODNR’s oversight of 

disposal of waste from oil and gas operations. Appendix C 

(page 158) also states that Ohio Department of Health is 

responsible for disposal of any potential radioactive 

waste.

The Draft EA does not discuss how often 

accidental spills can be expected to 

occur. 

The Final EA acknowledges the possibility for accidental 

spills. Appendix C of the Final EA (page 158) discusses 

Ohio requirements to mitigate potential spills, and 

requirements for reporting if a spill does occur.

The Draft EA fails to acknowledge a 

recent West Virginia study that shows 

wastewater injection can impact areas 

downstream of an injection well site. 

Any wastewater that originates from oil and gas 

operations would be considered non-federal and so 

disposal would not be allowed on Wayne National Forest 

lands (including the roads under jurisdiction of the WNF). 

In addition, the Ohio Revised Code only allows for four 

different disposal methods of fluids associated with oil 

and gas operations: injection, surface application (on 

roads only, and only when permitted by the authority with 

jurisdiction over the road), enhanced recovery (reuse of 

the fluids in other wells) or other methods to test new 

technologies and methodologies (ORC 1509.22(C)(1)), 

therefore no significant downstream contamination is 

expected. This is stated in Section 3.8 in the Final EA. 

The Draft EA fails to discuss the 

deregulation policies that have been 

implemented which allow the so-called 

“beneficial use” of radioactive and 

Discussion on the merits of regulation of the oil and gas 

industry is outside the scope of this EA. The analysis 

presented in the Final EA is sufficient to inform the 

decisionmaker of the reasonably foreseeable impacts 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 182 

Issue/ Condensed 

Comment Response

chemically-toxic drilling wastes for such 

purposes as landfill cover, fill for 

industrial parks and agricultural 

fertilizer, and access roads to drilling 

pads. Disposal of radium-bearing water 

reclaimed from hydraulic fracturing 

operations through the municipal water 

treatment systems likely causes water 

pollution. 

associated with leasing parcels in the Marietta Unit. 

The Draft EA fails to account for all 

potential waste impacts, including:

● Induced effects from expanded 

waste facilities and disposal of 

fracking wastes in licensed 

landfills (permissible in Ohio)

● Effects of wastes in holding 

ponds, which can poison wildlife 

or leak

● Contaminated drill cuttings that 

are buried

● Spreading wastes over large 

areas of land

● Wastewater discharged from 

treatment facilities without 

advanced “total dissolved 

solids” removal processes or 

inadequate capacity to remove

radioactive material

● Breaches in injection disposal 

wells

Also it is not clear what is covered under 

RCRA or CERCLA with regard to wastes. 

The Final EA takes a hard look at potential waste impacts. 

Numerous sections of the EA address potential waste 

impacts (See sections Geology and Minerals, Public Health 

and Safety, Soils, Water Resources and Water Quality, 

Waste, and Hazardous, or Solid, and their following 

cumulative effects sections (i.e. Cumulative Effects on 

Water Resources and Water Quality, etc.). Further analysis 

would be conducted at the APD stage to address potential 

impacts from waste. 

Environmental Justice

The Draft EA must include an analysis of 

potential impacts faced by 

environmental justice communities 

(such as impacts from hydraulic 

fracturing and air emissions)

The Environmental Justice sections have been revised in 

the Final EA (see Sections 3.15. and 4.15.3). The analysis 

conforms to the Council on Environmental Quality 

definitions for minority and low-income populations. 

Based on the analysis, there would be no disproportionate 

adverse effects to environmental justice populations from 

leasing in the Marietta Unit. Further NEPA analysis will be 

conducted at the APD (site-specific) stage, and 

environmental justice will be evaluated again at that time. 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 183 

Issue/ Condensed 

Comment Response

The Environmental Justice section of the 

Draft EA is highly offensive as it implies 

that private citizens are incapable of 

managing mineral development on their 

property. 

The BLM sincerely apologizes and did not intend to offend 

the public. This section has been revised accordingly in the 

Final EA. 

Public Health

The Draft EA should include information 

about Washington County; specifically 

that the county had an ambient air 

cancer risk > 10-4, or 1 in 10,000 people 

can get cancer from the ambient air.

The Final EA (Section 3.2.4) clearly states that Washington 

County is in non-attainment for Sulfur Dioxide only, in the 

Muskingum River area. The nonattainment area identified 

as Muskingum River, Ohio is located in Waterford 

Township in Washington County. Ohio EPA submitted a 

Request for Redesignation letter to the USEPA on April 3, 

2015 proposing to shutter the Muskingum River Power 

Plant to return the area to attainment.

Draft EA does not adequately discuss 

public health effects from deep-shale 

drilling and high-volume hydraulic 

fracturing. In 2006, the FS assumed the 

preferred extraction method for oil and 

gas would continue to be vertical drilling 

because of economics. The BLM should 

have conducted a health impact 

assessment, or equivalent, of the 

aggregate impacts of hydraulic 

fracturing on human health and nearby 

communities. 

The Final EA has been revised to include stand-alone 

sections on Public Health and Safety (see Sections 3.8 and 

4.8). Public health and safety will also be further analyzed 

at the site-specific (APD) stage, should development be 

proposed in the future.

The Draft EA failed to conduct a 

literature review of and consider that 

fracking products contain at least 29 

products that are known to be possible 

carcinogens, regulated for their human 

health risk, or listed as hazardous air 

pollutants. The public’s exposure to 

these harmful pollutants alone would 

constitute a significant impact. 

The Draft EA should have also 

considered the potential public health 

risks from hydraulic fracturing flow 

back, which has the potential to be 

radioactive. 

NEPA does not require a literature review to make an 

informed decision. The Final EA discusses potential effects 

associated with hydraulic fracturing in multiple sections 

and also includes stand alone sections on public health 

(see Sections 3.8 and 4.8). 

Substantial uncertainty exists at the time the BLM offers a 

lease for sale regarding crucial factors that will affect 

mitigating measures at a site-specific level, including: (1) 

well density; (2) geological conditions; (3) development 

type (vertical, directional, horizontal); (4) hydrocarbon 

characteristics; (5) equipment to be used during 

construction, drilling, production, and abandonment 

operations; and (6) potential regulatory changes 

pertaining to GHGs over the life of the 10-year primary 

lease terms.
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 184 

Issue/ Condensed 

Comment Response

If any future oil and gas development is proposed, the 

lessee or their operator will be required to submit a plan 

of operations and obtain approval from BLM to access the 

fluid minerals or the lease. At the time, a NEPA analysis 

will be conducted to determine the appropriate terms and 

conditions of approval for the development. BLM retains 

the authority to regulate the environmental aspects of the 

lessee's operations and include site-specific protection 

measures at the APD stage. Without a site-specific plan of 

operations it would be speculative to determine the 

effects of drilling beyond the analyses presented in this 

EA. 

The Draft EA does not consider current 

literature related to environmental 

impacts on health and safety. For 

example, the EA does not incorporate 

findings of:

● New York Compendium of Risks 

and Harms of Fracking (October 

2015)

● Fugitive emissions from Bakken 

Shale in Geophysical Research 

and Letters, April 2016

New sections on Public Health and Safety have been 

added to the Final EA (see Sections 3.8 and 4.8). The BLM 

has conducted a review of the applicable literature and 

discussed the potential public health and safety impacts 

associated with oil and gas development in the Final EA. 

Numerous standards, best management practices, lease 

stipulations, mitigations, and regulations are in place to 

ensure public health and safety is not compromised from 

potential oil and gas development within the Marietta 

Unit. 

The authors list Bamberger and Oswald 

in the bibliography, which is extremely 

important research that documents the 

highly significant impacts of fracking to 

human and animal health. Yet the only 

reference in the text to Bamberger and 

Oswald is in reference to the EA's 

estimate of how much water returns to 

the surface, which was not the subject 

of Bamberger and Oswald but merely 

referenced in that study.

This reference was removed from the Final EA. Another 

reference regarding how much water returns to the 

surface is included in Section 4.7.

The Draft EA does not quantify the risks 

to human health and the environment 

associated with on-site chemical and 

wastewater storage, including risks from 

natural events and negligent operator 

practice. 

The Final EA has been revised to include information 

regarding Public Health (See sections 3.8 & 4.8) and the 

level of detail is sufficient to make an informed decision 

about potential leasing in the Marietta Unit. Potential site 

specific effects to surrounding communities would be 

analyzed at the APD stage, including information 

regarding possible chemical or wastewater storage units. 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 185 

Issue/ Condensed 

Comment Response

The Draft EA refers to Ohio DNR 

regulations; however, ODNR does not 

require or perform monitoring for 

contamination of drinking water, 

surface water, or groundwater around 

injection wells, which has public health 

implications. The EA must be 

supplemented to address the public 

health effects from the hydraulic 

fracturing waste stream. 

The Final EA addresses hydraulic fracturing, associated 

wastes and potential public health implications. The 

analysis is in accordance with the U.S. EPA June 2015 

report “Assessment of the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic 

Fracturing for Oil and Gas on Drinking Water Resources” 

which states ‘From our assessment, we conclude there are 

above and below ground mechanisms by which hydraulic 

fracturing activities have the potential to impact drinking 

water resources. These mechanisms include water 

withdrawals in times of, or in areas with, low water 

availability; spill of hydraulic fracturing fluids and 

produced water; fracturing directly into underground 

drinking water resources; below ground migration of 

liquids and gases; and inadequate treatment and 

discharge of wastewater. We did not find evidence that 

these mechanisms have led to widespread, systemic 

impacts on drinking water resources in the United States. 

Of the potential mechanisms identified in this report, we 

found specific instances where one or more mechanisms 

led to impacts on drinking water resources, including 

contamination of drinking water wells. The number of 

identified cases, however, was small compared to the 

number of hydraulically fractured wells.’ As described in 

the EA, there are numerous mechanisms in place to 

minimize potential adverse effects to surface water and 

groundwater. 

Additional analysis would be conducted at the APD stage 

with regard to hydraulic fracturing, impacts to water 

resources, and public health and safety associated with oil 

and gas development in the Marietta Unit. 

The Draft EA did not discuss the 

relationship between air quality and 

Human Health.

A new section on Public Health and Safety has been added 

to the EA (see Sections 3.8 and 4.8). This section 

acknowledges the potential public health and safety issues 

that may occur due to air emissions, among other sources.

Climate change, driven primarily by the 

combustion of fossil fuels, poses a 

severe and immediate threat to the 

health. Welfare, ecosystems, and 

economy of the United States

The Climate Change sections (Sections 3.2.5 and 4.2.5) 

were updated in the Final EA. 

The Draft EA fails to adequately study 

the human health and safety impacts of 

noise pollution, light pollution, and 

The Final EA has been revised to include new sections on 

Noise (Sections 3.11 and 4.11), Transportation (Sections 

3.9 and 4.9) and Public Health and Safety (Sections 3.8 and 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 186 

Issue/ Condensed 

Comment Response

traffic accidents resulting from oil and 

gas development.

4.8). 

The Draft EA did not acknowledge the 

potential risks to residents from 

earthquakes associated with injection 

wells. 

The Final EA acknowledges the potential for seismic 

activity in Sections 4.4. Potential mitigating measures are 

discussed in Section 4.4.1

The Draft EA does not discuss potential 

significant public health effects from 

operational activities associated with oil 

and gas development. 

A new section on Public Health and Safety has been added 

to the Final EA (see Sections 3.8 and 4.8).

Noise & Transportation

The Draft EA does not adequately 

address noise (particularly compressor 

stations), including impacts to visitors 

and wildlife. BLM has not addressed the 

noise levels or the impacts to visitors or 

wildlife. 

The Final EA has been revised to include new sections on 

Noise (Sections 3.11 and 4.11). These sections discuss 

potential impacts on visitors and wildlife. Further NEPA 

analysis will be conducted at the APD stage, should 

development be proposed in the future. 

The Draft EA does not adequately 

address effects from increased truck 

traffic. 

The Final EA has been revised to include new sections on 

Transportation (see Sections 3.9 and 4.9). These sections 

assess the potential impacts associated with increased 

truck traffic associated with reasonably foreseeable 

mineral development. Further NEPA analysis will be 

conducted at the APD stage, should development be 

proposed in the future. 

Socioeconomics

Draft EA did not conduct a Social Cost of 

Carbon analysis. 

The 2016 CEQ guidance, Final Guidance for Federal 

Departments and Agencies on Consideration of 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Effects of Climate 

Change in NEPA Reviews states that “NEPA does not 

require monetizing costs and benefits” and allows for 

agency discretion in including monetized assessment of 

the impacts of greenhouse gases in NEPA documents. The 

Final EA has been revised to explain the rationale for not 

using the Social Cost of Carbon in the analysis (see Section 

4.2.3). 

The Draft EA did not use analytical tools 

to evaluate the cost of methane 

emissions. (Example: EPA’s peerreviewed tool)

The 2016 CEQ guidance, Final Guidance for Federal 

Departments and Agencies on Consideration of 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Effects of Climate 

Change in NEPA Reviews states that “NEPA does not 

require monetizing costs and benefits” and allows for 

agency discretion in including monetized assessment of 

the impacts of greenhouse gases in NEPA documents. The 

Final EA has been revised to explain the rationale for not 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 187 

Issue/ Condensed 

Comment Response

using the Social Cost of Carbon in the analysis (see Section 

4.2.3). 

The Draft EA should have included a 

cost-benefit analysis. The costs in GHG 

emissions and degradation to the forest, 

water, and air are greater than any 

benefit to the agency.

The 2016 CEQ guidance, Final Guidance for Federal 

Departments and Agencies on Consideration of 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Effects of Climate 

Change in NEPA Reviews states that “NEPA does not 

require monetizing costs and benefits” and allows for 

agency discretion in including monetized assessment of 

the impacts of greenhouse gases in NEPA documents. The 

Final EA has been revised to explain the rationale for not 

using the Social Cost of Carbon in the analysis (see Section 

4.2.3). Based on a review of potential impacts to all 

relevant resources including biological resources, water 

resources, air quality, etc., the BLM concludes there would 

be no significant effects from the proposed action. 

There is no net financial benefit to the 

public from leasing. 

As shown in Section 4.15.2. (Table 4.3) of the Final EA, the 

public receives benefits of leasing through revenues paid 

to the counties. 

Cultural Resources

The Draft EA asserts that operators may 

need to access the Ohio River as a water 

source; however, there are a number of 

archaeological sites that may be 

damaged. 

Further consultations and surveys, as required, would be 

conducted at the APD stage to address potential effects to 

cultural resources, including archaeological sites (see 

Section 4.12). Any connected action with ground 

disturbance regarding cultural resources at the APD stage 

will be reviewed in a subsequent NEPA document.

Regardless of a response received from 

Tribes, the BLM should incorporate 

existing historic accounts into the EA. 

The Final EA discusses the historic context of the area in 

Section 3.12. Additional cultural studies or evaluations 

would be conducted on a site-specific basis for any future 

APDs. 

Private Development

The Draft EA is unclear in whether 

Forest Plan protections would be 

applied to private surface. In addition, it 

is unclear to what extent notifications 

and stipulations attached to a lease 

would apply to private surface activities 

overlying private minerals that have 

been pooled with federal minerals. 

A new appendix (Appendix C) is incorporated into the 

Final EA, and discusses the regulations and permitting of 

oil and gas operations in Ohio, specifically how 

environmental concerns are addressed. 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 188 

Issue/ Condensed 

Comment Response

The EA Draft claims that leasing in the 

forest will not impact the development 

of private minerals. This is untrue, due 

to Ohio’s unitization laws. 

The Final EA acknowledges the potential development of 

private minerals (see Section 4.16), and Appendix C (a new 

appendix added to the Final EA) addresses development 

on private lands in Ohio. 

Cumulative Impacts 

The Draft EA should have included the 

Ironton Unit and Athens Unit in the 

cumulative effects discussion. 

As described in Section 4.16.1 of the Final EA, the 

cumulative effects analysis (aside from air quality and 

climate change) focuses on the Marietta Unit and does 

not consider potential leasing in other areas of the Wayne 

National Forest. This is because any impacts associated 

with leasing in the Athens or Ironton Units would be 

separated sufficiently in time and location from the 

Proposed Action such that cumulative effects are not 

anticipated. 

The Draft EA and the 2012 SIR that it 

relies on, ignore the potential for 

federal leasing to open up private 

minerals and private surface for 

development, rendering the Draft EA 

fundamentally flawed.

The Final EA acknowledges that future mineral 

development could occur on private surface and private 

minerals (see Section 4.16, Cumulative Effects). There are 

numerous laws and regulations in place that govern how 

mineral development activities are conducted on private 

land. A new Appendix (see Appendix C) has been added to 

the Final EA summarizing this information. 

The Draft EA does not fully and 

accurately evaluate the climate change 

and Greenhouse Gases impacts from 

potential oil and gas operations. 

Cumulative effects from air 

emissions/greenhouse gases are 

potentially highly significant. The EA 

should include a discussion on carbon 

budgets, other GHG pollution sources in 

the area, and how GHG emissions can 

be minimized to reduce potential 

cumulative effects. 

The Final EA has been updated with additional 

information on climate change and quantified estimates 

of greenhouse gas emissions associated with potential 

future oil and gas development in the Marietta Unit (see 

Sections 3.2 and 4.2). Based on the analysis, the BLM 

believes there would not be significant impacts from the 

anticipated emissions associated with potential future oil 

and gas development, including significant cumulative 

impacts. Further analysis of climate change and 

greenhouse gas emissions would be conducted at the APD 

stage. 

The Draft EA does not adequately 

address cumulative impacts on the 

region to water resources from water 

withdrawals – particularly with regard 

to permanent removal from the 

hydrologic cycle. Vast quantities of 

water will be permanently 

contaminated and injected as a result of 

The Final EA includes a discussion of potential cumulative 

effects to water resources (see Section 4.16.2.3). 

Additional information on potential cumulative effects to 

water has been incorporated into the Final EA. 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 189 

Issue/ Condensed 

Comment Response

the proposed action. 

The Draft EA does not adequately 

discuss cumulative effects from 

waste/wastewater disposal. 

The Final EA includes a discussion of potential cumulative 

effects from waste/wastewater disposal (see Section 

4.16.2.6). Additional information on potential cumulative 

effects from waste/wastewater disposal has been 

incorporated into the Final EA. 

The Draft EA does not adequately 

discuss potential cumulative effects to 

wildlife and sensitive species. The Draft 

EA should have quantified the potential 

cumulative loss of habitat, discussed 

fragmentation, air emission effects on 

wildlife, and displacement of wildlife. 

Additionally the Draft EA should have 

discussed potential cumulative effects 

to aquatic species from water depletion 

due to low stream flows (attributed to 

water use for mineral development). 

The Final EA includes a discussion of potential cumulative 

effects to wildlife and sensitive species and their habitat 

(see Section 4.16.2.2). Additional information on potential 

cumulative effects to these resources (including aquatic 

species) has been incorporated into the Final EA. 

The Draft EA should acknowledge 

potential cumulative land use changes 

due to increased industrial development 

that could result in the future because 

of the proposed action. 

The Final EA includes a discussion of potential cumulative 

effects to land use (see Section 4.16.2.9). Additional 

information on potential cumulative effects to land use 

has been incorporated into the Final EA. 

The Draft EA used speculation and 

uncertainty to evade discussions of 

future environmental effects and 

quantifications of such.

The Proposed Action of leasing is an administrative action 

that in and of itself, has no direct environmental effects 

with the exception of increased revenue associated with 

the lease. The EA uses the RFDS to identify potential 

effects associated with reasonably foreseeable mineral 

development; however, specific details are not confirmed 

until the APD stage. For example, substantial uncertainty 

exists at the time the BLM offers a lease for sale regarding 

crucial factors that affect mitigating measures at a sitespecific level, including: (1) well density; (2) geological 

conditions; (3) development type (vertical, directional, 

horizontal); (4) hydrocarbon characteristics; (5) equipment 

to be used during construction, drilling, production, and 

abandonment operations; and (6) potential regulatory 

changes pertaining to lease operations over the life of the 

10-year primary lease terms.

Because of these uncertainties, the BLM must make 

reasonable assumptions about the type of impacts that 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 190 

Issue/ Condensed 

Comment Response

could occur in the future and therefore must utilize both 

qualitative and quantitative analyses. Based on public 

comments, the Final EA has been revised in numerous 

areas to provide more detailed analysis of potential 

impacts. The air quality analysis has been revised to 

include quantifications of estimated emissions associated 

with potential oil and gas development in the Marietta 

Unit. 

If any future oil and gas development is proposed, the 

lessee or their operator will be required to submit a plan 

of operations and obtain approval from BLM to access the 

fluid minerals or the lease. At the time, additional NEPA

analysis will be conducted to determine the appropriate 

terms and conditions of approval for the development. 

BLM retains the authority to regulate the environmental 

aspects of the lessee's operations and include site-specific 

protection measures at the APD stage. Without a sitespecific plan of operations the analysis of impacts at the 

leasing stage does have a degree of speculation and 

uncertainty that cannot be avoided. 

The Draft EA must consider the 

cumulative impacts of oil and gas 

production using controversial 

unconventional method such as 

hydraulic fracturing. While the actual 

well pads may only occupy a small 

proportion of a particular area, their 

impact can be much greater when their 

aggregate impact is considered 

cumulatively. Therefore BLM should 

have conducted an EIS instead of an EA. 

NEPA under 40 CFR 1508.9 requires the preparation of an 

Environmental Assessment (EA) to provide sufficient 

evidence and analysis determining whether to prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement and to aid an agency's 

compliance with NEPA when an EIS is not necessary. 

Offering and subsequently issuing competitive oil and gas 

leases in the Marietta Unit is an implementation decision 

that can be satisfied with an EA (40 CFR 1501.3.b; and 

BLM Handbook, H-1601-1 Appendix C II H). The Final EA 

provides a cumulative impact analysis (see Section 4.16) 

that acknowledges the potential cumulative effects of 

reasonably foreseeable oil and gas development in the 

Marietta Unit. The analysis recognizes the aggregate 

impacts of well pads and ancillary infrastructure. Although 

cumulative effects are expected, the BLM, through its 

analysis, has determined that potential cumulative effects 

would not be significant. 

The Draft EA does not provide 

information about orphaned wells, such 

as: have they been adequately 

surveyed, capped and/or maintained in 

the area to be affected by the proposed 

The Final EA acknowledges that along with existing oil and 

gas operations in the Wayne NF and surrounding areas, 

orphan wells may be present. Along with the 

Northeastern States District Orphan Wells Program, which 

identifies and oversee plugging operations for abandoned 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 191 

Issue/ Condensed 

Comment Response

drilling processes? wells in their jurisdiction, analysis intended to prevent 

interwell communication would be conducted at the APD 

stage.

NEPA requires “reasonable forecasting,” 

which includes the consideration of 

“reasonably foreseeable future 

actions...even if they are not specific 

proposals” It is reasonably foreseeable 

that opening this acreage to oil and gas 

leasing will result in the commercial 

production of oil and gas.

The BLM acknowledges there could be additional mineral 

development in the future on both federal and private 

lands (see Section 4.16, Cumulative Effects). Further 

analysis has been included in Section 4.1, Land Use, 

regarding reasonable foreseeable oil and gas development 

and effects. A discussion of potential cumulative effects to 

land use as a result of potential future mineral 

development is included in Section 4.16.2.9, Recreation 

and Land Use. At this stage it is not possible to determine 

the likelihood of commercial production of oil and gas in 

the Marietta Unit or vicinity as a result of the Proposed 

Action. Additional analysis will be conducted at the APD 

stage, should development be proposed. At that time, the 

BLM will conduct additional analysis on cumulative effects 

including an assessment of whether commercial 

development is a reasonably foreseeable activity that 

should be evaluated in greater detail. 

Land Use/Visual Resources

The Draft EA should list the townships 

and provide land use information on 

each one including the number of 

inholdings, waterways, wetlands, 

geology and soils, history, possible 

agriculture or special use permits the FS 

has in place and managed riparian areas

The sections on Land Use in the Final EA (see Sections 3.1 

& 4.1) provide a sufficient level of detail to assess the 

potential effects of reasonably foreseeable oil and gas 

development on land uses in the area. Other sections of 

the EA include baseline information on resources such as 

biological, water, geology and soils, and cultural resources, 

among others. At this stage, site-specific mineral 

development plans are not known and therefore the level 

of detail presented in the EA on land use is commensurate 

with what can be reasonably projected. Further NEPA 

analysis, including land use, will be conducted at the sitespecific APD stage if development is proposed in the 

future. 

The proposed action may permanently 

impair scenic resources, due to BLM’s 

failure to ensure full reclamation of idle 

wells and the difficulty of restoring sites 

to their original condition. 

Section 4.14 of the Final EA acknowledges there may be 

some long-term effects to visual resources/scenic quality. 

Further analysis would be conducted at the APD stage, 

where specific mitigations to be placed on the application 

would be identified such as moving the proposed location, 

low profile tanks, paint color, 3D modeling or various 

other measures to meet the scenic integrity objectives 

where development is allowed. Upon completion of 

drilling and completion operations, the well pad, pipeline 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 192 

Issue/ Condensed 

Comment Response

and any areas not necessary for production would be 

placed into interim reclamation further reducing the 

footprint and visual impacts of the oil and gas activities. 

The Draft EA should acknowledge that 

the characters and use of the land will 

be permanently changed due to 

construction and operation of well pads 

and related activities. 

The Final EA acknowledges that there may be some 

permanent land use changes as a result of future mineral 

development in the Marietta Unit; however, reclamation 

would minimize some of these effects over the long-term 

(see Sections: 4.5, 4.14, 4.16.2.4, 4.16.2.9., 4.16.2.12. & 

5.4.). 

Mitigation

The EA incorrectly assumes that all 

impacts of oil and gas leasing within the 

Marietta Unit would be mitigated by 

Forest Plan regulations or by surface 

use agreements with the Forest Service. 

Impacts would be mitigated to a level where they would 

not be considered significant, as discussed throughout the 

Final EA.

Hydraulic fracturing has little federal or 

state oversight. For example, ODNR 

does not require or perform monitoring 

for contamination of drinking water, 

surface water, or groundwater around 

injection wells). Therefore the BLM and 

FS have a legal obligation to review, 

analyze, disclose, and avoid the impacts 

of oil and gas leasing decisions. 

Appendix C (a new appendix in the Final EA) discusses 

state oversight of operations on private surface, as well as 

the other aspects of oil and gas development regulated by 

Ohio.
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 193 

Appendix B: Shale Layer Map
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 194 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 195 

Appendix C: Permitting of Oil and Gas Operations on Non-Federal Surface

Permitting of Oil and Gas Operations on Non-Federal Surface

During the scoping and comment period for DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA, Oil 

and Gas Leasing, Wayne National Forest Marietta Unit of the Athens Ranger District, Monroe, 

Noble, and Washington Counties, Ohio (Environmental Assessment), many questions were 

raised regarding the permitting and regulation of oil and gas operations on non-federal surface. 

As noted in the Environmental Assessment, mineral ownership is highly split in the Wayne 

National Forest with some mineral under federal ownership, and other under private ownership. 

While the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and United States Forest Service (USFS) do not 

have the same permitting and regulatory powers when drilling activities are conducted on nonfederal land overlying non-federal minerals as opposed to operations on federal lands, at least six 

state and federal agencies have jurisdiction over such operations. As discussed in this paper,

these agencies fulfill the same role in ensuring environmentally responsible development of 

mineral resources.

Regulation of Oil and Gas Operations on Private Surface

The Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) is primary authority for oil and gas drill 

operations in the State of Ohio. Within ODNR the Division of Oil & Gas Resource Management 

(ODNR-DOGRM) and Division of Soil & Water Resources (ODNR-DSWR) regulate and permit 

various aspects of drilling and production operations. The Ohio Environmental Protection 

Agency Division of Surface Water (OEPA-DSW) and Division of Air Pollution Control (OEPADAPC) both fulfill roles in ensuring environmental compliance of said operations. The Ohio 

Department of Health Bureau of Radiation Protection also has jurisdiction over some oil and gas 

operations involving radioactive materials.

Although in Ohio permitting of oil and gas operations on private surface and private minerals is 

primarily a function of the State, other Federal agencies may also have regulatory authority. 

Depending on circumstances, the United States Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS); United 

States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE); United States Environmental Protection Agency 

(USEPA); or may be required to approve or consult regarding oil and gas operations.

The authority and regulations of these agencies extend to pre-operational and operational oil and 

gas operations.

Pre-Operation Permitting and Regulation

Endangered and Threatened Species Act Considerations

Prior to initiating operations, oil and gas operators are subject to Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

consideration. USFWS is the primary administer of the ESA, which aims to actively conserve 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 196 

biological diversity.1 “Endangered Species” is defined as “any species which is in danger of 

extinction throughout all or significant portion of its range.”2 “Threatened Species” is defined as 

“any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future 

throughout all or significant portion of its range.”3 Once a species is listed as endangered or 

threatened, protective measures apply to the species and its habitat under Section 9 of the 

ESA.4 Section 4 of the ESA broadly defines “persons” to whom the act applies as to include 

any person or entity subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”5

Section 7 of the ESA, primarily involves agency actions, and consultation requirements for said 

actions. The purpose is to utilize USFWS expertize to determine whether an action is likely to 

jeopardize a listed species or adversely modify a critical habitat, and if so, identify suitable 

alternatives.6 However, a private party may be affected by section 7 if its project or activity 

requires a federal permit.7 Section 7 mandates that the Secretary of Interior work with federal 

agencies on “any action authorized, funded, or carried out” by that agency to ensure that action 

will not “jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or 

result in the destruction or adverse modification of its habitat.”8 Thus, operations originating on 

private surface that require a federal application for permit to drill (APD) because federal 

minerals are penetrated, may be impacted by BLM’s section 7 consultation requirements.

As mentioned, even without a federal nexus a private person is subject to the ESA. Section 9 of 

the ESA prohibits the possession, sale, import, and/or export of endangered species, as well as 

the “take” of a listed wildlife species by a private or public entity. Section 3 of the ESA defines 

the term “take” broadly to mean “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or 

collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.”9To harass includes “an intentional or 

negligent act or omission which creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such 

an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns which include, but are not limited 

to breeding feeding or sheltering.”10 Harm includes “significant habitat modification or 

degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential 

behavior patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering.” 11 Activities that are not designed 

 

1

16 USC 1531-44.

2

16 USC 1532(6).

3

16 USC 1532(20).

4

The prohibitions of section 9 reach beyond actions of the federal government to encapsulate the actions of all 

persons within the jurisdiction of the United States. 16 USC 1538(a)(1)

5

16 USC 1532(13)

6

Gabriel Eckstein & Jesse Snyder, Endangered Species in the Oil Patch: Challenges and Opportunities for the Oil 

and Gas Industry, 1 Tex. A&M L. Rev. 379, 387 (2013)

7

Id.

8

16 USC 1536(a)(2)

9

16 USC 1532

10 50 CFR 17.3 

11 Id.
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 197 

or intended to harm a species, but that could do so indirectly, such as servicing a well, can 

constitute a take prohibited by the ESA.12

Section 11 subjects any person who violates the statute or it’s implementing regulations to an 

array of civil and criminal sanctions. These may include civil penalties up to $25,000 per 

violation, and criminal penalties up to $50,000 and/or one year in prison.13 In prosecuting a take 

under the ESA, only general intent is required, and knowledge that a particular species is 

protected is not dispositive.14 

Section 10 authorizes USFWS to grant an incidental take permit, allowing an entity to 

incidentally kill an endangered species or to modify its habitat in the course of business 

activity.15 A take is incidental if it is prohibited under section 9, but “is incidental to, and not the 

purpose of carrying out an otherwise lawful activity.”16 Incidental takings will be allowed if the 

applicant prepares a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) that effectively makes the species’ 

chances better than if the status quo was left in place, and minimizes and mitigates harmful 

effects of the activity.17 The HCP must contain specific information, analysis, and plansincluding financial support- that specify how the applicant will “minimize and mitigate” the 

adverse impacts on the protected species.18 The HCP must also discuss alternatives considered 

by the applicant, and reasons why these alternatives are not being pursued.19 The regulations 

further require USFWS to include precise measures to address any changed circumstances 

arising during the lifetime of the permit which may jeopardize the survival and recovery of the 

threatened or endangered species covered by the plan.20 The Secretary of Interior will issue 

permits if the HCP is acceptable, and “the taking will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of 

the survival and recovery of the species in the wild.”21 The Secretary of Interior may revoke a 

permit if the holder does not comply with the terms.22

An oil and gas operator may act preemptively to potentially insulate itself from ESA liability by 

entering into a conservation agreement prior to the listing of a species. Candidate Conservation 

Agreements with Assurances (“CCAAs”) are agreements, whereby non-federal property owners 

commit to implement voluntary conservation measures for a candidate species, and in return 

receive regulatory assurances that additional conservation measures will not be required and 

 

12 Eckstein, 389.

13 1540(a)(1),(b)(1).

14 Eckstein, 382.

15 16 USC 1539(a)(1)(B).

16 See 50 CFR 17.22 for detailed provisions.

17 16 USC 1539(a)(2)(A).

18 Id.

19 16 USC 1539(a)(2)(A)(i)-(iv); see also 50 CFR 17.22(b).

20 50 CFR 17.22(b)(1)(iii)(B), 17.32(b)(1)(iii).

21 16 USC 1539(a)(2)(B)(iv).

22 16 USC 1539(a)(2)(C).
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 198 

additional restrictions will not be imposed should the species become listed in the 

future.23 Furthermore, the proactive conservation efforts performed through CCAAs may 

remove or reduce perceived threats to the covered species, so that USFWS could determine that 

listing the species under the ESA is unnecessary.24 

Any mitigating measures and alternatives established through the consultation or permitting 

described above will be applied to the additional permitting and regulatory activities discussed 

below.

Well Pad Design and Construction Plan

Well pad construction permitting is a fundamental regulatory function of the Ohio Department of 

Natural Resources, Division of Oil & Gas Resources Management (ODNR-DOGRM). Within 

ODNR-DOGRM, geologists perform a complete and thorough review of every permit 

application to drill and plug wells for oil and gas in Ohio. Detailed examinations verify that 

wells are designed to minimize environmental impacts, that proper environmental safeguards are 

in place, and that all legal requirements are met.

ODNR-DOGRM controls negative environmental impacts by regulating location, spacing, 

construction, design and operation of oil and gas wells in accordance with Chapter 1509 of the 

Ohio Revised Code (ORC) and Chapter 1501 Ohio Administrative Code (OAC). These 

regulations are applicable to all natural gas, oil, Class II injection, and enhanced recovery 

wells.25 ODNR-DOGRM will require a permit whenever an operator plans to drill, deepen, 

reopen, plug back, convert, or plug a well.26 A key method to ODNR-DOGRM’s oversight of oil 

and gas operations is through the notification and reporting requirements found in the ORC and 

OAC. Examples of information that must be submitted to ODNR-DOGRM include that 

regarding (1) cementing; (2) well completion; (3) stimulation; and (4) production. Operators are 

also required to formally implement procedures during the drilling stage for spill prevention 

(discussed below), and other safety measures.27 These requirements are augmented by onsite 

inspection and enforcement by the ODNR-DOGRM.

ODNR-DOGRM considers site restoration measures prior to authorizing any oil and gas 

operations. Operators must submit detailed plans as to reclamation ensuring the maximum 

 

23 Eckstein, 391.

24 Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Ohio’s Regulations: A Guide for Operators Drilling in the Marcellus 

and Utica Shales, 2 (March 2012)

25 Id.

26 Id.

27 Id.
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 199 

numbers of disturbed acres are returned to pre-development state.28 Compliance with the 

measures established by the operator and ODNR-DOGRM is secured via bonding.29

Well Pad Construction Impacts on Waters

The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Surface Water (OEPA-DSW) and 

United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) authorize any construction activity where 

there is impact to wetland, stream, river, and other waters of the state.30 Regulated activities 

include: (1) excavating or placing fill material in water way to construct pad sites, access roads, 

water lines, or production lines; (2) stream piping, rerouting or straighten for construction; (3) 

dredging a wetland to create a pond; (4) culverting streams or filling wetlands for roadways 

water or wastewater piping.31

Projects in Ohio impacting wetland, stream, river, lake, or other water of the United States 

require a Section 404 Dredge and Fill permit from the USACE and a Section 401 Water Quality 

Certification (401 WQC) permit from OEPA-DSW.32 Under Section 404 of the Clean Water 

Act, which calls for said permitting process, anyone who wishes to discharge dredged or fill 

material into the waters of the United States, regardless of whether on private or public property, 

must obtain a Section 404 permit from the USACE.33 401 WQC from OEPA-DSW is also a 

required component of Section 404 Dredge and Fill permits issued by the USACE.34 Though 

USACE and OEPA-DSW are regulating the same activities, they have different authority and 

jurisdiction, and each office uses their own processes to ensure environmental compliance of said 

operations.35

Storm Water Runoff and Erosion during Construction

Operators must include in drilling plans preventive measures for storm water runoff and erosion 

from well pad construction activities. ODNR-DOGRM requires for urban drilling, and 

recommends for all drilling, the following best management practices (BMPs): (1) installing 

perimeter controls, sediment basin/traps and a stabilized construction entrance; (2) isolating 

drainage from the site to eliminate storm water run-on; (3) using a stabilized entrance or wheel 

was station to reduce mud on streets or roads from vehicle drag; and/or (4) contain and properly 

 

28 Id.

29

 Id.

30 Id. at 5.

31

 Id.

32 Id.

33 Id.

34 Id.

35 Id.
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 200 

dispose of drilling fluids, including fluids associated with setting casing and plugging operations; 

and/or regular inspection to ensure adequate stabilization.36

Oil and gas operations do not require United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 

Clean Water Act (CWA) permit for storm water runoff and erosion.37 However, the CWA 

remains enforceable if there is a discharge of any reportable quality of material, or discharge 

from the site contributes to a violation of water quality standard.38

Oil and Gas Operations Permitting and Regulations

Emissions

Prior to any industrial operation with the potential to produce emissions, Ohio Environmental 

Protection Agency, Division of Air Pollution Control (OEPA-DAPC) requires a Permit-to-Install 

and Operate (PTIO), which will include requirements such as emission limits, operating 

restrictions, monitoring requirements, and reporting requirements.39 As with many common 

industrial operations, OEPA-DAPC has a general permit for most oil and gas operations. This 

permit addresses emissions from (1) internal combustion engines; (2) generators, (3) dehydration 

systems; (4) storage tanks; and (3) flaring used during oil and gas operations.40 To determine if 

an operator qualifies for the general permit, or if a custom PTIO must be accomplished, 

discussions between the operator and OEPA-DAPC regarding details of the operations must 

occur, including the types of equipment to be used.

Water Withdrawals

ODNR, Division of Soil and Water Resources (ODNR-DSWR) provides oversight for any instate water withdrawals for oil and gas operations. ORC Section 1521.16 requires registration of 

a water withdrawal facility, or combination of facilities, capable of withdrawing water at greater 

than 100,000 gallons of water per day.41 This registration requirement is triggered by capability 

of withdrawal, not actual withdrawal.42

Ohio has also enacted other specific measures to reduce effects of water withdrawals for the 

purpose of oil and gas operations. For example, the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin 

Water Resources Compact (Great Lakes Compact) is a binding agreement prohibiting any new 

or increased diversions of any amount of water out of the Lake Erie Basin.43 OEPA regulates 

 

36 Id. at 6.

37 Id.

38 Id.

39 Id.

40 Id.

41 Id. at 3.

42 Id.

43 Id.
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 201 

water withdrawals for oil and gas operations from other public water supplies according to the 

requirements found in OAC 3745-95.44 These requirements mainly address containment devices 

to prevent backflow.45 As discussed above, USACE 404 and OEPA-DSW 401 authorizations 

may be required for pipe construction impacting waterways.46 Water withdrawals from other 

sources must be reported to ODNR, and are handled on case-by-case basis.47

Fluids from Oil and Gas Drilling Operations

ODNR-DOGRM has exclusive authority for regulating the disposal of brine and fluids from oil 

and gas operations.48 Brine is all saline geological formation water from oil and gas operations, 

including iron, calcium, magnesium, barium, and sulfur.49 ODNR-DOGRM approves design and 

operation of pits and tanks used for temporary storage, and Ohio does not authorize long term 

storage.50 ODNR-DOGRM recommends steel tanks to store any fluids from oil and gas 

operations, and mandates their use when in close proximity to drinking water resources, 

floodplain areas, or where shallow groundwater is susceptible to contamination.51 As discussed 

above, ESA considerations may also dictate additional storage requirements such as prohibition 

of open pits.

Transportation of fluids and waste from oil and gas operations are also regulated by ODNR. 

Transport companies must be registered with ODNR-DOGRM, and are required to (1) have a 

valid ID number; (2) maintain a daily log; (3) submit an annual report; and (4) be bonded.52 

Direct discharge of brine into waters of the state is prohibited, and must be sent to ODNR 

permitted Class II injection well.53 Some brine has potential for naturally low levels of radiation, 

and disposal of these materials is regulated by the Ohio Department of Health Bureau of 

Radiation Protection (ODH-BRP), but only if radioactive levels are higher than naturally 

occurring levels.

The OEPA regulates the off-site disposal of drill cuttings that have come in contact with drilling 

mud, oil, or other contaminants.54 As discussed above, OEPA also authorizes any reuse of 

materials.55 ODNR-DOGRM must approve any disposal at drill site.56 As mentioned, ODH-

 

44 Id.

45 Id.

46 Id.

47 Id.

48 Id. at 6.

49 Id. at 7.

50 Id.

51 Id.

52 Id.

53 Id.

54 Id.

55 Id.
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 202 

BRP regulates disposal of radioactive drill cuttings with higher levels of radiation than in natural 

state.

Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plans

As stated, Ohio does not allow long term storage of production or waste from oil and gas 

operations. However, USEPA places the following requirement when an operator’s total above 

ground storage capacity exceeds 1,320 gallons or more: (1) provide adequate secondary 

containment for storage and transfer areas to contain releases; and (2) preparing a written SPCC 

plan.57 The trigger for these requirements to be implemented is the storage capacity, not the 

actual amount stored.58 ORC 3745.50 requires reporting of spills or releases of petroleum 

products to local state and/or federal authorities if exceeding reportable quantities.59 Reportable 

quantities include any amount of petroleum that causes a film/sheen on a waterway, or any spill 

or release to the environment (not contained on the spiller’s property) of 25 gallons or more.60 

Reporting is encouraged if the amount is unknown.61

Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know (EPCRA) is a reporting requirement that 

may apply to an oil and gas operator storing hazardous chemicals on-site.62 Oil and gas 

operators are subject to these requirements if the facility: (1) is subject to the Occupational 

Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Hazard Communications Standard; (2) uses, 

produces, and/or stores hazardous chemicals and or extremely hazardous substances (EHS); and 

(3) the quantity of hazardous chemicals or extremely hazardous substances stored is in excess of 

the threshold quantity.63 ORC Chapter 1506 applies to operations subject to EPCRA. ODNROGRM, in partnership with emergency response commission, is authorized to establish the 

reporting format and necessary information for purposes of responding to emergencies.64

 

56 Id.

57

 40 CFR Part 112

58 Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 8.

59 Id.

60 Id.

61 Id.

62 Id.

63 Id.

64 Id.
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 203 

Appendix D: Marietta Unit Envirofacts Hazardous Sites Data Map
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 204 

Appendix E: U.S. EPA Emissions Factors for Greenhouse Gas Inventories
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 205 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 206 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 207 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 208 
DOI-BLM-Eastern States-0030-2016-0002-EA 209